The language recursion wars

[Nearly Sane]

While in many ways the subject might seem abstruse, the whole story reflects much about how discussion seems to happen now. That there can be vitriol and personal attacks about the very specific ideas of language and how it works underlines that we can be tribal about  anything



https://aeon.co/essays/why-language-is-not-everything-that-noam-chomsky-said-it-is

[Udayana]

Thanks, NS. Enjoyed that.

Indeed we humans are tribal animals and often to revert to rallying around figureheads , scientific detachment or not. Wolfe is brilliant at identifying and documenting these tribes - probably encouraging their growth in the process.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks, NS. Enjoyed that.

Indeed we humans are tribal animals and often to revert to rallying around figureheads , scientific detachment or not. Wolfe is brilliant at identifying and documenting these tribes - probably encouraging their growth in the process.

And as satirised in Gulliver's Travels, it doesn't really matter what the impiratance of the matter is, indeed the less important can often cause bigger ructions, e g. Never discuss the 'right' way to hang toilet paper

[jeremyp]

And as satirised in Gulliver's Travels, it doesn't really matter what the impiratance of the matter is, indeed the less important can often cause bigger ructions, e g. Never discuss the 'right' way to hang toilet paper

It sounds to me (as a complete layman), at least in the area of linguistics that this dispute is about something pretty fundamental. It's as if the person who discovered Mercury does not move in an elliptical orbit got loads of abuse instead of physicists looking for ways to improve Newton's Gravitational Theory.

[Nearly Sane]

It sounds to me (as a complete layman), at least in the area of linguistics that this dispute is about something pretty fundamental. It's as if the person who discovered Mercury does not move in an elliptical orbit got loads of abuse instead of physicists looking for ways to improve Newton's Gravitational Theory.

mmm, I think I take the same position as Everett, this isn't physics and Chomsky isn't Einstein or Newton. So the challenge is to something that has already, as pointed out been modified many tines. However, while the challenge may be significant to the base theory, it's not emotionally significant other than what people invest. Big enders and little enders are fundamentally opposed but the emotion and tribalism is unrelated to real imporatance to life. Again I think Everett gets it right here, he may be wrong, it's not a reason to produce the reactions on either side

[Walter]

While in many ways the subject might seem abstruse, the whole story reflects much about how discussion seems to happen now. That there can be vitriol and personal attacks about the very specific ideas of language and how it works underlines that we can be tribal about  anything



https://aeon.co/essays/why-language-is-not-everything-that-noam-chomsky-said-it-is

OMG, reading through to the end of that piece was a real struggle for me however I forced myself.

It is a good example though of how people who have 'a dog in the race' and those who don't but think they have a valid opinion, think they have the right to make comments on research they have not been involved in.
And because this type of subject has no real solid scientific theories (and all that entails) it leaves its self wide open for anyone with the slightest knowledge of it to jump in and support or criticise what others have said.

This is one of the main reasons I stick to science. I find the whole idea of 'debate' which can go on for years about such subjects rather like pissing in the wind and hoping not to get wet.

[Nearly Sane]

OMG, reading through to the end of that piece was a real struggle for me however I forced myself.

It is a good example though of how people who have 'a dog in the race' and those who don't but think they have a valid opinion, think they have the right to make comments on research they have not been involved in.
And because this type of subject has no real solid scientific theories (and all that entails) it leaves its self wide open for anyone with the slightest knowledge of it to jump in and support or criticise what others have said.

This is one of the main reasons I stick to science. I find the whole idea of 'debate' which can go on for years about such subjects rather like pissing in the wind and hoping not to get wet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War

[Walter]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War

yes thanks for reminding me about that , I had forgotten. However my last sentence still stands .

[wigginhall]

I used to teach Chomskyan linguistics, and was quite a fan of his.   It's difficult to judge this argument without going into the details of it.   For example, does this language really lack recursion?  I do feel doubtful about that, but it seems to be the finding.  The other point that's interesting is the idea that recursion is a generalized cognitive device, not specific to language.  Oh boy, you will need a book length study to examine that.   (In other words, we can think recursively, seem to be correct.)

One of the problems with the linguistic aspect of recursion is that it applies not just to sentences, e.g. 'the rat the cat caught is dead', where 'the cat caught' is recursive, but also other constructions, e.g. 'dog catcher', where you could argue that 'dog' is embedded. 

Chomsky has always excited drama, partly because of his politics, and also he is rather abrasive.  He would be very dismissive of someone not a linguist.   Still, he is a genius (that's an opinion).   I was once offered a job to work with him, curses, there was this woman, see, and she gave me an ultimatum, it's me or Noam, curses. 

[wigginhall]

Reading around further, I notice that David Pesetsky, an American linguist, has argued that Everett has left out a mass of contradictory data, in other words, examples of recursion in this language.   If this is correct, it's a killer argument, but I am certainly not going to chase up all the details, as I am not being paid!  Pesetsky's argument can be found in the comments here:

http://www.chronicle.com/article/angry-words/131260

And there is further stuff under the Wiki entry on Pesetsky, e.g. 

http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000411

[wigginhall]

Sorry to go on about this, but it's reminded me that my old head of dept was fiercely anti-Chomskyan, and I was pretty much a Chomskyan, so there was knives in that fight!   The whole thing seems weird now, but academics can get very steamed up, and partisan.   My head was otherwise a nice guy, who had left S. Africa over apartheid, one of the good guys, but the word 'Chomsky' turned him into a gibbering wreck.   RIP Eugene.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry to go on about this, but it's reminded me that my old head of dept was fiercely anti-Chomskyan, and I was pretty much a Chomskyan, so there was knives in that fight!   The whole thing seems weird now, but academics can get very steamed up, and partisan.   My head was otherwise a nice guy, who had left S. Africa over apartheid, one of the good guys, but the word 'Chomsky' turned him into a gibbering wreck.   RIP Eugene.

And recursively breaking down what is meant by the single word 'Chomsky' would fill the thread internet. It's almost impossible to discuss any ideas of Chomsky's or indeed ideas that might not be his in his field without discussing him I remember when I first met an acolyte and was being told you must read this, and he's the most brilliant man ever, and he's never wrong about anything, and it made me miss the Jehovah's Witnesses that came to the door.

[Walter]

And recursively breaking down what is meant by the single word 'Chomsky' would fill the thread internet. It's almost impossible to discuss any ideas of Chomsky's or indeed ideas that might not be his in his field without discussing him I remember when I first met an acolyte and was being told you must read this, and he's the most brilliant man ever, and he's never wrong about anything, and it made me miss the Jehovah's Witnesses that came to the door.

you should never miss the opportunity to miss a Jehovah's Witness

[wigginhall]

And recursively breaking down what is meant by the single word 'Chomsky' would fill the thread internet. It's almost impossible to discuss any ideas of Chomsky's or indeed ideas that might not be his in his field without discussing him I remember when I first met an acolyte and was being told you must read this, and he's the most brilliant man ever, and he's never wrong about anything, and it made me miss the Jehovah's Witnesses that came to the door.

Yes, it got hot and heavy.   It seems embarrassing now, looking back.   I'm not sure why he excited such feelings, partly, I suppose that he seemed to demarcate a new way of looking at language, but I remember in the UK, it was a kind of rebellion thing at first,  the young Turks could cock a snook at the old gits, but now the Chomskyans are old gits.   Also, the ideas are interesting, well, some of them, and connect with his anarchism.   In the US, that was dynamite really, and seemed to go against the right wing.

[wigginhall]

Another thing was that linguistics had been a very meat and potatoes type subject,  looking at texts in a rather dull way, but here was this guy writing stuff such as 'Cartesian Linguistics', which has the sub-title, 'A chapter in the history of rationalist thought', and also slamming behaviourism.  In fact, he came in for heavy criticism for this stuff, but it didn't matter, he had declared war on behaviourism, and raised the flag of mentalism and nativism,  and for various reasons, partly political, young academics flocked to his standard at MIT.   Well, he was glamorous.   I went to a talk of his in London, and the queue to get in went down Euston Road.  It was fun, although most people there probably didn't have a clue what recursion is. 

I was remembering a research project getting young kids to repeat sentences with recursive structures, such as 'the rat the cat caught is dead', and below a certain age, they can't do it, and then it clicks (about 7?).   Of course, the big argument was whether this was purely linguistic or cognitive, and Yer Man said the former, whereas Piaget had said the latter. 

[Walter]

Another thing was that linguistics had been a very meat and potatoes type subject,  looking at texts in a rather dull way, but here was this guy writing stuff such as 'Cartesian Linguistics', which has the sub-title, 'A chapter in the history of rationalist thought', and also slamming behaviourism.  In fact, he came in for heavy criticism for this stuff, but it didn't matter, he had declared war on behaviourism, and raised the flag of mentalism and nativism,  and for various reasons, partly political, young academics flocked to his standard at MIT.   Well, he was glamorous.   I went to a talk of his in London, and the queue to get in went down Euston Road.  It was fun, although most people there probably didn't have a clue what recursion is. 

I was remembering a research project getting young kids to repeat sentences with recursive structures, such as 'the rat the cat caught is dead', and below a certain age, they can't do it, and then it clicks (about 7?).   Of course, the big argument was whether this was purely linguistic or cognitive, and Yer Man said the former, whereas Piaget had said the latter.

I've often wondered, what is this thing called love?

[wigginhall]

Subordinate clause there, excellent example of recursion.   I've often wondered if recursion is the devil's bait to get me to renounce my animal ancestry, and admit that, contrary to popular belief, recursion is in the soul.  AB, are you there?

[Nearly Sane]

I was remembering a research project getting young kids to repeat sentences with recursive structures, such as 'the rat the cat caught is dead', and below a certain age, they can't do it, and then it clicks (about 7?).   Of course, the big argument was whether this was purely linguistic or cognitive, and Yer Man said the former, whereas Piaget had said the latter.

And of course the important thing is the purity, we must preserve the dichotomies, no mixing for fear of synthesis

[Nearly Sane]

Subordinate clause there, excellent example of recursion.   I've often wondered if recursion is the devil's bait to get me to renounce my animal ancestry, and admit that, contrary to popular belief, recursion is in the soul.  AB, are you there?

http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=713

[wigginhall]

And of course the important thing is the purity, we must preserve the dichotomies, no mixing for fear of synthesis

Yes, excellent point.  I don't know if Chomsky really has kept the purity of his anti-cognitive stance, but he has certainly received a ton of criticism for it.   He also seems to have very elastic ideas, e.g. universal grammar, which seem to bend and adapt to anything.   One of his comments on this recursion argument, is that an exception does not nullify a theory.   Hmm.

[Enki]

Oh if only things could be neat and tidy, so that the existence of black swans would lead to instant modification.

[Enki]

Wiggs,

Your mention of Piaget here(last paragraph of reply 14) got me thinking about the debate about when children can start thinking from the concrete to the abstract, and how Piaget was one of the reasons used to justify the existence for the re organisation to Primary, Middle and Senior Schools in my area, which came about in about 1969, but was later changed when the Middle School idea became a political no no.

[wigginhall]

Oh if only things could be neat and tidy, so that the existence of black swans would lead to instant modification.

Reading between the lines, and also Pesetsky (above), academic linguists probably reacted to this guy (Everett), with total disbelief, that is, those who align with Chomsky.  This is partly because people are always saying stupid and naive things about language, and in linguistics, you get used to this.   But there are enough non-Chomskyans and anti-Chomskyans still, who might leap on it, and say, see, told you the guy is up his own bottom. 

But people are always saying language X doesn't have a word for blue, or penis, or willy-warmer, and it often turns out to be false.   But it is partly the problem of induction, maybe I haven't heard 'blue' for five years, but it doesn't mean there isn't one.   Also, there is the well-known issue of native speakers taking the piss out of researchers, yes, ma'am, we don't have a word for sex, we just mime it, etc. etc.

Known as the Margaret Mead issue, as she was supposedly told a bunch of stuff about sex by Samoans who were hoaxing, yes, we fuck day and night; however, this has been disputed.

Another hurrah for Noam - he brought back into public view the Port-Royal school of linguistics (17th century), supposedly influenced by Descartes, but anyway, interesting stuff, grammar is mental, etc.   

[wigginhall]

Interesting point about this guy Everett, is that he went as a missionary to this tribe, and gradually became an atheist, partly, he says somewhere, because they said to him, why the hell do we need saving?  No thanks.   (Rough paraphrase).   Laugh, or cry, but keep your pants dry. 

[Udayana]

He wrote a really interesting book: "Don't sleep, there are snakes" about his experiences with the Piraha and their language.