[Corpora-List] Corpora Digest, Vol 3, Issue 13

Tue Dec 18 22:47:22 UTC 2007

Thanks for posting!!LuisJoaquinLuisJoaquin Garcia-Lopez, Ph.D. Childhood Social Anxiety Research Team, Leader Associate Editor, Psicologia ConductualUniversity of Granada Department of Clinical Psychology Spain ( Europe )----
Ramon y Cajal Research position in Clinical Psychology and Corpus Linguistics

Dear colleagues:

   The Spanish Ministry of Higher Education and Science offers the possibility, through the top-quality Ramon y Cajal grant (similar to an Associate Research Professor position), that foreign researchers can be incorporated to research teams in Spain and establish innovative research lines. After a 5-year period, candidate can apply for a tenure position. 
Our research team would be ready to support one candidate to conduct independent research on the role of language and childhood social anxiety, as part of an innovative research line of our unit at the University of Granada and Jaen (Andalucia, south of Spain). In particular, the research team is leadered by Dr. Garcia-lopez, who mostly devotes his research to adolescents with social anxiety. This position will largely be working on compiling a corpus as produced by adolescents with and without social phobia. Such corpus will be analyzed using a corpus linguistics methodology to highlight the possible linguistic and psychological differences of these subjects. The candidate would receive support by the research team but s/he would conduct independent research. S/he would have opportunities for teaching to undergraduate, graduate and doctoral students.

 Eligibility
The candidates must have a PhD degree in Applied Linguistics. Additional required qualifications: M.A or M.S. in Psychology or related field with a preference for candidates that have experience in childhood disorders. 
Applicant should have a strong sense of
scientific integrity and enjoy working as a member of a team. Experience
with observational coding systems and proven writing skills preferred. Able
to speak or read Spanish.
 -Benefits:
The duration of the grant is for 5 years, the annual salary would be around 33000 € (around 48500$).
 Application
A completed application will include the following:
Cover Letter
Personal Statement of Interest for the Ramon y Cajal Program (please limit to one page)
Curriculum Vitae
Email all documents to: ljgarlo at cop.es or ljgarlo at ugr.es 
Review of applications will begin after November 20th and the search will continue until the candidate is chosen.
Application deadline: March 2008
Start date of position: November 2008 or January 2009
Program details are available on-line at http://www.mec.es/ciencia/jsp/plantilla.jsp?area=cajal_eng&id=31

The University of Granada has a long tradition of research and teaching and international collaboration. Thus, it was pioneer in the European Union's university programs for mobility of faculty members and students, as can also be seen in its Research Programs, which include not only EU countries but also other geographical areas. As a result of this cooperation and the prestige of our university (it has been elected in 2006 as one of the ‘Top 500 World Universities’ by the Academic Ranking of World Universities and is included in the ‘Top Europe’ list in the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities), it receives more than 8,000 lecturers, students and university administrators each year from all over the world. Indeed, the UGR has been awarded the “Golden Star” as the European institution with higher number of international students and visiting professors. In this context of research excellence, the Department of Psychology is the third Spanish institution in research, if compared to other Spanish universities with degrees in Psychology. It was created twenty-five years ago and it is composed of a number of brilliant lecturers and professors who offer various research programs. The outstanding investigation of some of its members, together with the resources available in this university, makes it possible to consider the Degree on Psychology as a first-rate one. In fact, the doctoral program on Clinical Psychology, which the department offers, has met the requirements stated by the Spanish Ministry of Higher Education and Science to be considered as a high-quality program (which involves an institutional as well as a financial support from the Ministry itself).

Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 
,
Sincerely,
Luis Joaquin Garcia-Lopez, Ph.D.
