The "Fodor"-FODOR fallacy bites back
Yorick Wilks

TL;DR
The paper defends Pustejovsky's Generative Lexicon against Fodor and Lepore's critique, arguing that their traditional view of the lexicon is flawed and that semantic rules referencing structured representations are valid and practically useful.
Contribution
It challenges Fodor and Lepore's critique by defending the semantic framework of Pustejovsky's Generative Lexicon and clarifies its basis in established AI tradition.
Findings
Semantic rules referencing structured representations are valid.
Systems using such rules are practically effective in AI.
Fodor and Lepore's critique is based on a flawed view of the lexicon.
Abstract
The paper argues that Fodor and Lepore are misguided in their attack on Pustejovsky's Generative Lexicon, largely because their argument rests on a traditional, but implausible and discredited, view of the lexicon on which it is effectively empty of content, a view that stands in the long line of explaining word meaning (a) by ostension and then (b) explaining it by means of a vacuous symbol in a lexicon, often the word itself after typographic transmogrification. (a) and (b) both share the wrong belief that to a word must correspond a simple entity that is its meaning. I then turn to the semantic rules that Pustejovsky uses and argue first that, although they have novel features, they are in a well-established Artificial Intelligence tradition of explaining meaning by reference to structures that mention other structures assigned to words that may occur in close proximity to the first.…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation · Language and cultural evolution · Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
