Edward Gibson

Yes, and it doesn't have to be human language there. We can have computer languages, any kind of system which is generating some set of expressions in a language. And those could be like the... The statements in a computer language, for example. It could be that or it could be human language. So technically you can study programming languages. Yes, and have been.

Yes, and it doesn't have to be human language there. We can have computer languages, any kind of system which is generating some set of expressions in a language. And those could be like the... The statements in a computer language, for example. It could be that or it could be human language. So technically you can study programming languages. Yes, and have been.

I mean, heavily studied using this formalism. There's a big field of programming languages within the formal language. Okay.

I mean, heavily studied using this formalism. There's a big field of programming languages within the formal language. Okay.

I mean, heavily studied using this formalism. There's a big field of programming languages within the formal language. Okay.

It's a particular... formalism for describing language. And Chomsky was the first one. He's the one who figured that stuff out back in the 50s. And that's equivalent, actually. The context-free grammar is actually kind of equivalent in the sense that it generates the same sentences as a dependency grammar would. The dependency grammar is a little simpler in some way.

It's a particular... formalism for describing language. And Chomsky was the first one. He's the one who figured that stuff out back in the 50s. And that's equivalent, actually. The context-free grammar is actually kind of equivalent in the sense that it generates the same sentences as a dependency grammar would. The dependency grammar is a little simpler in some way.

It's a particular... formalism for describing language. And Chomsky was the first one. He's the one who figured that stuff out back in the 50s. And that's equivalent, actually. The context-free grammar is actually kind of equivalent in the sense that it generates the same sentences as a dependency grammar would. The dependency grammar is a little simpler in some way.

You just have a root and it goes, like, we don't have any of these, the rules are implicit, I guess. And we just have connections between words. The free structure grammar is kind of a different way to think about the dependency grammar. It's slightly more complicated, but it's kind of the same in some ways.

You just have a root and it goes, like, we don't have any of these, the rules are implicit, I guess. And we just have connections between words. The free structure grammar is kind of a different way to think about the dependency grammar. It's slightly more complicated, but it's kind of the same in some ways.

You just have a root and it goes, like, we don't have any of these, the rules are implicit, I guess. And we just have connections between words. The free structure grammar is kind of a different way to think about the dependency grammar. It's slightly more complicated, but it's kind of the same in some ways.

They're very close. So phrase structure grammar and dependency grammar aren't that far apart. I like dependency grammar because it's more perspicuous, it's more transparent about representing the connections between the words. It's just a little harder to see in phrase structure grammar. The place where Chomsky sort of devolved or went off from this is he also thought there was...

They're very close. So phrase structure grammar and dependency grammar aren't that far apart. I like dependency grammar because it's more perspicuous, it's more transparent about representing the connections between the words. It's just a little harder to see in phrase structure grammar. The place where Chomsky sort of devolved or went off from this is he also thought there was...

They're very close. So phrase structure grammar and dependency grammar aren't that far apart. I like dependency grammar because it's more perspicuous, it's more transparent about representing the connections between the words. It's just a little harder to see in phrase structure grammar. The place where Chomsky sort of devolved or went off from this is he also thought there was...

um something called movement okay and so it's so and that's where we disagree okay that's the place where i would say we disagree and and and i mean well maybe we'll get into that later but the idea is if you want to do you want me to explain that no i would love can you explain movement movement okay so you're saying so many interesting things yeah yeah okay so here's the movement is

um something called movement okay and so it's so and that's where we disagree okay that's the place where i would say we disagree and and and i mean well maybe we'll get into that later but the idea is if you want to do you want me to explain that no i would love can you explain movement movement okay so you're saying so many interesting things yeah yeah okay so here's the movement is

um something called movement okay and so it's so and that's where we disagree okay that's the place where i would say we disagree and and and i mean well maybe we'll get into that later but the idea is if you want to do you want me to explain that no i would love can you explain movement movement okay so you're saying so many interesting things yeah yeah okay so here's the movement is

Chomsky basically sees English and he says, okay, I said, you know, we had that sentence earlier, like it was like two dogs entered the room. Let's change it a little bit, say two dogs will enter the room. And he notices that, hey, English, if I want to make a question, a yes, no question from that same sentence, I say, instead of two dogs will enter the room, I say, will two dogs enter the room?

Chomsky basically sees English and he says, okay, I said, you know, we had that sentence earlier, like it was like two dogs entered the room. Let's change it a little bit, say two dogs will enter the room. And he notices that, hey, English, if I want to make a question, a yes, no question from that same sentence, I say, instead of two dogs will enter the room, I say, will two dogs enter the room?

Chomsky basically sees English and he says, okay, I said, you know, we had that sentence earlier, like it was like two dogs entered the room. Let's change it a little bit, say two dogs will enter the room. And he notices that, hey, English, if I want to make a question, a yes, no question from that same sentence, I say, instead of two dogs will enter the room, I say, will two dogs enter the room?