This is the first lecture of a two lecture series given by Noam Chomsky (10 and 12 April 2019) at MIT. The second lecture: • Noam Chomsky, Fundamen...
КОМЕНТАРІ: 142
@englishplusacademy92113 роки тому
A legend in the field of language. It is nice to see him giving live lecture.
@NazriB2 роки тому
Lies again? Nurofen + Aspirin
@mytechid97484 роки тому
Choms' still got it!
@JamesPeach3 роки тому
NVM
@gk4113 роки тому
What is i t!
@doubtingthelimit2 роки тому
I really struggled paying attention to what he was saying, until I set it to 1,5 times the speed. My mind finally managed fully to focus on Chomsky‘s lecture (I have adhd), and this was great! 😊❤️
@uydfi352 роки тому
i was just about to say this could be related to adhd since the same happens to me, glad you already know haha, glad you enjoyed the lecture, much love!
@doubtingthelimit2 роки тому
@@uydfi35 I was only diagnosed two months ago, so it’s amazing to not feel dumb or like the weird one out and realized my brain is just wired a little bit different. Thank you for replying ❤️
@RobKohr2 роки тому
There is a Firefox add-on called Video Speed Controller, and a similar on chrome. After a while you get used to faster speeds, and even the 2x limit that youtube gives you isn't enough, and a video like this is pretty comfortable at 3-3.5x.
@abisatyaahnaf1092Рік тому
Hard to understand
@SupeHero00Рік тому
Same for me and I don't have adhd
@docnerd45702 роки тому
Thank you for sharing. Such a legend.
@khashayarmotarjemi54423 роки тому
2:17 that's one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
@CHRISDABAHIA3 роки тому
You've never seen a wave and a smile before?
@khashayarmotarjemi54423 роки тому
It's about the wink -__-
@CHRISDABAHIA2 роки тому
@@khashayarmotarjemi5442 Fair enough 👌🏽
@twelveshepherd93312 роки тому
Ever seen??? Ever in your whole life?
@czarquetzal83442 роки тому
A very prolific thinker and public intellectual!
@lateefalqasab68643 роки тому
Thanks for sharing this rare masterpiece.
@shahedahmed47513 роки тому
Choms' still got the charms!
@letssuperfuntime3 роки тому
What a gem this lecture is. Thanks for sharing.
@letssuperfuntimeРік тому
@@victortronin8955 take Ur meds chief
@Risingsun2942 роки тому
Best of the best for this guy..he makes us linguistics so damned proud
@farahali5754Рік тому
بحترم جداااااااا كبار السن في التعليم لا مثيل لهم Youth , his body language is more than mental expressions and thoughts
@user-cx5ni7me6lРік тому
Thanks for the upload.
@moctarbebaha75824 роки тому
Thank you so much for sharing this.
@deelirious4 роки тому
what a luxury, thanks for sharing
@user-mq1gm9gm7v9 місяців тому
wow! a legend!
@rembautimes88083 роки тому
Fantastic video
@Blancobobea4 роки тому
Thank you for sharing!!!
@ghofranemohamed6782Рік тому
He's genius,😍
@easayr52703 роки тому
Thanks for sharing this gem
@BrenoAguiar973 роки тому
In some places on Earth, we can't even think about having classes with the God Chomsky.
@issamrian34944 роки тому
My dear friend Iliass, I dedicate this lecture to you.
@tahiriiliass91774 роки тому
Thank you very much my friend 🙏
@serdaracar.official2 роки тому
the king.
@aaasthaa2 роки тому
Julia falk Jesperson- notion of structure in mind
@farahali5754Рік тому
Perfect , A few good men
@navenchangРік тому
Thanks.
@eatthecoffee79524 роки тому
thanks for this
@mr.k9052 роки тому
A master in the field of langue, unfortunately not in the field of speaking.
@abdulatifhamid1011Рік тому
wow indeed he is a greatest linguist
@melodyjang28762 роки тому
I hope there is transcription available. It would be my valuable possession.
@czarquetzal83442 роки тому
Why do you need a transcript? Just listen to him.
@tongusaphea61562 роки тому
I hope that other video can have subtitle for help person that english not good like me thaks you🥰
@beahumane2 роки тому
Great👌👌 #beahumane
@MartinHaumann14 роки тому
Can someone within the field point towards the best textbooks to get into the theories, where the field is and the immediate frontier technical tasks ahead for bio-linguistics? Thank you.
@MartinHaumann14 роки тому
@James Just ordered it James. Thank you.
@brownshuri48203 роки тому
Could you share the book name for bio linguistics??
@mgm80752 роки тому
what was the book?
@ianthompson9262 роки тому
What was the boom?
@TravisRiver3 роки тому
He's 90 in this video!?! I feel like today, mid-COVID, all beard, his body is preserving all his energy for his piercing intellect.
@user-ii7nr7ls9h3 роки тому
رحم الله من وضع لنا ترجمة بالعربية
@BigBossTV7Рік тому
لن تفيدكم الترجمة في شيء لأن ما يقوله ينطبق خاصة على اللغة الإنجليزية والفكر الغربي.
