3 ms·

If i talk about Chomsky's generative grammar, i do not mean his literal first works, in the same way that i wouldn't mean literally Darwin's evolution when citi

by scoofy 12y ago

If i talk about Chomsky's generative grammar, i do not mean his literal first works, in the same way that i wouldn't mean literally Darwin's evolution when citing Darwin. I mean the theory, generalized as "Skinner was wrong, Chomsky was right." This is not up for debate, it's easily provable. I could site dozens of linguists, Pinker immediately comes to mind offhand. By "the evolutionary nature of natural languages," i do not mean natural language as a product of natural selection. Instead, i mean the constant flux of natural language dialects. The loss of some words, phrases, etc. over time with the adoption of new ones. "Reprise" has been replaced with "remix," "how do you do" becomes "howdy" over time. This isn't exactly controversial.

voronoff 12y ago
Having actually done research in this field, I feel confident in saying that you are wrong about the state of consensus. Here's a decent overview of the ongoing debate (assuming you are aware of what Skinner and Chomsky's theories involve): http://www.simplypsychology.org/language.html http://www.simplypsychology.org/language.html
- scoofy 12y ago
  Very interesting stuff. I will say, though, as i responded to just now. If language is instinctual, and has formal rules, or formalizable rules i think my major points above would still stand.
leephillips 12y ago
A philosopher saying that something's not up for debate? I must be dreaming. Skinner and Chomsky both came up with some ideas about language acquisition that were useful and stimulated subsequent research. They are both quite wrong, in the sense that neither theory withstands the scrutiny of research over the past 50 years in anthropology, psychology, and [computational] linguistics. Pinker is one of the more prominent critics of Chomsky, who also points out the value of some of his ideas. In stark contrast, Darwin's theory remains largely intact, with some modifications and additional insights. It's been magnificently confirmed by discoveries in genetics, of which Darwin could have known nothing. Darwin was right and created a successful theory that will live forever, even as it's added to and enhanced. We have nothing like that for a theory of language acquisition, neither from Chomsky, Skinner, nor anyone else, yet. On the whole Chomsky was not more right than Skinner in any ultimately significant way. Sorry for misapprehending what you were getting at with evolution of language. I think the idea that human language changes over time is not unfamiliar.
- scoofy 12y ago
  I certainly am getting a lot more push back on chomsky vs skinner that i ever imagined. Could we generally agree that language is instinctual and follows formal or formalalizable rules? If so, then i'd say my point still stands.
  - mattfenwick 12y ago
    > Could we generally agree that language is instinctual and follows formal or formalalizable rules No, not without some evidence. ---- > First in it's immediate dismissal of any formalism inherent in natural language That's not what Dijkstra's article is saying. > the ease at which he dismisses the proposition without any real consideration Dijkstra provides several paragraphs of clarification. IMHO, these do provide useful context and show the reader why he has the opinion that he does (of course, we may just disagree here -- but that's okay). What do you feel is missing? > This subject should be under the purview of analytic philosophy and linguistics, not mathematics or computer science. Why? > To say differently is literally, demonstrably false. Why? Can you demonstrate that, or point to a source that does? > Many people in this thread are talking about the inability of plebes to express what they actually want. This is a fair point, but not a problem with language specifically. Why not? > Graduate of analytic philosophy Possible appeal to authority. > This is not up for debate Why not? > it's easily provable. Then please prove it, or point to something else that does so. > I could site dozens of linguists, Pinker immediately comes to mind offhand. Then please do so, and please be more specific than just giving us "Pinker". The more specific you can be, the more useful the citation is. I (and presumably others here) are not familiar with his work.

by scoofy 12y ago

voronoff 12y ago

Having actually done research in this field, I feel confident in saying that you are wrong about the state of consensus. Here's a decent overview of the ongoing debate (assuming you are aware of what Skinner and Chomsky's theories involve): http://www.simplypsychology.org/language.html http://www.simplypsychology.org/language.html

scoofy 12y ago
Very interesting stuff. I will say, though, as i responded to just now. If language is instinctual, and has formal rules, or formalizable rules i think my major points above would still stand.

leephillips 12y ago

A philosopher saying that something's not up for debate? I must be dreaming. Skinner and Chomsky both came up with some ideas about language acquisition that were useful and stimulated subsequent research. They are both quite wrong, in the sense that neither theory withstands the scrutiny of research over the past 50 years in anthropology, psychology, and [computational] linguistics. Pinker is one of the more prominent critics of Chomsky, who also points out the value of some of his ideas. In stark contrast, Darwin's theory remains largely intact, with some modifications and additional insights. It's been magnificently confirmed by discoveries in genetics, of which Darwin could have known nothing. Darwin was right and created a successful theory that will live forever, even as it's added to and enhanced. We have nothing like that for a theory of language acquisition, neither from Chomsky, Skinner, nor anyone else, yet. On the whole Chomsky was not more right than Skinner in any ultimately significant way. Sorry for misapprehending what you were getting at with evolution of language. I think the idea that human language changes over time is not unfamiliar.

scoofy 12y ago
I certainly am getting a lot more push back on chomsky vs skinner that i ever imagined. Could we generally agree that language is instinctual and follows formal or formalalizable rules? If so, then i'd say my point still stands.
- mattfenwick 12y ago
  > Could we generally agree that language is instinctual and follows formal or formalalizable rules No, not without some evidence. ---- > First in it's immediate dismissal of any formalism inherent in natural language That's not what Dijkstra's article is saying. > the ease at which he dismisses the proposition without any real consideration Dijkstra provides several paragraphs of clarification. IMHO, these do provide useful context and show the reader why he has the opinion that he does (of course, we may just disagree here -- but that's okay). What do you feel is missing? > This subject should be under the purview of analytic philosophy and linguistics, not mathematics or computer science. Why? > To say differently is literally, demonstrably false. Why? Can you demonstrate that, or point to a source that does? > Many people in this thread are talking about the inability of plebes to express what they actually want. This is a fair point, but not a problem with language specifically. Why not? > Graduate of analytic philosophy Possible appeal to authority. > This is not up for debate Why not? > it's easily provable. Then please prove it, or point to something else that does so. > I could site dozens of linguists, Pinker immediately comes to mind offhand. Then please do so, and please be more specific than just giving us "Pinker". The more specific you can be, the more useful the citation is. I (and presumably others here) are not familiar with his work.