> but the fact that a crude general-purpose model like ANN works as well as it does is certainly evidence that humans can learn language statistically
Humans learn language intuitively (subconsciously), as well as formally (through academic training). Humans understand language (to a greater or lesser extent in any particular case).
Statistical NLP is not, in any human-translatable way, understanding. It is approximation and prediction, in a purely mathematical sense.
Perhaps one of us misunderstands, or is imprecisely using, the phrase "learning language statistically", but I am unaware of any evidence that humans do so.
Chomsky's linguistic theories are not about understanding. Hence his famous example of "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", which is a meaningless sentence that we recognize as grammatical.
Actually understanding language the way humans do would require AGI, I suspect.
Humans learn language intuitively (subconsciously), as well as formally (through academic training). Humans understand language (to a greater or lesser extent in any particular case).
Statistical NLP is not, in any human-translatable way, understanding. It is approximation and prediction, in a purely mathematical sense.
Perhaps one of us misunderstands, or is imprecisely using, the phrase "learning language statistically", but I am unaware of any evidence that humans do so.