1.1 32 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Authors/Titles Chomsky Noam Chomsky<br /> Literatur<br /> Chomsky I<br /> Noam Chomsky<br /> "Linguistics and Philosophy", in: Language and Philosophy, (Ed) Sidney Hook New York 1969 pp. 51-94<br /> In<br /> Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995<br /> <br /> Chomsky II<br /> Noam Chomsky<br /> "Some empirical assumptions in modern philosophy of language" in: Philosophy, Science, and Method, Essays in Honor of E. Nagel (Eds. S. Morgenbesser, P. Suppes and M- White) New York 1969, pp. 260-285<br /> In<br /> Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995<br /> <br /> Chomsky IV<br /> N. Chomsky<br /> Aspekte der Syntaxtheorie Frankfurt 1978<br /> <br /> Chomsky V<br /> N. Chomsky<br /> Language and Mind Cambridge 2006 1 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Active/passive Chomsky 2 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Innateness Chomsky Katz I 380<br /> Innate ideas are the crux of the dispute between empiricists and rationalists.<br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Empiricism">Empiricism</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Rationalism">Rationalism</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Ideas">Ideas</a>. 3 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Thinking Chomsky 4 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Simplicity Chomsky I 295<br /> Simplicity/Chomsky: mathematics has no concept of the "easiness" of a calculation - therefore one needs an optimal computational procedure. <br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Method">Method</a>.<br /> I 305 <br /> Chomsky refers to choice between grammars, not between theories. - Simplicity of a grammar would be empirically like a physical constant. <br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Theories">Theories</a>. 5 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Explanation Chomsky Strawson VI 392<br /> Explanation/Chomsky: Chomsky admits that an "explanatory adequate" grammar does not have to be "descriptive-adequate". <br /> We need a theory of linguistic universals and why our grammar was selected.<br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Theories">Theories</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Grammar">Gramma</a>r. 6 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Forms Chomsky I 310<br /> Chomsky: interested in whether there are ideas and principles which determine the form of the knowledge acquired (rationalist variant) or (Vs) whether the structure of the acquisition mechanism is limited to simple processing mechanisms (empiricist version). <br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Principles">Principles</a>.<br /> Empiricism/Chomsky: is not that important. <br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Empiricism">Empiricism</a>. 7 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Grue Chomsky I 290<br /> Grue/ChomskyVsGoodman: Grueness is amarginal problem - the initial question is much too vague. - You can easily find a property of language "grue bleen" which is not a property of a "languange like German" - e.g. the predicate "being similar", only applied to objects rather than to qualia.<br /> Chomsky: there is no point in time t such that we can predict of objects that they will not be similar - they could be the similar if both were green - it is a property of natural languages ​​that they behave more like German than like "grue bleen" - but language concepts such as "German" are too vague to satisfy Goodman’s criterion - we cannot explain why the learner does not acquire grue as basis for generalisation - that certainly follows from the sensory system.<br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Learning">Learning</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Language+Acquisition">Language acquisition</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Induction">Induction</a>. 8 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Grammar Chomsky 9 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Ideas Chomsky Katz II 380<br /> Innate ideas are the crux of the dispute between empiricists and rationalists.<br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Empiricism">Empiricism</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Rationalism">Rationalism</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Innateness">Innateness</a>. 10 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Competence Chomsky 11 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Constants Chomsky Lyons I 266<br /> Constituent Structure Rule/Transformation Rule/Constant/Variable/Chomsky/Lyons: if the formalization of a system requires that the T-rules should come according to the PS-rules (phrase structure rules) (as in N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, Berlin, New York 1957), a constituent structure rule would have to be reclassified as a T-rule. This is possible because a constant can always be considered as a variable with only one value. <br /> This again demonstrates the heterogeneity of the T-rules. ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Variables">Variables</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Grammar">Grammar</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Universal+Grammar">Universal grammar</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Transformational++Grammar">Transformation grammar</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Generative+Grammar">Generative grammar</a>. 12 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Criteria Chomsky II 345<br /> Criteria/mental states/Wittgenstein: mental states or the "inner workings of the mind" do not provide a criterion for the proper use of an expression.<br /> II 346<br /> ChomskyVsWittgenstein: here it is not about a "real statement" e.g. if someone reads something, but about a legitimate claim - e.g. mirage: can provoke a legitimate (incorrect) assertion.<br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Assertions">Assertions</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Assertibility+Conditions">Assertibility conditions</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Justification">Justification</a>. 13 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Artificial Intelligence Chomsky Putnam III 29/30<br /> Artificial Intelligence/Chomsky: Chomsky believes that the computer model of the mind is right, but doubts the success of the artificial intelligence.<br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Artificial+Intelligence">Artificial Intelligence</a><br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Artificial+Consciousness">Artificial consciousness</a><br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Artificial+General+Intelligence">Artificial General Intelligence</a><br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Strong+Artificial+Intelligence">Strong Artificial Intelligence</a><br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Machine+Learning">Machine Learning</a><br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Neural+Networks">Neural Networks</a><br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Superintelligence">Superintelligence</a> 14 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Method Chomsky 15 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Surface Structure Chomsky 16 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Rules Chomsky Lyons I 259<br /> Phrase structure rules/PS-Rules/Chomsky: (N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, Berlin, New York 1957):<br /> (1) S > NP + VP<br /> (2) VP > Verb + NP<br /> (3) NP > NP sing<br /> or<br /> NP plur<br /> (4) NP sing > T * N + 0 (null)<br /> (5) NP plur > T + N + s<br /> (6) Verb > Aux + V<br /> (7) Aux > C(M) (have + en) (be + ing) (M = auxiliary)<br /> <br /> I 260<br /> Lexical substitution/Lyons: we have ignored it here, but instead <br /> Lexicon/Chomsky: Example<br /> <br /> T = {the}<br /> N = {man, ball,…}<br /> V = {hit, take, walk, read,…}<br /> M = {will, can, shall, must}<br /> <br /> Rule (7): develops Aux into a chain with up to four elements. Of these, C is obligatory, (his task to regulate congruence relations is interpreted by a transformation rule). The other rules on the right side of (7) are optional. Each element is independent of the other two. <br /> The output of rule (7) will therefore contain one of the following eight chains (in Aux's position in the output of rule (6)):<br /> <br /> (1) C<br /> (2) C + M<br /> (3) C + have + en<br /> (4) C + be + ing<br /> (5) C + M + have + en<br /> (6) C + M + be + ing<br /> (7) C + have + en + be + ing<br /> (8) C + M + have + en + be + ing<br /> <br /> Definition Core Chain/Transformational Grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: this is the output of phrase structure rules (kernel string). <br /> Definition core sentence/kernel sentence: is any sentence created from a single core chain without the use of any optional transformations. <br /> <br /> Transformation rules/Chomsky: no sentence is created without applying at least a limited number of mandatory T-rules. It is wrong (how often assumed) that core sentences would be generated by phrase structure rules alone. <br /> I 264<br /> T-rules/Chomsky/Lyons: are heterogeneous. The construction of a partial transformational grammar for a language itself is an enormously complex matter. Many factors influence the decision whether to apply a T-rule or a basic rule (Phrase structure rule, constituent structure rule) to a certain element. <br /> T-rules: not all of them are transformational by their very nature!<br /> Transformational: two criteria for "inherent" transformational rules:<br /> 1. Any rule that does not meet the conditions imposed by a constituent structure rule is transformational. <br /> I 265<br /> 2. Definition T-rule: is the one that in the symbol chain to the left of the replacement arrow contains at least one symbol that acts as a variable, which assumes as a value any one of the whole class of subchains that are dominated by this symbol in the P-marker. This P-marker belongs to the chain serving as a rule input. <br /> For example, all symbols (except V) are in this sense variables in the structural descriptions of the above passive transformation: <br /> <br /> SB: NP - Aux – V – NP<br /> <br /> V: on the other hand, is a constant: it is an end symbol that does not dominate any substring other than itself ("self-dominance" is therefore a formal requirement of the system). <br /> Transformation/Chomsky: the difference between constant and variable is fundamental for its definition. 17 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Semantics Chomsky 18 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Language Chomsky 19 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Language Acquisition Chomsky 20 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Structures Chomsky Lyons I 259<br /> Chomsky: (N. Chomsky 1957<SUP>(1)</SUP>): Thesis: The notion of the constituent structure (formational structure) corresponds to a limited section of the language and the rest of the language can be derived from the fact that a fairly simple class of transformations is repeatedly applied to the chains given by the constituent structure grammar. If we were to expand the grammar of constituent structures in such a way that they directly describe the entire language, we would give up simplicity. <br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Simplicity">Simplicity</a>.<br /> Syntax/Chomsky: should be split into two parts: <br /> 1. basic component: constituent structure component (phrase-structure component, base component, phrase structure component, phrase structure rules (PS rules) (s) constituents).<br /> 2. transformational component with additional rules. <br /> Transformational rules/Chomsky: the entire transformational rules should be understood as additional rules.<br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Deep+Structure">Deep structure</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Surface+Structure">Surface structure</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Grammar">Grammar</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Transformational++Grammar">Transformation grammar</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Generative+Grammar">Generative grammar</a>.<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, Berlin, New York 1957 21 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Synonymy Chomsky II 335 <br /> Synonymy/ChomskyVsQuine: false idealization: not "equality in the terms" causes synonymous expressions - not assertibility conditions (circumstances) but it is about distinguishing between langue and parole, between competence and performance. <br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Circumstances">Circumstances</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Assertibility+Conditions">Assertibility conditions</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Assertibility">Assertibility</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Langue">Langue</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Parole">Parole</a>. 22 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Terminology Chomsky Lyons I 262<br /> Definition Phrase Marker/P-Marker/Grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: if a chain is represented with constituent parentheses and parentheses indices (labelled-bracketing), this is referred to as a formation marker or P-marker. <br /> Definition parenthesis index: labelled-bracketing/terminology: designation of a node in the tree diagram or symbol in front of a parenthesis. <br /> I 263<br /> Definition Dominate/Dominance/Chomsky/Lyons: a symbol dominates an entire parentheses expression when the parentheses in the P-marker is opened immediately after this symbol. In the tree diagram: The symbol dominates everything that is derived from the node indicated by the symbol. <br /> Definition (structural) analyzability/Grammar/Chomsky/Lyons: (is a condition for the application of T-rules): if a chain without residual elements can be broken down into subchains, each of which is dominated by a symbol given in the structural description of the T-rules, then the chain satisfies the conditions defined by the structural description (SB).<br /> <br /> Passive transformation/Chomsky/Lyons: (is optional) then looks like this: <br /> <br /> {T + N + 0} + {C + M + have + en} + {V} + {T + N + 0}<br /> <br /> NP1 - Aux - V - NP2<br /> <br /> Transformation: due to the operation of the actual T-Rule (in SV), a further chain (no more core chain) results as output, which then serves with its P-marker as input for further T-Rules. 23 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Deep Structure Chomsky I 269f<br /> Surface Structure/Chomsky: Determination of a hierarchy of parts of sentences that belong to specific categories: noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase, etc. E.g. John is certain that Bill will leave. John is certain to leave: - similar surface structure, different deep structure. <br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Surface+Structure">Surface structure</a>.<br /> I 273<br /> Surface Structure/Chomsky: Assumption: it contributes nothing to the meaning. The contribution an expression makes to the sentence is defined by the deep structure.<br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Compositionality">Compositionality</a>. <br /> ChomskyVsAnalytic Philosophy: if different intensions were to change their meaning after substitution, there would have to be a corresponding difference in the deep structure, which is unlikely. <br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Substitution">Substitution</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Meaning">Meaning</a>, ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Intensions">Intensions</a>.<br /> I 276f<br /> Deep Structure/Chomsky: plays a role in the mental representation of sentences. <br /> ><a href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-list.php?concept=Representation">Representation<a href=""></a></a>. 24 info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1 XML Transformational Grammar Chomsky 25