TITLE: Language Science
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: July 05, 2007  3:59 PM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:

My
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2007-07.html#e2007-07-04T21_19_00.htm">
   previous entry</A>
discussed the scientific study of language.  It
occurred to me that the scientists who object to
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2007-07.html#e2007-07-03T08_02_35.htm">
   computing as science</A>
might also object to the study of language as "real" science.
Certainly, the biological and neurological foundation of
language seems to meet the criterion that a phenomenon occur
in the natural world in order to be in the realm of science.
But what of syntax and semantics?  Even if we computer
scientists speak of "natural language"  Do they occur
naturally in the world?

According to Chomsky, the answer is 'yes':  People are born
with a universal grammar implemented in their brains, which
makes it possible for us to learn what otherwise might not
be learnable in a tractable way.  This is a claim that is
open to empirical study, at least in principle, though the
story of the Pirah&atilde; shows how difficult it is to
support and falsify claims in this area.  (And according
to the article I cited last time, there are some are who
concerned with how engaged Chomsky himself is in empirical
verification these days.)

But isn't natural language man-made?  We grow and evolve
our vocabulary with some degree of intention.  Syntax
changes over time, too, and at least part of that change
is intentional.

Not everyone thinks of language as a designed artifact.
Consider this quote from an
<A HREF="http://www.designobserver.com/archives/024825.html">
   essay at Design Observer</A>

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
According to new book by linguist David Harrison, "Languages
can package knowledge in radically different ways, thus
facilitating different ways of conceptualizing, naming, and
discussing the world."  If languages package information, can
they be considered design objects?
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a computer scientist, so my first thought was, "Well,
duh."  Had I written a separate blog entry on that piece,
I would have titled it "Yet Another Example of Why
Non-Computer Scientists Should Study CS".  Maybe, though,
I am betrayed by living in a world artificial -- designed
-- languages.  (Well, if you can call a language like Perl
"designed".)

I'm not a linguist, so it is hard for me to say to what
extent primitive languages such as Pirah&atilde; esp.
pre-literate ones, are designed and to what extent they
flow out of the machinery of the human brain.

Interestingly, a few years ago we had a multidisciplinary
language science seminar at my university.  You can see
the
<A HREF="http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/research/languageScienceFull.html">
   web page</A>
from our last full semester of activity.  It was a diverse
crew, ranging from folks interested in the biological and
neurological side of language, to a cognitive psychologist,
to linguists, on up to teachers of modern languages and
literature profs interested in the use of language in poetry
and prose.  And there was one person interested in artificial
languages and their interplay with natural language -- me.
The group is dead now, but I found it quite valuable both as
a teacher and as someone interested in programming languages.
I miss our biweekly sessions.
-----