Ed, (01)
See below. (02)
Thanks,
Leo (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed
Barkmeyer
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:01 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake (04)
A minor comment on Leo's postscript: (05)
> This stuff also suggests that for at least natural
> languages (potentially formalizable as formal languages), there are
two
> notions (relations): 1) sense (a relation between the word and the
> "semantic sense" or "word sense", e.g., "tank" as wordsense1,
military
> vehicle), and 2)denotation (what the word refers to once the sense is
> chosen, in the real world). Pragmatics adds a third notion: what did
> the user intend? I.e., semantics in context. (06)
"Pragmatics", in this sense, is truly orthogonal, in that it applies to
both
of the other two dimensions. In my experience, the "pragmatic" use of
a term
may involve a clear change/refinement of the "word sense" (Sinn), but
in many
cases it is much less clear what the intended word sense is, but it is
clear
what the intended referents (Bedeutung) are. (07)
LEO: Yes, usually one brings in conversational implicature, Gricean
accommodations, and speech acts, also discourse theories such as early
Kartunnen (1977), discourse referents, Discourse Representation Theory
(Kamp, 1983), File-Change Semantics (Heim, 1984), and more recent work
on dynamic predicate logic, informational structures, etc., and this is
just in linguistics. (08)
The other observation is that "pragmatics" depends on a shared
connotative
space, usually in both the real world and the conceptual world. And
the
shared connotative space is a *presumed* "base" of common knowledge,
common
belief, and common analogy. It seems to defy effective formal
treatment, and
I suspect this is because some part of the presumption, the beliefs and
the
analogies are in fact false and nonetheless pragmatically useful. (09)
LEO: It defies formal treatment because it is complex. Contrafactuals
and similar issues have been, continue to be addressed formally (David
Lewis, 1973). However, one must give credit where it is due, and there
have been analyses on the linguistic side and also on the AI and
philosophical sides that have moved these issues along (truth
maintenance systems, non-monotonic logics, evidential reasoning, speech
act-based performatives for intelligent agent communication, etc.) (010)
-Ed (011)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (012)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
|