Minds and Machines

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 397–427 | Cite as

What Did You Mean by That? Misunderstanding, Negotiation, and Syntactic Semantics

  • William J. Rapaport


Syntactic semantics is a holistic, conceptual-role-semantic theory of how computers can think. But Fodor and Lepore have mounted a sustained attack on holistic semantic theories. However, their major problem with holism (that, if holism is true, then no two people can understand each other) can be fixed by means of negotiating meanings. Syntactic semantics and Fodor and Lepore’s objections to holism are outlined; the nature of communication, miscommunication, and negotiation is discussed; Bruner’s ideas about the negotiation of meaning are explored; and some observations on a problem for knowledge representation in AI raised by Winston are presented.


Artificial Intelligence System Theory Knowledge Representation Semantic Theory Sustained Attack 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Damasio, A.R. (1989), ‘Concepts in the Brain’, in ‘Forum: What is a Concept?’, Mind and Language 4, pp. 24–27.Google Scholar
  2. Dick, P.K. (1968), Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  3. Duchan, J.F., Bruder, G.A. and Hewitt, L.E. (eds.) (1995), Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Durfee, E.H. (1992), ‘What Your Computer Really Needs to Know, You Learned in Kindergarten’, in Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-92; San Jose, CA), Menlo Park CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press, pp. 858–864.Google Scholar
  5. Ehrlich, K. (1995), ‘Automatic Vocabulary Expansion through Narrative Context’, Technical Report 95-09, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. & Lepore, E. (1991), ‘Why Meaning (Probably) Isn’t Conceptual Role,’ Mind and Language 6, pp. 328–343.Google Scholar
  7. Fodor, J. and Lepore, E. (1992), Holism: A Shopper’s Guide, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Gärdenfors, P. (1993), ‘The Emergence of Meaning’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16, pp. 285–309.Google Scholar
  9. Gärdenfors, P. (1997), ‘Meanings as Conceptual Structures’, in M. Carrier and P. Machamer, eds., Mindscapes: Philosophy, Science, and the Mind, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 61–86.Google Scholar
  10. Gärdenfors, P. (1999a) ‘Does Semantics Need Reality?’ in A. Riegler, M. Peschl and A. von Stein, eds., Understanding Representation in the Cognitive Sciences: Does Representation Need Reality?, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 209–217.Google Scholar
  11. Gärdenfors, P. (1999b), ‘Some Tenets of Cognitive Semantics’, in J. Allwood and P. Gärdenfors, eds., Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
  12. Geeraerts, D. (1997), Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Linguistics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Györi, Gábor (2002), ‘Semantic Change and Cognition’, Cognitive Linguistics 13(2), pp. 123–166.Google Scholar
  14. Gracia, J.J.E. (1990), ‘Texts and Their Interpretation’, Review of Metaphysics 43, pp. 495–542.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, A.J. and Sipay, E.R. (1990), How to Increase Reading Ability: A Guide to Developmental and Remedial Methods; ninth edition, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Hirst, G. (2002), ‘Negotiation, Compromise, and Collaboration in Interpersonal and Human-Computer Conversations’, in Proceedings, Workshop on Meaning Negotiation, 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002, Edmonton), pp. 1–4; online at []Google Scholar
  17. Hirst, G., McRoy, S., Heeman, P., Edmonds, P. and Horton, D. (1994), ‘Repairing Conversational Misunderstandings and Non-Understandings’, Speech Communication 15(3–4), pp. 213–229.Google Scholar
  18. Hoyle, F. (1957), The Black Cloud, NewYork: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Jackendorff, R. (2002), Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jennings, R.C. (1985), ‘Translation, Interpretation and Understanding,’ paper read at the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division (Washington, DC); abstract, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 59, pp. 345–346.Google Scholar
  21. Kearns, J. (2003), ‘The Logic of Coherent Fiction’, in T. Childers et al., eds., The Logica Yearbook 2002, Prague: Filosofia, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  22. Kirsh, D. (1991), ‘Foundations of AI: The Big Issues’, Artificial Intelligence 47, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
  23. Kundera, M. (1978), The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, trans. by Michael Henry Heim, New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  24. Lakoff, G. (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lenat, D.B. (1995), ‘CYC, WordNet, and EDR: Critiques and Responses — Lenat on WordNet and EDR’, Communications of the ACM 38.11, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar
  26. Maida, A.S. (1985), ‘Selecting a Humanly Understandable Knowledge Representation for Reasoning about Knowledge’, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 22(2), pp. 151–161.Google Scholar
  27. Maida, A.S. (1990), ‘Dynamically Detecting Existential Misconceptions’, Technical Report CS-90-39, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  28. Maida, A.S. (1991), ‘Maintaining Mental Models of Agents Who Have Existential Misconceptions’, Artificial Intelligence 50(3), pp. 331–383.Google Scholar
  29. Maida, A.S. (1992), ‘Knowledge Representation Requirements for Description Based Communication’, in B. Nebel, C. Rich and W. Swartout, eds., Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference (KR’ 92), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 232–243.Google Scholar
  30. Maida, A.S. (1996), ‘Referent Misidentification and Recovery among Communicating Agents’, in: E. Durfee, ed., Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multiagent Systems (ICMAS-96), pp. 196–203.Google Scholar
  31. Maida, A.S. and Shapiro, S.C. (1982), ‘Intensional Concepts in Propositional Semantic Networks’, Cognitive Science 6, pp. 291–330; reprinted in R.J. Brachman and H.J. Levesque, eds., Readings in Knowledge Representation, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann (1985), pp. 169–189.Google Scholar
  32. Maida, A.S. & Tang, S. (1994), ‘Knowledge Management to Support Description-Based Communication for Autonomous Agents’, in Proceedings of the 7th Florida AI Research Symposium, pp. 184–188.Google Scholar
  33. Maida, A.S. and Tang, S. (1997), ‘Description-Based Communication for Autonomous Agents under Ideal Conditions’, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 9, pp. 103–135.Google Scholar
  34. McAllister, D. (2001), ‘Review of In Critical Condition: Polemical Essays on Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of Mind by Jerry Fodor’, Cognitive Science Society Newsletter 21(3); []Google Scholar
  35. McGilvray, J. (1998), ‘Meanings Are Syntactically Individuated and Found in the Head’, Mind and Language 13, pp. 225–280.Google Scholar
  36. McRoy, S.W. and Hirst, G. (1995), ‘The Repair of Speech Act Misunderstandings by Abductive Inference’, Computational Linguistics 21(4), pp. 435–478.Google Scholar
  37. Melzack, R. (1992), ‘Phantom Limbs’, Scientific American 266, pp. 120–126.Google Scholar
  38. Nagel, T. (1986), The Viewfrom Nowhere, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Neisser, U. (1976), Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  40. Oeller, W. (1998, November 19), ‘Negotiation in Interaction’, LINGUIST List 9.1645 [].Google Scholar
  41. Pollock, D. (1996), ‘Personhood and Illness among the Kulina’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly N.S.10(3), pp. 319–341.Google Scholar
  42. Posner, R. (1992), ‘Origins and Development of Contemporary Syntactics,’ Languages of Design 1, pp. 37–50.Google Scholar
  43. Potts, T.C. (1973), ‘Model Theory and Linguistics’, in E.L. Keenan, ed., Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1975, pp. 241–250.Google Scholar
  44. Putnam, H. (1975), ‘The Meaning of ‘Meaning’,’ reprinted in Mind, Language and Reality, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–271.Google Scholar
  45. Quillian, M.R. (1967), ‘Word Concepts: A Theory and Simulation of Some Basic Semantic Capabilities’, Behavioral Science 12, pp. 410–430; reprinted in R.J. Brachman and H.J. Levesque, eds., Readings in Knowledge Representation, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1985, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
  46. Quillian, M.R. (1968), ‘Semantic Memory,’ in: M. Minsky, ed., Semantic Information Processing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 227–270.Google Scholar
  47. Quillian, M.R. (1969), ‘The Teachable Language Comprehender: A Simulation Program and Theory of Language’, Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 12(8), pp. 459–476.Google Scholar
  48. Quine, W.V.O. (1960), Word and Object, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Quine, W.V.O. (1969), ‘Ontological Relativity,’ in W.V. Quine, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 26–68.Google Scholar
  50. Rapaport, W.J. (1976), Intentionality and the Structure of Existence, Ph.D. dissertation, Bloomington: Indiana University Department of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  51. Rapaport, W.J. (1981), ‘How to Make the World Fit Our Language: An Essay in Meinongian Semantics’, Grazer Philosophische Studien 14, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  52. Rapaport, W.J. (1985/1986), ‘Non-Existent Objects and Epistemological Ontology’, Grazer Philosophische Studien 25/26, pp. 61–95; reprinted in R. Haller, ed., Non-Existence and Predication, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1986.Google Scholar
