Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky's Universal Grammar | Conversations with Tyler
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2024
- What does Steven Pinker think about Noam Chomsky's theory of universal grammar?
Full conversation and transcript here: medium.com/con...
Don't forget to subscribe to the Conversations with Tyler Podcast via iTunes, Soundcloud or your favorite podcast app.
iTunes: itunes.apple.c...
Soundcloud: / conversationswithtyler
www.mercatus.or...
Funny that Marvin Minsky - a mathematician and cognitive neuroscientist, who wrote the first universal Turing machine and did foundational work in neural networks - has a criticism that is exactly the opposite: his opinion is that Chomsky is too precise, and is studying what he considers to be pseudo-mathematical relationships at such a small scale that they are conceptual minutiae, Minsky expressing a preference for looking for patterns a few more levels up, such as at the level of concept generation as associated with activities/goals.
Chomsky is against AI and "concept" generation - the argument is language is PURE biology, its just there. He is against the idea that language is learned and thus concepts are learned. They are basically there somehow
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 I think Chomsky's UG is not against "concept generation", but rather is saying that it was not evolved for some fitness purpose, e.g. he's against the notion that language is for something, like social communication, information, or society generation. I'm not sure what you mean by "pure biology". Does learning seem not to occur in a biological organism? This is like saying that tree climbing is not biological, despite the fact that only an organism may engage in it.
I think Chomsky would then be relatively comfortable with the idea that language use and in his view thought (I agree with his view) could operate in a way that is not fundamentally computational. That is, while Chomsky's program is computational, I don't think his general view as to the function and development of language is mutually exclusive that language use might be facilitated by a different kind of process.
Given that UG has had trouble conclusively showing how it functions computationally, I think the challenge is pretty fair.
@@laserprawn Pure biology means just that. We have a literal language organ but so far none has been found.
There is no learning for Chomsky none - language is just there in our genes
@@laserprawn No learning. For Chom, language is no different than growing up and your arm slowly developing as you age once born. Language involves no learning - it is just innate built into us genetically
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 Yes, and what are genetics but biology? Your RNA is developed by interactions with the world - your arms develops into an arm rather than a rat's paw because of that, but both are distinctly purely biological. What I mean in your terms is that it could well be the case that the "purely biological way" in which the language organ exists is to deal in concepts. After all, you must concede that the language organ does work - what kind of work does it do? If you refuse to atomize its functions, you abandon UG as well.
A little confused here. When I've heard Chomsky define Universal Grammar he defines it just as Pinker does here, namely the genetic component that allows us to learn a language. So I'm not sure what the controversy is. Chomsky wants to understand what that genetic component is and he has changed his theories as new research comes out. Not sure what the anti-scientific part is supposed to be?
Yeah exactly 😂
So Pinker ridicules Chomsky for 2 minutes, even comparing him to Mao (in another interview, Pinker says that Chomsky wants is to live on a state of nature - does he have any idea about Chomsky’s political philosophy if he can’t even be consistent with himself about it?) then proceeds to describe exactly my understanding of Chomsky’s theory. Disrespecting a legend.
To say, it's in the brain, is one thing, but to exclude the many capacities in the brain is quite another. Also there are problems with stating universals, such as recursion, that are in fact not universal to all languages. This would appear to rule out a language specific generator present in the human brain. That, or recursion, a 'biggy' for Noam, is not part of a UG.
@@santacruzman Well there has to be something in the brain that produces language and there have to be universals among the same organism. To some people it's an interesting pursuit to find out what those are. Maybe those facts don't interest everyone, but to deny they exist seems like denying basic biology.
@@cuantrail Universals are better understood as coming from our common embodiment. Same with language. We have similar understandings (universals) because we all share the same kinds of bodies - the means by which we interact with the world. We understand language by studying language examples and we account for it by explaining what is required to make sense of it. This is what Cognitive Linguistics is - a brain-based account in terms of the cognitive structures and processes that explain it (language).
