Noam Chomsky, Fundamental Issues in Linguistics (April 2019 at MIT) - Lecture 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2019
- This is the first lecture of a two lecture series given by Noam Chomsky (10 and 12 April 2019) at MIT.
The second lecture: • Noam Chomsky, Fundamen...
A legend in the field of language. It is nice to see him giving live lecture.
Lies again? Nurofen + Aspirin
Choms' still got it!
NVM
What is i t!
I really struggled paying attention to what he was saying, until I set it to 1,5 times the speed. My mind finally managed fully to focus on Chomsky‘s lecture (I have adhd), and this was great! 😊❤️
i was just about to say this could be related to adhd since the same happens to me, glad you already know haha, glad you enjoyed the lecture, much love!
@@uydfi35 I was only diagnosed two months ago, so it’s amazing to not feel dumb or like the weird one out and realized my brain is just wired a little bit different. Thank you for replying ❤️
There is a Firefox add-on called Video Speed Controller, and a similar on chrome. After a while you get used to faster speeds, and even the 2x limit that youtube gives you isn't enough, and a video like this is pretty comfortable at 3-3.5x.
Hard to understand
Same for me and I don't have adhd
2:17 that's one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
You've never seen a wave and a smile before?
It's about the wink -__-
@@khashayarmotarjemi5442 Fair enough 👌🏽
Ever seen??? Ever in your whole life?
Thank you for sharing. Such a legend.
A very prolific thinker and public intellectual!
Thanks for sharing this rare masterpiece.
What a gem this lecture is.
Thanks for sharing.
@@victortronin8955 take Ur meds chief
Choms' still got the charms!
Best of the best for this guy..he makes us linguistics so damned proud
بحترم جداااااااا كبار السن في التعليم لا مثيل لهم
Youth , his body language is more than mental expressions and thoughts
what a luxury, thanks for sharing
Thank you so much for sharing this.
Thanks for the upload.
Fantastic video
My dear friend Iliass, I dedicate this lecture to you.
Thank you very much my friend 🙏
Thank you for sharing!!!
the king.
A master in the field of langue, unfortunately not in the field of speaking.
Julia falk
Jesperson- notion of structure in mind
Thanks.
He's genius,😍
Thanks for sharing this gem
wow! a legend!
Perfect , A few good men
In some places on Earth, we can't even think about having classes with the God Chomsky.
wow indeed he is a greatest linguist
thanks for this
I hope there is transcription available. It would be my valuable possession.
Why do you need a transcript? Just listen to him.
Thanks
thanks a lot!
Can someone within the field point towards the best textbooks to get into the theories, where the field is and the immediate frontier technical tasks ahead for bio-linguistics? Thank you.
@James Just ordered it James. Thank you.
Could you share the book name for bio linguistics??
what was the book?
What was the boom?
Good morning I have reserch how can I be in contact with you thanks
Great👌👌
#beahumane
رحم الله من وضع لنا ترجمة بالعربية
لن تفيدكم الترجمة في شيء لأن ما يقوله ينطبق خاصة على اللغة الإنجليزية والفكر الغربي.
What is the book he is talking about Angela Ferricis? Sorry for butchering the name.. State of the art in Neurolinguistics? time stamp 1.16:22
It is Angela Friederici. And the book is "Language in Our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity" with foreword by N.Chomsky
I hope that other video can have subtitle for help person that english not good like me thaks you🥰
He's 90 in this video!?! I feel like today, mid-COVID, all beard, his body is preserving all his energy for his piercing intellect.
The quintessence of all communications is the misunderstanding.
22:00
What and what.... professor Noam Chomsky....l will understand... you..class...l mad my self.....(Merge...p,q, ws....a,b....👍👋😄
Thanks for the upload. Could anyone help with the exact references to new studies and new books mr. Chomsky mentions so I can finde them? Unfortunately I was not able to find them.
thank you!
@James thanks a lot James
what did james post?
49:44 What does he say? It's hard to understand. Chorine language?
poor i-language I guess
That questioner is pretty confused by Noam’s use of the word neural nets but I think he doesn’t know the term refers to both biological and artificial systems. It’s just common to use it in an artificial context these days.
what is the book he is referencing to at 1:14:50?
Tell me plz
@@khrazza ISBN: 978-0395951057
I think it is: Memory and the Computational Brain - Why Cognitive Science Will Transform Neuroscience - C.R. Gallistel and Adam Philip King
1:50 Galileo 2:08 How is it possible to express an inffinite number of ideas with a couple of dozens sounds, which in itself have nothing in common with the thoughts in our minds and allow us to understand what is not present in consicousness?
That's indeed an interesting question. But, doesn't he goes too far with 3:06 "everything we can conceive and the most diverse movements of our soul" Some experiences are auditory and visual; consider colours, one can tell a blind man everything there is to know about colours and yet when he would miraculously starts seeing for the first time his experience will be expanded.
Conception and expression are not the same thing
That Wink....
16
Play on speed 1.5
There is very little linguistics meat & potatoes on youtube as of late 2021.
Hats off to Noam Chomsky, but you won't learn a whole lot from this lecture here.
Abralin is the closest for a semi-lay audience. For something more structured, there is Martin Hilpert's long-running series. There are also a myriad of professors who put great stuff up just as a kind of personal record and get next to no views (for obvious reasons); a random example is Nathan Hill (SOAS).
What is this about?
It's sad that the recording sucks so much
Wow, no one noticed that X-bar theory ruled out exocentric constructions! It was a central point of structuralism -- how could you have missed it, Noam?
Language is social and historic and evolves rapidly in a social context and changing world. It's for communication. I'm.not seeing any mystery. Would anyone like to explain?
the mistery has been repeatedly articulated by noam in numerous interviews and lectures including this one. namely, the spoken/written language seemingly operates as a linear representation of symbols. on the other hand, reading or listening to a speech, we effectively ignore the linear sequence of words and decode the message as a complex structure which is not explicitly given. that means, we posses implicit ability to process any message tho this ability is totally separated from conciousness and unreachable by introspection. human kids demonstrate an exclusive ability to acquire language instinctly, long before they obtain enough linguistic data to learn the sintactic rules by statistic generalization of experience. the language is used almost exclusively for generating thought. humans, just as other animals, didn’t need language to communicate. being unable to generate complex recursive sintactic structures, big apes have still a profound system of communication with which they can communicate efficiently and sufficiently. the organs of speech were there long before the emergence of language so as in animals.
try to scientifically explain all this with trivial statements like ‘language is social and historic and evolves rapidly in a social context and changing world’.
Read poetry. Is the language of poetry serves to communicate?
Perhaps the mystery is not knowing who discerns or interprets the intended context, especially in a rapidly exceeding polarization. One person may perceive the terms ' subjective taste' as preferred desire, where as an other may perceive taste as subjective to their uniquely woven physical taste buds. There are standardized flavors of ice cream, but each person 'tastes' the same flavor differently due to individual physiology (e.g., taste bud composition) and personal history. To dig deeper, If we place a table with various fruits in a room and ask 10 people to each take an apple, they will all consistently choose the same type of fruit. This demonstrates a shared, objective perception of what constitutes an "apple."
Differences in perception only occur in exceptional cases, such as hallucinations or delusions. In normal circumstances, humans have a reliable ability to perceive and categorize objects in their environment.
Subjectivity arises when it comes to personal preferences, such as taste. While the perception of an apple may be consistent across individuals, the subjective experience of its taste can vary due to factors like individual physiology (e.g., taste bud composition) and personal history.
It is not possible to subjectively interpret the objective, factual reality of the objects themselves. The apples, oranges, and watermelons exist as real, physical entities in space, independent of any individual's subjective interpretation or ideological desires.
Confirmation bias can occur when subjective interpretations and preferences are not aligned with objective reality, leading to selective information processing and distorted perceptions. However, in the case of perceiving the physical objects themselves, there is no room for subjective interpretation of their factual existence and properties.
What is "good" and what is "bad"? Is it based on objectivity or subjectivity? If "subjective" , in subject to what absolute factual truth or reality? Is "good" food what pleases the senses, or is "good" food what offers best nutrients for the health of body and mind? What is the context and its reasoning? What are the facts? Who knows the facts? Can a fact be subjectively validated? Sure, but the fact still exists as a fact. As matter of fact material derives of maternal. Everything material and spiritual came from a maternal order. Such as linguistic morphing. However the fact morphing is of occurrences does not imply a person is speaking truth, or understanding context and reasoning.
The first time I see vowels and diphthongs alive
I used to hear and read them in written
Hello everyone! Could someone translate these lectures into Spanish? I'm very interested, but I don't understand any English. Thanks
I like the philosophical foundation of his linguistics - Essentialism. It retains something that cannot be fully grasped by empirical science
12:18 "Voluntary action is not a question which is currently fit for productive inquiry. " 👍 Brilliant response to the next time someone asks me why i broke something
Mental giant, moral fool. I can still see him singing with Hugo Chavez before the demise of Venezuela. After the demise was well underway, Noam tried to back pedal with the typical "nobody ever does socialism right" lame excuse. PS_ I adore the comments...I haven't seen this much fawning since Bambi was released by Walt Disney studious in 1942.
If you watch at 1.5 speed, he talks about as fast as a normal person. You're welcome
I tried "2x" but found 1.5 to be optimal. LOL
Thxs...this suggestion is a gem
LOL, I actually like his natural speed, it's relaxing
You know how democracy is not about inheritance. Basically just because one of the family members is a professor does not mean the other one has to be a professor as well? So in corrupt society where everyone is about connections mathematics does not work neither does economics.
He still alive?
SNORE
based
Interesting that, after all these years, this guy a) keeps misquoting Saussure and b) keeps conflating explanation with arbitrary reduction. Shame.
Let's go Brandon
Parrot
Starts to talk about language... there he goes with Turing and Godel. No no no... language is about art, not math.
Yeah he really does inflate the complexity in explanation while also somehow managing to remove what’s natural about language
Language is used in both art and mathematics.
Trying to square linguistic theory with some supposed "theory of evolution" is a wrong turn. Just stick to language as it actually is, focus entirely on that. And forget about how it supposedly came about. Self-evidently it did. Even if you could show the "evolution", it still explains nothing in terms of actual human language as it actually is. It is a typical way of going off into irrelevance, with overly puffed up "theories" re the origin of traits, etc., posing as, in this case, essentially, philosophical anthropology. But it can never be that. Chomsky here is not heeding his own advice to not be distracted by psychologically compelling but essentially irrelevant happenstance, circumstance, accidental things, etc.
There's a reason why M.I.T has a linguistics department. I'll let you try and figure out why M.I.T might be interested in the origins and evolution of language.
How can linguistic evolution irrelevant? It helps us understand language acquisition and the role of culture in its change. Remembers that language is not used in the vacuum. It needs space and time for it to function and develop..
"...it's fiendishly difficult to give an explanation for the evolution of almost any trait..." Could it be because the idea of "evolution" is, basically, rubbish?
No. It's because nature is difficult to understand.
And it becomes even harder to understand when you approach it with all sorts of dogmatic assumptions.
I don't understand your comment. Do you really think that the Theory of Evolution is a dogmatic assumption. Do you believe it to be rubbish?
If you read Stephen Jay Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" his magnum opus, essentially [over 1,000 pgs] it is clear that the theory has gone through so many changes that it is hard to get a clear fix on what exactly it is. It also seems to have many logical holes -- which have been pointed out by, for ex., Prof. David Berlinski, and others. And, as Rupert Sheldrake has emphasized, genes don't account for many aspects of an organism -- especially as regards its form, shape. I think the theory has become a kind of secular dogma, substituting for religion, and questioning it to any degree or in any way prompts an intense and irrational hostility -- consider the venomous response given to Jerry Fodor's work, for instance -- you can see it here on yt, some people in that audience seemed like they wanted to run him out of town. I think it has become a fixed, entrenched, at times irrational, dogmatic, mental structure in some intellectual circles.
Of course its gone through changes as it's an aspect of science, science doesn't stay static. The theories of evolution have changed over time with new research, new evidence and new discoveries. Would you expect anything else? Darwin didn't know anything about genes and the modern synthesis versions of evolutionary theory have had to incorporate evo-devo approaches. The fundamentals are pretty rock solid though. I absolutely agree that evolution and genetics do not account for everything in biology. Chomsky makes that point repeatedly in his writings and lectures around this subject, I've seen that he sceptical about the many 'just-so' stories, particularly in evolutionary psychology. There's an interesting YT video in which he talks some of these these things - "Chomsky on Evolution", Stony Brook Interview #3 with Richard Larson" I think from about 2003 or so.