Language is not organic chemistry. Here is Ev's paper on the language network: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091770/ <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091770/> (one of them)
Here is Steve's paper: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190327134547.htm <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190327134547.htm> These are pretty pristene results. My own work, in How Language Began and in a new paper that Larry Barham and I just submitted on tools and symbols in the lower paleolithic, offer similar evidence. Symbols are basic. Syntax is derivative according to these research programs. I outline a series of grammatical steps in the book and in the paper with Barham that explains how this works. Dan > On Apr 19, 2019, at 3:50 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dan, List: >> On Apr 19, 2019, at 1:20 PM, Dan Everett <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Also Steve Piantadosi (Berkeley Psychology) has shown that all the memory >> needed for much of language is about 1.5 megabytes, a small amount, with the >> amount of memory required for syntax neglible, more evidence that symbols >> drive syntax. > > If this is true then it is in stark contrast with the symbolic > representations of organic chemistry. The words are limited to the 92 > elements of the table of elements and the syntax grows, very roughly > speaking, factorially with count of the number of symbols of molecular > formula and the complete graph representing all the nuclei and electrons of > the molecular formula. > > Cheers > > Jerry > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
