[Corpora-List] Chomsky and computational linguistics

[Steve Finch]

OK, now I can't resist....

Mike Maxwell wrote:
> Rob Freeman wrote:
> > However there is another way to interpret the same data. Same data,
> > different conclusion.
> >
> > To me the fact we get many grammars from the same set of observations
> >  (observational insufficiency) means they are all good, and we need
> > to keep the observations so we can find the one we need, when we need
> > it.
>
> If they all fit the observations thus far, how would we choose among
> them?  Unless you mean that I might control a number of dialects, and
> can turn one or another on to make a point, or to make a joke.  (And in
> fact, I might could.)  I doubt that most linguists (generative or
> otherwise) would take issue with you on that.

When we admit that there are multiple "structures" in language, each of which 
might have something interesting to say about language, the raft of arguments 
that Chomsky, Fodor et al originally proposed that essentially say that not 
*all* tranformational syntactic structure can be empirically inferred (woe 
betide theoretical physics, btw, for they have a yet harder problem without 
innate guidance) begins to crumble.  If we don't have to understand *all* of 
language in one go, then arguments that say "you might be able to get X that 
way, but what about Y and Z" can be countered by "I'll get Y and Z later, 
maybe when I have more advanced techniques that you or I haven't thought of 
yet, but right now I'm interested in X".

And then we can say without controversy that there is a *lot* of structure in 
language that can evidently be - and has demonstrably been - found 
empirically.

And in general I would say ask not what engineering can do for theory, but 
rather what theory can do for engineering.  The huge silence in this list on 
the latter point speaks volumes.

- Steve.

On Tuesday 31 July 2007 23:42, Mike Maxwell wrote:
> Rob Freeman wrote:
> > Now, to Chomsky that meant something in the mind of a native speaker
> >  must select between them.
> >
> > I don't think that hypothesis panned out.
>
> Why not?  (Of course, it's possible that there's really only one grammar
> that gets selected or built in the mind by a sufficient quantity of
> data.  Heaven knows it's difficult enough to approach observational
> adequacy, so coming up with one observationally adequate grammar may be
> harder than Chomsky realized in the beginning.)
>
> > However there is another way to interpret the same data. Same data,
> > different conclusion.
> >
> > To me the fact we get many grammars from the same set of observations
> >  (observational insufficiency) means they are all good, and we need
> > to keep the observations so we can find the one we need, when we need
> > it.
>
> If they all fit the observations thus far, how would we choose among
> them?  Unless you mean that I might control a number of dialects, and
> can turn one or another on to make a point, or to make a joke.  (And in
> fact, I might could.)  I doubt that most linguists (generative or
> otherwise) would take issue with you on that.

-- 
Steven Finch
Daxtra Technologies
Tel: +44 (0)131 653 1250
Email: s.finch at daxtra.com

_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora