Invited paper presented at ISAS/IASS-99, October
5-12, 1999, Dresden, Germany
On
Simulation and Realization.
Procedural models of sign functions in computational
semiotics.
Burghard B. Rieger
Dept. of Computational Linguistics - Fachbereich II:
LDV/CL
University of Trier, D-54286 TRIER, Germany
http://www.ldv.uni-trier.de/index.php?rieger
1 Introduction
In systems theory, it is common to look at systems in two ways:
externally by its behavioral characteristics, i.e. the way
how the system performs in processing (some controlled or known)
input and producing (observable or measurable) outputs, and
internally by the structural characteristics, i.e. the number
and kind of variables in the system and how these variables are
connected to each other, and how they interact.
From the model constructor's position it has been outlined
[3] that apparently the matter-symbol, or the
material-sign, or the structure-function distinctions are
difficult to determine in (primitive) organisms' behavior, quite
contrary to the sharp distinctions which are drawn in (models of)
dynamic physical behavior.
This is due to the fact that only from the modeler's (external)
view the organisms' processing of environmental information
appears to be based upon principled structures (
representations ) of processing results whereas an organism's
own (internal) processing may in fact do very well without such
representational structures and apparently survives on merely
performing some sorting procedures or classification functions
allowing to identify the relevant (and to ignore the irrelevant)
components in its surroundings, possibly-but not
necessarily-based on prior experience in similar situations.
Therefore, relating structure to function may well
be considered but another aspect of how the notion of
representation (internal or external to a system) can be
realized instead of simulated in a system-environment
model of cognitive information processing.
First, simulations and realizations belong
to different categories of modeling. Simulations are metaphorical
models that symbolically "stand for" something else. Realizations
are literal, material models that implement functions. Therefore,
accuracy in a simulation need have no relation to quality of
function in a realization. Secondly, the criteria for good
simulations and realizations of a system depend on our theory of the
system. The criteria for good theories depend on more than mimicry,
e.g. Turing Tests. Lastly, our theory of living systems must include
evolvability. Evolution requires the distinction between symbolic
genotypes [types of language entities], material phenotypes
[tokens of language entities], and selective environments
[situations of communicative language use]. Each of these
categories has characteristic properties that must be represented in
artificial life (AL) models.1
2 Computational Semiotics
Computational Semiotics is inspired by information
systems theory according to which human beings may be taken as
living systems whose knowledge based processing of
represented information makes them cognitive , and
whose sign and symbol generation, manipulation, and understanding
capabilities render them semiotic . We all experience these
systems' performance and ability daily in performing cognitive
processes and representing their results, in organizing these
representations and activating them for situations in need of
augmenting information, in acting on the base of these activated
representations, and in modifying them according to changing
conditions, results, and states of system-environment adaptedness.
It is argued that human cognition is grounded in such complex
information processing. Whenever cognitive processes are modeled
as being based upon structures whose representational status is
not a presupposition to but a result from such processing, then
these models-being able to simultaneously initiate and modify
the structures they are operating on-may qualify as being part
of computational semiotics .
3 Natural Language Understanding
For cognitive models of natural language processing the systems
theoretical view suggests to accept natural language discourse as
analyzable and empirically accessible evidence for tracing such
processes. Thus, natural language discourse might reveal essential
parts of the particularly structured, multi-layered information
representation and processing potential to a system
analyzer and model constructor in rather the same way as this
potential is accessible to an information processing system trying
to understand these texts. The difference here, however, between
the system and its analyzer on the one hand, and the information
system engaged in processing its discourse environment on the
other, is that of an object-modeler relation vs. a
system-environment situation, i.e. being active in and part of
different information processing situations of which only
the latter-and not the former-can be said to be directly
accessible to the modeler via attunement. It is this lack of being
properly attuned to the semiotic principles
underlying understanding systems in general which prompts
cognitive linguists to fall back on situations they are attuned
to, namely natural language understanding whose formal
abstractions they believe to be provided by principled
internal language (IL) representations of language
competence [2]. But whereas in communicative
language understanding one can, and even has to take the
semiotics of signs and the constitution of meanings for granted
and beyond questioning (i.e. signs and meanings are meant to be
understood, no matter whether fully or only partially, whether
correctly or even wrongly), the purpose of modeling that very
process of meaning constitution or understanding must not.
Trying to understand (conditions of possible) understanding of
signs and meanings cannot rely on the simulative
processing of (symbol) structures whose representational status is
declared by drawing on a pre-established semantics (known by the
modeler, made accessible to the model, but not at all compulsory
for the system modeled). Instead, modeling the processes
contributing to meaning constitution or understanding will
have to realize that very function. It has to be
implemented as programmable algorithms in an operational
information processing system which is able to render some
structure-in a self-organizing way-representational of
something else, and which also allows to identify what that
structure is to stand for. This is-very briefly-what
establishes a symbol or sign-meaning relation whose
semantics is a way of representing this relation in an overt
and intelligible sense to other (natural and/or artificial)
semiotic cognitive information processing (SCIP) systems. The
notions of discourse situation and of language
game will serve to mediate the dynamics of semiosis
and the procedural approach to model SCIP systems as based upon
natural language discourse.
4 Information Systems View
Following the systems theoretical paradigm of information
processing and accepting the cognitive point-of-view according to
which any information processing is knowledge based, human beings
appear to be not just natural information processing systems with
higher cognitive abilities. Instead, they have to be considered
very particular cognitive systems whose outstanding plasticity and
capability to adapt to changing environmental conditions is
essentially tied to their use and understanding of natural
languages in communicative discourse. The basic idea of model
constructions in terms of such an ecological theory of information
systems [10] is that the processing structure of an
information system is a correlate of those structures which such
a system is able to process in order to survive. Consequently,
analyzing the complex structuredness of natural language discourse
as a computational process of structure formation and detection is
not only following from cognitive science's computability
assumption, but may also give some hints for procedural models and
computational properties of processes that underlie (or contribute
to) language understanding .
4.1 Modes of Representation
In the aggregated form of pragmatically
homogeneous text (PHT) corpora [5], communicatively
performative natural language discourse provides a cognitively
revealing and empirically accessible collection of traces of
processes whose resultant multi-faceted structuredness may serve
as guideline for the cognitively motivated, empirically based, and
computationally realized research in meaning constitution
[11].
In terms of the theory of information systems, such PHT corpora
function like virtual environments. Considering the
system-environment relation, virtuality may be characterized
by the fact that it dispenses with the identity of space-time
coordinates for system-environment pairs which normally prevails for
this relation when qualified to be indexed real . It appears,
that this dispensation of identity-for short:
space-time-dispensation-is not only conditional for the possible
distinction of systems (mutually and relatively independent)
from their environments , but also establishes a notion of
representation which may be specified as exactly that part
of a time-scaled process that can be separated and
identified as its outcome or result in being (or becoming)
part of another time-scale. Accordingly, immediate or
adaptive space-time-identical system-environments without
representational form may well be distinguished from mediate
or learning space-time-dispensed system-environments whose
particular representational import (texts ) corresponds to
their particular bivalent timely status both, as longer-term
material (composed of language signs having virtual
meaning ), and as short-term structure (in need of being
(re)cognised in order to be understood ).
This double identity calls for a particular
modus of actualization (understanding ) that may be
characterized as follows:
For systems appropriately adapted and tuned to such virtual
environments, actualization consists essentially in a
twofold embedding to realize
- the spacio-temporal identity of pairs of immediate
system-environment coordinates which will let the system experience
the material properties of texts as signs (i.e. by
functions of physical access and mutually
homomorphic appearance of structures). These properties apply to
the percepts of language structures presented to a system in a
particular discourse situation , and
- the representational identity of pairs of mediate
system-environment parameters which will let the system experience the
semantic properties of texts as meanings (i.e. by
functions of identification, granulation, organization,
emergence, activation, modification of structures). These
virtual properties apply to the comprehension of language structures
recognized by a system to form the described situation .
Hence, according to the theory of information systems,
functions like interpreting signs and
understanding meanings translate to processes which extend the
fragments of reality accessible to a living (natural and possibly
artificial) information processing system beyond reality's
material manifestations. This extension applies to both, the
immediate and mediate relations a system may establish
according to its own evolved adaptedness or dispositions (i.e.
innate and acquired structuredness , processing
capabilities , represented knowledge ).
4.2 Semiotic Enactment
Semiotic systems' ability to actualize environmental
representations does not merely add to the amount of
experiential results available, but constitutes also a significant
change of experiential modus. This change is characterized by the
fact that processes of experience may be realized
("learning how") as being different and hence be separable from
the results of that experience ("learning what").
Whereas in immediate system-environment situations,
processes without traceable representations appear to be
indistinguishable from their results ("adaptation"),
mediate system-environments are constituted by this very
distinction.
In modeling semiotic cognitive information processing
(SCIP) systems' performances, the concept of
representation has to be considered fundamental to the
computational semiotic approach to cognition, allowing to
realize-instead of simulating-the experiential distinction of
semiotic processes of cognition from their results
which emerge-due to the traces these processes leave behind-in
some structures (knowledge ). Different representational
modes of this structure [14] not only comply with the
distinction of internal or tacit knowledge (as
e.g. in modeling memory ) on the one hand and of
external or declarative knowledge (as e.g. in
representations of discourse ) on the
other2, these modes also
relate to different types of (distributional vs.
symbolic ) formats, (connectionist vs.
rule-based ) modeling, and (stochastic vs.
deterministic ) processing.
5 Modeling Semiotic Realizations
Information processing situations (comprising system,
environment , and processing ) are considered
cognitive inasmuch as the system's internal (formal and
procedural) knowledge has to be applied to identify and recognize
structures external to the system (meaning
interpretation ). These situations become semiotic
whenever the internal knowledge applied to identify and interpret
environmental structures is derived from former processes of
external structure identification and interpretation, and applied
as the result of self-organizing feedback through different levels
of (inter-)mediate representation and organization. This
process (of meaning constitution or structure
understanding ) is the multiple enactment of the threefold
relation which is called-following Peirce-
semiosis 3
.
The triadic relation allows for the different ontological
abstractions of language
- as a component (sign ) in a system's external
environment, i.e. material discourse as a physical
space-time location;
- as a constituent of virtuality which systems properly
attuned experience as their environment (object ), i.e.
structured text as an interpretable potential of meanings,
and
- as a process of actualization (interpretant ) in a particular
system-environment situation, i.e. understanding as the
constitution of meaning.
5.1 Semiotic Attunement
In a systems theoretic approach, attunement replaces the
notion of static knowledge structures as simulated in
cognitive information processing models so far, by a
dynamic conception of structuredness. It defines knowledge as
an open, modifiable, and adaptive system whose organization can be
conceived as a function of the system's own processing or
knowledge acquisition . This, however, can only be achieved by
allowing semiotic entities to have their own (perhaps yet
unknown) ontology. It might be not (or not fully) accounted
for4 by predicative and propositional representations or
rule-based and truth-functional formats which tacitly make believe
that semiotic entities can be characterized and their functions be
modeled exclusively by crisp categorial structures and associated
processing of well-defined rules for symbol manipulation.
It cannot be overstated, that system analyzers and model
constructors dealing with semiotic processes in natural
language understanding should not rely on the granular
adequacy of established linguistic categories to represent
semiotic entities. Instead, she/he has to make every provision
that her/his ideas about the modeling of both, the representation
a n d the processing are not unduly pre-defined by long
standing, but possibly inadequate formats. Rule-based models of
syntactic processing as well as truth-functional models of
(sentence) meaning appear to be as inadequate as predicative and
propositional formats of semiotic entity representation and
processing. Thus, modeling semiotic processes is to find
and employ representational formats and algorithmicable procedures
which do not prematurely decide and delimit the range of
semiotically relevant entities, their representational formats and
modes of processing.
One of the advantages of computational models of semiotic
processes would be that the entities considered relevant need not
to be defined prior to model construction but will emerge from the
very processing which the model realizes or is able to enact. It
appears that-if any-this property of models does account for
the intrinsic (co- and contextual) constraining of the meaning
potentials characteristic of natural language discourse which
renders them semiotic in a meaning (or function)
constituting sense which may also be identified to be the core of
understanding .
Representing a system's environment (or fragments thereof) in a
way, that such representations not only take part in a system's
direct (immediate ) environment (via language texts) but
may moreover be understood as virtual in the sense that new (
mediate ) environments (via textual meanings) can also be
processed, has been explicitly introduced elsewhere [15]
[8] [9]. This view is again dependent on how
a system's attunement to these kinds of situated discourse can be
tied to the formal concept of situation
[1] and the analytical notion of language
game [16] phenomenologically
(re)interpreted. The combination of both lends itself
readily to operational extensions in empirical analyses and
procedural simulations of processes which may grasp essential
parts of meaning constitution realized as process of
understanding .
5.2 Situated Semantics
According to Barwise and Perry [1]
any language expression is tied to reality in two ways: by the
discourse situation allowing an expression's meaning being
interpreted and by the described situation
allowing its interpretation being evaluated
truth-functionally. Within this relational model of Situation
Semantics meaning may be considered the derivative of
information processing which (natural or artificial)
systems-due to their own structuredness-perform by recognizing
similarities or invariants between situations that structure their
surrounding realities (or fragments thereof).
By ascertaining these invariants and by mapping them as
uniformities across situations , cognitive systems
properly attuned to them are able to identify and
understand those bits of information which appear to be essential
to form these systems' particular views of reality: a flow of
types of situations related by uniformities like e.g.
individuals, relations, and time-space-locations. These
uniformities constrain a system's external world to become its
view of reality as a specific fragment of persistent (and
remembered) courses of events whose expectability (by
their repetitiveness) renders them interpretable or even
objective .
In semiotic sign systems like natural languages, such uniformities
appear to be signaled also by sign-types whose employment
as sign-tokens in texts exhibit a special granular
form of structurally conditioned constraints. Taking the
entity word as an example from the granular tiling of
semiotic sign structures, then these words and the way they are
used by the speakers/hearers in discourse do not only allow to
convey/understand meanings differently in different discourse
situations (efficiency ), but at the same time the
discourses' total vocabulary and word usages also provide an
empirically accessible basis for the analysis of
structural (as opposed to referential ) aspects of
event-types and how these are related by virtue of word
uniformities across phrases, sentences, and texts uttered. Thus,
as a means for the intensional (as opposed to the
extensional ) description of (abstract, real, and actual)
situations , the regularities of word-usages may serve as an
access to and a representational format for those elastic
constraints which underlie and condition any word-type's
meaning , the interpretations it allows within possible
contexts of use, and the information its actual word-token
employment on a particular occasion may convey.
Under these preliminary abstractions, the distinction between (the
format of) the representation and (the properties of) the
represented is not so much a prerequisite but rather more of an
outcome of semiosis , i.e. the semiotic process of sign
constitution and understanding . Consequently, it
should not be considered a presupposition or input to , but
a result or output of the processes which are to be
modeled procedurally and implemented as a computational system one
is justified to name semiotic .
5.3 Language Games
According to Wittgenstein
[16] the notion of language
game 5
characterizes a very fundamental type of discourse situations
"complete in themselves, as complete systems of human
communication" and solely concerned with the way of how signs are
used. Operationalizing this notion and analyzing a great number of
texts for usage regularities of terms can reveal
essential parts of the concepts and hence the meanings conveyed by
them. The approach [6] has also produced some evidence
that an analytical procedure appropriately chosen could well be
identified also with solving fundamental representational tasks if
based upon the universal constraints (syntagmatics and
paradigmatics ) known to be valid for all natural
languages.
This philosophical concept of language game can be
combined with the formal notion of situation allowing not
only for the identification of a cognitive system's (
internal ) structure with the (external ) structure of
that system's environment. Being tied to the observables of actual
language performance enacted by communicative language usage also
opens up an empirical approach to procedural semantics and
computational semiotics . Whatever can formally be analyzed as
uniformities in Barwiseian discourse
situations may eventually be specified by word-type
regularities as determined by co-occurring word tokens in samples
of pragmatically homogeneous texts as representations of
language games . Going back to the fundamentals of
structuralistic descriptions of regularities of
syntagmatic linearity and paradigmatic selectivity of
language items, the correlational analyses of discourse will allow
for a multi-level word meaning and world knowledge representation
whose dynamism is a direct function of elastic constraints
established and/or modified in language communication.
6 Conclusion
1. As has been outlined in some detail elsewhere
[14], the meaning function's range may be
computed and realized as a result of exactly those (semiotic)
procedures by way of which (representational) structures emerge
and their (interpreting) actualization is produced from observing
and analyzing the domain's regular constraints as imposed on the
linear ordering (syntagmatics ) and the selective
combination (paradigmatics ) of natural language items in
communicative language performance. For natural language semantics
this is tantamount to (re)presenting a term's meaning
potential by a fuzzy distributional pattern of the modeled
system's state changes-rather than by a single
symbol -whose structural relations are to depict the system's
potential interpretations of its environment. Whereas symbolic
representations have to exclude , the distributional
representations will automatically include the
(linguistically) structured, pragmatic components which a SCIP
system will both, embody and employ as its representational and
procedural import to identify and to interpret its environmental
structures by means of its own structuredness.
2. In earlier attempts, semantic meaning
functions have been modeled and computed as results of the same
(semiotic) procedures by way of which (representational)
structures emerge [15]. Their actualization
(interpretation) can be simulated by analyzing the
possibilistically determined constraints found as imposed on the
linear ordering (syntagmatics ) and the selective
combination (paradigmatics ) of natural language entities
(word-types) in discourse [7]. For fuzzy
linguistic lexical semantics this is tantamount to
(re-)construct an entity's semiotic potential
(meaning function) by a weighted graph (fuzzy distributional
pattern ) representing the modeled system's state space rather
than by a single symbol whose interpretation has to be
arbitrary [11]. In this view the emergence of semantic
structure can be represented and studied as a self-organizing
process based upon word usage regularities in natural language
discourse [8]. In its course, the linearly
agglomerative (or syntagmatic ) as well as the
distributionally selective (or paradigmatic ) constraints
are exploited by text analyzing algorithms [9]. These
accept natural language text corpora as input and
produce-via levels of intermediate representation and
processing-a vector space structure as output . As
semantic hyperspace (SHS) it may be interpreted as an internal
(endo ) representation of the SCIP system's states of
adaptation to the external (exo ) structures of its
environment as mediated by the discourse processed [10].
The degree of correspondence between these two is determined by
the granularity that the texts provide in depicting an
exo- view, and the resolution that the SCIP system is able to
acquire as its endo- view in the course of that discourse's
processing [12].
3. The SCIP system's architecture is a two-level
consecutive mapping of distributed representations of systems of
(fuzzy) linguistic entities. Being derived from usage regularities
as observed in texts, these representations provide for the aspect
driven generation of formal dependencies and their interrelations
in a format of structured stereotypes. Corresponding algorithms
select and represent fuzzy subsets (word meanings) as
dispositional hierarchies that render only those relations
accessible to perspective processing which can-under differing
aspects differently-be considered relevant. Such dynamic
dispositional dependency structures (DDS ) have proved to
be an operational prerequisite to and a promising candidate for
the simulation of content-driven (analogically-associative)
reasoning instead of formal (logically-deductive) inferences in
semantic processing [13].
4. The dynamics of semiotic knowledge
structures and the processes operating on them essentially consist
in their recursively applied mappings of multilevel
representations resulting in a multiresolutional granularity of
fuzzy word meanings which emerge from and are modified by such
text processing. Test results from experimental settings (in
semantically different discourse environments) are produced to
illustrate the SCIP system's granular language understanding and
meaning acquisition capacity without any initial explicit
morphological, lexical, syntactic, or semantic knowledge.
References
== - [1]
-
J. Barwise/J. Perry: Situations and Attitudes ,
Cambridge, MA (MIT
Press), 1983.
- [2]
-
N. Chomsky: The Minimalist Program . (Current Studies in
Linguistics
28), Cambridge, MA (MIT Press), 1995.
- [3]
-
H. Pattee: Evolving self-reference: matter, symbol, and semantic
closure.
Communication and Cognition - Artificial Intelligence , 12(1-2): 9-27,
1995.
- [4]
-
C. Peirce: Pragmatism in Retrospect: A Last Formulation.
In: Buchler
(ed): The Philosophical Writings of Peirce , New York (Dover), 1906,
pp. 269-289.
- [5]
-
B. Rieger: Bedeutungskonstitution. Einige Bemerkungen zur
semiotischen
Problematik eines linguistischen Problems. Zeitschrift für
Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik , 7(27/28): 55-68, 1977.
- [6]
-
B. Rieger: Unscharfe Semantik. Die empirische
Analyse,
quantitative Beschreibung, formale Repräsentation und prozedurale
Modellierung vager Wortbedeutungen in Texten , Frankfurt/ Bern/ Paris
(Peter Lang), 1989.
- [7]
-
B. B. Rieger: Fuzzy Computational Semantics. In: Zimmermann
(ed):
Fuzzy Systems. Proceedings of the Japanese-German-Center
Symposium , Series 3: Publications of the Japanese-German Center Berlin
8, Berlin (JGCB), 1994, pp. 197-217.
- [8]
-
B. B. Rieger: Meaning Acquisition by SCIPS. In: Ayyub (ed):
ISUMA-NAFIPS-95 , IEEE-Transactions: Joint Intern. Conf. on
Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis, North American Fuzzy
Information Processing Society, Los Alamitos, CA (IEEE Computer Society
Press), 1995, pp. 390-395.
- [9]
-
B. B. Rieger: Situations, Language Games, and SCIPS.
Modeling semiotic
cognitive information processing systems. In: Meystel/Nerode (eds):
Architectures for Semiotic Modeling and Situation Analysis in
Large Complex Systems , 10th IEEE Symposium on Intelligent Control,
Bala Cynwyd, PA (AdRem), 1995, pp. 130-138.
- [10]
-
B. B. Rieger: Situation Semantics and Computational Linguistics:
towards
Informational Ecology. A semiotic perspective for cognitive information
processing systems. In: Kornwachs/Jacoby (eds): Information. New
Questions to a Multidisciplinary Concept , Berlin (Akademie), 1996,
pp. 285-315.
- [11]
-
B. B. Rieger: Computational Semiotics and Fuzzy Linguistics.
On meaning
constitution and soft categories. In: Meystel (ed): A Learning
Perspective: Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Intelligent
Systems and Semiotics (ISAS-97) , [NIST Special Publication 918],
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC (US Gov.
Printing Office), 1997, pp. 541-551.
- [12]
-
B. B. Rieger: Dynamic Word Meaning Representations and the
Notion
Granularity. Text understanding as meaning consitition by SCIPS. In:
Meystel (ed): A Learning Perspective: Proceedings of the 1997
International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Semiotics (ISAS-97) ,
[NIST Special Publication 918], National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Washington, DC (US Gov. Printing Office), 1997, pp. 332-333.
- [13]
-
B. B. Rieger: Tree-like Dispositional Dependency Structures
for
non-propositional Semantic Inferencing. On a SCIP approach to natural
language understanding by machine. In: Bouchon-Meunier/Yager (eds):
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information
Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems
(IPMU-98) , Paris (Edition EKD), 1998, pp. 351-358.
- [14]
-
B. B. Rieger: Computing Granular Word Meanings. A fuzzy linguistic
approach in Computational Semiotics. In: Wang/Meystel (eds):
Computing with Words , New York, NY (John Wiley), 1999, p. [in print].
- [15]
-
B. B. Rieger/C. Thiopoulos: Semiotic Dynamics: a
self-organizing lexical
system in hypertext. In: Köhler/Rieger (eds): Contributions to
Quantitative Linguistics. Proceedings of the 1st Quantitative
Linguistics Conference - QUALICO-91 , Dordrecht (Kluwer Academic
Publishers), 1993, pp. 67-78.
- [16]
-
L. Wittgenstein: The Blue and Brown Books. (Ed. by
R. Rhees) , Oxford
(Blackwell), 1958.
Footnotes:
1Pattee 1989, pp.63; [my
parentheses, BR]
2Whereas tacit knowledge cannot be
represented other than by the immediate
system-environments' corresponding states ("knowledge how",
explicit knowledge is bound to acquire some formal properties
in order to become externally presented and thereby part of
mediate system-environments ("knowledge what"). Natural
languages obviously provide these formal properties-as partly
identified by research in linguistic competence (principled
knowledge and acquisition of language)-whose enactment-as
investigated in studies on natural language performance
(production and understanding of texts)-draws cognitively on
both bases of (explicit and tacit) knowledge.
3"By semiosis I mean
[... ] an action, or influence, which is, or involves, a
coöperation of three subjects, such as sign, its
object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not
being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs." (Peirce
1906, p. 282)
4With reference to the intrinsic
interdependencies of Peirce's "tri-relative influence"
identified within a system-environment processing
situation above as "an action, or influence, which is, or
involves, a coöperation of three subjects, [
sign , object , interpretant ... ] not being in
any way resolvable into actions between pairs." (Peirce 1906,
p. 282)
5"These are ways of using signs simpler than
those in which we use the signs in our highly complicated everyday
language. Language games are the forms of language with which a
child begins to make use of words [... ] If we want to study the
problem of truth and falsehood, of the agreement and disagreement
of propositions with reality, of the nature of assertion,
assumption, and question, we shall with great advantage look at
primitive forms of language in which these forms of thinking
appear without the confusing background of highly complicated
processes of thought" (Wittgenstein 1958, p. 17) and-we might
add-their symbolic and/or formalized representations.
File translated from
TEX
by
TTH,
version 3.71.
On 21 Jan 2006, 20:06.