If you read Chomsky himself, you'll see what the problem is. Are.
Pinker here represents a good critical target of Minsky's argument as well - Pinker has correlated data and demarcated patterns, much like psychologists have done with "personality" theory, locating supposed traits by their assumed expression as contained in lexical data. If Minsky was correct, people like Pinker are picking up descriptive patterns of mechanism at a fine level of detail, but ignoring the generative mechanisms that are actually useful to describe, and explanatory.
This is where Chomsky was heading, and what Pinker never seems to discuss - what is the generative mechanism for the patters found in data? So far the data-driven approach just seems to confirm the existence of language, and is not clearly leading to a place where the generation of language is understood.
#facts
Did he really think of Chomsky as charismatic? When Chomsky tries to not be that cuz he doesnt like people who uses that to persuade other.
He is one funny tie away from literally looking like a comic book supervillain
What deep insight. My god. I’m astounded by your staggering intellect.
@@arikkatzenberg582 and 53 (to date) give a thumbs up to the ad hominem. That's _literally_ comical.
Everyone seems to express Chomsky's ideas better/clearer than Chomsky himself.
Maybe it's because other peoples' understanding of the concept is lacking so their ability to explain it in "laymans terms" is easier.
@@CAKESLAPPA Maybe it is because they can speak at a normal pace ?
Chomsky has to be played on x1.5 or x 1.75
it is unbearable to listen to Chomsky at normal speed
One feels delirious
So to answer the question here chomsky was not wrong.
as usual. Pinker relishes in this shit, it's weird.
Chomsky's most important point is, there is no language learning, there is only language growth. And he compares it to embryological development.
That's an ASSUMPTION - Chomsky has to show that not just assert it is so
If there is no language learning, how come "wolf children" are not capable of learning any form of complex grammar? You could say their ability to learn this complexity isn't there anymore once they are past critical age, which proves the point that learning has to happen during the critical age years, otherwise they would simply "grow" it later.
What is meant by "language growth"?
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 why him? Mathematicians are always dis/proving each other's conjectures.
fwiw, you can use regular grammars do describe the contents of most, if not all, positional languages with finite alphabets. And you can encode finite non-positional languages such that they too fall into "regular expression" matchers. we're using such an encoding right here, it's called utf8. It describes all symbols of the unicode character set.
in the circle of science, we have the language it gives us the linguistic and the linguistic it gives us the grammar, and the grammar gives us the specific language spoken and written.
It seems to me that Pinker is advocating for a functional grammar; that is, babies have similar needs in the environment, so when using language to fulfill these needs, they have similarities with all babies, therefore universal. But Chomsky was arguing for a brain structure and he called it a "black box". He did a great disservice to teachers and learners everywhere.
I know who Chomsky is, but It would be nice if they introduced in the description who they are; though it is probably the first and the last time I listen to them... The conversation is not informative by any measure.
Steven Pinker is a well-known cognitive scientist and author. Tyler Cowen is an economist, author and educator
Totally adorable how Pinker says "Where I disagree with Chomsky is...", then proceeds to repeat Chomsky's theories.
Seems like the only things he doesn't like about Chomsky is his politics... and the fact that he's way more famous and respected than Lil' Steve
Pinker should become a Khmer Rouge apologist to get really famous.
@@RTWPimpmachine LOL! "Khmer Rouge apologist". Please explain, I need a good laugh
@@santosd6065
Chomsky in the late 1970s, even after mass graves were uncovered actively said that the genocide in Cambodia was "American propaganda" and claimed refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge were lying. Its all in print, lmao.
@@RTWPimpmachine From what I've read and watched his reply on Cambodia. This is bs.
I was going to post this same thing XD
2:30 "tries to pull out combinatorial rules from the speech stream"
Lol
Recursion is not really the main idea.
Chomsky does lean on recursion - its not part of the main theory but he does think "evidence" of recursion IMPLIES language is a human-only capacity
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 No it doesn't. Life itself is recursive. There are a lot of examples of organisms capable of recursive behavior.
