 Kai von Fintel: Essential Readings in Semantics
started 12/28/2003; 3:29:29 AM - last post 12/28/2003; 10:04:21 AM
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Kai von Fintel: Essential Readings in Semantics 
12/28/2003; 3:29:29 AM (reads: 6746, responses: 5)
|
|
| Kai von Fintel: Essential Readings in Semantics |
|
Kai von Fintel is preparing a list of essential readings in semantics (including pragmatics and philosophy of language). A useful resource, even if not directly related to programming languages.
Fintel promises that In a separate post, I will comment on what it means for the field that such a list seems like a useful idea (I doubt that a similar thought would occur to a nuclear physicist).
I have a few thougts on this matter, but for the time being let me just say that computer science is yet another field where this sort of list may be found.
Posted to general by Ehud Lamm on 12/28/03; 3:30:07 AM
|
|
|
|
andrew cooke - Re: Kai von Fintel: Essential Readings in Semantics
12/28/2003; 5:39:35 AM (reads: 354, responses: 4)
|
|
|
isn't it obvious what it means for nuclear physics reviews to be a useful idea (that progress in the field builds on and/or corrects earlier work)? or am i missing a level of abstraction? doesn't any field that is sufficiently complex (where all the work cannot be done by one person) have such lists?
i'm sorry - i guess i'm missing something - but it just sounds like one person trying to sound smart by making false assumptions about someone else...
[disclaimer: ex-physicist]
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Kai von Fintel: Essential Readings in Semantics
12/28/2003; 5:43:11 AM (reads: 369, responses: 3)
|
|
|
I think it's exactly the opposite. I think that physics is meant as an example of a "real" science, complete with structure and standard tools and notations, where reading original papers is less than useful. So it's semantics that's being looked down on...
But maybe it me that wrong about what Fintel tried to say. We'll have to wait and see..
|
|
andrew cooke - Re: Kai von Fintel: Essential Readings in Semantics
12/28/2003; 6:39:18 AM (reads: 374, responses: 2)
|
|
|
Ah. OK, that makes more sense (apologies). Although in practice, in the "real sciences", review papers (lists like this, often presented at workshops) are still important. A good review paper is a valuable thing (and will no doubt be recycled for that year's thesis introductions ;o) (They're a double edged sword - to be asked to present one is quite an honour and can spread your name; to present a bad one is to show just how uninformed you really are) (I guess it's the same in CompSci too).
[On edit: Hmm. I think I'm mixing two different things, as review papers focus on recent work. I guss that's the point.]
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Kai von Fintel: Essential Readings in Semantics
12/28/2003; 6:43:47 AM (reads: 380, responses: 1)
|
|
|
Survey papers are nice, but quite different than rereading classic papers.
|
|
andrew cooke - Re: Kai von Fintel: Essential Readings in Semantics
12/28/2003; 10:04:21 AM (reads: 376, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I think you misunderstood my comparison, which was between classic papers (summarised by that web page) and recent influential papers (summarised by survey papers).
Reading survey papers is indeed very different to reading classic papers - so different that it's a category error.
|
|
|
|