123:, who was the first scientist to argue that a man-made machine might truly be said to 'think'. But his often forgotten conclusion however was in line with previous observations that a "thinking" machine would be absurd, since we have no formal idea what "thinking" is — and indeed we still don't. Chomsky frequently pointed this out. Chomsky agreed that while a mind can be said to "compute"—as we have some idea of what computing is and some good evidence the brain is doing it on at least some level—we cannot however claim that a computer or any other machine is "thinking" because we have no coherent definition of what thinking is. Taking the example of what's called 'consciousness,' Chomsky said that, "We don't even have bad theories"—echoing the famous physics criticism that a theory is "not even wrong." From Turing's seminal 1950 article, "
209:
vibrating air, to electricity in a wire, to charges in silicon, to flickering light in a fibre optic cable, to electromagnetic waves, and then back again in reverse order. ... Likewise, a given programme can run on computers made of vacuum tubes, electromagnetic switches, transistors, integrated circuits, or well-trained pigeons, and it accomplishes the same things for the same reasons. This insight, first expressed by the mathematician Alan Turing, the computer scientists Alan Newell, Herbert Simon, and Marvin Minsky, and the philosophers Hilary Putnam and Jerry Fodor, is now called the
30:
164:
be ignored. Strictly speaking, there are no such machines. Everything really moves continuously. But there are many kinds of machine which can profitably be thought of as being discrete-state machines. For instance in considering the switches for a lighting system it is a convenient fiction that each switch must be definitely on or definitely off. There must be intermediate positions, but for most purposes we can forget about them.
337:' as described in Randy Allen Harris's 1993 publication by that name. The linguistic wars attracted young and ambitious scholars impressed by the recent emergence of computer science and its promise of scientific parsimony and unification. If the theory worked, the simple principle of digital infinity would apply to language as a whole. Linguistics in its entirety might then lay claim to the coveted status of
318:—hoped to explore the extent to which similar principles might be applied to the various sub-disciplines of linguistics, including syntax and semantics. If the phonological component of language was demonstrably rooted in a digital biological 'organ' or 'device', why not the syntactic and semantic components as well? Might not language as a whole prove to be a digital organ or device?
213:. It is one of the great ideas in intellectual history, for it solves one of the puzzles that make up the 'mind-body problem', how to connect the ethereal world of meaning and intention, the stuff of our mental lives, with a physical hunk of matter like the brain. ... For millennia this has been a paradox. ... The computational theory of mind resolves the paradox.
92:, Galileo describes with wonder the discovery of a means to communicate one's "most secret thoughts to any other person ... with no greater difficulty than the various collocations of twenty-four little characters upon a paper." "This is the greatest of all human inventions," Galileo continues, noting it to be "comparable to the creations of a Michelangelo".
333:. The underlying assumption here is that the requisite conceptual primitives—irreducible notions such as 'animate', 'male', 'human', 'married' and so forth—are genetically determined internal components of the human language organ. This idea would rapidly encounter intellectual difficulties—sparking controversies culminating in the so-called '
270:
26:. Alternative formulations are "discrete infinity" and "the infinite use of finite means". The idea is that all human languages follow a simple logical principle, according to which a limited set of digits—irreducible atomic sound elements—are combined to produce an infinite range of potentially meaningful expressions.
303:. The basic idea was that every phoneme in every natural language could in principle be reduced to its irreducible atomic components—a set of 'on' or 'off' choices ('distinctive features') allowed by the design of a digital apparatus consisting of the human tongue, soft palate, lips, larynx and so forth.
