# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky wanted to focus more on the inner capacities of the brain and language, particularly to study human ability to express our inner thought processes that are happening in our brain. He wants to find out more about the cognitive science-y part of linguistics and how our minds externalize the information in our brains. The human mind, the ghost, operates the machine, the world as we know it.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky discussed the "innateness hypothesis," that humans are born with the ability to understand basic components of a language, as well as a schematism to then acquire a specific grammar for a particular language. Chomsky posits that humans have a Universal Grammar, in which humans are born with basic understanding of any human language, things like negation, questions, etc. Eventually our brains are able to acquire a distinctive grammar for a language, and narrow it down to that. Chomsky is a rationalist who refutes empiricism because he believes reality comes from within us instead of external social interactions.

# data[].attributes.body
"No one would take seriously a proposal that the human organism learns through experience to have arms rather than wings, or that the basic structure of particular organs results from accidental experience" (9). This quote really helped me think about how every baby is born with Universal Grammar, comparing our minds to any other body part that we are born with. Language acquisition is not something that we depend on from external forces. I so far agree with Chomsky, he puts out a very convincing argument for UG and rationalism over empiricism. I do think his theory is not all-encompassing, I'm sure there have been other linguists that have questioned Chomsky's work and provided refutations that I have not considered.

# data[].attributes.body
An example for when linguistic functionalism could possibly be illuminating is honorifics in different languages, such as Korean or Japanese. Regarding an older person with a more "respectful" term can show that elders are valued (although there can be issues with the idea that young must give respect to those that happen to be older than them). When linguistic functionalism turns detrimental is if someone studies Mandarin and observes the word for LGBT person, which is tongxinnian, literally "comrade." Some people may think wow, I guess lots of Chinese people are LGBT-friendly which is definitely not the case. Even though the word means something along the lines of friend, the word tongxinnian can be used as a slur when screamed in someone's face, but can also be used as a friendly term in everyday conversation. It changes in context, and can be used as a weapon or as accepting, and would be amiss to think that Mandarin generally accepts LGBT people.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski believes that language has to do more with social and cultural interactions, instead of just descriptive use. He focuses on the pragmatics of human language and its social implications especially in its cultural context. Malinowski thinks that language needs to be studied within the speech's context. Many ethnographers see a piece of speech from a native speaker as an expression of their thought pieced together by phonetics, but they do not see its cultural and and sociolinguistic significance.

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Cooper adds facial features to Trump's speech to add a more satirical, critical effect towards the more referential speech, which is the audio itself. The performative facial features communicates something social, specifically that she is mocking Trump. The speech alone was very xenophobic and hurtful, but with Cooper's mockery of it, it expresses how Trump himself is a joke and something laughable.

# data[].attributes.body
He believes that language is not just pragmatically the communication of one’s thoughts but that instead it connects the labor and physical collaboration of people and is therefore an interwoven, direct, and unique part of the cultural behaviors of a given group. He counsels that people must begin to study language alongside the situational and social context it is being used in to be able to accurately glean its meaning. Additionally, he explains how important it is that language in an ethnography be conveyed with as much detail and accuracy as possible, using the vernacular, and also that an extensive amount of time must be taken to understanding and translating language. This is because a specific language, unlike physical behavior, takes much more effort to understand by anyone that is not an insider to it.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky believed that language acquisition was innate, and that the mind's "innate power" provides the principles that compose what we know. He believes that our belief systems and opinions and knowledge represent what the mind, as a biological structure was intended and designed to form. It is our mental structures that portray our experiences. Rationalism is based in ideologies that claim that rationality, as a property of our minds, are the primary source of information and knowledge, and Chomsky's views of "innate powers" and his emphasis on biological structures exemplifies this. This is also seen in his discussion about infants, and their ability to predict properties or events being rooted in their nervous systems, and biological structures in general.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky states, "...Individuals in a speech community have developed essentially the same language. This fact can be explained only on the assumption that these individuals employ highly restrictive principles that guide the construction of grammar.." (pg.11). I do agree with Chomsky in that he makes a very strong case for a rationalist perspective--that as humans, our extensive knowledge of language does not seem to be simply explained through empirical views of relying on our five senses or actual experiences to have attained this info. How do we have these abilities without somewhat possessing this innate power? When I read this hypothesis, I began questioning myself about Chomsky's views: for example, moving more generally past language, how do we have concepts of morality or justice or equality, if not for some innate mechanism?

# data[].attributes.body
In thinking of an example of a time when linguistic functionalists could account for a phenomenon in an illuminating way, I thought about the Arab Spring of 2011 and the use of Arabic words by various news mediums in describing the uprising that was occurring. Similar to the example you mentioned in Arabic about the slight shifting of the roots of a word to create new words, I thought about the various different words for describing different types of revolution, uprising, protests, etc. In analyzing the way various news and journal mediums used the different variations of the words to describe the events, a meaning was attributed that reflected the bias, and political sentiment behind that word. For example, in using the different words for revolution, Aljazeera was found to use one version of the word in a positive light, while BBC was found to use a different version in a negative light--and this raised awareness about the way news mediums are able to intentionally manipulate words and language to change a narrative. A more negative example of a linguistic functionalist account that came to my mind was when people analyze the similarities of root words in the Quran, for example, looking at the word "separation" that is used in referencing some rules of attire of the hijab. Often times, people believe this use shows that hijabi women are believed to be oppressed and forced to be separated from specific spaces of the world, further limiting their abilities, when instead it is used more in general to describe the way the cloth on one's head can allow for women to separate themselves from being sexualized by society.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski views language as a cultural aspect of a sort, or a type of human behavior that can inform us about the culture, norms, and social behaviors of people. He explains how the certain use of words to describe something reflect the principles or norms of that culture. His analysis moves past just a view of language as some mechanical function that serves a basic purpose, but delving deeper into what that can tell us about an individual, and about the social context of that individual. For this reason, he believes that the study of language requires abundant time and attention, and that not only does one translate the meanings of words, but requires a word for word rendering, along with ethnographic observations. His perspective on viewing language in this anthropological framework, in truly understanding the individual and their surroundings to understand the language, perhaps contributes to why his methodology is extensive, detailed, and combines intersectional mediums and frameworks of anthropological and more empirical groundwork.

# data[].attributes.body
In the three cases of Maliseet, Myaamia, and Anishinaabemowin, the concept of extinction is an invasive and colonial one. These three languages do not have the idea of language extinction in their own language. Myaamia affects the way speakers see dormant languages because Myaamia can cease to be spoken, but does not imply that forever it is gone. Myaamia can return, or awaken. That is why many indigenous activists are pushing for language to shift towards "awakening" or "dormant" instead of "endangered," it sends a message to those communities that are trying to revive their language to focus on vitality instead of death, to shift their perception of their world towards a more hopeful and sovereign future.

# data[].attributes.body
By way of study brain cognition, Chomsky was concerned with the human "language faculty" that governs how language is formed internally. His perception of language development as analogous, like physical development, is fascinating to me as it shows that he was interested by the innate properties of language. I think that we should consider how brain cognition relates to social contexts when studying Chomsky's views of language. He was concerned with the cognitive rules and processes that effectively were then translated into "parole".