Department of Clinical Psychology
Faculty of Psychology
University of Granada
Spain
e-mail: ljgarlo at cop.es

> From: corpora-request at uib.no> Subject: Corpora Digest, Vol 3, Issue 13> To: corpora at uib.no> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:00:15 +0200> > Today's Topics:> > 1. ad-hoc generalization and meaning (Rob Freeman)> 2. ad-hoc generalization and meaning (maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu)> 3. ad-hoc generalization and meaning (Yorick Wilks)> 4. Metric to quality of machine translation? (José Pablo González)> 5. ad-hoc generalization and meaning (Paula Newman)> 6. ad-hoc generalization and meaning (Rob Freeman)> 7. ad-hoc g
eneralization and meaning (Rob Freeman)> 8. ad-hoc generalization and meaning (Rob Freeman)> 9. ad-hoc generalization and meaning (John F. Sowa)> 10. ad-hoc generalization and meaning (Paula Newman)> 11. Journals in Spanish (JLDL)> 12. 2nd Call for Participation: Workshop on Genre and NLP> (santinim_AT_inwind.it)> 13. ad-hoc generalization and meaning (Yorick Wilks)> 14. Journals in Spanish (Anselmo Peñas)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:07:45 +0800> From: "Rob Freeman" <lists_AT_chaoticlanguage.com>> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: "maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu" <maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu>,> "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO" <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> > > > On 9/13/07, maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu <maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu> wrote:> >> > Rob Freeman wrote:> > > As an example, consider the verb *support* in the following sentences:> > >> > > Tom supported the tomato plant with a stick.> > > Tom supported his daughter with $10,000 per year.> > > Tom supported his father with a decisive argument.> > > Tom supported his partner with a bid of 3 spades.> > >> > > These sentences all use the verb *support* in the same syntactic> > pattern:> > >> > > A person supported NP1 with NP2.> > >> > > Yet each use of the verb can only be understood with respect to a> > > particular subject matter or domain of discourse..."> > >> > > Well, I'm saying their syntax can only be understood with respect to> > > context too. Each context will select a different "grammar".> >> > Hmm... In one sentence you acknowledge that all four use the same> > syntactic pattern; in another you that each context selects a different> > "grammar."> > > Sorry, Mike, I guess I didn't make it clear I was quoting John here. You can> see the quote marks if you look carefully. I've been discussing this> treatment of Wittgenstein by John since my 3rd(?) message in this thread.> Here is the link again:> > http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/lex1.htm> > It is of course John who claims the syntax of his examples is captured by:> > "A person supported NP1 with NP2"> > I think the syntax of "supported" in each context will be different. A> different "grammar" will be found for it depending on context. For instance,> "supported" will be in a class with one set of words in "daughter" contexts> (e.g. "accompanied"), and in classes with other words in "tomato" contexts,> etc.> > Failure to treat the syntax of "supported" on an ad-hoc basis in this way> means you have no way of capturing the information that, in a grammar of> English, "supported" = "accompanied" but also "supported" != "accompanied".> That means you will be unable to capture detailed syntactic restrictions> which prevent you from saying "slightly odd" things like "Tom accompanied> his tomato plant to the garden (where he planted it.)"> > John would claim such restrictions are purely semantic, but in point of fact> you can capture them with an ad-hoc search for syntactic regularities along> the lines I recommend. Since a semantic representation is currently moot,> but a syntactic representation is easily to hand (the corpus) I don't know> why his is resisting this.> > -Rob> > > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:31:45 -0400 (EDT)> From: maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO" <corpora_AT_uib.no>> > Rob Freeman wrote:> > It is of course John who claims the syntax of his examples is captured by:> >> > "A person supported NP1 with NP2"> > ...if that's what he's saying, then I'm agreeing with him.> > > I think the syntax of "supported" in each context will be different.> > What is your definition of "syntax"?> > > Failure to treat the syntax of "supported" on an ad-hoc basis in this way> > means you have no way of capturing the information that, in a grammar of> > English, "supported" = "accompanied" but also "supported" !=> > "accompanied".> > The question is whether it's appropriate to capture that meaning> distinction in the syntax, rather than in the semantics. It seems to me> that there's a class of facts that can be captured quite well by> distinguishing syntax from semantics, but which is obscured when you try> to collapse the two.> > > That means you will be unable to capture detailed syntactic restrictions> > which prevent you from saying "slightly odd" things like "Tom accompanied> > his tomato plant to the garden (where he planted it.)"> > I would put it differently; I would say that collapsing syntax and> semantics makes it difficult (maybe impossible :-)) to capture the fact> that the above sentence is perfectly comprehensible, if (as you say) odd;> whereas the following sentence is only comprehensible to English speakers> with great difficulty, although the intended meaning is quite normal:> garden-the-to accompanied tomato-plant-his Tom> > > John would claim such restrictions are purely semantic, but in point> > of fact you can capture them with an ad-hoc search for syntactic> > regularities along the lines I recommend.