Also, I don't see how you can call a model "semantic" when it makes no reference to the world. The model as described by Wikipedia could have the capability of telling me whether a sentence is natural or highly unlikely, but unless I misunderstand something, there is no possibility it could tell me whether a sentence describes a scene.
That is really a philosophical point: it seems to be a special case of linguistic structuralism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism in the spirit of Saussure.... In this approach one studies language as a system of interrelating signs ... e.g. "large" is defined in terms of its relationship to "small" and "huge" rather than in terms of its relationship to the physical world.... So yeah: you can't tell from linguistic structure alone if a sentence describes a real scene or an imaginary scene. But you might be able to tell if it defines a scene or not by looking at the collection of linguistic relationships generally needed to define a scene... I tend to think that structuralist linguistics points out some important aspects that are commonly overlooked in other linguistic paradigms, but also somewhat overstates things... Arguably Saussure was the grand-daddy of corpus linguistics... -- Ben G ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
