Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 1–92 | Cite as

A Logic of Vision

  • Jaap M. van der Does
  • Michiel van Lambalgen
Article

Abstract

This essay attempts to develop a psychologically informed semantics of perception reports, whose predictions match with the linguistic data. As suggested by the quotation from Miller and Johnson-Laird, we take a hallmark of perception to be its fallible nature; the resulting semantics thus necessarily differs from situation semantics. On the psychological side, our main inspiration is Marr's (1982) theory of vision, which can easily accomodate fallible perception. In Marr's theory, vision is a multi-layered process. The different layers have filters of different gradation, which makes vision at each of them approximate. On the logical side, our task is therefore twofold

- to formalise the layers and the ways in which they may refine each other, and

- to develop logical means to let description vary with such degrees of refinement.

The first task is formalised by means of an inverse systems of first order models, with reality appearing as its inverse limit. The second task is formalised by means of so-called conditional quantifiers, a new form of generalised quantification which can best be described as resource bounded quantification. We show that the logic provides for a semantics and pragmatics of direct perception reports. In particular, direct perception reports have a possibly nonveridical, approximative semantics, which becomes veridical only by virtue of our pragmatic expectation that what is perceived would continue to be the case, were we to perceive more accurately.

It is a general feature of resource bounded logics that the underlying logics are weak, but that stronger principles can be obtained pragmatically, by strengthening the resource. For the logic of vision this feature is clarified by showing how changes in the resource capture different notions of partiality, and by studying how the perception verb interacts with connectives and quantifiers in different visual contexts. The inference Veridicality, which is now viewed rather as a nonmonotonic inference, is also studied in depth.

We end with an attempt to buttress the proposed model by comparing it with suggestions put forward in Cognitive or Conceptual Semantics, in the literature on evidentials, and in Husserl's philosophy of perception.

