Linguistic Irony

Written by

in

, in an article published in the August 8 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and titled “Unsupervised Learning of Natural Languages,” the Israelis Zach Solan, David Horn, Eytan Ruppin and Shimon Edelman, two of them physicists, one a computer scientist and one a psychologist, argue otherwise. They have, the four maintain, developed a mathematical model — or as they put it, “an unsupervised algorithm that discovers hierarchical structure in any sequence of data” — that explains how a child, unaided by an innate mental grammar of any kind, can learn languages as diverse as English and Chinese by precisely the trial-and-error method that Chomsky dismissed as insufficient. Moreover, this model, they write, has actually been tested on computers, which, when fed between 10,000 and 120,000 sentences in languages they originally were unfamiliar with — a not enormous quantity considering the number of sentences spoken to an average 3- or 4-year-old every day — were able to decode these languages’ grammatical structure and to produce grammatically acceptable sentences in them.

I must confess that, having tried reading “Unsupervised Learning of Natural Languages,” I lack the mathematics to follow it very far. Moreover, even if the algorithm in question works, it would still have to be demonstrated, in order to refute Chomsky’s theory of “innate grammar,” that such a model, or one like it, is itself innate in the human mind. But for linguists, the possible implications are enormous. An entire era may be about to come to an end — and with it a good part of the reputation of the man most identified with it. It would be poetic justice indeed if the Israel-bashing Chomsky were knocked off his scientific pedestal by a group of scientists from Israel.

Comments

  1. PooterGeek Avatar

    I have always been profoundly skeptical of “language organ” theories. They share with Intelligent Design one of the deadliest weaknesses: lack of imagination. But I am an extreme skeptic in general so, when I mentioned this paper on PooterGeek
    http://www.pootergeek.com/?p=1731
    I was pretty cautious. As you might expect, the application of the technique to protein sequences interests me in particular. The scale of the involved workers’ achievement, if real, is huge. The annihilation within his lifetime of Chomksy’s last shred of intellectual credibility would, of course, be a delightful piece of collateral damage.

  2. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    I never picked that up on your blog – and a month ago! I’ll admit that I’d always been persuaded by Chomsky’s argument about a “language organ”, but never particularly liked the rationalist baggage he packaged it in.

  3. Dom Avatar
    Dom

    The two ideas of “Language organ” and “Learned Behavior” do not really contradict each other. Birds have “Flight Organs” (wings, etc), but they still learn to fly.
    PooterGeek is right to call Chomsky’s views “Intelligent Design”, and in fact Chomsky’s role in language theory is very similar to Lysenko’s role in Biology in the Soviet Union. He used political means to crush debate.
    Dom

  4. marc w. Avatar
    marc w.

    It’s the remarkable linguistic gymnastics required to fit all languages’ grammar into one universal grammar that’s presented the biggest problem in Chomsky’s thesis.
    These theories seem oddly resistent to falsification – if someone presents a language whose grammatical structure differs entirely from, say, Romance languages, just claim that the differences are just surface-level misunderstandings: the ‘implied’ grammar matches neatly with the model, despite a lack of evidence for this theory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *