Re: Universal grammar
- From: Tak To <takto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:01:16 -0400
groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
The search for the fundamental building blocks of natural language
keeps grabbing handfuls of air.
A very keen observation.
The search for universals has come full circle and it has become a
canon of Cognitive Linguistics that to capture the wealth of semantic
detail parametrizing language, only the actual language in use
suffices.
I am not sure if there was ever a goal of cognitive scientists to
find universals. They do want a representation of knowledge with
which they can do logical reasoning (deduction, induction, etc).
I have the impression that the OP uses the word "universal"
somewhat different from linguists. I think what he really
meant was "language-neutral representation". He is really
asking in the wrong group.
No-one has been able to find a universal representation for meaning,
any more than they have been able to find other universals.
No one has found a representation that is compact enough for
general knowledege. In other words, to understand a simple
English sentence one basically has to know the world.
But you are right. I think the issue is very closely related to that of
a general theorem prover in maths.
No, they are not related.
(I have probably missed it -- where did the OP said they were related?)
Actually, I didn't think it wasstill considered possible to build
a general theorem prover in maths.
Correct.
(and I am personally convinced that is for the same reason we
have not been able to find universals of language or meaning.)
And the reason is?
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To takto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- References:
- Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: groups
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: groups
- Universal grammar
- Prev by Date: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by Date: Re: Universal grammar
- Previous by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|