|
What is this thing called systematicity?| old_uid | 6121 |
|---|
| title | What is this thing called systematicity? |
|---|
| start_date | 2009/01/27 |
|---|
| schedule | 15h45-17h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| location_info | Big Conference Room (1.63) |
|---|
| summary | What Fodor and Pylyshyn meant by their use of the term "systematicity" with regard to syntax never really became clear, even after many articles (and at least one book) were devoted to the topic over the past twenty years. Exploiting certain mathematical and logical results, I make precise and examine two clear, simple, contentful, and apparently promising ideas derived from F&P's remarks, in an effort to develop a formalised account of the notion. The exploration of these ideas has a certain interest in its own right, but ultimately neither pans out as an explication: they simply cannot be reconstructions of F&P's intent. I then examine and extend certain pessimistic conclusions Kent Johnson has drawn concerning a definition of systematicity that he develops, and extend the line of argument to show that he was hardly pessimistic enough. I underline his observation that systematicity under this conception of the term does not seem compatible with a plausible theory of syntactic categories. Finally, I offer some new speculations concerning what might underlie this elusive notion. Following this path, though, leads to the conclusion that very little remains of the robust notion of systematicity that was supposed to be a stumbling-block in the path of connectionism. (Lecture based on joint work with Barbara Scholz.) |
|---|
| responsibles | Zondervan |
|---|
| |
|