can computer speak? language and artificial

Categorized research-works of Debaprasad-13

CAN COMPUTER SPEAK? LANGUAGE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

*DEBAPRASAD BANDYOPADHYAY দেবপ্রসাে বন্দ্যাপাধ্যায় LA FILOLÓGICA POR LA CAUSA

ABSTRACT

Speaking/Hearing Subject(S/HS) is desiring to be a machine: Machine= f (S/HS)

Non-algorithmic zones of Speaking/Hearing Subject with n-nary options are annihilated. Meaning is solidified, condensed. Corpse of corpus is clerically explored. Binary machine does not understand what “understanding” is. Do we not consider Russell’s paradox or Godel’s theorem here or are making fun with non-biodegradable and disposable ostentatious talking toys? The status of COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS is questioned here from four perspectives: from the standpoints of (a) Philosophy of science, (b) Natural Science (mismatch between human Cognitive domain and machine algorithms) (c) Social Science (Plurilingual Planning), (d) Algocentricism (in contrast with post-formal subjective and substantive task of Linguistics). These problems are summarized as follows: A. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE PROBLEM THERE IS NOTHING CALLED “PEN-PAPER-CARD LINGUISTICS” IF COMPUTER MANIPULATES LINGUISTIC DATA THROUGH THE “PEN-PAPER-CARD” METHOD IS IT JUSTIFIED TO LABEL IT AS A SEPARATE DISCIPLINE? WHAT IS THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL STATUS OF CORPUS LINGUISTICS???

B. NATURAL SCIENCE PROBLEM

MATCHING CONDITION BETWEEN “HUMAN COGNITIVE DOMAIN” & “MACHINE ALGORITHM” [Identity in Difference between computer and human being] *a+ RUSSELL’S PARADOX

GODEL’S/ CHURCH’S THEOREM [b] PROBLEM RAISED BY PENROSE (1990,1994) & SEARLE’S CHINESE ROOM PUZZLE *C+ COMPUTER’S HALTING PROBLEM [d] FUZZINESS OF NATURAL LANGUAGE [e] POST- FORMAL APPROACH THAT DENIES ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES PROPOSED BY STRUCTURALISTS C. PROBLEM OF ALGOCENTRICISM Metamathematical algorithmic procedural rules ignore the non-algorithmic constitutive rules (?) of human cognition.

D. SOCIAL SCIENCE PROBLEM PLURILINGUAL LANGUAGE PLANNING ELECTRONIC CAPITALIST INTERVENTION IN LANGUAGES THE EMPIRE OF HYPER-REAL, Simulation……..

NEOLOGISMS: Algocentric Discourse, Electronic Capitalism TWO INSTANCES OF NON-COMPUTABILITY (1) FUZZY NUMERALS One thing is certain that meaning is uncertain. What a paradox! Aporia! Invented numerals are fuzzy—indeterminacy prevails. An ostentatious toy was made—a fuzzy game. (S)talker tried to

depict some non-deterministic and uncertain phenomena revealed in the expressions of numerals by Bangla speakers. The points of arguments are as follows: 1. Human quantification is partly or fully different from analyst’s rigorous quantification. 2. The following corpus from Bangla has a peculiar nature of non-componentiality or they are rather prototypical. This prototypical nature of fuzzy numerals cannot be handled in computational framework or even in the Logical Form. The first set of data deals with idiomatic expressions like: 1. Sat-paMc Seven-five “pros and cons”; 2. nOy-chOy nine-six “topsy-turvy”; 3. unis-biS, nineteen-twenty “trifle difference” jaHa bahanno taHay tippanno. 5. jaHa baHanno, taHai tippanno “Whatever is fifty-two, that is fifty-three” (i.e. 52=53) “A trifle difference does not count.”

The second problem may be termed as “one is not equal to one” problem. A rule of “one deletion” was proposed by Probal Dasgupta (1987). 5 dokanduTo shop-two-classifier. 6.dokanTa shop-singular-classifier. Obviously, “one” is deleted in 6. However, Dasgupta mentioned that ‘one deletion’ is not true in the cases like 7. jOlTa, Water-classifier or 8. telTa oil-classifier. In Bangla, one cannot say 9. *EkTa jOl ‘One-classifier Oil”

