Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: Parsing for meaning.

From:Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>
Date:Monday, June 26, 2006, 17:49
Daring to step into this discussion....

Gary Shannon wrote

> 1. The database of words and patterns would be HUGE, > and somewhere in that database would be something to > the effect of "little -> adj(little)" and "monkey -> > anim(monkey)" where the class "anim" is derived from > the class of objects in general and would be matched > by the pattern "adj(*) obj(*) -> <obj> is <adj>".
I'm getting the impression that this would, in effect, be a model of the human brain's knowledge of the semantics + syntax of a given language. It will have to be able to make all the same connections/associations-- (subject: pets) I'd like a little monkey. (subject: food) I'd like a little monkey. (subject: sports+certain people) See that little monkey go!! (Don't say this on nation-wide TV :-((( ) (subject: difficult problem) There's little we can do. plus all the synonyms, paraphrases, idioms etc. that could also occur.
> > 2. I probably wouldn't use "standard" catgeories, but > would allow the categories to emerge based on > interchangability. Also certain categories would be > necessary to validate the parsing process as it > proceeds. For example the category "person" might be > different from the category "Animate Object"
Certainly. Assuming that lexical items, in addition to their semantic features/description, also have certain grammatical and syntactical features. In Chomskian ("Aspects...") terms, among these for "speak" would be: 1. it is a "verb" [+verb], i.e. it can occur as the head of a VP 2. its subject must usually be [+human] 3. in a VP, it may occur in the env. __ NP NP (where NP1 is by def. IO, NP2 by def. DO) ..3a. if NP1, it must be at least [+anim], usually [+human] (and in Engl., must undergo "dative movement" >>> a "to- phrase") ..3b. if NP2, it must be (semantically) marked as "a language, or something related to language" (In fact, I wonder if there isn't always a DO ("something related to language") that is typically deleted, even in the usual intransitive usage: "He spoke {...) (to me)". Thus it might even belong in that class of verbs with "understood" DO's-- eat, sing, dance, cook etc. "Labile" verbs IIRC???) Personification may be a feature that covers an entire narrative ("Coyote spoke..., Mama Bear spoke...; Rock spoke to Pebble...; Speak, Memory..." etc). A (human) language universal?? Figurative uses may be more lang.specific-- "His silence spoke volumes", "His silence doesn't speak well of him". "Etruscan stones begin to speak" (a book title). This may be where "Speak, Rover!" belongs-- it means generally that Rover should emit a bark on command. (If Rover or Kitty is actually thought to be communicating, I at least would use "talk".) At a dinner party: "Ooh, this Beef Wellington really speaks to me!!" And "Speak up!!" And that peculiar phrase "well-spoken" (of a person), which implies so much more than just speaking well. Can any mechanical translation system really be expected to handle all this???

Reply

Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>