Talk:Innateness hypothesis

Philosophy: Language Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of language

Linguistics: Philosophy of language Start‑class

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Citation please

Please find a citation for: "This hypothesis supports linguistic nativism and was first proposed by Noam Chomsky." As far as I can tell the expression 'innateness hypothesis' was introduced by Hilary Putnam... in 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.177.150 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

Hello, a group of students from Linguistic & Multilingual Studies in NTU are editing this page. Please give us your kind feedback.

Brief Review

My students revised this page for a course (HG2052: Language, Technology and the Internet) and I am adding a couple of comments as part of the final review. Francis Bond (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

overall the page is greatly improved, with well-cited additions
the prose is a bit choppy and repetitive
- many small mis-wordings/spacings
- it would be good to merge identical references
the page has captured the fact that there is still much disagreement about this
- so it is neutral
it is also broad, stable and verifiable
I think it fails a little to be well-written and illustrated