Computers and Comprehension
ResearchPublished 1964
ResearchPublished 1964
An examination of the problem of understanding language by an antifact, from a four-week symposium held at RAND in the summer of 1963 (one of a series of symposia on mathematical biology). Understanding has both linguistic and nonlinguistic aspects. An organism (natural or artificial) may be said to understand adequately some feature of its environment if its internal organizing system can take adequate account of it (without necessarily being able to express the understanding linguistically). In the linguistic context, a new set of capacities is needed: (1) the development and use of internal models as such; (2) the distinction between linguistic and direct experiential input; and (3) the capacity to learn.For understanding, linguistic or not, the information system must have something equivalent to an internal model of what is understood. To understand the difference between a description and a mere symptom of a state of affairs, the information system must have something equivalent to an internal model of the communication process. Four levels of demands for language-handling ability are listed and explained.
This publication is part of the RAND research memorandum series. The research memorandum series, a product of RAND from 1948 to 1973, included working papers meant to report current results of RAND research to appropriate audiences.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.