Monday, August 16, 2004
Why Information Science needs Cognitive Semantics
Why Information Science needs Cognitive Semantics - and what it has to offer in return.
"These notes describe an evolving personal view of developments in cognitive semantics over the past two decades. They are written for discussions and from the perspective of how these developments impact my work on the semantics of geographic information1. They summarize some of my limited knowledge of the works of Ron Langacker, George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, Anna Wierzbicka, Peter Gärdenfors, Mark Turner, Gilles Fauconnier, John Taylor, Len Talmy, and others, as I think they relate to (geographic) information science. No attempt is made at a complete coverage of these authors’ ideas about cognitive semantics. For example, I leave out the notion of virtuality (or fictiveness), which is a central theme in the works of Langacker, Talmy, and others. The spotlights on some findings of cognitive linguistics2 and semantics are meant to point readers to some key ideas. These ideas, more often than not, provide different foundations (and opportunities) for work on information semantics in databases, user interfaces, interoperability, and related areas. Many of them have previously been applied to information science by Joseph Goguen and others (see, for example, [1] and [2])3. My paraphrasings, hopefully, do not depart too far from the original ideas, though they often simplify them. The interpretations and applications are normally mine, and may often be strenuous (or even wrong) from a cognitive linguist’s point of view - not to mention that of a traditional linguist. Many subtleties are ignored or glossed over, for lack of space, understanding, perceived need, or a combination of these factors. More reading could have answered some of the questions raised, or shown some of my suggestions to be untenable. I am grateful if these blind spots are pointed out to me."
"These notes describe an evolving personal view of developments in cognitive semantics over the past two decades. They are written for discussions and from the perspective of how these developments impact my work on the semantics of geographic information1. They summarize some of my limited knowledge of the works of Ron Langacker, George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, Anna Wierzbicka, Peter Gärdenfors, Mark Turner, Gilles Fauconnier, John Taylor, Len Talmy, and others, as I think they relate to (geographic) information science. No attempt is made at a complete coverage of these authors’ ideas about cognitive semantics. For example, I leave out the notion of virtuality (or fictiveness), which is a central theme in the works of Langacker, Talmy, and others. The spotlights on some findings of cognitive linguistics2 and semantics are meant to point readers to some key ideas. These ideas, more often than not, provide different foundations (and opportunities) for work on information semantics in databases, user interfaces, interoperability, and related areas. Many of them have previously been applied to information science by Joseph Goguen and others (see, for example, [1] and [2])3. My paraphrasings, hopefully, do not depart too far from the original ideas, though they often simplify them. The interpretations and applications are normally mine, and may often be strenuous (or even wrong) from a cognitive linguist’s point of view - not to mention that of a traditional linguist. Many subtleties are ignored or glossed over, for lack of space, understanding, perceived need, or a combination of these factors. More reading could have answered some of the questions raised, or shown some of my suggestions to be untenable. I am grateful if these blind spots are pointed out to me."
0 Comments:
