4 ms·

Here's my understanding of Chomsky's argument. Facts: I can write sentences that no one has ever spoken before. The rest of you will have opinions whether the

by thisrod 16y ago

Here's my understanding of Chomsky's argument. Facts: I can write sentences that no one has ever spoken before. The rest of you will have opinions whether they are allowed in English. Those opinions will tend to agree. Conclusion: Our knowledge of English is not purely derived from the sentences we've heard. We must have had some model of a language in common when we started, and we fit the parameters to what we heard as children. I find that more convincing than anything in the linked article.

williamdix 16y ago
I think Ars and maybe the authors of the original article are way over-stating the significance of this article. I think the evidence presented in the article is convincing but it is not convincing as a refutation of UG. It seems at best to argue that head-firstness or complement-firstness are not actually features of languages.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ezy 16y ago
Ok, maybe this is why UG always sounds so wrongheaded to me when explained in layman's terms: Our knowledge of English is not purely derived from the sentences we've heard. If you were to take the sentences in isolation, devoid of meaning and context, I suppose you might end up being circular. But new sentences are being thrown at you all the time (the training data is ~unlimited). Even a computer can recognize common patterns unsupervised, then apply those patterns to learning other patterns on subsequent data, and finally classify examples has never seen before -- this seems weak. And doubly so if you consider that it isn't just a sentence we've heard, but a sentence about a real noun and a real verb that exists in space (at least initially). If I pick up a ball and say "ball" consistently, bam, you now have some kind of tagged input to work with. We must have had some model of a language in common when we started, and we fit the parameters to what we heard as children. Even taken the first sentence as given, why does that imply a UG? Perhaps the model is built from observed reality first, then language is built using that model? Or, maybe, to argue Chomsky's side, the "UG" is an extremely simple bias... Now, Chomsky has probably addressed these things, but to a layman, the typical justifications seem a little weak.
- thisrod 16y ago
  If I pick up a ball and say "ball" consistently ... The controversial question is how people learn grammar, not vocabulary. Even taken the first sentence as given, why does that imply a UG? That model is what Chomsky meant by "universal grammar". Or so I understand - I'm not an expert.
  - ezy 16y ago
    My point was that once you assign the sound "ball" to a ball, you are also simultaneously (or eventually, as you see more examples) adding the sound "ball" to category of sounds that describe things.
forensic 16y ago
>The rest of you will have opinions whether they are allowed in English. Those opinions will tend to agree. These agreeing opinions could easily be due to a common cultural heritage and a history of reinforcement. People get reinforced for speaking in a way that is understood (and seen as correct) by others and so they speak that way. It benefits them to conform. Since everyone who speaks English shares a cultural language heritage, there is obviously a shared history of reinforcement. The shared history of reinforcement leads to widespread agreement about rules, and yet there are still plenty of examples of English dialects that violate rules of other dialects. For instance, Ebonics vs. American English. Both are valid dialects with different rules. Both are English. Are you claiming that Ebonics speakers have a different generative mechanism than American English speakers? Obviously Ebonics has evolved __from__ American English, into something new. Creative, meaningful responding exists outside of language and the evidence is overwhelming that this creativity is due to reinforcement history rather than some innate quality of the brain. Anyway I don't think your facts lead to your conclusion at all.
- thisrod 16y ago
  Obviously, feedback is part of learning language. B. F. Skinner argued that it was the whole explanation, as you're claiming. That was the idea Chomsky challenged. You're not addressing the crucial point. The suprise isn't that people can invent new sentences. It's how well they can tell if other speakers will regard those sentences as valid English (or valid Ebonics). People can evaluate sentences, and forms of sentences, that have never been spoken. They could not have learned that by feedback, and linguists stuggle to state the precise rules by which they do it.
  - forensic 16y ago
    >They could not have learned that by feedback Why not? I'm not saying that grammar doesn't exist, I'm asking why it needs to be innate? The existence of grammar rules is what allows us to determine if a sentence is grammatically correct. These rules could be learned through experience. Why do they need to be innate? I believe you don't understand Chomsky's argument. I'm not a die hard behaviourist I just know the behaviourist position well enough to know that your particular formulation of the "language is special" theory is easily refuted.
frobozz 16y ago
Alternative Conclusion: Humans are very good at spotting patterns and making generalisations. I can identify that certain plants are trees, or certain animals are dogs, even trees or dog breeds I've never encountered before. Most people would agree with my identification. People from a similar cultural background to me will generally agree with me as to whether a completely novel piece of music is in tune and rhythmic (i.e. "grammatical", not necessarily "good"). Music from some traditions often sounds discordant (i.e. "ungrammatical") to me, due to the different scales used, yet I am sure that they must be considered grammatical by those who are familiar with such music.

by thisrod 16y ago

williamdix 16y ago

I think Ars and maybe the authors of the original article are way over-stating the significance of this article. I think the evidence presented in the article is convincing but it is not convincing as a refutation of UG. It seems at best to argue that head-firstness or complement-firstness are not actually features of languages.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

ezy 16y ago

Ok, maybe this is why UG always sounds so wrongheaded to me when explained in layman's terms: Our knowledge of English is not purely derived from the sentences we've heard. If you were to take the sentences in isolation, devoid of meaning and context, I suppose you might end up being circular. But new sentences are being thrown at you all the time (the training data is ~unlimited). Even a computer can recognize common patterns unsupervised, then apply those patterns to learning other patterns on subsequent data, and finally classify examples has never seen before -- this seems weak. And doubly so if you consider that it isn't just a sentence we've heard, but a sentence about a real noun and a real verb that exists in space (at least initially). If I pick up a ball and say "ball" consistently, bam, you now have some kind of tagged input to work with. We must have had some model of a language in common when we started, and we fit the parameters to what we heard as children. Even taken the first sentence as given, why does that imply a UG? Perhaps the model is built from observed reality first, then language is built using that model? Or, maybe, to argue Chomsky's side, the "UG" is an extremely simple bias... Now, Chomsky has probably addressed these things, but to a layman, the typical justifications seem a little weak.

thisrod 16y ago
If I pick up a ball and say "ball" consistently ... The controversial question is how people learn grammar, not vocabulary. Even taken the first sentence as given, why does that imply a UG? That model is what Chomsky meant by "universal grammar". Or so I understand - I'm not an expert.
- ezy 16y ago
  My point was that once you assign the sound "ball" to a ball, you are also simultaneously (or eventually, as you see more examples) adding the sound "ball" to category of sounds that describe things.

forensic 16y ago

>The rest of you will have opinions whether they are allowed in English. Those opinions will tend to agree. These agreeing opinions could easily be due to a common cultural heritage and a history of reinforcement. People get reinforced for speaking in a way that is understood (and seen as correct) by others and so they speak that way. It benefits them to conform. Since everyone who speaks English shares a cultural language heritage, there is obviously a shared history of reinforcement. The shared history of reinforcement leads to widespread agreement about rules, and yet there are still plenty of examples of English dialects that violate rules of other dialects. For instance, Ebonics vs. American English. Both are valid dialects with different rules. Both are English. Are you claiming that Ebonics speakers have a different generative mechanism than American English speakers? Obviously Ebonics has evolved __from__ American English, into something new. Creative, meaningful responding exists outside of language and the evidence is overwhelming that this creativity is due to reinforcement history rather than some innate quality of the brain. Anyway I don't think your facts lead to your conclusion at all.

thisrod 16y ago
Obviously, feedback is part of learning language. B. F. Skinner argued that it was the whole explanation, as you're claiming. That was the idea Chomsky challenged. You're not addressing the crucial point. The suprise isn't that people can invent new sentences. It's how well they can tell if other speakers will regard those sentences as valid English (or valid Ebonics). People can evaluate sentences, and forms of sentences, that have never been spoken. They could not have learned that by feedback, and linguists stuggle to state the precise rules by which they do it.
- forensic 16y ago
  >They could not have learned that by feedback Why not? I'm not saying that grammar doesn't exist, I'm asking why it needs to be innate? The existence of grammar rules is what allows us to determine if a sentence is grammatically correct. These rules could be learned through experience. Why do they need to be innate? I believe you don't understand Chomsky's argument. I'm not a die hard behaviourist I just know the behaviourist position well enough to know that your particular formulation of the "language is special" theory is easily refuted.

frobozz 16y ago

Alternative Conclusion: Humans are very good at spotting patterns and making generalisations. I can identify that certain plants are trees, or certain animals are dogs, even trees or dog breeds I've never encountered before. Most people would agree with my identification. People from a similar cultural background to me will generally agree with me as to whether a completely novel piece of music is in tune and rhythmic (i.e. "grammatical", not necessarily "good"). Music from some traditions often sounds discordant (i.e. "ungrammatical") to me, due to the different scales used, yet I am sure that they must be considered grammatical by those who are familiar with such music.