/Linguistics General/

It's been a while since I've seen one of these. What do you think of the competence-performance distinction in linguistics?
plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/#ComPer
Is it only useful for methodological purposes? Should we seek to offer a formal account of language which collapses this distinction? If so, should we look towards AI and probabilistic models of language processing for answers?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Speech-Language-Processing-Daniel-Jurafsky/dp/0131873210/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1514916237&sr=8-5&keywords=natural language processing
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31674-6_20?no-access=true
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Language is very high level. Chomsky is probably right, but the inability to make a breakthrough is because grammar is actually the last cognitive function evolution gave us. Focus on the the simpler stuff.

yes, those who have obeyed to rights other people imposed such as gramars, ware given diplomas thus better ability for their children to reproduce..

So much... evolution

Actually in this things it's killing the point, it's slowing down certain things, and also...

Also 2000 last years forms of officialy spoken langluage are defined by some monks so...

EVOLUTION :D Lulz

This. Most adult humans have trouble with basic grammar. Its a very high-level abstraction which takes years and years (i.e. billions of data-points) to develop.

You three have no idea what you're talking about.

thanks for your contribution

's reply was a greater contribution than those of people who reply without having read seriously on the subject of language acquisition and spin nonsense about things they haven't a clue about.

Not sure if this will go down well.

How do I into CS language translation?
What would be a good starting point for combining cs and language?

Study natural language processing. This is the book I used when studying the area.
amazon.com/Speech-Language-Processing-Daniel-Jurafsky/dp/0131873210/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1514916237&sr=8-5&keywords=natural language processing

anyways guys, how many languages do you speak ? How did you learn them ?

Anybody have any good chomsky(Or anyone else) lectures or speeches on linguistics? Caught some tidbits and it seems super interesting

Still waiting for the proof English is a context-sensitive language.

Chomsky himself has tried about a dozen different angles on modeling universal grammar but continue speaking to me like you know anything beyond memorizing for you latest test.

Should we seek to offer a formal account of language which collapses this distinction?
Yes, Its called a Semiotic
If so, should we look towards AI and probabilistic models of language processing for answers?
No lol, those can't even get past the symbol-grounding problem without CS Pierce.
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31674-6_20?no-access=true
Linguistics is so off base because Chomsky was studying Saussure and Ferge and didn't into Pierce
The field of (bio)semiotics is currently doing better than linguistics. Specifically the Copenhagen–Tartu school and Americans

shit man I forgot my memetext indexicons, danggit

I can't really offer a reply given how little I know of semiotics. I'll look into this, thanks.

>Most adult humans have trouble with basic grammar
Sure, keep larping.

What makes you think Chomskyan linguistics is incompatible with Pierce? My first UG advisor in (Chomskyan) ling was also staunch Pierce advocate. How does semiotics bear on mostly formal aspects of morphosyntax?

You can't read and you study linguistics?

That is mean. You are confusing two people in the same thread because you are an idiot.

My God you are fucking retarded. Follow the conversation you idiot.

>What makes you think Chomskyan linguistics is incompatible with Pierce?
That's not what I think, I just think pierce scholarship was lost during the formative period.I think it is a further reaching issue to do with Descartes dualism that has been obfuscated over the years. To be honest I don't have too strong of a background in linguistics and I feel I spoke earlier with some unjustified authority
>How does semiotics bear on mostly formal aspects of morphosyntax?
Well, it's more of a question of if symbolic logic can even formalize such things.(Pierces reduction thesis) the need for teranary relations is stressed. As far as I understand triadic relationships can only be formalized as graphs. I know there have been attempts to make formal logics out of Peirces existential graphs but I'm not very familiar.
Semiotics is definitely more qualitative in its scope , you have lots of discussion of pierces categories, and semiotic scaffolding.
Fucking springer spam filter,

It may not be context-sensitive, but that does not imply that it is context-free.

>Linguistics
not science or math

How is any language not at least mostly context-sensitive?

It's a shame this thread turned to shit almost immediately

Does anyone know any good, scientific documentaries on the history of linguistics? I'm never going to study it on an academic level, but I do think the subject is interesting

Where to cop glasses?

i second this

kill yourself

If I'm honest, it reminds me of the use of partative/tellic structures in Finnish which add more about the action than just through the verb.