[Corpora-List] Chomsky and computational linguistics

[Mike Maxwell]

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.
-- 
	Mike Maxwell
	maxwell at umiacs.umd.edu
	"Theorists...have merely to lock themselves in a room
	with a blackboard and coffee maker to conduct their business."
	--Bruce A. Schumm, Deep Down Things

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