Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On Information theory, entropy, and phonology in the 20 th century

On Information theory, entropy, and phonology in the 20 th century John Goldsmith 1. Introduction In the phonological tradition that has dominated the United States since the 1960s, and many places elsewhere for nearly äs long, the notions of Information theory and entropy have played an uncertain role over the years.1 In the 1950s, both Roman Jakobson and Charles Hockett spoke glowingly about the usefulness and the importance of these notions for phonological theory, while Noam Chomsky (1957a), in his review of Hockett's Manual of Phonology 1955, wrote disparagingly of it, and in later Interviews, Chomsky has offered a view of the intellectual climate in a Cambridge (Mass.) in the 1950s where a kind of scientism existed, to the point where the mathematical elegance of Information theory might have led (or did lead, in Chomsky's view) to the belief that the theory must be grand just because it looked so science-like, regardless of whether it had anything of any significance to say about language. For example, in an interview published in a history of cognitive psychology, Chomsky made the following observation: Finite-State Markov sources and similar models were very highly regarded at the time. There was a lot of euphoria about such approaches to language. In pari, it came http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Folia Linguistica de Gruyter

On Information theory, entropy, and phonology in the 20 th century

Folia Linguistica , Volume 34 (1-2) – Jan 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/on-information-theory-entropy-and-phonology-in-the-20-th-century-QDfDWXe4jU

References (9)

Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Walter de Gruyter
ISSN
0165-4004
eISSN
1614-7308
DOI
10.1515/flin.2000.34.1-2.85
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

John Goldsmith 1. Introduction In the phonological tradition that has dominated the United States since the 1960s, and many places elsewhere for nearly äs long, the notions of Information theory and entropy have played an uncertain role over the years.1 In the 1950s, both Roman Jakobson and Charles Hockett spoke glowingly about the usefulness and the importance of these notions for phonological theory, while Noam Chomsky (1957a), in his review of Hockett's Manual of Phonology 1955, wrote disparagingly of it, and in later Interviews, Chomsky has offered a view of the intellectual climate in a Cambridge (Mass.) in the 1950s where a kind of scientism existed, to the point where the mathematical elegance of Information theory might have led (or did lead, in Chomsky's view) to the belief that the theory must be grand just because it looked so science-like, regardless of whether it had anything of any significance to say about language. For example, in an interview published in a history of cognitive psychology, Chomsky made the following observation: Finite-State Markov sources and similar models were very highly regarded at the time. There was a lot of euphoria about such approaches to language. In pari, it came

Journal

Folia Linguisticade Gruyter

Published: Jan 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.