Disagreements, Problems, Possibilities

Michael L. Johnson
Additional contact information
Michael L. Johnson: University of Kansas

Chapter 34 in Mind, Language, Machine, 1988, pp 222-231 from Palgrave Macmillan

Abstract: Abstract Most AI theorists and researchers would agree with Hofstadter’s arguments or at least be in close sympathy with them, as would information theorists like MacKay. Jackson, for example, contends that ‘There is no known a priori limit to the extensibility of a computer’s language capability other than those limits of a purely practical nature (memory size and processing speed)’ and that, ‘Although the difficulties involved with understanding natural language should not be minimized, no one has been able to show … that English is theoretically outside the language capability of all computers ….’1 However, a number of computer scientists and others, like Steiner, would deny that any formalism ever could simulate natural-language processes fully, even in theory. Weizenbaum’s opinions in that regard are well known and representative.

Keywords: Natural Language; Formal Grammar; Modern Logic; Everyday Communication; Transformational Grammar (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1988
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palchp:978-1-349-19404-9_34

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.palgrave.com/9781349194049

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-19404-9_34

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().