Context Page


The Quadranym Model of Word-Sensibility (Q): An Ecological Systems Perspective On Word-Level-Concepts & Contextual Unitizations – Non-Mental-Representation Representation Design Before Define Approach.

Q: A method to analyze and cluster words – an ontological alignment system to represent dynamic word relations in units, scripts and layers.

Rough Draft – Do Not Quote Or Distribute

Review: The Situational Context & The Dynamical Context

Polynyms = Situational Context.

Consider the sentence…

“Don’t let the dog out.”

The sentence can be simply represented in Predicate Logic.

  •  ¬x(Person(x) → Out(x, dog))

Reads like, for not x if x is person then x out dog (no person leaves dog out)

The Situational Context is the communicative description of the circumstances in which an event occurs. A situational context can be framed using Polynyms. A polynym is a set of predicate-dimensions of any number. They are functions and take on input arguments f(x). They can be used as dimensions to analyze and make assumptions about a situation.

Situational Context Polynym (nonanym).

Situational Context Functions & Argument Variables:

  1. Person(x)
  2. Time(x)
  3. Discourse(x)
  4. Place(x)
  5. Purpose(x)
  6. Subject(x)
  7. Object(x)
  8. Inference(x)
  9. Goal(x)

Sentence Argument Inputs:

  1. Person(speaker)
  2. Time(present)
  3. Discourse(space)
  4. Place(out_there)
  5. Purpose(imperative)
  6. Subject(hearer)
  7. Object(dog)
  8. Inference(in_here)
  9. Goal(containment)

There are at least two people, one dog, a space of containment, a space of non-containment, a request and goal of containment in the present tense.

Quadranyms = Dynamical Context

The person center of the situation above is the speaker. The person center of a dynamical context can be either or shared. In this example, the center of the dynamical context is the subject of the sentence, the hearer.

The Dynamical Context of this sentence is the argument taken from the function Goal(x), that is, (containment). The speaker is relaying a command to the hearer to accomplish the goal of containing the dog. The hearer understands container through intrapersonal dynamic senses of the term.

  • A situation resonates with a preexisting psychology and produces a response.
  • Container(x)

Simply represented as follows:

  • (∀x) container(x) ⟹ [Out(empty) In(full)(x)]

Reads like…

For all x, If  x is container, Then x is:

  • Mode (two functions): E: out ⊇ R: in
  • State (two arguments): S: empty ⊇ O: full

x may have other senses or it may be modified or another topic is queried.

  1. else: topic is modified
  2. else: topic is other sense
  3. else: topic remains a variable

Quadranym: two sets, two functions, two arguments, a variable identifier.

  • [Out(empty) In(full)(x)]

It represents a dynamical context. It is not about the properties of the situation but about the responsive dynamics to the situation.

E = expand: out
O = object: full
N = Topic: container
S = subject: empty
R = reduce: in

Quadranym idea sets are about framing a response to a topic. Responses pertain to the Dynamical Context. That is, how one copes. It is a heuristic process in that a topic is about how to react to a condition,

  • Modes: spatial differences.
  • States: temporal events.

Container Clusters:

  • Superset Mode Cluster:{out, in, active, passive, measure, difference…}
  • Superset State Cluster:{empty, full, actual, potential, hold, object…}

Quadranyms are about the dynamic sense of something and not necessarily about the properties used to determine the situation itself.

Subset clusters are probable trajectories to complete a response to a range of conditions. A response is a cycle that takes time. Subset anticipate conditions and quicken the ability to respond to potential targets.

  • Subset Mode Cluster: {in, passive, measure…}
  • Subset State Cluster: {full, potential, place…}

From a topic cluster four dimensions are rendered for the topic:

  • State: temporal sense, FROM being_empty TO becoming_full
  • Mode: spatial senses, FROM activity_out TO measure_in

Now let’s look again at the example: “Don’t let the dog out.” And let’s also consider the situation context argument inputs, speaker, present, space, there, imperative, hearer, dog, here, containment.

Now, we can roughly parse the situational context arguments into Q dimensions.

  • Expansive (function): out, space, there
  • Subjective (argument): hearer, present, don’t
  • Reductive (function): in, here, containment
  • Objective (argument): speaker, dog, imperative

A new set of functions and arguments are pulled from the parsing above.

  1. E(s) superset: Out(hearer), Space(present), There(don’t)
  2. R(o) subset: In(speaker), Here(dog), Containment(imperative)

A new Set Cluster categorized as, Containment:

  • Mode cluster: {out, space, there, in, here, containment}
  • State cluster: {hearer, present, don’t, speaker, dog, imperative}

The new terms can apply no longer only motivated by dog containment. That is, new motivations can apply because dynamic sense is generic.

A Polynym of Containment (e.g., hexonym)

  1. Space(x)
  2. Out(x)
  3. In(x)
  4. There(x)
  5. Here(x)
  6. Containment(x)

Essentially, this is an example of a contextual eco-system. The dynamic was initiated in the particular environment about dogs. One may have experienced that there are consequences for one letting dogs out and doing so requires accountability. One may ask, who let the dogs out?

  • The phrase was used in a song about certain men and bad behavior.
  • Connotation: Subjective-sense_behavior → Objective-sense_Dogs.

One can have a unique response to any situation. The relationship between an organism and its environment and culture produces a dynamic sense that can be modulated and shared. Motivated-dynamical-contexts form around contextual eco-systems. We suggest, that motivated-dynamical-contexts are instinctive ways to create metaphoric relations for myths.

Situational contexts are about truth conditions. The dynamical context is not about truth conditions. It’s about confluential thinking that identifies dynamic responses that are rendered general spheres of orientation.


© 2000-2014 All Rights Reserved