8/10/2019 REVIEW OF UNDERSTANDING COMPUTERS AND COGNITION

1/5

Book Reviews Logica l Form in Natural Language

logical form and moves on to the problems of pragmat-

ics and their influence on the surface form of produced

utterances. Semantics and pragmatics contribute inde-

pendently to the process of forming utterances (Lycan

is looking at language generation only), with the latter

explaining such phenomena as proper lexicalization

( he is X and Y versus he is X but Y ), performative

prefaces ( I state X ), and indirect force. Chapter 5 is

interesting but the discussion grows increasingly arcane

and may prove irritating for a reader who is not an

insider (especially Chapter 6). Numerou s references to

the author's other works do not help, and neither do a

vast amount of notes placed at the end of the book.

Chapters 7 and 8 are among the best in the book.

Chapter 7 starts with an overview of research by

Gordon and Lako ff on conversational postulates regard-

ing illocutionary force of natural language sentences.

Lycan points out various weaknesses in this account

and proposes a generalization in which he classifies all

cases of indirect force into three types. Type 1 contains

those sentences th at in some circumstances can be used

to co nvey indirect illocutionary meaning, and this prop-

erty is relative to context of use ( It's cold in here ).

Sentences of type 2 are normally used metaphorically,

though in some situations may be taken as conveying

literal meaning ( Have you lost your mind? ). Eventu-

ally, type 3 contains sent ences that can be used only to

communicate their conventional, indirect meaning

( Can you please be a little quieter? ). The reader will

find this chap ter a source o f valuable information, even

though there is no definite treatment proposed.

In Chapter 8, L yca n is back to his earlier discussion

of truth conditions and meaning. He proposes to build a

flow diagram of a computer program that would speak

English. Among the few obs tac les that remain to be

to solved before such a program could be written,

Lycan lists the problem of disambiguation in natural

language unde rstanding , which he classifies as a spe-

cial case of the vexing and vicious frame problem in

Artificial Intelligence .. . and not an especially aggra-

vated instance of it . Well, perhaps things are just the

other way around. As a computer scientist involved in

natural language research, I find most of the author's

claims of compu tation al paradigms premature and

misplaced. In Chapter 11 Lycan presents a schematic

diagram (which he calls a flow diagram) of the human

generative speech center, which, by any standard, is

much too abstract to be considered a computational

model.

In Chapter 9, Lycan takes on what he considers the

most serious challenge to the truth-theoretic semantics,

i.e., Quine's indeterminacy hypothesis (Quine 1960).

The topic is of interest to anybody who thinks of

automated natural language processing as a series of

(possibly concurrent) transformations (or translations)

from one representation to another in order to reach,

eventually, an ultimate logical for m . But if you look

for a theoretical foundatio n of a new transl ation

the ory you are heading for a disappointment. The

discussion is somewhat confusing and the arguments

lack proper force. Eventually you will feel totally at a

loss from which you may never recover before the end

of the book. It only remains to hope that all this stuff is

important and relevant for philosophy, because I just

cannot see the significance of the tru th versus V-truth

(or even Vc-truth) argument for computati onal linguis-

tics or AI in general.

In summary , it is not clear what aud ience this book is

addressed to. I guess it may be of interest in philosophy

of language, psychology, and perhaps linguistics. To the

AI and CL community it will be of moderate interest:

Chapters 7 and 8 are especially worth noticing. The

book is also not a primer, so I would not re comme nd it

to somebody who has just entered the field. From this

perspective, I think that the book is ultimately mistitled:

logical for m is a trendy catch-phrase that attracts

attention and raises expectations which may prove

difficult to fulfill.

Tomek Strzalkowski

School of Computing Science

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6

Canada

R E F E R E N C E S

Quine, w. v. 1960. Word and Object The MIT Press, Cambridge,

Mass.

Strawson, P. F. 1950. On Referring.

Mind

59: 320-344.

U N D E R S T A N D I N G C O M P U T E R S A N D C O G N I T I O N :

A

N E W F O U N D A T I O N F O R D E S I G N

W i n o g r a d T e r r y a n d F l o r e s F e r n a n d o

Hardboun d, Norwood, N J: Ablex Publishing

Corporation, 1986, xiv+207 pp,

ISBN 0-89391-050-3, $24.95

Paperba ck, Read ing, MA: Addison-Wes ley, 1987, 214

pp, ISBN 0-201-11297-3, $12.95

This is an important and exasperating book.

What do hermeneutics and Heidegger, autopoiesis

and artificial intelligence, commitment and computers

have in common? In their book, Winograd and Flores

try to explain their own private views of the connec-

tions. They are mainly addressing the systems analy sis,

AI, and computational linguistics communities, warning

them against embracing too closely the ways of mathe-

maticians and the advocates of symbolic logic.

The authors perform a useful service by outlining the

limitations of the approach that they call rati onal isti c

and by calling attention to certain philosophical issues

that might prove helpful in the future to establish new

directions in computer design. From a mathematician's

point of view, they are merely reviving and rerunning

the morality play that has already finished its run in

3 4 0 C o m p u t a t i o n al L i n g u is t ic s V o l u m e 1 3 N u m b e r s 3 - 4 J u l y - D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 7

8/10/2019 REVIEW OF UNDERSTANDING COMPUTERS AND COGNITION

2/5

B o o k R e v i e w s U n d e r s t a n d in g c o m p u t e r s a n d c o g n i ti o n : A n e w f o u n d a t i o n f o r d e s i g n

m a t h e m a t i c s u n d e r t h e b a n n e r s o f f o r m a l i s m , l o g i c i sm ,

a n d i n t u i t i o n i s m .

W & F a r e t o o e m o t i o n a l l y i n v o l v e d w i t h th e i r s u b je c t

m a t t e r t o b e m e r e f o r m a l i s t s ; t h e y w a n t m o r e m e a n i n g

t h a n a f o r m a l i s t w o u l d b e h a p p y w i t h . T h e y e x p l ic i t ly

r e j e c t t h e l o g i c i s t l i n e a n d u r g e u s t o l i s t e n t o o u r

i n t ui t io n s a n d o u r p e r s o n a l , e v e r y d a y , c o m m o n e x p e r i -

e n c e s . T h e i r p a t h t o t h e u s e o f i n t ui t io n a n d c o m m o n

s e n se e x p e r i e n c e i s t h r o u gh p h e n o m e n o l o g y - - m o r e

p r e c i s e l y , p h e n o m e n o l o g y o f th e H e i d e g g e r i a n v a r i e t y .

A l t h o u g h , o n t h e s u r f a c e , a p h e n o m e n o l o g i s t c o m p u t e r

s c i e n c e s e e m s t o b e a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n t e r m s , t h e i s s u e s

r a i s ed b y W & F a r e w o r t h c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n b e c a u s e

t h e p o i n t s t h e y a r e m a k i n g w i l l b e h a r d t o i g n o r e i n t h e

f u t u r e .

OPPOSITION TO TH E RATIONALISTIC VIEW

T h e a u t h o r s ' n e w v i s i on i s h e l p e d b y f o c u s i n g o n w h a t

M a t u r a n a a n d o t h e r s c a l l a u to p o ie t i c s y s t e m s . T h e s e

s y s t e m s a r e s e l f -o r g a n iz i n g ; t h e y a r e n o t o r g a n i z e d f r o m

t h e o u ts i d e . L i v i n g o r g a n i s m s a r e t h e b e s t e x a m p l e s o f

a u t o p o i e t i c s y s t e m s . C o m p u t e r s t h a t h a v e to b e p r o -

g r a m m e d b y a n o u t s i d e a g e n t a r e n o t a u t o p o i e t i c .

F u r t h e r i n s p i r a t i o n is p r o v i d e d b y M a t u r a n a ' s w o r k o n

f r o g s , w h e r e a l ot o f w h a t o n e w o u l d b e t e m p t e d t o

c o n s i d e r " c o g n i t i v e " a c t i v i t y w a s f o u n d t o b e n o t h i ng

m o r e t h a n b i o c h e m i s t r y : p e r i p h e r a l d e v i c e s , s u c h a s th e

e y e o f a f r o g , m e c h a n i s t i c a l l y p e r f o r m i n g t h e i r b i o lo g i -

c a l f u n c t i o n .

B e c a u s e t h e b o o k i s u n u s u a l i n n a t u r e , i t w o u l d b e

u n f a i r n o t t o l e t t h e a u t h o r s s t a t e t h e i r m a i n p o i n t s i n

t h e i r o w n w o r d s .

T h e k e y to m u c h o f w h a t w e [ s a y ] l i es in r ec o g n iz in g th e

fu n d a m e n ta l imp o r t a n c e o f th e s h i ft f ro m a n in d iv id u a l -

c e n te re d c o n c e p t io n o f u n d e r s t a n d in g to o n e th a t i s s o cia l ly

b a s e d . K n o w le d g e a n d u n d e rs t a n d in g ( in b o th th e c o g n i tiv e

a n d l in g u i st i c s e n s e s ) d o n o t r e s u l t f ro m fo rm a l o p e ra t io n s

o n me n ta l r e p re s e n ta t io n s o f a n o b je c t iv e ly e x is t in g w o r ld .

R a th e r , t h e y a r i s e f ro m th e in d iv id u a l ' s c o mmi t t e d p a r t i c -

ip a t io n in mu tu a l ly o r i e n te d p a t t e rn s o f b e h a v io r th a t a re

e mb e d d e d in a s o c ia lly s h a re d b a c k g ro u n d o f c o n c e rn s ,

ac t ions , and be l ie fs . Th is sh if t f rom a n ind iv idua l to a soc ia l

p e r s p e c t i v e - - f r o m m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o p a t t e r n e d

in te ra c t io n - - p e rmi t s l a n g u a g e a n d c o g n i t io n to me rg e .

B e c a u s e o f w h a t H e i d e g g e r c a ll s o u r " t h r o w n n e s s " , w e

a re l a rg e ly fo rg e t fu l o f t h e s o c ia l d ime n s io n o f u n d e r s t a n d -

in g a n d th e c o mmi tme n t i t e n ta i l s . I t i s o n ly w h e n a

b r e a k d o w n o c c u r s t h a t w e b e c o m e a w a r e o f t h e f a c t t h a t

" th i n g s " in o u r w o r ld e x i s t n o t a s th e r e s u l t o f i n d iv id u a l

a c t s o f c o g n i t io n b u t t h ro u g h o u r a c t iv e p a r t i c ip a t io n in a

d o ma in o f d i sc o u rs e a n d mu tu a l c o n c e rn . (p . 7 8)

W & F ' s b a s i c p o s i t i o n c e n t e r s o n t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n t o

w h a t t h e y c a l l t h e " r a t i o n a l i s t ic a p p r o a c h " , i . e. , t he

v i e w t h a t " k n o w l e d g e a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g . . . [ r e su l t ]

f r o m f o r m a l o p e r a t i o n s o n m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f a n

o b j e c t i v e l y e x i st i n g w o r l d " . T h i s r a t i o n al i s ti c v i e w w a s

v e r y s u c c e s s f u l i n e f f e c t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t a d v a n c e s i n c o m -

p u t e r w o r k , a n d i n t h e s t u d y o f c o g n i ti o n a n d l a n g u a g e .

