3 ms·

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.

by 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.

by soheil 11y ago

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.