A Model of Categorization and Compositionality (Sense Determination) in the Light of a Procedural Model of Language (Based on Selection and the Communicative Field)

Abstract

Traditional models of language are based on the Aristotelian model of a category, and assume that linguistic symbols are correlated with senses defined by sets of necessary features (properties and relations), which allow one to identify category members. A linguistic pattern (syntax), in turn, defines the order in which the senses related to individual symbols combine to convey the sense of the linguistic constructions they form. Determining the sense of the combination of linguistic items typically involves taking the cross-section of the features indicated by each category. As we all know, neither the models of language based on Aristotle’s model of a category, nor those based on modern successors of Aristotle’s category – a prototype model of a category, or a fuzzy set model of a category – let us reflect natural language categorization, or compositionality sufficiently well. Therefore, in this paper, we propose another, more adequate model of linguistic sense categorization and compositionality.

We propose that in addition to traditionally acknowledged encoding mechanism of linguistic categorization represented by an Aristotelian type of category models, speakers and listeners can use the sense correlated with a given linguistic symbol (or linguistic construction) to identify its referent also in a different, selective, manner. To let me explain what selective mode of language use is, first note that even before actually hearing the item to be interpreted in a given utterance, we form some expectations as to what that item may be. In this paper, we call a set of such expected, potential senses and referents, along with their respective probabilities of occurrence, a communicative field (CF.) Now, on hearing a linguistic symbol (or construct) to be interpreted whose encoded interpretation does not result in a relevant interpretation of the utterance, interlocutors use its encoded (i.e., traditionally defined) sense to select in the given communicative field the item whose sense matches the encoded sense of the item being interpreted most closely. On some occasions, a given linguistic item can be used both selectively to select some referent and encodingly to predicate about it.

Note, that in the selective mode of language use, although the item selected as the referent, or sense, for a given linguistic item is not calculable from the Aristotelian sense of that linguistic item (or items), yet, such a referent, sense, or the other way around, form, can be singled out through unambiguous procedures from the communicative field. Hence, I call this proposal a procedural model of language, or a field model of language – to stress the role of the communicative field in the selection process.

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Professor Helene Wlodarczyk and Professor Andre Wlodarczyk for inspiring me with their research, especially with the role of meta-information (informational structure of utterances) and a statistical analysis of data possible with SEMENA software, as well as for their interest in my research. In particular, I would like to thank them for inviting me to MIC 2012 workshop held at CELTA, Sorbonne, to present the procedural model of language. The discussion with the conference participants helped me develop further some aspects of the model and present the whole model more clearly and succinctly than before. I would also like to express my gratitude to Prof. Alessandro Capone, Jacob Mey and Charles Sides, who have been helping me to develop and popularize the model of language I am currently working on. Last, but not least, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer of this paper, whose comments helped me significantly both to resolve some inconsistencies in the definition of the communicative field I had not noticed myself and to focus this paper on what matters most making my article much more comprehensible.