Keywords

Computational Linguistic Generalise Quantification Conceptual Semantic Inverse Limit Strong Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akmajian, A.: 1977, ‘The Complement Structure of Perception Verbs in an Autonomous Syntax Framework’ in Culicover et al. (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, 427-460.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. B.: 1986, ‘Evidentials, Paths of Change, and Mental Maps: Typologically Regular Asymmetries’ in W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Advances in Discourse Processes. Vol. XX, Chap. 17, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, 273-312.Google Scholar
  3. Anscombe, G. E. M.: 1981, The Intensionality of Sensation: A Grammatical Feature, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. This chapter published in 1965.Google Scholar
  4. Aoki, H. 1986: ‘Evidentials in Japanese’ in W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol. XX, Chap. 14, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  5. Asher, N. and D. Bonevac: 1989, ‘Determiners and Resource Situations’ Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 567-596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayer, A. J.: 1971, Language, Truth and Logic, Pelican Books. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. First published: 1936, second edition: 1946, fifth Penguin reprint: 1978.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, J.: 1984, ‘Evidentials in the Tuyuca Verb’ International Journal of American Linguistics 50(3), 255-271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barwise, J.: 1981, ‘Scenes and Other Situations’ Journal of Philosophy LXXVIII, 369-397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barwise, J.: 1989, ‘Logic and Information’ in The Situation in Logic, Lecture Notes. Vol. 17. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California. Distributed by Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Barwise, J. and J. Perry: 1983, Situations and Attitudes, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Biederman, I.: 1987, ‘Recognition-by-Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding’ Psychological Review 94(a), 115-147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boden, M. A.: 1988, Computer Models of Mind, Problems in Behavioural Sciences. Vol. 4, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Cairns, D.: 1973, Guide for Translating Husserl, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  14. Chafe, W. and J. Nichols: 1986, Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol. XX, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  15. Engelking, R.: 1989, General Topology, Sigma Series in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 6, Heldermann, Berlin. Revised and completed edition.Google Scholar
  16. Gärdenfors, P.: 1997a, ‘Meanings as Conceptual Structures’ in M. Carrier and P. Machamer (eds.), Mindscapes: Philosophy, Science, and the Mind, Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 61-86.Google Scholar
  17. Gärdenfors, P.: 1997b, ‘Symbolic, Conceptual and Subconceptual Representations’ in V. Cantoni, V. di Ges, A. Setti, and D. Tegolo (eds.), Human and Machine Perception: Information Fusion, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 255-270.Google Scholar
  18. Gee, J.: 1977, ‘Comments on the Paper by Akmajian’ in Culicover et al. (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, pp. 461-481.Google Scholar
  19. Graetzer, C.: 1971, Universal Algebra, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Grice, H. P.: 1961, ‘The Causal Theory of Perception’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 35(suppl.): 121-152. Revised version published as chapter 15 in Grice 1989.Google Scholar
  21. Grice, H. P.: 1989, Studies in the Ways of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  22. Halmos, P. R.: 1952, ‘Algebraic Logic, I: Monadic Boolean Algebras’ Compositio Mathematica 12, 217-249.Google Scholar
  23. Hendriks, H.: 1993, Studied Flexibility. Categories and Types in Syntax and Semantics, Doctoral dissertation, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. ILLC Dissertation Series 1993-5.Google Scholar
  24. Higginbotham, J.: 1983, ‘The Logic of Perceptual Reports: An Extensional Alternative to Situation Semantics’ Journal of Philosophy LXXX, 100-127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hintikka, K. J. J.: 1969, ‘On the Logic of Perception’ in Models for Modalities, Synthese Library, Vol. 23, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  26. Holzapfel, A.: 1997, Zur Evidentialität Im Japanischen. Research report. Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
  27. Hone, K.: 1993, A Cross-Linguistic Study of Perception and Cognition; Verb Complements: A Cognitive Perspective, Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, August.Google Scholar
  28. Horn, L.: 1989, A Natural History of Negation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Husserl, E.: 1950, Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologisehe Philosophie, Husserliana, Vol. Band I. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  30. Husserl, E.: 1966, Analysen zur passiven Synthesis, Husserliana, Band XI. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  31. Husserl, E.: 1972, Erfahrung und Urteil, Philosophische Bibliothek, Band 280, Felix Meiner, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  32. Husserl, F.: 1977, Cartesianische Meditationen, Philosophische Bibliothek, Band 291, Felix Meiner, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  33. Jackendoff, R.: 1983, Semantics and Cognition, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jackendoff, R.: 1987, Consciousness and the Computational Mind, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jackendoff, R.: 1990, Semantic Structures, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Koons, R. C.: 1996, ‘Information, Representation and the Possibility of Error’ in J. Seligman and D. Westerståhl (eds.), Logic, Language, and Computation, Chap. 22, Lecture Notes, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 333-345.Google Scholar
  37. Lakoff, G. (ed.): 1987, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  38. Landau, B. and R. Jackendoff: 1993, ‘“What” and “Where” in Language and Spatial Cognition’ Behavioral and Brian Sciences 16, 217-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Landau, B., L. Smith and S. Jones: 1988, ‘The Importance of Shape in Early Lexical Learning’ Cognitive Development 3, 299-321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landnian, F.: 1986, Towards a Theory of Information, Doctoral dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Also published with Foris.Google Scholar
  41. Lewis, D.: 1972, ‘General Semantics’ in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 169-218.Google Scholar
  42. Marr, D.: 1982, Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information, W. H. Freeman, San Fransisco.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, G. A. and P. N. Johnson-Laird: 1976, Language and Perception, Harvard University Press, Harvard.Google Scholar
  44. Mittwoch, A.: 1990, ‘On the Distribution of Bare Infinitive Complements in English’ Journal of Linguistics 26, 103-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muskens, R.: 1989, Meaning and Partiality, Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  46. Neale, S.: 1992, ‘Paul Grice and the Philosophy of Language’ Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 509-559. Review article of Grice 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O'Connor, M. C.: 1987, Topic in Northern Pomo Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, March.Google Scholar
  48. Reiter, R.: 1980, ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’ Artificial Intelligence 13, 81-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomason, S. K.: 1989, ‘Free Construction of Time from Events’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 18, 43-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thurgood, G.: 1986, ‘The Nature and Origin of the Akha Evidentails System’ in W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Liguistic Coding of Epistemology, Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol. XX, Chap. 13, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 214-222.Google Scholar
  51. Van der Does, J.: 1991, ‘A Generalized Quantifier Logic for Naked Infinitives’ Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 241-294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Lambalgen, M.: 1999, Conditional Quantification, or Poor Man's Probability, Technical report. Submitted.Google Scholar
  53. Van Lambalgen, M. and J. van der Does: t.a., ‘A Logic of Vision: Preliminaries’ in G. R. Renardel de Lavalette and C. Condaravdi (eds.), Proceedings of the Stanford LLC-workshop (prov. title), Lecture Notes, Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Verkuyl, H.: 1993, A Theory of Aspectuality. The interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  55. Viberg, Å.: 1984, The Verbs of Perception: A Typological Study’ in Butterworth, Comrie and Dahl (eds.), Explanations for Language Universals, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  56. Voorbraak, F.: 1997, A Nonmonotonic Observation Logic, research report LP-97-09. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  57. Willett, T.: 1988, ‘A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality’ Studies in Language 12(1), 51-97.Google Scholar
  58. Wright, F. B.: 1962, ‘Convergence of Quantifiers and Martingales’ Pacific Journal of Mathematics 6, 296-307.Google Scholar
  59. Zwarts, J.: 1995, ‘The Semantics of Relative Position’ in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, SALT 5, Cornell University. A revised version to appear in Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
  60. Zwarts, J. and Y. Winter: 1997, A Semantic Characterization of Locative PPs. Manuscript, OTS, Utrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaap M. van der Does
    • 1
  • Michiel van Lambalgen
    • 2
  1. 1.ABM AMRO BankAmstelveenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculteit Wiskunde en InformaticaUniversiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations