tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post1182576395762286855..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: When UG?Norberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-84925747752947703172013-09-26T11:24:58.974-07:002013-09-26T11:24:58.974-07:00@ Robert: I am interested in reading the longer ve...@ Robert: I am interested in reading the longer version, where does one get a copy?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03443435257902276459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-63253948764684590182013-09-25T08:11:32.925-07:002013-09-25T08:11:32.925-07:00BTW, if anyone is interested, there's a *long*...BTW, if anyone is interested, there's a *long* version of the rebuttal to D&L that I hope might appear sometime (> 40 pp). D&L is in far graver shape than one can say in a few pages. Second, off-topic a bit but in reply to Avery's enthusiasm for Kwiatkowski et al.: I agree this is a very nice demo...but I wouldn't jump ship quite yet. For one thing, it's a jumped-up probabilistic version of Siskind's 1996 approach, which dovetails OK w. any LFG or (then GB) approach. Don't get me wrong. It is a major advance on this, in my view. And it's nice that it works w/ CHILDES examples. But there's no reason I can see why one can't apply the same brute force 'try all possible word-object combos" and then all "syntax-LF combos" as long as one has some systematic lf underlying it all. I guess I will try to write about this in more detail.Robert Berwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01114260546073129733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-55939172666435393082013-09-24T19:59:54.673-07:002013-09-24T19:59:54.673-07:00But the best tends to get mixed up with the not-so...But the best tends to get mixed up with the not-so-best, and the prominent place of what are essentially speculations generates a lot of turbulence and headwinds (at least from where I sit).AveryAndrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701162517596420514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-61448246803855227672013-09-24T17:51:03.026-07:002013-09-24T17:51:03.026-07:00I don't think that this is what MP does, at it...I don't think that this is what MP does, at its best. Moreover, these old questions need not. Be abandoned by anyone. The program is one of unification, at least for me, of the various apparently disparate modules. This gets some slight motivation from the evo timeline, but also makes perfect sense without this. Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-77486691365676385622013-09-24T16:52:57.268-07:002013-09-24T16:52:57.268-07:00Why base so much of linguistics on an assumption t...Why base so much of linguistics on an assumption that is a) at best weakly supported, and b) such that the evidence for it can't be professionally evaluated by people with training in linguistics? Directing attention towards the idea of FLN also entails directing it away from the classic generative task of explaining how languages can be learned as fast as they are, at exactly the moment when various advances in mathematical understanding seem to offer some promise of making real progress on this, in a framework that most of out intellectual neighbors understand (e.g. the Kwiatkowski ety al CCG learner - if I could figure out how to make CCG manage the exciting aspects of Icelandic, Kayardild and Dinka, I'd probably 'convert' to it).AveryAndrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701162517596420514noreply@blogger.com