1 / 77

Embodiment & Compositionality

Embodiment & Compositionality. Two fundamental, but unreconciled, aspects of human language: embodiment and compositionality Embodiment – the realization that scientific understanding of mind and language entails detailed modeling of the human brain

abedi
Download Presentation

Embodiment & Compositionality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Embodiment & Compositionality • Two fundamental, but unreconciled, aspects of human language: embodiment and compositionality • Embodiment – the realization that scientific understanding of mind and language entails detailed modeling of the human brain • Compositionality - only people can express and understand an essentially unbounded range of messages

  2. Compositionality Anything that deserves to be called a language must contain meaningful expressions built up from other meaningful expressions” [4] strong compositionality states that the meaning of a expression is totally determined by its form and is independent of context “In its strict version, this claim is clearly wrong” [5].

  3. Truth-conditional Semantics The existence of these forms of context-dependence would thus appear to spell the doom for truth-conditional semantics, understood as the project of assigning properties to syntactic items (partly by finding principles for determining properties of complex syntactic items on the basis of their parts) such that we await only the specification of something like an index to know what the truth-conditions of a given utterance of a given assertive sentence would be.- Jason Bridges Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: A Critical Guide, A. M. Ahmed (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2009.

  4. Simulation Semantics • Lectures 1 and 3 => embodied • But what about public language, text? • Skeletal shared meaning => schemas • Language Community (LC) • Shares grammar, schemas, analysis rules

  5. Compositionality • Put the parts together to create the meaning of the whole. • Questions: • what is the nature of the parts? • How and why do they combine with one another? • What meaning is associated with this composition?

  6. Short NTL answers • Parts = constructions, schemas • Combination = binding, unification • Meaning of the whole : • Public (LC) ~ Semantic Specification = SemSpec • Private ~ Enactment/Simulation of SemSpec

  7. ECG Lattices • Schemas – Image, X-schemas, Frames • Constructions – Lexical, Grammatical • Language Communities • Situations ~ Mental Spaces • Maps ~ Metaphor, etc.

  8. Analyzer: Discourse & Situational Context Lectures I. Overview 2. Simulation Semantics 3. ECG and Best-fit Analysis 4. Compositionality 5. Simulation, Counterfactuals, and Inference Constructions Utterance incremental, competition-based, psychologically plausibleA Semantic Specification: image schemas, bindings, action schemas Simulation

  9. Conceptual Structure • Embodied • Schematic • (Partially) language-independent Conceptual Composition • Highly interconnected • Primitives • Conceptual composition • Metaphor

  10. Some Conceptual Primitives Grammaticalized concepts person, gender, age, agent, speaker possession, mass/count, reflexives, Primal scenes/ event types – transitive, tense, aspect General Logic connectives, numbers similarity, inference, uncertainty part/ whole, scales, magnitude binding, variables, indefinites, generalization Mental Operations Learning, matching, binding mental spaces, mappings simulation, displacement Image Schemas parameters of spatial cognition action schemas - controller goals, force-dynamics (causation) parameters of parts & boundaries Time Social World young/ mature/ old authority, approval, help value , exchange, obligation theory of mind, perception and intention, Communication speaker/ hearer, direct/ indirect true/ false question, command, etc.

  11. Conceptual Composition Ellen Dodge Thesis 1. Conjunction – horse with stripes 2. Modification – camel without hump 3. Abstraction - vehicle 4. Mapping a. Metonymy – London thinks b. Metaphor – causes are forces 5. Blending – apple bus 6. Relational – horses eat grass

  12. First example • He bit the apple.

  13. Schemas schema MotorControl subcase of Process roles Actor↔ Protagonist Effector Effort Routine constraints Actor ← animate

  14. schema Contact subcase of SpatialRelation roles Entity1: entity Entity2: entity schema MotorControl subcase of Process roles Actor↔ Protagonist Effector Effort Routine constraints Actor ← animate schema ForceTransfer evokes Conact as C roles Supplier ↔ C.entity1 Recipient ↔ C.entity2 Force schemaForceApplication subcase ofMotorControl evokesForceTransfer as FT roles Actor ↔ FT.Supplier ↔ Protagonist Acted Upon↔ FT.Recipient Effector Routine Effort ↔ FT.Force.amount

  15. Schema Lattice Contact MotorControl ForceTransfer Motion Effector Motion SelfMotion ForceApplication CauseEffect MotionPath Effector MotionPath SelfMotion Path SPG Agentive Impact SpatiallyDirectedAction Contact

  16. Verb Constructions Construction BITE1 subcase of Verb form: bite meaning: ForceApplication constraints: Effector ← teeth Routine ← bite // close mouth schemaForceApplication subcase ofMotorControl evokesForceTransfer as FT roles Actor↔ FT.Supplier ↔ Protagonist Acted Upon ↔ FT.Recipient Effector Routine Effort↔ FT.Force.amount

  17. Verb Constructions cxn BITE meaning: ForceApplication schema MotorControl cxn GRASP meaning: ForceApplication schema ForceApplication subcase of MotorControl cxn PUSH meaning: ForceApplication cxn SLAP meaning: AgentiveImpact schema Agentive Impact subcase of ForceApplication cxn KICK meaning: AgentiveImpact cxn HIT meaning: AgentiveImpact

  18. Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: VF before NPF meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ Vm Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NPm

  19. Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: VF before NPF meaning:CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ Vm Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NPm

  20. CauseEffect schema schemaCauseEffect subcase of ForceApplication; Process roles Causer ↔ Actor Affected ↔ ActedUpon ↔ Process.Protagonist Instrument ↔ Effector

  21. Schema Lattice Contact MotorControl ForceTransfer Process Motion Effector Motion SelfMotion ForceApplication CauseEffect MotionPath Effector MotionPath SelfMotion Path SPG Agentive Impact SpatiallyDirectedAction Contact

  22. Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: VF before NPF meaning:CauseEffect evokes:EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ Vm Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected↔ NPm

  23. Important points • Compositionality does not require that each component contain different information. • Shared semantic structure is not viewed as an undesirable redundancy

  24. Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: VF before NPF meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ Vm Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NPm

  25. Event Descriptor schema schema EventDescriptor roles EventType: Process ProfiledProcess: Process ProfiledParticipant: Entity ProfiledState(s): State SpatialSetting TemporalSetting

  26. Preconditions, resources, fine control structure are important aspects of events

  27. Argument Structure Construction Construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: VF before NPF meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ Vm Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NPm

  28. Bindings with other cxns construction NPVP1 constituents: Subj: NP VP : VP form Constraints Subj f before VPf meaning: EventDescriptor ProfiledParticipant ↔ Subjm construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V ; NP form: VF before NPF meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant Affected ↔ NPm

  29. Bindings with other cxns Construction NPVP1 constituents: Subj: NP VP : VP form constraints Subj f before VPf meaning: EventDescriptor ProfiledParticipant ↔ Subjm construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V ; NP form: VF before NPF meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant Affected ↔ NPm schema EventDescriptor roles EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant ProfiledState(s) SpatialSetting TemporalSetting

  30. Bindings with other cxns construction NPVP1 constituents: Subj: NP VP : VP form Constraints Subj f before VPf meaning: EventDescriptor ProfiledParticipant ↔ Subjm construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V ; NP form: VF before NPF meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant Affected ↔ NPm schema EventDescriptor roles EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant ProfiledState(s) SpatialSetting TemporalSetting

  31. Unification Meaning Constructions EventDescriptor EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant NPVP1 CauseEffect causer affected TransitiveAction2 ForceApplication actor actedupon BITE NP2 ReferentDescriptor THE APPLE ReferentDescriptor NP1 HE

  32. Unification Meaning Constructions EventDescriptor EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant NPVP1 CauseEffect causer affected TransitiveAction2 ForceApplication actor actedupon BITE NP2 ReferentDescriptor THE APPLE ReferentDescriptor resolved referent NP1 HE

