RE: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?

Dear Gary,

Names (of people, towns, etc. ) should be definitely excluded,
in the proposed processing - thank you for your comment.

As far as noun "hammer" is concerned - I "intuitively" (;-) )  expect it =
to be found (using the proposed method processing procedure) as a derivat=
ive from the "tool"  - I do not see any problems with my proposed method =
for it - here is the (incomplete ) set, which I am trying to "gather" on =
the fly, while writing this e-mail:

{
hammer
[
<apply>
<use>
<bring>
<get>
<put>
...
]
}

Thanks,
Best Regards,
Alex
***********
Alex suggested an approach to =93retrieving =91raw knowledge=92, being ca=
ptured in the language terminology, via the means of the hierarchical cla=
ssification of all terms (nouns), contained in the given human language b=
ased on the verb <-> noun grouping=94 - an idea  borrowed by him  from th=
e Software Object Oriented representation of the class (object). I think,=
 however, there are many issues to supposing=94 for each term (noun) avai=
lable in the language, one can "gather" the set of all verbs, which could=
 be related to the given term (noun). For some noun-things like a =93hamm=
er=94 we can associate a focused set of verbs or better yet relationships=
 expressed by predicate.  However every human language is a system of con=
ventions that define for participants with a set of means for encoding an=
 unlimited class of concepts. A hammer can be used to wedge a door open, =
for example and an indefinite number of extended usages in different cont=
exts.  Fillmore developed a theory of lexical semantic!
 s called Frame Semantics which stressed the importance of linking word m=
eanings to the 'frame' of general ideas that define them. This may be a b=
etter way to get at knowledge =96 not =93raw=94 but in context.  So the r=
elations of nouns and verbs  constitute an open set with some constructed=
 and interpreted on the fly using schemas of knowledge.

As a further example of issues with a simple verb to noun associate, the =
class of nouns includes such concrete types of things as milk, money, fur=
niture, soil and places, which I have difficulty binding to a small set o=
f verbs.  Washington is a place  for example.  How would one go about est=
ablishing the one-to-one unique relationship with the given specific set =
of verbs and implied relations that go with Washington?  As a collective =
noun Washington does many things and has many relations, like acquiring a=
 ball team and choking on traffic.  There are also problems with abstract=
 noun concepts like =93justice=94 that might quickly daunt an attempt to =
build a verb tree to align to it.

We quickly get into a discussion of semantics. The units of semantics are=
 concepts which are not usually in a one-one relationship with noun and v=
erb words:

one word may contribute several concepts (lexical semantics),
one concept may be built on the basis of two or more words (semantic phra=
sing).
One of the leading ideas of cognitive linguistics is that there are no na=
tural boundaries that bound language - Word meanings fade into encycloped=
ic knowledge much of which is individual to a person based on embodied ex=
perience.

 There are fair amount of cognitive theories that might be applied to thi=
s discussion. Langacker has a  psychological theory of Cognitive (after G=
estalt psychology) which uses framework for analyzing meaning in noun ver=
b terms using  notions such as schemas, profiles and landmarks.  So if we=
 are trying to get at raw knowledge we might consider some approaches tha=
t come out of cognitive linguistics instead of an object modeling procrus=
tean bed.



Gary Berg-Cross Ph.D.

Cognitive Psychologist

Knowledge Strategies

Potomac Maryland