In this validation process, the team has tried to make sense of the research, devising a working hypothesis, built on scientific bases, such as the reference models that for years have been the pillars of the language sciences, which are: the descriptive method of N. Chomsky ;- The method Lexico-grammatica by M. Gross ; -The Nooj system, according to the Transformational Analysis of Direct Transitive by M. Silberzstein; The probabilistic calculation by Hofmann, according to the Probabilistic latent semantic Analis. The results have given very valid and irrefutable answers such as: - The mathematical laws guide and support the linguistic text, because a language, to be elevated to universal code must be describable, with a rational scientific method. Languages can be converted into a plurality of codes and that formal languages are subjected to techniques of fixity and non-compositionality and therefore guided by mathematical laws pre-established and therefore predictable, was born for market needs and is built in the laboratory Natural languages are subjected to linguistic techniques of causality, and that the first communication and fixed, the second is innate, because ........The homo sapiens transforms the contents of his mental activities into symbols, i.e. letters, numbers, etc. according to anthropology, sociology and natural laws of his culture and therefore semantics belongs only to the man sapiens and to a certain man in the course of that history. The statute of conjecturing that we postulate is that the mathematical laws guide the mind of the homo sapiens in the structuring of the lessies, morphies, dysmorphs in the osmotic voluntary and innate conjecturing of human semantics.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
Dear Prof. Ritamaria Bucciarelli:
Congratulations and thank you so much for asking this most important question in the context of both Applied and Computational Linguistics! In that regard, as far as the descriptive method is concerned, Chomsky (1956) undertakes highly focused research on several conceptions of linguistic structure to determine whether or not they can provide simple and “revealing” grammars that generate all of the sentences of English and only these. He finds that no finite-state Markov process that produces symbols with transition from state to state can serve as an English grammar. Furthermore, Chomsky (1956) draws attention to the particular subclass of such processes that produce n-order statistical approximations to English do not come closer, with increasing n, to matching the output of an English grammar. Like this manner, he formalizes the notions of phrase structures and shows that this gives us a method for describing language, which is essentially more powerful, though still representable as a rather elementary type of finite-state process. Nevertheless, Chomsky (1956) points out that it is successful only when limited to a small subset of simple sentences. In view of that, he studies the formal properties of a set of grammatical transformations that carry sentences with phrase structure into new sentences with derived phrase structure, showing that transformational grammars are processes of the same elementary type as phrase-structure grammars. Correspondingly, he underlines that the grammar of English is materially simplified if phrase structure description is limited to a kernel of simple sentences from which all other sentences are constructed by repeated transformations, and that this view of linguistic structure gives a certain insight into the use and understanding of language.
Subsequently, Chomsky (1956) states that general linguistic theory can be viewed as a metatheory, which is concerned with the problem of how to choose such a grammar in the case of each particular language on the basis of a finite corpus of sentences. In particular, as indicated by Chomsky (1956), it will consider and attempt to explicate the relation between the set of grammatical sentences and the set of observed sentences. In other words, this author emphasizes that linguistic theory attempts to explain the ability of a speaker to produce and understand- new sentences, and to reject as ungrammatical other new sequences, based on his limited linguistic experience. To this end, Chomsky (1956) gives the following example: suppose that for many languages there are certain clear cases of grammatical sentences and certain clear cases of ungrammatical sequences, e-e., (1) and (2). Respectively, in English.
(1) John ate a sandwich
(2) Sandwich a ate John.
In this case, we can test the adequacy of a proposed linguistic theory by determining, for each language, whether or not the clear cases are handled properly by the grammars constructed in accordance with this theory. For example, if a large corpus of English does not happen to contain either (1) or (2), we ask whether the grammar that is determined for this corpus will project the corpus to include (1) and exclude (2). In this sense, Chomsky (1956) points out that even though such clear cases may provide only a weak test of adequacy for the grammar of a given language taken in isolation. They provide a very strong test for any general linguistic theory and for the set of grammars to which it leads, since, as Chomsky (1956) claims, in the case of each language the clear cases be handled properly in a fixed and predetermined manner. Like so, Chomsky (1956) does foreground that we can take certain steps towards the construction of an operational characterization of “grammatical sentence” that will provide us with the clear cases required to set the task of linguistics significantly.
More to the point, Odlin (1994: 45) asserts that, nevertheless, at the practical level, the Universal Grammar Model by Chomsky suggests that more attention must be paid by teachers to the teaching of specifically syntactic aspects of vocabulary acquisition.
Bibliographical references
- Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on information theory, 2(3), 113-124. Retrieved from: (https://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/rome/refs/chomsky_3models.pdf). [Accessed August 06, 2019].
- Odlin, T. (Ed.). (1994). Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Best wishes,
Javier.
- Badges
- Science topic