I agree!
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 16.1.2017 23:56:
On 1/16/2017 3:32 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
I think one can still manage how symbols grow. That is consider them
bundles of process. The question ends up being what the limits of the
symbol are. Of course that becomes a complex topic too.
I don't believe that it's possible or desirable to put any limits on
the way symbols grow. Any attempt would "block the way of inquiry."
Basic issues:
1. The vocabulary of every natural language is limited by the need
for every generation of infants with no prior experience and
a limited attention span to learn the structure and a basic
vocabulary.
2. But continuity implies that no finite vocabulary can adequately
name and describe everything anyone might encounter during a
lifetime (or even a day).
3. Therefore, the basic vocabulary a child learns must be extensible
in an unlimited number of ways.
4. For any theory in mathematics or science, it's important to have
precise definitions. But those definitions are limited to the
theory for which they have been defined.
5. No theory of science remains fixed for very long. And scientists
usually keep the old vocabulary, but redefine the words as new
phenomena and ways of explaining them are discovered.
6. For examples, just think of the way Newton's vocabulary has been
redefined in the 20th century.
For more examples, see the following slides:
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf
Slide 17 of natlog.pdf summarizes the issues about "microsenses",
which are the minute changes that occur from one occurrence of a
word to another.
Slide 18 quotes the lexicographer, Sue Atkins, who devoted her
career to defining word senses. But after all that work, she
admitted "I don't believe in word senses." See below for a
copy of that slide.
John
_________________________________________________________________
Slide 18 of http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf
“I don’t believe in word senses.”
The title is a quotation by the lexicographer Sue Atkins, who
devoted her career to writing and analyzing word definitions.
In an article with that title,* Adam Kilgarriff observed that
● “A task-independent set of word senses for a language is not
a coherent concept.”
● The basic units of meaning are not the word senses, but the actual
“occurrences of a word in context.”
● “There is no reason to expect the same set of word senses to be
relevant for different tasks.”
● “The set of senses defined by a dictionary may or may not match
the set that is relevant for an NLP application.”
● Professional lexicographers are well aware of these issues.
● The senses they select for a dictionary entry are based on editorial
policy and assumptions about the readers’ expectations.
* See http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk/Publications/1997-K-CHum-believe.pdf
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
