Category Archives: Realism

Perpetual Epicentral Density Sphere

Dandelion seeds (achenes) can be carried long ...

Image via Wikipedia

The Perpetual Epicentral Density Sphere is a unpublished model of cognition that I began developing in the late ninety’s and early years of 2000 as a result of my training in linguistics and anthropology.  I worked on it before I knew what Cognitive Linguistics actually was and, in fact, it was part of my conversion to CogLing.  With a nod to remix culture and assemblage theory, this model tried to blend together several validated models of discourse and culture in a super feeble attempt to bridge the epistemological gulf between realism and relativism and explain the complete communication picture in a systematic and procedurally elegant way (read: quasi-arbitrary).  This was the early days of my interest in systems theory, but I was really naive about the complexity of complexity.  Basically, the more that I worked on the model the more I came to see that Cognitive Linguistics already had working solutions to a lot of the questions I was addressing.  In fact, when I read back through my notes now, I see that it is actually a model of attention and dynamic construal.  I won’t tell you anything more about the mechanics right now, but I expect that one day I will pull it back off the shelf and show it to the world; in the mean time, here is an analogy from my original manuscript (part of which is in this book) for you to chew on:

“Pick the white puff of seeds on a dandelion clock, pick the stem and hold it in your hand, and meticulously and decidedly, remove every single floating seed, one-by-one until there is only one remaining.  This is what the first thought does when it moves to the second thought.  You have deselected every seed, ignored them all but one, the one you highlighted, the one you lit up – the one you selected.  This, the lone seed on the stem, a sphere at the base, the rod line of the seed body, and the end of the seed a circle of tiny white hairs that extend radially from the stem in many many directions, this seed is a snapshot. You are holding in your hand the most natural visible representation of how your thoughts live and travel.  Now put that last seed up to your mouth and do the wind’s job and send that seed floating.  Where it lands it either develops or dies, just like your thought.”

“If you can take a line of thought and follow it to every dead-end, out every open door and window, to every destination – and catch it resting – you will see simply and plain how lawless and unruly even simple thoughts are in their brief lives.”

You can view images from my portfolio that were inspired through this process at: RyanDewey.org

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Why I Care About Ontology

Staircase perspective.

Image via Wikipedia

In a broad sense of the term, any particular ontology serves as a framework against which we interpret information; think of it like an organized perspective that we use as a lens to view and understand the world.

When you study a culture you are concerned with figuring out how they understand the world and how they make sense of the world.  This study of sense-making follows the concept that people do what seems logical and rational to their perspective.  I am interested in mapping these sense-making resources and translating them into a format that reveals the internal consistency and relationships between the rationale and the external context and stimuli.

If you look back through the histories of science & philosophy you will see the pendulum swing between two extremes in regard to ontology, one extreme believes that there is a unified and complete ontological structure to the world, the other extreme believes that there are many unified and complete ontological structures.  This is the debate between whether we can know truth objectively, or whether it is known as a perspective.

In my work I explore how we construct global formal ontologies as well as how we generate idiosyncratic folk-ontologies; this is the both/and response – I want to know how we engage in thinking when it is shaped by public beliefs and private beliefs and what it takes to reconcile the disjunctions.

One of the ideas that has kept my attention the longest is that the structure of a thought represents the choices that have been made to arrive at that thought, and that structure also shows us what has been ignored as the thought is being formed.  I want to know how the external world interacts with the internal world.  I want to know how it directs our thinking.  This is the foundational riddle that makes me want to do linguistics.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Emergentist vs. Universalist view of Language and Cognition

Distributed cognition

Image by Lisa Brewster via Flickr

I wanted to present a list that outlines some of the main differences in thought about language between Emergentist and Universalist perspectives.  This is important I think because it shows how only certain kinds of programmers and mathematicians can work successfully within a Cognitive framework.

Consider these characteristics of an Emergentist (Cognitive) view:

  1. Singular Mind (General Cognitive Abilities)
  2. Distributed Cognition
  3. Neo-Empiricist
  4. The Complex System IS the primitive
  5. Prototypes
  6. Online and Dynamic Processing
  7. Usage Based View of Language
  8. Falsifiable
  9. The Appropriate Level of Granularity is the Form-Meaning Pair (i.e., constructions)

Now, compare that list with this Universalist (usually Generative) view on the same issues:

  1. Modular Mind
  2. Localization in Neuroscience
  3. Innate
  4. Atomistic, Reduce!
  5. Feature based categories & Atomistic Set Theory
  6. Stable Structures and “Switches” that enable cognition
  7. Competence Based View of Language
  8. Language is the de facto expected product of the mind
  9. Reductionism refines phenomena out of existence

Can some middle perspective be taken that combines both extremes?  What are your thoughts?

Tagged , , , , , , ,

My Top 10 All-Time-Favorite Formal Linguistics Books

Generated using http://www.ironcreek.net/phpsy...

Image via Wikipedia

Occasionally I read a good Generative book to balance my thinking in linguistic theory…I am drawn to the ideas of formalism, usually when I am thinking about how to develop anthropological linguistic approaches for Cognitive Linguistics field work in Non-Indo-European languages, but also because I like the feel of generative thought a little.

Here are some of the generative books that I love the best:

  1. Lexical Categories – Baker
  2. Optimality Theory – Kager
  3. Phonology in Generative Grammar – Kenstowicz
  4. Tools for Analyzing the World’s Languages – Bickford
  5. Introduction to Typology – Whaley
  6. Language Form and Language Function – Newmeyer

And then there are a class of books that are in accord with generative thought (i.e., modular mind) that I find to be classic inspiration for the study of conceptualization:

  1. The Society of Mind – Minsky
  2. What Is Thought – Baum
  3. Consciousness and the Computational Mind – Jackendoff
  4. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology – Brentari

If you are a Cognitive Linguist and you are wondering for some good places to start studying Generative/Transformational/Formal Linguistics this list should be a good primer for you.  It covers all of the modules: the lexicon, phonology, syntax, morphology, meaning/semantics; as well as touching on topics like: theory of mind, compositionality, categorization, typology, rewrite rules, distribution and word order, signed languages, development, and gesture.  Enjoy!

If you are a Generative Linguist stumbling across this post and wonder where to begin reading about Cognitive Linguistics, please go to the menu of this page and select “CogLing 100 Book List” which will get you going in the right direction.  Bon Chance!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lady Gaga Is Her Own Black Box

Sorry about the obtuse title, I don’t know how to name this odd post that integrates multiple concepts that tangentially relate.  Hopefully the ambiguity of description entices you to read.

It seems to me, that because Cognitive Semantics is constructional rather than compositional, it is suited for integration with Object Oriented Philosophy.

This statement might get some negative reactions, but I am learning, so, bring on the criticism.

Here is why I think Constructions are better suited for OOO than a strict Compositional approach: at the level of a relation between two hierarchies, concepts which construct do not need to regard the hierarchical levels as boundaries which must be maintained, in other words, a hierarchical element on level 5 in hierarchy A does not have to match across hierarchies to another hierarchical element on level 5 in hierarchy B. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,