  33. Unification Meaning Constructions EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant NPVP1 CauseEffect causer affected TransitiveAction2 Verb ForceApplication actor actedupon BITE NP2 ReferentDescriptor THE APPLE ReferentDescriptor resolved referent NP1 HE

  34. Unification Meaning Constructions EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant NPVP1 subj CauseEffect causer affected TransitiveAction2 ForceApplication actor actedupon BITE NP2 ReferentDescriptor THE APPLE ReferentDescriptor NP1 HE

  35. Unification Meaning Constructions EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant NPVP1 CauseEffect causer affected TransitiveAction2 NP ForceApplication actor actedupon BITE NP2 ReferentDescriptor THE APPLE ReferentDescriptor NP1 HE

  36. Semantic SpecificationHe bit the apple EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon routine  bite effector  teeth RD27 category Person RD55 category Apple

  37. Argument Structure ConstructionHe was bitten (by a toddler) construction PassiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : PassiveVerb (PP: agentivePP) form constraints: VF before PPF meaning: CauseEffectAction evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Affected ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ Vm Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Causer ↔ PP.NPm

  38. Semantic SpecificationHe was bitten (by a toddler) EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon routine  bite effector  teeth RD27 category Person RD48 category Person

  39. Variations on a theme • He shattered the window • The window was shattered • The window shattered

  40. Verb Construction -- shatter Construction SHATTER1 subcase of Verb form: shatter meaning: StateChange constraints: Initial :: Undergoer.state ← whole Final :: Undergoer.state ← shards schemaStateChange subcase of Process roles Undergoer ↔ Protagonist

  41. Argument Structure ConstructionHe shattered the window construction ActiveTransitiveAction3 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: VF before NPF meaning:CauseEffect evokes:EventDescriptor as ED; StateChange as SC constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant SC ↔ Vm Affected ↔ SC.Undergoer Affected↔ NPm

  42. Semantic SpecificationHe shattered the window EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected StateChange Undergoer state  “wholeness” RD27 category Person RD189 category Window

  43. Argument Structure ConstructionThe window was shattered construction PassiveTransitiveAction3 subcase of VP constituents: V : PassiveVerb (PP: agentivePP) form constraints: VF before NPF meaning:CauseEffect evokes:EventDescriptor as ED; StateChange as SC constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Affected ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant SC ↔ Vm Affected ↔ SC.Undergoer Causer ↔ PP.NPm

  44. Semantic SpecificationThe window was shattered EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected StateChange Undergoer state  “wholeness” RD175 category Window

  45. Argument Structure ConstructionThe window shattered construction ActiveIntransitiveAction1 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb form meaning:Process evokes:EventDescriptor as ED; StateChange as SC constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Protagonist ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant SC ↔ Vm Protagonist ↔ SC.Undergoer

  46. Semantic SpecificationThe window shattered EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant Process protagonist StateChange Undergoer state  “wholeness” RD177 category Window

  47. Summary • Small set of constructions and schemas • Composed in different ways • Unification produces specification of simulation • Sentence understanding is simulation • Different meanings => different simulations

  48. NTL Compositionality • Language understanding is simulation • Simulation activates conceptual structures • Conceptual Compositionality is basic • Grammatical Compositionality is inherently constructional, not surface • SemSpec ~ Semantic Specification • Skeletal Meaning • Captures shared understanding of an LC • Site of Compositionality

  49. Argument Structure ConstructionHis white teeth bit into the apple construction ActiveEffectorMotionPath3 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb PP: Spatial-PP form constraints: VF before PPF meaning: EffectorMotionPath evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Selfm ↔ ED.EventType} {Vm ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Effector ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ Vm Actor ↔ FA.Actor // INI Effector ↔ FA.Effector Target ↔ FA.ActedUpon SPG ↔ PPm Target ↔ PPm .Prep.LM

More Related