Also, we don't have to think of a "grammar-based model"(or any other kind of model) and a computational model as being mutually exclusive. After all, programming languages are computational and used for all kinds of computation, but they have a well-defined grammar, based on insights and findings from Linguistics, not only Computer Science and mathematics and logic. We can build a computational model of almost everything.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 7:10 PM Anil Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > A typo correction: > > Read: > > "So, you are still equating "having had phonetics/phonology", which can be > translated as having formally attended and passed courses and exams in > phonetics/phonology. " > > As: > > "So, you are still equating "having had phonetics/phonology", which can be > translated as having formally attended and passed courses and exams in > phonetics/phonology with having knowledge about phonetics/phonology? And > similarly for any kind of academic knowledge?" > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:46 PM Anil Singh via Corpora < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 9:52 PM Ada Wan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Just a quick reply before the weekend to some of the points that I >>> thought deserve a short clarification: >>> >>> 1. re linguistic empowerment: yes and no. As I commented on X (formerly >>> Twitter) on 09Aug2023: "[t]here are divergent ways of thinking... but when >>> it comes to language and the social sciences, one must be careful with how >>> one "diverges"! Humans and [sic: are] humans. And much of what we postulate >>> re "in-group/out-group" can be a matter of our "traditions" (if so, is it >>> time to re-evaluate?), perspectives (if so, can we be biased sometimes?), >>> or our willingness to include or will to exclude. How different can >>> particular "languages" (in a folk psychological, proverbial usage) be, >>> really? Where do the differences lie?". >>> >> >> Of course. That goes without saying. For almost 40 years now I have been >> looking at this issue and thinking about it. I had wanted to write a book >> about it. This is what got me into languages and then NLP, because I was >> then hooked by the study of language by itself, even without the issue of >> linguistic empowerment, particularly from the computational point of view. >> I have looked at it from all possible points of view. I was not a >> linguistic purist even when I began -- with a lot of bitterness -- and I am >> certainly not that now. I have no doubt at all that there is something >> universal and species-specific about human languages, although I don't know >> in what way it is universal exactly. No one does, as far as I know. No one >> could be more against linguistic chauvinism of any kind than me. Or any >> other kind of chauvinism. >> >> >>> The same goes with "diversity" efforts. AND OF COURSE I am NOT AGAINST >>> these. >>> >> >> I believe that. I didn't say you were. I just gave an example to make my >> point. >> >> >>> But one has to be careful how far one goes with "difference(s)". >>> >> >> Only as far as is reasonable and fair to everyone. >> >> >>> 2. Re "John loves Mary" being "same/different" as "Mary loves John": it >>> depends. Note stress/emphasis/topicalization, different usage pattern(s) >>> etc., not just "subj verb obj". >>> >> >> Well, yes, that is the central contradiction of Linguistics. It is >> primarily supposed to be about spoken language, but -- quite naturally -- >> linguists in academic literature have to use examples in written form. And >> the written form misses "stress/emphasis/topicalization, different usage >> pattern(s) etc.". Being concerned with language for 40 years, how could I >> possibly not know it? >> >> However, I am unable to imagine a scenario where "John loves Mary" could >> be the same "Mary loves John", with any possible >> stress/emphasis/topicalization, different usage pattern(s) etc. for either >> of them and their combinations. It may be that I am missing something here. >> >> >>> 3. Btw, your usage of the term "word" can be replaced by other >>> alternative formulations, e.g. "term", >>> >> >> Let us terminate this terminological tussle about the term 'term', that >> is to say, the term 'word'. >> >> I have already more than once agreed that the term 'word' is ill-defined >> and that I have even written about it. In this case, you are indulging in >> what can be called shadow boxing. >> >> >>> 4. Re phonetics and phonology: I was not referring to the relevance of >>> phonetic/phonological knowledge per se, that a practitioner in the space of >>> "language and computing" would "need" in order to be competent. But that, >>> as well as a comprehensive knowledge of general language theories and a >>> broad background in p-languages and their (social/usage) contexts, belongs >>> in the toolkit of a good linguist (as in, a good language scientist). To >>> me, progressing to finer granularities is just refining our assumptions, >>> our model. >>> >> >> I mostly agree. Only mostly, since the statement above a somewhat vague >> programmatic statement. If the details were there, I could agree to >> specific things. >> >> >>> But to those who may not have had phonetics/phonology, they may be more >>> likely to think that they "need" "words" and hence my findings might be >>> either a paradigm shift or the end of the world. >>> >> >> So, you are still equating "having had phonetics/phonology", which can be >> translated as having formally attended and passed courses and exams in >> phonetics/phonology. I can't imagine how could you possibly talk about >> de-pedatization if you subscribe to this -- in my opinion -- somewhat >> ridiculous way of thinking. Pardon me for using strong words, but what you >> say is on the borderline of being offensive, if not actually offensive. And >> it is extremely silly and childish, coming from such a well-read person. >> >> >>> 5. Re triple quotes: """ >>> I copied and pasted your