B u t a s e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t t h e p e r f o r m a n c e l e v e l o f

c o m p u t e r s y s t e m s i n c r e a s e , t h e r a t i o n a l i s t i c v i e w i s

p r o v i n g t o b e i n c r e a si n g l y s t e ri l e. N e w a p p r o a c h e s a r e

n e e d e d t h a t d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e j e c t t h e r a t i o n a l i s t i c

p o s i t i o n , b u t g o b e y o n d i t.

W & F c r i t i c i z e t h e r a t i o n a l i s t i c a p p r o a c h a n d w o u l d

w a n t t o r e j e c t it a l t o g e t h e r , r a t h e r t h a n s t r i v i n g f o r a

s y n t h e s i s w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e u s e f u l f e a t u r e s , w h i l e

s u p p l e m e n t i n g t h e m w i t h n e w i n s i g h t s . P e r h a p s t h e i r

u n c o m p r o m i s i n g p o s i t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o h i g h -

l ig h t t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e o l d e r p a r a d i g m . B u t o n e c a n ' t

h e l p c o n t r a s t i n g t h e i r s i n g l e - m i n d e d o p p o s i t i o n w i t h

m o r e m o d e r a t e , s y n t h e s i s - o r i e n t e d a p p r o a c h e s s u c h a s,

f o r ex a m p l e , G e o r g e L a k o f f ' s exper ien t ia l i sm o r expe-

r ien t ia l rea l i sm,

a s d e s c r i b e d i n hi s r e c e n t b o o k

W o m e n ,

Fire , and Dangero us T hings .

I n th e a u t h o r s ' w o r d s :

T h e ra t io n a l i s t i c o r i e n ta t io n c a n b e d e p ic t e d in a s e r i e s o f

s teps :

1 . Charac te r ize the s i tua t ion in te rms of iden t i f iab le

o b je c t s w i th w e l l -d e f in e d p ro p e r t i e s .

2 . F ind genera l ru les tha t app ly to s i tua t ions in te rms of

th o s e o b je c t s a n d p ro p e r t i e s .

3 . Ap ply the ru les log ica l ly to the s i tua t ion of conce rn ,

d ra w in g c o n c lu s io n s a b o u t w h a t s h o u ld b e d o n e .

T h e re a re o b v io u s q u e s t io n s a b o u t h o w w e s e t s it u a t io n s

i n to c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i th s y s t e m a t i c " r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s " o f

o b je c t s a n d p ro p e r t i e s , a n d w i th h o w w e c a n c o m e to k n o w

genera l ru les . In much o f the ra t iona l is t ic t rad i t ion , ho w-

e v e r , t h e s e a re d e fe r re d in f a v o r o f e mp h a s iz in g th e fo rm u -

la tio n o f s y s t e ma t i c ru l e s th a t c a n b e u s e d to d ra w lo g ic a l

conc lus ions . (p . 14-15)

W h a t a r e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s a s fa r a s c o m p u t a t i o n a l

l i n g u i s t i c s i s c o n c e r n e d ?

T h e ra t io n a l i s ti c t r a d i t io n r e g a rd s l a n g u a g e a s a s y s t e m o f

s y mb o l s th a t a re c o mp o s e d in to p a t t e rn s th a t s t a n d fo r

th in g s in th e w o r ld . S e n te n c e s c a n re p re s e n t t h e w o r ld

tru ly o r fa lse ly , coheren t ly o r incoheren t ly , bu t the ir u l t i -

mate g rounding is in the ir correspondence with the s ta tes

o f a f fa i r s t h e y re p re s e n t . T h i s c o n c e p t o f c o r re s p o n d e n c e

c a n b e s u mma r iz e d a s :

1 . S e n te n c e s s a y th in g s a b o u t th e w o r ld , a n d c a n b e

e i the r t rue or fa lse .

2 . Wh a t a s e n te n c e s a y s a b o u t th e w o r ld i s a fu n c t io n o f

th e w o rd s i t c o n ta in s a n d th e s t ru c tu re s in to w h ic h th e s e

a re c o mb in e d .

3 . T h e c o n te n t w o rd s o f a s e n te n c e ( s u c h a s i t s n o u n s ,

v e rb s , a n d a d je c t iv e s ) c a n b e t a k e n a s d e n o t in g ( in th e

w o r ld ) o b je c t s , p ro p e r t i e s , r e l a t io n s h ip s , o r s e t s o f t h e s e .

(p. 17)

T h e a u t h o r s r e j e c t t h i s v i e w o f l a n g u a g e i n f a v o r o f a

v e r y d i f fe r e n t v i e w . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e a u t h o r s ' c o n c e p t

o f l a n g u a g e is n o w h e r e d e f in e d i n t h e b o o k . W e d o n ' t

e v e n h a v e a d e f i n i t i o n a t t h e c a s u a l , s n a p - s l o g a n l e v e l

s u c h as " a c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t " , " a b i o l o g i c a l c o n s e -

q u e n c e " , " a b i li t y t o f o r m u t t e r a n c e s " , " t e c h n o l o g y t o

r e a r ra n g e m e n t a l m o d e l s " , " h u m a n a c t iv i ty d e fi n ed b y

a g r a m m a r " , o r " c o n c e p t u a l a i d f o r s tr u c t u r i n g r e a -

l i t y " . O n e m a y s p e c u l a t e w h e t h e r t h i s o m i s s i o n w a s

i n a d v e r t e n t o r d e l i b e r a t e .

