SUO: *Date 23 Feb 2002 -- Linguistic Constructs
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Item. Linguisitic Constructs
DW = David Whitten
IN = Ian Niles
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa
SF = Scott Farrar
scott,
to explain my point of view, i will say a few things about my background.
i have looked at languages from "both sides now" -- actually from 3 sides --
in their cognitive, combinatorial, and computational aspects, having done
master's degrees in math and psych, written software that implemented an
algorithm for 2-level formal language learning that was applied to tasks
in protocol analysis, "formal languages of event sequences" (floes),
and what would now be called "adaptive-reactive keyboards" (ark's).
in my intermittent but persistent way, i have made a dedicated effort to read the
sumo document, perodically returning to it many times since it first appeared here.
i have accorded its authors the respect of reading all of their email messages to
this list. when it comes to those areas with which i have some familiarity, i can
fairly say this: that the sumo proposal displays a fundamental lack of acquaintance
with the elements of every subject matter on which it touches and a near total lack
of appreciation for even the most elementary concepts of every domain on which it,
well, trespasses. these deficiencies are far too serious to remedy in incremental
ways, even if the authors had the will and the grasp of what it would take to do so,
neither of which they have shown any evidence of possessing up to this point in time.
beyond that, the sumo document, together with the statements of its authors in this forum,
exhibits a fundamental lack of comprehension of basic methodological issues, for instance,
and most poignantly in the present application, the proper working proper relationship
of formal models to the natural phenomena that they are in fact constructed to model.
SF: Here are some further suggestions for linguistic concepts in SUMO.
SF: The first issue concerns the multiple senses of 'Language'.
Currently, SUMO has &%Language as a subclass of &%LinguisticExpression,
and as a sister of &%Word, &%Morpheme, &%Sentence, etc.
a perfect example of what i was talking about:
| (subclass Language LinguisticExpression)
| (documentation Language "A system of signs for expressing thought.
| The system can be either natural or artificial, i.e. something
| that emerges gradually as a cultural artifact or something that
| is intentionally created by a person or group of people.")
anybody who writes "(subclass Language LinguisticExpression)"
simply has no grasp of what formal linguistics is all about,
and has been about for at least the last 50 years.
a linguistic expression is an element of a language, and a language is a set.
period.
this is the formal notion. we use the formal construct in the way
that we use all formal or logical or mathematical models, to catch
what aspect of the natural phenomenon that we can, which totality
is itself most likely beyond our immediate grasp, or at least, for
the forseeable future. we do not have this i-magined direct grasp
of the "ding an sich" (das) as an alternative option, to compare
with the "poor second" formal image, even though the world be
full of folk who i-magine that they do.
SF: After SF's suggestion that &%Language include a set theoretic notion,
DW suggested that 'language' really refers to at least these two concepts.
SF: Sense 1 "a mode or method of expressing a concept in a linguistic fashion"
Sense 2 a "set of utterances"
SF: IN added that the difference was "something like the
intensional [sense 1] / extensional [sense 2] distinction ...
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." IN suggests
that we focus on the extensional sense, sense 2.
the distinction between extensional and intensional is just
one more of those things that the sumo tagmemics team does
not know and does not want to know the first thing about.
SF: To formalize this Noam Chomsky argues for a distinction between what he calls
I-Language and E-Language. I-Language is language viewed as a mental object.
On the other hand, E-Language is the product of a mental grammar. Viewed as
a mental object, then language (I-Language) IS the grammar itself, which is
an abstract concept, all it 'Grammar'. The product of the grammar is the
E-Language which is really a set of &%LingusticExpressions. So, I propose:
it's always a bad idea to sum up chomsky in a line or two, said jon generatively.
we cannot even begin to discuss the development that chomsky goes through in
'knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use' (1986) and later,
without first grasping the developments that preceded it. plus, we'd
have to open up a discussion of abductive and inductive reasoning,
in brief, inquiry, plus the role of formalization in science.
a minimal(ist) prerequisite to starting this discussion would be
to understand the difference between a grammar (the finite theory)
and a language (the possibly infinite model).
formally, it makes no sense at all to speak of "the" grammar for a language,
since any language worth talking in, or talking about, has many many grammars.
and even if you i-magine that there is one authentic i-grammar that is really,
really implemented bio-physio-psycho-socio-logically, you still have to employ
multiple formal grammars as hypotheses as to what that "real one" is. unless,
of course, you are one of those precious few i-diovisuals to whom god speaks,
in i-language, of course. and the woods are full of them.
SF: (subclass &%MentalGrammar [not sure about the superclass, but it's &%Abstract])
(generates &%MentalGrammar &%LinguisticExpression)
what do you see when you turn out the light?
i dunno, but i know it's &%abstract.
SF: This implies removing &%Language from &%LinguisticExpression.
We could re-use the concept to denote the set of &%LinguisticExpressions
which is language viewed as a corpus, so we really have 3 senses of language.
or 1 sense and 2 non-senses. take your pick.
SF: (subclass &%Language &%Set)
(member-of &%LinguisticExpression &%Language)
As JA said, (disjoint &%Language &%FiniteSet) might not be valid.
and you can look it up.
SF: DW and JA pointed out that the notion of a formal language
should be incorporated because of the commonalities with
natural language. Adding the concept of a FormalGrammar
to account for non-natural languages, we have:
SF: (subclass &%FormalGrammar [not sure about the superclass, but it's &%Abstract])
(generates &%FormalGrammar &%LinguisticExpression)
SF: And from formal language theory, we could add:
SF: (subclass ContextSensitiveGrammar FormalGrammar)
(subclass ContextFreeGrammar FormalGrammar)
this represents a misunderstanding of how the chomsky-schutzenberger hierarchy works.
SF: To summarize, we could have three concepts referring to what was initially one:
SF: 1) &%MentalGrammar
2) &%FormalGrammar
3) &%Language
again, when you are comparing a natural language with a formal language,
you are not comparing apples and oranges, so to speak, you are comparing
sets of apples with cardinal numbers, so to speak. the formal is that
in terms of which you conceive and describe the former, the formative.
SF: The second issue that was brought up is the status of &%Language
as spoken, written, and signed. IN proposed the following:
SF: (subclass WrittenLinguisticExpression LinguisticExpression)
(subclass SpokenLinguisticExpression LinguisticExpression)
(subclass GesturalLinguisticExpression LinguisticExpression)
SF: I think this distinction is necessary, because the spoken &%Word
is definitely a separate concept from the written or signed &%Word.
(I might change Gestural to Signed, because Gestural implies early
views of sign language when it wasn't considered 'language'.)
have a thought-provoking "siege of the alamo" day ...
http://www.thealamo.org/
jon awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