X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:51:53 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      privileged points of view; language experiments

[From Bill Powers (921122.2000)]

Martin Taylor (921122.1340) --

>If you are talking about "meaning in themselves" from the viewpoint >of
the person in whom the vector of perceptual signals exists, I >quite
agree. But remember that, right at the beginning of this >discussion, we
stipulated that the meaning of the vector is in the >mind of the
analyst, not of the perceiver.

The analyst is a human perceiver. In my own mind, I do not allow
privileged points of view in HPCT: whatever any human observer can do
must, at least in principle, be explained by the same model. So if the
analyst sees meaning or pattern in the vector, the analyst's perceptions
are combining the individual elements of the vector and reporting a
unitary perception, a scalar perception, in the manner I proposed. If
the analysand's mind also makes use of information in the vector in the
same way, the same model applies. There is no place to stand from which
to see what the pattern "really" is. The same model must apply to the
observed and observing human systems. It must also apply to a human
being looking at a model, too.

The computations that produce the individual elements of the vector
might well interact, so that the elements are not independent. That
subject has to do with the internal design of one level in the
hierarchy; what the next level makes of the vector is a different
subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hank Folson (921122) --

Your post is to the point. We have to consider what people use language
for, not just try to explain language by examining words.

It would be interesting to devise some experiments to see why people use
language as they do. I'm thinking of some task that requires two (or
more) people to cooperate, but that requires them to convey information
to each other. One way to test ideas about the elements of language
would be to start with the most primitive operations that you think all
languages contain, such as naming. Of course other primitive operations
could be proposed, but the point is to test them to see if they really
are primitive by seeing what CAN'T be done within the restrictions of
the primitive elements.

Suppose that the people are allowed to send symbols back and forth by
picking them out of a list. The symbols are arbitrary, not familiar
words, and can be defined only through common experiences with the task
and with each other. How would people establish meanings for the
symbols? What sorts of experiences would they attach symbols to first?
How would they combine this process of building a language with learning
to see the environment in mutually-consistent ways? How would they teach
the use of the symbols to a newcomer?

While using a computer for this would make taking and recording data
possible or at least a lot easier, tests of the idea could be done
without special equipment. The list of symbols, for example, could bethe 52
 playing cards in a deck, laid out on a table. A symbol would be
communicated by pointing to it or wiggling it (no normal verbal
communication allowed). The common task could be assembling something,
say a jigsaw puzzle. or it could involve one person telling another what
to do in stacking blocks or cutting up pieces of paper or making
brownies or anything else you can think of.

Some interesting problems come to mind. Attaching a symbol to an object
might seem easy, but with no rules, how do you get across that you are
attaching the symbol to the object and not to the actions by which
you're calling attention to the object? How would yuou get it across
that you're indicating some attribute of the object other than just its
shape? In other words, how do you establish that the Jack of Spades
means a corner piece in a jigsaw puzzle, and not the act of reaching out
and picking up or pointing to any piece? Watching people work out
problems like this ought to reveal a lot about how people invent
languages. I would love to see our PCT discussions of language start
incorporating experiments to see if explanations are right, instead of
just plausible.

I think the deaf community would have a lot to teach about what happens
when a group of people is brought together without any initial means of
communicating. I claim that someone would ALWAYS invent a language,
using whatever perceptions are easily manipulable as the tokens. In
other words, I claim that it isn't language that's inherent, but
ingenuity.

Best,

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU