Fwd: Re: SUO: Re: IFF Comments Requested
>Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:21:41 +0200
>To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>From: josiane caron <josiane.caron@mshs.univ-poitiers.fr>
>Subject: Re: SUO: Re: IFF Comments Requested
>
>Pat,
>
>At 13:40 08/10/01 -0500, vous avez écrit:
>>>Pat,
>>> Some of your comments strike me.
>>>Sure that they are right if one be referring to the old classical work
>>>done in problem solving and psychological area.
>>> But most of current work on problem solving consider only success or
>>> failure of experts' strategies. They do not consider the strategies of
>>> novices, notably at the the begining of the solving process for two
>>> reasons: one is that they do not know how to do; the second reason is
>>> that it is too much difficult and that it needs too much work. It is
>>> not that this kind of research would not interest them. If the work to
>>> know how to do was easier they will do.
>>
>>I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you meaning to suggest that topos
>>theory is likely to provide a good foundation for a psychological theory
>>of performance of novices? That is a remarkable idea. You may be right,
>>but (after trying to teach topos theory to undergraduates) I find it so
>>wildly unlikely that I would like to see some case made for it.
>
>No I do not suggest that topos is a good foundation. I said that in Kent's
>version it did not bother, disturb me because I was able to understand.
>But I did not say that it was the part that I like and see how to use.
>The other times I read or hear work on topos I understood nothing. I
>prefer more simple vocabulary.
>
>
>>>The other argument that you took and that I can't agree with concens the
>>>adequation of a modern approach of language to a cognitive approach. It
>>>is currently admitted now that the working of language is complicated.
>>>And I know that you know. So the last rampart to a complexification of
>>>the cognitive approach remain in the refusal of an approach such as IFF
>>>which seems to me ready - even if it would surely evolve as my own data
>>>would do - to import the complex language approach to cognitive level.
>>
>>Again, (if I follow you), I find this extremely unlikely. I cannot see
>>any trace of a shred of evidence anywhere in linguistics that natural
>>language structures will be illuminated by considering them to be topos.
>>If anything, the overwhelming balance of evidence would seem to be in the
>>other direction.
>
>What I have said in that argument did not concern topos.
>If you are referring what I said here to topos, I agree with you. But It
>did not seem to me that topos were everywhere in the text I read. Or
>perhaps it is a matter of context I did not feel as it was.
>
>>>The emergence of global objects from interactions between elements
>>>constitute steps in the acquisition of concepts. And it is able to be
>>>articulated with a neural and distribued approach.
>>>
>>>The passage between linguistic and cognitive level stands in the fact
>>>that syntax can be signifying. Do you think you could ignore anymore
>>>cognitive linguistics such as Talmy's and Langagker's ones ?
>>
>>Not if I were doing cognitive linguistics. If doing ontology, I wouldn't
>>(and don't) *ignore* Talmy, though I find his ideas too vague to be of
>>real utility. However, this has nothing to do with IFF, as far as I can see.
>
>Me also I find Talmy's ideas vague. I took this example because I know
>that you know his work. In fact I am referring to formal cognitive
>linguistics of Culioli (in the line Benveniste and Guillaume). But I don't
>know if you know.
>
>Culioli A. (1995) Cognition and Representation in Linguistic Theory.
>Amsterdam/philadelphia : John Benjamins
>
>In this book there is the basis presentation of the model. But there are
>much interesting work notably in french, and it is not vague.
>
>>>The most important thing stands in the fact that the meaningful syntax
>>>opened the way to the elaboration of cognitive observables which are
>>>able to give account of inobservable concepts.
>>>
>>>I do not yet know if IFF is able to work for every problem I have
>>>already list. But I am sure I can start with.
>>>
>>>I am not able to juge your criticisms about topos theory. In fact I know
>>>topos theory only through some linguistic french works. And I confess
>>>that I never understood something in it. But when I read Robert's
>>>document I understood very well what he wrote about topos. It is only a
>>>clear mathematical concept which could surely be interpreted in many
>>>different ways as almost mathematical notions.
>>>With Robert's approach, I am able to clarify most of my psychological data.
>>>The main difficulty I have stands in the fact I am not familiar with
>>>notations and I am doing mistakes.
>>>
>>>Beyond the very nice approach of name spaces, I found very interesting
>>>to give a separation between objects and metalevel.
>>
>>That distinction is indeed useful, but does not require topos theory. It
>>is made throughout linguistics and logic.
>
>I completely agree with that.
>
>
>>Pat Hayes
>
>Josiane Caron-Pargue