Important points and all are related to the competence/performance distinction, I think. Chomsky's view on linguistic theory and "how to study language" resembles Marr's computational level. So it's highly abstract. 1/6 https://twitter.com/ozyurek_a/status/1346828504000843777

Chomskyan emphasis on the abstract and computational properties of language overshadow the psychological reality of theories proposed. This emphasis on what to compute overweights the other levels to the extent that one can barely find a mechanistic account in the literature. 2/6

I'm not saying that there is no psycho/neurolinguistic theory or it's wrong to study on computational level. I'm just saying that the field has been so computationally oriented that, from a historical perspective, we have missed a great amount of insight which can be drawn... 3/6

... from bottom levels. And these insights would potentially constrain what can and cannot compute by mind/brain. This rather supposedly clear-cut distinction, namely competence/performance, has prevented us from this exchange between levels. 4/6

A relatively recent book tells the story I've been trying to sketch here and tries to provide a coherent linguistic theory which uses "empirical" evidence from many fields and levels of analysis. 5/6

I believe this book will be remembered as one of the foundational books of a new era in linguistics. No surprise it stars off with a critique of competence/performance distinction! 6/6 https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/creating-language