The questions and answers below are to explain on the stand my grammar approach has regarding the Universal Grammar by Noam Chomsky.
Undeniably, Mr. Chomsky’s work has been of important reference in my language activity generally. I invented and began building my grammar method long before I ever heard about Mr. Chomsky, however.
1. Is there literally a universal grammar, to learn any language of choice?
A uniform grammar for all languages in the world is impossible. I am not aware of any such postulate by Mr. Chomsky. His grammar tells what principles many languages have in common.
My grammar offers psychological variables a person can learn, primarily for American English. It bases on a process that all languages have, namely spatialization, but is not universal.
2. Are there actually Language Acquisition Devices in human brains and could brains be programmed?
Linguistically, a device may be something devised, as well as a faculty that devises. This latter meaning might apply to Mr. Chomsky’s theory best.
I follow the term of the human language faculty, not the LAD. The faculty is never programmed. It uses routines, which are naturally delimited by biological properties of human neural matter.
3. Could language be a result of a genetic mutation?
Mr. Chomsky has used the word mutation, speaking about language as possibly a result of human evolution.
My sense for evolving is achieving gradually, working out, devising. I never use the term mutation with regard to language.
All people evolve own language skill during lifespan, without any corresponding genetic change.
To compare childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, the DNA retains identity in good shape, though much may change in the way the human being speaks and writes.
This lifespan evolutionary spontaneity must have been part in shaping American English.
We can note on a concurrent language change already about the Constitution. We could not put the change to some obligatory school style or television, as those times there was no obligatory education, television, or radio. Feel welcome to read,
AMERICAN ENGLISH ― WHERE FROM?
4. Is there a decisive or definitive grammar to explain language irrefutably or completely, be it in terms of principles or neural models, we could call “the true grammar”?
No, there is no such grammar theory, book, or course, and it is not likely there ever is going to be.
Natural language learning and use is impossible without the human person. This means there are actually as many grammar faculties as there are language users.
There are no “mathematical”, “purely functional”, or “strictly logical” brain connectivities to allow making rules for everyone, even for just one natural language.
If an approach to grammar works, depends on the language user, also when the grammatical matter is supported by scholarly traditions. Feel welcome to read about “stative verbs”:
5. How could spatialization be generative?
Prescriptive grammars offer rules to follow. The rules mostly base on examples from language use.
Generative grammars base on language use too, but present regularities the language user decides independently, if to use. Mr. Chomsky’s grammar provides parameters. My grammar provides cognitive variables.
Every grammar course is supposed to provide a way to skill that works in real life. Let us consider two facts.
There is not and there cannot be a grammar rule to tell whether we want to say that we live somewhere, we are living, have lived, or we have been living somewhere. We need to take up own resolves, to express own thought.
All along, we people live ON Earth. We usually view lands or seas as extents. We give at least psychological borders to areas IN which we are. We perceive routes and ways TO places. We happen to be AT landmarks and places.
Such are human natural variables for space, in English. We can employ these variables for language. Feel welcome to read:
GRAMMAR WEB LOG:
GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS MAPPED COGNITIVELY