325:'—the proposal that the speaker generates word and sentence meanings by combining irreducible constituent elements of meaning, each of which can be switched 'on' or 'off'. To produce 'bachelor', using this logic, the relevant component of the brain must switch 'animate', 'human' and 'male' to the 'on'
598:
It has the advantage of maintaining the integrity of linguistics, as within a walled city, away from the contaminating influences of use and context. But many have grave doubts about the narrowness of this paradigm's definition of language, and about the high degree of abstraction and idealization of
503:
OCLC summary: "When it was first published in 1957, Noam
Chomsky's Syntactic Structure seemed to be just a logical expansion of the reigning approach to linguistics. Soon, however, there was talk from Chomsky and his associates about plumbing mental structure; then there was a new phonology; and then
208:
Information and computation reside in patterns of data and in relations of logic that are independent of the physical medium that carries them. When you telephone your mother in another city, the message stays the same as it goes from your lips to her ears even as it physically changes its form, from
58:
It remains for us to examine the spiritual element of speech ... this marvelous invention of composing from twenty-five or thirty sounds an infinite variety of words, which, although not having any resemblance in themselves to that which passes through our minds, nevertheless do not fail to reveal to
182:
used to encode signals then have no effect on the message conveyed. 'Off' (or alternatively 'on') remains unchanged regardless of whether the signal consists of smoke, electricity, sound, light or anything else. In the case of analog (more-versus-less) gradations, this is not so because the range of
163:
The digital computers considered in the last section may be classified amongst the "discrete-state machines." These are the machines which move by sudden jumps or clicks from one quite definite state to another. These states are sufficiently different for the possibility of confusion between them to
504:
there was a new set of goals for the field, cutting it off completely from its anthropological roots and hitching it to a new brand of psychology. Rapidly, all of
Chomsky's ideas swept the field. While the entrenched linguists were not looking for a messiah, apparently many of their students were."
294:
and so forth. Take the consonant , for example, and switch voicing to the 'off' position—and you get . Every possible phoneme in any of the world's languages might in this way be generated by specifying a particular on/off configuration of the switches ('articulators') constituting the human vocal
195:
This way, digital computation and communication operates independently of the physical properties of the computing machine. As scientists and philosophers during the 1950s digested the implications, they exploited the insight to explain why 'mind' apparently operates on so different a level from
249:
rose to prominence as one of the most audacious champions of this 'cognitive revolution'. Language, he proposed, is a computational 'module' or 'device' unique to the human brain. Previously, linguists had thought of language as learned cultural behaviour: chaotically variable, inseparable from
610:
Just as
Bloomfield's mentalism was one way of keeping meaning away from form, by consigning it to psychology and sociology, so Chomsky's performance is a way to keep meaning and other contaminants away from form, by consigning them to "memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and
133:, Chomsky provides the example of a submarine being said to "swim." Turing clearly derided the idea. "If you want to call that swimming, fine," Chomsky says, repeatedly explaining in print and video how Turing is consistently misunderstood on this, one of his most cited observations.
204:—light, sound, electricity or whatever—chosen to transmit the corresponding signals. Note that the Cartesian assumption of mind's independence of matter implied—in the human case at least—the existence of some kind of digital computer operating inside the human brain.
155:'. No physical mechanism can be intrinsically 'digital', Turing explained, since—examined closely enough—its possible states will vary without limit. But if most of these states can be profitably ignored, leaving only a limited set of relevant distinctions, then
85:
as perhaps the first to recognise the significance of digital infinity. This principle, notes
Chomsky, is "the core property of human language, and one of its most distinctive properties: the use of finite means to express an unlimited array of thoughts". In his
281:
was generally considered the most rigorously scientific branch of linguistics. For phonologists, "digital infinity" was made possible by the human vocal apparatus conceptualised as a kind of machine consisting of a small number of binary switches. For example,
234:
Turing did not claim that the human mind really is a digital computer. More modestly, he proposed that digital computers might one day qualify in human eyes as machines endowed with "mind". However, it was not long before philosophers (most notably
314:—to apply distinctive features theory to the study of kinship systems, in this way inaugurating 'structural anthropology'. Chomsky—who got his job at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology thanks to the intervention of Jakobson and his student,
310:. During the 1950s, he became inspired by the prospect of extending Roman Jakobson's 'distinctive features' approach—now hugely successful—far beyond its original field of application. Jakobson had already persuaded a young social anthropologist—
187:
matter which particular medium is being employed: equating a certain intensity of smoke with a corresponding intensity of light, sound or electricity is just not possible. In other words, only in the case of
144:
impossible. Neither animals nor machines can think, insisted
Descartes, since they lack a God-given soul. Turing was well aware of this traditional theological objection, and explicitly countered it.
174:
An implication is that 'digits' don't exist: they and their combinations are no more than convenient fictions, operating on a level quite independent of the material, physical world. In the case of a
341:
science. No part of the discipline—not even semantics—need be "contaminated" any longer by association with such 'un-scientific' disciplines as cultural anthropology or social science.
196:'matter'. Descartes's celebrated distinction between immortal 'soul' and mortal 'body' was conceptualised, following Turing, as no more than the distinction between (digitally encoded)
59:
others all of the secrets of the mind, and to make intelligible to others who cannot penetrate into the mind all that we conceive and all of the diverse movements of our souls.
192:
computation and communication can information be truly independent of the physical, chemical or other properties of the materials used to encode and transmit messages.
88:
515:
258:', this in turn being inseparable from anthropology, sociology and the study of man-made conventions and institutions. By picturing language instead as the
41:
Language is, at its core, a system that is both digital and infinite. To my knowledge, there is no other biological system with these properties....
441:
124:
562:
For
Chomsky, the only channels of communication that are free from such ideological contamination are those of genuine natural science.
636:
147:
Today's digital computers are instantiations of Turing's theoretical breakthrough in conceiving the possibility of a man-made
583:
611:
interest" as well as to "the physical and social conditions of language , use" (1965 :3; 1977:3)—to psychology and sociology
625:
178:
digital machine, the choice at each point is restricted to 'off' versus 'on'. Crucially, the intrinsic properties of the
210:
427:
Translated by J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, Vol. 1, pp. 139-141.
262:
mechanism of 'digital infinity', Chomsky promised to bring scientific rigour to linguistics as a branch of strictly
660:
287:
546:
23:
355:
311:
251:
179:
655:
360:
322:
296:
116:
397:
Noam
Chomsky, 1991. Linguistics and Cognitive Science: Problems and Mysteries. in Asa Kasher (ed.),
115:
otherwise 'messy' (non-digital) brain. This conception of human cognition—central to the so-called '
538:
365:
243:
is a digital computer, or at least that certain mental "modules" are best understood that way.
29:
589:
579:
283:
137:
101:
530:
453:
370:
350:
334:
307:
105:
67:
300:
152:
129:
649:
542:
236:
315:
291:
246:
78:
250:
social life and therefore beyond the remit of natural science. The Swiss linguist
120:
457:
534:
593:
375:
278:
255:
269:
239:) took what seemed to be the next logical step—arguing that the human mind
82:
299:' theory, in large part credited to the Russian linguist and polymath
136:
Previously the idea of a thinking machine was famously dismissed by
268:
28:
183:
possible settings is unlimited. Moreover, in the analog case it
578:. Longman Linguistics Library. London: Longman. p. 250.
200:
on the one hand, and, on the other, the particular physical
321:
This led some of
Chomsky's early students to the idea of '
630:
254:, for example, had defined linguistics as a branch of '
423:
Rene Descartes, 1985 . 'Discourse on the Method.' In
119:' of the 1950s and 1960s—is generally attributed to
410:Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot, 1975 (1660).
100:'Digital infinity' corresponds to Noam Chomsky's '
329:position while keeping 'married' switched 'off'
501:. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
295:apparatus. This approach became celebrated as '
206:
161:
56:
39:
273:The human speech apparatus in sagittal section
529:(4). London, UK: Academia Europaea: 581–603.
435:
433:
393:
391:
8:
286:" could be switched 'on' or 'off', as could
159:the machine may be considered 'digital':
104:' mechanism, conceived as a computational
425:The Philosophical Writings of Descartes.
387:
487:Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 64-127.
7:
637:'Honest fakes' and language origins.
442:Computing Machinery and Intelligence
401:Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 26-53, p. 50.
125:Computing Machinery and Intelligence
474:London: Allen Lane, Penguin, p. 24.
33:Frontispiece and title page of the
14:
640:Journal of Consciousness Studies,
642:15, No. 10–11, 2008, pp. 236–48.
485:Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
96:The computational theory of mind
626:'Unravelling digital infinity'.
306:Chomsky's original work was in
16:Term in theoretical linguistics
624:Knight, C. and C. Power 2008.
1:
574:Leech, Geoffrey Neil (1983).
414:The Hague: Mouton, pp. 65-66.
497:Harris, Randy Allen (1993).
211:computational theory of mind
632:(EVOLANG), Barcelona, 2008.
677:
149:universal thinking machine
535:10.1017/S1062798704000493
576:Principles of pragmatics
458:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
628:Paper presented to the
599:data which it requires.
412:The Port-Royal Grammar.
24:theoretical linguistics
22:is a technical term in
514:Knight, Chris (2004).
440:Turing, Alan (1950). "
356:Generative linguistics
274:
227:
172:
151:—known nowadays as a '
108:inserted somehow into
76:
55:
37:
470:Steven Pinker, 1997.
272:
252:Ferdinand de Saussure
32:
499:The Linguistics Wars
361:The Library of Babel
323:generative semantics
297:distinctive features
117:cognitive revolution
472:How the Mind Works.
399:The Chomskyan Turn.
312:Claude LĂ©vi-Strauss
230:A digital apparatus
70:and Claude Lancelot
516:"Decoding Chomsky"
483:Chomsky, N. 1965.
366:Origin of language
275:
38:
661:Cognitive science
635:Knight, C. 2008.
102:universal grammar
668:
612:
608:
602:
601:
571:
565:
564:
559:
557:
552:on 14 April 2021
551:
545:. Archived from
520:
511:
505:
502:
494:
488:
481:
475:
468:
462:
461:
437:
428:
421:
415:
408:
402:
395:
371:Origin of speech
351:Decoding Chomsky
335:linguistics wars
225:
224:
170:
169:Alan Turing 1950
127:", published in
114:
74:
73:
53:
52:
20:Digital infinity
676:
675:
671:
670:
669:
667:
666:
665:
646:
645:
621:
619:Further reading
616:
615:
609:
605:
586:
573:
572:
568:
555:
553:
549:
523:European Review
518:
513:
512:
508:
496:
495:
491:
482:
478:
469:
465:
452:(236): 433–60.
439:
438:
431:
422:
418:
409:
405:
396:
389:
384:
347:
308:morphophonemics
232:
226:
218:
217:
171:
168:
112:
98:
75:
68:Antoine Arnauld
64:
63:
54:
46:
45:
17:
12:
11:
5:
674:
672:
664:
663:
658:
648:
647:
644:
643:
633:
620:
617:
614:
613:
603:
584:
566:
506:
489:
476:
463:
429:
416:
403:
386:
385:
383:
380:
379:
378:
373:
368:
363:
358:
353:
346:
343:
301:Roman Jakobson
277:In the 1950s,
231:
228:
215:
166:
153:Turing machine
138:René Descartes
97:
94:
61:
43:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
673:
662:
659:
657:
654:
653:
651:
641:
638:
634:
631:
627:
623:
622:
618:
607:
604:
600:
595:
591:
587:
581:
577:
570:
567:
563:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
517:
510:
507:
500:
493:
490:
486:
480:
477:
473:
467:
464:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
436:
434:
430:
426:
420:
417:
413:
407:
404:
400:
394:
392:
388:
381:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
352:
349:
348:
344:
342:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
319:
317:
313:
309:
304:
302:
298:
293:
289:
285:
280:
271:
267:
265:
261:
257:
253:
248:
244:
242:
238:
237:Hilary Putnam
229:
223:
221:Steven Pinker
220:
214:
212:
205:
203:
199:
193:
191:
186:
181:
177:
165:
160:
158:
154:
150:
145:
143:
142:theoretically
139:
134:
132:
131:
126:
122:
118:
111:
107:
103:
95:
93:
91:
90:
84:
80:
72:
69:
66:
60:
51:
48:
42:
36:
31:
27:
25:
21:
639:
629:
606:
597:
575:
569:
561:
554:. Retrieved
547:the original
526:
522:
509:
498:
492:
484:
479:
471:
466:
449:
445:
424:
419:
411:
406:
398:
338:
330:
326:
320:
316:Morris Halle
305:
292:nasalisation
288:palatisation
276:
263:
259:
247:Noam Chomsky
245:
240:
233:
222:
219:
207:
201:
197:
194:
189:
184:
175:
173:
162:
157:functionally
156:
148:
146:
141:
135:
128:
110:Homo sapiens
109:
99:
87:
79:Noam Chomsky
77:
71:
65:
57:
50:
49:Noam Chomsky
47:
40:
34:
19:
18:
656:Linguistics
198:information
121:Alan Turing
650:Categories
585:0582551102
556:15 January
382:References
594:751316590
543:232176025
376:Recursion
279:phonology
266:science.
256:semiotics
345:See also
216:—
167:—
62:—
44:—
35:Dialogue
339:natural
284:voicing
264:natural
260:natural
190:digital
89:Dialogo
83:Galileo
592:
582:
541:
241:itself
202:medium
180:medium
176:binary
106:module
81:cites
550:(PDF)
539:S2CID
519:(PDF)
113:'
590:OCLC
580:ISBN
558:2020
446:Mind
185:does
130:Mind
531:doi
454:doi
444:".
331:(-)
327:(+)
140:as
652::
596:.
588:.
560:.
537:.
527:12
525:.
521:.
450:59
448:.
432:^
390:^
290:,
533::
460:.
456::
282:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
