<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Why Linguistics Will Thrive in the 21st Century: A Reply to Piantadosi (2023) · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2308.03228/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2308.03228/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Why Linguistics Will Thrive in the 21st Century: A Reply to Piantadosi (2023) — mentioned by foldr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45857676</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2308.03228:45857676</guid><pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2025 16:10:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, humans can echolocate to a limited extent, just as some animals have very limited analogs of human language. That was the point of the comparison. It is no more sensible to view human language as just a more complex variant of vervet monkey calls than it is to view bat echolocation as just a more complex variant of whatever limited capacity humans have in that area. There is continuity viewed from the outside, if you squint a little, but that&amp;#x27;s unlikely to correspond to continuity in terms of the underlying cognitive mechanisms. Bats, for example, can make precise calculations of…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2308.03228/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
