<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3268" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Hey all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Theoretically:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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!
</FONT><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Computationally:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Peace</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Ben</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>