Chomsky: Obsolete?
William Gregory Sakas
sakas at hunter.cuny.edu
Sat Oct 13 02:48:17 UTC 2007
Hi Everyone,
IMHO Tom is right on this one. Chomsky moved linguistics into
a field of inquiry similar to those of (for want of a better term)
natural science To say Chomsky is obsolete, is basically to say that
that move was wrong (NB we've been discussing Chomsky 'big-picture'
here, not, say Minimalist Program or even autonomy of syntax). The 'facts',
the linguistic data, should to be explained by a comprehensive theory
that explains all -- not 70 percent, 80 percent or 90 percent.
A theory posed in a generative (formal) framework is the right
way to go about this. Though as Tom points out, it is a big big task.
Short that, we let linguistics fall into studying day-to-day
language as art ... insightful, well-thought-out, meaningful
interpretation ... probably an approach some of us would advocate.
But, unlike art, there are quantifiable 'wrongs' in human language
(again as Tom points out). To me, as a scientist, this means that there
must be a theory out there that can make fully accurate predictions
about the rights-and-wrongs of human utterances (or at least
'Turing-accurate' predictions).
Of course Chomsky is/has been wrong on many counts, as he himself
often admits, but to say he's obsolete is to say that Galileo is the same
when Galileo (re)invented a method of scientific investigation that's
still the fundamental basis for scientific inquiry today.
Best all,
-- Wm
William Gregory Sakas, Ph.D.
Computer Science and Linguistics
Hunter College and the Graduate Center
City University of New York (CUNY)
Email: sakas at hunter.cuny.edu <mailto:sakas at hunter.cuny.edu>
Voice: 1 212 772.5211
Fax: 1 212 772.5219
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Roeper" <roeper at linguist.umass.edu>
To: "Dan I. Slobin" <slobin at berkeley.edu>
Cc: <info-childes at mail.talkbank.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Chomsky: Obsolete?
> 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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Tom Roeper
> Dept of Lingiustics
> UMass South College
> Amherst, Mass. 01003 ISA
> 413 256 0390
>
>
More information about the Info-childes
mailing list