C o m p u t a t i o n a l L i n g u i st i cs V o l u m e 1 3 N u m b e r s 3 - 4 J u l y . D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 7 3 4 1

8/10/2019 REVIEW OF UNDERSTANDING COMPUTERS AND COGNITION

3/5

B o o k R e v i e w s U n d e r s t a n d i n g c o m p u t e r s a n d c o g n i t io n : A n e w f o u n d a t i o n f o r d e s i g n

B e t h a t a s i t m a y , w h a t i s i n t e r e s t i n g a b o u t t h i s

o m i s s i o n i s t h a t i t i s r a t h e r h a r d t o n o t i c e . I t d o e s n o t

m a t t e r t h a t l a n g u a g e i s n o t d e f i n e d , b e c a u s e e v e n i n t h e

d i s c u s s i o n o f l i ng u i s ti c m a t t e r s , l a n g u a g e a s s u m e s a

v e r y s u b o r d i n a t e p o s i t i o n . F o r t h e a u t h o r s , n a t u r a l

l a n g u a g e u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d m e a n i n g a r e r e s u l t s o f

" l is t e n in g " f o r " c o m m i t m e n t " .

Lan g u ag e can wo rk wi th o u t an y "o b j ec t i v e" c r i t e r i a o f

m ean in g . We n eed n o t b ase o u r u se o f a p a r t i cu la r wo rd o n

an y ex t e rn a l l y d e t e rm in ed t ru th co n d i t i o n s , an d n eed n o t

ev en b e i n fu l l ag reem en t wi th o u r l an g u ag e p a r tn e r s o n t h e

si tuat ions in which i t would be appropr iate . Al l that i s

requi red i s that there be a suff icien t coupl ing so that

b reak d o wn s a re i n f r eq u en t , an d a s t an din g co m m i tm en t b y

b o th sp e ak er an d l i s t en er t o en t e r i n to d ia lo g in t h e f ace o f

a breakdown. (p . 63)

I f t h e re i s n o " b r e a k d o w n " , w o r d s a r e u n n e c e s s ar y .

W h a t " c o m m u n i c a t e s " is n o t o n ly w h a t is s pe c i fi e d , b u t

a l s o w h a t d o e s n o t n e e d t o b e s p e c i f i e d b e c a u s e o f a

s h a r e d b a c k g r o u n d , a n d a g r o u n d i n g in p h y s i c a l a n d

s o c i a l r e a l i t y .

N o t o n l y s y n t a x , b u t e v e n s e m a n t i c s f a d e s i n t o t h e

b a c k g r o u n d . T h e f o c u s i s o n p r a g m a t i c s a l o ne . N a t u r a l

l a n g u a g e d o e s n o t " b r i n g a b o u t " u n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h e

u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s t h e r e a s a b a c k g r o u n d p h e n o m e n o n .

N a t u r a l l a n g u a g e is c a ll e d f o r - - a n d b e c o m e s u s e f u l an d

r e l e v a n t - - w h e n t h i s b a c k g r o u n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g b r e a k s

d o w n . U s e o f l a n g u a g e s i g n a ls t h e l a c k o f u n d e r s t a n d -

i n g . I t i s a l m o s t l i k e a w a r n i n g l i g h t w h i c h c o m e s o n

w h e n a m a l f u n c t i o n i s n o t i c e d . T h i s i s t h e e x a c t o p p o -

s i te o f th e t r a d i t i o n a l v i e w t h a t w e u s e n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e

t o c r e a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g . N o . A t b e s t w e r e - e s ta b l i s h

u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; a t w o r s t w e m e r e l y s i g n a l t h a t a b r e a k -

d o w n i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g h a s o c c u r r e d . H e n c e u n d e r -

s t a n d i n g i s n o t a n a c t t o p e r f o r m , b u t a s t a t e t o b e i n. I f

w e h a v e t o t a l k , t h a t m e a n s t h a t t h i s h a p p y s t a t e o f

a f f a i r s h a s b e e n d i s t u r b e d .

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPUTER DESIGN

H o w w o u l d W & F ' s i n si g h ts a b o u t l a ng u a g e b e u s e d t o

d e s i g n a n d b u i l d a c o m p u t e r - b a s e d n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e

u n d e r s t a n d i n g s y s t e m ? T h e a u t h o r s d o n o t s a y . T h e y

c r i ti c i ze t h e e s t a b l is h e d a p p r o a c h w h i c h c o n s t r u e s

m e a n i n g a s b e i n g

in

t h e m e s s a g e , r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g

around t h e m e s s a g e - - i n t h e t e x t , a n d n o t i n t h e c o n t e x t

- -

b u t t h e y d o n o t q u i t e g e t a r o u n d t o f o r m u l a t i n g n e w

a r c h i t e c t u r e s . T h e y a r e o n t h e r i gh t tr a c k , b u t d o n o t g o

f a r e n ou g h . T h e s u b t i tl e o f t h e b o o k p r o m i s e s " a n e w

f o u n d a t i o n f o r d e s i g n " . T h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e

p r o p o s e d n e w f o u n d a t i o n c a n n o t b e e v a l u a t e d w i t h o u t

s e e i n g a t l e a s t a b i t m o r e o f th e d e s i g n .

