Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplntx!curry
From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Subject: Re: What's innate? (Was Re: Artificial Neural Networks and Cognition
Sender: news@hpl.hp.com (HPLabs Usenet Login)
Message-ID: <D3p5v3.FD9@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 19:52:15 GMT
References: <3esaig$6h5@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3f6ep0$r5f@oahu.cs.ucla.edu> <3f6il0$io6@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D2IDC2.12J@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3gshff$e5k@tardis.trl.OZ.AU> <D3LF78.C8n@hpl.hp.com> <3h67n3$d4r@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D3nA3L.GKD@hpl.hp.com> <3h8s2u$pti@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: saiph.hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.lang
Lines: 42
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:25334 sci.lang:35391

: >: In <D3LF78.C8n@hpl.hp.com> curry@hpl.hp.com (me) writes:
: >I find the work on Creoles, both spoken and signed, to be very
: >strong suggestive evidence, at the very least.

Neil Rickert (rickert@cs.niu.edu) wrote:
: This evidence is completely compatible with the idea that language is
: used for communicating particular types of information, and that the
: syntax chosen is a particularly simple way of meeting this
: communication objective.

: >Chomsky's work includes Germanic, Asian, and many other languages.
: >It is just those approximations, and ultimate capabilities,
: >which are *common to all known languages* which provide evidence
: >for universal grammar. There are many such commonalities, and they
: >are very difficult to explain under any alternative hypothesis
: >I am aware of (precisely because of the many cultural and
: >environmental differences you point out).

: Germans, Asians, and others all have to eat food, drink water,
: find shelter, etc.  There is a lot of commonality in every day
: life.  That would suggest that there is a lot of commonality in
: the types of information that they need to communicate.  Why
: would it be surprising that there is some commonality in the
: ways that they carry out this communication?  I don't see any
: need to hypothesize innate grammar components of the brain.

This argument is a plausible explanation for the commonality
of certain nouns and verbs across languages. It's quite a
stretch to claim that it explains regularities of grammar.
What is it about the physical world which constrains regularities
of syntax? It's true that the common feaatures of, say,
English and Chinese syntax *might* result from common requirements
in everyday use. To some degree this is even compatible with
a UG, since presumably an evolved grammar is at least *a* solution
to everyday language problems, if not a unique one.

But it's also true that the common features of English and
Chinese grammar *might* result from the mysterious workings
of quantum gravity. It would help your argument (a lot) if you
would offer at least some hint of how this might be so.

Bo
