SUO: Coriolis Farce

[Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Having some spare time and some peace of mind this afternoon,
the likes of which near and dear conjunction I never know when
I might see again, I thought that I might try to deal with an
accumulating residual issue that raises its ominous head in
association with the points below.  I hope that I am not
being too precipitous in bringing it up here and now,
but the cloud has already been seeded and cannot seem
to keep itself from proceeding according to its nature.

The Context:

Jon Awbrey wrote:
> 
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> 
> John,
> 
> I would like to go through these issues with a degree of care,
> but first I will need to establish some initial understanding.
> 
> I will start out in something like a questionnaire form,
> just by way asking what senses you especially favor for
> various words and phrases, and I will invite other people
> to weigh in with their own favorite meanings and associations.
> 
> 1.  The biggest molecule in this mass is the word "semantics".
>     I gather from reading your Peirce-flavored webpages that
>     you are one of those people who go along with taking this
>     to indicate the "denotative" or the "referential" side of
>     sign use, so it would help me to understand you from this
>     point on if you could confirm, deny, correct, or refine
>     this impression of mine.  I realize that this question
>     has become a little bit clouded in recent times by the
>     appearance of a self-decribed "denotational semantics",
>     but let's not be distracted by that -- what I mean by
>     "denotation" is the sign-to-object face of a triadic
>     sign relation.
> 
> 2.  On a related note, and here I will have to waffle a bit --
>     though I return to my reading of Frege every decade or so,
>     and started up again just the summer before last, my memory
>     of a few details is not quite sharpened up to snuff yet --
>     it was my impression that the reason Frege called truth
>     a semantic issue is that he thought, or theorized, that
>     truth values are formal objects that can be denoted by
>     signs of the type sentence.
> 
>     So, modulo whatever clarification or obviation Chris Menzel and
>     others might be able to bring to this issue, I just need to ask
>     people how they feel about this notion.  Just to declare myself,
>     I am sympathetic to it, but with a host of reservations and other
>     stipulations that arise from my own standpoint within the general
>     framework of an overall Peirce-spective.
> 
> Well, I had more questions, but then I thought that maybe I should
> quit with these two.  If we could reach any order of resolution on
> these first points then I think that we might be getting somewhere.
> 
> Many Regards,
> 
> Jon Awbrey
> 
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> 
> John F. Sowa wrote:
> >
> > One of the fundamental issues that has not been satisfactorily
> > addressed is the distinction between reality (what exists independently
> > of how we may think of it) and the linguistic categories that human
> > beings use in talking and thinking about what exists.
> >
> > In several notes to SUO list, Nicola Guarino has discussed the
> > question of how to distinguish an object from its underlying matter.
> > Are a vase and a mass of baked clay two distinct "individuals" or
> > a single something (Whitehead called it an "actual occasion") that
> > happens to be characterized in two different ways by people who think
> > and talk about it?
> >
> > My own view, which is largely based on the philosophies of Peirce
> > and Whitehead, is to distinguish the _ontological categories_ of
> > physical reality from the _phenomenological categories_  of how
> > people experience what exists, think about it, talk about it, and
> > act upon it.
> >
> > Following is a book review, which I recently wrote and which will
> > appear in the March 2001 issue of _Computational Linguistics_.
> > The book, _Construing Experience through Meaning:  A Language-Based
> > Approach to Cognition_ by Halliday and Matthiessen, includes a detailed
> > analysis of the categories expressed in language, which for most
> > purposes of the SUO, are the major ones that need to be represented.
> >
> > John Sowa
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Construing Experience through Meaning:
> > A language-based approach to cognition
> >
> > by M. A. K. Halliday and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
> >
> > London and New York:  Cassell, 1999
> > xiii+657 pp; paperback, ISBN 0-304-70490-3, $102.00
> >
> > reviewed by John F. Sowa
> >
> > Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday has been actively analyzing and
> > documenting the interactions between syntax and semantics for over forty
> > years, and his systemic-functional theory has been a foundation for
> > important work in computational linguistics for at least thirty years.
> > The first major application of systemic theory was the SHRDLU system
> > by Winograd (1972).  The largest ongoing series of applications has
> > been developed at the USC Information Sciences Institute:  language
> > generation (Mann 1982; Hovy 1988); discourse analysis and rhetorical
> > structure (Mann & Thompson 1992); and the interface between the lexicon
