4 ms·

I recently began educating myself about human language acquisition (a rabbit hole I was pursuing from another book, Behave). I learnt that there's two main sch

I recently began educating myself about human language acquisition (a rabbit hole I was pursuing from another book, Behave). I learnt that there's two main schools of thought—the "innate instinct" model (Chomsky et al) and its alternative, the "usage-based" model, which posits that language is "an embodied and social human behaviour and seeks explanations in that context". Here's an open-access paper[1] that summarizes and contrasts both the models. And if you, like me, find the "innate instinct" model to be an unsatisfying explanation, check out the following works: - Michael Tomasello. See his excellent work on "joint agency" / "joint attention" (as something that is unique to humans), human developmental psychology, and many other topics. He summarized his most recent book in this talk here[2]. - George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. See their classic work: Metaphors We Live By [1] https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/usage-based-and-universal-grammar-based-approaches-to-second-language-acquisition https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/usage-based-and-univ... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbeleWvXyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbeleWvXyQ

ukj 6y ago
The irony in all of this, of course is that you see both theories as two possible models. Which begs the question "What exactly is a model?" And model theory (or if you want, interpretation theory) is Mathematically well formalised and understood in so far as anyone can understand formal languages. And formal language theory is precisely Chomsky's long-standing contribution.
- ribit 6y ago
  Very true, but the problem is in paying these models to the actual study of linguistics and human language. For example, you can approach computation using something like a Turing Machine, but this won't help you understanding how to understand a modern CPU architecture or how to write well-optimized code. Chomsky's work is very interesting and relevant in the domain of formal languages, but as far as human languages goes, it always struck me as a self-indulgent intellectual exercise with little practical relevance.
  - foldr 6y ago
    > it always struck me as a self-indulgent intellectual exercise with little practical relevance. It largely is. But you could say that of most work in pure mathematics or physics, or of pure research in any number of other disciplines. Generative grammar led to an enormous leap in our understanding of the grammatical structure of human languages. For example, we now know with a high degree of confidence that all natural languages have mildly context-sensitive string languages. There wasn’t even the glimmer of that result in the 1950s. It’s also worth noting that any rule-based NLP system makes use of a wealth of syntactic, semantic and phonological knowledge gained from Chomsky’s research program and its outshoots.
    - ribit 6y ago
      This is very true. There is no denying that Chomsky and colleagues have contributed significantly to our understanding of the language. My comment is more in regards to the current day state of the field, which in my experience is overly driven by dogma. Science should evolve and improve it's methods, and sadly, the modern "generative grammarian" tends to live in the shadow of the glorious 80-ties.
      - foldr 6y ago
        Interesting take. I would say that the field is actually less dogmatic than it's ever been. Chomsky's personal influence is waning, and as the prestige of pure generative linguistics fades, younger researchers are having to broaden out their research programs to stay competitive.
        ribit 6y ago
        Maybe you are right. What I am reporting here are the impressions from my early PhD around 10 years ago when I was still actively participating in conferences and workshops on generative grammar. Most contributions I have seen were along the lines of "I am trying to apply the minimalist program to this endangered language X and it doesn't work directly, but if I make the system more powerful, I can fit my examples in!" — and I just didn't see this approach leading us anywhere... I hope that you are right and that the field is evolving to everyone's benefit. We need different smart people with different opinions and believes to drive the science forward.
johnchristopher 6y ago
Is that Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert Sapolsky ?
- kashyapc 6y ago
  Yes, indeed; sorry for not spelling it out. I picked up some 24 books from it. Definitely worth a careful reading.
  - float4 6y ago
    > I picked up some 24 books from it Any books in particular that you'd recommend?
    - kashyapc 6y ago
      Besides the three excellent authors I've already mentioned above, I can share a selection of what I found curious. (Not all books I wrote down were mentioned by name; I picked some based on combing through the index.) If you've completed Behave, these can be worthwhile. I haven't read them all, but slow-juggling a few of 'em over several months. These range from neuroscience to game theory to primate behaviour to human culture and more: • Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio • Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene • Chimpanzee Politics by Frans de Waal • Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture by Johan Huizinga • The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod • A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Story of Forgiveness by Pumla Gobo-Madikizela

ukj 6y ago

The irony in all of this, of course is that you see both theories as two possible models. Which begs the question "What exactly is a model?" And model theory (or if you want, interpretation theory) is Mathematically well formalised and understood in so far as anyone can understand formal languages. And formal language theory is precisely Chomsky's long-standing contribution.

ribit 6y ago
Very true, but the problem is in paying these models to the actual study of linguistics and human language. For example, you can approach computation using something like a Turing Machine, but this won't help you understanding how to understand a modern CPU architecture or how to write well-optimized code. Chomsky's work is very interesting and relevant in the domain of formal languages, but as far as human languages goes, it always struck me as a self-indulgent intellectual exercise with little practical relevance.
- foldr 6y ago
  > it always struck me as a self-indulgent intellectual exercise with little practical relevance. It largely is. But you could say that of most work in pure mathematics or physics, or of pure research in any number of other disciplines. Generative grammar led to an enormous leap in our understanding of the grammatical structure of human languages. For example, we now know with a high degree of confidence that all natural languages have mildly context-sensitive string languages. There wasn’t even the glimmer of that result in the 1950s. It’s also worth noting that any rule-based NLP system makes use of a wealth of syntactic, semantic and phonological knowledge gained from Chomsky’s research program and its outshoots.
  - ribit 6y ago
    This is very true. There is no denying that Chomsky and colleagues have contributed significantly to our understanding of the language. My comment is more in regards to the current day state of the field, which in my experience is overly driven by dogma. Science should evolve and improve it's methods, and sadly, the modern "generative grammarian" tends to live in the shadow of the glorious 80-ties.
    - foldr 6y ago
      Interesting take. I would say that the field is actually less dogmatic than it's ever been. Chomsky's personal influence is waning, and as the prestige of pure generative linguistics fades, younger researchers are having to broaden out their research programs to stay competitive.
      - ribit 6y ago
        Maybe you are right. What I am reporting here are the impressions from my early PhD around 10 years ago when I was still actively participating in conferences and workshops on generative grammar. Most contributions I have seen were along the lines of "I am trying to apply the minimalist program to this endangered language X and it doesn't work directly, but if I make the system more powerful, I can fit my examples in!" — and I just didn't see this approach leading us anywhere... I hope that you are right and that the field is evolving to everyone's benefit. We need different smart people with different opinions and believes to drive the science forward.

johnchristopher 6y ago

Is that Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert Sapolsky ?

kashyapc 6y ago
Yes, indeed; sorry for not spelling it out. I picked up some 24 books from it. Definitely worth a careful reading.
- float4 6y ago
  > I picked up some 24 books from it Any books in particular that you'd recommend?
  - kashyapc 6y ago
    Besides the three excellent authors I've already mentioned above, I can share a selection of what I found curious. (Not all books I wrote down were mentioned by name; I picked some based on combing through the index.) If you've completed Behave, these can be worthwhile. I haven't read them all, but slow-juggling a few of 'em over several months. These range from neuroscience to game theory to primate behaviour to human culture and more: • Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio • Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene • Chimpanzee Politics by Frans de Waal • Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture by Johan Huizinga • The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod • A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Story of Forgiveness by Pumla Gobo-Madikizela