/sci/ - Science & Math

Chomsky is a Zionist shill that took money from the dod and tbe military industrial complex

>Its another "Chomky is clearly bad and wrong even though I can never substantiate anything I'm talking about or give concrete references to his works or their refutations" thread

Come on, the CIA clearly pays you guys too much for the effort.

>>11094855
Not all linguists agree with it.

I don't. But some parts of it do make sense.

>>11094855
T. language learner
Can someone explain his theory to me in a nutshell?

>>11094979
He assumed that all of human grammar fits into a single framework. This triggers the postmodernist linguist for whom every language is something special and valued.

>>11095157
>assumed that all of human grammar fits into a single framework
yeah, if you could just explain this "Framework" by Monday, that would be great.

>>11095157
How is his theory in opposition to postmodernism?

>>11095428
Hah sorry. Google X-Bar theory for one of the theories (what I called informally framework) of his minimalist program (how this movement is called). It's typical Chomsky stuff, you draw big trees and have some rules about those trees. Btw. not that much of a help for practical language learning, it is way to removed from the concrete languages to offer you shortcuts of any sort.

As for the why: Chomsky had the idea that the young brain has some sort of super-grammar and while the child grows up, some parameters (such a word order, how to form cases,...) get switched off depending on the mother language. The minimalist(m?) program wants to find that language.

>>11095448
Only semi serious - postmodernism is allergic to absolute statements and "every word uttered by any human ever follows a theory which we describe on page 10-213" does go against this.

>>11094855
>defining some kind of complicated term-rewriting system that ends up not fitting M'Bungu Bl'X'ith, a language spoken by 15 cavemen in Central Africa
Yawn.
>>11095490
>questing for the mystic god language
Now this I can sort of dig.

>>11095490
Ok thanks.
It sounds like he's just saying that humans when born have a universal potential and tendency for shape, sound, colour, pattern and symbol recognition and as we grow and develop we specialize for specific patterns and styles used by our immediate culture/society & surroundings and "tune out" those that differ from our own usages such as vastly different or foreign languages

This whole concept does not seem to disagree with the idea put forth in SF movies about how Alien races could be communicated with on some math based system because hurrdurr math is universal and every advanced form of life would use it

I'm not very impressed by this idea, its interesting i guess and probably way beyond me in the higher technical aspects, but doesnt seem like very much of a revelation

>>11095495
Aren't postmodernists more interested in the meaning of words and their connections to other words? Frankly, I don't see how it's in opposition. Based on how the other anons describe it, it just tells us that just we aren't blank slates when it comes to language. Unless we are talking about some extreme postmodernism that throws science out the window completely, it seems compatible.

>>11095510
What you describe sounds like the current consensus, human brains adapting to their environment from scrap. Chomsky proposes that for language learning, human brains adapt by dumbing down a very rich genetically determined grammar, instead of learning the grammar from the ground up.

Aliens: Wew out of my leauge here. Chomskys theory makes sense in any kind of group that think with neuronal networks and does individual learning, I guess?
But if that is food for food: If there is any law that is true for all languages in the universe its that communication is energy efficient. (Look up Zips law for example)

>>11095531
Honstly, I am just a MINT nerds rambling about the fear of absolute statements, which I associate with postmodernism.
Chomskys theory would allow an definitive, absolute description of any language ever spoken, since you could describe say french in terms if which parameters it uses (french uses parameter 1 3 and 4 but not 7. Here is the vocabulary. Thats the language)

>>11095543
so if it all turned out ot be legitimate and true, then theoretically you could program some universal language translator and be able to interpret and communicate in any language or between any number of different language one to there other back and forth,
if there was some program set that had all the rules written into it

i expect this is what Google is working on?

>>11095549
Assumption: correct. About google: No, they don't depend of some kind of well-understoof big grammar, they (like every other successfull AI thing these days) use neuronal networks that start from zero or some weak training and then just train these networks with the learning equivalent of thousands of years.

>>11095554
Google uses a popular autistic mongolian basket weaving forum for their training though, which is also why they're never have AGI unless they don't mind it being extremely autistic and having an inability to read non 2D human emotion

>>11095549
> then theoretically you could program some universal language translator and be able to interpret and communicate in any language or between any number of different language one to there other back and forth

No, this isn't what UG 'gets you'. UG, in theory, describes the biases which cause us to learn the structure of language far more rapidly than would otherwise be possible by reducing the 'space' of viable gramatical structure to certain kinds of forms. The problem of "what words/phrases actually mean" is a different problem that wouldn't be solved, even with a theoretically complete description of UG, as this is heavily dependent on context and doesn't seem to conform to any kind of easily expressible rules.

>>11095685
Sounds like developmental bias in evolution

>>11094855
How long are you going to pretend you have read and understood any of chomskys work?

>>11094855
> front for Chomsky's political bullshit
explain

>>11095775
>Thinking OP has any arguments

As someone that Speaks Dutch, German, Japanese, Some English and Some Chinese I can immediately tell that this "Universal grammar" is a load of shit.

Sure between Dutch, German and English there is a huge overlap due to having common origins but for Japanese and Chinese it's so different that I clearly felt my mindset change and view the world and language differently after learning them.

For example there isn't even a future tense in Japanese you can't directly refer to something in the future. You imply it through linguistic hints. You can speak about yourself in third person in Japanese and sometimes HAVE to speak in third person to be grammatically correct.

it goes beyond just the placing of where grammar goes but includes completely different concepts that are unique to those languages.

1984 the book is mainly about how you can only express thoughts through vocabulary you know. I think it goes one step further and you can only thing in grammatical ways.

One study pointing in favor of this is that Japanese people have a far longer-term view on life and environmentalism. Most likely because there is no distinction between present and future tense and thus in their mind these two concepts are kinda combined. So the immediacy of future events is heavily tied to the present in their brains.

Talking about yourself in third person view makes you reflect more on your own actions and look at yourself from an outsider perspective which results in the Japanese culture being more respective of personal boundaries and how their own actions impacts others. Causing them to put politeness on a pedestal.

It's extremely hard to explain to people that only speak one language or only closely related languages how learning such a language actually changes your perspective and worldview but it certainly does and I kinda can't take linguistics seriously anymore the more languages I start to learn.

>>11095811
I still see no argument against a framework that contains all of what you said and then gets tuned down to the specific culture. I speak German, Englisch, Italian fluently, understand Korean at a basic level and made native Mandarin speaker happy with my success. I buy into all that different worldview stuff. I still think UG is neat.

Why do you think a far-longer perception of time is anything deep in particular? Could well be 2-3 neurons that fire funny.The evidence that you worldview was able to change even as an adult is only evidence of how shallow our perception actually is. I don't see a problem with both a universal grammar and worldview that gets reduced to a particular culture when growing up.

>>11095811
>Japanese people have a far longer-term view on life and environmentalism
And yet Chinese, as you know, has similar grammar with respect to the future and they are far and away the most recklessly polluting country on the planet. You're doing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis an immense disservice by running your mouth like this with half-baked naive nonsense.

Isn't a grammar just weighted context variables presented by a functional language user/operator?

I ? Process = YES/SIGTERM

Like, when does anyone learn what they read to be applicable to groups beyond their longest 'con-story'? When can a stranger blow their minds, sexually preferably, but if not then anything that is conjunctively synonymous with +1 -> BACK OF THE QUEUE FOR THAT ENTIRE SYNTAX FAMILY then yay me/us/we.

>>11095811
>the fact that i speak multiple languages means this theory is nonsense

Youve completely fucking missed the point of his theory you ape.

>>11094954
it's no t even the cia at this point, the sad part is that Chomsky's main audience is disenfranchised right and left wing libertarians and a few linguists, Chomsky is one of the few reasons these movement have the legitimacy that they have. And these unread faggots hate on him out of pure antisemitism. They owe this kike more than they could ever repay.

>>11096088
The Twelve Female Negotiators for Father's Divine Existence.

As soon as I argue for my True existence, even you complain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kndYAscsEDM

>>11095771
How long are we going to pretend that Chomsky speaks any other language than English or Yiddish?

>>11095811
>I kinda can't take linguistics seriously anymore the more languages I start to learn.

Just as I can't take seriously those who think English is Germanic and ignore the huge chunk of it being Latin and by extension langue d'oil.

>>11095965
>>11095899

Does programming languages like C or Python obey universal grammar

>>11094855
Computational linguist here. Chomsky is pretty much full of shit. Obviously there is going to be some kind of common language faculty among all humans, but his poverty of the stimulus argument was never rigorously demonstrated and the people studying language acquisition basically think that language is first acquired in chunks without understanding the rules rather than as particular settings within a universal grammar. Linguists have been trying to build computational models of natural language forever and it will never work because natural languages are not perfectly coherent and clean like programming languages are - although even so, we can get our models pretty close and they are still very useful

Not only are you a sad poltard pathetically attacking someone's academic work based on your stupid ideals, but you don't even understand how machine learning established the universal grammar theory.

>>11097804
>machine learning established the universal grammar theory

>>11096021
is this oc? it's cute

>>11097550
nah, those only make you gay desu

>>11095811
Do you actually know anything about Universal Grammar besides its name?

>>11094979
In its most basic form :

A set of rules, biologically printed in our brain, that dictates the possibilies of language.

X is set of rules. Y, B, C are rules in the set that each contain other rules, with conditions, etc etc. You can also check his 4 levels of grammars, like automatas. Recursivity, generating rules with other rules within contexts, etc.

A lot of linguistics research is sadly deeply biased by the english language and writting/alphabetical systems in general.

>>11097550
No, but in a sense yes. You can check out his grammar hierarchy. Programming language are lv 2 or 3 I believe. Depends on which one. Human language is a mix of 1 and 2.

>>11097736
Nice to see another computational linguist here.

I got banned twice here for talking about linguistics/nlp because it wasn't "science".

>>11097855

then doesn't this disprove universal grammar since human can invent languages that do not obey universal grammar?

>>11097855
>he doesn't wear programming socks for the heightened performance factors
ya aint gonna make it

>blocks Chomsky's path

>>11097480
He probably doesnt even speak yiddish, doesnt cchange the fact that chomsky isnt the only linguist and UG isnt the only idea which makes you assertion about the field self evidently retarded. Read a book.

>>11094939
>Zionist shill
He constantly criticizes Israel you retard.

https://youtu.be/XeWWz4y1coU

>>11099623

looks like Trump's election triggered him so much he stopped shaving

>>11099623

also he seems to believe warmer temperature will cause an apocalypse

>>11095811
>pseud
>weeb
>1984 citing
>retard

You have it all anon

>>11095811
>になる is not future tense
>Not specifying which pronoun you're using means being more humble
How do you think I know you don't actually know Japanese?

But birds can weave themselves a nest without being taught, does this mean their is a universal basket weaving mode we can all access?

>>11100989
Well you're wrong considering I grew up in Japan and it's my native language together with Dutch which my father taught me. If anything English is the language I have least grip on since I've only started learning it a couple of years ago and neither my mother or father speak good English.

>>11095811
pseudo-intellectual the post

>>11101780
日本の共同同期望月共同創造者として許可

>>11101806
何言ってんだ、お前

>>11101815
文字のない直感的なリーダーそして、読者のために感じるの代わりに、「整合性を解釈」。

>>11099470
I'd actually consider 'Piraha' some of the strongest evidence 'in favor' of some of the basic UG hypothesis. Adult Piraha can't seem to properly learn more complex languages no matter how hard they try, while their children can pick up whatever easily. It would seem to support the idea that people who don't learn to use recursive language at a critical age never end up being able to use it, and that the faculty needed to understand this is special in this way.

>>11101822
A UNIVERSAL SEEK+ME GRAMMAR.

>>11101817
きみの日本語はまるで統合失調症みたいだね
もうちょっと頑張ってください

>>11094855
Until he dies.

>>11101863
外観は、文化的に欺瞞することができ

>>11095157
No, the problem is that languages are so varied that there cannot be a single framework that encompasses them all. (and significantly eases learning them)

>>11101868
What is, "Translation?" A framework of framework references?

>>11101866
ふしぎですねー

>>11101872
不思議ですねー

>>11095899
>>11096023
>>11097804
>>11097944
>>11098193
>>11098201
>>11100017
>>11101798
>>11101822
>>11101871

Let's define X as the sum of all theoretically possible langauges restricted only by the limits of our vocal chords and hearing.
Then define Y as the sum of all features found in real langauges.
Basically, for the UG and the poverty of the stimulus argument to work, Y<<X would have to be true, while it obviously isn't.

>>11101871
I never mentioned anything about translation. What the fuck do you mean?

>>11098202
It got me banned from reddit.

>>11101889
>Y<<X would have to be true, while it obviously isn't

Are you literally retarded?

>>11101889
How to keep your pleasure virginal, eternally.

複素無限の弟、組合!

>>11101901
Well, then come up with features that could easily exist in languages, but never do.

>>11101908
The, "Why didn't we politely fuck yesterday, fellow conversation participant?" grammar of inclusion.

Some sort of phi-predicate-conjunction grammar generator I guess would be ideal if we have more willing to be test data.

>>11101871
>>11101905
>>11101914
Stop posting.

>>11101917
Oh no! A dismissal! I wonder if I, or anyone else in your existence, will respect you being the source of any Divine importance?

>Dance of Confidence

>>11101917
Anonymous: The Unwilling Subscriber of Eternity

>>11101920
>>11101922
Dp you seriously think you are making sense?

>>11101927
Do you seriously believe that you would ever be my prime Subscriber of Interest?