That function

Mwaha. I have been given the keys to the kingdom. Nothing can stop me now!

So, I get that we're now sort of converging on the idea that we want to characterize human language as a function from some set of representations to some form of kind-of-sort-of set membership measure---e.g. (PF, LF) -> {0,1} or (numeration, PF, LF) -> [0,1] or whatever.

But something has often struck me as a little odd when we go this route. It doesn't seem to have that much to do with the machinery of linguistic computation. If we worry whether there is an equivalence between the kind of memory that a Turing Machine has and the kind that the brain has, well, it seems that the machinery of linguistic computation is of central importance. So why aren't we instead characterizing the function as two (potentially inverse) functions: PF->LF (parsing) and LF->PF (generation), rather than attempting to characterize grammaticality judgements on (PF, LF) pairs?

Or am I missing something fundamental, it's late and I'm just wooly-headed, etc, etc?

Plans for September 19 class

I've added details for next class, including readings, on the schedule. In addition to requiring Abney (thanks, Tim, for posting the links!), I recommend Manning and Sorace/Keller.

Steven Abney paper for 19 September

http://www.vinartus.net/spa/95c.pdf

Also in the locker here:
http://www.ling.umd.edu/locker/ComputationsOfLanguage/Abney95c.pdf

Reactions to Class 2 and to reading for Class 3

The title says it all....I've posted some comments on the initial 'Reactions to Class 1 and Reading for class 2' and simply didn't think of initiating the post.

August 29 class -- reactions after class

Well, I was really pleased with how things went! People had very interesting things to say, and I felt as if the mix (computational, linguistic, etc.) was a good one.

Here are the pointers to the papers from today:

Marr, David. Vision. W.H. Freeman, 1982
http://web.archive.org/web/20051227154554/http://www.psych.upenn.edu/backuslab/psyc111/Readings/Marr_Chapter1.pdf

Kosslyn, S. M., and Maljkovic, V. (1990). Marr's metatheory revisited. Concepts in Neuroscience, 1, 239-251.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~kwn/Kosslyn_pdfs/1990Kosslyn_ConceptsInNeurosci1_MarrMetatheory.pdf

Folks should comment on this posting in order to create their after-class reaction pieces.

For next class (and the one after), these readings are worth looking at:

"Turing Machine", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/

Big-O Notation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

Optionally,

"Church-Turing Thesis", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/

"Computational Theory of Mind", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/

There will soon be a posting of a pointer to a PDF file for Howard's readings.

How to post reactions

I think it would make sense for each class session to have a single blog posting that includes everyone's reactions before and after as comments. Whoever gets there first can get the honor of creating the initial posting, and everyone else can add comments (and comments on comments, etc.) after that.

Chris and I will show you an example in a second...

(Of course, please also feel free to do fresh new postings on other related topics if you are inspired to so so.)

Welcome to The Computations of Language!

Ok, so we're going to try out Chris's suggestion and see how a blogging setup works as a communication mechanism for the class -- at least in terms of people's reactions and discussion. I'll also set up a regular old mailing list for class announcements, and I'll make sure to quickly provide pointers to the syllabus, readings, etc.

In terms of structure, just a reminder that Juan and I would like folks to now enter the virtuous cycle of (a) reacting to the previous class, (b) doing the readings for the next class, (c) reacting to the readings by, say, 5pm Tuesdays, (d) reading everyone's reactions in advance, (e) optionally returning to step d and reacting to people's reactions, (f) ... ok, you get the idea. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. (I don't think I would have written that if this were not a blog. Hmmm, wonder what this medium does to people...)

As always, also please feel free to e-mail Juan and/or me privately with any concerns, issues, discussions, etc.