Xref: utzoo sci.lang:5293 comp.ai:4840
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!sp299-ad
From: sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.ai
Subject: Re: What's the Chinese room problem?
Message-ID: <1989Oct9.082905.6157@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 89 08:29:05 GMT
References: <822kimj@yvax.byu.edu> <15336@bcsaic.UUCP> <1989Oct5.080214.7683@agate.berkeley.edu> <15578@bcsaic.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 35

In article <15578@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>>RW>I think that such concepts [as social identity, etc.] have to be
>>RW>represented as thought structures,
>>RW>since they have an impact on language structure.

CA>If you're talking about (mental) typifications of social relationships,
CA>that's one thing.  Typifications generate expectations which underly the

RW>All I meant was that anything which influences linguistic structure ipso
RW>facto has to be represented as some kind of thought structure.  However
RW>you want to represent those thought structures is open to debate.

That's why I opened the debate.  Am I sure that I do want to represent those
categories/typifications as thought structures?  Is it analytically or
heuristically productive to work with a notion such as `thought
structure' to help explain linguistic behavior?  (because we're talking
about this, aren't we?).  Between linguistic action and cognition there's
still a missing link, both in Searle and beyond Searle, in
discourse analysis or ethnomethodology.

RW>I agreed with your implicit point that they are not represented
RW>well in modern linguistic theory.  But I don't think that my statement
RW>should have generated any controversy. 

And I agree with your view on translation, however
different our approaches may be.  But I'm not that interested in
contributing to fill the holes in modern linguistic theory.
In other, socio-interactionally oriented linguistic disciplines, yes.

It's not my intention to create unnecessary controversy.  I'm just
trying to translate your language (`thought structures', social
relationships as `notions' and not actions) into mine.

Celso Alvarez
sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu