Thought Computation and Composition: Is writing computational? By: Claire Anderson

Overview: Semantics and thought computation Why all the confusion? Personal opinion

Thought Computation: Semantics vs. Syntax William Rapaport: – He believes that thought is semantic and syntactical at the same time. They need each other to be able to be relevant. He says that in order to understand language and thought that we need to understand the following: Robustness Mutual Understanding Coherent Discourse Natural-Language Competencies Christopher Peacock: – Peacock finds that there are inconsistencies within the beliefs of semantics saying that computation “cannot be sensitive to semantic properties”. This is argued when he states “what makes syntactic operations a species of formal operations is that being syntactic is a way of not being semantic. Some intentional states are realized in non-sentential states Some sequences are automatically realized as computational Semantic properties are never involved in syntactic properties.

Why all the confusion? Composition is limited in its ability to be fully computational – Gary Sloan suggests in his article that we are ambiguous when it comes to deciphering between the relationship that exists between two sentences. This is because we cannot figure out the correct semantic category to associate them with. (Relational Ambiguity). Relative Semantic Categories that supposedly link sentences: – Repetition – Specification – Deviation Sloan believes that since there is so much confusion within the semantic aspects that syntax is not even a possibility. Without syntax, he believes, there isn’t a complete way for composition to be fully computational.

What do I think? I agree with the Composition Theorist Sandra Perl when she talks about the concept of “felt-sense”. -Felt-sense” can be seen as any unexplainable, creative, semantic property that is involved with thinking and writing. In other words felt-sense is a form of creativity. We cannot see it therefore we cannot compute it. She believes that composition is computational to an extent, however, the “felt-sense” restricts the ability for it to be fully computational. This restriction comes when “felt-sense” deters a writer to fully write in a syntactical fashion. “Felt-sense” always pushes a against following the conventional governing rules for writing.

References: Rapaport, William J. Understanding Understanding: Syntactic Semantics and Computational Cognition. Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 9, AI, Connectionism and Philosophical Psychology. (1995), pp Sloan, Gary. Relational Ambiguity between Sentences. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 39, No. 2. (May, 1988), pp Peacock, Christopher. Content, Composition, and Externalism. Philosophical Issues.Vol. 6, Content (1995), pp Perl, Sandra. Understanding Composition. Teaching Composition. Bedford/St. Martin’s (2005), pp