Building Gap Part II & the HCF-PJ debate
Tags:
Chomsky, Fitch, and Hauser have something to say in response, and their
response has just been accepted by Cognition for a future issue. You
can get a copy here.
Chomsky, Fitch, and Hauser argue that Pinker and Jackendoff did not
understand their initial paper, created a straw man in its place, and
then destroyed it with arguments that are irrelevant to what Chomsky,
Fitch, and Hauser actually said.
Incidentally, Mark Liberman points to Barbara Partee’s (fall 2004) course
"Linguistics 726 – Mathematical Linguistics," which includes a lecture dedicated to the HCF vs. PJ debate. The required readings include not only the HCF and PJ, but also a number of Language Log posts. The paper by Pierre Perruchet and Arnaud Rey (2004) is also pivital. She ends, citing LanguageLog:
March 01, 2005
Building Gab: Part Two
Posted by Carl Zimmer
Chomsky, Fitch, and Hauser have something to say in response, and their
response has just been accepted by Cognition for a future issue. You
can get a copy here.
Chomsky, Fitch, and Hauser argue that Pinker and Jackendoff did not
understand their initial paper, created a straw man in its place, and
then destroyed it with arguments that are irrelevant to what Chomsky,
Fitch, and Hauser actually said.
Incidentally, Mark Liberman points to Barbara Partee’s (fall 2004) course"Linguistics 726 – Mathematical Linguistics," which includes a lecture dedicated to the HCF vs. PJ debate. The required readings include not only the HCF and PJ, but also a number of Language Log posts. The paper by Pierre Perruchet and Arnaud Rey (2004) is also pivital. She ends, citing LanguageLog:
In any case, as Liberman notes in his Aug 31 2004 blog,
“P&R put the ball firmly back in the court of anyone who wants to
claim a relationship between the levels of the Chomsky hierarchy and
the different propensities of humans and monkeys to notice things about
sets of strings of spoken syllables.”