@jwkelley3 роки тому
What is the book he is talking about Angela Ferricis? Sorry for butchering the name.. State of the art in Neurolinguistics? time stamp 1.16:22
@jozefsitarcik6293 роки тому
It is Angela Friederici. And the book is "Language in Our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity" with foreword by N.Chomsky
@silasterkelsen53124 роки тому
Thanks for the upload. Could anyone help with the exact references to new studies and new books mr. Chomsky mentions so I can finde them? Unfortunately I was not able to find them.
@emircokekoglu4 роки тому
thank you!
@tarek91333 роки тому
@James thanks a lot James
@mgm80752 роки тому
what did james post?
@christianhegemann19113 роки тому
The quintessence of all communications is the misunderstanding.
@justbeyourself-gx3nd3 роки тому
thanks a lot!
@inef85Рік тому
12:18 "Voluntary action is not a question which is currently fit for productive inquiry. " 👍 Brilliant response to the next time someone asks me why i broke something
@user-op4pl6dw1i2 роки тому
Good morning I have reserch how can I be in contact with you thanks
@gregpringle12993 роки тому
Wow, no one noticed that X-bar theory ruled out exocentric constructions! It was a central point of structuralism -- how could you have missed it, Noam?
@emiliogonzalez1412Рік тому
That questioner is pretty confused by Noam’s use of the word neural nets but I think he doesn’t know the term refers to both biological and artificial systems. It’s just common to use it in an artificial context these days.
@yasseralrefaee38184 роки тому
Thanks
@EuDouArteHipHopArtCulture212 роки тому
22:00
@dundoderdumme30442 роки тому
49:44 What does he say? It's hard to understand. Chorine language?
@560crude22 роки тому
poor i-language I guess
@Josephus_vanDenElzen9 місяців тому
1:50 Galileo 2:08 How is it possible to express an inffinite number of ideas with a couple of dozens sounds, which in itself have nothing in common with the thoughts in our minds and allow us to understand what is not present in consicousness? That's indeed an interesting question. But, doesn't he goes too far with 3:06 "everything we can conceive and the most diverse movements of our soul" Some experiences are auditory and visual; consider colours, one can tell a blind man everything there is to know about colours and yet when he would miraculously starts seeing for the first time his experience will be expanded.
@halfcadence14175 місяців тому
Conception and expression are not the same thing
@reverie46324 роки тому
what is the book he is referencing to at 1:14:50?
@khrazza4 роки тому
Tell me plz
@ragnarw.eliansson52994 роки тому
@@khrazza ISBN: 978-0395951057
@kieronmcnulty61774 роки тому
I think it is: Memory and the Computational Brain - Why Cognitive Science Will Transform Neuroscience - C.R. Gallistel and Adam Philip King
@vinm3002 роки тому
Play on speed 1.5
@user-tx6et2nu5e7 місяців тому
That Wink....
@casteretpolluxРік тому
Language is social and historic and evolves rapidly in a social context and changing world. It's for communication. I'm.not seeing any mystery. Would anyone like to explain?
@atheoma7 місяців тому
the mistery has been repeatedly articulated by noam in numerous interviews and lectures including this one. namely, the spoken/written language seemingly operates as a linear representation of symbols. on the other hand, reading or listening to a speech, we effectively ignore the linear sequence of words and decode the message as a complex structure which is not explicitly given. that means, we posses implicit ability to process any message tho this ability is totally separated from conciousness and unreachable by introspection. human kids demonstrate an exclusive ability to acquire language instinctly, long before they obtain enough linguistic data to learn the sintactic rules by statistic generalization of experience. the language is used almost exclusively for generating thought. humans, just as other animals, didn’t need language to communicate. being unable to generate complex recursive sintactic structures, big apes have still a profound system of communication with which they can communicate efficiently and sufficiently. the organs of speech were there long before the emergence of language so as in animals. try to scientifically explain all this with trivial statements like ‘language is social and historic and evolves rapidly in a social context and changing world’.
@czarquetzal83444 місяці тому
Read poetry. Is the language of poetry serves to communicate?
@autentyk57352 роки тому
There is very little linguistics meat & potatoes on youtube as of late 2021. Hats off to Noam Chomsky, but you won't learn a whole lot from this lecture here.
@lukebradley79842 роки тому
Abralin is the closest for a semi-lay audience. For something more structured, there is Martin Hilpert's long-running series. There are also a myriad of professors who put great stuff up just as a kind of personal record and get next to no views (for obvious reasons); a random example is Nathan Hill (SOAS).
@linguistics1224Рік тому
What is this about?
@two_kopecksРік тому
16
@dyssakisРік тому
It's sad that the recording sucks so much
@Lokitofrances2 роки тому
Hello everyone! Could someone translate these lectures into Spanish? I'm very interested, but I don't understand any English. Thanks
@czarquetzal83443 місяці тому
I like the philosophical foundation of his linguistics - Essentialism. It retains something that cannot be fully grasped by empirical science
@saleh99463 роки тому
The first time I see vowels and diphthongs alive
@saleh99463 роки тому
I used to hear and read them in written
@justinjozokos16993 роки тому
If you watch at 1.5 speed, he talks about as fast as a normal person. You're welcome
@mathman21703 роки тому
I tried "2x" but found 1.5 to be optimal. LOL
@skynut3 роки тому
Thxs...this suggestion is a gem
@zlatashkolnaya43783 роки тому
LOL, I actually like his natural speed, it's relaxing
@ghirardellichocolate2013 роки тому
You know how democracy is not about inheritance. Basically just because one of the family members is a professor does not mean the other one has to be a professor as well? So in corrupt society where everyone is about connections mathematics does not work neither does economics.
@scottcampbell73842 дні тому
Mental giant, moral fool. I can still see him singing with Hugo Chavez before the demise of Venezuela. After the demise was well underway, Noam tried to back pedal with the typical "nobody ever does socialism right" lame excuse. PS_ I adore the comments...I haven't seen this much fawning since Bambi was released by Walt Disney studious in 1942.
@chickenfeed62723 роки тому
SNORE
@thomsnvykovski6135Рік тому
based
@chuckbowie58333 роки тому
Interesting that, after all these years, this guy a) keeps misquoting Saussure and b) keeps conflating explanation with arbitrary reduction. Shame.
@noresponse1068Рік тому
He still alive?
@dresdenliam2 роки тому
Let's go Brandon
@rappakalja52952 роки тому
Parrot
@DS-yg4qs2 роки тому
Starts to talk about language... there he goes with Turing and Godel. No no no... language is about art, not math.
@Crowdle2 роки тому
Yeah he really does inflate the complexity in explanation while also somehow managing to remove what’s natural about language
@jdm3656Рік тому
Language is used in both art and mathematics.
@brandgardner2114 роки тому
"...it's fiendishly difficult to give an explanation for the evolution of almost any trait..." Could it be because the idea of "evolution" is, basically, rubbish?
@kieronmcnulty61774 роки тому
No. It's because nature is difficult to understand.
@brandgardner2114 роки тому
And it becomes even harder to understand when you approach it with all sorts of dogmatic assumptions.
@kieronmcnulty61774 роки тому
I don't understand your comment. Do you really think that the Theory of Evolution is a dogmatic assumption. Do you believe it to be rubbish?
@brandgardner2114 роки тому
If you read Stephen Jay Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" his magnum opus, essentially [over 1,000 pgs] it is clear that the theory has gone through so many changes that it is hard to get a clear fix on what exactly it is. It also seems to have many logical holes -- which have been pointed out by, for ex., Prof. David Berlinski, and others. And, as Rupert Sheldrake has emphasized, genes don't account for many aspects of an organism -- especially as regards its form, shape. I think the theory has become a kind of secular dogma, substituting for religion, and questioning it to any degree or in any way prompts an intense and irrational hostility -- consider the venomous response given to Jerry Fodor's work, for instance -- you can see it here on yt, some people in that audience seemed like they wanted to run him out of town. I think it has become a fixed, entrenched, at times irrational, dogmatic, mental structure in some intellectual circles.
@kieronmcnulty61774 роки тому
Of course its gone through changes as it's an aspect of science, science doesn't stay static. The theories of evolution have changed over time with new research, new evidence and new discoveries. Would you expect anything else? Darwin didn't know anything about genes and the modern synthesis versions of evolutionary theory have had to incorporate evo-devo approaches. The fundamentals are pretty rock solid though. I absolutely agree that evolution and genetics do not account for everything in biology. Chomsky makes that point repeatedly in his writings and lectures around this subject, I've seen that he sceptical about the many 'just-so' stories, particularly in evolutionary psychology. There's an interesting YT video in which he talks some of these these things - "Chomsky on Evolution", Stony Brook Interview #3 with Richard Larson" I think from about 2003 or so.
@brandgardner2114 роки тому
Trying to square linguistic theory with some supposed "theory of evolution" is a wrong turn. Just stick to language as it actually is, focus entirely on that. And forget about how it supposedly came about. Self-evidently it did. Even if you could show the "evolution", it still explains nothing in terms of actual human language as it actually is. It is a typical way of going off into irrelevance, with overly puffed up "theories" re the origin of traits, etc., posing as, in this case, essentially, philosophical anthropology. But it can never be that. Chomsky here is not heeding his own advice to not be distracted by psychologically compelling but essentially irrelevant happenstance, circumstance, accidental things, etc.
@Laocoon2839 місяців тому
There's a reason why M.I.T has a linguistics department. I'll let you try and figure out why M.I.T might be interested in the origins and evolution of language.
@czarquetzal83444 місяці тому
How can linguistic evolution irrelevant? It helps us understand language acquisition and the role of culture in its change. Remembers that language is not used in the vacuum. It needs space and time for it to function and develop..