5 ms·

Actual human natural language isn’t recursive in any meaningful sense. Formal grammar - an (often futile) attempt to describe the structure of natural languages

by derriz 2y ago

Actual human natural language isn’t recursive in any meaningful sense. Formal grammar - an (often futile) attempt to describe the structure of natural languages - is generally expressed using a formal mathematical system which features recursion.

calf 2y ago
Actual human natural language is meaningfully recursive, because any grade school student understands the recursive properties of certain toy sentence examples in that they could "go on forever" as a set of arbitrarily larger complex sentences. The commonality of mathematical grammars (as mathematical objects in their own right) and natural language is that both have computational properties such as recursive structure - or ambiguity, which was discussed in the paper.
- derriz 2y ago
  You're confusing the object language (human natural language) and the meta-language (formal grammars - ala Chomsky). Formal grammar theory relies on recursive formulae to define what is a a language (formally set of sentences), natural language itself does not use/require recursion as understood in the same way. Some natural languages support grammatical features like sub-clauses but that's only "recursive" in the sense that attempts to describe such features (using formal language grammars) use recursion when in fact and in practice nesting sub-clauses do not "go on forever". An analogy with computer programming languages - programming languages exist that do NOT support recursion (pre-Algol) but nonetheless require recursion to define their formal grammar. For example, a programming language can support limitless nested lexical scoping (loosely analogous to sub-clauses in natural language) WITHOUT supporting recursion (which requires a stack and managing frames). For some programming languages (functional for example), recursion is such a key feature that it's inconceivable that the language could be useful without it. This is not the case for natural languages. Most of the people I interact with daily have English as a second language and rarely or never use sub-clauses (which are not recursive but are often used to claim that language is recursive) so from practical experience, I know that English as a communication tool looses very little expressive power when users do not use sub-clauses.
  - bbor 2y ago
    I'd definitely say all language use must rely on recursion, you're just highlighting our tendency to halt the pronunciation of it early at arbitrary points due to linguistic norms. Like, AFAIU this was Chomsky's whole impetus, and I really don't think anyone has answered better than he: how can a finite system compute linguistic meaning in finite time, otherwise? I'd guess the "natural language" answer would be along the lines of "it just comes naturally who knows", in which case I'm staying I'm on my side of the battle lines ;) Either way, I think you'd win a Nobel for proving that complex recursive processes aren't going on inside the head of someone speaking in natural language. We can discuss the likely situation all day, but directly measuring this in the moment seems well beyond our technical capabilities
    - derriz 2y ago
      I think Chomsky is a linguist really more famous and respected among non-linguists than actual experts in the field. I don't think modern linguistics - particularly applied linguistics for example in the area of language acquisition - references Chomsky. His theories are unfalsifiable and un-empirical and thus, for me, unscientific. This discussion is typical. Chomsky's definition of "recursion" - like that of a "language organ" - has become completely plastic. In his initial work, it was deeply tied to the same notion in formal grammar theory but is constantly redefined and evolving as the initial notion becomes more and more dubious. The "human language is unique in that it is _recursive_" theory has no practical application and has provided no path for advancement in the field of language pedagogy for example. Watch me chew up a bunch of karma dismissing Chomsky's theories of language. It's what often happens with comments that question his theories of language - I don't know why it's seemingly impossible to just admire his politics without feeling the need to vigorously defend his 60 or 70-year-old theories of language which have long been abandoned in the field.
      - foobarqux 2y ago
        It would genuinely shock me if Chomsky wasn't the most cited author for works published today even if you exclude works that are dismissive of him. The reason the specifics of Chomsky's proposals are changing is that it isn't a solved problem and he and others are continuing to try to advance the understanding by revising proposals in light of better arguments, simpler explanation and (contrary to what you say, see [1] which lists some examples) experimental evidence. In Chomsky's most recent book he himself quotes Wheeler: "Surely someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will all say to each other, ‘Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind so long!’". I think people have a hard time understanding this because it is one of the few nascent sciences and therefore no one has figured out the fundamental theories. And if some specific proposal like X-bar theory is falsified or supplanted by something else that doesn't falsify the core ideas of universal grammar or the minimalist program. You say that it isn't possible to provide evidence that these are false but Moro for example conducted experiments comparing hierarchical and linear language processing that potentially would have provided reasonable evidence against language being hierarchical had they shown linear languages were processed similarly (instead they support it). The reason you should be downvoted is that you made a bunch of evidence free assertions; You could have said "Neil Bohr's work has been completely falsified and is of dubious value" with the same amount of supporting argument. [1] https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007363 https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007363

by derriz 2y ago

calf 2y ago

Actual human natural language is meaningfully recursive, because any grade school student understands the recursive properties of certain toy sentence examples in that they could "go on forever" as a set of arbitrarily larger complex sentences. The commonality of mathematical grammars (as mathematical objects in their own right) and natural language is that both have computational properties such as recursive structure - or ambiguity, which was discussed in the paper.

