SUO: RE: linguistic concepts
Hi Scott,
Here are my comments on your exchange with David Whitten.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scott farrar [mailto:farrar@email.arizona.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:36 PM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: linguistic concepts
>
>
>
> Below are some comments regarding the status of some
> linguistic concepts
> within the ontology:
>
> SF: Scott Farrar
> DW: David Whitten
>
>
> SF:
>
> In my discussion with Ian, several issues surfaced:
> First there is the status of the concept &%Language. We suggest
> expanding its status somewhat:
>
> In addition to including &%Language as a subclass of
> &%LinguisticExpression,
> we think &%Language should include a set-theoretic notion.
> Many linguists
> argue that a language is a potentially infinite set of what
> SUMO calls
> &%LinguisticExpressions. Therefore Ian suggested that SUMO add,
>
> (disjoint Language FiniteSet)
>
> DW:
>
> I certainly would understand why you would want to do this,
> however, if
> you have a finite vocabulary, and a grammar that cannot
> realize an infinite
> number of linguistic expressions, it would be false. I would like to
> caution you to be careful not to overload the SUMO term with
> more than one
> English word-sense. I believe Jon Awbrey is correct that
> there are many
> ways words can be used, and SUMO needs to have a way to
> represent them,
> but I am of the opinion that modern reasoning systems don't deal with
> ambiguity well at all, and we would do well to keep our definitions
> and terms usable by machines and systems currently available.
>
> SF:
>
> Yes, I agree that we are talking about more than one concept
> here. Now the
> question is just how many? The notion of language as an
> unbounded set is
> pervasive within the ling. community. But, as much as
> possible, we're trying
> to remain theory neutral, at least while we're constructing
> our lingustics
> sub-ontology.
In the interests of theory-neutrality and of allowing for languages with
only a finite number of expressions, perhaps we should just remove the
assertion (disjoint Language FiniteSet). Does anyone have any objections to
this?
>
>
>
> SF:
> Also, if we construe language as a set of
> &%LinguisticExpressions, then
> is it correct to say (subclass Language
> LinguisticExpression)? I think that
> if we adopt the set-theoretic notion of &%Language, then we
> need some way
> of disallowing Language as a member of the set that is
> itself &%Language.
> Perhaps this touches on Russell's Paradox?
>
> DW:
> What are the elements of the class &%Language ?
>
>
> SF: I think we should allow any &%LinguisticExpression to be
> an element.
> &%Words, &%Phrases, &%Morphemes, etc.
>
> DW:
>
> Is &%Language the mode or method of expressing a concept in a
> Linguistic
> fashion? (meaning 1)
>
> Or contrari-wise, is &%Language the set of utterances, each
> of which is the
> Linguistic formulation of a particular concept? (meaning 2)
>
> I would hope that you aren't advocating that the term
> &%Language should be
> used for both of these, as they are distinct, seperable, and
> from the SUO
> perspective, do not support the same inferences and conclusions.
I guess David's meaning 1/meaning 2 distinction is something like the
intensional/extensional distinction applied to the case of languages. The
intensional notion would be the set of grammatical rules which generate the
well-formed expressions of the language, and the extensional notion would be
the set of expressions which are actually generated by these rules. Since a
complete set of rules is just a theoretical posit as far as natural
languages are concerned, I would argue for restricting our attention to the
extensional notion of languages.
>
> SF:
>
> No, I'm not advocating this. They are definitely distinct concepts.
>
> SF:
> Second, &%Language should be linked ontologically to the concepts
> of &%SocialInteraction and/or &%Communication. Let me
> express my ideas
> in English:
> "Language is a means for communication."
> "And/or "Language is used for social interaction."
>
> DW:
>
> This is close to the meaning (1) above. Again, let me caution you that
> simply because English uses the same word, you should not
> assume it is the
> same concept. As a doctoral student, I'm sure this has been
> drilled into
> your consciousness multiple times, so I suppose my caution is
> actually being
> expressed to remind the other folks on the mailing list who
> haven't thought
> as deeply about this very focused area of existence as you have.
>
> SF:
>
> Third, I suggest that we give some thought to specifying the
> various forms
> of &%Language and &%LinguisticExpressions: perhaps a 'form'
> slot with the
>
> possible values, 'written,' 'spoken,' or 'signed.'