> > and world knowledge (Bateman et al. 1990; Matthiessen 1995).
> >
> > In this book, Halliday and Matthiessen present a comprehensive survey
> > of semantics and its relationships to syntax and cognition.  Although
> > they present their subject from a systemic-functional point of view,
> > they show how their approach is related to a wide range of work in both
> > computational and theoretical linguistics.  One notable omission from
> > their 23-page bibliography is Noam Chomsky, whose period of active
> > research almost exactly coincides with Halliday's.  They do, however,
> > give a fair summary of semantic theories based on Chomsky's approach,
> > ranging from the early work of Katz and Fodor to the more recent work
> > by Jackendoff.
> >
> > The book consists of fifteen chapters organized in five parts.
> > In Part I, the authors contrast the systemic approach with a view
> > of knowledge representation as a "piecemeal accumulation" of concepts
> > with "no overall organization."  Instead of treating language "as a
> > kind of code in which pre-existing conceptual structures are more or
> > less distortedly expressed," they view language as a semiotic system
> > that serves "as the foundation of human experience."  The goal of
> > systemic theory is to present a comprehensive view of how humans
> > construe experience through language.  Unlike Chomsky, they do not
> > consider grammar as "autonomous" but as an integral part of the
> > _lexicogrammar_, which _realizes_ meaning in words, phrases, sentences,
> > and paragraphs.
> >
> > Part II, comprising chapters 2 through 7, presents the _meaning base_,
> > which corresponds to what many authors would call an ontology.  The
> > meaning base, however, represents categories of experience with a
> > topmost node called _phenomenon_ instead of categories of existence
> > with a topmost node called _entity_.  The first subdivision of phenomena
> > is a three-way partitioning according to levels of complexity:
> >
> >  1. Elementary ideas or _elements_ are realized by the lexicogrammar
> >     as words or short groups of words, such as _rain_, _from the west_,
> >     or _8 hard-boiled eggs_.  Computationally, elements may be
> >     represented by slots in a frame, nodes in a graph, or typed
> >     variables in logic.
> >
> >  2. Configurations of elements or _figures_ are realized by phrases
> >     or clauses, such as _rain ending from the west_ or _chop finely_.
> >     Computationally, a figure may be represented by various data
> >     structures, such as a frame, list, or graph.
> >
> >  3. Complexes of figures or _sequences_ are realized by complex
> >     sentences or paragraphs, such as _Take 8 hard-boiled eggs, chop
> >     finely, mash with 3 tablespoons of soft butter, and add salt and
> >     pepper_.  Computationally, a sequence could be represented by
> >     a network of frames, a list of lists, a graph of graphs, or
> >     structures of objects in an object-oriented language.
> >
> > Each of these categories is further divided and subdivided by various
> > distinctions, some dyadic and some triadic.  Element is classified as
> > participant, circumstance, or process.  Figure is classified by another
> > triad of relational (being or having), material (doing or happening),
> > and mental (sensing or saying).  These categories are further elaborated
> > and illustrated with numerous examples.  To demonstrate the generality
> > of the approach, Chapter 7 shows how the semantic categories realized
> > in English can also be realized in Chinese and other languages.
> >
> > Part III consists of two chapters that show how the theory can be
> > implemented in a computational system for language generation, with
> > examples of weather reports and cooking recipes.  Part IV consists of
> > three chapters that compare the theoretical and descriptive techniques
> > of systemic-functional theory to other approaches.  The concluding Part
> > V consists of three chapters that apply systemic theory to an analysis
> > of how humans construe experience through language.  Chapter 14 has
> > an intriguing analysis of the evolution of linguistic expressions
> > from folk theories to scientific theories.  Instead of drawing a sharp
> > dichotomy between commonsense and scientific ways of thinking, the
> > authors show how the basic linguistic mechanisms of abstraction and
> > metaphor are used to systematize and formalize scientific language.
> > Metaphor is fundamental to both science and poetry.  The primary
> > difference is that poets constantly strive to create novel metaphors,
> > while scientists recycle, revise, and elaborate the most successful
> > of their colleagues' metaphors.
> >
> > In summary, this book makes a strong case for the systemic approach as
> > a fruitful alternative to Chomsky's view of autonomous syntax.  The
> > authors demonstrate that semantics has important structures that are
> > cross-linguistic and formalizable.  Although they present their data
> > with the terminology, notation, and viewpoint of the systemic-functional
> > approach, their analyses, distinctions, and categories can be adapted
> > to semantic theories based on other approaches.
> >
> > The authors criticize the logic-based, model-theoretic approaches for
> > their limited ontologies and neglect of important aspects of language,
> > such as metaphor.  Yet logicians recognize the need for richer
> > ontologies, and many, if not most would agree that semantics is the
> > proper starting point for a study of natural language.  The authors
> > try to draw a sharp distinction between the deductive methods of logic
> > and the method of inheritance used in frame-based systems.  A logician,
> > however, would reply that inheritance is the oldest of all rules of
> > inference; it was introduced by Aristotle for syllogisms, and it is
> > a derived rule in every modern system of logic.  The methods of
> > unification used in many logic-based systems implement inheritance
> > in ways that are equivalent to or more general than frame systems.
> > Rather than being a competitor, the systemic approach can be
> > a valuable complement to the logic-based approaches.
> >
> > The authors consider language as a semiotic system, but they only
> > mention the dyadic view of semiotics developed by Saussure and
> > linguists influenced by Saussure, such as Hjelmslev and Firth.  Peirce
> > analyzed the sign relation in greater depth than Saussure and emphasized
> > its irreducible triadic nature.  Although Halliday and Mattheissen never
> > mention Peirce, they have rediscovered many of Peirce's triads in their
> > systemic analysis.  Their choice of _phenomenon_ as the most general
> > category is an unconscious endorsement of Peirce's point that his
> > categories were primarily phenomenological rather than ontological.
> > The systemic triad of being-having, doing-happening, and sensing-saying
> > corresponds to Peirce's fundamental triad of Quality, Reaction, and
> > Representation.  Most of the other triads in the systemic meaning base
> > also have a strong Peircean flavor, and a more conscious application
> > of Peirce's version of semiotics might help clarify and refine many
> > of the triadic distinctions in the systemic approach.
> >
> > Perhaps the least attractive feature of the book is its formatting.
> > The authors used a conventional word processor to print camera-ready copy
> > on A4 paper, which the publisher reproduced without change.  The result
> > is a heavy, unwieldy tome with a great deal of wasted paper, a generally
> > unfinished appearance, but a price tag of $102.  With that price and
> > format, the book is destined to sell very few copies, the authors will
> > get little or nothing in royalties, the publisher's high price will seem
> > to be justified, and a potentially important book will never be read
> > by students who might profit from it.  The book would get better
> > distribution if the authors had simply put the electronic version on
> > their web site; better yet, professional societies such as the ACL
> > should put books such as this on their web sites.
> >
> > Bibliography
> >
> > Bateman, J. A., R. Kasper, J. Moore, and R. Whitney.  1990.
> > _A general organization of knowledge for natural language
> > processing:  the Penman upper model_.  Research report.
> > Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California,
> > Santa Monica.
> >
> > Hovy, E.  1988.  _Generating natural language under pragmatic
> > constraints_.  Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
> >
> > Mann, W. C.  1982.  _An overview of the Penman text generation
> > system_.  Research report 83-114.  Information Sciences Institute,
> > University of Southern California, Santa Monica.
> >
> > Mann, W. C., and S. A. Thompson, eds.  1992.  _Discourse Description:
> > Diverse Linguistic Analysis of a Fund-Raising Text_.  Benjamins,
> > Amsterdam.
> >
> > Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.  1995.  _Lexicogrammatical Cartography:
> > English Systems_.  International Language Sciences Publishers, Tokyo.
> >
> > Peirce, C. S.  1991-1998.  _The Essential Peirce_, vols. 1 and 2,
> > ed. by N. Houser and C. Kloesel, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
> >
> > Winograd, T.  1972.  _Understanding Natural Language_.  Academic Press,
> > New York.
> 
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

The Comment:

There is a phenomenon that persistently occurs in the use of signs --
I have long thought of it under the heading of a "Coriolis Force",
in analogy with the apparent or virtual force that is named after
the French civil engineer Gaspard Coriolis ("a deflecting force
acting on a body in motion (as an air mass, airplane, projectile)
due to the earth's rotation" (Webster's)), since it acts to deflect,
to side-swipe, or to way-lay the aim of a semantic (sign-to-object)
intention within the triadic sphere of a sign relation and to shift
its momentum into a flow of semiosis that is almost nearly orthogonal
to its initial direction toward objects and apparently independent of
its intended orientation toward the world.  It is as if the air masses
that are originally impelled for the purpose of conveying their charge
of signs from the equatorial regions of signs and ideas to the polar
regions of objects in the world were to become diverted almost nearly
perpetually into the prevailing winds of our perennial philosophies,
never quite achieving the aim they had so strongly at the outset.

Gasp'ard indeed!

Well, that's the basic image that I have in mind --
I will need to catch my breath for the gesis.exe --

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