Article
Licensed
Unlicensed
Requires Authentication
Is semantics computational?
-
Mark Steedman
Published/Copyright:
September 15, 2006
Abstract
1. Introduction
Both formal semantics and cognitive semantics are the source of important insights about language. By developing precise statements of the rules of meaning in fragmentary, abstract languages, formalists have been able to offer perspicuous accounts of how we might come to know such rules and use them to communicate with others. Conversely, by charting the overall landscape of interpretations, cognitivists have documented how closely interpretations draw on the commonsense knowledge that lets us make our way in the world. There is no opposition between these insights. Sooner or later we will have a semantics that responds to both.
Published Online: 2006-09-15
Published in Print: 2006-09-01
© Walter de Gruyter
You are currently not able to access this content.
You are currently not able to access this content.
Articles in the same Issue
- There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics
- Comments on: Fritz Hamm, Hans Kamp, Michiel van Lambalgen, There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics
- Ontology for human talk and thought (not robotics)
- Representing events and discourse; comments on Hamm, Kamp and van Lambalgen
- What is an action-based model of interpretation?
- Is semantics computational?
- The future of semantics?
- Replies to comments
Articles in the same Issue
- There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics
- Comments on: Fritz Hamm, Hans Kamp, Michiel van Lambalgen, There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics
- Ontology for human talk and thought (not robotics)
- Representing events and discourse; comments on Hamm, Kamp and van Lambalgen
- What is an action-based model of interpretation?
- Is semantics computational?
- The future of semantics?
- Replies to comments