>
> DW:
>
> Perhaps Adam can clarify, but the idea of 'slots' isn't a KIF concept,
> and the word has been used in so many ways in knowledge
> representation,
> that I am afraid I must anticipate Jon Awbrey and say this Third point
> is so fraught with ambiguity, that I have no idea how to
> crystalize it.
> perhaps you should look into extra predicates that make the
> distinctions
> you are interested in? or perhaps differing subclasses ?
>
>
> SF:
>
> Right. I'm new to the SUO-KIF format. Specialized predicates
> take the place
> of 'slots', I think. Does this accord w. your thinking? Can
> you give me an
> example of how we might specify this?
Well, the simplest thing would be to add the following assertions to the
SUMO (along with appropriate axioms and documentation, of course):
(subclass WrittenLinguisticExpression LinguisticExpression)
(subclass SpokenLinguisticExpression LinguisticExpression)
(subclass GesturalLinguisticExpression LinguisticExpression)
>
> SF:
>
> > Fourth, I suggest the following subclasses of &%Language:
> >
> > (subclass HumanLanguage Language)
> > (documentation Human Language "This is the subclass of
> &%Language used
> and
> > interpreted by a &%Human. Instances include all extinct and
> extant human
> > languages")
> >
> > (instance Spanish HumanLanguage)
>
> DW:
>
> Spanish as the name of a particular mode of expression is an
> instance of
> HumanLanguage. (sub-meaning 1)
>
> Spanish as the set of utterances understandable by a Spanish language
> speaker is a subclass of HumanLanguage. (sub-meaning 2)
>
> Since sub-meaning 1 and sub-meaning 2 are not the same, which
> do you mean?
>
>
> SF:
> I think sub-meaning 2 is most appropriate.
I agree with Scott. If by "mode of expression", David means a complete,
finite set of rules that can generate all of the well-formed expressions of
Spanish, then we don't even know if sub-meaning 1 has an application in the
real world. It's possible that natural languages lack the sort of tidy
syntax and semantics that formal languages have.
>
>
>
> SF:
>
> > (subclass ArtificialLanguage Language)
> > (documentation ArtificialLanguage "This is the subclass of
> &%Language
> > designed by humans but intended for and interpreted by a &%Machine.
> > This class is disjoint from the subclass of languages that are
> > constructed to be used by humans, eg. Esperanto.")
> >
>
>
> DW:
>
> I would have used the term ConstructedLanguage or
> ArtificialLanguage for
> Esperanto. Since you are bringing interpretation and intent into your
> documentation, don't be surprised if Jon picks up this ball
> and runs with
> it. I'll let him try to take it in for a touchdown.
>
> I probably would include some idea of a FormalLanguage as a superclass
> too, since there are many things in common there.
>
>
> SF:
>
> I just threw the following out for feedback.
>
> > ;;I'm less sure about the following instance examples,
> > ;;any suggestions?
> > (instance Java ArtificialLanguage)
> > (instance SQL ArtificialLanguage)
> >
> >
> > (subclass AnimalLanguage Language)
> > (documentation AnimalLanguage "This is the subclass of
> &%Language used
> and
> > interpreted
> > by an &%Animal that is not &%Human.")
> >
> > (instance DolphinLanguage AnimalLanguage)
> > ;;Obviously, the status of AnimalLanguage as "Language" is
> > ;;controversial for many linguists
> >
>
> DW:
>
> The concept that Animals have concepts in the way that humans do is
> controversial in society at large, much less among linguists.
> It should be able to have an ontology that takes a consistent
> approach to
> controversial topics though. How will a system which reasons using a
> controversial ontology communicate that fact to other systems
> which may not
> support such reasoning methods, and separately, may not agree
> that certain
> facts should be considered to be true?
Well, I'm not sure that making 'AnimalLanguage' a subclass of 'Language' is
so controversial. Controversy would arise, I think, only if (i.) we didn't
have a separate class for 'HumanLanguage' and (ii.) we didn't allow for the
possibility that 'HumanLanguages', unlike many 'AnimalLanguages', are made
up of an infinite number of well-formed expressions.
>
>
>
>
> farrar@u.arizona.edu
> 1049 N. Jacobus Ave
> Tucson AZ 85705
>
>
>
>