NO GRAMMAR, LEXICON 0R ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT SYNTAX

 NO GRAMMAR, LEXICON 0R ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT SYNTAX

 Both language folklore and some linguists share the assertion that words came some time before grammar, both in an evolutionary and synchronic sense. For the latter we know from native language acquisition that children first seem to utter words and repeat them and eventually combine two words that seem to have a rudimentary grammar, like ‘daddy car’. In bio-linguistic theory, however, this is not a case of rudimentary grammar but a case of very elementary grammar, named by Chomsky as MERGE, i.e. to combine two words to make a phrase. In other words, a child cannot combine two words to make a phrase without first having a grammar in situ. 

 

Such a theory is supported by the observation that primates and other so-called intelligent animals can be trained to recognise and use single words but are unable to combine them to construct meaningful phrases, let alone use iteration to combine phrases to construct sentences – a facility that only humans have, namely via the language faculty in the human brain. 

 

In terms of evolutionary, bio-linguistic speculation (or best educated guess/theory), the MERGE operation might have e-merged (sic) as a result of a brain mutation some 150,000 years ago. While single words might have preceded this event, there would have been an explosion of new words following the MERGE operation, i.e. a parallel development of syntax and lexicon. Once lexical-syntactic categorisation, e.g. verbs and nouns, had been established, the door was open to fill the slots. The constraints of vocalisation limited lexical output, and as various regional differences emerged, various techniques were employed to circumvent such limitations, e.g. via polysemy and/or use of tones. Equally as regional differences led to language diversity, various lexical items could become grammaticized, higher level grammatical rules could evolve in different ways, and language change further complicated the history of language evolution. Once various languages were ‘reduced’ to writing systems, we enter the linguistic landscape we live in today. 

 

Going back to child language acquisition, we know that there is a rapid development of complex syntax so that by the age of 5 or so, a fully developed syntax – say English grammar rules – is in place. The extent of the lexicon depends on other factors, such as formal education and highly specific terminology needed for certain professions, e.g. medicine, physics, engineering, literature (Shakespeare is said to have used over 20,000 different words in his published works). As such a finite syntax together with a finite lexicon can generate an infinite output of sentences. An analogy is that of the mathematical axiom that establishes numbers, having an infinite output – noting that syntax is the precursor to that feat. 

 

Since it is claimed by AI enthusiasts that generative AI via Large Language Models can or will operate on this human level, one can easily see a certain fallacy: while GAI/AGI can recombine words and phrases from an ever-increasing data set, and potentially generate new, i.e. never before used expressions, the output limitation is as finite as the data set. Only human syntax is able to generate truly creative, novel expressions, independent of all previous language use. This is not to deny the many potential positive uses of GAI, e.g. searching through enormous data sets of existing medical knowledge, to quicky arrive at a therapeutic solution. However, only the human interface can decide if it actually will work, possibly having an additional creative thought that will be so innovative as to constitute a brand-new extension to the old model. The dangers lie in the false advertising of GAI, in being able to solve all problems put to it, especially when reduced to rational concepts only. Given all the irrational components of human thought/language that are also part of the Large Language Model, we can only expect equally irrational outcomes, however much human censors at the programming level want to weed out the worst excesses – given that for some unknown reason an avalanche of new irrationality is added every second of the day. The idea that rational thinkers will combine with GAI to evolve some sort of singularity, as promoted by the likes of Kurzweil, and replicate paradise on earth, is as romantic as it is unfortunately unrealistic. An instance of GAI hubris is that of another GAI guru, Aschenbrenner, who seems to advocate a new Manhattan Project to develop a GAI tool to defeat the CCP. They are missing the point that the definition of ‘intelligence’, whether human or artificial, is based on generative syntax, and as such AI may never truly eventuate.

 

While there have been attempts to develop syntax-like computer programs to generate language, there has been little progress due to the complexities involved. The statistical/algorithmic methodologies developed by Mercer et al. have been very successful commercially in the meantime, but as they are totally different from human syntax, we only end up with finite translation and recombination machines, cutting out any sort of creativity, any sort of genuine progress, thus condemning us to an eternal status quo. 

 

Since every major language on earth has been described in term of its grammar, often based on traditional models that hark back to ancient Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, one has to assume that, by and large, the core syntax described does reflect the psychological realties of the languages so described. Often there is an exaggerated division between theoretical models – still largely focussed on the cons and pros of Chomskian-style biolinguistics – giving rise to the so-called Linguistics Wars as promoted by the likes of Harris, culminating in a side show that has very little scientific merit. Claims that language arises from general cognitive principles are also popular, negating the necessity of specific syntactic principles. Even so we always seem to end up with certain rules resembling syntax that determine what makes language use comprehensible and what not. One has to be careful here to distinguish between what is generally an un-grammatical sentence construction rendering it incomprehensible (e.g. ‘Not mouse cat was today catch’) and irrational nonsense that is nevertheless expressed in perfectly acceptable, i.e. grammatically correct expressions (cf. Chomsky’s famous grammatically correct sentence ‘Green ideas sleep furiously.’). This echoes de Saussure’s well-known distinction between langue (structure, syntax, language competence) and parole (speech, language use). As such syntacticians (grammarians) have no particular interest in the use of language other than analysing unusual, complex sentences (they find or make up themselves) for their structural components yielding a measure of linguistic competence. This always seems odd for some linguists and language folklorists who are wedded to the idea that language equals communication, i.e. only the principles of communication determine the way we use language. That this is a patently one-sided approach can be seen in the commonsense observation that language is a tool for expressing thoughts, which may or may not be communicated to anyone else but oneself – the latter, BTW, points to one of the most interesting issues in syntax, namely reflexives. Hence I would refine Chomsky’s dictum that ‘anaphora are a window into the mind’ to ‘reflexives are the window into the mind’. Such thoughts, expressed in language, only seem to strengthen my assertion is that language equals thought. QED (no references needed).

 

 

A CONFUSED REVIEW OF SEA OF EDEN BY ANDRES IBANEZ

 A CONFUSED REVIEW OF SEA OF EDEN BY ANDRES IBANEZ

 

If this novel were to be made into a movie, the last scene would have to be R18 – or maybe not. The mother-to-be who envelopes the father-to-be between her thighs, the place he thinks is heaven and paradise in one. It’s the most torturous love story ever told. In an attempt to reflect the crazy world around us, Ibanez leads us by the nose across a vast landscape that is an island, an island like planet earth, cut off from a universe that is and isn’t us. Like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle – unfortunately not featured in the novel – we, like electrons, cannot be sure where we are, where we are not. Are the great mystics charlatans or are they the real thing? Is Anton Bruckner one? For Ibanez aka Juan, the man, there is only one tripartite solution: music, numbers and women - the latter best presented naked. The Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia (Rosicrucian Society of England) or SRIA feature as one of the main factions on the island, with one Abraham Lewellyn at the helm – the current Supreme Magi is suitably named Anthony W. Llewellyn – makes life for the newly crashed castaways hell on earth only to redeem themselves in the end by letting everyone get off the island. The ruse of having a Boeing 747 crash-land on the beach of an unknown Pacific Island is pretty absurd, especially invoking a Polynesian tribe that goes there to practice cannibalistic rituals – a somewhat primitive, racist Eurocentric idea from the 19^th century. Equally absurd are the Latin-American styled ‘guerrillas’ whose Stalinist leader, in the name of absolute equality amongst the comrades, screws the women of his choice while everyone else has the right to screw everyone they like. Juan and his band of civilised castaways who are their prisoners for a while, note with great distaste that fornication and defecation occur in the same location. What a put-own! One can only guess what Ibanez’ political affinations are. We do of course learn towards the end what the ideal is: the White University, where meditation rules supreme, in an effort to find the real self that is love incarnated, tantric sex meditation included. The academic subjects listed sound a bit like up-to-date summaries from Wikipedia and I was first excited to read that Linguistics is a very important one, only to be disappointed that only ‘structuralism’ was mentioned in passing, a somewhat outmoded concept. The paradisical environment of the university, the ‘Eden’ of the title of the novel, matched only by the perfect-in-every-way residents, is of course a nice idea that has been explored in literature many times, and as such sounds a bit tired in its apparent futility. Since the castaways are an example of the flawed nature of people, what with the Swiss Kunze billionaire attempting a right-wing takeover versus all the liberals, the obvious question is what the point is to describe the human condition in such mystical terms, in a sometimes-bizarre mix of magic realism and outright nonsense. The main love story in its Iberian context is a refreshing one for jaded Anglo-Saxon readers, even in an English translation that occasionally goes overboard with exotic vocabulary like enticing bodies described as ‘svelte’. Love as a long torturous up-hill journey – literally up the mountains – what with misunderstandings and separation, ending in a ‘happy end’ sounds a bit like a Hollywood blockbuster but is quite original in its execution. Cristina, the love interest par excellence, is the kind of woman whose pursuit of spiritual enlightenment and sexual laissez-faire can drive any man insane unless he is prepared, like our hero Juan, to try and match her spiritual heights that amongst other things reveal the female body as a temple dedicate to beauty and art. Ibanez is clever in juxtaposing this state of affairs with that of his hero’s musical hero, Anton  Bruckner who it is said was quite a simpleton in terms of his catholic spirituality and his rather pathetic attempts to enlist a virgin as his wife. How can such a man compose such great music? Ibanez as a musician of note, or so we read in the biographical notes, lets fly with incredible details that only a true-blue musician could appreciate. For example he cites the first movement of Beethoven’s Sonata No.3 in which a particular chord, D flat, B flat, G, F, a dominant ninth, is said to have a ‘sweetness‘ and ‘mystery’ that never fails to ‘enchant’. Having a budding pianist in my house at the time of writing this – practising Rachmaninov’s Prelude in C sharp minor (Op.3 No 2) - I asked him to play it for me and then expand on his verdict in this matter. He said it was an interesting chord but nothing to go to town with. Bruckner like Wagner were of course the favourite composers of the least likely music aficionado, Adolf Hitler, and while one cannot blame Bruckner or Wagner for such an unfortunate fan base, I cannot help but feel a bit uneasy about Ibanez’ glorification of Bruckner. 

 

Many of the supporting actors like Wade, the all-American lad with a history that goes on and on over many pages, adding weight to the 617 pages, all seem to confirm the suspicion that the good old US of A is still the best place to be, at least compared to Spain, Switzerland, India and Mexico – the latter featuring the Narcos who send out drugged, naked women into the desert to be hunted and killed like animals. European artists and intellectuals often seem to have a fascination with the US of A, as the land of unlimited, individualistic opportunity, not stifled by social democratic ideas like social welfare, Kafkaesque bureaucracy and a pervasive type of catholic puritanism that denies individual choices. In the USA there are of course also extremes of puritanism but at the same time there has always been a sense of very liberal attitudes to sex, possibly in the tradition of Afro-American culture, or more cynically because sex sells. Ibanez can only dream about finding enlightenment between the thighs of a woman but maybe it is a realistic choice for some Americans. Not that Ibanez explores any of these points I raise here, for he is not interested in any political or social analysis in the European tradition. There is also the sense that jaded Europeans are very selective about their art and music while Americans acknowledge that they are lacking in this department, and as such welcome any European eccentric who wants to study and play Bruckner’s Eighth Symphony ad nauseam, providing a generous stipend and the real opportunity to make it big. Given that Latin-American Spanish literature (and in English translation) has a substantial presence in the US, a true-blue Spaniard like Ibanez can climb the literature billboard and be invited by the likes of Oprah Winfrey. Variously described as a ‘genius’ by literary critics, I wouldn’t jump on the band wagon, especially as these days in popular, hyperbolic culture everyone who sells something or someone is a genius. Still, Sea of Eden is a compelling read even if sometimes a bit too heavy on the weird type of hyper-magic realism – juxtaposed by some merely violent realism. Happily, for the two main protagonists, in the end true love conquers all. For everyone else out of love, it’s rather confusing.