derriz 2y ago
You're confusing the object language (human natural language) and the meta-language (formal grammars - ala Chomsky). Formal grammar theory relies on recursive formulae to define what is a a language (formally set of sentences), natural language itself does not use/require recursion as understood in the same way. Some natural languages support grammatical features like sub-clauses but that's only "recursive" in the sense that attempts to describe such features (using formal language grammars) use recursion when in fact and in practice nesting sub-clauses do not "go on forever". An analogy with computer programming languages - programming languages exist that do NOT support recursion (pre-Algol) but nonetheless require recursion to define their formal grammar. For example, a programming language can support limitless nested lexical scoping (loosely analogous to sub-clauses in natural language) WITHOUT supporting recursion (which requires a stack and managing frames). For some programming languages (functional for example), recursion is such a key feature that it's inconceivable that the language could be useful without it. This is not the case for natural languages. Most of the people I interact with daily have English as a second language and rarely or never use sub-clauses (which are not recursive but are often used to claim that language is recursive) so from practical experience, I know that English as a communication tool looses very little expressive power when users do not use sub-clauses.
- bbor 2y ago
  I'd definitely say all language use must rely on recursion, you're just highlighting our tendency to halt the pronunciation of it early at arbitrary points due to linguistic norms. Like, AFAIU this was Chomsky's whole impetus, and I really don't think anyone has answered better than he: how can a finite system compute linguistic meaning in finite time, otherwise? I'd guess the "natural language" answer would be along the lines of "it just comes naturally who knows", in which case I'm staying I'm on my side of the battle lines ;) Either way, I think you'd win a Nobel for proving that complex recursive processes aren't going on inside the head of someone speaking in natural language. We can discuss the likely situation all day, but directly measuring this in the moment seems well beyond our technical capabilities
  - derriz 2y ago
    I think Chomsky is a linguist really more famous and respected among non-linguists than actual experts in the field. I don't think modern linguistics - particularly applied linguistics for example in the area of language acquisition - references Chomsky. His theories are unfalsifiable and un-empirical and thus, for me, unscientific. This discussion is typical. Chomsky's definition of "recursion" - like that of a "language organ" - has become completely plastic. In his initial work, it was deeply tied to the same notion in formal grammar theory but is constantly redefined and evolving as the initial notion becomes more and more dubious. The "human language is unique in that it is _recursive_" theory has no practical application and has provided no path for advancement in the field of language pedagogy for example. Watch me chew up a bunch of karma dismissing Chomsky's theories of language. It's what often happens with comments that question his theories of language - I don't know why it's seemingly impossible to just admire his politics without feeling the need to vigorously defend his 60 or 70-year-old theories of language which have long been abandoned in the field.
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      It would genuinely shock me if Chomsky wasn't the most cited author for works published today even if you exclude works that are dismissive of him. The reason the specifics of Chomsky's proposals are changing is that it isn't a solved problem and he and others are continuing to try to advance the understanding by revising proposals in light of better arguments, simpler explanation and (contrary to what you say, see [1] which lists some examples) experimental evidence. In Chomsky's most recent book he himself quotes Wheeler: "Surely someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will all say to each other, ‘Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind so long!’". I think people have a hard time understanding this because it is one of the few nascent sciences and therefore no one has figured out the fundamental theories. And if some specific proposal like X-bar theory is falsified or supplanted by something else that doesn't falsify the core ideas of universal grammar or the minimalist program. You say that it isn't possible to provide evidence that these are false but Moro for example conducted experiments comparing hierarchical and linear language processing that potentially would have provided reasonable evidence against language being hierarchical had they shown linear languages were processed similarly (instead they support it). The reason you should be downvoted is that you made a bunch of evidence free assertions; You could have said "Neil Bohr's work has been completely falsified and is of dubious value" with the same amount of supporting argument. [1] https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007363 https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007363