>>Speakers proficient in a language know what expressions are acceptable
in their language and what expressions are unacceptable. The key
puzzle is how speakers should come to know the restrictions of their
language, since expressions that violate those restrictions are not
present in the input, in
RD:>>The issue is not coherence in the semantic sense, but syntactic
> intelligibility. <<
The issue for proponents and opponents of a formalised grammar might
be: Is it use of rules that decides syntactical well-formedness? Time
and time again I have seen Chomskian grammarians use their 'intuitio
On 6/10/10, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> The issue is not coherence in the semantic sense, but syntactic
> intelligibility. The early phase of TG grammar did a remarkable job of
> explaining how certain transformations were possible and others not, in
> this case, in the English language. In this *senten
The issue is not coherence in the semantic sense, but syntactic
intelligibility. The early phase of TG grammar did a remarkable job of
explaining how certain transformations were possible and others not, in
this case, in the English language. In this *sentence, "what" is the
direct object of "s
On 6/9/10, c b wrote:
> Speakers proficient in a language know what expressions are acceptable
> in their language and what expressions are unacceptable. The key
> puzzle is how speakers should come to know the restrictions of their
> language, since expressions that violate those restrictions are
>>CB: This is an interesting puzzle, although Language learners may have
limited access to some such ungrammatical expressions when they
mistakenly say them themselves. Perhaps it is a matter in part of a
very high skill at learning from mistakes, trial and error and ability
to generalize the lesso
Intwresting piece
Kind regards
Paddy hackett
On 9 Jun 2010, at 07:44, CeJ wrote:
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627621.000-language-lessons-you-are-what-you-speak.html?full=true
>
> Language lessons: You are what you speak
>
> excerpt:
>
> LANGUAGES are wonderfully idiosyncratic. En
Speakers proficient in a language know what expressions are acceptable
in their language and what expressions are unacceptable. The key
puzzle is how speakers should come to know the restrictions of their
language, since expressions that violate those restrictions are not
present in the input, indi
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627621.000-language-lessons-you-are-what-you-speak.html?full=true
Language lessons: You are what you speak
excerpt:
LANGUAGES are wonderfully idiosyncratic. English puts its subject
before its verb. Finnish has lots of cases. Mandarin is highly tonal.
Yet
Yes universal grammar. It's been many years and some of my vocabulary
is lost. I 'll read the item
On 6/5/10, CeJ wrote:
> >>CB: Yes. I'm trying to distinguish between the syntax of a specific
> human language like English, which I don't think you or Chomsky is
> inscribed in human genetics and t
>>CB: Yes. I'm trying to distinguish between the syntax of a specific
human language like English, which I don't think you or Chomsky is
inscribed in human genetics and the brain , and a ,what shall we call
it, meta-syntax? or some more general genetically inscribed ability,
faculty for learning an
On 6/3/10, CeJ wrote:
> >>CB: Is this that capacity to (readily and speedily)_ learn_ a given
> syntax is innate and genetically passed on ? I guess that's what you
> mean by "reflective".<<
>
> I'm following you on this CB, and am not necessarily in disagreement
> with you on the key points.
>
>
>>Linearity. This come first, then this second, then this third. That's order.
The thought is a whole, but it is presented in parts; the parts are
presented in an order dictated by rules.
The rule is a convention, "arbitrary", cultural, based on a tradition.
There is no natural order in which to
>>CB: Is this that capacity to (readily and speedily)_ learn_ a given
syntax is innate and genetically passed on ? I guess that's what you
mean by "reflective".<<
I'm following you on this CB, and am not necessarily in disagreement
with you on the key points.
I was, however, pointing out that ho
CeJ jannuzi
We have been over some of this before--that is, Quine, Chomsky, the
phoneme--but one point to remember here would be that at least with
early conceptions, syntax of natural language is reflective of an
inn
[Marxism-Thaxis] .
CeJ jannuzi
We could use abstract and arbitrary symbols or schema (tree diagrams,
for example) to represent a language's syntax (indeed, descriptive
linguistics did before Chomsky, and then the use of such for
formalization after Chomsky really took off), but I'm not at all clear
On 6/3/10, CeJ wrote:
> >>On 5/28/10, CeJ wrote:
> > Actually rules can't be rules without symbols, but are they symbolic?
>
>
> CB: Yeah, rules must be expressed in symbols.
>
> What do you mean by symbolic ?<<
>
>
> A symbol is something that stands for another thing which it is not
>
We have been over some of this before--that is, Quine, Chomsky, the
phoneme--but one point to remember here would be that at least with
early conceptions, syntax of natural language is reflective of an
innate cognitive capacity and genetically passed on in humans.
Chomsky though is a structuralist
It always seemed to me--from the very time I was introduced to
Chomsky's work in a philosophy of language class in 1982--that he
basically took the ideas of people like Carnap and extended them to
natural languages. Indeed, has Chomsky's conceptualization of
'competence' (an abstract ideal) ever
We could use abstract and arbitrary symbols or schema (tree diagrams,
for example) to represent a language's syntax (indeed, descriptive
linguistics did before Chomsky, and then the use of such for
formalization after Chomsky really took off), but I'm not at all clear
on how symbolic word or morphe
>>On 5/28/10, CeJ wrote:
> Actually rules can't be rules without symbols, but are they symbolic?
CB: Yeah, rules must be expressed in symbols.
What do you mean by symbolic ?<<
A symbol is something that stands for another thing which it is not
for at least two people in a communicati
On 5/28/10, CeJ wrote:
> Actually rules can't be rules without symbols, but are they symbolic?
CB: Yeah, rules must be expressed in symbols.
What do you mean by symbolic ?
^^^
>
> This could be linked to the earlier discussion of how phonetic
> gestures make all of language poss
Also, it can be demonstrated that complex systems for communication
(or at least models of them) can be
created and stablized without rules.
One issue, again, is how to account for the origins of a system.
The second issue is explaining how such a system functions once
created and stablized.
Not
Actually rules can't be rules without symbols, but are they symbolic?
This could be linked to the earlier discussion of how phonetic
gestures make all of language possible, including syntactically
recursive.
CJ
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-T
24 matches
Mail list logo
