Rob Freeman wrote:
>
> It just means any abstraction of NL data into a system of rules or
> classes must be seen as specific to a purpose.
>
> Understanding this is the key unlocking the power of the corpus.
>
> Knowing this means we can find the abstraction (grammar) relevant to any
> purpose we choose: make a given parsing decision, agree on the
> significance of a word in a given context. Not knowing this means we
> constantly swim around trying to find a single abstraction to fit every
> purpose, and fail (we end up with "fuzzy" categories.)
Absolutely.
For science to work, theories and other models don't have to be things
that are "true". They just have to be things that are _useful_ -- and that
implies a purpose against which any scientific model must be evaluated.
(Bas van Fraassen)
There's no universal purpose, even in our little bailiwick of linguistics,
so there's no reason to expect to find a universal model.
-- Mark
Mark P. Line
Polymathix
San Antonio, TX
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 26 2006 - 17:21:26 MET DST