1 / 166

Philosophy E156: Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy E156: Philosophy of Mind. Week 2: The Chomskyan Revolution. My example of a Poverty of the Stimulus Argument, Revisited. Grammatical Rule (A). (1) I will have a cold if I don’t dress warmly (2) Will I have a cold if I don’t dress warmly

tarika
Download Presentation

Philosophy E156: Philosophy of Mind

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Philosophy E156: Philosophy of Mind Week 2: The Chomskyan Revolution

  2. My example of a Poverty of the Stimulus Argument, Revisited

  3. Grammatical Rule (A) (1) I will have a cold if I don’t dress warmly (2) Will I have a cold if I don’t dress warmly Grammatical Rule (A): If a sentence like (1) is grammatical, then the corresponding sentence like (2) is grammatical.

  4. Grammatical Rule (B) (3) I will have a cold if I don’t dress warmly (4) I’ll have a cold if I don’t dress warmly Grammatical Rule (B): If a sentence like (3) is grammatical, then the corresponding sentence like (4) is grammatical.

  5. Is The Sentence Below Grammatical? (5) Will I’ve a cold if I don’t dress warmly First, do you think that (5) is grammatical? Second, do you think that others in the room will say that (5) is grammatical?

  6. Two-Part Hypothesis • First, that everybody in the room thought that the sentence was ungrammatical. • Second, that everybody in the room thought that everybody else in the room would judge the sentence to be ungrammatical.

  7. POS Argument: No Evidence, Positive or Negative • Sentences just like (5) are never produced by the child • Thus, there could not be “negative evidence” for the child about the ungrammaticality of sentences like (5) • Nor do adult speakers ever produce sentences just like (5) on their own or comment on them • But there is some evidence from sentences somewhat like (5) – and it is that sentences like (5) are grammatical, because of rules (A) & (B)

  8. From David Lightfoot’s “Plato’s Problem, UG and the Language Organ”

  9. Grammatical Rule (C) (6) Kim is happy (7) Kim’s happy Grammatical Rule (C): If a sentence like (6) is grammatical, then the corresponding sentence like (7) is grammatical.

  10. Is The Sentence Below Grammatical? (8) Kim’s happier than Tim’s First, do you think that (8) is grammatical? Second, do you think that others in the room will say that (8) is grammatical?

  11. POS Argument: No Evidence, Positive or Negative • Lightfoot cites empirical evidence that sentences like (8) are never produced by the child • Thus, there could not be “negative evidence” for the child about the ungrammaticality of sentences like (8) • Nor do adult speakers ever produce sentences like (8) on their own or comment on them • The only evidence the child has is that sentences like (8) are grammatical • And intuitions are robust, perhaps unlike with (5)

  12. Other Cases Where Contraction is Impermissible (9) I wonder where the party’s tonight (10) What I want’s to go (11) What’s bothering Jack’s your behavior See Ellen Kaisse, “The Syntax of Auxiliary Reduction in English,” Language 59 (March 1983), pp. 93-122. (12) Who do you wanna promise to leave? Answer: I wanna promise to leave John. Answer: I wanna promise John to leave. #Answer: I want John to promise to leave.

  13. The Chomskyan Revolution

  14. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions

  15. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions • We often hear of “the Chomskyan revolution” – but what was so revolutionary in Chomskyan linguistics?

  16. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions • We often hear of “the Chomskyan revolution” – but what was so revolutionary in Chomskyan linguistics? • If it was revolutionary, we would expect to find certain elements in common with familiar scientific revolutions, like the Newtonian revolution:

  17. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions • We often hear of “the Chomskyan revolution” – but what was so revolutionary in Chomskyan linguistics? • If it was revolutionary, we would expect to find certain elements in common with familiar scientific revolutions, like the Newtonian revolution: • (a) paradigm of method and discovery with many “interlocking parts”;

  18. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions • We often hear of “the Chomskyan revolution” – but what was so revolutionary in Chomskyan linguistics? • If it was revolutionary, we would expect to find certain elements in common with familiar scientific revolutions, like the Newtonian revolution: • (a) paradigm of method and discovery with many “interlocking parts”; • (b) perhaps offering a synoptic perspective;

  19. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions • We often hear of “the Chomskyan revolution” – but what was so revolutionary in Chomskyan linguistics? • If it was revolutionary, we would expect to find certain elements in common with familiar scientific revolutions, like the Newtonian revolution: • (a) paradigm of method and discovery with many “interlocking parts”; • (b) perhaps offering a synoptic perspective; • (c) distinct from preceding science

  20. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions • We often hear of “the Chomskyan revolution” – but what was so revolutionary in Chomskyan linguistics? • If it was revolutionary, we would expect to find certain elements in common with familiar scientific revolutions, like the Newtonian revolution: • (a) paradigm of method and discovery with many “interlocking parts”; • (b) perhaps offering a synoptic perspective; • (c) distinct from preceding science • (d) solves outstanding problems of earlier paradigm or pre-revolutionary science, which perhaps led to crisis;

  21. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions • We often hear of “the Chomskyan revolution” – but what was so revolutionary in Chomskyan linguistics? • If it was revolutionary, we would expect to find certain elements in common with familiar scientific revolutions, like the Newtonian revolution: • (a) paradigm of method and discovery with many “interlocking parts”; • (b) perhaps offering a synoptic perspective; • (c) distinct from preceding science • (d) solves outstanding problems of earlier paradigm or pre-revolutionary science, which perhaps led to crisis; • (e) non-Baconian, but unified and providing what Chomsky calls “intellectual justification” (Selected Readings, p. 7)

  22. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions (cont.)

  23. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions (cont.) • Other elements (from Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions):

  24. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions (cont.) • Other elements (from Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions): • (a) posing of all-new problems within linguistics and successes in solving them or at least in creating of testable hypotheses;

  25. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions (cont.) • Other elements (from Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions): • (a) posing of all-new problems within linguistics and successes in solving them or at least in creating of testable hypotheses; • (b) creation of a new “normal science,” with textbooks that codify results

  26. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions (cont.) • Other elements (from Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions): • (a) posing of all-new problems within linguistics and successes in solving them or at least in creating of testable hypotheses; • (b) creation of a new “normal science,” with textbooks that codify results • (c) implications for other fields; unity of science

  27. Science Creation and Scientific Revolutions (cont.) • Other elements (from Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions): • (a) posing of all-new problems within linguistics and successes in solving them or at least in creating of testable hypotheses; • (b) creation of a new “normal science,” with textbooks that codify results • (c) implications for other fields; unity of science • (d) a readiness within and outside linguistics for these new results, and the recruitment that results

  28. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm

  29. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars

  30. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor

  31. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora

  32. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora • (4) Conception of science – explanatory adequacy, etc.; behaviorism; description vs. explanation

  33. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora • (4) Conception of science – explanatory adequacy, etc.; behaviorism; description vs. explanation • (5) Mentalism

  34. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora • (4) Conception of science – explanatory adequacy, etc.; behaviorism; description vs. explanation • (5) Mentalism • (6) Autonomy of syntax, eschewing explanation use (the Bloomfield sort)

  35. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora • (4) Conception of science – explanatory adequacy, etc.; behaviorism; description vs. explanation • (5) Mentalism • (6) Autonomy of syntax, eschewing explanation use (the Bloomfield sort) • (7) Creative character of language

  36. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora • (4) Conception of science – explanatory adequacy, etc.; behaviorism; description vs. explanation • (5) Mentalism • (6) Autonomy of syntax, eschewing explanation use (the Bloomfield sort) • (7) Creative character of language • (8) Deep structure and surface structure

  37. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora • (4) Conception of science – explanatory adequacy, etc.; behaviorism; description vs. explanation • (5) Mentalism • (6) Autonomy of syntax, eschewing explanation use (the Bloomfield sort) • (7) Creative character of language • (8) Deep structure and surface structure • (9) “Uniting the best parts of universal grammar and structuralism”

  38. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora • (4) Conception of science – explanatory adequacy, etc.; behaviorism; description vs. explanation • (5) Mentalism • (6) Autonomy of syntax, eschewing explanation use (the Bloomfield sort) • (7) Creative character of language • (8) Deep structure and surface structure • (9) “Uniting the best parts of universal grammar and structuralism” • (10) Making linguistics part of psychology & biology

  39. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora • (4) Conception of science – explanatory adequacy, etc.; behaviorism; description vs. explanation • (5) Mentalism • (6) Autonomy of syntax, eschewing explanation use (the Bloomfield sort) • (7) Creative character of language • (8) Deep structure and surface structure • (9) “Uniting the best parts of universal grammar and structuralism” • (10) Making linguistics part of psychology & biology • (11) Cognitive science

  40. Interlocking Parts of the New Paradigm • (1) Formal limitations of standard grammars • (2) Transformational generative grammar – could say things not sayable before, existence of discoveries, and rigor • (3) Methodological change – intuitions vs. corpora • (4) Conception of science – explanatory adequacy, etc.; behaviorism; description vs. explanation • (5) Mentalism • (6) Autonomy of syntax, eschewing explanation use (the Bloomfield sort) • (7) Creative character of language • (8) Deep structure and surface structure • (9) “Uniting the best parts of universal grammar and structuralism” • (10) Making linguistics part of psychology & biology • (11) Cognitive science • (12) Nativism

  41. Books by Chomsky I Will Refer To

  42. Books by Chomsky I Will Refer To • Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory [LSLT] (1955)

  43. Books by Chomsky I Will Refer To • Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory [LSLT] (1955) • Syntactic Structures (1957)

  44. Books by Chomsky I Will Refer To • Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory [LSLT] (1955) • Syntactic Structures (1957) • Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965)

  45. Books by Chomsky I Will Refer To • Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory [LSLT] (1955) • Syntactic Structures (1957) • Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) • Cartesian Linguistics (1966)

  46. Chomsky’s Work in Logic and Mathematics

  47. Chomsky’s Work in Logic and Mathematics • Similarly, Chomsky did groundbreaking work in the part of computation theory known as automata theory

  48. Chomsky’s Work in Logic and Mathematics • Similarly, Chomsky did groundbreaking work in the part of computation theory known as automata theory • “Chomsky hierarchy” of formal languages

  49. Chomsky’s Work in Logic and Mathematics • Similarly, Chomsky did groundbreaking work in the part of computation theory known as automata theory • “Chomsky hierarchy” of formal languages • Hierarchy of formal languages that computational models or automata can generate or recognize

  50. Chomsky’s Mixed Feelings about Mathematical Work

More Related