W h i l e o n s o m e s u b j e c t s t h e y d o n o t g o f a r e n o u g h , o n

o n e t o p i c t h e y d o g o s o m e w h a t o v e r b o a r d . T h e i r d is l ik e

o f th e t e r m

representation

i s s t r o n g . W h a t t h e y m e a n b y

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s o f te n n o t v e r y c l e a r . T h e y m e n t i o n t h e

d a n g e r s o f a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a c c u r a t e l y

r e f l e c t s w h a t i s " o u t t h e r e " i n a n a i v e r e a li s t s e n s e , a n d

r a i s e d o u b t s a b o u t t h e v i e w t h a t c o g n i t i o n r e s t s o n t h e

m a n i p u l a t io n o f s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . B u t t h e n

t h e y g o o n t o s a y th a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s i n t h e e y e o f

t h e b e h o l d e r ( p . 8 6 ) . T h i s i s a m o s t v a l u a b l e i n s i g h t

w h i c h c o u l d h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d f u r t h e r . I n g e n e r a l ,

w e c a n e x p r e s s t h i s t y p e o f i n s i gh t i n s t a t e m e n t s o f th e

f o r m " X i s th e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Y i n th e e y e s o f t h e

b e h o l d e r Z " . T h i s d o e s n o t s e e m p r o b l e m a t i c e v e n i n

t h e p hi l o so p h i c a l f r a m e w o r k o f th e a u t h o r s . O n e m a y

g u e s s t h a t t h e t e r m

representation

w a s c o n d e m n e d o n

t h e b a s is o f g u i l t - b y - a s s o c i a t io n . S y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a -

t i o n s h a v e b e e n c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r a ti o n a l i s t ic

t r a d i t i o n t h a t t h e a u t h o r s o p p o s e . T h i s i s u n f o r t u n a t e ,

b u t s o m e a s p e c t s o f t h e s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c o n -

c e p t a r e w o r t h s a v i n g . F o r e x a m p l e , c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e i s

b a s e d o n t h e m e n t a l m o d e l s h y p o t h e s i s , i . e . , th a t p e o p l e

u n d e r s t a n d t h e w o r l d b y f o r m i n g m e n t a l m o d e l s . T h i s is

a f a ir l y r e c e n t v i e w ; w e j u s t g o t i t a n d i t w o u l d b e a

s h a m e t o a b a n d o n i t s o s o o n . W h a t a r e w e t o r e p l a c e i t

w i t h ? A r e W i n o g r a d a n d F l o r e s a d v o c a t i n g a n e w

s c h o o l o f n e o - b e h a v i o r is m , i n w h i c h e v e r y t h i n g i s em -

b o d i e d i n h a r d w a r e ( w e t w a r e ? ) , a n d t h e r e a r e n o p r o -

g r a m s a n d n o s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f w o r l d k n o w l -

e d g e ? H o w w o u l d w e d e s i g n a n d b u i l d s u c h

n e o - b e h a v i o r i s t i c c o m p u t e r s ?

T h e a u t h o r s ' r e j e c t i o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s n o t s o

m u c h w r o n g - h e a d e d a s u n n e c e s s a r y . T a l k i n g a b o u t

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a s m o d e l i n g o f t h e w o r l d b y a c o g n i ti n g

a g e n t i s q u i t e h a r m l e s s . T h e e n e m y i s n o t r e p r e s e n t a -

t i o n ; t h a t is o n l y a s y m p t o m . T h e e n e m y i s n a i v e r e a l i s m

o r o b j e c t i v i s m , w h i c h b l i t h e l y a s s u m e s , o n t h e b a s i s o f

o n e v i e w , o n e v e r s i o n , o n e d e s c r i p t i o n , o n e g l i m p s e

f r o m o n e p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t th e e s s e n c e o f a n " o b j e c -

t i v e l y e x i s t i n g w o r l d " ( p . 7 8 ) h a s b e e n g r a s p e d , a n d t h a t

o n e k n o w s e x a c t l y h o w t hi s u n iq u e w o r l d i s " r e a l l y "

c o n s t r u c t e d . I n o t h e r w o r d s , o n t h e b a s is o f th e e x i s t -

e n c e o f X , i t a s s u m e s t h a t Y a l s o e x i s t s , a s i n t h e

s e n t e n c e " X i s t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Y i n th e e y e s o f t h e

b e h o l d e r Z " . R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a r e f in e , a s l o n g a s t h e y

a r e c o n s t r u e d t o b e n o m o r e t h a n m e n t a l m o d e l s o f a

p u b l ic l y e x a m i n a b l e k i n d. B u t m o d e l s o f w h a t ? T h e

e y e s o f Z d o m i n a t e t h e a n s w e r t o t h a t q u e s t i o n . X

e x i s t s , b u t Y m a y n o t , e v e n i f Z d o e s n o t r e a l i z e i t. I n

f a c t , i n s p i te o f Z ' s l i m i t e d v i s i o n , h e m i g h t f i nd X t o b e

a m o s t u s e fu l im p l e m e n t . H e m a y b e m i s t a k e n i n t h e

g l o b a l s e n s e , b u t s t i ll g e t th e j o b d o n e u s i n g X .

B u i l d i n g m o d e l s i s n o t h i n g o b j e c t i o n a b l e , e x c e p t t h a t

o n e s h o u l d n o t a t t r i b u t e m o r e v e r i s i m i l i t u d e t o t h e

m o d e l t h a n i s r e q u i r e d b y t h e m o d e l e r . A r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

i s a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , a n d a m o d e l i s a m o d e l , p r e c i s e l y

b e c a u s e t h e o b s e r v e r , b e h o l d e r , o r m o d e l e r s e e s i t a s

s u c h . I t is t h e a t t e m p t s t o e s c a p e f r o m t h i s p e r s p e c t i v i s t

f r a m e w o r k t h a t c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s .

W h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h e f o l lo w i n g o r d e r e d l i st o f

s t a t e m e n t s :

1 . " X i s t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Y . "

2 . " X is th e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Y ' o u t t h e r e ' . "

3 . " Z c o n s i d e r s X t o b e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Y ' o u t

t h e r e ' . "

3 4 2 C o m p u t a t i o n a l L i n g u is t ic s V o l u m e 1 3 N u m b e r s 3 - 4 J u l y - D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 7

8/10/2019 REVIEW OF UNDERSTANDING COMPUTERS AND COGNITION

4/5

B o o k R e v i e w s U n d e r s t a n d i n g c o m p u t e r s a n d c o g n i t io n : A n e w f o u n d a t i o n f o r d e s i g n

4. Z considers X to be a representatio n of Z's

mental model Y' of Y 'out there'.

we might notice that the last sentence, although longer

than is usually considered convenient for casual use,

reflects a humble, modest, experientialist, and basically

honest approach.

COMPUTERS AS AUTOPOIETIC SYSTEMS

If computers are not to be progra mmed using represen-

tations of a real world out the re how exactly are they

supposed to function? W&F use Maturana's concept of

autopoietic systems. Autopoietic computer systems

somehow self- organ ize , as opposed to having their

programs inflicted upon them in an authoritarian man-

ner by programmers. Certainly, an anthill is autopo ie-

tic , and so is a free market economy . Can we object to

programming because it is authoritarian and elitist, in

the sense that it is an outsider who inflicts the program

on the machine in a non-egalitarian way? What exactly

is wrong with this approach?

It assumes that the programmer (or knowledge engi-

neer ) can articulate an explicit account of the system's

coupling with the world--what it is intended to do, and

what the consequences of its activities will be. This can be

done for idealized toy systems and for those with clearly

circumscribed formal purposes (for example, programs

that calculate mathematical formulas). But the enterprise

breaks down when we turn to something like a word

processor, a time-sharing system, or for that matter any

system with which people interact directly. No simple set

of goals and operators can delimit what can and will be

done.

The person selects among basic mechanisms that the

machine provides, to get the work done. If the mechanisms

don't do what is needed, others may have to be added.

They will often be used in ways that were not anticipated in

their design. (p. 53)

Do Winograd and Flores have a genuinely novel

approach to systems analysis? Yes. Their idea is to go

beyond the verbal level in order to look at people's

interactions with each other and to look for the com-

mitment that underlies these interactions. Rather than

going from the verbal level to Newell's knowled ge

level , they try to go from the verbal level to an

action/intention/commitment level. They claim that

what matters is not what people say, but what they do,

or intend to do, and the kind of commitment that they

are ready to make. It should be repeated that this view

of the task of the systems analyst is based upon consid-

ering the use of language as the performing of speech

acts. This view agrees with the authors' notion of the

natural language understanding process as a listening

for commitment.

Would such an approach to systems analysis work in

practice? That depends on the client. Some clients

would feel that with such an approach the analyst is

overstepping his mandate by appropriating to himself

management functions. He transgresses the limits of his

job category by investigating matters which are not

within the bounds of his job description.

The limitations of the book are grounded in the

experiential limitations of the authors. They are blind to

the industrial and commercial domains of discourse,

e.g. that computers are built to make money for the

vendor, that it takes mo ney to build comput er systems,

and whoeve r funds the wo rk will expect in one form or

another a return on his investment. Although they

emphasize the importance of autopoietic systems being

closely coupled to their environments, neither author

seems to realize how mess y the real world really is. Had

they done so, this realization might have driven them

back to the neat, well-ordered world of the rationalistic

tradition that they criticize.

This reviewer would suggest that the authors should

have been looking not at computers as single entities,

but rather at the owner-computer complex as a struc-

tural unit. Looking at computers in isolation from

ownership does not make sense. But this is a symptom

of a larger deficiency. In general, it seems that the

authors have no industrial experience. Maturana 's frogs

may be autopoeitic systems, but computers are not.

From the industrial perspective, it's hard not to notice

that no computer system is ever built unless someone

pays for it. Computers, unlike frogs, have owners. It is

the owner-computer complex that may be an autopoie-

tic system. We should also note that programmers and

analysts do not usually own the computers; they work

for people or institutions who do.

The authors want to alter our vision. But they

recommend corrective lenses, whereas radical eye sur-

gery, and even some bionic aids, may be required. The y

are squeamish about money. They do not mention that

computers are owned by owners, and that someone

must pay for the construction of a computer system,

and the person or institution who pays the designer has

a lot to say about what kind of design is acceptable.

They acknowledge that computers are structurally cou-

pled to their environment, and that both this environ-

mental context and the structural coupling are social in

nature. They forget to mention the economics of the

structural coupling. The seemingly dirty words of

money and ownership are not prominently featured in

the book.

T H E M I S S IN G P A R TS

Although W&F seem to be uncompromisi ngly bold and

thorough in their analysis, and in their unflinching

criticism of the shortcomings of the rationalistic posi-

tion, it is curious that there are areas where they

hesitate to go further. One of these areas has to do with

discourse, and the domain of discourse, such as ex-

plored by Michel Foucault; the o ther area is conceptual

analysis and Jacques Derrida's grammatology and de-

construction. Both of these omissions are puzzling,

especially because Habermas and Gadamer are dis-

cussed. Roland Barthes is not mentioned.

C o m p u t a t i o n a l L i n g u is t ic s V o l u m e 1 3 N u m b e r s 3 - 4 J u l y - D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 7 3 4 3

8/10/2019 REVIEW OF UNDERSTANDING COMPUTERS AND COGNITION

5/5

B o o k Re v ie ws Unde r s t a nding c o mput e r s a nd c o g n i t io n: A ne w f o unda t ion f o r de s ig n

H e r m e n e u t i c s , o r a t l e a st o n e t y p e o f t h e h e r m e n e u -

t ic a l a p p r o a c h , d o e s r e c e i v e s t r o n g s u p p o r t , b u t p h e n o -

m e n o l o g i s t s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y a n d t h e s o c i o l o g y o f

k n o w l e d g e a s , fo r e x a m p l e , d i s c u ss e d b y A b e r c r o m b y ,

d o e s n o t . I t ' s a n i n t e r e s t in g g u e s s i n g g a m e t o g o t h r o u g h

t h e b o o k n o t i n g w h a t t h e a u t h o r s d o , o r d o n o t , i n c l u d e ,

a n d t r y t o g u e s s t h e r e a s o n w h y .

O v e r t h e m o n t h s , p e o p l e h a v e a s k e d m e i f I li k e t h e

b o o k . I w o u l d a n s w e r t h a t " l i k i n g " h a s n o t h i n g t o d o

w i t h t h e m a t t e r ; t h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g m u c h m o r e i m p o r -

t a n t a t s t a k e . T h e i s s u e s r a i s e d b y t h e b o o k a r e o f

f u n d a m e n t a l i m p o r t a n c e , a n d s h o u l d b e k e p t in th e

f o r e f r o n t o f p u b l i c d e b a t e . C o n c e p t u a l l y , t h e c o m p u t e r

f i el d i s o n t h e b r i n k o f r a d i c a l c h a n g e s . S y s t e m s a n a l y -

s is , a p p l ic a t i o n s y s t e m s d e s i g n, a n d k n o w l e d g e a c q u i s i -

t i on a r e a s s u m i n g n e w p r o m i n e n c e . I t w o u l d b e d e s i r -

a b l e t o h a v e t h e c h a n g e s a l i g n e d w i t h l a r g e r , h u m a n i s t i c

v a l u e s , a s o p p o s e d t o n a r r o w t e c h n i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

I n t h a t r e s p e c t , W i n o g r a d a n d F l o r e s l i g h t a c a n d l e

w h i l e s t i l l c u r s i n g t h e d a r k n e s s .

S t e p h en R e g o c z e i

C o m p u t e r S t u d i e s

T r e n t U n i v e r s it y

P e t e r b o r o u g h , O n t a r i o

C a n a d a , K 9 J 7 B 8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to Graeme Hirst for his comments on an earlier draft.

R E F E R E N C E

Lakoff, George. 1987 Women, fire, and dan gerous things: What

categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

SEMANTICS AND SYNTAX: PARALLELS AND

CONNECTIONS

J a m e s M i l le r

[ D e p t L i n g u i st i c s , U n i v e r s i t y o f E d i n b u r g h ]

( C a m b r i d g e s t u d i e s i n l i n g u i s t i c s 4 1 )

C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 98 5, v i ii + 2 6 2 p p .

I S B N 0 - 5 2 1 - 2 6 2 6 5 - 8 ; $ 4 7 . 5 0

[ E d i t o r s n o t e : T h i s b o o k i s r e v i e w e d t w i c e : b y B r u c e

N e v i n a n d b y B a r b a r a B r u n s o n a n d G e o f fr e y

L a k e r . ]

M i l l e r o r i g i n a l l y s e t o u t i n t h i s b o o k t o r e h a b i l i t a t e a

t h e o r y o f s e m a n t i c s k n o w n a s L o c a l i s m : t h e id e a t ha t

e v e r y t h i n g w e t a l k a b o u t e i t h e r i s a n o b j e c t l o c a t e d i n

s p a c e , o r i s s p o k e n o f m e t a p h o r i c a l l y a s t h o u g h i t w e r e

s u c h a n o b j e c t , s i t u a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o o t h e r s u c h

o b j e c t s b y m e a n s o f f a m i l i ar s p a t i a l r e la t i o n s.

S o m e e x a m p l e s g i v e t he f l a v o r. O v e r t w e n t y s t u d e n ts

e x p r e s s e s b y i t s p r e p o s i t i o n t h e s a m e s p a t ia l r e la t i o n a s

o v e r t h e w a l l ,

a n d " t h e s e n t e n c e

T h e b la c k s m i t h b e a t

o u t th e h o r s e s h o e w i t h a h a m m e r c a n b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s

p r e s e n t i n g t h e b l a c k s m i t h i n t h e s a m e l o c a t i o n a s t h e

h a m m e r , a n d J o h n w e n t t o th e p a r t y w i t h M a r y c a n b e

s e e n a s p r e se n t i n g J o h n a s in t he s a m e l o c a t i o n a s M a r y ,

a l b e i t a c h a n g i n g l o c a t i o n , a s t h e y t r a v e l f r o m o n e

l o c a t i o n t o a n o t h e r o n t h e i r w a y t o t h e p a r t y " ( p . 1 2 3 ) .

T h e m e c h a n i c g o t t h e c a r f i x e d i s d e r i v e d f r o m s o m e -

t h i n g l i k e

T h e m e c h a n i c m o v e d t h e c a r i n to a s t a t e o f

r e p a i r (p. 174).

E c h o e s o f t h is h o a r y n o t i o n r e v e r b e r a t e f r o m t h e

G r e e k g r a m m a r i a n s d o w n t o t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f tr a di -

t i o n a l g r a m m a r , w h e r e f o r e x a m p l e a t r a n s i t i v e r e l a t i o n

' c a r r i e s ' t h e ' a c t i o n o f t he v e r b ' f r o m t h e s u b j e c t t o t h e

o b j e c t . T h e r e a r e o b v i o u s a f f i n i t ie s to n o t i o n s o f c a s e .

T r a d i t i o n a l ly , c a s e c o v e r s b o t h s y n t a c t i c r e l a t io n s , s u c h

a s s u b j e c t a n d o b j e c t , a n d s e m a n t i c n o t i o n s t h a t a r e

c l e a r l y L o c a l i s t , s u c h a s a r e e x p r e s s e d b y t h e d a t i v e ,

a b l a t iv e , a n d l o c a t i v e c a s e s , w i t h a r a t h e r f o g g y r e g i o n

o f m e t a p h o r i c e x t e n s i o n b e t w e e n f o r t h in g s l i k e t h e

a b l a t i v e a b s o l u t e c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n w h i c h o n e ' m o v e s '

f r o m o n e a c t i o n ( e x p r e s s e d b y a p a r t i c i p l e i n t h e a b l a -

t i v e c a se ) t o a n o t h e r . M i l l e r w o u l d d i s p e l t h e f o g b y

e x t e n d i n g t h is s o r t o f m e t a p h o r b o l d l y o v e r t h e w h o l e

f i e ld o f s e m a n t i c s , c l a i m i n g ( p . 1 1 9)

th a t a ll c o n s t ru c t io n s c a n b e in t e rp re t e d in t e rms o f s p a t i a l

e x p re s s io n s , t h a t s p a t i a l e x p re s s io n s a re th e ro c k u p o n

which the en t i re ed if ice o f semant ics is bu i l t .

I t m a y b e t h a t h e m e r e l y e x t e n d s t h e f o g .

I n f a v o r o f L o c a l i s m , w e m a y l o o k f o n d l y o n t h e

r e l a ti v e t r a c t a b i li t y o f p h y s i c a l r e l a t i o n s a n d n a i v e p h y s -

i c s a s c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r d i m e n s i o n s o f c o g n i t iv e

' s p a c e ' ; p o i n t e a g e r l y t o t h e o b v i o u s i m p o r t a n c e o f

a n a l o g y a n d m e t a p h o r f o r c o g n i t i o n i n g e n e r a l a n d

l a n g u a g e u s e i n p a r t i c u l a r , f e e l i n g a n u n d e r s t a n d a b l e

d e s i r e t o g e t a t s o m e r o o t o f al l a n a l o g i z i n g ; a n d c i t e

n u m e r o u s s t u d ie s in t h e p s y c h o l o g y a n d p h i l o s o p h y o f

c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t a d v a n c e o r s u g g e s t s o m e

f o r m o f l o c a l i s m - - f o r i n s t an c e , H e r s k o v i t s ( 19 86 )

s e e m s t o c o v e r s o m e o f t h e s a m e c o n c e p t u a l g r o u n d . l

T h e r e a r e p r o b l e m s , o f c o u r s e . M i l l e r c o n f e s s e s ( p .

8 6 ) t h a t w h i l e

i t w o u ld b e c o n v e n ie n t i f t h e re w a s a o n e - to - o n e c o r re s p o n -

d e n c e b e tw e e n e a c h [ s e ma n t i c e n t i ty ] a n d a [w o rd in th e

language] . . . language be ing as i t i s , a ce r ta in amount o f

v a c i l la t io n i s t o b e e x p e c te d .

H e i l l us t r at e s a b i t o f th i s " v a c i l l a t i o n " w i t h a b r i e f

d e s c r i p t i o n o f s o m e d i f f i c ul t i es g e t ti n g t h e c o n c e p t s

t Miller could make his case m ore effectively if he show ed m ore

familiarity wi th other w ork. His lexicalist treatment of morphology

and syntax wo uld benefit from 'unification techniques, but he is no

computational linguist, and evinces no knowledge of recent CFL

(context-free language) work, nor of the problems of knowledge

representation (to which his work might well contribute). E ven within

linguistics , he makes no mention of Langacker's Space Grammar,

recently renamed Cognitive Grammar. He opines (and I agree) that

generativists wou ld have avoided mu ch needless ramification of

theoretical blind alleys if they had follow ed the w ork o f Zellig Harris

more closely. It is a great pity that he himself apparently knows

nothing of that work past 1957 Familiarity with Har ris's more recent

writings might have steered him clear of some unfortunate misinter-

pretations of the earlier work.

3 4 4 C o m p u t a t i o n a l L i n g u i s t ic s V o l u m e 1 3 N u m b e r s 3 - 4 J u l y - D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 7