In the case of Capoeira, the language output and interface is the entire human body, and the input interface is the eyes. In the case of Jiu-Jitsu, the language output interface is the entire human body, and the input interface is the entire human body, including the eyes. Both of these sports have a lexicon which is communicated from instructors to students. ~PM
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:53:53 -0800 Roland Hausser IS talking about the same thing. In the case of American Sign Languae (ASL) the language output interface is your hands (and arms).The language input interface is your eyes. PM, I’m talking about the sign language/gestural origins – signs made by hands predominantly – which apes are also capable of. Unless I missed something, Hausser is talking about signs in the broader semiotic sense and is irrelevant here. "I should add that I am just getting into reading about the argument for the origins of language in sign language which is a strong one and very extensively argued and debated – and I suspect like much other crucial science, largely unknown to AGI-ers." ~ Mike Tinter That has already been addressed. You should read Roland Hausser's work: "A natural language manifests itself in the form of signs, the structures of which have evolved as conventions within a language community. Produced by cognitive agents in the speaker mode and interpreted by cognitive agents in the hearer mode these signs are used for the transfer of content from the speaker to the hearer. Depending upon whether the scientific analysis concentrates on the isolated signs or the communicating agents, we may distinguish between sign-oriented and agent-oriented approaches. "Sign oriented approaches like Generative Grammar, Truth-Conditional Semantics, and Text Linguistics analyze expressions of natural language as objects, fixed on paper, magnetic tape, or by electronic means. They abstract away from the aspect of communication and therefore are neither intended nor suitable to model the speaker and the hearer mode. Instead linguistic examples isolated from the communicating agents are analyzed as hierarchical structures which are formally based on the principle of possible substitutions. "The agent-oriented approach of Database Semantics, in contrast, analyzes signs as the result of the speake'rs language production and as the starting point of the hearer's language interpretation. Inclusion of the agents' production and interpretation procedures requires a time linear analysis which is formally based on the principle of possible continuations. "The goal of Database semantics is a theory of natural language communication which is complete with respect to function and data coverage, of low mathematical complexity, and is suitable for an efficient implementation on the computer. The central question of Database Semantics is: "How does communicating with Natural Language work? "In the most simple form this question is answered as follows. "Natural language communication takes place between cognitive agents. They have real bodies "out there" in the world with external interfaces for nonverbal recognition and action at the context level, and verbal recognition and action at the language level. Each agent contains a database in which contents are stored. These contents consist of the agent's knowledge its memories, current recognition, intentions, plans, etc. "The cognitive agents can switch between the speaker and hearer mode (turn taking). In a communication procedure, an agent in the speaker mode codes content from its database into signs of language which are realized externally by the language output interface. These signs are recognized by another agent in the hearer mode via the language input interface, their content is decoded and is then stored in the second agent's database. This procedure is successful if the content coded by the speaker is decoded and stored equivalently by the hearer." ~Roland Hausser, A Computational Model of Natural Language Communication: Interpretation, Inference, and Production in Database Semantics (pp. 9, 10). From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:03:11 +0000 The real lesson here, Jim is the end: "We suggest that iconicity provides scaffolding – a middle-ground – to bridge the "great divide" between linguistic form and bodily experience for both sign language and spoken language learners," says Thompson. I would put my own take on this: Language IS “sign language”/ “iconic” - words are, in a qualified sense, irrelevant – a linguistic/conceptual system is basically a system of iconic signs – “outlines” of objects and groups of objects. “Analog” not digital. To grasp that involves a massive cultural leap which is happening and unstoppable. I should add that I am just getting into reading about the argument for the origins of language in sign language which is a strong one and very extensively argued and debated – and I suspect like much other crucial science, largely unknown to AGI-ers. From: Jim Bromer Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:52 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic Blind children can learn language too. Jim Bromer AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
