Stephen,

 One thing worth commenting on here is what seems to be your 
"non-developmental" concept of language acquisition.

The way humans acquire language is precisely by starting not by reading 
Wikipedia but by mastering "fiction-like" sentences with simple subjects and 
simple actions and relationships - like "John sit" "John eat" "Jack like Jill. 
Me give Jill soap" etc. -based primarily in the here and now -   and slowly 
building up stage by stage to ever more general and complex subjects and 
actions and relationships that transcend fictional/historical time and place - 
like "Human relationships are fraught with complications" and "Linguistics is 
focused on the study of sentences."

Cognitive linguistics also lacks a true deveopmental model of language 
acquisition that goes beyond the first few years of life, and can embrace all 
those several - and, I'm quite sure, absolutely necessary - stages of mastering 
language and building a world picture.

  Stephen:
  Mike asked:


  How does Stephen or YKY or anyone else propose to "read between the lines"? 
And what are the basic "world models", "scripts", "frames" etc etc. that you 
think sufficient to apply in understanding any set of texts, even a relatively 
specialised set?

  Interesting that this question arises, given my recent poster presentation at 
the Fifth International Conference on Construction Grammar, and what I learned 
there.   Accordingly, the following passage illustrates discourse and sentence 
constructions commonly found in fiction.  One would not expect a Wikipedia 
article to have similar constructions.


  "John sat down in the carriage. His grim reflection stared at him through the 
window. A whistle blew. The train started shuddering into motion, and slowly 
gathered pace. He was putting Brighton behind him for good. And just then the 
conductor popped his head through the door."


  Given that the Texai bootstrap dialog system will have as its initial goal 
the acquisition of vocabulary mappings, grammar constructions, and dialog 
skills from human mentors, I am not currently giving much attention to solving 
Mike's example problem.   

  From what I learned at the conference, especially at the Prado-Alonso talk, 
the author of a fictional passage often organizes the text so that the focal 
object is introduced first "John sat ...".  The discourse context retains the 
focal concept from one sentence to the next, and also other mentioned concepts 
subject to cognitive decay.   Existing concepts are positioned lexically to the 
left and new concepts are positioned to the right. The word "carriage" needs to 
be disambiguated.  In Wiktionary, "carriage" has as its second word sense "a 
railroad car drawn by a locomotive.  Spreading activation from window to 
carriage should subsequently rule out the first word sense for carriage "a 
wheeled vehicle, generally drawn by horse power", assuming the KB entails the 
fact that a railroad carriage has a window, and a typical contemporary 
horse-drawn carriage does not.   Processing "grim reflection stared" requires a 
solution for metonymy.  I believe that discourse context elaboration and 
spreading activation can be helpful when determining the corresponding 
semantics for this form.  To paraphrase, the system should figure out that 
"...grim reflection stared..." means the agent John perceived his own facial 
reflection and that the facial expression was grim.  A more direct approach but 
less general is to simply teach the system a unique construction for each 
instance of metonymy, e.g. "...reflection stared..." <===> "there is a facial 
reflection which the agent perceives as staring"

  I could say more about the temporal ordering of the story sentences, but you 
all should get the idea about how Texai would read, and perhaps someday 
compose, fictional descriptive passages.

  -Steve


  Stephen L. Reed


  Artificial Intelligence Researcher
  http://texai.org/blog
  http://texai.org
  3008 Oak Crest Ave.
  Austin, Texas, USA 78704
  512.791.7860




  ----- Original Message ----
  From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: [email protected]
  Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:23:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [agi] universal logical form for natural language


  Ben and Stephen,

  AFAIK your focus - and the universal focus - in this debate on how and 
whether language can be symbolically/logically interpreted - is on *individual 
words and sentences.*  A natural place to start. But you can't stop there - 
because the problems, I suggest, (hard as they already are), only seriously 
begin when you try to interpret *passages* - series of sentences from texts - 
and connect one sentence with another. Take:

  "John sat down in the carriage. His grim reflection stared at him through the 
window. A whistle blew. The train started shuddering into motion, and slowly 
gathered pace. He was putting Brighton behind him for good. And just then the 
conductor popped his head through the door."

  I imagine you can pose the interpretative questions yourself. How do you 
connect any one sentence with any other here? Where is the whistle blowing? 
Where is the train moving? Inside the carriage or outside? Is the carriage 
inside or outside or where in relation to the moving train?  Was he putting 
Brighton *physically* behind him like a cushion? Did the conductor break his 
head? etc. etc.

  The point is - in reading passages, in order to connect up sentences, you 
have to do a massive amount of *reading between the lines* .  In doing that, 
you have to reconstruct the world or parts of the world, being referred to, 
from your brain's own models of that world.. (To understand the above passage, 
for example, you employ a very complex model of train travel).

  And this will apply to all kinds of passages - to arguments as well as 
stories.  (Try understanding Ben's argument below).

  How does Stephen or YKY or anyone else propose to "read between the lines"? 
And what are the basic "world models", "scripts", "frames" etc etc. that you 
think sufficient to apply in understanding any set of texts, even a relatively 
specialised set?

  (Has anyone seriously *tried* understanding passages?)



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        agi | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        agi | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  



-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to