4 ms·

In contrast to Noam Chomsky who was pushing the idea that language was developed primarily for thought [0]. I don't know how much weight should be given to thi

In contrast to Noam Chomsky who was pushing the idea that language was developed primarily for thought [0]. I don't know how much weight should be given to this paper but, if true, directly contradicts Chomsky. Here is one quote from Chomsky: """ ... One general assumption about language, almost a dogma in philosophy ... [and] linguistics ... is that language is primarily a means of communication ... probably that's totally false. It seems language ... is designed as a mode of creating and interpreting thought. """ In my opinion, I find Chomsky to get mired in certain quagmires around intelligence and computation, especially in regards to AI, where he's somehow managed to rationalize an absurd stance. I remember watching a video with Chomsky claiming that language's primary purpose was not communication and thinking it was potentially plausible but highly unlikely. I'd be curious to see if people think this paper, and maybe any other research, refute this position. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEmpRtj34xg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEmpRtj34xg

contingencies 2y ago
Perhaps an artificial dichotomy between thought and communication is itself false. After all, is thinking not in some sense remembered experience (ie. the past self) communicating with the present (ie. future self)?
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  They may overlap, but they're certainly not identical: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40756659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40756659
calf 2y ago
To be fair to Chomsky, the historical context is that he was pushing against a particular dogma of his time. So later on Chomsky evolved his own position and came up with i-language/e-language for internal vs external language and so forth. And a few years ago he was recommending a new cognitive science textbook where the first chapter begins with Claude Shannon's communication/information theory.
- abetusk 2y ago
  Interesting. Do you have a link to some of his statements to that effect? I have a lot of respect for Chomsky but sometimes it does seem he's lazy in giving a well balanced argument for the things he advocates for. The above clip I shared is him stating unequivocally that standard dogma is wrong. Now you're telling me he's walked back his position and arguing for something more nuanced.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    Probably because you are only listening to soundbites. Try reading something detailed he has recently written on the subject like "Why Only Us". The arguments for language as not-for-communication are 1. language's hierarchical structure is inefficient for linear communication 2. language seems to have appeared suddenly (probably due to a sudden mutation) and had no time to evolve and initially no one to communicate with 3. most use of language seems to be internal/thinking not communication. These are all better arguments than those in the paper.
    - abetusk 2y ago
      Thanks for the link. I haven't read much written text by Chomsky but, in my defense, I've listened to a lot more video and audio of his talks than mere "soundbytes". I stand by my statement about his talks.
      - foobarqux 2y ago
        So have I and I came across those ideas first from his talks on Youtube not his writing. He talks about this ideas constantly so I don't know if these are the best examples but: 1. About evidence for how language for communication is inefficient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyXqXfg-Dq4&t=3354s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyXqXfg-Dq4&t=3354s 2. About the sudden appearance of language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTGoYXx0Kew&t=1557s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTGoYXx0Kew&t=1557s 3. Arguing with a biologist about the evidence for language being for thought (and a little bit at the end about how hierarchical structure is inefficient): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzzuPMA8s7k&t=307s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzzuPMA8s7k&t=307s

contingencies 2y ago

Perhaps an artificial dichotomy between thought and communication is itself false. After all, is thinking not in some sense remembered experience (ie. the past self) communicating with the present (ie. future self)?

082349872349872 2y ago
They may overlap, but they're certainly not identical: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40756659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40756659

calf 2y ago

To be fair to Chomsky, the historical context is that he was pushing against a particular dogma of his time. So later on Chomsky evolved his own position and came up with i-language/e-language for internal vs external language and so forth. And a few years ago he was recommending a new cognitive science textbook where the first chapter begins with Claude Shannon's communication/information theory.

abetusk 2y ago
Interesting. Do you have a link to some of his statements to that effect? I have a lot of respect for Chomsky but sometimes it does seem he's lazy in giving a well balanced argument for the things he advocates for. The above clip I shared is him stating unequivocally that standard dogma is wrong. Now you're telling me he's walked back his position and arguing for something more nuanced.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  Probably because you are only listening to soundbites. Try reading something detailed he has recently written on the subject like "Why Only Us". The arguments for language as not-for-communication are 1. language's hierarchical structure is inefficient for linear communication 2. language seems to have appeared suddenly (probably due to a sudden mutation) and had no time to evolve and initially no one to communicate with 3. most use of language seems to be internal/thinking not communication. These are all better arguments than those in the paper.
  - abetusk 2y ago
    Thanks for the link. I haven't read much written text by Chomsky but, in my defense, I've listened to a lot more video and audio of his talks than mere "soundbytes". I stand by my statement about his talks.
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      So have I and I came across those ideas first from his talks on Youtube not his writing. He talks about this ideas constantly so I don't know if these are the best examples but: 1. About evidence for how language for communication is inefficient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyXqXfg-Dq4&t=3354s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyXqXfg-Dq4&t=3354s 2. About the sudden appearance of language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTGoYXx0Kew&t=1557s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTGoYXx0Kew&t=1557s 3. Arguing with a biologist about the evidence for language being for thought (and a little bit at the end about how hierarchical structure is inefficient): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzzuPMA8s7k&t=307s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzzuPMA8s7k&t=307s