tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post114134727798313081..comments2023-10-25T10:16:23.924-04:00Comments on Invented Usage: i hate model theoretic semanticsScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299970053622180647noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1151567279515781922006-06-29T03:47:00.000-04:002006-06-29T03:47:00.000-04:00One way of thinking about MTS is that it provides ...One way of thinking about MTS is that it provides a mathematically precise but *non-constructive* theory of entailment. E.g. A entails B, according to the theory, if every model making A true also makes B true.<BR/><BR/>Nonconstructive because the class of relevant models is infinite, and the models themselves may also be of infinite size.<BR/><BR/>Entailment is important enough so that any Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1141915090180338672006-03-09T09:38:00.000-05:002006-03-09T09:38:00.000-05:00Only the first few pages are in French, from page ...Only the first few pages are in French, from page 5 (v), it gets more understandable.<BR/><BR/>'we know this should be true, and then we can test how to get there' Yeah. That's actually a big problem in many sciences. I think many find that comforting.<BR/><BR/>The potential meaning would be in the speaker's head, arrived at from his observation. That helps explain language change: the language Marc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1141885310664135102006-03-09T01:21:00.000-05:002006-03-09T01:21:00.000-05:00tried to read your thesis marc, but it's in french...tried to read your thesis marc, but it's in french! my apologies... <BR/><BR/>i'm clearly a fan of the non-truth conditional bent of your theory, and i also like the syntax-as-afterthought thing. I think the reason linguists love truth so much is that it gives them something coherent to work toward and check against. like 'we know this should be true, and then we can test how to get there'. i Cristihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09794033331046211307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1141832906699909602006-03-08T10:48:00.000-05:002006-03-08T10:48:00.000-05:00I've been wanting to post an overview of this theo...I've been wanting to post an overview of this theory for quite a while now. I could tell you to read the first chapter of my <A HREF="http://www.mab.ms/doc/reanalysis.pdf" REL="nofollow">thesis</A> but I'm not too sure it is that good an introduction.<BR/><BR/>One of the key points of the theory is that words have what is called "potential meaning" that is actualized in discourse. The way I see Marc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1141770940029291152006-03-07T17:35:00.000-05:002006-03-07T17:35:00.000-05:00thanks for the comment, Marc!i'd be interested to ...thanks for the comment, Marc!<BR/><BR/>i'd be interested to hear more about this. the only possibly similar thing i've encountered was an introduction to neural net modeling where scientists proposed that syntax should be built up based on the clusters of neurons that fired for a particular word and then how they synchronized. I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing you mean. <BR/><BR/>our prof.Cristihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09794033331046211307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1141760833537578102006-03-07T14:47:00.000-05:002006-03-07T14:47:00.000-05:00I never actually had courses on MTS, and I've had ...I never actually had courses on MTS, and I've had more than a few courses on semantics. Thing is, I studied in a neck of the woods that wasn't in love with "mainstream" linguistics. Most of what we saw was inspired by what is called (I was going to write "what is known as", but I can't really say that it is actually known) the Psychomechanics of language.<BR/><BR/>The name may be farfetched, butMarc André Bélangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607956905634811512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1141752044697914232006-03-07T12:20:00.000-05:002006-03-07T12:20:00.000-05:00aha! that's the million dollar question...give me ...aha! that's the million dollar question...<BR/><BR/>give me about 10 years. <BR/><BR/>i'm half kidding. I really believe poststructuralism has the right idea about language, and i'd like to see some of the foundational assumptions of model theory swept away to make room for an approach that gives language more credit for DOING things in the world. <BR/><BR/>pretty vague, huh?Cristihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09794033331046211307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1141746503712981952006-03-07T10:48:00.000-05:002006-03-07T10:48:00.000-05:00But what is the alternative?But what is the alternative?Sebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1141579202648773182006-03-05T12:20:00.000-05:002006-03-05T12:20:00.000-05:00it rules with an iron fist. It's all they teach yo...it rules with an iron fist. It's all they teach you in linguistics classes, and it's all we learned in philosophy of language...Cristihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09794033331046211307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1141528231555495512006-03-04T22:10:00.000-05:002006-03-04T22:10:00.000-05:00Holy shit. That's so backwards.That theory of sem...Holy shit. That's so backwards.<BR/><BR/>That theory of semantics is going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes.Sebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.com