7.0304 CFPs (Journals): AI/Humanities; CMC (2/278)

Thu, 25 Nov 1993 16:36:23 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 7, No. 0304. Thursday, 25 Nov 1993.

(1) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 21:22:14 -0500 (195 lines)
From: Sebastien Jean <sebastij@ERE.UMONTREAL.CA>
Subject: artificial intelligence

(2) Date: 24 Nov 1993 16:01:30 U (83 lines)
From: "S.A.Rae (Simon Rae)" <S.A.Rae@open.ac.uk>
Subject: Special issue of journal on CMC (again)

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 21:22:14 -0500
From: Sebastien Jean <sebastij@ERE.UMONTREAL.CA>
Subject: artificial intelligence

Here's something that certainly should be circulated on Humanist.

----------------------------Original message----------------------------

I found this item in a group which doen't sound the most appropriate for
it, so I am forwarding it in this group where it might have more effect.

Jean Sebastien

> Sender: 18th Century Interdisciplinary Discussion <C18-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>

> STANFORD HUMANITIES REVIEW is now soliciting peer commentary on
> its target article, "Literary Criticism: A Cognitive Approach", by Herbert
> Simon, to be considered for publication (with author's response) in its
> upcoming 1994 special issue: "Constructions of the Mind -- Artificial
> Intelligence, Virtual Reality, and the Humanities".
> "Constructions of the Mind" aims at providing a platform of
> intellectual exchange between the Artificial Intelligence (AI) community
> and scholars in the Humanities. Several of the papers that will appear
> in the issue come from the Humanities side, questioning the foundational
> assumptions of AI research and methodology. Simon's article is an attempt
> in the opposite direction.
> Herbert Simon, a Nobel laureate, and one of the founding fathers of
> Artificial Intelligence, presents his article (delivered as his 1990
> Hitchcock Lectures at UC Berkeley) as "an experiment in communication
> between the two cultures of the humanities and the sciences". Simon's paper
> can indeed be viewed as competently representing and exemplifying the
> orthodox AI perspective. We have no doubt, however, that many will find in
> it ample opportunity to disagree. The abstract of "Literary Criticism: A
> Cognitive Approach" is appended below, together with suggestions on how to
> obtain the whole article.
> The peer commentary should not exceed 1000 words, i.e., roughly 3-4
> double-spaced, typed pages. The deadline is December 15, 1993. The
> commentaries will be peer reviewed, and the authors will be notified
> regarding the status of their submissions by January 15, 1994. For further
> information regarding the _Stanford Humanities Review_ style guidelines, or
> submission by e-mail or on disk, please contact the editors.
> Cordially,
> Guven Guzeldere
> Stefano Franchi
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stanford Humanities Review E-Mail: sfranchi@leland.stanford.edu
> Attn. Guven Guzeldere/Stefano Franchi Phone: (415) 812-4728
> Mariposa House, Stanford, CA 94305-8630 Fax: (415) 812-4334
> U.S.A.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Literary Criticism: A Cognitive Approach
> Herbert A. Simon
> Department of Psychology
> Carnegie-Mellon University
> In this paper, I will be acting as an unabashed missionary for contemporary
> cognitive science, which is itself an amalgam of artificial intelligence,
> cognitive psychology and linguistics, with a few other trace substances (e.g.,
> anthropology, epistemology) thrown in. I will argue that cognitive science has
> reached a point in understanding human thinking where it can say a great deal
> about literary criticism; in particular, that it can cast some light on the
> theoretical foundations of criticism, and even generate useful advice for its
> practice. But my position is not as asymmetric as these words would make it
> appear. Written texts, literary and other, provide a rich source of data for
> understanding cognition. Enormous thought goes into the production of texts,
> and perhaps even more (given the ratio of readers to writers) into
> interpreting them. These data have not been much mined by cognitive
> scientists, who therefore have much to learn from literary criticism, which
> has examined the texts in depth. Perhaps what I am attempting here should be
> viewed as a gesture from the cognitive side to repay a small part of the debt
> we owe to critics and theorists of criticism for introducing us to literary
> texts. The paper may also be viewed as an experiment in communication between
> the two cultures of the humanities and the sciences. I simply take for
> granted that, pace Leavis, there are two cultures, as much as C. P. Snow
> (1959) described them thirty years ago, and that communication between them is
> infrequent and often noisy. I also take for granted that it is important for
> our society that this communication be improved substantially. Literary
> criticism is concerned with (among other things) meanings of, in, and evoked
> by literary texts. Cognitive science is concerned with thinking, by people
> and computers; and extracting or evoking meanings while reading and writing
> requires thinking. Hence, there is surely a wide expanse of ground common to
> literary criticism and cognitive science. But a casual examination of leading
> books from the two domains suggests that each has little awareness of the
> other, or of the possible relevance of the other to its concerns. With rare
> exceptions, there is little or no cross-referencing. It would be too strong
> to say that literary critics and theorists of literary criticism are ignorant
> of the social sciences. But although many of them know about Marx, and many
> about Freud, fewer are acquainted with contemporary cognitive science. Only a
> few, like Siegfried Schmidt (1968) and Robert de Beaugrande (1980), are well
> versed in both literature and cognition. It would also be too strong to say
> that all cognitive scientists are ignorant of literary criticism, but they
> certainly do not often mention it in their footnotes. Some researchers, like
> my colleagues John R. Hayes and Linda Flower (1980), and Patricia Carpenter
> and Marcel Just (1987), have studied the processes of writing and reading but
> have not extended their studies to works of literature. Some others, like
> Jean Mandler (1978) and Wendy Lehnert (1981), have analysed the "grammars"
> that are employed in the structures of stories. But their numbers are few and
> the literature of the subject not large. I am a cognitive scientist, not a
> literary critic or a theorist of literary criticism. So I have little choice
> but to start from the psychological side of the gulf in building the bridge
> between the two domains. I will undertake to sketch the thought processes
> involved in writing and reading the kinds of texts that we call literary. But
> it is not my aspiration to create a new school of critical theory. Rather, I
> hope to cast some light on the relations among existing doctrines by
> reinterpreting them in a language that can lend to them a precision that they
> seldom seem to possess in contemporary literary discussion. Familiar terms
> like meaning, context, evocation, recognition, image have gained a clarity
> from the researches of contemporary cognitive science that they did not have
> in earlier writing and still do not have in literary criticism and its theory.
> I will try to introduce some of that precision, but divorced as far as
> possibile from technicalities, into the discussion. That will not be easy,
> for I will not be using the key terms in their ordinary senses, but in senses
> dependent upon a theoretical framework and formal language that I can set
> forth here only in broad outline. Focusing on the term "meaning," and how
> that term is interpreted in contemporary cognitive science will concentrate
> most of the technicalities and difficulties in one place. Much of the rest of
> the conversation can be carried on in ordinary language. If what I say sounds
> like common sense, so much the better. If it sounds like only common sense,
> then I have failed.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Send us e-mail at: sfranchi@cardinal.stanford.edu, and we will
> e-mail you the article.
> 2. Better yet, use ftp to retrieve the article yourself from
> Stanford archives. It is easy; just follow the instructions below:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To retrieve a file by ftp from a Unix/Internet site, type either:
> ftp csli.stanford.edu
> or
> ftp
> When you are asked for your login, type (in small letters):
> anonymous
> For your password, type:
> your-own-login-name@your-system's-name [e.g., sfranchi@leland.stanford.edu]
> (make sure the "@" sign gets through, it's important!)
> then change directories with:
> cd pub/shreview
> To show the available files, type:
> ls
> Next, retrieve the file you want by typing either:
> get simon.txt [to retrieve the plain text (ASCII) file]
> or (in the following order)
> binary
> get simon.ps [to retrieve the formatted (postscript) file]
> When you have the file(s) you want, type:
> quit
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------95----
Date: 24 Nov 1993 16:01:30 U
From: "S.A.Rae (Simon Rae)" <S.A.Rae@open.ac.uk>
Subject: Special issue of journal on CMC (again)

Call for Papers on CMC (second notice - apologies for multiple copies)


It is proposed to produce a special issue devoted to applications of CMC in
education and training. If sufficient papers of high quality are received it
may be a double issue.

Contributors who wish to register an interest should contact the guest editors
NOW. (With abstracts to follow by 3 December 1993).

Please e-mail D.A.O.BARRY@OPEN.AC.UK direct
or reply via me, S.A.RAE@OPEN.AC.UK

I have appended a copy of the original notice below for information.

Simon Rae, User Services Officer, | S.A.RAE@OPEN.AC.UK (Internet)
Academic Computing Service, | S.A.RAE@UK.AC.OPEN (JANET)
The Open University, Milton Keynes. | phone: (0908) 652413
MK7 6AA, United Kingdom. | fax: (0908) 653744


Call for Contributors ... forwarded on from: D.A.O.Barry@open.ac.uk
(apologies if you get this more than once!)


Special issue on the use of Computer Mediated Communication to support
learning. It is proposed to produce a special issue devoted to applications
of CMC in education and training. If sufficient papers of high quality are
received it may be a double issue. Contributers who wish to register an
interest should contact the guest editors NOW. (With abstracts to follow by
3 December 1993) Email may be sent to:-


Further information about the Special issue.
CMC is no longer a novel, interesting technology seen to have an enormous
(but so far unfulfilled) potential for the support of the learning process.
While still largely novel in the world of education and training there have
been a number of cases in which it has been used. It has begun to move
beyond the pilot stage where merely using CMC at all was remarkable enough
(and worth reporting) to the implementation stage. There are increasingly
many examples of creative and innovative uses of CMC and an increasing need
for practioners to share their often hard won insights into what makes CMC
succeed or fail (or even what counts as success or failure). The papers we
wish to attract will report experiences of CMC in use. They may do this from
a wide range of points of view (including aspects NOT mentioned in this
notice!) examples of topic areas could include:-

*introducing CMC into an institution ("selling CMC?")
*aspects of instructional design where CMC is to be used
*Orientating tutors to CMC
*problems in using CMC
*CMC and Distance Study
*CMC in support of otherwise conventional courses
*CMC in support of tutors
*CMC and the non traditional student
*CMC and the disabled
*Evaluating courses that use CMC
*Training in the use of CMC

For the purposes of this discussion CMC includes computer conferencing
(usually, but not always asynchronous), electronic mail (which would cover
Listservers and UNIX news) and bulletin boards. It is assumed to be a text
based medium but news of multimedia applications would be welcomed as would
accounts of the combination of CMC with other teleconferencing media such
as audioconferencing and video conferencing. The implications for CMC users
of the INTERNET and the Clinton administration's "information highways"
initiative might be another fruitful area.

Paul Barber
David Barry