[Corpora-List] PS:minimal changes in a paragraph (based on a corpus it appeared) ... (2nd attempt (after first one was deleted))

[John F. Sowa]

JFS
>> Situation -->  sensory icons -->  interpretation by percepts -->
>> concepts and conceptual structures -->  words and syntax -->  speech

Albretch M.
> the directness of that process to me is a bit unrealistic "speech"
> and "words and syntax" "influence conceptual structures" and even the
> perceptability and interpretability of "situations"

I put psycholinguistic labels on those stages to indicate the kinds
of processing that any theory must account for.  I do not claim
that any current theory is a realistic characterization of them.

> there is definitely a relationship between syntax and semantics, but
> thinking you can somehow harness semantics by syntactic means to me
> feels sort of like saying that "truth is what is 'democratic'/popular".

I agree.  For a different way of looking at the matter, I suggest the
following relabeling, which is just as rough a characterization, but
somewhat closer to the way the brain does whatever it does:

    'interpretation by percepts'  =>
         'what happens in the sensory projection areas of the cortex'

    'concepts and conceptual structures'
         'what happens in the parietal lobes and Wernicke's area'

    'words and syntax'  =>
         'what happens in Broca's area'

    'speech'  =>
         'signals from the motor areas to lips, jaws, larynx...'

> Does it really matter that their neurons spike in the same way?
> This is what I mean when I say that semantics would be/and -is-
> an illusion, a healthy and necessary one at that!, given  the
> intersubjectivity of our semiosis

I believe that we can analyze and simulate human language processing
without going all the way down to neurons.  But I also believe that
combining multidisciplinary perspectives can clarify and refine the
distinctions.

> "Meaning" like memory foremost -is- (is brought about by being)
> intersubjective

There is certainly something intersubjective that is roughly
captured by traditional dictionaries.  We can also recover
a great deal of meaning from symbols produced by brains that
crumbled into dust many millennia ago.

But I also believe that if we want to simulate the kinds of
processes that people do in understanding each other (either
in person or through strings of symbols) we need to do a lot
of processing that has strong functional similarities to what
happens in their brains.

JFS
>> My question:  How do you use the speaker's intentions to control
>> the selection of N-grams (or other patterns) to convey the meaning?

AM
> I am not sure if I get your question and/or where is it coming from,
> but I think this very naturally happens through people's agency when
> they communicate/"are themselves"

I agree with that answer.  But what I was trying to ask is how
can we design a computer system that takes some representation of
meaning (semantics, pragmatics, intention, context -- or whatever
terms you prefer for that information) and generates language that
expresses that meaning in the style of Shakespeare or other authors.

John

_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora