On 10/28/14 11:54 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> I came across a 52-page review of the development of formal
> semantics, which Barbara Partee published in 2011. See below
> for the URL and a copy of the concluding paragraph.
>
> Barbara earned a PhD at MIT (Chomsky as thesis adviser) and
> began teaching linguistics at UCLA, where she joined Richard
> Montague and Hans Kamp in pioneering work in combining formal
> semantics with the complexity of NLs. This review is a history
> of the field by one of the leading developers and promoters.
>
> My major criticism is about the size of the "grain of truth"
> by which she minimizes George Lakoff's criticisms. I have
> a high regard for both Barbara and George. Both of them were
> graduate students of Chomsky's around the same time, and they
> both have important points to make (although I prefer Barbara's
> style to George's sometimes excessive hyperbole).
>
> My very short critique is that Barbara and George are equally
> correct about the aspects of language they emphasize, and
> equally wrong about the aspects of the other that they dismiss
> or minimize. There is, of course, much more that could be said.
>
> John
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> http://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=biyclc
>
> FORMAL SEMANTICS: ORIGINS, ISSUES, EARLY IMPACT
> by Barbara H. Partee
>
> [Concluding paragraph]
>
> I should note a criticism that comes from Lakoff and other “Cognitive
> Linguists”: formal semanticists don’t work on metaphor, because
> formal semantics is inadequate for dealing with metaphor, and deals
> only with ’easy’ parts of natural language. There is probably a grain
> of truth to this, and it is undoubtedly connected with the relative
> narrowness of treatments of lexical meaning within formal semantics.
> (Formal semanticists have a great deal to say about the semantics of
> “logical words”, and about aspects of the semantics of open-class words
> that impinge directly on their contribution to compositional meaning,
> but very little to say about what distinguishes the meanings of open-
> class words whose more ‘formal’ properties are alike.) I don’t believe
> that formal semantics will ever account for ‘all of meaning’. But I
> believe that it does very well at accounting for the truth-conditional
> core of literal meaning, which is not handled in any explicit way
> within Cognitive Linguistics. And we’re getting better at solving
> problems, and there is progress on semantic issues in language
> typology, language history, language acquisition, pragmatics and
> discourse, computational linguistic applications, and more. And as
> the field has made progress, new questions have opened up. I have
> really not said anything about the work of the last thirty years,
> and it is that work by which the fruitfulness of the field can best
> be judged.
>
>
>
>
John, (01)
What you've stated above, represented using TURTLE based Nanotation:
## Nanotation Start ## (02)
<http://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=biyclc>
a schema:WebPage ;
rdfs:label "FORMAL SEMANTICS: ORIGINS, ISSUES, EARLY IMPACT" ;
dcterms:creator dbpedia:Barbara_Partee ;
foaf:primaryTopic dbpedia:Semantics ;
rdfs:seeAlso <#Excerpt>, <#Comment> . (03)
<#Excerpt>
rdfs:label "Article Excerpt" ;
dcterms:description
"""
I should note a criticism that comes from
Lakoff and other “Cognitive
Linguists”: formal semanticists don’t work on
metaphor, because
formal semantics is inadequate for dealing with
metaphor, and deals
only with ’easy’ parts of natural language.
There is probably a grain
of truth to this, and it is undoubtedly
connected with the relative
narrowness of treatments of lexical meaning
within formal semantics.
(Formal semanticists have a great deal to say
about the semantics of
“logical words”, and about aspects of the
semantics of open-class words
that impinge directly on their contribution to
compositional meaning,
but very little to say about what distinguishes
the meanings of open-
class words whose more ‘formal’ properties are
alike.) I don’t believe
that formal semantics will ever account for
‘all of meaning’. But I
believe that it does very well at accounting
for the truth-conditional
core of literal meaning, which is not handled
in any explicit way
within Cognitive Linguistics. And we’re getting
better at solving
problems, and there is progress on semantic
issues in language
typology, language history, language
acquisition, pragmatics and
discourse, computational linguistic
applications, and more. And as
the field has made progress, new questions have
opened up. I have
really not said anything about the work of the
last thirty years,
and it is that work by which the fruitfulness
of the field can best
be judged.
""" .
<#Comment>
rdfs:label "Article Comment" ;
rdfs:comment """
I came across a 52-page review of the development of formal
semantics, which Barbara Partee published in 2011. See
below
for the URL and a copy of the concluding paragraph. (04)
Barbara earned a PhD at MIT (Chomsky as thesis adviser) and
began teaching linguistics at UCLA, where she joined
Richard
Montague and Hans Kamp in pioneering work in combining
formal
semantics with the complexity of NLs. This review is a
history
of the field by one of the leading developers and
promoters. (05)
My major criticism is about the size of the "grain of
truth"
by which she minimizes George Lakoff's criticisms. I have
a high regard for both Barbara and George. Both of
them were
graduate students of Chomsky's around the same time,
and they
both have important points to make (although I prefer
Barbara's
style to George's sometimes excessive hyperbole). (06)
My very short critique is that Barbara and George are
equally
correct about the aspects of language they emphasize, and
equally wrong about the aspects of the other that they
dismiss
or minimize. There is, of course, much more that could
be said.
""" ;
dcteterms:creator dbpedia:John_F._Sowa . (07)
## Nanotation End ## (08)
Net effect, enriching related data in the Linked Open Data cloud. (09)
--
Regards, (010)
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this (011)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|