It was until it wasn't.
Yeah, "child learns from the speech data stream", ignore all the actions performed during the speech, irgnore the whole context of language games that are happening. That's idioc theory on face of it
Pinker's account of UG is completely wrong, imo. I think he's missed the main idea completely.
Brand Gardner what's the main idea?
@@mohammedj2941 Notice how he never responded to you? I think that says a lot.
@@micahsaldana3625 Nativist understanding of language aquisition. I.e. it is not a human construct or invention but conditional to our biology, modern version of it is domain general in nature and not domain specific.
@@Midgert89 that's almost self evident, the larynx, vocal cords and the part of the brain that deals with language are all biological characteristics of our species, obviously language is a natural manifestation of those organs and mechanisms. Chomsky's theory aknowledges that, but it also says recursion is the definitive universal trait of all languages, which is bullshit imo.
@@Midgert89 Chomsky has changed the UG over decades - Pinker might be responding to one version
Critics of UG and NC: please explain Helen Keller. Was she in the "speech stream"?
There is an agenda behind opposing the idea that language develops naturally without intervention. If order naturally arises then there is no need for it to be imposed.
Thats pure nonsense. A child developing a language is the same as a child's developing eye sight post birth. A baby is blind in the initially months of life until it is exposed to light from the outside world. However, tests have shown that if the human eye is deprived of light during infancy the cones in the eyes retina will never develop and the individual will be in fact blind for the rest of their lives. This has been known for a long time. By the same logic if a child is not exposed to speech at all it will never develop a language. This just means that certain human facility's develop later when they are exposed to the external environment. That doesn't mean that there is no innate structure to the abilities development.
@@robertpirsig5011 funny. That is pure nonsense, is very Chomskian. You start with that, and then calmly explain why it is pure nonsense.
Thought this was Jordan Peterson with a wig on lol
So he acknowledges Universal Grammar exists but throws Chomsky under the bus anyway. Hm.
Yeah Pinker is a special kind of smart
Chomsky is an outspoken anarchist while Pinker wrote a whole book about how he loves the status quo. I think the animosity is easy to explain
Also why he referenced Mao by the way
I think his point is that you could say it exists under a quite vague definition that he himself just laid out, which wasn't laid out by Chomsky.
I think also, to be fair, there's a difference between saying that at some developmental stage, the brain is wired to give special attention to language acquisition, and saying that there is a universal "grammar".
@Language and Programming Channel There is actual evidence of bias in the brain to develop in a certain pre-programmed way. So its more then just a hypothosis. Wether its the best explanatory theory is a second question.
ALL sorts of languages were studied
The central idea is Merging, not recursion. If Pinker doesn't grasp the distinction, he's never read Chomsky.
tries to pull out rules HOW?
Ah yes, Chomsky’s anarcho-syndicalism is similar to Mao’s continual revolution! /s
You misunderstood. Pinker was making a joke comparing Chomsky’s continual revision of his universal grammar hypothesis to Mao’s continual revolution. It had nothing to do with anarcho-syndicalism.
Jimmy Googer Yes that’s what he said, but the joke was a subtle jab at Chomsky’s revolutionary political ideology
@@MRender32 No it wasn't. You are just obsessed with that.
@@robertpirsig5011 he's right, it's subtle jab
Pinker is right - Chomsky was in fact wrong. Significantly, fundamental flaws in Chomsky's theory were pointed out early on, eg by Quine. Yet Chomsky continued to hog the field of linguistics. What happened was that a boom in research funding to explore TGG made it academically and financially attractive to linguists. Only the loudest voices were heard and linguists continued to bury their heads in the sand. So the linguistic academic field was to blame as much and even more than Chomsky.