> > I'm sure you can find such regularities; the question is whether treating> them as syntactic doesn't obscure the generalizations that I would> consider truly syntactic.> > > I don't know why his is resisting this.> > I'm with John here.> > Mike Maxwell> CASL/ U MD> > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:52:40 +0100> From: Yorick Wilks <Yorick_AT_dcs.shef.ac.uk>> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: "Rob Freeman" <lists_AT_chaoticlanguage.com>> Cc: "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO List" <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> > > > > Like many bystanders, Ive been the resisting the temptation to join > in this fight, with its wonderful mix of the odd and the very familiar.> BUT....does the following help at all?> > Some people use "syntax" and "grammar" to mean almost the same thing > and some dont. People who like> Wittgenstein (several players here, myself included) tend to use > "grammar" in the way he did, a way in which it is fine to say that > the "support" sentences have the> same syntactic-pattern but different grammars. There is an old > tradition of seeing things this way and it never totally goes away. > In the neolithic period of NLP, Schank and I used to write about > getting to semantic structures without a syntactic level of analysis, > and we used a lot of this sort of rhetoric and even similar examples. > Burton in 1977 wrote Semantic Grammar> (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1045283.1045290); there is the > late Karen Sparck Jones entry in the Ai tools catalogue under this > same title (http://aicat.inf.ed.ac.uk/entry.php?id=554) and even now > at Microsoft research work goes on using that phrase (http:// > research.microsoft.com/research/srg/grammar.aspx). The tradition has > strong relations too to what Fillmore has called "Frame semantics" > since 1976 (http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/papers/crj_cjf2000.pdf) > and to the way lexicographers like Hanks look at how meanings arise > from sets of corpus examples (http://www.patrickhanks.com/). And, of > course, Beth Levin has come up with strong claims about the > relationship of the syntax and semantics of verbs (http:// > linguistlist.org/issues/4/4-1102.html) and , whether or not you > accept those claims, they must be considered here. So, there's lots > of stuff out there on this way of doing things (as John Sowa keeps > saying, if I read him right) and were not really adding much here by > just chucking more examples at each other.> > Rob--I dont get your last bit:> > Failure to treat the syntax of "supported" on an ad-hoc basis in > > this way means you have no way of capturing the information that, > > in a grammar of English, "supported" = "accompanied" but also > > "supported" != "accompanied". That means you will be unable to > > capture detailed syntactic restrictions which prevent you from > > saying "slightly odd" things like "Tom accompanied his tomato plant > > to the garden (where he planted it.)"> Surely, thats not the contrast you want--it's rather that "I > accompanied the man with a stick" has exactly the syntactic pattern > of the first (support-tomato) example l, but that means nothing at > all --their joint class membership there leads to NOTHING---because > of the quite different "semantic grammars" of the concepts.> Best> Yorick Wilks> > > > > > On 13 Sep 2007, at 14:07, Rob Freeman wrote:> > > On 9/13/07, maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu <maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu> wrote:> > Rob Freeman wrote:> > > As an example, consider the verb *support* in the following > > sentences:> > >> > > Tom supported the tomato plant with a stick.> > > Tom supported his daughter with $10,000 per year.> > > Tom supported his father with a decisive argument.> > > Tom supported his partner with a bid of 3 spades.> > >> > > These sentences all use the verb *support* in the same syntactic > > pattern:> > >> > > A person supported NP1 with NP2.> > >> > > Yet each use of the verb can only be understood with respect to a> > > particular subject matter or domain of discourse..."> > >> > > Well, I'm saying their syntax can only be understood with respect to> > > context too. Each context will select a different "grammar".> >> > Hmm... In one sentence you acknowledge that all four use the same> > syntactic pattern; in another you that each context selects a > > different> > "grammar."> >> > Sorry, Mike, I guess I didn't make it clear I was quoting John > > here. You can see the quote marks if you look carefully. I've been > > discussing this treatment of Wittgenstein by John since my 3rd(?) > > message in this thread. Here is the link again:> >> > http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/lex1.htm> >> > It is of course John who claims the syntax of his examples is > > captured by:> >> > "A person supported NP1 with NP2"> >> > I think the syntax of "supported" in each context will be > > different. A different "grammar" will be found for it depending on > > context. For instance, "supported" will be in a class with one set > > of words in "daughter" contexts ( e.g. "accompanied"), and in > > classes with other words in "tomato" contexts, etc.