Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 17:1 (2016) ► pp.48–76

Construals of meaning

The role of attention in robotic language production

| Univ Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Inserm, Stem Cell and Brain Research Institute U1208, Bron, France
| Univ Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Inserm, Stem Cell and Brain Research Institute U1208, Bron, France
| LUX, Lund University
| Univ Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Inserm, Stem Cell and Brain Research Institute U1208, Bron, France
In robotics research with language-based interaction, simplifications are made, such that a given event can be described in a unique manner, where there is a direct mapping between event representations and sentences that can describe these events. However, common experience tells us that the same physical event can be described in multiple ways, depending on the perspective of the speaker. The current research develops methods for representing events from multiple perspectives, and for choosing the perspective that will be used for generating a linguistic construal, based on attentional processes in the system. The multiple perspectives are based on the principle that events can be considered in terms of the force driving the event, and the result obtained from the event, based on the theory of Gärdenfors. In addition, within these perspectives a further refinement can be made with respect to the agent, object, and recipient perspectives. We develop a system for generating appropriate construals of meaning, and demonstrate how this can be used in a realistic dialogic interaction between a behaving robot and a human interlocutor.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The problem of focus in sentence production
    • 1.2Different construals of event meanings
  • 2.Coding of meaning
    • 2.1A model of events
    • 2.2From construals to sentences
    • 2.3Determining the focus of the speaker
  • 3.Central components of the computational system
    • 3.1Sentence comprehension model
    • 3.2Sentence production model
    • 3.3PAOR representation of meaning
    • 3.4Force-result event construal
    • 3.5Ontic processes in mental model formation
  • 4.Method of implementation
    • 4.1Spoken language platform
    • 4.2Construal development
    • 4.3Functional requirements
  • 5.Demonstrations of construal and sentence generation
    • 5.1Conceptualization and construal of spatial configurations
    • 5.2Generating construals from actions
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 7 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.1.03mea
References
AbdulSabur N, Xu Y, Liu S, Chow H, Baxter M., et al.
2014 Neural correlates and network connectivity underlying narrative production and comprehension: A combined fMRI and PET study. Cortex 571: 107–27 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates E, MacWhinney B.
1987 Competition, variation, and language learning In Mechanisms of language acquisition, ed. B MacWhinney, E Bates, pp. 157–93. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Becker RB, Ferretti TR, Madden-Lombardi CJ.
2013 Grammatical aspect, lexical aspect, and event duration constrain the availability of events in narratives. Cognition 1291: 212–20 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruner J.
1991 The narrative construction of reality. Critical inquiry: 1–21 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft W.
2012 Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft W, Wood EJ.
2000 Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence Meaning and Cognition: A multidisciplinary approach ed. by Liliana Albertazzi: 51–78 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dominey P, Boucher J.
2005a Developmental stages of perception and language acquisition in a perceptually grounded robot. Cognitive Systems Research 61: 243–59 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dominey PF.
2001 A model of learning syntactic comprehension for natural and artificial grammars In Basic mechanisms of language and language disorders., ed. E Witruk, AD Friederici, T Lachmann, pp. 61–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
. 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston 2003.Google Scholar
2013 Recurrent temporal networks and language acquisition-from corticostriatal neurophysiology to reservoir computing. Frontiers in psychology 41: 1–14 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dominey PF, Boucher JD.
2005b Learning to talk about events from narrated video in a construction grammar framework. Artificial Intelligence 1671: 31–61 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dominey PF, Hoen M Blanc JM, Lelekov-Boissard T.
2003 Neurological basis of language and sequential cognition: evidence from simulation, aphasia, and ERP studies. Brain Lang 861: 207–25 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dominey PF, Hoen M, Inui T.
2006 A neurolinguistic model of grammatical construction processing. J Cogn Neurosci 181: 2088–107 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dominey PF, Inui T.
2009 Cortico-striatal function in sentence comprehension: insights from neurophysiology and modeling. Cortex 451: 1012–8 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dominey PF, Inui T, Hoen M.
2009 Neural network processing of natural language: II. Towards a unified model of corticostriatal function in learning sentence comprehension and non-linguistic sequencing. Brain & Language 1091: 80–92 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dominey PF, Ramus F.
2000 Neural network processing of natural language: I. Sensitivity to serial, temporal and abstract structure of language in the infant. Language and Cognitive Processes 151: 40 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doshi F, Roy N.
2008 Spoken language interaction with model uncertainty: an adaptive human–robot interaction system. Connection Science 201: 299–318 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty D.
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. language: 547–619 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman CF.
1987 Thought from language: the linguistic constructino of cognitive representations In Making sense: the child's construction of the world, ed. J Bruner, pp. 131–46. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors P.
2014 The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors P, Warglien M
2012 Using conceptual spaces to model actions and events. Journal of Semantics: ffs007 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón T.
2001 Syntax: an introduction. John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Gorniak P, Roy D.
2004 Grounded semantic composition for visual scenes. J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 211: 429–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hassin RR, Aarts H, Ferguson MJ.
2005 Automatic goal inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 411: 129–40 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinaut X, Dominey PF.