You literally haven't a clue what you are talking about. Pinker just said in the video that universal grammar is on right track. Lol
LOL Chomsky's work is actually based on Quine - and Nelson Goodman, an old teacher. You're thinking of Quine's work in the 1960s perhaps. But Chomsky shares Q's anti-metaphysical stance and being pragmatic but he is not an empiricist. Chomsky has said repeatedly his work is Cartesian. But you are right Chomsky's work basically won by force not argument.
Quit bogarting my field man.
@D Davis He definitely did hog the field. In most interviews, he does they would refer to him as "revolutionizing linguistics". He hung over the field like a cloud.
@D Davis Einstein didn't get in the way. But Freud definitely did.
The problem with most like you is you don't follow these issues closely. It happens a lot more than you think.
he did accept the universalness though
Establishment stooge.
Yawn.
lots of words still, nothing meaningful said lol
I like how he makes fun on what he calls the moving target, namely chomsky being aware of and taking into avcount all the criticism, both external and introspective, improving the theory all the time and driving it towards a more complete way to link biology and language. while pinker himself seems to have not much novelty to bring into the field.
Biased HOW?
I wonder how Tyler feels about us all knowing that he's only there because of the Koch's money.
What kind of absolute fool tries to talk shit about Chomsky with such lackluster understanding of his work...
Pinker is an intelligent person - but Chomsky is an intellectual giant
No, Pinker is a scientist. Chomsky decided how the world should be, but failed to find evidence. He did though create a huge following.
perhaps your understanding of what an "intellectual" is different from mine - to keep it short, in future Pinker will quite possibly be forgotten - Noam will be remembered (think about it - perhaps you will understand).
@@WingsOfPeaceToronto Linguistic research strongly suggests that UG is wrong and it was a detour that potentially wasted resources. Chomsky has a huge ego and he created a cult of personality around himself, as you admirably demonstrate. Just look at large language models, no need for a language specific architecture, just a general neural net. A scientist maintains a dispassionate stance and changes his/her mind if the evidence merits it. Chomsky pursues his path no matter what.
The creation of large language models such as ChatGPT proves that language can be created without a dedicated neural architecture, rather it can be learnt by a general neural net through massive exposure. That is strong evidence that Chomsky was totally wrong.
AI doesn't understand any of the language it simply replicates it based on commonly reoccurring patterns.
@@burnemail2467 UG tells you absolutely nothing about understanding. However, we don’t even know what understanding means. LLMs use statistical methods to create a representation of language, who’s to say that is not exactly what the brain does. The fact that the brain appears to learn in the same manner suggests that it is a valid model of the brain, at least as far as language is concerned. UG is no more than a mathematical trick, which doesn’t even work as you have to keep fudging it.
Lmao some tech bro who thinks ChatGPT is actually using language 😂
you speak too much. so why didn't you discover the universal grammar first?? then u come and criticize Mr. Chomsky.
Is this dude talking about a dude that talks about people that actually do shit,
all lies. including "and" and "the'
What universal grammar
All human languages share similar structures.
1 2 3
Chomsky did the hard work...Pinker should be grateful he's standing on Noam's shoulders.
What was the hard work? Chomsky's thought seems to be weighted towards thinking rather than accounting for the phenomenon. The brain is not that big of a domain, a structure devoted uniquely to language acquisition should have been found by now or so it would seem. The entire world is replete with haystacks and yet we still manage to find needles now and then.
great
Chomsky's "hypothesis" has been proven.
really? you got a link?
no it hasn't
Chomsky’s IQ is probably no less than 180. He’s in the class of Jung, Russell, and Piaget.
His explanation of Libertarianism is such crap, he sounds like less than half of the score you've attributed to him....
people that say that like his politics. He's average
@@healthymealthy775People who say that hate his politics. He is an obviously brilliant person (or was before the stroke) and you are some moron nobody cares about
Pinker a pseudo scientist
explain
Chomsky's theory doesn't exist ahahahaha. That is the truth of it. It was never developed. Noam to me, is one of the most overrated thinkers I've come across.
Your thumbnail looks like jordan peterson in a wig
Noam Chomsky is wicked smart.