网站大量收购闲置独家精品文档,联系QQ:2885784924

Chomsky_s_Philosophy_of_Language乔姆斯基语言哲学.ppt

Chomsky_s_Philosophy_of_Language乔姆斯基语言哲学.ppt

  1. 1、本文档共20页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、有哪些信誉好的足球投注网站(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
  3. 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  4. 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
Chomsky_s_Philosophy_of_Language乔姆斯基语言哲学

Chomsky’s Philosophy of language Outline Descartes vs. Locke Rationalism vs. Empiricism Empiricist’s theory of language Chomsky’s criticisms Chomsky’s rationalist theory of language Chomsky’s research methods I. Descartes vs. Locke Descartes Language distinguishes humans from animals There are innate ideas Clear and distinct ideas I think, therefore I am God exists mathematics Geometry … Maybe also knowledge of language?? Locke There are no innate ideas All knowledge comes from experience All knowledge are based on simple ideas and complex ideas The mind has some abilities to Perceive Compare Remember Abstract … Stimulus + Sense organs + mind’s abilities ? knowledge Knowledge of language also obtained in this way?? II. Empiricist’s Theory of Language Knowledge of language is learned There are some general learning mechanisms Induction/Generalization (归纳/推衍) Analogy (类比) Harris’s “discovery procedures” (乔姆斯基博士导师) Other learning algorithms (人工智能领域的) Probabilistic algorithms … … III. Chomsky’s Criticisms Criticism of induction/generalization Criticism of analogy Chomsky: ‘analogy’ wrong (1) John is easy to please (2) John is eager to please They are similar, so the child should interpret them analogously. But the child does not do this. So the idea of analogy is wrong. Chomsky: ‘generalisation’ wrong (1)?John ate an apple. (2)??John ate. (3)??John is too stubborn to talk to Bill. (4) John is too stubborn to talk to. Generalising from (1) and (2): (5) Whenever an object is missing, an arbitrary object is meant. But if the child applies (5) to (4), it will get a wrong interpretation But the child does not make such a mistake. Another example the man is tall — is the man tall? the book is on the table — is the book on the table? Generalisation: To form a question: prepose the first ‘is’ The child would do: the man who is tall is in the room — is the man who tall is in the room? But the child actually does: the man who is tall is in the room — is the man who is

文档评论(0)

xcs88858 + 关注
实名认证
内容提供者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

版权声明书
用户编号:8130065136000003

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档