It was a view of Spolsky (1989), that the second language learners are different from one another in their productive and receptive skill. If we look back in the past, Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar was given in the description of the second language acquisition. He said, "It does not seem quite accurate to take' knowledge of English' to be a capacity or ability, though it enters into the capacity or ability, though it enters into the capacity or ability exercised in language use. In principle, one might have the cognitive structure that we call 'knowledge of English' fully developed, with no capacity to use this structure" (p.23). This view of Chomsky divides knowledge into two different kinds.
Clearly, both of these theories have their allure but at the same time neither is clear of problems. The aim of this paper is to explore and analyse the logic behind these two theories and to decide which should be given the acclaim of superiority and adequacy for modern science. John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume were British empiricists from the seventeenth and eighteenth century who brought the reign of empiricism to
In the ontological investigation of language, namely the classification of what makes language what it is. Many philosophers are fascinated by the nature of language. Some philosopher holds a view of essentialism that presupposes there is an identical and continuous universals essence, which can justify all human language. However, the objection to Essentialists’ approach to the study of language is that with such assumption of intrinsic properties of language exists, they have presupposed “language” as a constant real substance. Both Western philosopher Ferdinand de Saussure and Ludwig Wittgenstein have rejected the simplistic notion of the essence in explaining the nature of language, and suggest the similarities between languages are merely one side of the linguistic phenomenon.
René Descartes (1596-1650) was a French philosopher that developed epistemology, the theory that one should know how one knows something instead of just knowing what they know. He also encouraged the questioning of everything and rejecting scholastic knowledge as the complete and utmost truth unless it is supported by clear evidence. He influenced many people with his ideas, including François Poulain de la Barre. François Poulain de la Barre (1647-1725) was a writer, Cartesian and feminist philosopher. The Collins English Dictionary (2014) defines a Cartesian is of or relating to the works of René Descartes.
It is precisely against the Wittgensteinian framework that the heavily-influential (as well as strongly criticized) Habermas's theory of communicative action and the concept of deliberative democracy were developed. Habermas utilizes Wittgenstein's conceptualization of language-games and a rule following in order to supply himself with the better foundations for his highly rationalistic communicative and political theories. He gives these Wittgensteinian ideas a new twist so as to build a theoretical framework which would explain a process of rational communication in a very much universalistic way. Moreover, by distancing himself from Wittgenstein Habermas goes on to present the idea of a deliberative democracy based on a rational communication. This Habermasian turn was later criticized by the famous political philosopher Chantal Mouffe who claimed that for a working model of democracy we should abandon the framework Habermas propagates and return to Wittgenstein's pragmatics.
The view of historical materialism has been set apart from many contemporary philosophies by my use of critical method in the study of social sciences. I do not support speculative philosophy. Metaphysics are just another way to present ideology. This abstract talk has no basis in reality and, so equally, has no use in reality. I believe that we can study history and society scientifically and effectively discern tendencies of history and the
Notwithstanding this, be that as it may, there are a developing number of scholastic essayists highlighting confinements of the Cognitive approach and distributed new research endeavoring to further comprehension of particular parts of conduct. These new methodologies can be portrayed as humanistic as they try to investigate ideas thoughtful to the individual customer as opposed to depict non specific procedures (Stewart 1994). The three most squeezing territories for examination were distinguished by Nataraajan and Bagozzi in 1999. Firstly Cognitive methodologies depend upon the supposition of the customer being an objective leader, this seems to disregard the part of feeling in choice making. Nataraajan and Bagozzi (1999)
Brian C. Schmidt’s (2002) chapter, “The History an Historiography of International Relations”, covers detailed aspects of the field of International Relations regarding its history and problems it has faced over its evolution. This essay will argue that Schmidt is able to effectively identify and address difficult issues posed in the International Relations field of work. This essay begins with a brief summary of Schmidt’s work and ideas. Next, the essay will discuss Schmidt’s views on the specific evolutionary issues of lack of coherency and identity behind the history of International Relations. Leading on from here, the essay will display Schmidt’s ideas on presentism and its impact on International Relations.
Historical Development of Tense and Aspect A short overview of the historical development of temporal and aspect nature of tenses is necessary before applying these principles to the pericope of Mark 7:1–23. The linguistic discussion of the nature of tenses, especially the indicative tenses, gained renewed interest6 at the end of the last century.7 The present study cannot engage in the debate over the intricacies of the various theories promoted by the linguists. But at the risk of oversimplification, suffice it to say that Stanley Porter and Kenneth
1. Introduction Despite all recent developments in the field of translation studies, the academic discussions are still centred on a very important issue that has dominated translation activity since antiquity, namely: literal translation versus free translation. These opposing translation approaches are actually based on the issue of the relationship between the source text and its translation and how they should correspond to each other. The academic debate on this issue has preoccupied the translation scholars for a long time and still represents a vivid topic in the translation studies. This fact is confirmed by Bassnett (1988, p. 39) who indicates that the debate about word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation, which started by the