John, (01)
> [...] instead of Chomsky's naval gazing. (02)
Congratulations on your pun with its allusion to Nelson at Trafalgar! (03)
Christopher (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: 27 July 2014 04:15
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Paraconsistent Logic (05)
Leo and Rich, (06)
Leo
> the semantics and the syntax are associated at each point in the NL
> derivation (in a compositional fashion), though each uses different
> "logics" that are correlated. (07)
That short description summarizes the fundamental Fregean principle, which
has been very successful for implementing parsers for formal languages. But
NLs are not formal languages. (08)
Leo
> This is of course old-fashioned symbolic computational linguistics,
> not new-fangled corpus-based computational linguistics -- though of
> course both styles should be reconciled. (09)
I agree that any method that has had some successful applications should be
taken into consideration. Most of the successes of the corpus-based methods
come from processing large amounts of actual data -- instead of Chomsky's
naval gazing. (010)
But their semantic representations are weak or almost nonexistent. (011)
Rich
> can anyone shed some more light on why how and what you would use a
> labeled deductive system for? (012)
For YAFMFNLP (Yet Another Formal Method For NLP). Following is a quotation
from the last paragraph of the LDS paper by Finger et al. (013)
FKGK
> The interpretation of natural language expressions qua expressions is,
> as before, strictly syntactic -- a set of metalevel procedures on the
> building of logical configurations. (014)
The formal system that devoted the longest, most sustained effort to this
strategy is probably Ron Kaplan's group at Xerox PARC, which was spun off as
PowerSet, which was bought by Microsoft to enhance the capabilities of Bing,
and which was finally disbanded as one more formal failure. (015)
There were many very intelligent people working on these systems, who
devoted many person-centuries to their development. But none of them can
understand language as well as a 3-year-old child. (016)
I believe that the reason why is, or should be, obvious: a child (or an
adult learning a second language) begins with pragmatics, then semantics,
and finally syntax. Of the three, syntax is of the most value for
understanding fine details. But the main points can be understood even with
badly mangled syntax. (017)
John (018)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (019)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (020)
|