Pat, (01)
I don't want to get into a lengthy argument about linguistics,
but I have a higher opinion of it than you do. (02)
PH> In fact I think it [linguistics] hardly qualifies as science
> at present. (How does one empirically refute a linguistic theory?) (03)
The obvious way: with empirical evidence that contradicts the
predictions made by any proposed theory. (04)
NLs are much more highly organized than white noise. Therefore,
there is patterning, and linguists have discovered patterns at
all levels that have high predictive value. (05)
Chomsky made an enormous contribution to the theory of both NLs
and artificial languages by his syntactic work in the 1950s and
1960s. Since then, however, his influence has been "controversial"
to say the least. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|