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky's article revealed his belief in the innateness theory or hypothesis of language acquisition. For example, he saw infant cognition as means to study developmental patterns. By studying cognition, Chomsky reveals the biological structures of language and sensory systems that (according to him) determine the human language faculty. Thus, Chomsky is a rationalist as his theory is based on biological evidence - such as the "hard wiring" of language rather than human social experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
"...humans are, obviously, not designed to learn one human language rather than another; the system of principles must be a species property" (pg.11). Whilst this quote hypothesizes that human beings are born with an innate sense to acquire language, it does also suggest that the social context of which language is spoken will affect will language that child will acquire. However, this quote does reveal the rationalist view that humans have developed in such a way to acquire a Universal Grammar. The innateness of language acquisition is governed by the dependent structures of the language faculties.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky mentions the purpose and goal of language through describing the "mirror of the mind." He sees studying language as a means of discovering novel, abstract principles that tell us about the use and structure of language, and further gain some understanding about human nature and human cognitive capacity. Studying language allows us to dig deeper into modes of inquiry about humans and their practices that may not always be apparent in specific mediums of investigation. In referring to the "ghost in the machine" Chomsky is referring to the material world can be seen like a machine, in that in runs on mechanical principles, and functions through direct contact with bodies or physical objects. But human consciousness is like a ghost, in that no one truly understands it, and that it may even be past our abilities to perceive it, or truly understand the subjective human experience. In this way, the human consciousness or experiences of the brain to some context are like ghosts that operate in this machine of the material world.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski views language as more than a mode of communication but also a way to understand human behaviour and culture. Through contextual interpretation, Malinowski looks beyond the mental processes of the "language faculties". Thus, studying language can lead to insight on social intention rather than just social interaction. In a way, Malinowski was regarding language in a performative way because he saw that it can effect social behaviour and culture.

# data[].attributes.body
For Chomsky, the goal of studying language is to learn about and link cognitive structure across humans to the similarities in languages. This comes across in his explanation of “mirror of the mind.” He states that by specifically studying, “structure, organization and use, we may hope to gain some understanding of the specific characteristics of human intelligence.” He separates this phenomenon completely from social and historical factors saying that, “principles are universal by biological necessity and not mere historical accident, that derive from mental characteristics of the species.” When Chomsky references the “ghost in the machine” he is speaking to the idea that there is some kind of human consciousness (ghost / brain) that we know little about, or are relatively unaware of, that aids in the running of the machine which is represented by our bodies. 

# data[].attributes.body
In Chomsky’s view, language acquisition takes place through the “triggering experience” and was a relatively innate process. He states that infants already have information on knowledge hardwired into their brains, it just simply needs to be tapped into. Chomsky then goes on to cite Gregory in saying that, ‘the speed with which babies come to associate the properties of objects… would be impossible unless some of the structure of the world were inherited.” Later on in his piece, Chomsky goes into more detail about this phenomenon. He discusses important factors in language acquisition, specifically grammar. He claims that grammar is inherently known and later used to “determine the formal and semantic properties of sentences. This is deeply aligned with Plato and Russell who are rationalist thinkers. Both thinkers were baffled by how humans knew so much in such a brief amount of time. They later linked this knowledge to cognitive structures. Plato has stated that knowledge isn’t acquired and that we only, “recover what was already known seemed plausible.” This is in stark contrast to empiricist way of thinking, which gives more credit to the society we live in, in which we are easily able to learn and perceive new information. 

# data[].attributes.body
 A line on page 7 cements Chomsky’s view on the rationalist view on language acquisition. He states that,”... we can know so much because in a sense we already knew it, through the data of sense were necessary to evoke and elicit this knowledge… our systems of belief are those that the mind, as a biological structure, is designed to construct.” To me, this argument really strikes at a similar sentiment to nature versus nurture in which both are factors (biological, and societal) that influence individuals and their characteristics. It is well known that both of these factors play a large role, when mapped onto a rationalist and empiricist view of language acquisition, it appears as though Chomsky is being naive about the overt role of society and gives cognitive form an undo amount of credit. 

# data[].attributes.body
The way that Malinowski views language and what it can do is firmly positioned within a social context. His ideas move far beyond the narrative that language is purely a proxy from the mind and instead, he argues language plays an active pragmatic role in human behavior. Language, to Malinowski, cannot be viewed isolated from the context or situation it is being used in as it is deeply tied to a culture’s norms, values and overall an individual behavior. In order to study language in the way Malinowski has set out, he says the methodology for conducting research must be done, “as fully, as minutely and accurately as those of any other fact.” He argues to pay a great deal of attention to not only the ways in which language is spoken (looking at vernacular, conventions and phonetic reproductions) but arguably more important, the acts that accompany it.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky states that we should study language with a focus on the principles that govern all languages. He argues this is because some aspects of language are "universal by biological necessity and not mere historical accident." He expands this argument by framing language as a "mirror of the mind" that represents an innate product of human intelligence. By studying the rules that govern all languages, Chomsky believes that language will help us understand the inherent characteristics of human intelligence. The "ghost in the machine," he talks about is a metaphor for our study of language—in order to understand abstract cognitive structures represented by the mysterious "ghost," one must examine the structures of the mind/machine.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky views the process of language acquisition as an innate process that is a product of human intelligence. He states that "a normal child acquires this knowledge on relatively slight exposure and without specific training," arguing that the ability to learn language is biological and inherent to all humans. This makes him a rationalist, as rationalists focus on the structure of the mind and believes in its innate functions and higher mental faculties (ex: the ability of language acquisition). He distinguishes himself from empiricists, who argue that the brain is an empty and unstructured cognitive structure that is molded by outside experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky believes (at least in 1975) that there is an innate, biological structure in the brain that influences language acquisition. He asserts that scholars should approach physical and mental development in the same ways, and he compares the growth of organs to the growth of language. This is a rationalist view as opposed to an empiricist view. Rationalists subscribe to this idea of "innateness sometimes called innateness hypothesis." The empiricists believe that structures of language are entirely learned and formed through experience.

# data[].attributes.body
"The idea of regarding the growth of language as analogous to the development of a bodily organ is thus quite natural and plausible," (11). Here, Chomsky emphasizes his theory of language as primarily biological. I found this idea bizarre at first, and I definitely think it is still far too narrow in how it approaches and understands language. Even if certain grammatical concepts are innate, there is a lot of language, like accents and phrases that are highly socially contextual, that is definitely learned, and it is important to understand this. However, as I think about the beginnings of epigenetics, which I don't understand all that well, it seems that organ development is also influenced by environment. There may be some innate, cognitive features of how language works, but a hyper-focus on these features without seeking to understand the social elements seems highly flawed to me.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky believes that the study of language should focus on understanding the inherent cognitive processes of the mind, or uncovering universal grammar. He writes about "the ghost in the machine" to advocate for making the processes of cognition around language less mysterious.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Chomsky, the most intriguing reason to study language is that it has the capability to act as a “mirror of mind.” He meant by this that language could act as a backwards way of understanding the rules that make up humans language faculty, the systems of human intelligence in our brain that lead us to be able to communicate in such complex ways without formal training. Chomsky even went as far as to say that understanding this incredible aspect of human cognition could then help create a model for studying other aspects of human competence in the future. The “ghost in the machine” that Chomsky references is a metaphor for his rationalist belief that studying the machine, the capacities easily evident in studying behavior land language use, is not the most important way to study language. Instead, he would prefer to look at the supposedly elusive concept behind the machine. For Chomsky, understanding the ghost, the abstract cognitive structures that the brain uses to then communicate is the most useful and fascinating approach to linguistics.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky takes an ‘innatist’ perspective on language acquisition. He believes that human brains have a biological structure that stores all our knowledge of language from the time we are born, without our knowledge. To be able to access this information one must have it activated by experiences of the senses in the outside world, though it is only our cognitive system that allows one to make sense of the outside world using the innate knowledge one already possesses. This makes Chomsky a rationalist and not an empiricist because empiricists believe that all knowledge is gleaned through experiences one has after birth, while he believes that those experiences only allow you to tap into pre-existing knowledge you possess from the moment you’re born.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to quote, “We attain knowledge when the ‘inward ideas of the mind itself’ and the structures it creates conform to the nature of things.” The innatist hypothesis seems a little far fetched to me, though I do think there is a lot of evidence that is hard to explain without some type of innate knowledge simply already existing when a baby is born. I would maybe argue that there is some amount of innate knowledge a baby is born with but that it is more limited than Chomsky believes and that a vast majority of the knowledge and behaviors that one ends up with is dependent on the experiences they have, more alongside an empiricist lens.

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Cooper's clip is a great example of the splitting of the referential and performative functions of language. Cooper extracts the exact content on Trump's speech (the referential) and places it into her own social context. As a result, she is able to create a video that is ironic, humorous and performative. First of all, the location of her home removes the language from its original context which can help the viewer to also remove themself from the original social context. Cooper's pant suit and use of body language convey irony as she emulates the conversation that Trump conducts in his speech. Her facial expressions, fast movements of her head (to stay on track with trump's voice) as well as her hand movements all work alongside her performative use of language to convey new meaning to the referential language at hand. Interesting, Cooper is able to change the tone of Trump's speech simply through the use of body language. All of these signs as well as the setting of her video help split the referential from the performative functions of language.

# data[].attributes.body
One example of how linguistic functionalism can be illuminating is in Alma Gottlieb’s book, The Afterlife is Where I Come From. While doing anthropological research in the Beng community she is told by another woman that a mother in the village who is known to be problematic in some ways is a good mother because she always bathes her baby twice a day. From a linguistic functionalism perspective this explanation would be directly related to a meaningful part of the culture and, in fact, when Gottlieb looks into this comment she discovers complex ideologies about bathing in Beng culture that speak to their overall ideologies about the role of babies in their society. If Gottlieb hadn’t thought it possible that this use of language could correlate to some cultural aspect of Beng society, then she would never have discovered all that she did about this topic. However, linguistic functionalism can be, and I would argue is often, used in a harmful way. One example of this is the labeling of ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ in the battle over abortion rights between the left and right political groups in the United States. Linguistic functionalism would analyze these titles as the politically right having a culture of protecting and caring about people’s lives while the political left culturally values independence over life. In reality, the nuances are much more complex and many left leaning individuals would argue that they are ‘pro-choice’ because they care about the life of both the perspective mother and child. These labels can be politically detremental because they can prevent people from seeing the nuances or facts of an issue and instead lead them to draw conclusions on abortion based on what they believe each group stands for solely by hearing these titles that they assume mirror the group’s culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky writes that language is a "mirror of the mind." That is, languages share some abstract universal principles, which when studied, can offer insight into human nature. He believes that there exist some shared mental characteristics within the entire human species which influence the concepts and distinctions that people use to communicate. Thus, by studying language, one can better understand human intelligence and cognitive functions. When he writes of "the ghost in the machine," Chomsky is referring to this little-understood universal cognitive structure. He suggests that the structure of the mind deserves more study within the field. Further adding that studying language could even "serve as a suggestive model for inquiry into other domains of human competence and action that are not so amenable to direct investigation."

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski views language as deeply embedded in the social realm and as an essential part of human behavior. He. strongly criticizes the idea that language serves to externalize the mental processes of people. He suggests that anthropologists study language by studying utterances alongside their social contexts.

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Cooper's comedy skit relies on a splitting of referential and performative functions because while she is lip syncing Trump's literal referential words used, she is dramatically smacking her lips, shaking her head, moving her face muscles in a way to mock it, adding this performative function that insinuates an ironic, funny, satirical, and also powerful message of how alarming and ridiculous it is that the President of the United States gave a public speech using this language. Her body movements, choice of transitions, sudden jerks and jumps, lip smacking, all indicate this--and also provide a performative function of offering a form of healing for people of color. While Trump's statements were xenophobic and hurtful to hear as a person of color in America, her mockery of it detracted from the harm of the comments and allowed for a sense of light-heartedness from an otherwise dark experience.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky believes that language acquisition is a biological process. In his view, there is some common cognitive substrate that allows humans to learn languages with little formal training and exposure. This belief makes him a rationalist and not an empiricist because rationalists believe in the existence of innate knowledge, whereas empiricists believe that knowledge comes from experience.

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Cooper replicates Trump's referential language by playing his audio over her video. As she is dramatically lip-synching and using body language to the audio, she adds a performative dimension to the communication, as it becomes clear with her actions and body language that she is mocking the intelligence of Trump's assumptions and his theatrical way of dehumanizing people by portraying people as violent criminals.

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Cooper's comedy skit relies on a splitting of the referential and performative functions because she is mouthing the literal words of Trump’s speech while enacting a variety of body gestures and facial expressions that performatively show that these words hold a different meaning to her. Referentially, the words she is saying have the same literal meaning as when Trump said them, but performatively it is quite clear  based on her identity and her mocking body language that she is in fact making fun of Trump’s words and using his referential meaning ironically to express her disagreement with his message. She uses both index and icon signs to pull off this mockery. For one, her own identity and the identity of Trump are index symbols, because the context that she is a politically left comedian of color and that the voice belongs to the xenophobic, right wing president of the U.S. is very important to understanding the context of the referential meaning of the text and what her opinion of it would be that would lead her to perform the words differently. Additionally, the dramatic, bored, and Trump like facial expressions and body movements she makes throughout the video are icon symbols because, although she is not actually angry or falling asleep or shares behavioral characteristics with Trump, she acts in ways that resemble these behaviors on purpose to further make fun of the referential meaning of the speaker and his identity.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky focuses on the “ghost in the machine”, which is the ever-changing human subconscious that people can never fully understand. He quotes “language is a mirror of mind… it is a product of human intelligence” (4). He believes that in order to activate the “ghost in our mind”, we have to understand the cognitive structures of our brain and the way information enters our system whilst acknowledging the innateness of acquiring knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky believes that language is an innate part of a human mind; he explains that in order to process language, humans need to possess a brain geared to take in and use language. He quotes Gregory, who claims that babies, in order to be able to associate the properties of items and further learn the complexities of events, hidden properties, etc it would be impossible if there wasn’t something innately wired into the nervous system. This makes him a rationalist because he believes in the body’s innate ability for language acquisition and that human cognition and basic cognitive structures is a priority in understanding language acquisition. Empiricists believe mostly that language is acquired through experience and social settings, which Chomsky disagrees with by emphasizing the innateness hypothesis.

