[kylebgorman]

The absence of recursion would not actually "refute Chomsky" (whatever the hell that means; it's not like Chomsky only has one angle). "Universal grammar" just means "whatever linguists think all human languages have in common", it would just mean that clausal recursion is not one of these things.

[WaxProlix]

That's sort of the problem with UG, though - it's either so strong a claim as to be almost mystical claims about "the mind-brain" or some such nonsense - and therefore nigh-irrefutable - or so weak as to be basically a truism - "whatever languages all have in common, that's UG!"

[meepmorp]

Am I correct in assuming you've not actually read any of Chomsky's syntatic work?

[WaxProlix]

No, I've read quite a bit of it, though mostly pre-1990.

[meepmorp]

Ok, it just doesn't seem like you've got a good handle on what UG is.

[WaxProlix]

UG is different to different people, and has been different in different ages. Someone into OT might conceive of universal constraints or rankings as being 'UG', whereas x bar era sybtacticians etc might have another view. Feel free to engage in a discussion if you feel like it, but if not thanks anyway - your criticism, such as it is, is noted. I'll try and make time to catch up on some more reading.