Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2016

    Numerous bibliographic additions to linguistics and new stub mathematical linguistics.

  1. Splitting the “Formal linguistics” section in three: syntax, semantics, pragmatics. Adding links to formal grammar and language game.

    Anonymous

    diff, v29, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthoralexis.toumi
    • CommentTimeNov 21st 2020
    I forgot to log in before editing the page.
  2. Re #2: nice!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 21st 2022

    diff, v34, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 21st 2022
    • (edited Dec 21st 2022)

    I have hyperlinked more of the technical terms, such as syntax, string, word.

    By the way, since we have a lot of material on and related to quantum information theory via dagger-compact categories, and since the main authors of that approach have turned around to claim that this is also a good model for natural language (or some claim along these lines), I am vaguely interested in understanding this latter claim, though I don’t feel I want to invest much time into it. So if anyone would write an informative brief paragraph on the matter into the entry here, I’d be interested.

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 21st 2022
    • (edited Dec 21st 2022)

    re #5:

    We may have to disambiguate the author name Vasily Pestun.

    There is a V. Pestun concerned with machine learning here

    and apparently another one concerned with hep-th here.

    [edit: checking the email addresses, I see that this is the same person, after all. ]

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeDec 21st 2022

    I wonder if David Corfield has anything to say about using quantum information models to model natural language.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2022
    • (edited Dec 23rd 2022)

    6: I think that we should follow wikipedia decision here: syntax in the sense of logic or computer science and syntax in the sense of linguistics are two different notions in scope and they should have separate pages.

    Namely in logic syntax encompases everything about formal expressions. And sometimes in logic it refers not only to expressions/valid sentences but also formal reasoning that is syntactic proofs (which are even not expressions of the language of logic). In linguistics syntax is usually denoting only the description/rules/relations how parts of linguistical expressions form the whole as opposed not only to semantics but also disjoint/opposed to vocabulary (lexic), phonetics and phonology and language (morphological) derivation. It also includes weak rules of forming larger utterances which are not in yes/no form (e.g. syntax of discourse). In logic on the sharp contrary, the list of primitives (vocabulary) and alphabet are parts of syntax. In linguistics there is also diacronic syntax ignored even in formal linguistics a la Chomsky which denotes the science of historical syntax change and mechanisms how the change was influenced by other parts of language (e.g. phonology and semantic change).

    2: Admitting pragmatics as an additional layer of language description rather than studying what would be pragmatic phenomena as integral part of the foundation how concrete language works assumes belonging to the influence and classifications of Chomsky. Often it fails to distinguish on the level of spectrum going from pragmatic alternatives belong to thinking, philosophy or culture to the ones which are really part of a concrete language as normalized part of the language semantics, syntax or description of their normalized interaction. Thus treatisies on pragmatics are in large part about philosophical, cultural or cognitive pragmatics rather than about the description of a concrete language hence linguistics while some of the phenomena which are about “pragmatics of a concrete language” are actually semantic conventions of the concrete language.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2022

    As long as our entry on syntax remains the stub that it is, there is unfortunately no material to be split into two entries.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2022

    Of course, but now it seems I can assume you approve the reasoning. It is easy to create the material about language syntax but there is a hesitation if the classification is obstructing or misleading (I would never put language material into the entry syntax with the idea section that it is an entire “theory”, simply contributing to a wrong page makes no sense). So I will go on with creating a new page syntax (linguistics).

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2022

    It aims to develop a toolbox for description of concrete languages (applied linguistics, descriptive grammar), their classification (language families, language typology) as well as to understand how language functions (e.g. relations to cognition and social constraints) and changes (historical and comparative linguistics). The description of a concrete language includes organizational principles called grammar and distinguished constants called lexic. The grammar is described at several hierarchical levels (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax).

    There is an opposition between

    • individual expressions (Franc. parole) and abstract system of the language (Franc. langage)
    • snapshot of a system in time (synchronic) and its development (diachronic)
    • knowledge of a language (ability to speak) and knowledge about a language (theoretical description)

    Linguistics sign has also a dichotomy between its meaning and its expression.

    Linguistic systems are often also at several levels from personal idiom/idiolect, through social sociolects, regional dialects to languages and language families. There is no fundamental agreement of entirely consistent boundary of what is a boundary level of a language as opposed to dialects or language groups. Also there is no universal criterium of what a boundary of a word is, that is what a word is.

    diff, v37, current