Language (and Decomposition). Linguistics provides… a highly articulated “computational”...
-
Upload
arnold-carr -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
2
Transcript of Language (and Decomposition). Linguistics provides… a highly articulated “computational”...
Linguistics provides…
• a highly articulated “computational” (generative) theory of the mental representations of language that are used to “account for”– judgments of meaning and well-formedness– linguistics productivity: new sentences, new words– language acquisition: the ability of children to
project beyond their linguistic experience
Analysis of Invariance vs Analysis of Variance
• Linguist: in a sentence like, “John saw Mary,” the subject is the one who sees and the object the one seen.
• Psychologist: In a picture-matching task, position of the name in a sentence, initial vs. final, was significantly correlated with behavior– i.e, explicitly contrast “John saw Mary” and
“Mary saw John” and do an experiment
[Slides from Bob’s Analogy lecture]
Another ExampleJohn loves Mary
Loves
John Mary
Lover Beloved
Loves
Mary John
Lover Beloved
Mary loves John
Yet Another Example
John loves Mary and Bill hates Sally.
WithoutRole Bindings
John loves Mary and Bill hates Sally.
WithRole Bindings
John lovesMary and Bill
hates Sally.
John Loves Mary Bill Hates Sally
Loves
John Mary
Hates
Bill Sally
And
Relational structure has been lost!
Lover Beloved Hater Hated
Conjunct 1 Conjunct 2
More Problems Representing Structure
• But role bindings alone don’t solve the problem of multiple instances of a predicate.
• Example– John bought the apples yesterday and the pears last week.– John bought the pears yesterday and the apples last week.
John bought the apples yesterday and the pears last week (incorrect):
John bought the pears yesterday and the apples last week (incorrect):
John bought the apples yesterday and the pears last week (correct):
Representing Recursive Propositions in LTM
• A system with role bindings and instances of a predicate can represent recursively embedded propositions easily…
Recursive Embedding Example 1
Loves
Mary John
Lover Beloved
Sam knows Mary loves John
Knows
Knower Known
Sam
Recursive Embedding Example 2
Hug
John Mary
Hugger Hugged
Mary kissing John caused John to hug Mary.
Cause
Effect
Kiss
Mary John
Kisser Kissed
Cause
Structured Representations:A Linguistic Example
• What does “rebuild” mean?• (1) After the hurricane, John rebuilt his
house.– Did John build the house to begin with?– Does(1) presuppose that anyone built the
house before it was destroyed?– I'm going to pass on the help with the
donation to help rebuild the Old Man of the Mountain.
Representation of “rebuild”
• Involves a number of parts:– Building activity– A caused “creation” as the result of building– The presupposition: end state of building
existed before• The linguist assumes that the complex
structural representation of these parts would underlie any use or comprehension of the word
Tension: The Status of Linguistic Representations
• In linguistics, a “syntactic” representation mediates between sound (or letters, the hand movements of sign, etc.) and meaning (interface with other cognitive functions)
• The linguist operates under the assumption that language comprehension and production (as well as the generation of judgments of well-formedness) requires in every instance the creation of syntactic representations
• The tradition in cognitive psychology is to suppose that the linguistic representations are “abstract” and either not necessarily or rarely constructed when people speak and understand language on a daily basis -- people can use strategies, statistics, analogy, etc. to map directly between sound and meaning.
Example: Morphological Decomposition
• amiability• Linguistic representation:
nadj
root adj nami able ity
• “able” predicts category, meaning and potentiation of -ity
Pinker in “Words and Rules”3 Theories of “Irregular” Morphology
• full decomposition:“gave” = GIVE + PST => [ give [ ø ] ]• dual route (=Pinker’s mediation between
linguists and psychologists)“gave” = the past tense of “give”“walked” = WALK + PST => [ walk [ ed ] ]• single route:“gave” = the past tense of “give”“walked” = the past tense of “walk”
From the linguist’s perspective, only the full decomposition model makes any
sense
• “gave” behaves as a complex form with respect to syntactic and morphological distribution:– “the walkeding” = “the gav(e)ing”– He walked/He didn’t walk/*He didn’t walked– He gave/He didn’t give/*He didn’t gaved
“Evidence” for Dual Route View
• Lack of surface frequency effects for regular inflection:– RT to “walked” correlates with stem
frequency of “walk” rather than surface frequency of “walked”
– While RT to “taught” correlates with surface frequency of “taught” rather than stem frequency of “teach”
• Lack of priming for irregulars– “walked” primes “walk” but– “taught” doesn’t prime “teach”– (“darkly” and “darkness” prime “dark” but
“darkly” doesn’t prime “darkness”)
On surface frequency…
• Consider the informativeness of the past tense ending with respect to the stem:– For most regulars, -ed does not predict stem
(except for very high frequency regulars, and for those one gets surface frequency effects)
– For irregulars, form of past tense predicts past tense and vice versa
On priming…
• “stripes” primes “lion” (through “tiger”)
• Clearly, “taught” should semantically prime “teach”
• Lack of behavioral priming between “taught” and “teach” demands an explanation in terms of a theory of the task (e.g., Lexical Decision)
• False equation of “memorized” with “frequency” with “irregularity” with “whole vs. composed”
• “Irregularity” within language is governed by principles of structural locality
• Frequency always matters, both for the minimal constituents of language and for composed constituents, regardless of “regularity”