> >> > Failure to treat the syntax of "supported" on an ad-hoc basis in > > this way means you have no way of capturing the information that, > > in a grammar of English, "supported" = "accompanied" but also > > "supported" != "accompanied". That means you will be unable to > > capture detailed syntactic restrictions which prevent you from > > saying "slightly odd" things like "Tom accompanied his tomato plant > > to the garden (where he planted it.)"> >> > John would claim such restrictions are purely semantic, but in > > point of fact you can capture them with an ad-hoc search for > > syntactic regularities along the lines I recommend. Since a > > semantic representation is currently moot, but a syntactic > > representation is easily to hand (the corpus) I don't know why his > > is resisting this.> >> > -Rob> > _______________________________________________> > > Corpora mailing list> > Corpora_AT_uib.no> > http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora> > > > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 4> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:23:48 -0400> From: "José Pablo González" <josepablog_AT_gmail.com>> Subject: [Corpora-List] Metric to quality of machine translation?> To: "CARLOS EDUARDO DANTAS DE MENEZES" <cedmenezes_AT_gmail.com>> Cc: CORPORA_AT_uib.no> > The METEOR metric developed at Carnegie Mellon University might be of> your interest:> > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~alavie/papers/ACL-07-WMT-METEOR.pdf> > On 8/10/07, CARLOS EDUARDO DANTAS DE MENEZES <cedmenezes_AT_gmail.com> wrote:> > Dear all,> >> > Is there a metric to compare quality of a machine translation?> >> > Regards,> >> > Carlos Menezes> > _______________________________________________> > > Corpora mailing list> > Corpora_AT_uib.no> > http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora> >> >> > > -- > José Pablo González> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 5> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:50:14 -0700> From: "Paula Newman" <paulan_AT_earthlink.net>> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: "Yorick Wilks" <Yorick_AT_dcs.shef.ac.uk>, "Rob Freeman"> <lists_AT_chaoticlanguage.com>> Cc: "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO List" <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> > > > Rob, > > Re:> YW> Like many bystanders, Ive been the resisting the temptation to join in this fight, with its wonderful mix of the odd and the very familiar.... > > Ditto. But can't resist any further.> > Maybe the oddness relates to the question of the purpose of the "informal grammar" , which is never stated. > > There are many overlapping purposes to investigations of human language, i.e, to "linguistics". Among them are: > - to identify the different ways in which languages pattern, at different levels (morphological, syntactic, semantic, discourse)> - to understand what kinds of meanings are conveyed by language and how those relate to surface forms, again at different levels.> - to explore how languages evolve. > - to investigate how language is acquired. > - to understand how the brain processes language> > It is always (or almost always) understood that studying one aspect is just that. For example, noone studying morphological patterns believes that the result will be a total description of a language. > > Natual language processing (NLP), on the other hand, has different purposes relating not so much to understanding how language works, but to doing something useful with language automatically. Like any kind of computational task the problem is to design systems that can perform the desired functions in an acceptable amount of space and time. For this purpose, the linguistic determinations and formalizations of regularities in different aspects of human language and human language processing can supply bases for modularization . Those base can make mnay applications feasible even though a comprehensive formalization of natural language meaning in all its aspects remains beyond our reach. > > Admittedly, the term "computational linguistics"(CL) tends to muddy the waters, because in any particular use it encompasses one or more of: (a) the development of formal notations for the results of linguistic studies, (b) linguistic studies whose results are formally expressed, and (c) symbolic NLP and (d) statistical NLP ( which in the last decade+ has dominated ACL conferences). To sloppily generalize, statistical NLP allows a blending of language aspects usually treated separately in linguistic studies and in symbolic NLP, > > So the question, Rob, is what are you proposing? Is it a new approach to linguistic investigation, or to NLP, or to ??> > Paula> > > > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 6> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:05:46 +0800> From: "Rob Freeman" <lists_AT_chaoticlanguage.com>> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: "maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu" <maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu>,> "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO" <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> > > > On 9/13/07, maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu <maxwell_AT_umiacs.umd.edu> wrote:> >> > Rob Freeman wrote:> >> > > I think the syntax of "supported" in each context will be different.> >> > What is your definition of "syntax"?> > > John doesn't like one sentence summarizations. But I do, so one might be:> > Generalizations (ad-hoc) about the way words can combine.