Re: Fw: Intro to natural language processing
Rob,
Your comment indicates that I need a better
word to make my point:
JS> >That supports Deacon's hypothesis that
> symbols are more important than syntax
RF> I think that is a little hard on syntax.
> Is syntax unimportant just because it is
> flexible?
Following is my revised version:
That supports Deacon's hypothesis that
symbols are more fundamental than syntax.
The point is that symbols are the prerequisite.
You can have a natural language with symbols
and just rudimentary syntax. But without symbols,
you can't have anything like a natural language.
I suggest that you read Deacon's book and/or Peirce's
writings about semeiotic (preferably both) to get a
full appreciation for the distinction.
Re flexible: Yes, indeed syntax is extremely flexible.
That is one part of Deacon's argument about why it is
not likely to be innate. Throughout the animal kingdom,
the kinds of behavioral patterns that are innate are also
the most rigid, inflexible, unlearned, and unlearnable.
Typical examples are the vocalizations of mammals other
than humans and whales (including dolphins). They are
innate, unlearned, very simple, and controlled by the
midbrain. They have no syntax other than repetition for
emphasis. Nonvocal examples include a kitten's innate
response to kitty litter. Useful, but not flexible.
John Sowa