[Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning

[Rob Freeman]

On 9/12/07, John F. Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Why is the mapping difficult? Isn't there a one-to-one
> > mapping between a parse its corresponding logical formula?
> > Otherwise how would the syntax code meaning?
>
> Unfortunately, there are multiple possible points of failure:
>
>   1. There is no correct parse.
>
>   2. There is a correct parse, but one or more steps in the
>      parsing do not have semantic rules associated with them.
>      (That would never happen with Montague's very limited
>      grammar rules, but if you have a more robust parser along
>      the lines you propose, there is no guarantee that every
>      parse has an associated semantic interpretation.)


Do I need to map from one set of rules to another? Can't I just interpret
the syntactic rules directly as some kind of logic? These are formal
systems, after all, just combinations of symbols. It might not be the logic
we are used to, but doesn't any combination of symbols define a "logic" of
its own?

To cut to the chase a little, in going from an idea of syntax based on fixed
grammatical patterns to an idea of syntax based on ad-hoc generalizations,
haven't we bought syntax into much closer correspondence with the idea of
meaning associated with Wittgenstein's "games", as described in your own
article:

http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/lex1.htm

In that article you draw a strong contrast between syntax and semantics. You
characterize semantics as a "game", but syntax as just "rules", and as such
too poor to tell us much. So semantics is the "senior partner" and syntax
just provides the framework.

But syntax of the kind I am proposing is not rules, it is much more like one
of Wittgenstein's "games": an ad-hoc pattern in response to a context.

In short, can't we now have, perhaps, the close correspondence between
syntax and semantics hypothesized in a Montague grammar, but also have the
power and flexibility of an ad-hoc semantic system of the kind of
Wittgenstein's games?

If syntax were based on ad-hoc generalization of patterns in response to a
context, why would we need to distinguish the two?

It would be nice if they were the same. Because currently we don't have a
good representation for patterns of meaning, while patterns of syntax are
very accessible.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20070912/cec34882/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora