I like Hausser’s system but it does not solve the kinds of problems that I need to solve. His left associative system with the pointer or address to other parts of associated speech certainly seem more sensible then the grammars that use a method of direct substitution to determine whether the formation of a sentence is grammatical. But I am more interested in the meaning of sentences and I believe that there is too much that the theories of elementary formal grammar have not solved. I haven’t finished the paper that Hausser sent but I will get back to it in a few weeks.
I believe that the initial interpretation of sentences partly relies on the meaning and roles of words that can be learned but which are not necessarily found from within a strict partitioning of the constituents and elements and fundamental systems of the grammar. So, just as Hausser’s grammar seems a little more sensible than the strictly substitutional generative grammars, I believe that we need to find a way to combine more from semantics into the initial stages of recognition. These rules should be largely associative and could be expressed as substitutions, but they may not be found from a conventional analyses of how these fundamental systems may be generated. So the most unconstrained system of formal generative grammar might be needed to express the range of human language but once the grammatical sentences of the language were found it might turn out that they can be expressed by simpler systems. The conclusion of my thought on this would be to say that we need a greater freedom to discover the relationships between words and phrases to discover how words are used to govern the discovery of the meaning of the expressions. Words and phrases are used to convey ideas but they also convey the instructions on how to encode and decode the words and phrases of the expressions used. Formal generative grammar was an attempt to figure out how this is done but I think the study of the subject got a little sidetracked onto the problems of defining a computational system of what is ‘grammatical’ rather than what is that is to be understood. But Hausser has given us a little more freedom to use in our attempts to figure this problem out. Jim On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:43:26 +0100 > Subject: Re: Parsing Natural Language > From: Roland Hausser > To: [email protected] > > > Hello Mike, > > Thank you for your email and the comments by > Jim Bromer and Steve Richfield. They touch > on some very general issues which are difficult > to address specifically. Therefore I attach a > recent paper which appeared in > > Semantics in Data and Knowledge Bases: 5th International > Workshop SDKB 2011, Zürich, Switzerland, July 3, 2011, > Revised Selected Papers (LNCS 7693 > Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI) [Paperback] > Klaus-Dieter Schewe (Editor), Bernhard Thalheim (Editor) > ISBN-10: 3642360076 > ISBN-13: 978-3642360077 > > The editors asked for an introduction to DBS, giving > me space. > > Please pass the .pdf on to those in your group who are > interested. Looking forward for to further reactions, > > Cheers, > > Roland > > ------------------------------------------- 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
