I just saw this article on x.com so have just read through it. I like the approach you are taking as I have done similar work. My mentors suggested some tips to me to help communicate by using the same terms others have used.
For example, the Saussure references to symbols and concepts above was also discovered by someone else at the same time, who seems to have developed a better model. In the C.S. Peirce model, in his semiotics (sign theory) he maps signs/representamen to interpretants to objects. The signs are the words we would write/say, the interpretants are the choice of meanings, and the objects are the real-world thing we refer to.
He also talked about what signs can refer to. In my NLU work this was great to learn. A sign can be a symbol (arbitrary relation), an index (like a pronoun that refers to something else in context) or an icon (something that resembles something as a map represents the relationships of places).
Moving from the philosophical side of things to linguistics, Robert Van Valin in Role and Reference grammar models the meaning of words with a model of decomposition that is very handy. That system build on the distinction between activities (like walking) and states (like being happy or knowing something).
I always wished someone had pointed me to good resources rather than finding out later on!
Thank you! I have many other posts about language - its role, compositionality, polysemy, etc. Consider checking them out. I would love to hear your opinion. Also, please feel free to use any ideas in your research on RRG.
I just saw this article on x.com so have just read through it. I like the approach you are taking as I have done similar work. My mentors suggested some tips to me to help communicate by using the same terms others have used.
For example, the Saussure references to symbols and concepts above was also discovered by someone else at the same time, who seems to have developed a better model. In the C.S. Peirce model, in his semiotics (sign theory) he maps signs/representamen to interpretants to objects. The signs are the words we would write/say, the interpretants are the choice of meanings, and the objects are the real-world thing we refer to.
He also talked about what signs can refer to. In my NLU work this was great to learn. A sign can be a symbol (arbitrary relation), an index (like a pronoun that refers to something else in context) or an icon (something that resembles something as a map represents the relationships of places).
Moving from the philosophical side of things to linguistics, Robert Van Valin in Role and Reference grammar models the meaning of words with a model of decomposition that is very handy. That system build on the distinction between activities (like walking) and states (like being happy or knowing something).
I always wished someone had pointed me to good resources rather than finding out later on!
Thank you! I have many other posts about language - its role, compositionality, polysemy, etc. Consider checking them out. I would love to hear your opinion. Also, please feel free to use any ideas in your research on RRG.
Thanks Alexander.