Re: phonosemantics

From: Zylogy@aol.com
Date: Mon Jan 15 2001 - 22:33:07 GMT

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA18394 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:36:23 GMT
    From: <Zylogy@aol.com>
    Message-ID: <7d.f95664d.2794d4a3@aol.com>
    Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:33:07 EST
    Subject: Re: phonosemantics
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    CC: Zylogy@aol.com
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 129
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Mark Mills asks how important nonarbitrary phonosemantics is in the scheme of
    things. Well, to begin with, many languages have very large proportions of
    their root-stocks filled with forms which partake in the matrix-like
    diagrammatical iconic motivation coming from phonosemantics. And historically
    it is very likely that almost ALL roots come from such forms ultimately. The
    only exceptions are those which are retreads- roots which themselves derive
    from strings of worn out grammatical materials (but remember that all
    grammatical affixes derive from roots, so there is a cycle involved here
    too). It doesn't matter if words are borrowed- they have to come from
    somewhere, and historical changes mean that it is highly unlikely that any
    existing word or root can be genetically traced back to the dawn of human
    language, given known attrition rates.

    What else? My own interest has been in the development of a core semantic
    system for AI and machine translation use. Haven't been able to get anyone to
    sign on to help- remember that most professional linguists are unfamiliar
    with the scads of confirmatory data, having been buried up to their ears in
    Chomskyan and similar efforts at characterizing morphosyntax. The words I
    study are outside the mainstream grammar of European languages, for reasons I
    laid out in the previous post, at least when freshly coined from the matrix.
    Most computational linguistics is done with European points of view in mind,
    despite the occasional world-class language outside the family, such as
    Korean or Japanese. And the lexicon is considered, by such linguists, to be
    the junkpile of historical gobbledygook, and they only delve into its
    intricacies when absolutely necessary (which has become increasingly the case
    as they realize just how much of sentential semantics actually derives from
    the words and not the syntax).

    Shouldn't be tooooo difficult, though, to create a model generator for
    ideophones/expressives, and THEN add layers above it to allow for all the
    twists and turns of old vocabulary structure and meaning- wise. This is the
    way languages evolve anyway. What computational folks are doing is
    ass-backwards, trying to force-feed semantic primitive tags into the cheesier
    word-forms without considering the pathways they have taken historically. Ask
    almost any of em. They have a real distaste for any diachronic work. An
    analogy would be trying to build an arch without a bootstrapping form beneath
    it. Not too easy. But that's what they're doing.

    There's even a sexy new movement in linguistics called Optimality Theory
    which is now all the rage- which takes these predigested word forms as basic
    and then tries to explain why languages seem to try to simplify them. Again
    backwards. First you have to generate the nastier forms from nice neat
    crystalline antecedents. Then everything makes sense. A cycle again. But
    bells and whistles, not to mention fear for one's professional future, makes
    everyone a nice team player.

    Anyway, so far as I know no one has done any neural network modeling (if that
    was what you were after), nor does anyone know where in the brain such
    diagrammatic processing would take place (if that was). I'd like to both do
    the former AND have answers to the latter. I've talked with a number of
    professionals (big name types) at a number of events and haven't been able to
    get to square one. So it seems I will not only have to reinvent the wheel but
    engineer an entire working paradigm before people with the needed talents
    will be willing to get their feet wet. But by then won't it be way too late??

    Best,
    Jess Tauber
    zylogy@aol.com

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 22:37:57 GMT