proof or dare

  Originally published on Language and Philosophy, August 27, 2010

While commenting on David B. Hart’s “Believe it or not” at First Things, I learned that many outside the field of linguistics and philosophy (at least, outside analytic philosophy) seem to view linguistics as just a ‘soft’ social science. I’m moved to correct:

Current syntax began with computer theory, a form of math — pure math, strictly speaking. It originated in cryptology, but as developed in computer theory, it’s all abstract elements and abstract structures replete with proofs, either by logical deduction or mathematical induction on those elements.

When I studied CT, it was presented exactly as that: pure math, including proofs for every single result. The prof — this was a while ago — had no idea Chomsky was a linguist, but knew him as a mathematician, because Chomsky had proved several important mathematical results: Chomsky Normal Form (that any multiple expansion can be reduced to equivalent set of binary expansions) and the Chomsky Hierarchy of Languages (abstract languages, not human languages). Syntax is still using that mathematical model, though much augmented and much more speculative.

Current phonology, Optimality Theory, is a highly mathematical form of complex flow chart and bears a close relationship with Game Theory.

The area I work in, semantics, is in large part applied mathematical logic — the Dutch flatly consider it little more than applied mathematical logic. Quantifiers, negation, modals, all are rendered in mathematical models including set theory, lattices, lambda abstraction, Curry functions, modal logic, with results expressed in monotonicity, scope relations, scales; and in some cases semantics has shown important results for mathematical logic itself. Montague’s work belongs among the work of Gödel and Tarski. Kratzer’s work brings logic much closer to reality. But mostly it’s a bunch of mathematicians and logicians analyzing language.

Learnability is a mathematical problem. Computability — how much space your brain can contain, assuming it’s got a finite capacity — is a mathematical problem. And Diver’s followers treat the whole field as information theory, which is entirely math.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An addendum on Hanson’s grabby aliens

  Originally published on Language and Philosophy, July 12, 2022 An addendum on Hanson’s grabby aliens: If we were to assume that all of human futures are determined by those elements of human nature that have persisted through history, we might conclude that we will continue to expand our influence on nature, organize it, harness it etc. This seems to be the assumption Hanson makes in predicting that aliens with advanced technology will be grabby — they will succeed by Darwinian selection over their environment, dominating it, organizing it, harnessing it just as we have in our Darwinian selection here. Darwinian libertarianism is Hanson’s idee fixe which he applies to everything. But as David Deutsch likes to say, not without some (though not entire) justification, we can’t predict the technology of the future. More important, technological advances have been the great game changers in human history. They are changes in our relationship with our environment, and in our selection. Rel
Read more

my Proudest Moment (and the problem with Dawkins)

  Originally published on Language and Philosophy, May 15, 2012 One of my proudest moments: A religious student in one of my linguistics classes challenged Darwinian evolution as “just a theory.” For a moment I thought I’d try to explain that the theory of evolution is scientific because it could be wrong, whereas Creationism is not scientific because it can never be wrong, but I realized that even if I spent the rest of the hour explaining that conundrum of falsificationism, they’d come away thinking that science is false and Creationism is necessarily true, so I’d not only be digressing from class topic, but it would be counterproductive. Instead I suggested that the difference between the millions of years of evolution that resulted in the complexity and usefulness of natural language, on the one hand, and on the other, the clumsy strictures of standard languages, are exactly like the difference between god-given perfection and the imperfect creations of the human hand: helicopters,
Read more

The limits of imagination, scifi, art and UFOs -- or: the intrinsic mediocrity of art

  Originally published on Language and Philosophy, July 12, 2022 “Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction” – Byron It’s widely assumed that the arts are imaginative while the sciences are too constrained by reality, by formalisms, by math and by logic for flights of imagination. What if we’ve all got this backwards? One look at the history of the arts tells us that the arts are more imitative than innovative, otherwise it would be impossible to identify historical periods in the arts, and styles in the arts might be their most obvious trait, so much so that it can sometimes be difficult for an observer to tell one artist from another. This should not surprise anyone. It has a structural reason that is all too often ignored. Art is usually made for an audience. It is a game theoretic activity in which the artist must entertain the audience, which entails that the art work not lose the audience’ attention but continually communicate and engage. If the art is too innovative for th
Read more