Ślad:

Różnice

Różnice między wybraną wersją a wersją aktualną.

Odnośnik do tego porównania

Poprzednia rewizja po obu stronachPoprzednia wersja
meetings:gregoromichelaki_17122021 [2021/12/17 18:00] – zubekjmeetings:gregoromichelaki_17122021 [2021/12/18 14:24] (aktualna) – zubekj
Linia 1: Linia 1:
-⁸Abstract+===== Eleni Gregoromichelaki – Natural languages as distributed action systems ===== 
 + 
 +== Abstract ==
  
 In this talk, I present a view of natural language (NL) which is compatible with an account of perception called actionism [Noë, 2012] and a view of action optimisation as conceived in the Skilled Intentionality Framework (e.g., [Bruineberg et al., 2018, Bruineberg and Rietveld, 2014]). I will outline a view of NL “syntax” and a programme for semantics/pragmatics assuming that NL interactions are realisations of distributed social cognition mechanisms. This view conceives of NLs as processes orchestrating the interacting agents’ behaviour patterns as they dynamically establish and follow normative standards that emerge synchronically and diachronically during social interactions (cf. [Rączaszek-Leonardi, 2010]). This contrasts with orthodox static accounts where NLs are investigated as codes, i.e., sign systems registering synchronic correspondences between representational levels. In this talk, I present a view of natural language (NL) which is compatible with an account of perception called actionism [Noë, 2012] and a view of action optimisation as conceived in the Skilled Intentionality Framework (e.g., [Bruineberg et al., 2018, Bruineberg and Rietveld, 2014]). I will outline a view of NL “syntax” and a programme for semantics/pragmatics assuming that NL interactions are realisations of distributed social cognition mechanisms. This view conceives of NLs as processes orchestrating the interacting agents’ behaviour patterns as they dynamically establish and follow normative standards that emerge synchronically and diachronically during social interactions (cf. [Rączaszek-Leonardi, 2010]). This contrasts with orthodox static accounts where NLs are investigated as codes, i.e., sign systems registering synchronic correspondences between representational levels.
Linia 9: Linia 11:
 Modelling of such resources in grammars can only take a constraint-based formulation to avoid wellknown intractability issues like the frame-problem (see, e.g., Bickhard [2001]; cf Rączaszek-Leonardi et al. [2018]). I will present a model (DS-TTR, e.g., Kempson et al. [2001], Gregoromichelaki et al. [2020a]) that provides a way of capturing the continuities in the processing of (joint) linguistic and physical actions by relying on the goal-directed, predictive, and distributed nature of cognition. Modelling of such resources in grammars can only take a constraint-based formulation to avoid wellknown intractability issues like the frame-problem (see, e.g., Bickhard [2001]; cf Rączaszek-Leonardi et al. [2018]). I will present a model (DS-TTR, e.g., Kempson et al. [2001], Gregoromichelaki et al. [2020a]) that provides a way of capturing the continuities in the processing of (joint) linguistic and physical actions by relying on the goal-directed, predictive, and distributed nature of cognition.
  
-References+== References ==
  
     - Mark H Bickhard. Why Children Don’t Have to Solve the Frame Problems: Cognitive Representations Are Not Encodings. Developmental Review, 21(2):224–262, June 2001. ISSN 0273-2297. doi: 10.1006/drev.2000.0521.     - Mark H Bickhard. Why Children Don’t Have to Solve the Frame Problems: Cognitive Representations Are Not Encodings. Developmental Review, 21(2):224–262, June 2001. ISSN 0273-2297. doi: 10.1006/drev.2000.0521.