Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!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: <D3svKq.LIA@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:00:26 GMT
References: <3gtu3i$rf3@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D3p5D7.F5A@hpl.hp.com> <3hbgfe$eks@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3hbsq4$arh@agate.berkeley.edu> <jqbD3r3Cp.CrC@netcom.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: saiph.hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 55

Jim Balter (jqb@netcom.com) wrote:
: "John and Mary" is commutable; both subjects are given equal, or at least
: similar, worth.  "John and ... ?" is inherently not commutable; John and Mary
: (if that is whom he was with) play radically different *semantic* roles in the
: question, and therefore it is hardly surprising that we do not use a syntactic
: form that gives them equal roles.  We would no sooner ask "Whom did you see
: John and?" than we would ask "Whom did you see and John?", whereas we readily
: ask either "Whom did you see John with?" or "Whom did you see with John?".
: All of Pinker's examples are readily explained through semantics, and it takes
: an effort of will to not be able to come up with such explanations.  In fact,
: all of these examples could be given as evidence that there is no innate
: syntax.  In syntax driven systems, we might expect forms like "negation I went
: <etc>

You have raised the flag of "semantics" over several structural
regularities that I would classify as "syntax". I don't think
of syntax as covering only formal grammars - I would call "syntax"
anything that relates to the *form of expression* of an idea,
as opposed to its content.

It is my position that the sentences "I saw John with Mary" and
"I saw John and Mary" have identical semantic content. They are
"stimulus synonymous", as Quine might say. The two utterences are,
in many contexts, completely interchangeable, and communicate
precisely the same information. The distinction between
them is purely syntactic, relying on our distinction between the
*syntactic* (not semantic) roles of "and" and "with".

I don't think syntax and semantics can be so cleanly separated
as you seem to think.

: If this is the best that Chomskyists can offer, I am sorely disappointed.

It was not warranted to that effect, nor am I willing to
consider myself to be a "Chomskyist". No doubt a true
Chomskyist, if such a one exists and lurks nearby, could
do better.

: [Since some of this discussion seems to take, on the surface, a personal tone,
: I will point out that I have met and spoken to Noam Chomsky and have the
: highest personal regard for him.]
: -- 

I'm not sure what "personal tone" you have detected, but I would
say that the high regard in which I too hold Chomsky (though I
have not met him), while it may predispose me to take his ideas
seriously, does not ensure that I agree with them. I also
have a high regard for my net.opponents: I will read and try
to understand their arguments and try to give those arguments the
most generous reasonable interpretation. This would certainly
not be worth my while if I thought they had nothing interesting
to say. I'm trying to understand this stuff, not running for office.

Bo 

