Very interesting thread in the corpora list. I forward a note from Yorick Wilks in response to John Sowa's post (which included the poem I liked so much.) The important point they make, I think, is a point I make all the time. Don't be intimidated by math or statistics. Just because someone throws up a bunch of equations and proofs and terminology doesn't make their work interesting.
Ted -- Ted Pedersen http://www.d.umn.edu/~tpederse ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:29:44 +0100 From: Yorick WIlks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: John F. Sowa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Mark P. Line <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], nlp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Corpora-List] Suggested Track for Studying Computational Linguistics John I couldnt agree more with your characterization of the situation, personal and intellectual: I too started in maths at Cambridge and got out before it was too late (but doing enough maths to get a degree, certainly by today's standards). I always argue if pressed that its only virtue was to make me unafraid/unawed by the formalisms I didnt agree with---and, as you note, they often come from people without mathematical backgrounds. I have heard statistics colleagues make the analogous point: much statistical linguistics now comes from people with no firm grip on the basics of statistics. Best Yorick On Sunday, October 2, 2005, at 08:05 PM, John F. Sowa wrote: > Mark, > > I've been a long-term "math-head", but I sympathize > with your point to a considerable extent: > > MPL> As a matter of personal preference, I could do > > with fewer math-heads in linguistics. > > There are quite a few people with both linguistics > degrees and other kinds of degrees who try to pursue > elegant formalisms at the expense of preserving the > phenomena. > > In fact, some of the worst offenders are those who do > *not* have math or comp. sci. degrees. They suffer > from a certain degree of math envy and overcompensate > by becoming "more formal than thou". One could accuse > Chomsky of that fault, but there are many, many others. > > There are also people with a solid background in logic, > such as Montague, who have tried to force their view > of logic onto language. Although I believe the formal > semanticists have made some interesting contributions, > I also believe that lexical semantics has made far more > useful contributions to NLP as well as theoretical > linguistics. Barbara P. has also been softening her > views on that issue. (See the quotation below.) > > And I would add one further advantage of having a good > background in math: self defense. It gives you enough > self confidence to see through the some of the empty > formalism. (See the poem by Henry Kautz below.) > > John Sowa > ____________________________________________________________ > > Source: http://people.umass.edu/partee/RGGU_2005/RGGU054.pdf > > In Montague’s formal semantics the simple predicates of the > language of intensional logic (IL), like love, like, kiss, > see, etc., are regarded as symbols (similar to the “labels” > of [predicate calculus]) which could have many possible > interpretations in many different models, their “real meanings” > being regarded as their interpretations in the “intended model”. > Formal semantics does not pretend to give a complete characterization > of this “intended model”, neither in terms of the model structure > representing the “worlds” nor in terms of the assignments of > interpretations to the lexical constants. The present formalizations > of model-theoretic semantics are undoubtedly still rather primitive > compared to what is needed to capture many important semantic > properties of natural languages, including for example spatial > and other perceptual representations which play an important role > in many aspects of linguistic structure. The logical structure > of language is a real and important part of natural language > and we have fairly well-developed tools for describing it. There > are other approaches to semantics that are concerned with other > aspects of natural language, perhaps even cognitively “deeper” > in some sense, but which we presently lack the tools to adequately > formalize. It is to be hoped that these different approaches can > be seen as complementary and not necessarily antagonistic. > ____________________________________________________________ > > If your thesis is utterly vacuous, > Use first-order predicate calculus. > With sufficient formality, > The sheerest banality > Will be hailed by all as miraculous. > > If your thesis is quite indefensible, > Reach for semantics intensional. > Over Montague grammar, > Your committee will stammer, > Not admitting it's incomprehensible! > > by Henry Kautz > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/x3XolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nlpatumd/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
