Btw am I understanding you right that “syntax”, to a linguist, means the truth claims language refers to, & is separate from style?
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @michael_nielsen
No. That is semantics. In classical linguistics language is made up of phonology (and orthography) - sounds (and written symbols) morphology - word composition syntax - idea-unit composition (eg sentence) semantics - 'meaning' at all levels, eg word, sentence, paragraph etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Why Pinker and Marcus are set off is based on the huge syntactic turn caused by Chomsky which they followed: they all believe(d) syntax was the engine of language, and Universal Grammar UG was in every head just churning out good sentences using 'localized' rules as it were.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jmanooch @michael_nielsen
People actually believed that?!!?!?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @jmanooch
I had the same thought. I've chatted with some of the people who did statistical machine learning in the early 90s. I got the distinct impression _they_ didn't believe this! But then that's what you'd expect, I guess.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @s_r_constantin
Yes exactly. UG has always been hugely polarizing. Chomsky basically stomped on the comparative linguists and above all behaviorists like Skinner who didn't believe in innate language skills in the 50s. People have been after him and his paradigm ever since!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jmanooch @michael_nielsen
Innate language skills clearly exist, though. False dichotomy. There are language specialized regions in the brain, there are no cultures without language, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Why does “innate general language skill” have to imply that syntax is all there is to it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @michael_nielsen
I don't know. This is where I disagree with Chomsky. I think it's bc like Feynman & all sane souls he despises philosophy. While syntax can be and was built up at his bidding into a marvellous pseudo-computatjonal logic edifice, semantics is mushy and gets philosophical fast.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Chomsky ruthlessly subordinated semantics to syntax in order to have a clean, sciencey paradigm and discipline. Everyone agrees what he built is epic qua syntax. Just parallel with formal semantics in linguistics is another part of social theory doing the same thing - semiotics.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
My understanding is that semiotics is crappy, right? No predictive power, just social commentary?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.