Chomsky: Obsolete?
Lise Menn
Lise.Menn at Colorado.EDU
Sat Oct 13 20:59:27 UTC 2007
Tom, I frankly don't understand some of this. First, did you really
mean ' an implied "you" not "he" when you are discussing
imperatives? If that's NOT a simple pronoun exchange slip, can you
explain more?
Can you give an example of a difference between exclamatives and
imperatives that is not explainable by pragmatics/semantics?
And could you elaborate what you mean by 'a system that treats
pragmatics and semantics as confirmation routines for syntax'? I take
it you mean that the child connects syntactic evidence to an innate
grammar first, and the role pragmatics and semantics can play is
secondary. Would you let such non-syntactic evidence disconfirm a
hypothesis based on syntax, or only confirm it? In either case, can
you explain why you take the position that you do?
Lise
On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:42 AM, Tom Roeper wrote:
> IN 1975 Chomsky said acquisition had to be consistent with
> "with triggering experience" which refers to more than syntax which
> I asked
> him about and he immediately agreed. Imperatives, which command
> a child's attention, could be linked immediately to structural
> representations
> so that the child knows that there is an implied "he" not "you".
> The whole
> experience is necessary to set the subtle properties of imperatives
> in place---
> and distinguish them from exclamatives (a paper linking semantics
> and two word utterances has been written by me and Chris POtts if
> anyone
> is interested).
> Getting the deductive part linked to a system that treats
> pragmatics
> and semantics as confirmation routines for syntax---that is the
> challenge
> we must meet I think. If we can model this, then we have a first step
> toward incorporating the kinds of data that are implicitly being
> referred to in this discussion I think, to explain language
> acquisition.
> To explain language use is quite a different matter---but one that can
> give insights into acquisiiton model.
>
> Tom
>
> On 10/12/07, William Gregory Sakas <sakas at hunter.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> 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 natural science To say Chomsky is obsolete, is basically to say that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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Tom Roeper
> Dept of Lingiustics
> UMass South College
> Amherst, Mass. 01003 ISA
> 413 256 0390
>
Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274
1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017
Boulder CO 80302
Professor Emerita of Linguistics
Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science
University of Colorado
Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics]
Campus Mail Address:
UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science
Campus Physical Address:
CINC 234
1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/info-childes/attachments/20071013/c0a65099/attachment.htm>
More information about the Info-childes
mailing list