5 ms·

> Their results showed that the subjects’ brains distinctly tracked three components of the phrases they heard, reflecting a hierarchy in our neural processing

> Their results showed that the subjects’ brains distinctly tracked three components of the phrases they heard, reflecting a hierarchy in our neural processing of linguistic structures: words, phrases, and then sentences—at the same time. How are they distinguishing between grammar that's encoded in the brain due to "nature" vs grammar that's encoded in the brain via "nurture"? I think we all knew that the brain has some mechanism to detect grammar.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
elcct 11y ago
Pattern detection. Pattern happens to be grammar.
- raverbashing 11y ago
  However, patterns are language dependent. They don't mention what happened when an English only speaker heard a Chinese phrase.
  - elcct 11y ago
    If you hear long enough of something that is noise first time you hear it, eventually you will distinguish patterns if it is for example Chinese. Brain is pattern recognition machine.
linhchi 11y ago
wait, i think that's a good comment. what if that "invisible grammar" they said was the result of the statistical process ? which means that it already emerges in childhood?
soheil 11y ago
Your assumption is that all information necessary and sufficient to decode grammar into its constituents is detectable from the spoken words that a child hears. According to Chomsky there is a distinction between the I-Language versus E-Language [1] (internal/ex) namely because grammar in most human languages is not the most computationally efficient way of structuring sentences hence the need for an uniquely human/innate ability [2]. This is also why monkeys can never be trained to learn human language [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_grammar#.22I-Language.22_and_.22E-Language.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_grammar#.22I-... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-c... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky
- yqx 11y ago
  I don't think any assumption was made here. It is as much an assumption to say that all information necessary and sufficient to decode grammar into its constituents is not detectable from spoken words that a child is exposed to. That's a theoretical argument. Just because we can't think of a way this could be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. At the moment, we simply don't know. I think what the comment you're responding to meant is that this study shows no evidence for an innate internal language or grammar, which I thought was Chomsky's most controversial claim.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >grammar in most human languages is not the most computationally efficient way of structuring sentences Grammar in most human languages is structured to be information-theoretically efficient, which often winds up being vague, ambiguous, and context-dependent. It's basically a time-space trade-off for statistical inference.
andreasvc 11y ago
> How are they distinguishing between grammar that's encoded in the brain due to "nature" vs grammar that's encoded in the brain via "nurture"? They do not. > I think we all knew that the brain has some mechanism to detect grammar. The press release is spinning the paper to make it sound much more controversial than it is.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

elcct 11y ago

Pattern detection. Pattern happens to be grammar.

raverbashing 11y ago
However, patterns are language dependent. They don't mention what happened when an English only speaker heard a Chinese phrase.
- elcct 11y ago
  If you hear long enough of something that is noise first time you hear it, eventually you will distinguish patterns if it is for example Chinese. Brain is pattern recognition machine.

linhchi 11y ago

wait, i think that's a good comment. what if that "invisible grammar" they said was the result of the statistical process ? which means that it already emerges in childhood?

soheil 11y ago

Your assumption is that all information necessary and sufficient to decode grammar into its constituents is detectable from the spoken words that a child hears. According to Chomsky there is a distinction between the I-Language versus E-Language [1] (internal/ex) namely because grammar in most human languages is not the most computationally efficient way of structuring sentences hence the need for an uniquely human/innate ability [2]. This is also why monkeys can never be trained to learn human language [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_grammar#.22I-Language.22_and_.22E-Language.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_grammar#.22I-... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-c... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky

yqx 11y ago
I don't think any assumption was made here. It is as much an assumption to say that all information necessary and sufficient to decode grammar into its constituents is not detectable from spoken words that a child is exposed to. That's a theoretical argument. Just because we can't think of a way this could be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. At the moment, we simply don't know. I think what the comment you're responding to meant is that this study shows no evidence for an innate internal language or grammar, which I thought was Chomsky's most controversial claim.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>grammar in most human languages is not the most computationally efficient way of structuring sentences Grammar in most human languages is structured to be information-theoretically efficient, which often winds up being vague, ambiguous, and context-dependent. It's basically a time-space trade-off for statistical inference.

andreasvc 11y ago

> How are they distinguishing between grammar that's encoded in the brain due to "nature" vs grammar that's encoded in the brain via "nurture"? They do not. > I think we all knew that the brain has some mechanism to detect grammar. The press release is spinning the paper to make it sound much more controversial than it is.