# data[].attributes.body
“Our systems of belief are those that the mind, as a biological structure, is designed to construct. We interpret experience as we do because of our special mental design. We attain knowledge when the “inward ideas of the mind itself” and the structures it creates conform to the nature of things.” (8) This quote makes Chomsky’s innatist view of language acquisition apparent because he firstly emphasizes the mind’s capability to learn so many things is a biological structure. Our brains/cognitive minds are designed to be able to learn more, to communicate more, to acquire more, simply based on nature. While I acknowledge that there are components of his theory that are valid, I question his indifference to culture and social upbringing as being a meaningful and large part of language acquisition.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski emphasizes the importance of culture in language and how language shapes the way humans interact, behave, and understand each other. He explains that, through various ethnographic accounts, language rarely provides the same meaning to different cultures. He writes “the ethnographer who would treat it as a mere piece of verbiage containing interesting linguistic illustrations would really miss the most important point about magic… its cultural and sociological significance” (9). He is different from Chomsky and other linguists, because of his emphasis on the nuances of human language based on interaction and intention, and less focus on the specific structures of grammar and the innateness hypothesis. He argues that in order to understand language, one most spend a significant amount of time and attention to language portrayal and how it is spoken.

# data[].attributes.body
A linguistic functionalist might assume that languages with gendered adjectives that often agree with nouns, like Spanish or French, come from groups of people who have more rigid gender roles and separation than people who speak languages without gendered adjectives, like English. This assumption wouldn't be all that harmful, at least as I'm thinking about it briefly, but it would prove to be false, if you actually spent time in these places. One example where I think a functionalist perspective might be helpful might be in examining the kinship terms for various languages. From the languages that I have studied or know, I have noticed when there is a term that lumps two different types of kinship together, it might indicate that the difference between these two roles is not particularly meaningful socially. For instance, if relationships between maternal and paternal grandparents are frequently different, a language might have different terms for the two, unlike in English where both are most often just referred to as grandparents.

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Cooper’s comedy skit is a very distinct example of the splitting of referential and performative functions of language. Trump’s speech is referential— Cooper is using his exact speech to reference and using it as a performative function. She uses the audio of the speech and pretends to be the speaker. It is in her own house, which automatically strays away from the visual context of Trump’s speech. Through mocking, she is accentuating her bodily and facial expressions to match the irregularity, speed, and utter bullshit that Trump is saying. The clip makes her intentions very clear— she is criticizing Trump’s speech, rather than praising it and is putting light to the ridiculousness of the speech by making it so humorous. She does this without changing his words, which goes to show that her body/setting is what alters the speech’s intention. Her expressions, setting, and identity executes the performative function of language by using the Trump’s exact audio, or rather, the referential function of language.

# data[].attributes.body
On page 4, Chomsky writes: "Thus language is a mirror of mind in a deep and significant sense. It is a product of human intelligence, created anew in each individual by operations that lie far beyond the reach of will or consciousness." I think the idea that the ability to use and acquire language is innate has some truth. Young children are often able to pick multiple languages quite quickly, which to me suggests that there exists some innate cognitive ability that encourages language acquisition. Commonly, as a person gets older their ability to pick up languages wanes, though, and I wonder how Chomsky accounts for this. Does a person's cognitive structure change as they age? While I believe that there is some universal cognitive structure that helps people recognize patterns and learn languages, in my experience some exposure and training are necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
Schizophrenia is a widely misunderstood and varied illness throughout different cultures. In the US, it is highly stigmatized and medicated, whilst in other countries, it is considered a spiritual and rather positive experience. Tanya Luhrmann, an anthropologist, interviewed 60 adults diagnosed with schizophrenia— in California, Ghana, and India. While in the US, most participants reported that their voices were harsh and violent, yet in Ghana and India, participants would hear less threatening voices, but rather spiritual, playful, and familial voices. In Ghana, the culture fully takes in those with schizophrenia, and rather emphasizing the collective acceptance of disembodied spirits. Due to this collectivist approach, people with schizophrenia rarely call it an illness, but rather a relationship with their voices. This usage of language is de-stigmatizing and less isolating. Ghana, India, and other Eastern cultures relate hearing voices as a positive and illuminating part of society, and is correlated to healthier and better outcomes for those struggling with schizophrenia.
One case in which language could be harmful is the way the BLM movement is showcased. It is an account that shows the polarized nature of politics in the US. The word “protest” is portrayed differently through news outlets— many of which use the word protest and associate it with property destruction, anarchism, rioting, etc. which paints BLM in an incredibly negative and discriminatory light. Whilst, in reality, the protests are justified and peaceful, and mostly aggravated through police interference. This dichotomy is creating a war-like fight between liberals and conservatives, and language very evidently plays a LARGE role.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky's rationalist view on language acquisition can clearly be seen on page 11 where he writes "the idea of regarding the growth of language as analogous to the development of a bodily organ is thus quite natural and plausible." Here, this metaphor clearly communicates Chomsky's view that language acquisition is an inherently biological function by comparing it to the growth of an organ in the human body. While I do agree with parts of Chomsky's hypothesis that there is a universal cognitive structure that helps all humans learn language naturally, I feel Chomsky dismisses empiricists too readily. I believe cultural influences and differences in upbringing can have a substantial impact on language acquisition, and is important to analyze as well.

# data[].attributes.body
To Chomsky, the purpose of studying language is to gain a specific understanding of human intelligence – for him, language is a mirror of the mind through which we can learn more about our brain and cognitive methods. The "ghost in the machine" is the structure and the system of cognition within our minds – one can't learn about it solely by looking at behavior and language use – structure has to be examined as well.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Chomsky, the systems of language and belief that we use are designed by the mind to be constructed. There is something innate within the mind that enables the learning of certain structures. Empiricists would believe that knowledge of the structure of language exclusively comes after birth and through life as it progresses. Chomsky does not think this, which makes him a rationalist. Chomsky agrees with Gregory's assertion that it would be impossible for babies to learn so quickly unless some structural knowledges was inherited or already present within the mind.

# data[].attributes.body
On page 10, Chomsky says "...human cognitive systems... prove to be no less marvelous and intricate than the physical structures that develop in the life of the organism. Why, then, should we not study acquisition of a cognitive structure such as language more or less as we study some complex bodily organ?" Chomsky's hypothesis makes sense to me. The brain is an organ, as are the lungs, but people don't speculate that breathing is learned through experience – it's recognized that it's an innate and natural behavior. It would be odd to treat one organ different from all of the others.

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Cooper so perfectly utilized the referential and performative functions of language to create a satirical parody of one of Donald Trump’s speeches regarding immigration. Cooper manages to use the actual dialogue from Trump’s speech, which is the referential aspect of her skit. While this speech is blatantly xenophobic and racist, the meaning of Trump’s policy is changed completely given the performative function of language and the context in which it is given. Her dress, facial expressions, and overall fast and dramatic movement show that she is poking fun at Trump’s policies and his intelligence. 

# data[].attributes.body
Taking a linguistic functionalist approach to acronyms used in texting and daily speech among young people would be beneficial. My peers and I frequently say "lol" or "lmao" in daily speech or in messages to one another, but I don't know anyone who says those acronyms as shortcuts for "laughing out loud" or "laughing my ass off." Instead, these acronyms are used as functional and easy placeholders for "I think that's funny" or "that made me laugh." They've become a necessary way to communicate one's thoughts over text. Alternatively, assuming that these acronyms exist because people simply don't have the time to say the full sentences would be anachronistic. It's not so much about time as it is about what has become natural as a result of early phone keyboards.

