4 ms·

A simple statistical model is probably not the only thing human infants are using when they learn language. Linguists make a pretty good case that there must b

A simple statistical model is probably not the only thing human infants are using when they learn language. Linguists make a pretty good case that there must be some structure in-place for infants to acquire language robustly, quickly, and with the kinds of noisy input (overheard speech) they have to work with. It's not my field so I can't give examples off the top of my head, but the argument involves rapid acquisition of syntax and near-complete absence of errors that you'd expect to see in a simple statistical model.

wisty 15y ago
Exactly. Almost everyone can identify recursive grammar (except people in a small South American tribe who speak a non-recursive language). You don't need a raw MC to assess the likelihood of "The DOG ate my homework", "My WASHING MACHINE ate my homework", and "MY LEGALLY ate my homework". You need P(WASHING MACHINE = NOUN), and P("My NOUN ate my homework"). But that's not right. You could also have P(WASHING MACHINE = NOUN THAT CAN EAT STUFF). Or maybe P(EAT = HUMOROUS TERM FOR DESTROYED), P(HUMOROUS SENTENCE), P(WASHING MACHINE = OBJECT THAT CAN DESTROY HOMEWORK). Anyway, it's really bloody hard to put it all together. But that's what humans do. I'd imagine that we store it in our short term memory, then make a few quick parses of it, under varying assumptions, and keep the ones that are most consistent. In reality, Chomsky is fighting the same sort of battle that happened when Newton and Leibnitz were around (no, not the battle between Newton and ... the rest of the world really). OK, you have gravity. But what causes it? Why? It's an interesting question, but not necessarily one that will lead anywhere.
- true_religion 15y ago
  In the case of "my washing machine ate my homework" and other non-standard expressions, many people will be confused by making the obvious associations. It's only when the new rules are explained to them that they come to understand what was meant. The failure of a machine to understand a sentence given a set of rules, may simple mean that it needs to be taught new rules.

wisty 15y ago

Exactly. Almost everyone can identify recursive grammar (except people in a small South American tribe who speak a non-recursive language). You don't need a raw MC to assess the likelihood of "The DOG ate my homework", "My WASHING MACHINE ate my homework", and "MY LEGALLY ate my homework". You need P(WASHING MACHINE = NOUN), and P("My NOUN ate my homework"). But that's not right. You could also have P(WASHING MACHINE = NOUN THAT CAN EAT STUFF). Or maybe P(EAT = HUMOROUS TERM FOR DESTROYED), P(HUMOROUS SENTENCE), P(WASHING MACHINE = OBJECT THAT CAN DESTROY HOMEWORK). Anyway, it's really bloody hard to put it all together. But that's what humans do. I'd imagine that we store it in our short term memory, then make a few quick parses of it, under varying assumptions, and keep the ones that are most consistent. In reality, Chomsky is fighting the same sort of battle that happened when Newton and Leibnitz were around (no, not the battle between Newton and ... the rest of the world really). OK, you have gravity. But what causes it? Why? It's an interesting question, but not necessarily one that will lead anywhere.

true_religion 15y ago
In the case of "my washing machine ate my homework" and other non-standard expressions, many people will be confused by making the obvious associations. It's only when the new rules are explained to them that they come to understand what was meant. The failure of a machine to understand a sentence given a set of rules, may simple mean that it needs to be taught new rules.