Re: Fw: Intro to natural language processing
On Thursday 30 December 2004 11:57, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> The crucial point is the definition of "symbol",
> which Deacon adopted from Peirce. Following is a
> brief definition from one of Peirce's manuscripts:
>
> ...
>
> 3. Thirdly, there are symbols, or general signs, which have
> become associated with their meanings by usage. Such are
> most words, and phrases, and speeches, and books, and
> libraries.
>
> ...
>
> ...Once symbols are acquired, rudimentary
> language is possible, and more complex langage with complex
> grammar can evolve.
Yes, I think I am OK with Peirce's definition of "symbol", and I can well
believe symbols in this sense to be unique to the higher mammals, apes, or
humans. I just don't see how they explain syntax.
You cite Deacon as saying that once symbols are acquired grammar "can" evolve
without saying how it evolves, or even what it is. There seems to be some
assumption there that symbols are necessary for syntax, without explaining
why that should be so. On the contrary I still haven't seen any satisfactory
symbolic explanation for syntax at all (here or anywhere else.)
Is there an assumption that syntax is "symbols added together"? I think the
evidence is quite the contrary.
It strikes me what symbols might explain, or be synonymous with, would be
lexicon, or idiom (and phrases, speeches, and books, yes, if their meaning
becomes conventional.) Lexicon or idiom are aspects of language which have a
conventional element, but not syntax, which is all about new meaning.
How do symbols explain syntax?
-Rob