I THINK CHOMSKY HAS
PRODUCED A REVOLUTION
IN THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE,
AND IT IS PRODIGIOUS.
IN A WAY, I THINK
CHOMSKY IS PROBABLY
THE MOST IMPORTANT
LINGUIST THAT EVER LIVED.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANYBODY ELSE
WHO'S HAD A COMPARABLE IMPACT.
SO THERE ISN'T ANY DOUBT.
WE'RE ALL IN CHOMSKY'S DEBT.
AND CHOMSKY HAS
IDENTIFIED SOMETHING
THAT I THINK IS CORRECT,
NAMELY, THAT A CHILD COULD NOT
LEARN A LANGUAGE WITHOUT
SOME INNATE MECHANISM THAT
WOULD ENABLE IT TO
LEARN THE LANGUAGE,
SOME SPECIAL MECHANISM
FOR LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
BECAUSE THE CHILD LEARNS
AT A VERY EARLY AGE
BEFORE IT'S
INTELLECTUALLY DEVELOPED.
IT LEARNS IT ON THE BASIS
OF THE VERY DEGENERATE DATA,
NONETHELESS LEARNS A
SKILL AT ACTUALLY SPEAKING
AND UNDERSTANDING SENTENCES,
WHICH IS HIGHLY ABSTRACT.
NOW, ALL OF THAT
SEEMS TO ME RIGHT.
MY ONE OBJECTION-- AND THIS
IS A SERIOUS OBJECTION--
IS THAT CHOMSKY POSTULATES
A SERIES OF RULES
THAT THE CHILD KNOWS INNATELY.
AND THESE ARE THE RULES
OF UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR.
NOW THAT SEEMS TO ME WRONG.
THAT'S A MISUNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT A RULE IS
AND HOW RULES FUNCTION.
RULES HAVE TO BE SUBJECT
TO INTERPRETATION.
THEY HAVE TO OPERATE
IN REAL TIME.
THE CHILD HAS TO BE
ABLE TO BECOME CONSCIOUS
OF THE OPERATION OF THE RULE.
THINK OF WHAT IT IS TO FOLLOW
THE RULE, DRIVE ON THE LEFT
WHEN YOU'RE IN ENGLAND
OR DRIVE ON THE RIGHT
WHEN YOU'RE IN
THE UNITED STATES.
I MEAN, THOSE RULES HAVE
TO FUNCTION CAUSALLY
IN THE PRODUCTION
OF THE BEHAVIOR.
THEY'RE SUBJECT TO
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS.
IF THE ROAD'S BLOCKED, THEN
YOU CAN DRIVE AROUND IT.
AND IT WORKS IN REAL TIME.
THAT IS, THE TIME THAT YOU'RE
ACTUALLY OBEYING THE RULE
IS THE TIME THAT THE RULE
IS FUNCTIONING CAUSALLY.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THESE RULES
ARE ACCESSIBLE TO CONSCIOUSNESS.
YOU CAN THINK ABOUT
WHAT IT IS YOU'RE DOING.
BUT IN CHOMSKY, RULES
AREN'T LIKE THAT ALL.
THEY FUNCTION AUTOMATICALLY.
THEY FUNCTION COMPUTATIONALLY.
THEY FUNCTION INSTANTANEOUSLY.
AND THAT, I WANT TO
SAY, IS NOT A RULE.
WELL, WHAT'S THE
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION?
WELL, THINK ABOUT OTHER CASES.
IF PRECISELY TO
THE EXTENT THAT YOU
HAVE AN INNATE MECHANISM BUILT
INTO THE BRAIN THAT ENABLES YOU
TO LEARN LANGUAGE,
PRECISELY TO THAT EXTENT
YOU DON'T HAVE TO
POSTULATE RULES.
I MEAN, THINK OF
OTHER CASES WHERE
WE HAVE INNATE MECHANISMS.
I HAVE AN EYE THAT IS
SENSITIVE TO RED AND BLUE,
BUT MY VISUAL SYSTEM ISN'T
SENSITIVE TO ULTRAVIOLET
OR INFRARED.
NOW, IS THAT BECAUSE
I'M FOLLOWING A RULE?
IS A LITTLE KID FOLLOWING A
RULE IF IT'S RED AND BLUE, OK,
TO SEE IT.
BUT IF IT'S ULTRAVIOLET
OR INFRARED, DON'T SEE IT.
NO, YOU DON'T NEED A RULE.
THE KID JUST HAS A
MECHANISM THAT'S SENSITIVE.
AND THE MECHANISM IS
SENSITIVE TO A CERTAIN PART
OF THE SPECTRUM
AND NOT THE REST.
NOW SIMILARLY, WE EACH HAVE AN
INNATE MECHANISM IN OUR BRAIN
WHICH IS SENSITIVE TO
NATURAL HUMAN LANGUAGES.
AND THE KID CAN PICK
UP THOSE LANGUAGES.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO POSTULATE
THIS ELABORATE SERIES OF RULES.
NOW, IT'S ACTUALLY
AT A DEEPER LEVEL.
THIS IS PART OF THAT
COMPUTATIONAL MISTAKE
THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT
EARLIER BECAUSE THE NEXT MOVE IS
TO SAY, WELL, THESE RULES
TAKE THE FORM OF COMPUTATIONS.
THEY ARE VERY RAPID COMPUTATIONS
OVER ABSTRACT SYMBOLS.
AND THERE I THINK
THAT'S A DEEPER MISTAKE
BECAUSE THE WHOLE
NOTION OF COMPUTATION
IS ONE OF THOSE
OBSERVER-RELATIVE NOTIONS
THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT
EARLIER, WHERE A SYSTEM IS
A COMPUTER ONLY RELATIVE
TO SOME AGENT WHO'S
USING IT TO COMPUTE WITH.
SO WHAT MAKES MY COMPUTER INTO
SOMETHING THAT CARRIES OUT
COMPUTATIONS IS NOT THE
ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT AS SUCH.
BUT RATHER, WE BUILT
THE ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT
IN A WAY THAT ENABLES IT TO
INTERPRET IT COMPUTATIONALLY.
WE ASSIGN AN INTERPRETATION TO
THE INPUT AND AN INTERPRETATION
OF THE OUTPUT.
AND THEN WE DESIGN THE
PROCESSES IN BETWEEN SO WE
GET THE OUTPUT WE WANT WHEN
WE GIVE IT THE INPUT WE WANT.
SO THERE ARE TWO THINGS
WRONG WITH CHOMSKY'S CLAIM
THAT THERE ARE RULES
OF UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR.
ONE IS TO PRECISELY THE
EXTENT THAT IT'S INNATE,
YOU DON'T NEED THE
HYPOTHESIS OF RULES.
THAT'S NOW REDUNDANT.
YOU'VE GOT A MECHANISM
THAT DOES IT, LIKE THE EYE.
AND TWO, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU
POSTULATE THAT THE MECHANISM IS
COMPUTATIONAL, YOU'VE ABANDONED
THE CLAIM TO NATURAL SCIENCE
BECAUSE COMPUTATION
DOES NOT NAME
AN INTRINSIC
FEATURE OF A SYSTEM.
SOMETHING IS COMPUTATIONAL
ONLY RELATIVE TO AN INTERPRETER
WHO INTERPRETS IT
COMPUTATIONALLY.
