Computational Commonalities Between Language and Space - Petnica - August 2014
-
Upload
barsenijevic -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Computational Commonalities Between Language and Space - Petnica - August 2014
-
Common aspects of cognitive computations in language and in
spatial cognition
Boban Arsenijevi,
University of Ni
1
-
Similar conditions
Most investigations of cognitive differences between humans and other animals look for the counterparts of human capacities (language, arithmetic, music) in animals.
2
-
Goal of the talk
In this talk, I present an (interrupted) research which:
1. considers the cognitive apparatus as an automaton (i.e. a mathematical model, a formal grammar) and
2. looks for evidence of the degree of computational complexity of these automata in humans and other animals,
3. by looking at the spatial cognition, on the background of some well known properties of language.
3
-
Spatial cognition
Probably the earliest cognitive capacity developed.
Universally available in all animal species.
Very sophisticated already in relatively primitive animals / brains (e.g. insects).
Immediacy of exposure: organisms take up space, all sensory inputs relate to space.
Includes information from multiple sensory sources and cognitive domains.
4
-
Language
A very recent evolutionary development.
Capacity of the cognitive apparatus of only one species.
Exposure conditioned by socio-cultural conditions.
Includes information from multiple sensory sources and cognitive domains.
5
-
Language and space
In all languages, at least 10, often more than 20 words with spatial semantics among the 50 most frequent words in the language (mostly prepositions and adverbs, and some nouns).
Only a limited subset of the possible spatial relations finds expression in language.
Still, the semantic differences between spatial expressions are often subtle and very complex (beneath : below : under; S-C pred : ispred).
6
-
Context representation
Both language and spatial cognition heavily rely on a dynamic representation of the relevant context.
In spatial cognition, the context representation is referred to as the cognitive map.
In language, the corresponding notion is the discourse representation.
7
-
Modeling spatial cognition
Core elements: cognitive maps and the mechanisms of their update and retrieval.
Cognitive maps are based on an ontology of four basic members:
1. landmarks,
2. geometrical structures,
3. locations and
4. properties of locations.
8
-
Example
Location: palm
Properties: shade, fruit, snakes. Landmark:
mountain peak
Geometrical structure: straight line
9
-
Similarities functional perspective
Both representations are verified against a sensory input: relied upon in acts of motion / communication, and updated at mismatches.
Both representations are plausibly modeled as webs of entities, characterized by their properties and connected by their mutual relations.
The discourse usually contains spatial information, and cognitive maps are often updated by linguistically transmitted information.
10
-
Processing similarities
General architecture: information flow between the sensory input, the context representation and the motorics.
Sensory
input
Motoric
system
Processing
Context
representation
11
-
Similarities neurocognitive perspective
A central role of hippocampus storing, updating and retrieving the information in the context representation.
Both prefrontal zones episodic memory, semantic contents.
Right (superior and) inferior parietal gyrus more prominently involved in spatial cognition, left superior and) inferior parietal gyrus in language.
12
-
Interactions: language and navigation types
Languages (and cultures) with prominent alocentric, i.e. egocentric, relations in expressing spatial relations (between the left/right type of relations and the north/south, central/peripheral, uphill/downhill type of relations).
Controversial data about the influence of these parameters on the navigation preferences and capacities (Gleitman and Li).
13
-
Deeper, computational similarities?
Grammar involves recursive computations producing hierarchical structures.
my friends
little brothers
favorite toy
Are there such structures in spatial cognition?
14
-
Recursive self-embedding in grammar
Some of the explanations for recursive structures in language: the output of one cycle of computations may become the input of the next cycle.
Processng Context
representat.
x [[x]]
f([[x]])
15
-
Examples
[[[[my friends] friends] friends] friend]
[the rabbit chasing [the rabbit chasing [the rabbit chasing [the rabbit...]]]]
[you said [that you said [that you said ]]]
[a box in [a box in [a box in [a box ]]]]
16
-
Recursive computations and cognition
H1: the capacity for recursive computations is the main differential characteristic of human cognition in general (Hauser et al. 2002).
Prediction: recursive spatial computations in humans, but not in other animals.
H2: recursive computations differentiate the language capacity and its derivates (arithmetic? node-tying?) from all other cognitive capacities.
Prediction: no recursive structures in spatial cognition in any species, including humans.
17
-
Recursion in spatial cognition
Similarities outlined between language and spatial cognition, especially in the processing-memory architecture, imply such a possibility.
Can we identify clear instances of recursive computations in humans?
Many animal species have a spatial cognition more sophisticated than that in humans does it offer evidence for recursive modeling?
18
-
Recursive route-planning experiment
19
(Arsenijevi et al. unfinished)
-
Recursive computations
Features of the Location1: {path_from_here, distance_from_here, water}
Features of the Location2: {path_from_here, distance_from_here, path_to_L1, food}
[L2 path_from_here, distance_from_here, path_to_L1, food [path_from_here, distance_from_here, water]]. (path_to_L1 selects for L1 as a complement)
Recursive rule: pathY X route-embed Y in X
20
-
Recursive licensing of paths
21
(Arsenijevi et al. unfinished)
L1
[path_from_here,
distance_from_here,
water]
L2
[path_from_here,
distance_from_here,
path_to_L1,
food]
-
Graphical tree representation
22
The same type of recursive computations as in grammar, whether top-down or bottom-up.
{here, pathL1, pathL2}
{pathhere, distancehere, pathL1, food}
pathhere, distancehere, water
-
Parallels in language
23
The same type of recursive computations as in grammar, e.g. relative clauses.
I bought the booki
whichi you bough in the shopj
thatj we visited yesterday
-
Recursive computations in blocking
The blocking / sub-prioritizing of the other path also requires recursive computations:
[Here here, pathL1, pathL2 [L1 pathhere, distancehere, water *[L2 pathhere, distancehere, pathL1, food]]]. (absence of path_to_L2 in L1 blocks L2 as a complement)
The negative evaluation of the route is determined by the crashed maximal derivation, i.e. by the fact that the maximal converging derivation is smaller
24
-
Recursive computing for blocking
25
(Arsenijevi et al. unfinished)
L1
[path_from_here,
distance_from_here,
water]
L2
-
Graphical tree representation
26
The same type of recursive computations as in grammar, whether top-down or bottom-up.
{here, pathL1, pathL2}
{pathhere, distancehere, water}
pathhere, distancehere, pathL1, food
-
Parallels in language
27
A linguistic parallel would be e.g. a non-relative clause, which opposes embedding.
I bought the booki
whichi you bough in the shop
I visited you yesterday
-
Conclusion
If, upon the completion of the experiment, the trend observed in the initial phase is confirmed, then at least some animals have the recursive computational capacity in the spatial cognitive domain.
This will falsify both H1 and H2 as formulated above: recursive computations are neither exclusively human nor exclusively linguistic.
28
-
Thank you!
29