  53. Rapaport, W.J. (1986), ‘Searle’s Experiments with Thought’, Philosophy of Science 53, pp. 271–279; preprinted as Technical Report 216, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science, (1984).Google Scholar
  54. Rapaport, W.J. (1988), ‘Syntactic Semantics: Foundations of Computational Natural-Language Understanding’, in: J.H. Fetzer, ed., Aspects of Artificial Intelligence Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: pp. 81–131; errata, [çrapaport/Papers/synsem. original.errata.pdfl). Reprinted in E. Dietrich, ed., Thinking Computers and Virtual Persons: Essays on the Intentionality of Machines, San Diego: Academic Press, 1994: pp. 225–273; errata, []).Google Scholar
  55. Rapaport, W.J. (1995), ‘Understanding Understanding: Syntactic Semantics and Computational Cognition’, in J.E. Tomberlin, ed., Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 9: AI, Connectionism, and Philosophical Psychology, Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview, pp. 49–88; reprinted in J. Toribio and A. Clark (1998), Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science: Conceptual Issues, Vol. 4: Language and Meaning in Cognitive Science: Cognitive Issues and Semantic Theory}, Hamden, CT: Garland, pp. 73–88.Google Scholar
  56. Rapaport, W.J. (1996), Understanding Understanding: Semantics, Computation, and Cognition, Technical Report 96-26, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science; on line at either: [] or []Google Scholar
  57. Rapaport, W.J. (1998), ‘How Minds Can Be Computational Systems’, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 10, pp. 403–419.Google Scholar
  58. Rapaport, W.J. (1999), ‘Implementation Is Semantic Interpretation’, The Monist 82, pp. 109–130; longer version preprinted as Technical Report 97-5, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science and Technical Report 97-5, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Center for Cognitive Science, [].Google Scholar
  59. Rapaport, W.J. (2000a), ‘Cognitive Science’, in A. Ralston, E.D. Reilly and D. Hemmendinger, eds., Encyclopedia of Computer Science, 4th edition, New York: Grove’s Dictionaries, pp. 227–233.Google Scholar
  60. Rapaport, W.J. (2000b), ‘How to Pass a Turing Test: Syntactic Semantics, Natural Language Understanding, and First-Person Cognition’, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 9, pp. 467–490.Google Scholar
  61. Rapaport, W.J. (2002), ‘Holism, Conceptual-Role Semantics, and Syntactic Semantics’, Minds and Machines 12(1), pp. 3–59.Google Scholar
  62. Rapaport, W.J. and Ehrlich, K. (2000), ‘A Computational Theory of Vocabulary Acquisition’, in L.M. Iwańska and S.C. Shapiro, eds., Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Representation: Language for Knowledge and Knowledge for Language, Menlo Park, CA/Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press/MIT Press, pp. 347–375; errata, [].Google Scholar
  63. Rapaport, W.J. and Kibby, M.W. (2002), ‘Contextual Vocabulary Acquisition: A Computational Theory and Educational Curriculum’, in N. Callaos, A. Breda, and Ma. Yolanda Fernandez J., eds., Proceedings of the 6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (SCI 2002; Orlando, FL), Orlando: International Institute of Informatics and Systemics, Vol. II: Concepts and Applications of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics I, pp. 261–266.Google Scholar
  64. Rapaport, W.J., Shapiro, S.C. and Wiebe, J.M. (1997), ‘Quasi-Indexicals and Knowledge Reports’, Cognitive Science 21, pp. 63–107; reprinted in F. Orilia and W.J. Rapaport, eds., Thought, Language, and Ontology. Essays in Memory of Hector-Neri Castañeda, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998, pp. 235–294.Google Scholar
  65. Reed, C., Norman, T.J. and Jennings, N.R. (2002), ‘Negotiating the Semantics of Agent Communication Languages’, Computational Intelligence 18(2), pp. 229–252.Google Scholar
  66. Russell, B. (1918), ‘The Philosophy of Logical Atomism’, reprinted in B. Russell, Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, R.C. Marsh, ed., New York: Capricorn, (1956), pp. 177–281.Google Scholar
  67. Sacks, O.W. (1989), Seeing Voices: A Journey into the World of the Deaf, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sacks, O. (1990), ‘Seeing Voices’, Exploratorium Quarterly 14(2), p. 3.Google Scholar
  69. Sagan, C. (1980), Cosmos, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  70. Saussure, F. de (1959), in Bally C., Sechehaye A. and Reidlinger, A., eds., trans. by Wade Baskin, Course in General Linguistics, New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  71. Searle, J.R. (1980), ‘Minds, Brains, and Programs’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 417–457.Google Scholar
  72. Shapiro, S.C. (1992), ‘Artificial Intelligence’, in S.C. Shapiro, ed., Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, second edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 54–57.Google Scholar
  73. Shapiro, S.C. (1993), ‘Belief Spaces as Sets of Propositions’, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 5, pp. 225–235.Google Scholar
  74. Shapiro, S.C. and Ismail, H.O. (2001), ‘Symbol-Anchoring in Cassie’, in S. Coradeschi and A. Saffioti, eds., Anchoring Symbols to Sensor Data in Single and Multiple Robot Systems: Papers from the 2001 AAAI Fall Symposium, Technical Report FS-01-01, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 2–8.Google Scholar
  75. Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J. (1987), ‘SNePS Considered as a Fully Intensional Propositional Semantic Network’, in N. Cercone and G. McCalla, eds., The Knowledge Frontier: Essays in the Representation of Knowledge, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 262–315; shorter version appeared in Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-86, Philadelphia), Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 278–283; a revised shorter version appears as ‘A Fully Intensional Propositional Semantic Network’, in L. Burkholder, ed., Philosophy and the Computer, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992, pp. 55–91.Google Scholar
  76. Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J. (1991), ‘Models and Minds: Knowledge Representation for Natural-Language Competence,’ in R. Cummins and J. Pollock, eds., Philosophy and AI: Essays at the Interface, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 215–259.Google Scholar
  77. Sidner, C.L. (1994), ‘An Artificial Discourse Language for Collaborative Negotiation’, in Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94, Seattle), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press, pp. 814–819.Google Scholar
  78. Simon, H.A. (1992), ‘The Computer as a Laboratory for Epistemology’, in L. Burkholder, ed., Philosophy and the Computer, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
  79. Slocum, J. (1985), ‘A Survey of Machine Translation: Its History, Current Status, and Future Prospects’, Computational Linguistics 11(1), pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  80. Smith, B.C. (1987), ‘The Correspondence Continuum’, Report CSLI-87-71, Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  81. Steels, L. (1998), ‘The Origins of Syntax in Visually Grounded Robotic Agents’, Artificial Intelligence 103, pp. 133–156.Google Scholar
  82. Talmy, L. (2000), Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  83. Terrace, H.S. (1985), ‘In the Beginning Was the ‘Name’,’ American Psychologist 40, pp. 1011–1028.Google Scholar
  84. Traugott, E.C. (1999), ‘The Role of Pragmatics in Semantic Change’, in J. Verschueren, ed., Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, Vol. II, pp. 93–102.Google Scholar
  85. Vauclair, J. (1990), ‘Primate Cognition: From Representation to Language’, in S.T. Parker and K.R. Gibson, eds., ’Language’ and Intellect in Monkeys and Apes, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 312–329.Google Scholar
  86. Weizenbaum, J. (1976), Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation, New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  87. Winston, P.H. (1975), ‘Learning Structural Descriptions from Examples’, in P.H. Winston, ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 157–209; reprinted in R.J. Brachman and H.J. Levesque, eds., Readings in Knowledge Representation, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1985), pp. 141–168 (page references are to this reprint).Google Scholar
  88. Wittgenstein, L. (1958), Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edition, trans. by G.E.M. Anscombe, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  89. Wolfe, M.F. (2000), Rube Goldberg: Inventions, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  90. Woods, W.A. and Schmolze, J.G. (1992), ‘The KL-ONE Family’, Computers and Mathematics with Applications 23, pp. 133–177; reprinted in F. Lehmann, ed., Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, Oxford: Pergamon Press (1992), pp. 133–177.Google Scholar
  91. Wyatt, R. (1990), ‘Kinds of Opacity and Their Representations’, in D. Kumar, ed., Current Trends in SNePS — Semantic Network Processing System, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, No. 437, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 123–144.Google Scholar
  92. Wyatt, R. (1993), ‘Reference and Intensions’, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 5, pp. 263–271.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Rapaport
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Department of Philosophy, and Center for Cognitive ScienceState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations