Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/27

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Chomsky Re: [Leica] XXX of the YYY? WAS (something else) (fwd)
From: Daniel Ridings <daniel.ridings@muspro.uio.no>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:03:41 +0100 (MET)
References: <200311220204.hAM24SNc012168@budah.vif.com> <3.0.2.32.20031127195233.00f09170@pop.infionline.net>

> Chomsky's seminal academic work was in the 1950's when he developed what is
> now Structural Linguistics as a distinct field.

Far from it. Structural Linguistics had existed as a distinct field before
Chomsky was born (probably). Bloomfield, Harris (Chomsky's teacher, I
think)

> And one of the first
> paradigms he developed for structural linguistics was that the only perfect
> grammar of a language was a compendium of all possible sentences which
> could be stated in that language.

Sounds like you mean generative linguistics. And it was not a compendium
(that would be finite), but a set of rules that would "generate" (thus the
name) all the grammatical sentences of a language and _only_ the
grammatical sentences (no over generation)

> Traditional linguists hated (and continue to hate) structural linguistics
> but it does have a place.

You must be old, Marc. Traditional linguists _are_ the generative school
(Chomskyaner). You must be thinking of the sixties when the structural
linguists were thought of as the traditional school.

> And, yes, Chomsky, in his field, is a genius.  I
> find that his commentaries on political, social, and artistic issues range
> from bland to banal.

Oh, I don't know if he is a genius. He's more like a moving target. He has
his disciples, but in the computer age, his theories are of less
significance. They have never been implemented. With the wealth of
electronic information out there that has to be analyzed (witness the
traffic after 9/11) "toy systems" (based on symbols, or generative
grammars) just don't cut the mustard. They are intellectually stimulating,
but they're just toy systems.

According to Chomsky we all speak the same language (the innate human
ability to use language as a means of communication). He's not interested
in English or French or German ... because such specific instantiations of
our innate ability are just haphazard expressions of the language
competence we have. It's only the innate "language" he wants to get at ...
the phase before Babel. It's about as realistic as alchemy.

He doesn't do any harm.

Daniel Ridings



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Emanuel Lowi" <mano@vif.com> (RE: [Leica] XXX of the YYY? WAS (something else) (fwd))
Message from Marc James Small <msmall@infionline.net> (Re: [Leica] XXX of the YYY? WAS (something else) (fwd))