142,674 research outputs found

    A theory of interaction semantics

    Full text link
    The aim of this article is to delineate a theory of interaction semantics and thereby provide a proper understanding of the "meaning" of the exchanged characters within an interaction. The idea is to describe the interaction (between discrete systems) by a mechanism that depends on information exchange, that is, on the identical naming of the "exchanged" characters -- by a protocol. Complementing a nondeterministic protocol with decisions to a game in its interactive form (GIF) makes it interpretable in the sense of an execution. The consistency of such a protocol depends on the particular choice of its sets of characters. Thus, assigning a protocol its sets of charaacters makes it consistent or not, creating a fulfillment relation. The interpretation of the characters during GIF execution results in their meaning. The proposed theory of interaction semantics is consistent with the model of information transport and processing, it has a clear relation to models of formal semantics, it accounts for the fact that the meaning of a character is invariant against renaming and locates the concept of meaning in the technical description of interactions. It defines when two different characters have the same meaning and what an "interpretation" and what an "interpretation context" is as well as under which conditions meaning is compositional

    NETMET: A Program for Generating and Interpreting Metaphors

    Get PDF
    Metaphors have computable semantics. A program called NETMET both generates metaphors and produces partial literal interpretations of metaphors. NETMET is based on Kittay's semantic field theory of metaphor and Black's interaction theory of metaphor. Input to NETMET consists of a list of literal propositions. NETMET creates metaphors by finding topic and source semantic fields, producing an analogical map from source to topic, then generating utterances in which terms in the source are identified with or predicated of terms in the topic. Given a metaphor, NETMET utilizes if-then rules to generate the implication complex of that metaphor. The literal leaves of the implication complex comprise a partial literal interpretation

    Disciplining the body? Reflections on the cross disciplinary import of ‘embodied meaning’ into interaction design

    Get PDF
    The aim of this paper is above all critically to examine and clarify some of the negative implications that the idea of ‘embodied meaning’ has for the emergent field of interaction design research. Originally, the term ‘embodied meaning’ has been brought into HCI research from phenomenology and cognitive semantics in order to better understand how user’s experience of new technological systems relies to an increasing extent on full-body interaction. Embodied approaches to technology design could thus be found in Winograd & Flores (1986), Dourish (2001), Lund (2003), Klemmer, Hartman & Takayama (2006), Hornecker & Buur (2006), Hurtienne & Israel (2007) among others. However, fertile as this cross-disciplinary import may be, design research can generally be criticised for being ‘undisciplined’, because of its tendency merely to take over reductionist ideas of embodied meaning from those neighbouring disciplines without questioning the inherent limitations it thereby subscribe to. In this paper I focus on this reductionism and what it means for interaction design research. I start out by introducing the field of interaction design and two central research questions that it raises. This will serve as a prerequisite for understanding the overall intention of bringing the notion of ‘embodied meaning’ from cognitive semantics into design research. Narrowing my account down to the concepts of ‘image schemas’ and their ‘metaphorical extension’, I then explain in more detail what is reductionistic about the notion of embodied meaning. Having done so, I shed light on the consequences this reductionism might have for design research by examining a recently developed framework for intuitive user interaction along with two case examples. In so doing I sketch an alternative view of embodied meaning for interaction design research. Keywords: Interaction Design, Embodied Meaning, Tangible User Interaction, Design Theory, Cognitive Semiotics</p

    A Formal Model of Metaphor in Frame Semantics

    Get PDF
    A formal model of metaphor is introduced. It models metaphor, first, as an interaction of “frames” according to the frame semantics, and then, as a wave function in Hilbert space. The practical way for a probability distribution and a corresponding wave function to be assigned to a given metaphor in a given language is considered. A series of formal definitions is deduced from this for: “representation”, “reality”, “language”, “ontology”, etc. All are based on Hilbert space. A few statements about a quantum computer are implied: The sodefined reality is inherent and internal to it. It can report a result only “metaphorically”. It will demolish transmitting the result “literally”, i.e. absolutely exactly. A new and different formal definition of metaphor is introduced as a few entangled wave functions corresponding to different “signs” in different language formally defined as above. The change of frames as the change from the one to the other formal definition of metaphor is interpreted as a formal definition of thought. Four areas of cognition are unified as different but isomorphic interpretations of the mathematical model based on Hilbert space. These are: quantum mechanics, frame semantics, formal semantics by means of quantum computer, and the theory of metaphor in linguistics
    corecore