Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chomsky - Quine's Empirical Assumptions

    Uploaded by

    Tiffany Davis
    128 views9 pages
    Chomsky - Quine's Empirical Assumptions

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Chomsky - Quine's Empirical Assumptions

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    128 views9 pages

    Chomsky - Quine's Empirical Assumptions

    Uploaded by

    Tiffany Davis
    Chomsky - Quine's Empirical Assumptions

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9
    Deans Davivson ne Trakico Hawreina ds, Nears a9 Onsecrions Grave ome woes WN. Qusse Resour, Poennecis, 1264) (QUINE'S EMPIRICAL ASSUMPTIONS* Peps the clearest aod most erp devlopmeat of what appears tobe ‘arronly Humeaa theory of language austin in recet pilosopy i that of Quine, la the atrodutory chapters to his Word ond Obj? the Humean theory is roughly accrate, ten 2 person's kaowedge ‘of language should be rpreetable aa nxtmork of Hogs forms — let us ay 0 est approximation, sentences ~ asseited with one an- ‘other ane, in pat, octal to catia simul codons. Tis for- ulation Qulae presets as, Take ia factual aserton. Thos be sates that our "theories" ~ wheter "deliberate", ax chemistry, of "toad ‘ature, a8 "the immemorial doctoe of ordinary enduring midle- ‘ined objec” = can each be characters ar “a fare of sentences ‘riuly associated to one another and to non-verbal stim by the ‘meshanismotondionedrespose(p. I). Heac the whole our non- edge (ou otatheoryiathisense) can becharacterzedin thee tees ‘One ily that aries in nterreting such passages at thee bas 0 o withthe relation betwen langage and theory, whee the later term covers alu general common-sense Knowledge and tel: Quis Views shout the intrpentration of theory and language are wel known, bat, ‘fe sceptag them ul, one coud nt doubt that a person's guage nd ir theory” are dnc aytems The pot ito obvious to pee ‘but itis, sererteles, eal to see how Qui distinguishes te two im his framework. In fat, throughout the dcuson, he seam to we the ems interchanges. For example, In Chapter I, he discuss the learning of nguags in general terms, exemple by an example rom chemical theory lead up othe staiemeat just quoted, then seemingly ‘describes th "vast verbal ast" 9 onstrated the asoitve et work that committer one's knowedge of ssone (and indeed evey- thing we cher say about he worl), as bot te “body of thar” that fone aczpls and the language that one leas. Thus the dscusion of how one conics and ics total theory ofthis oe concludes with the flowing statement ‘eneth te anariky thet wes ut In communion tate ta chtc ‘encode of conection ad for echo ute conmston cote {Seve No two es ar ut angie li bor ine ese dos ny Gi Icaming it eb ne ‘Sloe the comment meey summaries the dicuson of how te “single ‘conseted abi” conaliatng our total theory ix toque (he ltr ‘casion if ving been ntodsced to exe) agua arin ‘tseems that Quine mst be proposing thts Iagunge, to, sa abc ofentncsvarouly astociatod to on another ad to son-ebal ima by the moshaisn of conditioned reponse". Oter pars oh xpoion ‘infos the conclsion that this Whats tended, a we shal ein 2 ‘moment, Nevertheless, nterprtation of Quine’ remara made fiat st points because of his tadency to we the tem ngage an theory” Inercangebly, hough abvouly be mest be presupponing fundamen {aliens betwen the two ~ he i or example, rly ot proposing that two monolingual speakers ofthe sme language cannot dagree on quostions of bebo that contoversy oer fact i ena a ‘oral san argument betweca x movolagal speaker of Eaglsh and ‘monolingual pstker of German, [bowhere, Quine sates hat er considering language a "compen ‘ot present isposions to eal bebavoe, fa which speaker of the me Iangangs have pafore come to eee oe another” (p29). Ths it {a Tanguage i «network of sentences asocaed to one anther and to ‘xeroal simul by the mechasiam of condoned espe thn i follows tata person's disposition to verbal behavorcan be characterized {a terms of sch network. Ths factual empton if rom oc return to othe asec of thi concep of “language tow, How s knowledge of uch a lnguage cguired? Evident, Humean thoory wil acglve substance ony if wc notions as ty” are ‘characterized in some Way. Quine therfore potlates paligsnc (and presumably innate) “quality space wih bila dtane mesure (8-8). vidal, the tocar of th pace wil determine te contest ofthe theory of Faring. For example, ene could easily contrict 3 rahe asl ot in tr of «elias ln sane measure. Quine wool, apparent, Acerp every song version of «theory of nate des as compatible ‘with hs frameworks That he consider the pow tat “a ed bal Ey yellow tll and ges bal arts distant from one another a. the chil... quali space tho from a red keh”. ts aii to ‘ce how this det fom the assumption that “bal ean iaate te, it we admit the same pousblies along other “dimenson (patsay, Ite alow thes dimensions o be fay bse) Le his repo them, (Quine sems to depart quite acaly from the leading estat pide ‘epics theory and to permit just about anything imagine, 20 fe easing of concepts concerned. In patel, conse the fact peer of Engish has acquired the concept ‘eatence of Engl Suppose that we wer o postulate a nate quality space with sro ture so ebutac that any two sentences of Englih ce ester fo one ‘nother ia trms ofthe postulated tance meat than a seen of England any seateoge of another language. Then lamer could argue the coatept"enence of Engl be could a ober words know tht the language Lo wiih be expose is Enplth aod generalize te any oter sentence of Engh ~ from an exposure to one sentence ‘Thesamistueif we esn by “sentence of Engh paring of «tain phooet and semantic interpretation, We cou, once ai, const 4 quality space sulcetly abstract so thatthe init et of Engh ces coud beat! fom onpore one sentence, by a og ‘Sequined wth thi quay space. “The handful of empl ab references that Quin ies uggs that ‘eas something mochmarower ia ied, however thug, aexeion to dimensions which have some simple physial corte sch as hue ot brightness, wih distance dtd ia terms of hse phys eoelats. 20, we havea very strong and quite specie version ofa doctne of Innate ess which now canbe faced wit empial evdese ‘might be thought that Quiae adds empire content obi account by his insistence tat “the eis ealy leaning of verbal response Azpends on soitysreiaforement ofthe repose ination ith {he stimulations that mest the respoose..” (82) aod is gree i= Sitence throughout that leasing i sed einfocemett. Bu, fortunately, Quie’s concept of “riforemeat” it redved 10 neat ‘acy. For example, he i wilig taco the possibilty that “eos Teiaforcement consis ia bo more than carabortve wage, whore resealance to the ells effort ithe gle rowed (p. #23). To sy that lnrning requis reiforement, thea, cms Very lowe to eying 8 {hat ecsng cannot proced without data. As Quine ates, his approach ‘a *congnia. 10 Sknnrs scheme, or. [Skier oes not exame- ‘ate the rewars”. Tho emurk is cotet but i shoul also te added that "Skin's whee” i almost totally empl, in fat f anything, vn abate than Quine’ version of tice Skiaer,e disiet {rom Quine, does nt even require tht reinercig stim inpngs on ‘he organism ~ ii slcint that they be imagined, hoped for, et. In seer, the invoking of relforenen” serve only tlic {anton in uch discussions asthe, and one cam ely dian i i ‘yng to determine the substantive contet of what bag propoted. ‘However, Quine etn to clseal empl conception of 2 t= vaceostortia hi essumptions about how langupsis lard. Conia ith his view of language as 2 etwork of senlences he enumerates three posible mechanisms by which sentenes canbe learned — ie by heb Aowidge of language can be aquired (p. 9). Fit, sentcast fan be letroed by “direct condoning” to approprinte non-real ‘simulations, hat by repeated ping of «simulation and sentence under appropiate conditions; seond, by asodlation of sentences with ‘cote le put side the objection hatin both cae, th sociation should soon dipper, though xeon, under nora rman) third, new sentenes can be produced by “analog! apne? The thie method at ft seems to ofr an exape to vey, one aps, ‘hui the et ventene of hs papers decvabl by analogical sees ftom “the sky is la (bth involve subj ad predicate, re peered ith te interpretations by the rls of Bagh grammar, and share mary otter properties), then it sno doub trv that language can be eae by ‘analogical synthesis, by ieneralzaton along dnension of the abrat sot suggested above (tp. $5). But it tems cleat that Quine hat nothing ofthis sort In mind The one example that he iw ie oe of substitution of oe nf sar One Cad, “Toot in & fied comet Ande sett imply that the provers of slop synhesiss theoreti penabl spy serving to spend amaltr up Gee p 9). Therefore, me eam paps coufor toh iene tions by totaly degaring ths proc, and conserng the kowiedge tine by a long ived adult using ony the Sit two metho insted tthe knowledge bya young il who has ued al hres (Ure ‘bing nothing that canbe sald abot the alter ease unl the notion 56 ‘Quins muPimtcaL Atsuaerions ‘szalogcalsyothsi is given some conte). Noting ther ta a lt of nine nd aman of saey share kxonfods of langage in usdament ‘specs ~ cath can understind aed we epproprntly an stosomicl umber of sentences, for example ~it would scm forte, that ie Jostin omitng“ansiogial synthesis fom consideration ently. ren for the young child. Assuming that this interpetation of Que ert ‘incomes, we derive support fr the conclusion that he garde language 488 Gite network of ssocated sententes, some aoced ts 10 ‘ili, sac this is jst the stacture that would aie from the two ost mechanisms of lnguage earning wth sbtanve content ‘Anint this fotrpetation of Quiae's remarks om lngvage we Ca bing the fact that it inconsistent with tris tate of coure sscept, samy, that language isan inte st of sentences (vith inns meanigs ef, ep 71). A network derived bythe postulated ‘mechanisms must be nie; ean, in fat, contin only the semen fo which a perso hasbeen exposed (repetely, and under sinc

    You might also like