Categorization of the <SEATS>: Examples of a Domain of Notions in the Lexical Field

In this paper, we organize a micro-world of «objects» (Cf. seats), specified by different kinds of parameters which are categorised in terms of “agentive templates”. We introduce the notion of “network of meaning” to integrate these templates. .I. This paper resumes previous studies, already set in lexicology in the intention to redefine the notion of “referent” in discourse; in others words, the notion of “objects” as pieces of the world (real or imaginary). In this way, it is the definition of the relationship between the “signified” (in Saussurian words: the principle of a linguistic differenciation) and the “referents” as a description of the objects by means of “semic features”. One of the most well-known linguistic studies is Pottier’s work on seats (1963). The linguist introduced the notion of a matrix of combinatorial features in order to describe different types of seats (like chair, stool, armchair,...) according to definitional criterion: with/without back, with/without arms, fixed/folding, one seat/several seats, etc,... these features are denotative criterions by which we are able to caracterize the “mental image” of theses entities and through which we understand what they are; afterwards, we can introduce them in different kinds of discourse scenarii. Similarly, this thematic of the seats appears again in G. Lakoff’s book (1987: 52) who finds once again in Rosch’s analysis of prototype the relevance of the notion of “opposite features”. .II. The analysis that we propose cannot be only a mode of inventory of the data (which will be introduced in the creation of thesaurus). It has to allow us to build a notion of “representation of knowledge” that we have of these referents; in others words, the setting up of a process which means their cognitive organization; as such, this kind of entity is able to have: a use < a chair → for seating >, < a couch for lying down >; a part of a set (furniture): < a chair around a table >, < an armchair in front of a desk >; this piece of furniture can be the subset of a larger set: < a seat a dining room >, < a seat a car >, these Copyright © 2008, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. two kinds of sets referring to different criterions (a house, a vehicle) that we can categorize at a higher level; a social status: for example, in a board of directors, we see the difference between the seat of the CEO director-in-chief (shape, location) and that of the others directors; in a royal assembly, we see the difference between the throne and the other seats; a material conformation: < a bench, a sofa, a deck-chair >; an epoch: < a chair by Thonet, a Chippendale chair >; in this notion of period, we also have the difference between cultures because we know that European culture asks for seats while the Japanese, for example, sit on mats (tatami). It implies differenciation in position of the body: sitting or cross-legged. Lastly, we have seats made of other types of artefact; they form a complex ensemble; for example, a wheelchair or a dentist’s chair. .III. < Seats > constitute a good object of study for that which Husserl’s phenomenology calls a “eidetic variation”; they offer a large variety of forms, structure of materials, or association with other types of artefacts (Garner, 1980). They integrate many social values that we can organize within a hierarchy of levels. To give an account of this diversity of semantic dimensions, as behaviour, as materialization, as set, as social status, etc., it is necessary to build a frame of conceptual schemas, similar to previous studies (Boudon 1999, Boudon 2002, Boudon 2003) and called templum (as cognitive template). We find with this kind of schema a good “cognitive tool” which can offer a diversity of images of the same object, a means for its classification that allows us to have a general point of vue; a homogeneous and diffracted standpoint as in a cubist painting. In short, we have a principle of homology which guides us, to unify different levels of lecture, to compare different epoch or cultures, to integrate theses entities in different kinds of material domains like houses (so, we can have an “indoor sitting room” or an “outdoor sitting room” that are garden seats), like public spaces (a bench in a park, a bench integrated into the wall of a bus-stop), like vehicles (a seat in a car, in a plane) — different shapes of seats which refer to social and esthetic values. .IV. The generic form of the semantic schema that we use as a cognitive Gestalt can be found at: (www.leap. umontreal.ca/pierreboudon, p. 11) ; its framing is not far Proceedings of the Twenty-First International FLAIRS Conference (2008)