Noam Chomsky: Fake Linguist

Right Wing News (blog of conservative John Hawkins) ^ | 2002 | Marc Miyake

[chilepepper]

The subcategorization rules can be assigned to the lexical component of the base in the following way. First of all, the context-free subcategorization rules can be regarded as suntactic redundancy rules, and hence assigned to the lexicon. Consider, then, the rules that introduce contextual features. These rules select certain frames in which a symbol appears, and they assign corresponding contextual features. A lexical entry may be substituted in these positions if its contextual features match those of the sumbol for which it is substituted. Obviously, the contextual features must appear in lexical items. But the rules that introduce contextual features into complex symbols can be eliminated by an appropriate reformulation of the lexical rule, that is, the rule that introduces lexical items into derivations.

So that's what's going on in an infant's brain when they are looking at their mother!

[Revolting cat!]

It's like the other fact--Barbra Streisand was wonderful in "Hello Dolly."

Thanks for providing a handy reference point, but oy! Streisand is the epitomy, a model, a prototype of a lounge singer: pretentious, over emoting interpreter of kitschy, sentimental pop tunes that Broadway geniuses turn out by the dozen for the petty bourgeois audiences. Even Jimmy Webb's MacArthur Park was above that. Trash is trash, I'm afraid. Compare to Dusty Springfield of the same era, or to early Dionne Warwick. Or compare to the male Barbra Robert Goulet of Feelings and similar torch operas!

I can't discuss linguistics, but as I said, a reference point is a pretty good indicator nevertheless.

[MinuteGal]

Probably picking my sergeant, LOL!

Leni

[js1138]

I'm not sure that the failures of AI are really traceable to Chomsky...

I've been away all day and am a bit surprised to have gotten by with so few flames. I came upon Chomsky from the psychology/learning theory aspect rather than from the computer science or political aspect of his writings. this was about 35 years ago and I have not kept up with the details of his career.

It seemed to me that his assertion that aspects of language were built in to the brain was tautalogical -- of course there must be some underlying structural differences between humans, apes, and other animals -- else we could teach sign language or reading to dogs. The question is whether this assertion adds anything to our knowledge. It seems to me that transformational grammer has been kind of sterile in the realm of human language. I know of no school of psychology that uses any of his ideas in a teaching or therapy setting. I know of no Chomskian school of literary criticism, no transformational grammer of poetry.

The reason, I assume, is that grammer and syntax are rather trivial aspects on language that say nothing about the underlying motivation for talking in the first place. Is there, for example, a Chomskian method for analyzing a statement for its probable truthfulness or sincerity, or humorous intent, or double entendre? Is there a Chomskian analysis of inflection?

I see a parallel in Chomsky's approach to language and his approach to politics. I politics he believes that all human needs can be fulfilled by the application of rigorous logic (from above, of course). Individual will is messy and unnecessary. Emotions are nasty and need to be suppressed.

[Black Agnes]

ping.

[js1138]

Chomsky repudiated Skinner and was an important voice in bringing down the Skinnerian establishment.

Chomsky won the battle, and Skinner was roundly chastized for oversimplifying, but Skinner's ideas are firmly embeded in Special education, most forms of therapy, and all the animal training seen in Hollywood movies. Both Chomsky's and Skinner's politics have a strong whiff of Stalinism about them, but both have contributed something to science.

There is some actual experimental support for Chomsky's assertion that Grammer is built in. People with certain kinds of brain injuries exhibit inability to form or understand some grammatical constructions. I believe there are some subtle gentetic "defects" that manifest themselves as inability to learn certain gramatic forms except by rote memorization. OK so far.

My problem is that people seldom use language to convey information. They speak in order to influence other people's behavior. This may involve conveying disinformation. disI am concerned with meaning and motivation. Our view of language has been warped by the invention of written language and printing. It's hard to realize that most verbatim transcripts of conversations are nearly unreadable, except those of highly trained broadcast professionals.

[ggekko]

This article points out the profound problesm associated with the Government funding of science. Once a particular theory has been adopted it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: advocates of new theories cannot get grant funding for research because advocates of the dominant theory run the peer review committees.

This problem is not confined to linguistics. It is particularly accute in Biology where evolutionary bilogical theories are given the status of revealed truth and "heretics" from the accepted theory are drummed out of the profession.

Academicians are particular attracted to "gnostic" theories; that is to say theories that claim to embody a "hidden" knowledge that only the cognoscenti can absorb. Chomsky's theory smacks of academic gnosticism since it seems immune from experimental proof or disproof. Freudianism, Marxism, and Structuralism are examples of the same intellectual tendency.

The abolishment of tenure should become an important conservative political goal. Some healthy competition among the professoriat would quickly begin to clean the trendy Maxrsist anti-americanism that dominates the Humanities departments in most Universities.

[js1138]

Chomsky is on record as being doubtful that evolution could produce the inborn language abilities he postulates. That puts him, I think, in the ID camp, if not the creationist camp.

[A_perfect_lady]

The problem I have with Chomsky is his carriage-before-the-horse mindset. He makes me think of an anatomist marvelling that the human hand was obviously fashioned to hold a hammer.

[js1138]

I will grant him more than that. Language is more than just a cultural artifact. My problem is that I believe that grammar is a rather small subset of language. Computers can handle grammar and syntax, but they are rather deficient in the realm of meaning.

I will also stake my self esteem on the assertion that there no little transformational engines in the brain, and that the structures and processes that produce language are not "logical" or "rational".

[general_re]

this was about 35 years ago and I have not kept up with the details of his career.

You haven't missed anything - careerwise, he hasn't done anything worthwhile in forty years. Actually, I once heard it suggested that his problem was premature success - he came right out of the gate with theories on universal grammars, generative grammmars, transformational grammars, and ever since, has been really struggling to duplicate that sort of early success. And so his politics have gradually become more and more outrageous (stupid, if you ask me) in an attempt to keep himself in the public eye. He's done nothing of note in linguistics since the early Sixties - it's all politics keeping the spotlight on him nowadays.

Does his work tell us anything new about human nature? Probably not, but it does tell us useful things about the nature of languages. Now, if you want flames, try praising his semi-retarded political theories. ;)

[ggekko]

"That puts him, I think, in the ID camp, if not the creationist camp..."

Having read some of Chomsky's work I think he would repudiate any such identification. I think Chomsky would shoehorn his theory under a neo-evolutionary framework if he was asked to take a position on the subject (not that that makes any particular sense but he is idelogically hostile to teleology).

The question I was seeking to address was the one alluded to obliquely in the original post. Based on my cursory inspection of Chomsky's work his theory is not a valid scientific theory because it is not defined in such a way that it can ever be proven false. It reminds me a great deal of Freadianism where every psychological behavior is subsumed under the explanation of "supressed drives". Chomsky's "meta grammar" construct seems to me to be equivalent to Freud's "supressed drives"; it is so general of a explanation it is vacuous.

[js1138]

but it does tell us useful things about the nature of languages...

Formal languages, perhaps, but human language does not lend itself easily to formal analysis-- and that is the problem confronting AI. Premature success? Probably. A lot of folks in the mid 20th century, including his nemisis Skinner, thought they were closing in on the psychological theory of everything.

[cookcounty]

All I know about Chomsky is that he's extremely incompetent when it comes to math. When we went into Afghanistan, he predicted that "millions" (plural) would die. He has a very hard time keeping basic facts straight. Maybe he's getting dementia from old age, in a sad way, he's kind of amusing to listen to.

[general_re]

Formal languages, perhaps, but human language does not lend itself easily to formal analysis-- and that is the problem confronting AI.

Personally, I'd say the problem is a bit more of a meta-problem than that. IMO, it's a mistake to simply try to rebuild the human mind in silicon, as though that were the only sort of intelligence possible. Like I said, I don't think anyone's really adequately framed the problem - they've spent 40 years asking the wrong questions.

A lot of folks in the mid 20th century, including his nemisis Skinner, thought they were closing in on the psychological theory of everything.

A lot of folks still seem to think that, only now it's done under the rubric of "evolutionary psychobiology" and the like. It's fun, it's interesting, and it's almost 100% purely speculative. Actually, it's a lot like linguistics in that respect ;)

[Mamzelle]

re: petty bourgeois audiences

Well, then, I'm afraid you're talking to one! I love the musicals of the forties, fifties, and sixties. But please don't let BS talk in public without a scriptwriter.

[js1138]

Based on my cursory inspection of Chomsky's work his theory is not a valid scientific theory because it is not defined in such a way that it can ever be proven false.

I'm a bit over my head int the computer science end of this discussion, but I think Chomsky proved that any language comprised of tokens and syntax is equivalent to any other such language.

But applying this to human language requires omitting much of what language is about.

What Skinner tried to do (and apparently failed) is describe how meaning is tokenized. Rather than start with syntax, he tried to describe the function of language, or why it is we talk.