2013 Real-time parallel processing of grammatical structure in the fronto-striatal system: a recurrent network simulation study using reservoir computing. PLoS One 81: 1–18 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinaut X, Petit M, Pointeau G, Dominey PF.
2014 Exploring the acquisition and production of grammatical constructions through human-robot interaction with echo state networks. Front Neurorobot 81 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff R.
2002 Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kollar T, Tellex S, Roy D, Roy N.
2010 Proceeding of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction - HRI ’10. Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
Lakoff G, Narayanan S.
2010 AAAI Fall Symposium: Computational Models of Narrative.Google Scholar
Lallée S, Hamann K, Steinwender J, Warneken F, Martienz U., et al.
2013 Cooperative Human Robot Interaction Systems: IV. Communication of Shared Plans with Naïve Humans using Gaze and Speech. Presented at IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, TokyoGoogle Scholar
Lallée S, Madden C, Hoen M, Dominey P.
2010 Linking language with embodied teleological representations of action for humanoid cognition. Frontiers in Neurobotics DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker RW.
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford university press.Google Scholar
2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauria S, Bugmann G, Kyriacou T, Klein E.
2002 Mobile robot programming using natural language. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 381: 171–81 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin B, Hovav MR.
2005 Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li P, Macwhinney B.
2013 Competition Model. The Encyclopedia of Applied LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
Maguire MJ, Hirsh-Pasek K, Golinkoff RM, Imai M, Haryu E., et al.
2010 A developmental shift from similar to language-specific strategies in verb acquisition: a comparison of English, Spanish, and Japanese. Cognition 1141: 299–319 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metta G, Fitzpatrick P, Natale L.
2006 YARP: yet another robot platform. International Journal on Advanced Robotics Systems 31: 43–48Google Scholar
Palomares NA.
2008 Toward a Theory of Goal Detection in Social Interaction Effects of Contextual Ambiguity and Tactical Functionality on Goal Inferences and Inference Certainty. Communication Research 351: 109–48 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peelen MV, Romagno D, Caramazza A.
2012 Independent representations of verbs and actions in left lateral temporal cortex. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 241: 2096–107 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pointeau G, Petit M, Dominey PF.
2014 Successive Developmental Levels of Autobiographical Memory for Learning Through Social Interaction. Autonomous Mental Development, IEEE Transactions on DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier T, Zheng M.
2007 Attention to Endpoints: A Cross‐Linguistic Constraint on Spatial Meaning. Cognitive Science 311: 705–19 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosen ST.
1999 The syntactic representation of linguistic events. Glot International 41: 3–11Google Scholar
Roy D.
2002 Learning visually grounded words and syntax for a scene description task. Computer Speech and Language 161: 353–85 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semin GR, Fiedler K.
1988 The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 541: 558 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy L.
1988 Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 121: 49–100 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello M, Carpenter M, Call J, Behne T, Moll H.
2005 Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 281: 675–91 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warglien M, Gärdenfors P, Westera M.
2012 Event structure, conceptual spaces and the semantics of verbs. Theoretical Linguistics 381: 159–93 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu C, Smith LB.
2012 Embodied attention and word learning by toddlers. Cognition 1251: 244–62 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zacks JM, Tversky B.
2001 Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological bulletin 1271: 3 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan RA, Madden CJ, Whitten SN.
2000 The presence of an event in the narrated situation affects its availability to the comprehender. Mem Cognit 281: 1022–8 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts J.
2008 Aspects of a typology of direction. Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects: 79–106 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Dominey, Peter Ford, Victor Paleologue, Amit Kumar Pandey & Jocelyne Ventre-Dominey
2017. 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Gardenfors, Peter
2020. An Epigenetic Approach to Semantic Categories. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 12:2 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Gärdenfors, Peter
2019. Using Event Representations to Generate Robot Semantics. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 8:4 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gärdenfors, Peter
2020. Primary Cognitive Categories Are Determined by Their Invariances. Frontiers in Psychology 11 DOI logo
Gharaee, Zahra, Peter Gärdenfors & Magnus Johnsson
2017. Online recognition of actions involving objects. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 22 ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
Gharaee, Zahra, Peter Gärdenfors & Magnus Johnsson
2017. First and second order dynamics in a hierarchical SOM system for action recognition. Applied Soft Computing 59 ► pp. 574 ff. DOI logo
Mealier, Anne-Laure, Gregoire Pointeau, Solène Mirliaz, Kenji Ogawa, Mark Finlayson & Peter F. Dominey
2017. Narrative Constructions for the Organization of Self Experience: Proof of Concept via Embodied Robotics. Frontiers in Psychology 8 DOI logo
Moulin-Frier, Clement, Tobias Fischer, Maxime Petit, Gregoire Pointeau, Jordi-Ysard Puigbo, Ugo Pattacini, Sock Ching Low, Daniel Camilleri, Phuong Nguyen, Matej Hoffmann, Hyung Jin Chang, Martina Zambelli, Anne-Laure Mealier, Andreas Damianou, Giorgio Metta, Tony J. Prescott, Yiannis Demiris, Peter Ford Dominey & Paul F. M. J. Verschure
2018. DAC-h3: A Proactive Robot Cognitive Architecture to Acquire and Express Knowledge About the World and the Self. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 10:4 ► pp. 1005 ff. DOI logo
Pointeau, Gregoire & Peter Ford Dominey
2017. The Role of Autobiographical Memory in the Development of a Robot Self. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 11 DOI logo
Pointeau, Gregoire, Solène Mirliaz, Anne-Laure Mealier & Peter Ford Dominey
2021. Learning to Use Narrative Function Words for the Organization and Communication of Experience. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.