Several comments . . . .
First, this work is hideously outdated. The author cites his own reading
for some chapters he produced in 1992.
His claim that the dominant paradigms for studying language comprehension
imply that it is an archival process is *at best* hideously outdated -- if
indeed it was *ever* true (arguably, it is not).
Second, look at the names he quotes -- Glenberg and Robertson or Roth. Are
these names that are currently recognized and touted in the field of
language comprehension? Emphatically NOT!
POINT ONE - Please get yourself current before you attempt to argue
anything. You should also assume that anything that hasn't caught on in 15+
years probably has not caught on for a reason.
Third - your personal insistence on a linkage between imaginative and images
is not supported anywhere. We all agree that imaginative models/simulations
are necessary. The vast majority of us disagree that the perceptions for
those models are necessarily visual.
POINT TWO - The fact that you can't recognize that this paper does NOT
support your fanciful point indicates that you *really* do not have a handle
on all this. Yours is simple unadulterated bigotry. You only see what you
already believe to be true and cannot even recognize when what you're
seeing/looking for is not there.
Give me some current references that support your point -- someone like
Bloom, Chomsky, Pinker, Tomasello, Goldberg, or Jackendoff (you *do*
recognize those names, don't you).
POINT THREE - Insisting "IS TOO, IS TOO, IS TOO" with obsolete resources
(that you are misunderstanding anyways) is not going to convince anyone.
PLEASE, stop being a bigoted troll. Read something from *this* century and
try to find a clue.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 4:58 PM
Subject: [agi] Language Comprehension: Archival Memory or ...
Preparation for Situated Action
http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/barsalou/papers/Barsalou_DP_1999_situated_comprehension.pdf
This is what Stephen and I were discussing a while back - but it neatly
names the alternative approaches to language. Most AGI language
comprehension treats it as if it's all about "archival memory" - and so
has most cognitive linguistics until recently. Treat it as"preparation for
situated action," which is what it has to be, first and foremost, and you
start to realise that imaginative simulation of language is a necessity
for understanding.
When you treat language as if it's all "archival:"
"John kicked Jim."
"Big countries like kicking small countries"
you can get away v. temporarily with the delusion that comprehension need
not involve simulation, since the detailed specifics of scenes and actions
may not be important. You need only know v.generally that some such things
can happen.
When you treat language as for action -
"Go and kick John "[in the next room]
"Fancy kicking the ball around?"
the delusion soon becomes apparent - along with the total impossibility of
purely symbolic/verbal processing. You have to imaginatively simulate the
action in a given environment to see if it is viable (although this may
well, of course, all be unconscious).
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
