Re: THEORY: Storage Vs. Computation

This is fascinating. I made me think of something related I once read about.
  There was a family in Britain where 16 out of the 30 of them could not
distinguigh correct and incorrect word forms. They had normal intelligence
and hearing, and used syntax fine, but there was something genetic that kept
them from ever grasping that there are rules to grammatical forms. In light
of this discussion is that a genetic deficiency, or some weird tangent in
cerebral evolution? On the one hand, they can't use language properly, but
on the other, they seem to have taken this natural phenomenon to a strange
extreme. What do y'all think?

Jennifer


>From: Ed Heil <edheil@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
>Subject: Re: THEORY: Storage Vs. Computation
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:39:34 -0600
>
>No, I'd say that children learning language is an optimal
>circumstance, since their brains are primed for it and they can do it
>pretty much constantly (infants not having a whole lot else in the way
>of responsibilities in most societies).  But yes, it is indeed one of
>the things that sets limits on irregularity and suppletion in language
>-- in short, which makes calculation rather than storage necessary
>even though calculation is infinitely less efficient in *usage*.
>
>Here's an analogy.  Two students take a physics test which requires
>them to know a lot of mathematical formulas.  One has memorized the
>correct formula to use for any of the situations on the test.  The
>other has not memorized any of them, but has the minimal knowledge
>necessary to derive the formulas from axioms when he needs them.  It's
>a timed test.  Who's got the advantage?  The one who's stored the
>information rather than having to compute it.  He loses nothing by
>having these formulas in his memory, since human memory is not, in any
>practical sense, limited.  However, the other guy *does* lose
>something by having to compute them, since human computational
>resources are very limited.  If he's smart, once he's computed a
>formula, he will *remember* it so he doesn't have to waste time
>computing it again.
>
>Of course, the guy who derives the formulas doesn't have to spend any
>time memorizing them, and that's where the downside of storage comes
>in -- getting the information stored in the first place.
>
>The only reason computation has to come in at all is due to
>limitations in time and ability to *acquire* knowledge.
>Irregularities and suppletions and the like are utterly unproblematic
>from the point of view of language *use* but problematic from the
>point of view of language *acquisition*.
>
>So I'd say that language acquisition (especially under difficult
>circumstances) regularizes; language use irregularizes (or at least in
>language use there is no advantage in regularity since everything
>possible will be stored rather than computed).
>
>Ed Heil ------ edheil@postmark.net
>--- http://purl.org/net/edheil ---
>
>Nik Taylor wrote:
>
> > Ed Heil wrote:
> > > Didn't say it was.  Just said that situations where a lot of people
> > > have to learn a language under less-than-optimal circumstances are a
> > > normal means of simplification.
> >
> > Ah, like children learning language, hmmm?  :-)
> >
> > --
> > Happy that Nation, - fortunate that age, whose history is not diverting
> > -- Benjamin Franklin
> > http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
> > http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
> > ICQ #: 18656696
> > AIM screen-name: NikTailor
> >
>

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com