Would Chomsky claim that you can't use statistics as a basis for
learning language, or rather that not just any statistics can be used
for such? My understanding was that the message was that there is a
specific sort of machine (I think he would use the word organ) for
learning language, and that the details of how this machine function
determines what sorts of inputs and calculations a human makes on the
way to learning language. Because it is a specific sort of machine,
there are some sorts of syntaxes that it is able to learn, and others
it is not. This doesn't seem too terribly controversial to me. Am I
being over-generous in my interpretation? (01)
-Alan (02)
On Oct 14, 2007, at 1:48 AM, John F. Sowa wrote: (03)
> Pat,
>
> I typed "le idee verdi" to Google and got 23 hits.
>
> The most frequent continuation is
>
> Le idee verdi senza colore dormono furiosamente.
>
> This disproves Chomsky's claim that you can't use
> statistics as a basis for learning syntax.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
|