However, there are some pragmatic cases where such expressions like 9 is possible. The Speaking subject’s perception may still be “one” in those cases– it is ‘one’ as a mass body. Of course, this is not a deterministic physical ‘one’, but one as a whole. When any Bangla speaker says, 10. phrij theke jOlTa ano. fridge from water classifier bring “Bring water from the fridge.”, his/her intention is to refer “one bottle of water”. Therefore, ‘one” is there in the D-structure, but it is a fuzzy one. The concept of this fuzzy “one” may be further illustrated in the following movement- transformations, where deterministic numeral expressions are changed to nondeterministic Determiner Phrases: 11.a) paMcTa five-classifier (definite) 11.b) goTa paMcek classifier( indef. ) five-one “more or less five “ 12.a) paMcjon five-classifier (definite) 12.b) jona paMcek classifier( indef. ) five-one “more or less five “ 13.a) paMckhana five-classifier 13.b) khan paMcek ,classifier( indef. ) five-one “more or less five “ 14.a) paMc Hajar “five thousand” 14.b) Hajar paMcek thousand five-one. “more or less five thousand” 15.a) paMc lakh, five lacs 15.b) lakh paMcek lacs five-one “more or less five lacs”

Examples like 11-15 show those deterministic expressions in (a) and non-deterministic expressions in (b). Compared to (a), examples in (b) show the fronting of classifiers with subsequent morphophonemic change and an addition of /ek/ “one” to the specific numeral x. This one is not deterministic +-1, but this “one” has a range more or less than +- 1. These Bangla numeral expressions show the world-views of the community concerned with a special reference to their psychophysical way of looking at things (perception) and ways of making order of things (understanding). Therefore, it is a hermeneutic problem that involves the relative gap between human perception and understanding in relation to their habitat. The range of +-1 is different in different persons belonging to different socio-economic classes or even it may be different in a single person in different psychosocial context. A game had been developed by his engineering students

(2) PERCEPTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL TIME Perceptual time is supplemented by grammatical tense. Do we need to deploy tensor calculus here? That is ridiculous. Let us watch the watch in the time of eco-enemy technocratic society guided by technical rationality. There are different types of time, (a) technological time as it is followed by watching the watch by selecting a norm (GMT); (b) grammatical time as it is revealed in the textbooks of Grammar; (c) perceptual time as it is perceived by the speaking subjects of a given speech community; (d) Scientific time as it is calculated by the locus of the perceived by deploying Tensor Calculus. The author showed that the prescriptions of grammatical time do not match with the perceptual time of different communities. The author argued that the tenses and aspects as categorized in the Bangla prescriptive grammars ignore the perceptions of the construct “time” by the speakers of the imagined community “Bangla” as the conjugational paradigm in the Bangla grammar book is the mimicry of English prescriptive grammatical paradigms, e.g., 1. ami tomar baRi kal jacchi I your house tomorrow go present continuous “ I am going to your house tomorrow” 2. ami tomake kal rastay dekhechi.

I you dative yesterday road locative see present perfect “I have seen you on the road yesterday.” In the case of 1, all the Bengali-speaking informants perceived /jacchi/ as future tense (I will go..) and in the case of 2, /dekhechi/ is perceived as past tense (I saw) instead of prescribed “present perfect” (which is traditionally used to denote “immediate past), though prescriptive grammar categorically put an imperative for not using “present perfect” in the sense of past (cf. Chattopadhyay, 1939: 322). It is matter of wonder that there is no linguistic work so far on the perceptual time in Bangla. This paper also concentrated on the semiotics of time in Cinema or particularly on the concept of time in the hyper-real, real (as it is symbolized) and in the ir-real. The author compared the difference between “reel” time and “real” time at the moment of perceiving hyper-real. As the author has dealt with the subjective perceptions of time in different locus and contexts by different individuals of different imagined communities, it is concluded that there is no generalized objective parameters for the historical a priori, “time”.

ANOTHER SIDE OF THIS NARRATIVE Algorithms are used to simulate intonation: MUSICKING AND SPEAKING: DIFFERaNCE (SEGMENTING THE SUPRASEGMENTALS)

Download (.pdf)

APPENDIX : CHOMSKY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE This paper (“On Computational and Chomskyan Linguistic Theory”) is an imagined dialogic paper on the problems of perceiving creative speaking subject’s corporeal as machine. The author alleged that the one of the basic tenets in Chomsky’s discourse, due to its Cartesian inheritance, was to consider human body as a machine, thus Chomskian syntactic enterprise had become a part of the anatomo-bio-political project a la Foucault. It was a case of minimization, approximation, optimization, appropriation of human body, when Chomsky and his fellowmen (like Lasnik, Berwick) deployed technocratic metaphors

(e.g., the terms like “Computation’, “array” “interface”, “parser “etc. on the other hand, operations like “COMMAND”, “SATISFY”, “SPELL OUT”. All these operations reflect the metonymic transformation of creative speaking subject as all these functions in uppercase letter made the author remember Schank’s [1975] language-free representations [PROPEL, MOVE, INGEST or CONTROL, PART etc.], which combine primitive conceptual roles and categories.) for explaining a part of cognitive domain, that is a “physical organ”: LAD. These were not metaphors or case of displacement only, but was a case of metonymic transformation of human body as these technical metaphors condense the scope of human (linguistic) potentiality. Does human body follow binary mechanical algorithm only at the moment of speaking? Do we not have extra-/non-algorithmic cognitive ability? (The author’s point is that Cognitive Domain is not algorithmic only.) The discourse that Chomskians are using is fully algocentric (a discourse that is motivated by meta-mathematical formalism or computational algorithmic simulation guided by the technical rationality, ignoring the non-algorithmic constitutive rules) in its nature. According to author’s perception, Chomsky wanted to build up a Turing Machine for solving each linguistic problem without solving the halting problem of the machine. Chomsky’s parametric approach was “computer-friendly” as language was now perceived as a network of interlocking principles and parsing as linear steps. A parser would supply, in the same manner of Searle’s Chinese Room Puzzle, “yes/no answers” to the question: “Is this sentence grammatical?”. One can switch over from one parameter to another to manage a specific language like a machine (it seemed to the author that this was a Leibnizian Turn in Chomskian Theory; he was switching over from Cartesian Cogito to Monad—Universal of all universals—Monad of all monads—Principle of parameters) In fact, the language is not only governed by either procedural or parametric

principles,

but

there

are

constitutive

non-formal

principles.

This paper also discussed the problems of Computational Linguistics in connection with Indian plurilingual milieu.

In the beginning of my career, I dare to ask Chomsky all about this man-machine equation; about impossibility of Artificial Intelligence; about his algocentric discourse that follows machine algorithm(especially the use of the term ‘computation’); about his model-theoretic approaches…. His answers were as follows:

For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles)



2006. “Linguistic Cybercolonization”. Globalization, Language, Culture and media. Eds.

B.N.Patnaik, S.I.Hasnain, Simla Institute of Advanced Studies.(pp.146-187) ISBN81-7986061-2 Download (.pdf) 

2004. “কম্পিউটার ম্পক কথা বলবব? *Can Computer Speak?+”Prasanta Chattopadhyay ed. Kalodhvoni. XII:2-3 (pp.28-36)

Download (.pdf)



2003. “Computational Linguistics: A dissenter’s Voice.” Indian Journal of Linguistics. XXI: 1 (pp. 1-18) RN 34809/74. http://linguistlist.org/pubs/papers/browse-papersaction.cfm?PaperID=7581. Download (.pdf)



2001. “পাড়া দেন্দে ববশ্ব বা ববশ্ব দেন্দে পাড়া : সাইবার েন্দ াবির অভ্যযত্থাি.” biSSaYon, gOnotOntro o tritio biSSo.(Proceedings of the Seminar on “Globalization”). Vol.II. Indian Academy of Social Science. Jadavpur University. (pp.3-8) Download (.pdf)



2003. “নানান সময়: চলম্পিবেরও…” [Language, Time and Cinema] Silhouette. Vol. III.

(pp.112-25).

Download (.pdf)



2000. “Cybermultilingualism.” Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics. XXVI:2 (pp. 117130). Delhi. ISSN 0379-0037. Download (.pdf)



2000. “শেষ মহাআখ্যান [Last Meta-Narrative]. proticcer SaHittotOtto. Kolkata :Alochona Chakra (pp.91-151).

Download (.pdf)



1999. “Bangla Numerals and Problems of Computability”. 2nd. International Conference on South Asian Languages, Punjabi University, Patiala. 8-10 January, 1999.http://linguistlist.org/pubs/papers/browse-papers-action.cfm?PaperID=7802



1999. “Localization in Globalization” Frontier. Vol.31. No.40.May 2-8, 1999 (pp.12-15) RN 16516/68. Download (.pdf)



1999. “Electronic Capitalism.” Frontier. Vol. 31, No. 25. ( pp. 4-6).



1997. “Scholars Differ : D.B. & T.M.M. On Probal Dasgupta & L. Khuchandani”. DLA News.

Download (.pdf)

21:11 November ’97 (pg.3) RN KL/Tv(n)/116 ( A Discussion On the Review of Khubchandani’s 1997. Revisualizing Boundaries; Introduction: Probal Dasgupta) Download (.pdf)



1997. “On Computational and Chomskyan Linguistic Theory”. Bahri, U.S. ed. Indian

Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol .XXIII, No.2 (pp.29-42). Jul-Dec’97 Delhi. ISSN 03790037. Download (.pdf) TAG:Cat.fr.n: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2458695

See also: CAN COMPUTER SPEAK? Collection http://www.scribd.com/collections/3354649/CANCOMPUTER-SPEAK

DigiArt: Akhar Bandyopadhyay