# data[].attributes.body
A linguistic functionalist may look at the differences in American and British English and note that differences in spelling (for example, color vs colour) are due to social and physical differences in the environment. This assumption would be correct as American and British English have evolved separately, molding to fit the cultural preferences and trends of local users. A linguistic functionalist perspective is not always appropriate though.  For example, a linguistic functionalist might hear a speaker use the slang word "y'all" and deduce that the speaker is from the Southern region of the US. This would be anachronistic because the word "y'all" is no longer exclusive to that region. Globalization has increased linguistic contact globally and blurred regional differences. Without knowing the speaker's personal history and exposure, a linguistic functionalist approach may lead to erroneous conclusions.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Malinowski, the main function of language is "not to express thought, not to duplicate mental processes, but rather to play an active pragmatic part in human behavior." In other words, words are more than descriptive – they have impact and cultural significance. This means that in order to study language and speech, the context of the activity in which it is enveloped must also be considered. Malinowski illustrates this by talking about how speech between Trobriand islanders is often correlated to an activity such as boundary belt cutting that would be impossible without communication.

# data[].attributes.body
The Sarah Cooper comedy sketch is referential in that she isn't coming up with the "script" on her own – it's a copy of a Trump speech – nor is she actually saying the words. Instead, she's mouthing them. Here it becomes performative in how she exaggerates her facial features and fulfills different roles. Using Trump's words she makes a kind of screenplay where she acts as different leaders or officials arguing with one another.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski views language as an important cultural tool that "plays an active pragmatic part in human behavior."  He believes that language is more than a mental process, seeing it instead as a culturally and sociologically significant form of action. He counsels that linguists consider the context in which utterances are made. In his viewpoint, for a linguist to fully understand a translation, commentaries are necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky's goal in studying language is to study the structure of language in a cognitive sense. He urges to "study the acquisition of a cognitive structure such as language more or less as we study some complex bodily organs," (10). As a result, this will provide insight into the potential innateness of knowledge acquisition, serving as a "mirror of mind" (4). The "ghost in the machine" is the invisible human consciousness/"innate faculty of mind" that takes information from the senses and interprets them in order to run the "machine" of consciousness and cognition.

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Cooper's skit uses referential and performative functions to critique a speech by Trump about immigration policy. She overlays audio of Trump speaking (which is referential) with a performative reenactment of his delivery. Her use of timing, exaggerated facial expressions, and quick cuts in the camera mimic Trump, criticizing and drawing attention to his xenophobic statements.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky states that language acquisition is an innate ability, "analogous to the development of a bodily organ," (11). He also believes that there is a "universal grammar (UG)," which every language follows, allowing children to grasp any language, no one specific language over another, due to biological necessity (29). This is rationalist because it relies on the idea that there is a biological framework for interpreting language that must be followed. An empiricist view would say that as long as the senses could receive the language and a child experience language throughout life, the brain would be able to understand it. The idea of an innate, universal language processing system independent of the senses and experience is a rationalist one.

# data[].attributes.body
"The language faculty, given appropriate stimulation, will construct a grammar; [...] This knowledge can then be used to understand what is heard and to produce discourse as an expression of thought within the constraints of the internalized principles, in a manner appropriate to situations as these are conceived by other mental faculties, free of stimulus control." (13). Chomsky emphasizes the ability of the mind to go beyond what it's given and produce original thought based upon the understanding of language. He is asserting that language acquisition does not end at the experience, but rather is a tool to go beyond what is sensed and experienced. I agree with this hypothesis, because I believe that the way one interacts with and interprets their reality is just as impactful as the reality itself.

# data[].attributes.body
I recently read an account of how different cultures interact with and view death and mortality, called "From Here to Eternity" by Caitlin Doughty. In this book, she describes an Indonesian culture that views death as less of a "hard border" than America and other cultures view it, but rather "a border that can be transgressed." In this culture, they speak of those that have died in the present tense rather than in past tense. From a linguistic functionalist point of view, this reflects their cultural and social views around the dead still be present and active, rather than forever gone from the lives of the still-living. On the flip side, it can be detrimental to compare a particular group's dialect to the "standard" form of the language and form cultural conclusions based on that. For example, in English, one may take note of the differences between Standard American English (SAE) and the dialects of a specific racial group, such as Mexican American English or African American Language/Vernacular English. In a culture where SAE is seen as "correct" or "proper," this comparison could lead to inappropriate and incorrect conclusions regarding speakers of MAE or AAL and their culture.

# data[].attributes.body
In Chomsky’s view, we should study language with the goal of illuminating the abstract principles which govern the structure of the brain. In doing so, he believes we can uncover the hidden characteristics of the human mind which ultimately create the inferred abstract principles, and which are biologically engrained in every person (just as are the patterning for legs and arms and hearts and lungs). When he spoke of the “ghost in the machine” he was referring to these very same abstract principles which delimit the capacity for, and interpretation, and sensory perception of, all external entities. Essentially, he is searching for an invisible “human-ness” which is like a ghost. It controls the structures of the brain while simultaneously existing only because of the nature of the very structures themselves. This abstract entity cannot be extracted. Chomsky believes it can and must, however, be understood logically to exist because of the vacuum where deterministic views necessitate a cause for our linguistic capacities and intellectual abilities must be.

# data[].attributes.body
When there is an assumption that environment and speech are correlated in a one to one ratio, stereotypes and incorrect conclusions can potentially be drawn about the entire community. This is the case with ebonics or AAVE (African American Vernacular English). Because AAVE is so often compared to “standard American English,” people tend to assume that the vernacular is simply incorrect or not as “proper.” This can lead to heavily racialized assumptions about the African American community in the United States. Many of the stereotypes have overt tones of white superiority and supremacy which are also historically situated given the intense race relations in the US for the past hundreds of years.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski views language as something inseparable from the actions that accompany it. There's not a one-to-one relationship between language and mental processes, but rather language plays an "active, pragmatic part in human behavior," (7). Words would be meaningless without action or the context from which it's taken. Thus, he suggests taking this context heavily into account. Commentary is necessary if the linguist is studying a translation, and the culture a language comes from needs to be taken into account.

# data[].attributes.body
In Chomsky’s view of acquisition children are biologically preprogrammed with a set of constraints surrounding all learnable languages. This already narrowed range of possibilities is then compared with the external sensory information, and through this process they arrive at a knowledge of their specific community’s linguistic idiosyncrasies. Such limited specificities are all that exist as a result of random chance and historical factors. This response makes him a rationalist because it falls under the ideological umbrella of 17th century rationalist concept (quoted from Kant) that there is “conformity of objects to our mode of cognition.” (pg. 7) Chomsky also elaborates on the rationalist idea that “what we do know, then, or what we come to believe depends on the specific experiences that evoke in us some part of the cognitive system that is latent in the mind.” (pg. 6) An empiricist would argue that a child starts with a “blank slate” so to speak and learns language primarily through social conditioning.

