Re: THEORY: Parsing for meaning.

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