Chomsky: Obsolete?
Bruno Estigarribia
aananda at stanford.edu
Fri Oct 12 01:45:34 UTC 2007
I welcome Tom's approach: let's discuss concrete claims. However, I must
disagree because I don't think we have the same sense of "explanation"
in mind. For instance, if explaining the oddity of "what did who eat"
depends on defining an otherwise unmotivated notion of "superiority",
then I don't know what "explanation" means any longer.
(In fact, (1) I---together with other colleagues at Stanford---have done
work showing that superiority is best explained by processing biases:
the data are gradient, D-linked explanations a la Pesetsky are
unmotivated and empirically wrong, and "superiority" does not exist as
soon as more than two wh-words are involved; (2) Chomsky himself has
lately "decided" that superiority is not really a core grammar
phenomenon but something to do with focus---take that for what it's worth)
Many of us linguists feel that generative syntax (in the Chomskyan
sense, not in the broader sense that includes LFG and HPSG) only works
at the shallowest levels of data, helped along by such dubious and
unfounded distinctions as competence/performance and core/periphery, and
the unrestrained use of speaker/researcher intuitions. So, I would very
much love for Tom to tell us what the explanations he has in mind are so
that we can discuss them openly here.
Cheers,
Bruno Estigarribia
> Dear All,
> Well I guess I feel inclined to exhibit the opposite challenge to those
> who disparage Chomsky's influence and current work on the acquisition
> of grammar.
> First it seems like there should be some facts under discussion.
> There is simply no non-grammatical approach that explains
> when and where grammars are productive, or non-productive, in
> the crucial cases. Who can explain why German children allow:
> what did who eat
> but English children balk at it, and allow only
> who ate what
> who can explain the pairing restriction on this expression---which
> disordered children fail to exhibit, without grammar?
> Who can explain why children allow
> Near Bill, he put a hat {Bill = he]
> and then learn not to. There is no crucial data I know---only
> a shift at an abstract level explainable in terms of deep structure.
> Who can explain why children get a diference between
> whose hat is he lifting
> and
> who lifted his hat?
> One can throw in psychological terms, but if one does not recreate
> grammar, it is pretty much impossible without grammar. These are some
> of the results of grammaticdally based work.
>
> Here's the challenge. Of course, language involves social and
> emotional factors. Who would not love to know how they are connected?
> The question is whether we have the tools to do anything more than
> describe connections. Descriptive connecxtions generally understate
> human ability--- like 19th century grammarians who acknowledged "patterns"
> but could not see the force behind creative generative power.
> In my new book "The Prism of Grammar: How Child Language
> Illuminates Humanism" I make the opposite claim: social and
> cognitive approaches will not esplain the essence of children---the
> basis for their sense of dignity---if it cannot incorporate clear,
> algorithmic concepts of creativity---as captured by recursion--
> in sentences, adjectives, and possessives---and a projection of
> structures that allow instant mechancial behavior. Our eyes dart
> around the room with an individual program that is creative and
> personal and fast.
> Until we have really rich generative models of other parts
> of the mind---the interfaces with grammar will be pedestrian
> and not really revealing, nor in my opinion respectful, of
> children. It is a big challenge----I cannot meet it, but I think
> it is why a larger model of language that captures crucial
> properties beyond grammar, has not emerged.
> How does one integrate emotions into sentences? How do
> you get your personality into your throat? Why does personality
> affect voice tones but not color perception? How do we
> generate unique emotions in unique situations just like we
> generate unique sentences? The answers will come from rich
> generative claims about the mind everywhere. They will not
> come from very general statements about "interaction".
>
> This is the view articulated in my book. I welcome discussion
> of this view and the ideas expressed there.
>
>
> Tom Roeper
>
>
>
>
> On 10/11/07, Dan I. Slobin <slobin at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> I agree. Note, that I made no claims about "relevance." Clearly,
>> linguists like Chomsky and Halliday are relevant in many ways, and their
>> thinking
>> still seriously influences much current work in various fields. In my
>> case, I took courses from Chomsky in the early sixties, when he was my hero;
>> he definitely refocused the field and phrased new and fruitful questions.
>> And I learned much from Halliday when he lectured at Berkeley, decades
>> ago. With regard to Chomsky, the question is whether his current approach
>> is useful for the fields that I listed in my last email.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> At 10:01 AM 10/11/2007, Jeff MacSwan wrote:
>>
>> I would agree with these remarks. But I think it would be insensitive, not
>> to mention empirically incorrect, to say, for instance, that Halliday is not
>> relevant today. The question is, relevant to whom? While many linguists find
>> relevance in Halliday's work, others don't. The same can be said of Chomsky.
>> I think it would be a mistake to say of either example that the figure is
>> "not relevant" to linguistics (or to anything) since the field includes
>> functionalists and formalists alike. Right?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Dan I. Slobin [ mailto:slobin at berkeley.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:52 AM
>> To: Jeff MacSwan
>> Subject: RE: Chomsky: Obsolete?
>>
>> It depends on what you consider "the current linguistics literature."
>> I enjoy the rich literature on functional, conceptual, typological,
>> diachronic,
>> developmental, anthropological, psychological, sociological, pedagogical
>> linguistic literature--all of which quite happily make great progress with
>> little
>> or no reference to generativist work. There was hardly a mention of
>> Chomsky,
>> for example, in last month's five-day international conference in Paris of
>> the Association for Linguistic Typology, as well as four more days of
>> associated workshops on many topics. Like many ideologies in our world,
>> things look different depending on which camp you live in.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> At 09:23 AM 10/11/2007, you wrote:
>>
>> It's not a surprise that those who are committed to frameworks which
>> disavow generativist work would gleefully await the day when the most
>> influential figure, who also created the field, is no longer "relevant."
>>
>> But Chomsky's work actually continues to grow in significance and
>> influence, precisely due to its relevance not only to linguistics
>> generally, but also to the social sciences, the cognitive sciences,
>> computer science and mathematics, and philosophy.
>>
>> While one can do interesting and important linguistic research that does
>> not heavily rely on Chomsky's own specific contributions to linguistic
>> theory, the idea that his work has generally lost relevance or
>> significance reflects a lack of acquaintance with the current
>> linguistics literature.
>>
>> Jeff MacSwan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: info-childes at mail.talkbank.org
>> [ mailto:info-childes at mail.talkbank.org] On Behalf Of Anat
>> Ninio
>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:56 AM
>> To: r.n.campbell
>> Cc: info-childes at mail.talkbank.org
>> Subject: Re: Chomsky: Obsolete?
>>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> Chomsky actually changed his mind about what syntax is, so maybe he's
>> now a more relevant figure than before?
>>
>> Anat Ninio
>>
>>
>>
>> r.n.campbell wrote:
>> >> *Competence vs. Performance: A False Distinction?*
>> >
>> > A broader topic (which includes this one and is equally worth
>> > discussing) is that Noam Chomsky and all his works are also obsolete.
>> > For me, it will be a happy day when this is so.
>> > --
>> >
>> > Dr Robin N Campbell
>> > Dept of Psychology
>> > University of Stirling
>> > STIRLING FK9 4LA
>> > Scotland, UK
>> >
>> > telephone: 01786-467649 facsimile: 01786-467641
>> > email: r.n.campbell at stir.ac.uk
>> > Website:
>> http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/rcampbell/index.php
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
>> > charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may
>> > be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated
>> > in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
>> > person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
>> > and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
>> > prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this
>> > message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
>> > immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
>> > for messages of this kind.
>> >
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Dan I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School
>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics
>>
>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu
>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292
>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769
>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650 fax: 1-510-642-5293
>> USA
>> http://ihd.berkeley.edu/slobin.htm
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Dan I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School
>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics
>>
>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu
>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292
>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769
>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650 fax: 1-510-642-5293
>> USA
>> http://ihd.berkeley.edu/slobin.htm
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the Info-childes
mailing list