reply that didn't seem to have been sent to the >>> list and put it in triple quotes, as a reference (for others). >>> >> >> OK. >> >> >>> 6. Re "Do you have any idea how much hundreds of millions of Indians >>> suffer simply from being forced to use English?": in what ways are they >>> "forced"? >>> >> >> I can't even begin to attempt to describe in innumerable ways people are >> forced to use English. There is tons of literature about that, but a lot of >> it may be non-European languages. For example, it is there in Hindi. The >> book that I always wanted to write, but for various reasons couldn't, at >> least so far, was partly about that. >> >> Just to mention a few examples. The medium of instruction in India, >> particularly for higher education, and exclusively for technical and >> scientific education, is in English. Every day hundreds of millions of >> people suffer due to that. The result is that a lot of people grow up with >> complexes and stunted intellect, as they couldn't understand what the >> teacher is saying, what is written in the books, and so on. When they come >> to college, a majority of people have problems writing one decent page of >> content in either their own language(s) or English. >> >> The legal system, particularly at higher levels, works in English. As a >> result, the overwhelming majority of people have no idea what is going on. >> They have to rely on others completely, some of whom themselves may not be >> very fluent in English. >> >> All the lucrative jobs require not only knowledge of English, but spoken >> fluency in English. Not only that, your accent while speaking English puts >> you in a particular caste, so to speak. As a result, an incompetent and >> badly educated person who speaks fluent English can get through life much >> more easily than a competent well-educated person with a 'bad' English >> accent. >> >> There is little incentive to write (and read) in Indian languages, and >> therefore it is very difficult to write and publish literary or academic or >> even other kinds of books in Indian languages. >> >> And so on and on and on. >> >> The challenge is that it is very difficult to solve this problem, since >> there are many major languages in India, and so speakers of one language >> will not accept 'imposition' of another Indian language, or even the >> requirement to learn another Indian language. As a result, just as the >> British ruled by Divide-and-Conquer, so English rules in this time tested >> way. >> >> And to top it all, if you want to be associated with the global >> economics/culture/world-at-large, you again need English. >> >> >>> But I can understand that. >>> >> >> I don't think you do at all, based on your comments. >> >> >>> The more important thing is to also understand that no one has to >>> discriminate based on language(s), >>> >> >> Sure! Who can disagree with that except a language chauvinist? >> >> >>> no one has to adopt a purist attitude when it comes to >>> using/understanding of language by others. >>> >> >> Perfectly true. Did I even hint at that to the least degree? You are >> again shadow boxing. >> >> >>> People can always have various language/linguistic habits, no one has to >>> use "one language only". >>> >> >> Again, did I even hint at that in any possible way? >> >> >>> The point is not to use language as a weapon. >>> >> >> Ditto as above. >> >> >>> [These are things I think you know, but many on this list may not.] >>> >> >> I sure do. I have been thinking and researching about these matters for >> the last 40 years, almost obsessively, from all possible points of view. My >> position on this issue has changed a great deal over the years. But even >> when I started, I was not a purist in any sense of the word. I will always >> be against forcing people to do things they don't want to do. >> >> >>> Re "Do you know that there are and have been schools in the world, >>> including India, where students are punished if they are caught speaking in >>> their mother tongue (or first, "native" language)": is this still happening >>> in India? I've only had similar experiences in my "foreign language" >>> lessons and in real life (using a variety/style y when/where y can be >>> "frowned upon") --- though not "punished", just looked upon >>> with 🙄 or 👀 in ways condescending. >>> >>> >> The last time I checked, it was happening. As of this moment, I don't >> know for sure. But, as pointed out above, innumerable people do suffer in >> innumerable ways due to the supremacy of English in India. I may have some >> suggestions, but I don't really know the solution to this issue, as it is >> complicated by so many factors. I will never ever support forcing people to >> use one or the other language. >> >> Why do you make assumptions as you comment on anything and hurl >> semi-insults? You don't really know me. I didn't assume anything about you. >> >> For example, if I have understood correctly, you simply wanted to say >> that one should pay attention to stress/emphasis/topicalization (I will >> add, from my side, prosody and intonation) when considering the meanings of >> the sentences "John loves Mary" and "Mary loves John" (note that there is >> no question mark here at the end). And you went about it by first saying >> "let me guess" and then making some silly statements about my competence >> and expertise about language(s). You could have simply mentioned the >> importance of stress/emphasis/topicalization in the beginning. I can't >> imagine any reason why you have to make such assumptions. >> >> Well-read and well-educated as you are about language(s), perhaps it is >> possible, even if only remotely, that I could have a thing or two that I >> could tell you about language that you might not perhaps know? >> >> >>> Great weekend! >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] >> https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > > > -- > - Anil > -- - Anil
_______________________________________________ Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
