Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!warwick!uknet!festival!edcogsci!doug
From: doug@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Douglas Raith)
Subject: Re: Learning Computer Languages vs. Human Languages.
Message-ID: <Cws95M.E1@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <3655j2$t5e@lester.appstate.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 10:00:55 GMT
Lines: 40

mh1704@acs.appstate.edu (Matt Harmon) writes:

>   My question is this (somewhat along the same lines as my orginal one):
>1)  Is the process for learning a new language is the same for every language
>(at least in terms of celluar/neural connections in the brain)?  and, if it is
>2)  Then why can't I (or anyone else) pick up a spoken language as fast as I
>(or anyone else) can pick up a computer programming language?

I'd say a computer language is far simpler than a human language, both
in syntax and semantics.  There are no hidden subtleties, nuances, or
irregularities.  It would be a pretty useless computer language which
had any of these, and a pretty useless human language which had none.
I would say there seems to be a small degree of commonality between
the processes of learning both types of syntax; but that's subjective.
I'd be interested to know anything more objective, too.

>   As a final point (which I also brought up in the original conversation)
>it is possible for two humans to carry on a complete conversation in a computer
>language and have the message understood in both directions, without having to
>lapse into a "traditional" spoken language.  If it works for computers, and
>it works for humans, then why can't say, French, work in the other direction?

I'd be interested to read your translation into Fortran of, say,
Hamlet's soliloquy.  Computer languages are unable to talk directly
about anything outside the computer, unless you add to them by
projecting your own semantics to them (by using 'meaningful' variable
names etc) - but that's using a human language anyway.  How good are
you at speaking and understanding computer languages without using
such mnemonic devices?  How about talking 8086 machine code in
hexadecimal, about everyday topics?

>   Just looking for a way to improve my French profiency(sp?) and maybe
>learn something.

I think there's no way round it.  Human languages are orders of
magnitude more complex, and the cultural milieux which they reflect
make them fascinating.  (In the same way that computer languages
reflect their intended applications.)

Doug.
