Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Benjamin Bergen

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 4: The Into schema, defined using the ECG formalism (left) and informally depicted as a set of linked schemas (right). Into is defined as a subcase of Trajector-Landmark that evokes an instance of the SPG schema (shown with a dashed boundary at right). Type constraints on roles requires their fillers to be instances of the specified schemas, and identification bindings (<—+) indicate which roles have common fillers. Though we focus here on meaning, schematic representations in the form domain can also be viewed as schemas and repre sented using the same formalism, as we will show in the next section.

Figure 4 The Into schema, defined using the ECG formalism (left) and informally depicted as a set of linked schemas (right). Into is defined as a subcase of Trajector-Landmark that evokes an instance of the SPG schema (shown with a dashed boundary at right). Type constraints on roles requires their fillers to be instances of the specified schemas, and identification bindings (<—+) indicate which roles have common fillers. Though we focus here on meaning, schematic representations in the form domain can also be viewed as schemas and repre sented using the same formalism, as we will show in the next section.

Related Figures (10)

Figure 1: Overview of the simulation-based language understanding model, consisting of two primary pro- cesses: analysis and simulation. Constructions play a central role in this framework as the bridge between phonological and conceptual knowledge.
Figure 1: Overview of the simulation-based language understanding model, consisting of two primary pro- cesses: analysis and simulation. Constructions play a central role in this framework as the bridge between phonological and conceptual knowledge.
Our analysis follows that of Goldberg (1995) in presuming that the ditransitive argument structure (in this example, the active ditransitive argument structure) imposes an interpretation in which one entity takes some action that causes another entity to receive something. Thus, although the verb toss appears with a variety of argument structures, its appearance in the example sentence is allowed only if its meaning pole can be understood as contributing to a transfer event of this kind. Figure 9: A depiction of a constructional analysis of Mary tossed me a drink. Constructs involved are shown in the center, linking elements and constraints in the domains of form and meaning; schemas are shown as rounded rectangles. (Some details not shown; see text.)
Our analysis follows that of Goldberg (1995) in presuming that the ditransitive argument structure (in this example, the active ditransitive argument structure) imposes an interpretation in which one entity takes some action that causes another entity to receive something. Thus, although the verb toss appears with a variety of argument structures, its appearance in the example sentence is allowed only if its meaning pole can be understood as contributing to a transfer event of this kind. Figure 9: A depiction of a constructional analysis of Mary tossed me a drink. Constructs involved are shown in the center, linking elements and constraints in the domains of form and meaning; schemas are shown as rounded rectangles. (Some details not shown; see text.)
We begin with the Mary and Mg constructions (Figure 11). Both of these are specified as subcases of REF-EXPR, and have form and meaning poles that are structurally similar to the RomE construction from Section 1.2. Each form pole is an instance of the Word schema with the appropriate phonological string, and each meaning pole constrains the resolved-referent role and specifies the referent’s level of accessibility. The differences in meaning pole constraints reflect the differing functions of proper nouns and pronouns: proper nouns like Mary refer to known ontological entities (here, the Mary schema is intended to correspond to an individual conventionally named “Mary”) and thus can be used with no prior mention; they need only a minimal inactive level of accessibility. In contrast, pronouns like me and you identify referents for which the interlocutors have active representations in the current discourse; in this case, the ME construction makes deictic reference to the speaker role in the current context (notated here as current-space.speaker; see Section 4 for discussion of how this role relates to work in mental spaces).
We begin with the Mary and Mg constructions (Figure 11). Both of these are specified as subcases of REF-EXPR, and have form and meaning poles that are structurally similar to the RomE construction from Section 1.2. Each form pole is an instance of the Word schema with the appropriate phonological string, and each meaning pole constrains the resolved-referent role and specifies the referent’s level of accessibility. The differences in meaning pole constraints reflect the differing functions of proper nouns and pronouns: proper nouns like Mary refer to known ontological entities (here, the Mary schema is intended to correspond to an individual conventionally named “Mary”) and thus can be used with no prior mention; they need only a minimal inactive level of accessibility. In contrast, pronouns like me and you identify referents for which the interlocutors have active representations in the current discourse; in this case, the ME construction makes deictic reference to the speaker role in the current context (notated here as current-space.speaker; see Section 4 for discussion of how this role relates to work in mental spaces).
Figure 12: Constructions underlying a drink: Common-Nown and its subcase DRINK-CXN supply a referent’s category by bindings its meaning pole (for DRINK-Cxn, the Drink schema) to its evoked Ref- erent schema’s category slot. The A-CN-Expr construction has one constructional constituent, typed as a Common-Novv, which it constrains to follow the form element it introduces (/a/). Its meaning pole, R eferent schema, is identified with the evoked R eferent of its constituent and further constrained.
Figure 12: Constructions underlying a drink: Common-Nown and its subcase DRINK-CXN supply a referent’s category by bindings its meaning pole (for DRINK-Cxn, the Drink schema) to its evoked Ref- erent schema’s category slot. The A-CN-Expr construction has one constructional constituent, typed as a Common-Novv, which it constrains to follow the form element it introduces (/a/). Its meaning pole, R eferent schema, is identified with the evoked R eferent of its constituent and further constrained.
This requirement does not apply to the caused-motion argument structure in (2c), which implies only that the agent causes motion of the entity along some path, without any entailment of receiving.'° Figure 14: The structurally similar Caused-Motion (in which an agent acts on a theme via some means such that it moves along a path) and Transfer (in which an agent acts on a theme via some means such that it is received by a recipient) capture scenes relevant to the example.
This requirement does not apply to the caused-motion argument structure in (2c), which implies only that the agent causes motion of the entity along some path, without any entailment of receiving.'° Figure 14: The structurally similar Caused-Motion (in which an agent acts on a theme via some means such that it moves along a path) and Transfer (in which an agent acts on a theme via some means such that it is received by a recipient) capture scenes relevant to the example.
These intuitions can be made concrete using the representational tools of ECG to define the two relevant scenes, Caused-Motion and Transfer (Figure 14), each defined in terms of several other schemas (Figure 15). The two scenes are structurally parallel: each involves a forceful action on the part of an agent entity, which causes some effect on a theme entity. The forceful action is captured by the Force-Application schema, which involves an energy-source that exerts force on an energy-sink via some means, possibly through an instrument; the type and amount of force may also be specified.!4 The causal structure is captured by the simple Cause-Effect schema, which lists only a cause and a resulting effect. Each of the schemas in Figure 14 evokes both the Force-Application and Cause-E ffect schemas and asserts constraints that identify the agent in each scene with the energy-source of the forceful action, the overall means of the scene with the means of the forceful action, and the forceful action itself with the Cause-E ffect’s cause. Figure 15: Embodied schemas contributing to the example sentence: Force-Application captures scenarios in which an energy-source exerts force on an energy-sink; Cause-E ffect captures causal relations; and Receive schema has roles for a receiver and a received entity.
These intuitions can be made concrete using the representational tools of ECG to define the two relevant scenes, Caused-Motion and Transfer (Figure 14), each defined in terms of several other schemas (Figure 15). The two scenes are structurally parallel: each involves a forceful action on the part of an agent entity, which causes some effect on a theme entity. The forceful action is captured by the Force-Application schema, which involves an energy-source that exerts force on an energy-sink via some means, possibly through an instrument; the type and amount of force may also be specified.!4 The causal structure is captured by the simple Cause-Effect schema, which lists only a cause and a resulting effect. Each of the schemas in Figure 14 evokes both the Force-Application and Cause-E ffect schemas and asserts constraints that identify the agent in each scene with the energy-source of the forceful action, the overall means of the scene with the means of the forceful action, and the forceful action itself with the Cause-E ffect’s cause. Figure 15: Embodied schemas contributing to the example sentence: Force-Application captures scenarios in which an energy-source exerts force on an energy-sink; Cause-E ffect captures causal relations; and Receive schema has roles for a receiver and a received entity.
We first consider how the action of tossing can be represented using embodied schemas before defining the construction for the verb tossed. As noted earlier, the Toss schema needed for our example is semantically compatible with either of the scenes we have described, but it is intrinsically associated with caused motion and thus defined here against the backdrop of the Caused-Motion schema (Figure 16). Specifically, Toss evokes both a Caused-Motion schema and a Fly schema (not shown); it identifies itself with the means role of the evoked Caused-Motion, as expressed by the first line in the constraints block. The remaining constraints straightforwardly identify the Toss’s two roles, a tosser and a tossed object, with appropriate roles in the evoked schemas; restrict the degree of force used in the causal action to low; and bind the means of the associated resulting motion to the evoked Fly action. In sum, the action of tossing is a (somewhat) forceful action on an entity that causes it to fly. (As usual, this schema should be viewed as summarizing the motor parameters for a more detailed representation of the tossing action schema, to be discussed ir Section 3.2.1.)
We first consider how the action of tossing can be represented using embodied schemas before defining the construction for the verb tossed. As noted earlier, the Toss schema needed for our example is semantically compatible with either of the scenes we have described, but it is intrinsically associated with caused motion and thus defined here against the backdrop of the Caused-Motion schema (Figure 16). Specifically, Toss evokes both a Caused-Motion schema and a Fly schema (not shown); it identifies itself with the means role of the evoked Caused-Motion, as expressed by the first line in the constraints block. The remaining constraints straightforwardly identify the Toss’s two roles, a tosser and a tossed object, with appropriate roles in the evoked schemas; restrict the degree of force used in the causal action to low; and bind the means of the associated resulting motion to the evoked Fly action. In sum, the action of tossing is a (somewhat) forceful action on an entity that causes it to fly. (As usual, this schema should be viewed as summarizing the motor parameters for a more detailed representation of the tossing action schema, to be discussed ir Section 3.2.1.)
