SIMPLE 1:
the meanings of "meaning"
Herbert Simon has long been a leading advocate of a dominant role for symbol processing within artificial intelligence,going so far as to posit,in his and Alan Newell's "physical symbol system hypothesis," that being a physical symbol system is both a necessary and sufficient condition for being intelligent (cf.Newell and Simon,1976).In his current paper Simon applies his perspective to the analysis of meaning in literature and,hence,to the proper methodology for literary criticism.In attempting to open a dialogue between the study of literature and the study of cognition I think Simon is wholly to be commended.Such a dialogue offers some promise of breaking down arbitrary institutional barriers to the conceptual enrichment of both endeavors.In contrast to Simon's noble aims and the potential significance of his efforts,all that I can offer at the moment are the minor virtues of the gadfly,visiting one or two weak spots in Simon's discussion.
Simon's basic thesis is that the meaning of a word,phrase,or sentence is to be found in the pattern of activations between neurons (rather,"symbol structures" at some aggregate level of analysis) that reading or hearing the expression induces.From the side of the originator,the meaning is that pattern of activations which induced the production of that particular expression.This point of view has some interesting consequences for interpretation and pedagogy that perhaps have been underappreciated.It especially makes clear that the linguistic,historical,and environmental context within which a phrase is received has a direct impact on the meaning of the phrase; furthermore,what follows the phrase is also part of the context,also helping to fix its meaning (disambiguate its interpretation).Although I think research within cognitive science has done much to clarify such a view of meaning-particularly work with semantic networks and neural networks-I suspect Simon overstates his case when he suggests that this vision of meaning is quite new,or that the resultant concept of meaning has "gained a clarity" otherwise unavailable.The history of the discussion of meaning is rich with associationist ideas,beginning at least with John Locke.
全文见:
------------------------------------
SIMPLE 2:
Diachrony of word meaning
In 1883,a French classical philologist Michel Bréal (1832-1915) published an article (see Bréal 1997) which contained the following passage:"The study where we invite the reader to follow us is of such a new kind that it has not even yet been given a name.Indeed,it is on the body and the form of words that most linguists have exercised their acumen:the laws governing changes in meaning,the choice of new expressions,the birth and death of idioms,have been left in the dark or have only been casually indicated.Since this study,no less than phonetics and morphology,deserves to have a name,we shall call it semantics (from the Greek verb shmainein `to signify'),i.e.,`the science of meaning.'"38
全文见:
--------------------------------------