> > > Failure to treat the syntax of "supported" on an ad-hoc basis in this way> > > means you have no way of capturing the information that, in a grammar of> > > English, "supported" = "accompanied" but also "supported" !=> > > "accompanied".> >> > The question is whether it's appropriate to capture that meaning> > distinction in the syntax, rather than in the semantics. It seems to me> > that there's a class of facts that can be captured quite well by> > distinguishing syntax from semantics, but which is obscured when you try> > to collapse the two.> > > You gave some examples of this earlier, didn't you? At least, you gave some> examples to demonstrate syntax is important. I wasn't bothered then because> I also believe syntax is important. Now I'm trying to argue syntax is not> only important, but that it can code meaning.> > You'd better give the examples again.> > > That means you will be unable to capture detailed syntactic restrictions> > > which prevent you from saying "slightly odd" things like "Tom> > accompanied> > > his tomato plant to the garden (where he planted it.)"> >> > I would put it differently; I would say that collapsing syntax and> > semantics makes it difficult (maybe impossible :-)) to capture the fact> > that the above sentence is perfectly comprehensible, if (as you say) odd;> > whereas the following sentence is only comprehensible to English speakers> > with great difficulty, although the intended meaning is quite normal:> > garden-the-to accompanied tomato-plant-his Tom> > > I think you are trying to demonstrate that this "sentence" has meaning, but> is incomprehensible because it does not obey English syntax.> > By which you probably hope demonstrates the independence of syntax and> semantics.> > Which is a slightly moot point. I'm not trying to demonstrate meaning cannot> exist without syntax. It can. I'm trying to show syntax can code meaning.> > You have less (recognizable) syntax in your example, so the we lack that> code. That does not mean a recognizable syntax would not code meaning, only> that we are forced to use what we do have (lexicon, and a bit of> pig-Warlpiri?) to guess the meaning a missing syntax might have coded, in> this case.> > If I take your example one stage further and show you a _picture_ of Tom> carrying the plant out into the garden, does that then demonstrate> _language_ does not code meaning (because you don't need language to convey> meaning)?> > > John would claim such restrictions are purely semantic, but in point> > > of fact you can capture them with an ad-hoc search for syntactic> > > regularities along the lines I recommend.> >> > I'm sure you can find such regularities; the question is whether treating> > them as syntactic doesn't obscure the generalizations that I would> > consider truly syntactic.> > > By "truly syntactic" you mean syntactic generalizations which don't code any> corresponding meaning?> > Let's look at them. Maybe such things exist.> > It's possible. Remember my argument is slightly different from the> traditional. This kind of debate has usually been framed in terms of whether> semantics governs syntax. If that were true there would be no syntactic> distinctions which did not have a semantic basis. But I'm not arguing that.> I'm not saying semantics governs syntax (John is saying that, if anyone.)> I'm saying syntax, which you can define independently in terms of> regularities in texts, can be used to code semantics. (Though you don't need> it. You don't even need language. You might equally paint a picture and get> the meaning across that way.)> > -Rob> > > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 7> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:16:00 +0800> From: "Rob Freeman" <lists_AT_chaoticlanguage.com>> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: "Yorick Wilks" <Yorick_AT_dcs.shef.ac.uk>, "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO"> <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> > > > On 9/13/07, Yorick Wilks <Yorick_AT_dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:> >> > ...there's lots of stuff out there on this way of doing things (as John> > Sowa keeps saying, if I read him right) and were not really adding much here> > by just chucking more examples at each other.> >> > By "this way of doing things" do you mean relating meaning and grammar?> > I agree there is a lot of work which tries to relate meaning and grammar.> However, I don't think there is a lot of work which takes my position that> we can model semantics by making ad-hoc syntactic generalizations over> corpora.> > I've seen nothing which suggests the analysis of syntax must be ad-hoc,> because grammatical generalizations over text are necessarily incomplete,> for instance. While this is essential to my treatment, because you can't get> the detail of semantics without it.> > In particular John is suggesting somewhat the reverse of my position, by> insisting that we need a(n unknown) semantic representation, separate from> syntax, to make up for the shortcomings of syntax.> > Rob--I dont get your last bit:> >> > Failure to treat the syntax of "supported" on an ad-hoc basis in this way> > means you have no way of capturing the information that, in a grammar of> > English, "supported" = "accompanied" but also "supported" != "accompanied".> > That means you will be unable to capture detailed syntactic restrictions> > which prevent you from saying "slightly odd" things like "Tom accompanied> > his tomato plant to the garden (where he planted it.)"> >> > Surely, thats not the contrast you want--it's rather that "I accompanied> > the man with a stick" has exactly the syntactic pattern of the first> > (support-tomato) example l, but that means nothing at all --their joint> > class membership there leads to NOTHING---because of the quite different> > "semantic grammars" of the concepts.> >> > No that's the contrast I want. I'm showing "supported" and "accompanied"> have the same syntax in some cases, but not others. John would argue to make> that distinction you need to go to semantics. I'm showing it can be done> purely on (ad-hoc) syntactic grounds.> > Your contrast demonstrates something else. It demonstrates that the two> words "supported" and "accompanied" can be seen as selecting (ad-hoc) a> different class for the same _context_.> > It is really my point again (that we can handle these "semantic"> distinctions using ad-hoc syntax.) It is just you are looking at things the> other way around.> > What happens is the choice of word "supported" or "accompanied" selects a> class of contexts which have the same syntactic properties as "the man with> a stick" (a different class in each case), and it is these which give you> the impression that "the man with a stick" has one or other meaning. For> instance, if the word used selects a set of contexts which includes the> context "tomato plant" we will see one meaning ("supported" will do this),> but if it selects a class which does not include "tomato plant", we will see> another ("accompanied" will do this.)> > Note: you need an ad-hoc treatment of syntax for this to work. Otherwise the> classes ("the man with a stick" = "tomato plant" or "the man with a stick"> != "tomato plant") will be conflated, and "the man with a stick" will always> be the same.> > -Rob> > > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 8> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:17:57 +0800> From: "Rob Freeman" <lists_AT_chaoticlanguage.com>> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: paulan_AT_earthlink.net, "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO" <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> > > > On 9/14/07, Paula Newman <paulan_AT_earthlink.net> wrote:> >> > ... So the question, Rob, is what are you proposing? Is it a new> > approach to linguistic investigation, or to NLP, or to ??> >> > A better understanding of syntax and semantics.> > That's the glib answer, Paula, but really, does the study of language have> to be divided up in the ways you describe?> > Your comments conjure in me a rather odd picture of science where we assume> everything which can be known, is already know, and it only remains to> select what we want to do with that knowledge.> > It somehow reminds me of the reputed comment of some Chinese emperor or> other who when presented with a collection of Western clocks and> navigational instruments, sent them back saying "We don't need such things> in China."> > Is science now not to be the study of the world, but only the selection of> purposes?> > Yes, there are a plethora of little "schools" out there all doing their own> thing. But I don't think an analysis of reasons for studying language gives> us a exhaustive guide to the possibilities for understanding language.> People don't analyze language statistically or symbolically just because> their goals are different.> > Anyway, that is the philosophy of science. I hope that's not an area where> we need to do a lot of work.> > By the way, as I remember, the words "informal grammar" were John Sowa's. I> don't think I've ever used them. I did think of asking him to define it, but> he later back-tracked from his extreme rejection of formal analysis, so> there was no need.> > I think the idea of "informal grammar" is a muddle too. I don't think> grammar is "informal", I think it is "necessarily incomplete".> > I found a nice definition for "incomplete" by the way.> > A Remark Concerning Decidability of Complete Theories, Antoni Janiczak, The> Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., 1950), pp. 277-279:> > "A formalized theory is called complete if for each sentence expressible in> this theory either the sentence itself or its negation is provable."> > -Rob> > > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 9> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:16:02 -0400> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa_AT_bestweb.net>> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: Rob Freeman <lists_AT_chaoticlanguage.com>> Cc: "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO" <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> > Rob,> > Please do not restate anything I say, because your statements> come out totally different from anything I would ever say.> > > In particular John is suggesting somewhat the reverse of> > my position, by insisting that we need a(n unknown) semantic> > representation, separate from syntax, to make up for the> > shortcomings of syntax.> > I never said anything remotely like that. Following are the> points I would say:> > 1. Syntax and semantics are fields of study -- subfields> of a larger field called linguistics. They are *not*> representations. Therefore they are not and cannot> be *separate* representations.> > 2. Syntax talks about how little pieces of a language are> related to bigger patterns.> > 3. Semantics talks about how those pieces refer to things in some> domain and whether what they say about them are true or false.> > 4. Pragmatics is another field of study, which addresses the> purpose or intention of the speaker and/or hearer of a> language.> > 5. Finally, since syntax, semantics, and pragmatics address different> aspects of language, none of them makes up for any shortcomings> of the other two.> > > I don't think there is a lot of work which takes my position that> > we can model semantics by making ad-hoc syntactic generalizations> > over corpora.> > I am happy nobody is doing that, because it is impossible. One might> discover syntactic generalizations from a corpus, but it is not> possible to learn anything about the semantics and pragmatics without> getting further information about how people use those the sentences> in social activities.> > Children cannot learn a language just by listening to the radio,> and they can't learn much just by watching it used on TV. But> they can learn language very rapidly by actively using it with> other people in social situations.> > John> > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 10> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:28:16 -0700> From: "Paula Newman" <paulan_AT_earthlink.net>> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: "Rob Freeman" <lists_AT_chaoticlanguage.com>, "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO"> <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> > > > Rob,> > Re:> RF> does the study of language have to be divided up in the ways you describe?> > Of course not. I was providing a framework in which to ask a question, namely, what is the purpose of your proposal? > Is it to further the study of language? To develop methods of implementing NL processors? > To form the basis for new formalisms useful in both contexts? To develop new types of corpus annotation? Or?> > And that was just to get at (i.e. pin down) what you are actually suggesting. > > Perhaps another way of getting there is via another question: > given that you have an idea in mind that you seem to think is new, how would you pursue it? > > That words, meanings, and the contexts in which they occur are interdependent is well known. > What new approach are you proposing to deal with that fact? People have been struggling over it for> years, on both theoretical and practical levels?> > RB>Your comments conjure in me a rather odd picture of science where > > we assume everything which can be known, is already know, and it > > only remains to select what we want to do with that knowledge. > > I can't imagine how you conjured up that picture.> > RB> I think the idea of "informal grammar" is a muddle too. I don't think grammar is "informal", I think it is "necessarily incomplete".> > OK, I thought it was your term. But, and as you have been advised many times, everyone knows the latter.> The observation that "Any grammar leaks" is a very old one. I used to think it was by Jane Robinson, but I've recently seen> an attribution to Sapir.> > Paula> > > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 11> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:42:30 -0700 (PDT)> From: JLDL <jldlme_AT_yahoo.com>> Subject: [Corpora-List] Journals in Spanish> To: CORPORA_AT_HD.UIB.NO> > Hi,> > I am looking for Journals in Spanish that publishing> articles about Corpus Linguistics and Computacional> Linguistics.> > > Thank you in advance> > > J.L. De Lucca> > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 12> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:10:30 +0200> From: "santinim\_AT_inwind\.it" <santinim_AT_inwind.it>> Subject: [Corpora-List] 2nd Call for Participation: Workshop on Genre> and NLP> To: "CORPORA" <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> Cc: "marinasantini.ms" <marinasantini.ms_AT_gmail.com>> > W9: Towards Genre-Enabled Search Engines: The Impact of NLP > > 30 September 2007> Borovets, Bulgaria> > In conjunction with RANLP-2007 > (http://lml.bas.bg/ranlp2007)> > FOR REGISTRATION please visit: http://www.euromap.bas.bg/reg/> > Workshop Organizers: Marina Santini and Georg Rehm> > /-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/> > WORKSHOP SCHEDULE> > Room TRAKIA > > First Part> 9:00-9:15 Welcome and Opening(Marina Santini & Georg Rehm)> 9:15-9:45 Vidulin V., Lustrek M. & Gams M. "Using Genres to Improve Search Engines"> 9:45-10:15 Stubbe A., Ringlstetter C. & Goebel R. "Elements of a Learning Interface forGenre Qualified Search"> 10:15-10:45 Braslavski P. "Combining Relevance and Genre-Related Rankings: An Exploratory Study"> 10:45-11:15 Coffee Break> > Second Part> 11:15-11:45 Mehler A., Gleim R., & Wegner A. "Structural Uncertainty of Hypertext Types.An Empirical Study"> 11:45-12:15 Tavosanis M. "Juvenile Netspeak and subgenre classification issues inItalian blogs"> 12:15-12:30 Symonenko S. "Recognizing Genre-Like Regularities in Website Content Structure"> 12:30-13:00 Discussion and Conclusions> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------> Leggi GRATIS le tue mail con il telefonino i-mode™ di Wind> http://i-mode.wind.it/> > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 13> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:43:43 +0100> From: Yorick Wilks <Yorick_AT_dcs.shef.ac.uk>> Subject: [Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning> To: Rob Freeman <lists_AT_chaoticlanguage.com>> Cc: "CORPORA_AT_UIB.NO" <CORPORA_AT_uib.no>> > > > > Rob> None of this matters much for most of us who read this list, but I > think your reference from 1950 is not quite right, or rather its a > non-standard way of putting it:> A Remark Concerning Decidability of Complete Theories, Antoni > Janiczak, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., 1950), > pp. 277-279:> > "A formalized theory is called complete if for each sentence > expressible in this theory either the sentence itself or its negation > is provable."> > Completeness normally (see e.g. Wikipedia) means that for every > sentence S expressible in a language either S or ~S is derivable from > the associated axioms, and that all sentences so derived are true > (i.e. theorems). That is not the same at all as the system/set/ > language being decidable--i.e. that for any S there is an effective > procedure for determining whether or not it is derivable. "provable" > in that quote fudges this issue. For some reason I dont follow you > seem to want to conflate completeness and decidabilty---in general > you cant do that even though there are fudges round completeness like > "semidecidable". The proof of this is that are systems which are > complete but not decidable (i.e. arithmetic) as well as systems > decidable but not complete--some roccoco bits of modern algebra...> Yorick> > > > On 14 Sep 2007, at 07:17, Rob Freeman wrote:> > > On 9/14/07, Paula Newman <paulan_AT_earthlink.net> wrote:> > ...> > So the question, Rob, is what are you proposing? Is it a new > > approach to linguistic investigation, or to NLP, or to ??> >> > A better understanding of syntax and semantics.> >> > That's the glib answer, Paula, but really, does the study of > > language have to be divided up in the ways you describe?> >> > Your comments conjure in me a rather odd picture of science where > > we assume everything which can be known, is already know, and it > > only remains to select what we want to do with that knowledge.> >> > It somehow reminds me of the reputed comment of some Chinese > > emperor or other who when presented with a collection of Western > > clocks and navigational instruments, sent them back saying "We > > don't need such things in China."> >> > Is science now not to be the study of the world, but only the > > selection of purposes?> >> > Yes, there are a plethora of little "schools" out there all doing > > their own thing. But I don't think an analysis of reasons for > > studying language gives us a exhaustive guide to the possibilities > > for understanding language. People don't analyze language > > statistically or symbolically just because their goals are different.> >> > Anyway, that is the philosophy of science. I hope that's not an > > area where we need to do a lot of work.> >> > By the way, as I remember, the words "informal grammar" were John > > Sowa's. I don't think I've ever used them. I did think of asking > > him to define it, but he later back-tracked from his extreme > > rejection of formal analysis, so there was no need.> >> > I think the idea of "informal grammar" is a muddle too. I don't > > think grammar is "informal", I think it is "necessarily incomplete".> >> > I found a nice definition for "incomplete" by the way.> >> > A Remark Concerning Decidability of Complete Theories, Antoni > > Janiczak, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., > > 1950), pp. 277-279:> >> > "A formalized theory is called complete if for each sentence > > expressible in this theory either the sentence itself or its > > negation is provable."> >> > -Rob> > _______________________________________________> > > Corpora mailing list> > Corpora_AT_uib.no> > http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora> > > > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 14> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:08:45 +0200> From: Anselmo Peñas <anselmo_AT_lsi.uned.es>> Subject: [Corpora-List] Journals in Spanish> To: corpora_AT_uib.no, jldlme_AT_yahoo.com> > You can take a look to> "Revista de Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural"> In the following link you have access to the 37 volumes between 1983 and 2006:> http://www.sepln.org/revistaSEPLN/pubrevista.htm> Best,> Anselmo.> > El Viernes, 14 de Septiembre de 2007 09:42, JLDL escribió:> > Hi,> >> > I am looking for Journals in Spanish that publishing> > articles about Corpus Linguistics and Computacional> > Linguistics.> >> >> > Thank you in advance> >> >> > J.L. De Lucca> >> >> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________> > >_________ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.> > http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html> >> > _______________________________________________> > > Corpora mailing list> > Corpora_AT_uib.no> > http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora> > -- > Dr. Anselmo Peñas Padilla> > Dpto. Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos, UNED> Ciudad Universitaria> c./Juan del Rosal 16, 28040 Madrid, Spain> > Correo-e: anselmo_AT_lsi.uned.es> Pág. web: http://nlp.uned.es/~anselmo> Teléfono: +34 91 398 77 50>      Fax: +34 91 398 65 35> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> Send Corpora mailing list submissions to> corpora at uib.no> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to> corpora-request at uib.no> > You can reach the person managing the list at> corpora-owner at uib.no> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of Corpora digest..."> > > _______________________________________________> Corpora mailing list> Corpora at uib.no> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora> > > End of Corpora Digest, Vol 3, Issue 13> **************************************
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Noticias
http://noticias.msn.es/comunidad.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20071218/def19ea2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora