Dear Friends, one of the downsides of the fact that so many of you are natively speaking in the lingua franca of our English Age of Western philosophy is that it is very impractical for you to take a deep breath and appreciate important authors who have not written in English or who have not been yet converted into English.
I do not believe that I have ever heard an Anglophone philosopher of language mention Leonardo Coimbra or Miguel Baptista Pereira, just to name the leading figures of the first and second halves of the twentieth century in Portugal (respectively). It is probably not only hard for you to read them (these and others) but even to be aware that they do indeed exist. A text by MBP is here for your appreciation: https://www.uc.pt/site/assets/files/1118265/pereira_-_2003_-_altlinglob.pdf With the technological means of today, some effort and a bit of time is all it will cost; so there is really little to no excuse not to learn a bit more about us unless you are actually boycotting the Portuguese philosophical scene. All the best, Robert Daniel L Everett <danleveret...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia sexta, 21/04/2023 à(s) 21:43: > i have read all of shapiro’s work. my forthcoming book on peirce and the > phil of linguistics goes into a lot of detail on this stuff and takes a > difgerent perspective. > > My Princeton UP bio of peirce (2025) will go into this as well but not in > quite as much detail. > > Dan > > On Apr 21, 2023, at 16:34, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dan, Helmut, List, > > I am not a linguist, but a friend and colleague of mine, Michael Shapiro, > is. He refers to his as a "semiotic neostructuralist approach" to > linguistics. Heis likely one of the very few linguists whose realism is > informed by Peirce's. > > You might like to take a look at the critique of Chomsky and his school in > the second section of his paper, "Markedness, Causation, and Linguistic > Change: A Semiotic Perspective," 2. 'Nominalism and realism in > linguistics'. Here are two excerpts from the conclusion of that section of > Michael's paper: > > Chomsky has a rather mechanistic view of language, for all that he > understands that the freedom to compose sentences that are original, > unpredictable, and yet intelligible is different from the unoriginal, > predictable products of strictly mechanical action. His view is mechanistic > nonetheless because he simply posits underlying structures by which > sentences are to be generated. > > [ . . .] > > [I]f we focus simply on the linguist's study, as diversely conceived by > Chomsky and the semiotic neostructuralist, then there is this difference: > for the one, the teleology of language is excluded from linguistic > explanation, while for the other it is the very stuff of explanation. For > the one, linguistic phenomena conform to a describable structure of highly > abstract laws, while for the other linguistic phenomena exhibit an > intelligible if less abstract, more complicated structure. For the one, the > system is a given, and any changes in it are accidental, while for the > other development is essential to language-development is more the reality > than is any one system of rules- and that development is also intelligible > and not merely given. > > That is the conflict. The reason the semiotic neostructuralist approach > is, if it is successful, superior is that it can be used to explain the > very evolution of the brain-mechanism or linguistic capacities and > universals that Chomsky can at best describe. That is, given creatures > somewhat sociable, exchanging signs as their way of life, then the survival > value of their communicating more elaborate and precise diagrams would > explain the retention of those fortuitous variations, say, in brain > structure that promote exactly such powers of expressible > diagrammatization. That is, the principle of this evolution will be itself > linguistic, and continuous with the principles of postbiotic, strictly > linguistic evolution. The thought here is not unlike that which refuses to > postulate linguistic intentions separate from the capacity to exercise > those intentions. Just as there could be- no desire to speak without an > ability to speak, so also there could be no evolution of linguistic > capacities- even, or especially, at the physiological level-except among > those who, already speaking to one another, will more likely survive as a > species if they speak more effectively. Thus, instead of a > neurophysiological explanation of language, we have a linguistic > explanation of the higher cortex (and probably not just the speech centers > either, since so many of our capacities for sensation and action would be > bootless without our capacities for speech). > http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/shapiro/shapiro-mclc.pdf > > > > > I read this paper several years ago when I asked Michael to explain the > important notion of 'markedness' in linguistics for a NYC philosophy club > we are both members of, and he pointed to this paper. But I haven't > sufficient knowledge of linguistics nor Chat GPT to enter this discussion. > So, this is offered as material that those who have such knowledge might > find of interest, especially from a Peircean perspective. > http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/shapiro/shapiro-mclc.pdf > > To all: this paper and many Peirce and Peirce-related papers may be found > at *Arisbe: The Peirce Gateway *https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:18 AM Dan Everett <danleveret...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Helmut, >> >> There are only two claims here, one by Chomsky and one by Peirce.Although >> both use the term ‘instinct’ and ‘innate,’ these mean quite different >> things for both of them (there is a tendency to interpret Peirce’s (Hume’s, >> Locke’s, etc) use of “instinct” (and many other terms) anachronistically). >> >> In any case, Chomsky claims that language is not learned, in fact that it >> cannot be learned. It is “acquired” via innate structure that emerges via >> triggering via the environment. >> >> Peirce claims that all knowledge, ontogenetic or phylogenetic (but that >> is often/usually misinterpreted as well) is gained via inference over signs. >> >> What ChatGPT has done (and the Piantadosi article is crucial to seeing >> this clearly, so I assume you have read it) is to show that language >> structures AND their meanings can be learned by inference over signs. >> ChatGPT does rely on LLM (Large Language Models) and children do not, but >> work is already being done to produce the results based on more realistic >> data bases. >> >> Now if any system can learn a language via inference over signs, Chomsky >> is wrong. QED. >> >> The question that arises, however, is whether ChatGPT (or computers in >> Searle’s Chinese Room Gedanken experiment) are inferring over indexes and >> icons or also symbols (human language is differentiated from all other >> communication system via the open-ended cultural production of symbols). >> This also challenges the Turing Test, as Searle points out when he also >> argues that a computer’s “understanding” is based on inference of indexes >> and icons rather than symbols (though he does not use such terms). >> >> I discuss these points at length in my forthcoming book and I will be >> giving a talk on this at Google’s headquarters in July. >> >> Another benefit of Peirce’s philosophy over standard linguistics comes >> into view when we consider what I call “Frege’s error.” As we all know >> Peirce and Frege were developing propositional and first-order logic nearly >> simultaneously. However, Frege’s axiom-based system proposes a crucial role >> for the Fregean concept of compositionality in language, whereas Peirce’s >> Existential Graphs provide an inferential, non-compositional model of >> meaning. In my forthcoming work (and in a few talks I have given recently >> in pro-Fregean linguistics departments (which is pretty much all >> linguistics departments) I argue that compositionality is too weak (it >> cannot extend beyond the sentence/proposition) and too strong (it creates >> faux problems such as the veritable core of most formal linguistics, >> “gap-filler” analyses, e.g. movement rules) whereas inferentialism provides >> the best coverage. >> >> Peirce’s inferentialism is similar to, but much more general, than >> Brandom’s inferentialism (also as developed by Peregrin). So Peirce, in my >> analysis, is right at the center of current debates on the nature of human >> language. I also make this point in my 2017 book, How Language Began (and >> Homo erectus scholar Larry Barham and I make this point based on much more >> archaeological evidence from Homo erectus sites: >> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-020-09480-9 >> >> All best, >> >> Dan >> >> On Apr 20, 2023, at 4:47 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> Dan, if I would read all of Chomsky´s, and would not find him claiming, >> that his genetic grammar-module is not based on logic, then I would have to >> quote all he ever has written. The other way round would be easier. And: >> Refutation is a strong accusation, and I think the prosecutor has the >> burden of proof. >> Best, Helmut >> >> >> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 19. April 2023 um 20:28 Uhr >> *Von:* "Dan Everett" <danleveret...@gmail.com> >> *An:* "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de> >> *Cc:* g...@gnusystems.ca, "Peirce-L" <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> >> *Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Chat GPT and Peirce >> You’ll have to read your way through the literature. >> >> D >> >> >> On Apr 19, 2023, at 2:27 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> >> Dan, List, >> >> First i apologize for posting unrelated in the main thread. >> >> I appreciate your argument and find it a great insight. Now, is this a >> refutation of Chomsky´s theory or not? A computer program perhaps does not >> need such a module, because it can research and develop language from >> universal (natural) logic with Peirce´s contribution to discovering it >> included. But maybe the evolution of the brain works differently: There is >> no direct, analytical reference to universal logic, I would say. Evolution >> is all about viability. But of course, viability is greater if it is in >> accord with universal logic. It then simply works out, while when not being >> in accord, it doesn´t. But, with a direct link to logic missing, I guess >> for evolution it is a good idea, to install viable, well tested routines >> for modules from time to time, which are then inherited and give >> instructions. So maybe humans do have a grammar module, although for a >> computer such a thing is not necessary. Instead of "module" you may call it >> "instinct", i think, like a bird knows how to build a nest without first >> logically pondering "What should I do to have something to lay my eggs >> in?". So, all i wanted to object, was, that all that is not a refutation of >> Chomsky´s work. That is, unless he explicitly should have claimed, that >> this module/instinct is the starting source/reference of language, and does >> itself not have a reference to logic. Which would be absurd, i think. >> >> Best Regards >> Helmut >> >> 19. April 2023 um 19:37 Uhr >> "Dan Everett" <danleveret...@gmail.com> >> *wrote:* >> ChatGPT simply and conclusively shows that there is no need for any >> innate learning module in the brain to learn language. Here is the paper on >> it that states this best. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007180 >> >> From a Peircean perspective, it is important to realize that this works >> by inference over signs. >> >> Dan >> >> >> On Apr 19, 2023, at 12:58 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> Dan, list, >> >> ok, so it is like I wrote "or it is so, that ChatGPT is somehow referred >> to universal logic as well, builds its linguistic competence up from there, >> and so can skip the human grammar-module". But that neither is witchcraft, >> nor does it say, that there is no human-genetic grammar-module. And I too >> hope with the Linguist, that we dont have to fear ChatGPT more than we have >> to fear a refrigerator. >> >> Best >> Helmut >> >> >> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ��� PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or >> "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go >> to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ��� To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to >> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the >> SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at >> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ��� PEIRCE-L is >> owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by >> him and Ben Udell. >> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or >> "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go >> to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to >> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the >> SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at >> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is >> owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by >> him and Ben Udell. >> >> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to >> l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the >> message and nothing in the body. More at >> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . >> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; >> and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
