Download
double r theory january 2011 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Double R Theory January 2011 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Double R Theory January 2011

Double R Theory January 2011

151 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Double R Theory January 2011

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Double R TheoryJanuary 2011 Jerry Ball Human Effectiveness Directorate 711th Human Performance Wing Air Force Research Laboratory

  2. Theoretical FoundationsLanguage Representation and Processing • Double R Grammar • Cognitive Linguistic theory of the grammatical encoding of referential and relational meaning • Double R Process • Psycholinguistic theory of the processing of English text into Double R Grammar based representations • Double R Model • Computational implementation using the ACT-Rcognitive architecture and modeling environment DoubleRTheory.com

  3. Theoretical FoundationsLanguage Representation and Processing • Double R Grammar • Cognitive Linguistic theory of the grammatical encoding of referential and relational meaning • Double R Process • Psycholinguistic theory of the processing of English text into Double R Grammar based representations • Double R Model • Computational implementation using the ACT-Rcognitive architecture and modeling environment DoubleRTheory.com

  4. Theoretical FoundationsGrounding Language in Experience • Symbol Grounding (Harnad) • Ungrounded symbols are meaningless • There must be a chain from abstract to perceptually grounded concepts that provides the grounding for abstract concepts • Perceptual Symbol Systems (Barsalou) • No purely abstract concepts • The brain is a highly evolved perceptual (motor) organ • Imagery simulates perceptual experience • Embodied Cognition (Lakoff et al.) • Abstract concepts are often understood via metaphorical association with more concrete concepts • Good is up—Bad is down; Life is a journey

  5. Theoretical FoundationsSituation Model • Situation Model (Kintsch et al.) • Originally viewed as a propositional text base (van Dijk & Kintsch) • Elaboration of propositions in linguistic input • Now viewed as a Spatial-Imaginal (and Temporal) representation of the objects and situations described by linguistic expressions and encoded directly from the environment (Zwann et al.) • Non-propositional (in part) • Non-textual • No available computational implementations • Provides grounding for linguistic representations

  6. Abstract Concepts vs. Perceptually Grounded Language The Prevailing “Cognitive Psychological” View Real World Mental Box Perception Cognition “pilot” “pilot” XY-123 (aka PILOT) Concept ~ abstract amodal fixed point in conceptual space

  7. Abstract Concepts vs. Perceptually Grounded Language An Emerging “Embodied Cognition” View Real World Mental Box Do we really need abstract concepts? How are they learned? perception “pilot” “pilot” grounding Perceptual Symbol Cognition is the simulation of perceptual experience Explicit (Perceptual) perception Concept ~ dynamic and tangled interconnections of associated experiences

  8. Language is Grounded in a Situation Model SRE: Situation Referring Expression ORE: Object Referring Expression PRED: Predicate The horse runs ORE refers the subj horse SRE head runs refers PRED Dynamic mental simulation of horse running would be better!

  9. Language is Grounded in a Situation Model Each experience of a running event changes the RUN concept! The paint runs ORE refers the subj paint SRE head runs refers PRED Dynamic mental simulation of paint running would be better!

  10. Guiding Linguistic Principles • Jackendoff’s (1983) Grammatical Constraint: …one should prefer a semantic theory that explains otherwise arbitrary generalizations about the syntax and the lexicon…a theory’s deviations from efficient encoding must be vigorously justified, for what appears to be an irregular relationship between syntax and semantics may turn out merely to be a bad theory of one or the other

  11. Guiding Linguistic Principles • Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar (1987, 1991) • Grammar is simply the structuring and symbolization of semantic content • Exclusionary Fallacy – one analysis, motivation, categorization, cause, function or explanation for a linguistic phenomenon necessarily precludes another • Rule/List Fallacy – the assumption, on grounds of simplicity, that particular statements (i.e. lists) must be excised from the grammar of a language if general statements (i.e. rules) that subsume them can be established

  12. Construction Grammar (Fillmore, Goldberg, Sag, etc.) • Constructions—the basic units of grammar—are pairings of form, function and meaning form the man hit the ball function subject predicator object meaning hit(agent:manpatient:ball) semantic roles “concepts” uppercase word syndrome

  13. Construction Grammar • Declarative Clause + Intransitive Verb construction • The woman sneezed • Decl Clause + Transitive Verb construction • The man hit the ball • Wh-Question + Ditransitive Verb + Passive constr. • Whowas given the ball? • Decl Clause + Intrans Verb + Causative constr. • The woman sneezed the napkin off the table

  14. X-Bar Theory • Key element of Chomsky’s Generative Grammar from the 1970’s to the 1990’s • Theory of the universal structure of all languages • Autonomous from meaning • X-Bar structure presumed to be innate (not learned) • Replaced Phrase Structure Grammar component of earlier theory (e.g. S  NP VP; NP  Det N; …) • Has gone thru several major revisions resulting in more and more complex syntactic representations • Subsumed by other theoretical considerations in Chomsky’s Minimalist Program (circa. 1995)

