[Ligncse256] Reference?

[Ben Cipollini]

Hey all,

As it turns out, it's actually theories in reference in the philosophy of language (e.g. Kripke & others) that pissed me off enough to get me interested in cognitive science.  It's been over 12 years since I wrote a paper about how "Everest" does not refer to "Gaurisanker" (damn it!)  Anyway, point being: issues in reference really ... BUG ME haha

In class, Roger mentioned that some noun phrases do not refer ("every dancer"; "no dancer").  I stayed silent in the lecture (I did!) , hoping that by the end that this view, while not "theoretically" desirable for me, might be computationally desirable.  This email is my argument that it's neither theoretically desirable nor computationally desirable.

Theoretically:
To say that "every dancer" does not refer is to say that any noun in a work of fiction does not refer.  Well, that's crazy, I say!  You may even want to push further, to say that words with uncertain reference don't refer.  But language is a type of noisy-channel communication; there is no certainty in any communcation.  Where do you stop?  Instead of trying to answer the question, maybe take a cognitive perspective.

Jeff Elman has suggested that meaning is a "walk in a state-space" or something along the lines.  In other words, meaning is a path in a computational space.  Why not understand reference as refering to cognitive states, or paths in a computational space?  That would allow all nouns to refer, including categories ("dogs"), quantified categories ("every/some/no dancer"), fictional places & names, historical figures, etc.  

Computationally:
Well, that's fine, but as with everything computatational, I'm always willing to sell my theoretical soul to the computataionl devil if I can gain in performance or tractibility!  But ... as far as I could tell, making the division between referring and non-referring nouns actually added a layer of complexity into models.  We have to classify based on referring / non-referring noun class first, then go on to determine reference and reference dependence relations.

Why make the distinction?  Every dancer touched her toes; why not let "her" refer to "every dancer"?  What problem does that cause?  Even if you don't accept what I said above about the theoretical "goodness" (are you crazy??), how would this help us computationally?

Seriously though, I'm happy to hear answers.  If you're not interested in a .... "thoughtfully aggressive" reply .... you may want to let me know when you answer :D

Peace
Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://pidgin.ucsd.edu/pipermail/ligncse256/attachments/20080301/c381b536/attachment.htm