From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Mar 23 01:32:16 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2N5WED1026477 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:32:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2N5WBJc076654 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 666 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2007 05:32:11 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 23 Mar 2007 05:32:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 19841 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2007 05:32:11 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 23 Mar 2007 05:32:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 20647 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2007 05:32:03 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 23 Mar 2007 05:32:03 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4033568 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:32:02 -0400 Delivered-To: cse727-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 25525 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2007 05:32:01 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 23 Mar 2007 05:32:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 11164 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Mar 2007 05:32:01 -0000 X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 66.67.170.95 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1174627921.46036651aa8d4@mail1.buffalo.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:32:01 -0400 Reply-To: jcwhite2@BUFFALO.EDU Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: John C White Subject: CSE727: Response to Johnson-Laird Article To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2907/Thu Mar 22 22:55:12 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 917 After reading the "The Mental Representation of the Meaning of Words" I found there attempts to define just how the spoken/written word interacts with our ability to learn and interpret them rather interesting. Although I have, for several years, accepted the semantic network idea, I never really considered deeply how this is accessed, traversed, or otherwise utilized for word interpretation. I had also been under the impression that a dictionary was a reasonable way to get definitions for most words, not just ones with complex meanings. Unfortunately, it seems that both this practice and learning through others might merely build up a list of synonyms to the word rather than some more useful information with regards to the actual meaning. Its not that I am going to accept everything they say at face value though, but it has made me rethink my overall viewpoint on the matter somewhat. -John White From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Mar 25 18:31:59 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2PMVxl9009159 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2PMVvIv069195 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 26325 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2007 22:31:57 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 25 Mar 2007 22:31:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 26321 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2007 22:31:57 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 25 Mar 2007 22:31:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 18006 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2007 22:31:48 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 25 Mar 2007 22:31:48 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4084263 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:31:48 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 8182 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2007 22:21:48 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 25 Mar 2007 22:21:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 20791 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2007 22:21:48 -0000 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (64.233.162.236) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 25 Mar 2007 22:21:48 -0000 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id z31so632484nzd for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.78.1 with SMTP id a1mr2367022wab.1174861307044; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.235.15 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:21:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: 02eae11b6a91b881 X-UB-Relay: (nz-out-0506.google.com) X-PM-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <4e4445330703251521o65b0e145x536e41dbcbcf7961@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:21:47 -0400 Reply-To: "Paul M. Heider" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "Paul M. Heider" Subject: CSE727: johnson-laird 1987 To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (nz-out-0506.google.com) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2930/Sun Mar 25 17:01:32 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2555 On page 195, Johnson-Laird used an interestingly ambiguous example: "The client received the cheque on Tuesday. He banked it." The author claims the second sentence to be "unambiguous because the reference 'it' is plainly the cheque". The strongest evidence pointing in that direction is actually the definition of the verb 'bank', exactly the term Johnson-Laird says is unambiguous because of the reference to the cheque (through the pronoun noun which we know refers to the cheque...). And so on and so forth. Of course, because we only have three nouns. Two of them can take a neuter reference and one (the cheque) is highly more probable to be the direct object of a verb (I imagine). So, this particular example isn't too difficult. Really, it points to the much more complicated problem when more than one of the elements all have multiple meanings which can only be resolved via constraint theory. The latter half of the paper made reference to "simple" versus "complex" words quite often. I wonder of J-L actually meant something more along the lines of "basic level" versus "super- or sub-ordinate". The 1976 Miller and J-L paper (mentioned on 201) may be worth following up. It left a great many unanswered questions. How did they judge quality of definition? How much experience did the subjects have with foreigners and/or children? Kvetch Section (or where the argumentation frustrated me): At the bottom of page 196, J-L refers to the "infinitely ambiguous" problem created by ambiguous open-class words. I haven't studied math in a few years, but given a finite set of foods and a finite manners of eating, you'll always create a finite set of combinations. It seems a little petty on my part, but J-L stresses this impossibility so strongly, I can't help but respond. I had a big problem understanding the idea of "incomplete semantics" and "theoretical term" used from 203 to the end. We also have many defeasible conceptions of what an elephant herd consists of (or even just a herd). What if all those elephants are loners and just happened to be standing near the water hole together? What of a fraternal herd versus a multi-family herd versus a single-patriarch herd? I know these concepts are very important when doing a broader study of animals. Your average citizen (the same one J-L has imaging an elephant) should be making different judgements for an orangutan herd than for an elephant herd. Do they really? I'm worried that I really didn't understand J-L's point because it jarred so strongly with me. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Mar 25 20:00:47 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2Q00lxQ011056 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:00:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2Q00jN0072409 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15727 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 00:00:45 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 00:00:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 709 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 00:00:44 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 00:00:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 19867 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 00:00:34 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 00:00:34 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4085739 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:00:34 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 23319 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 00:00:34 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 00:00:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 12157 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 00:00:33 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 00:00:33 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2Q00X7X011049 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2Q00XUw011048 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:00:33 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703260000.l2Q00XUw011048@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:00:33 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: CSE727: Response to Johnson-Laird Article To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2930/Sun Mar 25 17:01:32 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1992 John wrote: | | ...I ... found there attempts ... I assume that you *intended* to say "their attempts". But, in any case, you should have said "his attempts". Although Johnson-Laird is a big man, he is only one, not two :-) | Although I have, for several years, accepted the semantic | network idea, I never really considered deeply how this is accessed, | traversed, or otherwise utilized for word interpretation. Well, now all of you have an idea how at least one such semantic network system does it (although only at the level of users, not programmers). But I do need to correct one misapprehension: There's no such thing as "the" semantic network idea; there are several. In fact, there's probably a separate one for each person who has devised one. One of the earliest and still classic ones, of great relevance to the CVA project (and should probably be on my list of essential readings), is: Quillian, M. Ross (1969), "The Teachable Language Comprehender: A Simulation Program and Theory of Language", Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 12(8): 459-476. (For a link to an online version accessible from UB machines, go to: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/refs-vocab.html#1969 ) | I had also | been under the impression that a dictionary was a reasonable way to get | definitions for most words, not just ones with complex meanings. | Unfortunately, it seems that both this practice and learning through | others might merely build up a list of synonyms to the word rather than | some more useful information with regards to the actual meaning. I would quibble with your word "merely": My view is that that's all there is. (Well, of course, my view is more complex and subtle than that, but that's the tabloid-headline version of it.) For more, take a look at: Rapaport, William J. (2002), "Holism, Conceptual-Role Semantics, and Syntactic Semantics", Minds and Machines 12(1): 3-59. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/crs.pdf From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Mar 26 13:29:12 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2QHTCDQ018784 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2QHT86c031212 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 13362 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 17:29:08 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 17:29:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 12789 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 17:29:08 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 17:29:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 28683 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 17:29:05 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 17:29:05 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4110198 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:05 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 6339 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 17:29:05 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 17:29:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 29845 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2007 17:29:04 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Mar 2007 17:29:04 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2QHT4YW018777 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2QHT44W018776 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:04 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703261729.l2QHT44W018776@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:04 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: CSE727: johnson-laird 1987 To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2932/Mon Mar 26 11:03:48 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 782 Paul wrote: | ... | At the bottom of page 196, J-L refers to the "infinitely ambiguous" | problem created by ambiguous open-class words. I haven't studied math | in a few years, but given a finite set of foods and a finite manners | of eating, you'll always create a finite set of combinations. True, but he also pointed out that "he" could refer to an indefinite number of individuals, and he might be considering a meal of, say, 50 peas to be different from a meal containing 50.1 peas, etc. Perhaps he should have said something like "arbitrarily large number", instead of "infinite". | I had a big problem understanding the idea of "incomplete semantics" | and "theoretical term" used from 203 to the end. Can you cite the first occurrence and tell me what puzzled you? From petrova3@buffalo.edu Thu Mar 29 22:58:24 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2U2wObx007203 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2U2wMlP035788 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 2731 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2007 02:58:22 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 30 Mar 2007 02:58:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 22900 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Mar 2007 02:58:22 -0000 To: rapaport@cse.Buffalo.EDU Subject: CSE727: Johnson-Laird, Philip (1987) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:58:22 -0400 From: petrova3@buffalo.edu Message-ID: <1175223502.460c7cce35675@mail4.buffalo.edu> X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 72.88.113.50 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2965/Thu Mar 29 19:03:35 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1049 Johnson-Laird, Philip (1987) "The mental representation of the meaning of words": After reading the discussion about the prototypes I would still rather favor the opinion articulated by Rosch (1976), as opposed to the notion of schemata by Kant (1787). I guess it really depends upon an individual, on how a person perceives the world, and on how much a person relies upon the visual perception and imagination. But for me it is always certain pictures, at least with the concrete objects. For instance, when given a word "an elephant" I would imagine an elephant in a colorful image. I have seen an elephant in the zoo, but the image that I get is not the elephant that I saw. It is rather a perfect shaped (with all legs and other characteristic parts) elephant. People from different countries will have a different prototype representing a particular domain. Usually, in fruit category "an orange" would be a prototypical fruit in the States (correct me if I am wrong), whereas in Russia "an apple" would be considered as prototypical one. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Apr 1 16:17:23 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l31KHNbk001933 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l31KHJEB076225 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 26830 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2007 20:17:19 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Apr 2007 20:17:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 26818 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2007 20:17:19 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Apr 2007 20:17:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 3162 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2007 20:17:08 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Apr 2007 20:17:08 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4279283 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:17:08 -0400 Delivered-To: cse727-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 10991 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2007 20:17:08 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Apr 2007 20:17:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 23465 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2007 20:17:07 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Apr 2007 20:17:07 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l31KH76L001896 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l31KH7oV001895 for cse727-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:17:07 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704012017.l31KH7oV001895@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:17:07 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: CSE727: Johnson-Laird, Philip (1987) To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2989/Sun Apr 1 15:31:48 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2085 | To: rapaport@cse.Buffalo.EDU | Subject: CSE727: Johnson-Laird, Philip (1987) | Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:58:22 -0400 | From: petrova3@buffalo.edu | | Johnson-Laird, Philip (1987) "The mental representation of the meaning | of words": | | After reading the discussion about the prototypes I would still rather | favor the opinion articulated by Rosch (1976), as opposed to the notion | of schemata by Kant (1787). I guess it really depends upon an | individual, on how a person perceives the world, and on how much a | person relies upon the visual perception and imagination. But for me it | is always certain pictures, at least with the concrete objects. For | instance, when given a word "an elephant" I would imagine an elephant in | a colorful image. I have seen an elephant in the zoo, but the image that | I get is not the elephant that I saw. It is rather a perfect shaped | (with all legs and other characteristic parts) elephant. | | People from different countries will have a different prototype | representing a particular domain. Usually, in fruit category "an orange" | would be a prototypical fruit in the States (correct me if I am wrong), | whereas in Russia "an apple" would be considered as prototypical one. There are lots of debates in the cognitive science and cognitive psychology literature on whether our mental representations are prototypes or exemplars (often, "averaged" versions of actually-perceived objects). Prof. J. David Smith of our PSY dept has done a lot of work on this both with humans and with non-human animals. He gave a talk on this at CogSci in February: http://www.cogsci.buffalo.edu/Activities/Colloquium/CLLQs07/2007spring.htm#022107 and you can link to his homepage for more info: http://wings.buffalo.edu/psychology/labs/smithlab/ I'm pretty sure that even in the US, apples are the prototypical fruit (just as robins are the prototypical bird, unlike, say, the chicken) but you're quite right that different cultures can have different prototypes depending on what objects are more frequently encountered in the culture. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Apr 2 09:59:14 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l32DxE0q009596 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l32Dx8TE043345 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 18853 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 13:59:08 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 13:59:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 5902 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 13:59:08 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 13:59:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 24697 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 13:58:54 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 13:58:54 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4299514 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:58:54 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 23968 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 13:58:54 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 13:58:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 15824 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Apr 2007 13:58:53 -0000 X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 128.205.153.11 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1175522333.46110c1db1a1e@mail3.buffalo.edu> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:58:53 -0400 Reply-To: ask8@BUFFALO.EDU Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: Ashish Kulkarni Subject: CSE 727: Johnson-Laird, Philip N. (1987), "The Mental Representation of the Meanings of Words", To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (defer.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2997/Mon Apr 2 06:19:52 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 998 This reading looks more like how a computer scientist would think about how words are represented in the mind. I consider complex semantics described in the paper as a better way about how a computer should find out the meaning of the word. The way I see it, human mind looks at far more factors than just the background information. While I am talking to a person, the expressions of the person tell me a lot more about in what context the words are coming. So this would mean that I would consider the same words differently if I read them online or if I hear them. The same amount of words mean different according to the mood of the person. For example, calling a short person 'Shortie' would be taken as a friendly gesture if it has become a nickname of the person due to common use, but at the same time it can be considered as an insult if said during an argument. So I don't consider human mind as something that just communicates through 'utterance' of sounds as mentioned in the paper. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Apr 25 20:57:54 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3Q0vsqg020566 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:57:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3Q0vqje047118 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 12914 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 00:57:52 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 00:57:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 12894 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 00:57:51 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 00:57:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 10109 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 00:57:42 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 00:57:42 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 5058587 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:57:42 -0400 Delivered-To: cse727-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 26758 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 00:57:42 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 00:57:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 14236 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 00:57:41 -0000 Received: from mta13.mail.adelphia.net (HELO mta13.adelphia.net) (68.168.78.44) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 00:57:41 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [68.168.86.62]) by mta13.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20070426005738.EVSP13783.mta13.adelphia.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:57:38 -0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UB-Relay: (mta13.mail.adelphia.net) X-PM-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <462FF92F.6020700@cse.buffalo.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:58:23 -0400 Reply-To: Jeffrey Howell Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: Jeffrey Howell Subject: CSE 727: Johnson-Laird (1987) To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (mta13.mail.adelphia.net) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3162/Wed Apr 25 14:43:55 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1295 There were quite a few interesting ideas in this paper, but two in particular caught my attention: Unconscious verbal vocabulary acquisition from context in children - It seems to me that this shouldn't be any sort of surprise at all. Children have to begin learning language *somewhere*. From a beginning point of having nothing but sensory input with no additional semantic meaning, a child manages to pick up language, complete with semantic attachment. Of course, despite the fact that it's obvious that this happens, it's still absolutely fascinating to witness. Johnson-Laird's observations about the lack of conscious access to our own internal lexical representations are also interesting. An interesting distinction between our own mental functions and a computer simulation is that although we don't seem to have any way of directly accessing our own mental processes, (at least until there is a complete understanding of the physical operation of the brain... whenever that might be) there's no particular reason we couldn't give a software simulation complete access to that information - essentially full awareness of its own internal processes. I'm not actually sure that there's any particularly good reason to do that, but it seems intriguing in concept. From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Apr 26 10:01:35 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3QE1ZpX009123 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3QE1WdA086784 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:01:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15954 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 14:01:32 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 14:01:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 15571 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 14:01:30 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 14:01:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 20558 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 14:01:22 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 14:01:22 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 5075407 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:01:22 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 1264 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 14:01:22 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 14:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 5717 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 14:01:18 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 14:01:18 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3QE1IcY009109 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3QE1Iff009108 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:01:18 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704261401.l3QE1Iff009108@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:01:18 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: CSE 727: Johnson-Laird (1987) To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3164/Thu Apr 26 05:13:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1153 | Unconscious verbal vocabulary acquisition from context in children - It | seems to me that this shouldn't be any sort of surprise at all. | Children have to begin learning language *somewhere*. Right. But there are probably interesting differences between *initial* language learning and incidental CVA. In the former case, there's no prior linguistic context to build on (except for Chomsky's "language acquisition device"; see http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/chomsky.html for a quick summary); there's only the environment and the parents' language. In the latter case, the assumption is that the child already knows a large amount of his or her native language. | An | interesting distinction between our own mental functions and a computer | simulation is that although we don't seem to have any way of directly | accessing our own mental processes | ... there's no particular reason we couldn't give a software | simulation complete access to that information - essentially full | awareness of its own internal processes. This is what I hope to investigate with the use of SNeRE to do the CVA (are you listening, Joe? :-) From jrhowell@cse.Buffalo.EDU Thu Apr 26 10:24:40 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3QEOew1010097 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l3QEOcU4088130 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 20583 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 14:24:38 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 14:24:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 20267 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 14:24:37 -0000 Received: from smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.179) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 14:24:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 20265 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 14:24:36 -0000 Received: from inst-jrhowell.ilgrg.buffalo.edu (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (128.205.244.106) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 14:24:36 -0000 Message-ID: <4630B623.4050404@cse.buffalo.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:24:35 -0400 From: Jeffrey Howell User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "William J. Rapaport" CC: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: CSE 727: Johnson-Laird (1987) References: <200704261401.l3QE1Iff009108@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> In-Reply-To: <200704261401.l3QE1Iff009108@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UB-Relay: (inst-jrhowell.ilgrg.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3165/Thu Apr 26 09:03:24 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1005 William J. Rapaport wrote: > | Unconscious verbal vocabulary acquisition from context in children - It > | seems to me that this shouldn't be any sort of surprise at all. > | Children have to begin learning language *somewhere*. > > Right. But there are probably interesting differences between > *initial* language learning and incidental CVA. In the former case, > there's no prior linguistic context to build on (except for Chomsky's > "language acquisition device"; see > http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/chomsky.html > for a quick summary); there's only the environment and the parents' > language. In the latter case, the assumption is that the child already > knows a large amount of his or her native language. > Possibly true. I'm not clear on where to draw that line, though. Certainly a two-year old has a beginning knowledge of his or her native language, but is still very actively picking up word meanings (not always correctly, to humorous effect) just by listening. From rapaport@cse.Buffalo.EDU Thu Apr 26 10:29:38 2007 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3QETc2o010285; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3QETc8e010283; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:29:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "William J. Rapaport" Message-Id: <200704261429.l3QETc8e010283@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> To: jrhowell@cse.Buffalo.EDU, rapaport@cse.Buffalo.EDU Subject: Re: CSE 727: Johnson-Laird (1987) Cc: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Status: R Content-Length: 560 | From jrhowell@cse.Buffalo.EDU Thu Apr 26 10:24:40 2007 | > | ... I'm not clear on where to draw that line, though. | Certainly a two-year old has a beginning knowledge of his or her native | language, but is still very actively picking up word meanings (not | always correctly, to humorous effect) just by listening. Right--it's probably a continuum. Even for us: I first heard the word "humongous" in 1971; had never heard or read it before, and in fact was firmly convinced that the person who used it was conflating "huge" and "tremendous". From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue May 15 12:33:06 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l4FGX5BN009595 for ; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l4FGX3vk082895 for ; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:33:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 19632 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:33:03 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:33:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 26166 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:33:02 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:33:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 26471 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:32:59 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:32:59 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 5489574 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:32:59 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 57 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:32:59 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:32:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 8642 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:32:58 -0000 Received: from cpe-76-180-20-162.buffalo.res.rr.com (HELO pavano) (76.180.20.162) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:32:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-UB-Relay: (cpe-76-180-20-162.buffalo.res.rr.com) X-PM-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <000701c7970e$b19421c0$a214b44c@pavano> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:32:56 -0400 Reply-To: "J. A." Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "J. A." Subject: CSE 727: Comments on Johnson-Laird 1987 To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (cpe-76-180-20-162.buffalo.res.rr.com) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3247/Tue May 15 07:31:00 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1461 The parallel that Johnson-Laird draws between bootstrapping in compilers and language acquisition is a rather appropriate comparison, and something that I've never consciously realized before. In the section where this is discussed, he states that children "first learn, or perhaps know innately, how to relate certain internal representations to states of affairs in the world." However, he seems to gloss over the question of how children construct these early relationships in the first place. While not within the scope of the paper, it seems to be an interesting question nonetheless and one that cognitive scientists have probably considered before. It personally reminds me of the debates in CSE 584 about the possibility of computing cognition. It seems as if the most primitive (initial?) cognitive processes are what need to be understood more to determine if cognition is actually computational in nature. Also, I'm curious if there's been any research into what constitutes a "minimal set" for successful word acquisition. I would imagine that it's the set of words that are both the most frequently used and the most difficult to define. Johnson-Laird mentions the words "see" and "own" as examples of "simple words... that are so hard to define." Other examples that I considered were articles such as "the" and "a" whose dictionary definitions are a mile long and written mostly in terms of their linguistic function. - Joe From owner-cse727-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue May 15 12:51:49 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l4FGpm2H010595 for ; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:51:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l4FGplob083873 for ; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:51:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8403 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:51:47 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:51:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 8363 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:51:46 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:51:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 16989 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:51:31 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:51:31 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 5490228 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:51:31 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 12035 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:51:31 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:51:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 10269 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 16:51:25 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 May 2007 16:51:25 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l4FGpPhm010551 for ; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l4FGpPIA010550 for CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:51:25 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200705151651.l4FGpPIA010550@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:51:25 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "CVA Seminar, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: CSE 727: Comments on Johnson-Laird 1987 To: CSE727-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3247/Tue May 15 07:31:00 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1790 Joe wrote: | | The parallel that Johnson-Laird draws between bootstrapping in compilers and | language acquisition is a rather appropriate comparison, and something that | I've never consciously realized before. In the section where this is | discussed, he states that children "first learn, or perhaps know innately, | how to relate certain internal representations to states of affairs in the | world." However, he seems to gloss over the question of how children | construct these early relationships in the first place. While not within the | scope of the paper, it seems to be an interesting question nonetheless and | one that cognitive scientists have probably considered before. It personally | reminds me of the debates in CSE 584 about the possibility of computing | cognition. It seems as if the most primitive (initial?) cognitive processes | are what need to be understood more to determine if cognition is actually | computational in nature. There's a long-standing debate about this in philosophy and linguistics, especially between Chomskyans (who believe that there is a language-specific learning mechanism, called the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which is supposed to be innate) and those who believe that general learning mechanisms will suffice for learning language. Hilary Putnam is one of the leaders of that side of the debate. | Also, I'm curious if there's been any research into what constitutes a | "minimal set" for successful word acquisition. I would imagine that it's the | set of words that are both the most frequently used and the most difficult | to define. Perhaps. More likely, I think, it's going to be the words that you first hear, whatever they happen to be. Thus, each of us would have our own, unique "minimal set".