# data[].attributes.body
By splitting the referential and the performative functions of Trump's speech that she's using, Cooper is able to create a humorous, satirical piece. While using the direct words (referential), she performatively exaggerates face expressions and other affects. In doing so, she mocks Trump and the speech, making appear to be falling asleep or arguing with a foreign leader. This allows her to criticize his speech without any vocal commentary of her own, almost letting the absurdities of the speech stand for themselves while guiding the audience to her conclusions. These facial expressions and movements, as well as the cuts, jumps, and backgrounds, serve as her signs.

# data[].attributes.body
A linguistic functionalist account of Korean reveals that it is a distinctly hierarchical language that is reflective of historical and contemporary sociocultural influences in Korea. For example, Korean differs greatly in pronoun use, word length, and vocabulary when used in a formal versus informal setting. The "formal" version of the language is usually reserved when speaking to someone of a higher social strata than oneself—usually an elder, a boss, a teacher, or a parent. In contrast, "informal" Korean is used around close friends/people of similar age. This reflects the influence of Confucianism on Korean society, an ideology that emphasizes the patriarchal and hierarchical social structure that the country was historically built upon. A linguistic functionalist account can be detrimental, however, in other contexts. As other people mentioned, African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is usually seen in mainstream white narratives as grammatically incorrect and reflective of a working-class and uneducated background. This viewpoint is inherently racist, as it ignores that 1) AAVE has its own set of grammar rules and vocabulary that is independent of Standard American English, and 2) centuries of social, economic, and political discrimination has prevented Black Americans from learning the socially accepted SAE.

# data[].attributes.body
A phrase of Chomsky’s which squarely situates him as a rationalist is as follows: “The mind provides the means for an analysis of data as experience and provides as well a general schematism that delimits the cognitive structures developed on the basis of experience.” In other words, the sensory experiences and higher-level cognitive structures we have map onto the pre-existing framework of the mind and cannot be made sense of without it. I feel that, generally speaking, this hypothesis is sound. While I find Chomsky’s hypotheses throughout the paper on the whole to be too narrow, I do think there is a physical limit to the brain’s electrophysiological networking capacity which translates to a limit in cognitive capacity. A metaphor that makes sense to me is that of our ability to see. Our eyes and brain are able to see and compute certain wavelengths of light, but not all. Any wavelengths that are not available to us must be translated into something we can perceive with our biological machinery before we can “see” them, so to speak (a color on our visual spectrum). This relates well to Chomsky’s stipulation that languages which do not follow universal constraints may be learned by humans. However, we must do so through using other mental faculties in addition to those primarily dedicated to language. I think the line he draws between cognitive faculties is too rigid, however, because of the highly interconnected nature of the human brain. It is unclear to cognitive scientists whether or not there are sections of the brain whose only purpose is that of language. In a weaker form, Chomsky’s statement makes a great deal of logical sense to me as it relates to the internal language processes. However, I say so with the caveat that the language center is heavily interwoven with our social cognitive processes as well. That is, both physically and mentally, if you are inclined to make a distinction between the two.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski argues that language exists mainly to pay an active role in human behavior. He believes that language isn't just an expression of thoughts, as previous scholars have argued, but a "chief cultural force" and "an adjunct to bodily activities." Hence, from his point of view, language is the "ethnographer's most important tool." He believes that in order to understand different cultures and languages, ethnographers need to have a practical handling of native grammar and vocabulary, as this allows them to communicate more clearly with the cultures they want to study. Because of this, Malinowski maintains that linguistic data is valuable if the ethnographer takes context into account—"to ascertain precisely what a certain word means to the native and how it is used by him."

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah Cooper splits the referential function from the performative function of language through social recontextualization of unaltered audio. The first performative tool she uses is pantomiming a person falling asleep mid-sentence, which accentuates the odd auditory cadence of the sentence and implies that it was constructed by someone who was only semi-conscious, which is socially indexed to incoherent blabbering. She also uses facial expressions associated with paranoia and secrecy. Her combination of the signifiers about “bad people getting off a plane in the United States at some unspecified time in the past” with physical indications that they may in fact be an immediate threat to her, is ludicrous and therefore humorous. She uses her secretive/coy expressions to illuminate how strange his decision to withhold how he allegedly got the relevant countries to cooperate with him is childish and silly. It resembles the physical and linguistic practice suitable to a kid, or perhaps even a criminal, who “won’t tell” because he is enjoying his source of power (in the form of knowledge) over his interlocutor.

# data[].attributes.body
The comedy skit clearly relies on a splitting of the referential and performative functions of language; in the clip, Sarah Cooper is mouthing along to anti-immigrant and xenophobic sentiment spewed by Donald Trump. If we only take the referential function of language into account, it seems as if Cooper is agreeing to what Trump is advocating, as she alters none of his words while she is mouthing along. However, if we take into account the performative functions of language, it is clear that Cooper is mocking Trump in her video. She exaggerates her facial expressions and body expressions in order to communicate the idea that she views Trump as bombastic and is disgusted by his hateful rhetoric. Her expressions and body language can also be interpreted through an indexical lens—Cooper's eye rolling in the context of her video clearly indicates that she is criticizing Trump.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky believes that studying language gives a window into the innate structure of the mind, the “abstract principles that govern its structure and use…that are universal by biological necessity and not mere historical accident” (4). He believes that human language has certain basic commonalities universal to all languages, and that these reflect commonalities in the mind, the kind of innate mental structure that earlier rationalists like Leibniz and Cudworth argued for. The “ghost in the machine” refers to the tendency to view the mind as something that cannot be understood using the same tools with which we understand the rest of the body, the tendency to only look at external behavior and not inquire about what’s going on inside the mind. His stated wish to “exorcise it” means to develop an understanding of the mind as a physical organ, so that it is not considered separate from the body.

(I wrote the below before I saw the update on Sakai. It’s from an entirely different context where he says the same phrase, which isn’t super relevant to this topic but I tried my best to tie it in. I’m still including it because I did significant work on it, and I think it’s an interesting alternate perspective on Chomsky’s views.)

Regarding the “ghost in the machine,” I looked up the context of the quote, and it appears to be from a piece called “Science, Mind, and the Limits of Understanding,” in which he argues that Isaac Newton’s work on action at a distance actually challenged the mechanistic worldview of the day. If the ghost in the machine is the mind, he says, Newtown actually “exorcised the machine, leaving the ghost intact.” The point was that Newton contradicted the Cartesian dualistic theory of two kinds of matter, mechanistic and cognitive, by showing that mechanistic matter, which in the 17th century paradigm only interacted within its vicinity, did not exist. In terms of modern neuroscience, but the key is that Descartes’ idea that the mind is fundamentally different from other parts of the body is incorrect – the mind is just another organ which is subject to the same sorts of biological rules. It would be tempting to say that Chomsky views the mind as ‘part of the machine’ as it were, but in the context of this quote, he seems to view the rest of the body as ‘part of the ghost.’

# data[].attributes.body
According to Chomsky, the brain of a child has a certain set of structures preprogrammed into it, and as the child hears language, the brain slots what it hears into these structures. Using Chomsky’s own example, the brain has built into it a concept of a “noun phrase,” so that without having heard a question like “Is the man who is tall in the room?” before, a child will know that “the man who is tall” constitutes a noun phrase, and therefore will correctly make the sentence into a question by leaving this phrase intact. When hearing people form simpler questions like “Is the man in the room?”, the child’s brain could possibly learn the question rule as either “move the sentence’s first verb to the front” or “move the verb associated with the primary noun phrase to the front,” but the child will always learn it the second way because the idea of a noun phrase is already present in their brain. For Chomsky, what distinguishes rationalists from empiricists is that empiricists believe we learn structure by observing it in the world around us, while rationalists believe we understand the world through our mind’s innate internal structure. If Chomsky were an empiricist, he would say that the brain learns structures like noun phrases from observing them in language, but he believes in the opposite causality – that language has noun phrase structures because that is what our brains expect.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Chomsky, the brain of a child has a certain set of structures preprogrammed into it, and as the child hears language, the brain slots what it hears into these structures. Using Chomsky’s own example, the brain has built into it a concept of a “noun phrase,” so that without having heard a question like “Is the man who is tall in the room?” before, a child will know that “the man who is tall” constitutes a noun phrase, and therefore will correctly make the sentence into a question by leaving this phrase intact. When hearing people form simpler questions like “Is the man in the room?”, the child’s brain could possibly learn the question rule as either “move the sentence’s first verb to the front” or “move the verb associated with the primary noun phrase to the front,” but the child will always learn it the second way because the idea of a noun phrase is already present in their brain. For Chomsky, what distinguishes rationalists from empiricists is that empiricists believe we learn structure by observing it in the world around us, while rationalists believe we understand the world through our mind’s innate internal structure. If Chomsky were an empiricist, he would say that the brain learns structures like noun phrases from observing them in language, but he believes in the opposite causality – that language has noun phrase structures because that is what our brains expect.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky saw studying language as a "mirror of mind" in that through studying language, we can learn about the abstract principles that govern its structure and use. It also allows us to study different domains of the human mind that are less accessible/more abstract. Essentially the study of language gives us a greater understanding of the way the mind/brain works. I interpreted the 'ghost in the machine' metaphor refers to how we, the ghost, manipulate and use 'the machine' which represents our body/mind. To be clear, 'we' being our consciousness and product of social behavior.

# data[].attributes.body
One particularly clear and direct quote comes at the end of page 13: “The question is not whether learning presupposes innate structure–of course it does; that has never been in doubt–but rather what these innate structures are in particular domains.” Chomsky largely frames his rationalism as a rejection of empiricism, specifically the idea that the human mind is a perfectly “blank slate” with no pre-existing structure. I have not read enough empiricism to know to what extent this is a strawman, but I definitely agree that this is an idea that should be rejected. One of the most consistent results in the field of psychology is that on barely any psychological issue is there a single answer the “nature vs. nurture” question; almost everything the human mind seems to involve synthesis between innate structures and lived experience. So I like that Chomsky’s hypothesis allows room for such a synthesis, where learning language involves comparing real, performed language to structures inside the brain. However, Chomsky seems to assert that all forms of linguistic structure can be traced to innate brain properties, which seems to me like possibly an oversimplification on the other end, attributing syntax too completely to “nature” rather than “nurture.” Chomsky’s project of tracing universal properties of language seems to assume that any universal property must be in-born, when it seeems quite possible that they may be “accidents” that happened to be in some original language spoken by early Homonids, a language which was an ancestor to all modern languages. And clearly linguistics cannot consist only of Chomsky’s project, as that would miss out on all the myriad aspects of language that differ between languages or within languages.

# data[].attributes.body
I think most of the final projects for this class that I’ve heard about seem to be perfect examples of linguistic functionalist accounts which are illuminating. For example, the project which analyzed the different ways male students use language in male-dominated classes versus classes interrogating masculinity. The author found that their use of English was different between these contexts, and didn’t just take it as a fun little linguistic oddity, she interpreted it as being a mirror of English-speaking culture, showing how participation in classroom is tied to cultural ideas of masculinity. For a negative example, I will turn to a controversy I have heard of in the linguistics community – Benjamin Lee Whorf’s analysis of the Hopi language was that it had no grammatical indications of time, and from his linguistic functionalist perspective, he concluded that this was intertwined with a cultural view of time was different from the western European view, and that they did not have concepts equivalent to past, present and future. As it turns out, his analysis of Hopi was not correct, but even had it been, this would be an example of a western European imposing an exoticized view of Native Americans onto them. This kind of thinking can lead to actual Native American culture not being recognized, and stripping Native Americans of their ability to define their own culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski views language as primarily a means of taking action in a cultural context rather than a means of transmitting information. For example, the Trobriand magical formula “This is our oblation, old men, I have put it, hey” does not serve to inform anyone about what is before them. Presumably everyone is aware that they are looking at the sacrifice which is a central part of the ceremony. Instead, this utterance is a necessary part of the ceremony itself, and speaking it is equivalent to fulfilling one’s cultural role within the ceremony. Another example that comes to mind is when (back before the pandemic) people would pass by me and say “How are you doing?” and then be well out of earshot by the time I could say I was doing fine. They were not really asking for information about how I was doing, and I was not really informing them that I was fine since I would say I was no matter what, rather our speech was an action taken that demonstrates that we acknowledge each other as human beings. Malinowski emphasizes the performative aspects of language over the referential. Malinowski counsels st

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of Sarah Cooper’s comedy comes from the fact that through her facial expressions and body language she makes clear the performative function of Donald Trump’s words, which is a strong contrast to the referential function. For example, when he says something intended to suggest some kind of threat that voters should fear, such as “who knows what happened to them, but it wasn’t good” – she will communicate the “conspiracy theory” intention behind his words by darting her eyes back and forth. She is using the performative function of body language to communicate an interpretation of the performative function of Trump’s words, which contrasts their referential content by exhibiting them as unhinged fearmongering being made up on the spot. During pauses in the clip like “with Honduras, Guatemala, [long pause] with El Salvador,” she will clearly register trying to make up the next thing to say by closing her eyes as if she is trying to focus on thinking, which also emphasizes that the things being said are being made up on the spot (playing up the impression that the pauses already give.) I would classify both darting her eyes back and forth and closing her eyes to think as examples of both icons and indices. They are icons because they have a direct connection to what they signify – eye darting is similar to looking around for enemy conspirators, and closing one’s eyes can help cut out visual information to focus the mind. They are indices because their meaning relies on context, eye darting could in a different context mean that there is a fly in the room, and closing eyes could indicate that one is falling asleep.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Chomsky, 'a child picks up language intuitively and with minimal effort despite its complex rules and principles...' Chomsky elaborates on this process on pages 30-32 where he explains how UG is biologically inherent and found in children through their natural inheritance of language and language structure. He posits that language acquisition is primarily biological and the rest of language acquisition comes from exposure. Instead of testing this (empirically), Chomsky posits possible scenarios of language acquisition and through rational thought rules out the incorrect possibility (the rationalist method).

# data[].attributes.body
When Chomsky describes studying language, he claims that the most compelling reason for doing so is viewing language as "a mirror of mind." In my understanding, Chomsky believes that by studying language this way, we may be able to find universalities to languages -- things that are necessary to a language by nature of the human species. When he refers to the "ghost in the machine" (which I realized was separately uploaded after rereading the Chomsky piece a million times) I think he's referring to the cognitive structure as the machine -- where the "ghost" does its work, churning out the "product" which is language (speech, words, sentences, general comprehension of a language) and the ghost is what is still a mystery -- those universal and innate abilities to create and understand language.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky offers that we can study language with any of several objectives. One such objective is pure discovery of structure and use, specifically for those who are "fascinated by the elements of language in themselves" (4). The objective that he subscribes to, though, is using language to learn about "abstract principles," which may get disregarded. He points to human biology as an integral object of study in investigating language and stresses that complex language structures do not happen by accident. The ghost in the machine could be what linguists ought to seek--what's happening underneath our use of language; what is driving its structure?

