Subject Verb Agreement in the Chomskyan Paradigm

“Really” speaking, “ideal speaker and hearer” do not exist in the world of threat and violence or in the world of behavioral manipulation. The author of this paper is contradicting Chomsky’s metanarrative of transcendental cogito. His purvapaksa (opponent’s view, i.e., Chomsky’s hypothesis of linguistic creativity) holds that there is a context free ideal creative speaking subject with zero History. However, author thinks that this ahistorical ideal subject escapes real. What is about speaking subject’s real locus? Where does s/he stand? Does s/he stand in a vacuum? As sometimes in Classical Physics, we presume such vacuum (bodies fall in the “actual” atmosphere behave as if they are falling in a vacuum; falling bodies travels 32 feet per seconds everywhere in the third planet) to continue our agenda for model-theoretic approach. Chomsky’s hypothesis also does not able to avoid such scienticism—his speaking subject stands in a vacuum.Chomsky, who is like an old fashioned physicist, is not only constructing ideal, his interest falls only within the purview of, analogically speaking, VIBGYOR as he, instigated by his Cartesian inheritance, only analyzes so-called “normal”, “natural” sentences without being bothered about the infinite sets of color-shades as perceived by a painter. His theory mercilessly marginalizes ab-normalcy (though the author does not know the exact borderline between normal and abnormal). The author is only emphasizing on the correlation between linguistic organism and human malleability. That is, linguistic creativity may or may not be crippled by the outside sociality asmental/biological linguistic algorithm cannot stand-alone as it is also controlled by the social rules. Formally, author wants to call this interface (in between psyche and society) as “psi” or psychosocial property. This psi-Property reasserts that the being is always in the being-in-the-(social) world as well as being-for-others. The author’s hypothesis is: Context-sensitive creative speaking corporeal with history….
METHOD

UG is a grandnarrative that is talking about only the positive equality of all human beings, the very concept of which is engendered from the enlightenment-project. The problem is that if we are not talking about this equality, it will be rather difficult to fight all around inequality, which is just an epiphenomenon—a politico-administrative or socio-economic construct. However, I do not find any way except to take recourse to the path of “bhedabheda”—a much discussed phenomenon in the Indian Philosophy—it is at a time identity (abheda) and difference(bheda)—positive equality as well as negative equality. Creative speaking subject is there—out there—but with constraints. It is at a time syad asti (somehow it is) and syad nasti (somehow it is not) and syad avyakvyam (somehow it is indeterminate). The speaking subjects’ linguistic creativity may or may not be crippled by the outside sociality. Despite the fact of threat and violence, one can escape or bypass the threat on the Language Acquisition Device.