[Link Grammar] Phrase typology?

[Evgeniy Philippov]

Hello folks,

I have a theory. Maybe each phrase is a atom, and certain subphrases
are atoms, too. And there is finite number of language types for these
atoms. (Regarding sense of phrase and subphrases.) (As acad. Apresyan
says, "semantical portraits".)

What do you think on this topic? I think about maybe experiment on
this topic. To create some typology of phrases and subphrases.

It is interesting if such a typology was already created by someone,
what are possible paper references for this, does anyone know?

Evgeniy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "link-grammar" group.
To post to this group, send email to link-g...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to link-grammar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/link-grammar?hl=en.

[Evgeniy Philippov]

Evgeniy Philippov wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I have a theory. Maybe each phrase is a atom, and certain subphrases
> are atoms, too. And there is finite number of language types for these
> atoms. (Regarding sense of phrase and subphrases.) (As acad. Apresyan
> says, "semantical portraits".)
>
> What do you think on this topic? I think about maybe experiment on
> this topic. To create some typology of phrases and subphrases.
>
> It is interesting if such a typology was already created by someone,
> what are possible paper references for this, does anyone know?
>
> Evgeniy
>

The key point is that this theory operates on phrases and subphrases,
not on words.

I am currently installing LG and Relex to maybe heavily modify them to
perform my experiment.

[Evgeniy Philippov]

It seems that my theory matches the well-known theory of speech acts
developed by different linguists. There are multiple attempts at
classification/typology of speech acts (I called them `atoms`, but
actually these atoms are speech acts.)

And there is a lot of literature on this.

[Rich Cooper]

Evgeniy Philippov wrote

 

It seems that my theory matches the well-known theory of speech acts

developed by different linguists. There are multiple attempts at

classification/typology of speech acts (I called them `atoms`, but

actually these atoms are speech acts.)

 

And there is a lot of literature on this.

 

 

Do you have any references of rigorously presented literature?  Most of what I have found is just speculative and anecdotal, though many linguists seem to think speech act theory is an explanation of some behaviors.  But I still haven't found a really GOOD reference that can used to model language acts with any precision.  

 

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

[Evgeniy Philippov]

Rich Cooper wrote:
> Do you have any references of rigorously presented literature? Most of
> what I have found is just speculative and anecdotal, though many
> linguists seem to think speech act theory is an explanation of some
> behaviors. But I still haven't found a really GOOD reference that can
> used to model language acts with any precision.

Right now I can only remember names of Austin, Searle and Vejbitski as
directions for possible search (they gave somewhat exhaustive lists of
types and verbs, though I didn't see Vejbitski's speech acts reference
yet myself). I guess maybe such a precision reference needs to be
prepared by some serious NLP project. And the current literature is just
a seed for it.

There are also multiple kinds of typologies (described by a lot of
different linguists) which reflect different facets/aspects of language
phenomena... and getting this all together into a single reference is
tremendous amount of work.

[ramble mode on]

This message is just a hint. I am not a professional linguist to give an
exhaustive review of the literature :)

But well, I think that such a theory is one of key theories for creating
a really sane agent. I guess intuition and instincts as parts of
cognition infrastructure can or even maybe have to contain such an
implementation of speech acts interpreter.

[ramble mode off]

Evgeniy

[Rich Cooper]

Evgeniy,

I agree; speech act theory has a long way to go still, but is a likely
ultimate capability needed by effective agents.

-Rich

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2