# data[].attributes.body
One of the things that Chomsky most heavily emphasizes is the fact that learning a language is an innate process -- which is what leads him to claim that there are these universal grammars that all languages share because our minds have been biologically wired to acquire language in a specific way. He often refers to the ways that a child, with relatively "slight exposure" and "without specific training," is able to pick up a language relatively easily -- by means that lie far from our own control or consciousness. Thus, he is saying that this "innate" way of language acquisition rationally comes from biological processes that are part of our cognitive structure, rather than picking up a language through experiences and senses in our environment, making him a rationalist, and not an empiricist.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski’s views on language are clear throughout his work. Language is not merely a communication tool for inner thoughts, but an external human behavior which can affect the physical world in its own right. He goes so far as to posit that many utterances lack any true meaning in the absence of context. This is precisely the opposite of a referential (symbolic) linguistic ideology. His methodological departure from a Saussurian “Langue”-centric pedagogy can be condensed down into the following excerpt from his work: “The view here set forth […] compels us […] to correlate the study of language with that of other activities, to interpret the meaning of each utterance within its actual context; and this means a new departure in the handling of linguistic evidence.” (pg.9). He instructs the modern linguist to record the reality of idiosyncratic speech rather than search for links to a fictional library of identical finite concepts stored in every human mind.

# data[].attributes.body
The quote that stood out most to me and that really swayed my mind is on page 11 "The idea regarding the growth of language as analogous to the development of a bodily organ is this quite natural and possible... Science offers no reason to "accept the common maxim that there is nothing in the intellect which was not first in the senses..." (11). This quote resonated with me and I can see resonated with a number of my peers. I think this analogy is very effective because of its biological comparison, and the comparison Chomsky is making is very familiar to us as readers. It also makes a good point against empiricism. I was very skeptical of Chomsky argument until questioning why I believed that language faculty was not innate. For some reason, it seemed natural to assume that our ability to understand language was strictly learned. This quote and his later comparison of language faculty to something like hands made much more sense to me.

# data[].attributes.body
Chomsky notes that children acquire their native languages with relatively limited experience and that they are able to intuit aspects of grammar that "can reasonably be supposed not to have been learned" (30). He gives the example of a child learning English and being able to detect a structurally-dependent rule she's never seen before, even though it would be easier to follow structurally-independent patterns. This example, and his insistence on it illuminating his point, demonstrates his rationalism over empiricism: he is saying that children learn a language not only from sensorial experience (which is what an empiricist might claim), but from a deeper, innate reasoning.

# data[].attributes.body
The quote that made it most clear to me that Chomsky was a rationalist was "Human cognitive systems, when seriously investigated, prove to be no less marvelous and intricate than the physical structures that develop in the life life of the organisms. Why, then, should we not study the acquisition of a cognitive structure such as language more or less as we study some complex bodily organ?" page 10

# data[].attributes.body
"Children may make many mistakes in language learning, but never mistakes such as exemplified in (C)" (31). This quote is from the experiment I mentioned in question 2. It struck me when reading because of how both right and counterintuitive it sounded. By his illustrating that there are certain mistakes language learners do not make even though their prior exposure to the structures of that language would make such a mistake understandable, he is scoffing at empiricism, whose foundation contradicts these un-mistakes. Rather, he points to an innate feature of language that children understand without learning: a universal grammar.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski views language as purely pragmatic, and because it is pragmatic, it can be studied as a manner of accomplishing and/or completing something. So instead of focusing necessarily on what someone is saying, Malinowski is saying we should focus on how someone is saying x, rather than just focusing on x. This allows us to view and analyze language as another cultural aspect on its own right, therefore we should study it as such rather than a way to simply convey thought.

# data[].attributes.body
Malinowski makes it clear that he does not think of language as simply a means to an end. He emphasizes that within language there is vast amounts of information about cultures, lifestyles, and values. Because of that, then, he stresses the importance of studying language through both question-and-answer regarding certain linguistic features and through observation of unprompted language. The latter is particularly important for detecting cultural features that one might overlook if merely asking questions off a sheet.

# data[].attributes.body
Cooper's comedy skit is a great example of splitting referential and performative functions of language because in her skit, she is taking the dialogue from Trump's speech and performing it to give it a different meaning and significance; she is referring to a well known figure's speech, and performing it for comedic, awareness, and in a way, healing purposes. Through her use of exaggerated facial expressions and behaviors, such as bored expression and nodding off because of the boredom, she is using indexes because if one were to know Trump at all, you'd know these are trademark expressions of his. There's also the general confusion and lack of understanding that is apparent on her face with the mention of Mexico-US-Central America relations, another trademark of his. Her skit relies on the audience knowing this because she is a left leaning, woman of color comedian -- another performative function and sign that adds to the satirical and mocking nature of the skit.

# data[].attributes.body
(I would like to preface this answer by saying that I don’t know if these are good or even very accurate examples to life, but I tried my best to come up with something). A case where a linguistic functionalist account of the linguistic distinctions in a particular group’s language could be illuminating is in that of the difference between German and English “you”. German has two forms of what English speakers would simply refer to as “you;” a formal “Sie” and informal “du.” The second person word “you” in English used to have a separate formal and informal counterpart, just like German. I’m unclear on the precise details of how English speakers shifted away from this practice of communicating respect/familiarity with respective forms of “you;” however, it may indicate a difference in the two cultures’ ideologies of hierarchical relationships, which I believe are typically less emphasized in the United States than many other cultures. I would need to do more research to confirm this, however, as I merely recall fragmentary information about this particular example.  One functionalist account (of an infinite many) which would prove anachronistic at best, or potentially politically detrimental, at worst, is a functionalist interpretation of the cultural underpinnings reflected in languages that contain a greater number of sounds which use articulators in the back of the oral cavity (i.e. forceful or “guttural” noises). These cultures could be interpreted as naturally aggressive, impatient, uneducated, etcetera. This could cause harmful stereotypes as well as encourage communication through the lens of conflict.

# data[].attributes.body
There are two prominent examples of linguistic functionalism that immediately come to my mind. Similarly to how a linguistic functionalism might interpret the prevalence of the words for different types of snow, they may also interpret the English language's abundance of words for water or water sources. We have devised numerous ways to categorize water going back historically (creek, spring, river, lake, waterfall, -all places that lead to or have water. etc) and then also with our environment innovation (reservoir, dam, etc.). Similarly, we have an excess of words for different types of roads and transportation services. For example: "Are you taking the highway, expressway, freeway, or backroads? Did you use the HOV lane?" Both of these are examples of where a linguistic functionalism perspective would reflect the reality that English speakers care about water and transportation! An anachronistic example takes the transportation example a step further. These terms for different roads are common throughout the US, but does not reflect every part of the US. A New Yorker may not use these terms at all and instead speak about train lines. Instead of focusing on local transportation a linguistic functionalist may make the broader assumption that all people in the US use cars.