  15. X-Bar Theory (Chomsky 1970) Universal structure of all languages except that relative locations can vary (e.g. complements may occur before or after head) Generalization over Syntactic Categories – NP, VP, AP, PP XP Specifier X-Bar X (head) Complement(s) Universal structure of all languages – very strong claim – generative linguists spent next 20+ years trying to demonstrate it! XP  Spec X-Bar X-Bar  X (Head)Comp(s)

  16. X-Bar Theory ~ 1993 Universal structure of all languages Something went seriously wrong! Locally adheres to X-Bar Schema  Globally very complex! XP (X’’) Spec X-Bar (X’) X Comp (YP) X-Bar schema Universal structure of clause

  17. X-Bar Theory (adapted in Ball 2007) • What’s right about X-Bar Theory: • Referential layer • Relational layer • Grammatical functions: specifier, head, complement, modifier (but need to be semantically motivated) Generalization over grammatical categories – referring expression XP • complements – arguments of • relational head referential layer Specifier X-Bar relational layer • specifier – indicates referential • function X (head) Complement(s) • head – semantically most significant element

  18. Simpler Syntax(Culicover & Jackendoff 2005) • Reaction against the complex syntactic representations of modern mainstream generative grammar • Against syntactocentrism • If there is a level of meaning representation, then syntactic representations can be simpler • Flat as opposed to deeply nested syntactic representations • Culicover & Jackendoff are former students of Chomsky

  19. Comprehensive Grammars of English • Cambridge Grammar (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) • Informed by linguistic theory, but attempts to cover most of English with all its exceptions • Adds functional categories to syntactic representations • Longman’s Grammar (Quirk et al., 1985) • Focus on basic functions of linguistic elements • In the spirit of Functional Grammar as opposed to Chomsky’s Generative Grammar

  20. Double R Grammar • Theory of the grammatical encoding of Referential and Relational meaning • Derived from X-Bar Theory prior to the introduction of functional heads (Chomsky, 1970) • Grammatical Functions (GFs) explicitly represented • Phrase Level: Specifier, Head, Complement, Modifier • Clause Level: Specifier, Head, Subject (Comp), Modifier • Specifier + Head Referring Expression (Max Proj) • All the grammatical info needed to support reference • Specifier = locus of Referential meaning • Head = locus of Relational meaning

  21. Basic Nominal – X-Bar Theory (Chomsky 1970) NP  D N-Bar N-Bar  N the captain Maximal Projection NP Syntactic Category D N-Bar Head (implicit) Specifier (implicit) N Lexical Item Later – D reanalyzed as head of DP (functional head) DP  D-bar NP the captain • Noun is head of nominal (NP) • N-bar level is required Grammatical Functions are implicit in syntactic representation

  22. Basic Nominal – Simpler Syntax NP  D N (head) the captain Double Line marks head Syntactic Category NP D N Lexical Item the captain One (explicit) phrase level GF: Head • Noun is head of nominal (NP) • No N-bar level

  23. Basic Nominal – Cambridge Grammar NP  Det:D Head:N the captain NP GF: Syntactic Category Det: D Head: N Lexical Item the captain Four phrase level (NP) GF’s: Head Determiner Complement Modifier • Noun is head of nominal (NP) • N-Bar level allowed, but not required Note: Nominal = N-bar, not NP for H&P

  24. Nominal ~ Referring Expression John Lyons, Semantics, Vol 2, 1977, p. 445 “Looked at from a semantic point of view, nominals are referring expressions” “They are expressions which have a certain potential for reference”

  25. Basic Nominal – Double R ORE  Spec Head; Spec  D; Head  N the captain Object Referring Expression (ORE) Grammatical Function (GF) Spec Head Grammatical/ Lexical Construction D N Lexical Item the captain Referential pole Relational pole Four phrase level GF’s: Head Specifier Complement Modifier • Nominal ~ Object Referring Expression • Noun is head of nominal (NP) • No N-bar level

  26. Basic Clause X-Bar Theory ~ 1970s S  NP VP VP  Specv V-Bar V-Bar  V Joe runs S Deep Structure NP VP N-bar Specv V-bar N V TENSEpres Joe run Structure of S not explained by X-Bar Theory circa. 1970 -- no specifier or head of S Deep Structure gets transformed into Surface Structure (Transformational Grammar) -- TENSEpres + run  runs

  27. Basic Clause – Simpler Syntax S  NP AUX VP Joe runs S Clause level GF’s: Subject Object Second Object NP AUX VP Syntactic Tier: N TENSEpres V Joe run Vestige of Transformational Grammar GF Tier: Subject affix hopping CS: RUN(AGENT:X) • Head of S not specified in Culicover (2009) • In Jackendoff (2002), no lexical items in syntactic tier

  28. Basic Clause – Cambridge Grammar Clause  Subj:NP Predicate:VP Predicate:VP  Predicator:V Joe runs Clause Subj: NP Predicate: VP Head: N Predicator: V Joe runs Clause level GF’s: Predicate ~ Head of Clause Subject ~ External Complement Modifier Additional phrase level (VP) GF: Predicator ~ Head of VP No equivalent to determiner at clause level!

  29. Basic Clause – Double R SRE  Subj(Spec+)Head Subj  ORE (Spec+)Head  Vfin Joe runs Situation Referring Expression (SRE) Grammatical Construction Subj | ORE | (Spec+)Head | PN | Joe (Spec+)Head Vfin | runs Clause level GF’s: Head Specifier Subject ~ External Complement Modifier • SRE ~ Clause or S Specificationfused with Head

  30. Basic Clause X-Bar Theory ~ 1970s S  NP VP VP  Specv V-Bar (head) V-Bar  V (head) NP (comp) NP  D (spec) N-bar (head) N-Bar  N (head) Joe kicks the ball NP S N-bar | N | ball D | the VP NP | N-bar | N | Joe Later – VP reanalyzed as head of S & Subject NP reanalyzed as specifier of S – left of head so must be spec! S  NP (spec) VP (head) Specv V-Bar V | kick TENSEpres Later – tense reanalyzed as head of IP; S reanalyzed as CP (complementizer phrase) with C-bar = IP CP  IP = C-bar (head) IP (inflection phrase)  NP (spec) I-bar (head) I-bar  I (tense head) VP (comp)

  31. Basic Clause – X-Bar Theory ~ 1980s CP  IP = C-bar (head) IP  NP (spec) I-bar (head) I-bar  I (head) VP (comp) VP  V-Bar (head) NP (comp) V-Bar  V (head) Joe kicks the ball CP NP IP = C-bar D | the N-bar | N | ball Complement of I-bar I-bar NP | N-bar | N | Joe VP I | TENSEpres Spec of IP (subject) V-Bar V | kick Later – additional levels proposed: AgrP (agreement)  AgrSP, AgrOP NegP (negation) ModP (modality) Etc. Head of CP Sentence now adheres to X-Bar Theory!

  32. Basic Clause – X-Bar Theory ~ 1993 Joe kicks the ball C’ = C-bar Subj Agreement | Joe? TP = IP Some languages have object agreement, so universal, innate structure must have this layer! Obj Agreement TENSEpres VP way down here! Structure below VP not shown Universal clausal structure of all languages! kick the ball

  33. Basic Clause – Simpler Syntax S  NP AUX VP VP  V (head) NP Joe kicks the ball NP S D | the N | ball NP || N | Joe AUX VP || V | kick Syntactic Tier: TENSEpres affix hopping GF Tier: Subject Object CS: KICK(AGENT:X PATIENT:Y )

  34. Basic Clause – Cambridge Grammar Clause  Subj:NP Predicate:VP Predicate:VP  Predicator:V Obj:NP Joe kicks the ball Clause Predicate: VP Subj: NP | Head: N | Joe Predicator: V | kicks Obj: NP Det: D | the Head: N | ball Additional phrase level (VP) GF: Object ~ Complement

  35. Basic Clause – Double R SRE  Subj(Spec+)Head Subj  ORE Head  Pred-Trans-Verb PTV  Head Obj Joe kicks the ball SRE Grammatical Construction (Spec+)Head | Pred-Trans-Verb Subj | ORE | (Spec+)Head | PN | Joe (Spec+)Head | Vfin | kicks Obj | ORE Spec | D | the Head | N | ball Additional phrase level GF: Object ~ Complement

  36. Basic Clause with Auxiliary – Simpler Syntax S  NP AUX VP VP  V (head) NP Joe is kicking the ball S NP || N | Joe AUX VP [prOG-part] || V [prOG-part] | kick Syntactic Tier: TENSEpres VAUX | be NP D | the N | ball affix hopping GF Tier: Subject Object CS: KICK(AGENT:X PATIENT:Y )

  37. Basic Clause with Auxiliary – Cambridge Grammar Clause Clause  Subj:NP Pred:VP Pred:VP  Pred-or:V Comp:Clausebare Comp:Clausebare  Pred:VP Pred:VP  Pred-or:V Obj:NP Predicate: VP Subj: NP | Head: N | Joe Predicator: V | is Comp: Clausebare | bare clause (no subj or tense) Predicate: VP head of clause! Predicator: V | kicking No specifier GF Obj: NP catenative verbs Det: D | the Head: N | ball Joe is kicking the ball

  38. Basic Clause with Auxiliary – Double R SRE  Subj Spec Head Subj  ORE Spec  Aux Head  Pred-Trans-Verb PTV  Head Obj SRE Subj | ORE | Head | N | Joe Spec | Aux | is Head | Pred-Trans-Verb Head | V | kicking Obj | ORE Spec | D | the Head | N | ball head of clause Joe is kicking the ball

  39. Possessive Nominal – Simpler Syntax NP NP’s N Joe’s book NP No label! NP ’s N Joe book

  40. Possessive Nominal – Cambridge Grammar NPPlain Subj+Det:NPGen Head:N Joe’s book Fused subject-determiner NPPlain Subj+Det: NPGen Head: N Joe’s book Additional phrase level GF: Subj~ Complement H & P allow GF’s to be fused – consistent with grammatical evidence

  41. Possessive Nominal – Double R Poss-ORE  RefPt+Spec Head Joe’s book Possessive Object Referring Expression (ORE) Grammatical Construction RefPt Spec Head ORE – (Spec+)Head – PN Poss-Mkr N Joe ’s book Referential pole Relational pole Additional phrase level GF: Ref Pt ~ Complement

  42. Clause without Main Verb – Simpler Syntax S  NP AUX PP the book is on the table S NP AUX PP || P | on Syntactic Tier: TENSEpres VAUX | be D | the N | book NP D | the N | table GF Tier: Subject CS Tier: BE(THEME:X, ON(THEME:Y))

  43. Clause without Main Verb – Cambridge Grammar Clause  Subj:NP Pred:VP Pred:VP  Pred-or:V Comp:PP Comp:PP  Head:P Obj:NP the book is on the table Clause Predicate: VP Subj: NP Comp: PP Predicator: V | is Det: D | the Head: N | book Head: P | on Obj: NP Det: D | the Head: N | table head of clause!

  44. Clause without Main Verb – Double R SRE  Subj Spec Head Subj  ORE Spec  Aux Head  Pred-Prep Pred-Prep  Head Obj SRE Subj | ORE Spec | Aux | is Head | Pred-Prep Grammatical Construction Spec | D | the Head | N | book Head | P | on Obj | ORE Spec | D | the Head | N | table head of clause! the book is on the table

  45. Clause without Main Verb – Simpler Syntax S  NP AUX PP the book’s on the table S NP AUX PP || P | on Syntactic Tier: TENSEpres VAUX | be D | the N | book NP D | the N | table Subject GF Tier: CS Tier: BE(THEME:X, ON(THEME:Y))

  46. Clause without Main Verb – Cambridge Grammar Clause  Subj:NP Pred:VP Pred:VP  Pred-or:V Comp:PP Comp:PP  Head:P Obj:NP the book’s on the table Clause Predicate: VP Subj: NP fused? Comp: PP Predicator: V | ’s Det: D | the Head: N | book Head: P | on Obj: NP Det: D | the Head: N | table Don’t see how H&P can allow GF’s to be fused – inconsistent with grammatical evidence

  47. Clause without Main Verb – Double R SRE  Subj+Spec Head Subj  ORE Spec  Aux Head  Pred-Prep Pred-Prep  Head Obj SRE Subj | ORE Spec | Aux | ’s Head | Pred-Prep Spec | D | the Head | N | book Head | P | on Obj | ORE Spec | D | the Head | N | table the book’s on the table

  48. Passive Clause – Simpler Syntax S  NP AUX VPbe VPbe  be (head) VP[PASS] VP[PASS]  V[PASS] (PPby) PPby  by NP the book was taken by Joe S Syntactic Tier: VP NP AUX TENSEpast VP [PASSIVE] bev-aux the book V [PASSIVE] | take PP byp NP GF Tier: Subject Object Joe CS: TAKE(AGENT:X, PATIENT:Y)

  49. Passive Clause – Cambridge Grammar Clause  Subj:NP Pred:VP Pred:VP  Pred-or:V Comp:Clausebare Comp:Clausebare  Pred:VP Pred:VP  Pred-or:V Comp:PP Clause Predicate: VP Subj: NP Comp: Clausebare | Predicator: V | was Det: D | the Head: N | book Predicate: VP Comp: PP Predicator: V | taken Comp: P | by Comp: NP Joe the book was taken by Joe

  50. Passive Clause – Double R SRE  Subj Spec Head Subj  ORE1 Spec  Aux Head  Pred-Trans-Verb PTV  Head Obj Mod Obj  Bind1 SRE Subj | ORE1 Spec | Aux | was Head | Pred-Trans-Verb Grammatical Construction Spec | D | the Head | N | book Head | V | taken Obj | Bind1 Mod | Pass-By-RE Obj ORE Head, PN Joe Head, P by the book was taken by Joe