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