Figure 18: The ACTIVE-DITRANSITIVE construction has four constituents, including three referring ex- pressions with specified case values. Besides imposing order constraints, the construction binds its meaning pole (a Predication), with its verbal constituent’s evoked predication; its evoked Transfer schema with its scene role; and the meaning poles of its constituents with roles of the Transfer schema.
Figure 18: The ACTIVE-DITRANSITIVE construction has four constituents, including three referring ex- pressions with specified case values. Besides imposing order constraints, the construction binds its meaning pole (a Predication), with its verbal constituent’s evoked predication; its evoked Transfer schema with its scene role; and the meaning poles of its constituents with roles of the Transfer schema.
Figure 19: Semantic specification showing predications and referents produced by the analysis of Mary tossed me a drink. The overall predication has a Transfer schema as its scene, and a Toss schema (which is also the means of transfer) as its schema. The Transfer schema’s agent is bound to the Mary schema, its recipient to the speaker, and its theme to an inaccessible referent of category Drink.
Figure 19: Semantic specification showing predications and referents produced by the analysis of Mary tossed me a drink. The overall predication has a Transfer schema as its scene, and a Toss schema (which is also the means of transfer) as its schema. The Transfer schema’s agent is bound to the Mary schema, its recipient to the speaker, and its theme to an inaccessible referent of category Drink.
EE EE ee also reflects a basic division into primitives that correspond roughly to stative situations and dynamic actions We use tossing, the central action described by our example utterance, to illustrate the x-schema com: putational formalism. The Toss schema evoked by the TosseEp construction parameterizes the Tossing EF xecution schema, which is the explicit, grounded representation of the sensorimotor pattern used (by at implicit tosser) to perform a tossing action, shown in Figure 20. Informally, the figure captures a sequence of actions that may be performed in tossing an object (the tossed parameter), including possible prepara: tory actions (grasping the object and moving it into a suitable starting position) and the main tossing actior of launching the object (shown in the hexagon labeled nucleus). This main event may include subsidiary actions that move the object along a suitable path before releasing the object, all with low force. A numbe of perceptual conditions (shown in the area labeled percept vector) must also hold at specific stages of the event: the tossed object must be in the hand (of the tosser) before the action takes place, and afterwarc it will be flying toward some target. (The target role was not shown in the Toss schema definition fron Figure 16, but would be bound to its spg.goal.) The x-schema formalism provides a graphical means of representing the actions and conditions of the dynamic event described. An x-schema consists of a set of places (drawn as circles) and transitions (drawn as hexagons) connected by arcs (drawn as arrows). Places typically represent perceptual conditions or resources; they may be marked as containing one or more tokens (shown as black dots), which indicate that the condition is currently fulfilled or that the resource is available. In the stage depicted in the figure, for example, two places in the percept vector are marked, indicating that the object to be tossed is currently in the tosser’s hand, and that the tosser currently has some energy. (The figure does not show incoming arcs from separate perceptual input mechanisms that detect whether the appropriate conditions hold.) The other places in the figure are control states for the action (e.g., enabled, ready, ongoing, done, which we discuss in Section 3.2.2). The overall state of the x-schema is defined as the distribution of tokens to places over the network; this assignment is also called a marking of the x-schema. er ee ee ee er ee OO ee es
EE EE ee also reflects a basic division into primitives that correspond roughly to stative situations and dynamic actions We use tossing, the central action described by our example utterance, to illustrate the x-schema com: putational formalism. The Toss schema evoked by the TosseEp construction parameterizes the Tossing EF xecution schema, which is the explicit, grounded representation of the sensorimotor pattern used (by at implicit tosser) to perform a tossing action, shown in Figure 20. Informally, the figure captures a sequence of actions that may be performed in tossing an object (the tossed parameter), including possible prepara: tory actions (grasping the object and moving it into a suitable starting position) and the main tossing actior of launching the object (shown in the hexagon labeled nucleus). This main event may include subsidiary actions that move the object along a suitable path before releasing the object, all with low force. A numbe of perceptual conditions (shown in the area labeled percept vector) must also hold at specific stages of the event: the tossed object must be in the hand (of the tosser) before the action takes place, and afterwarc it will be flying toward some target. (The target role was not shown in the Toss schema definition fron Figure 16, but would be bound to its spg.goal.) The x-schema formalism provides a graphical means of representing the actions and conditions of the dynamic event described. An x-schema consists of a set of places (drawn as circles) and transitions (drawn as hexagons) connected by arcs (drawn as arrows). Places typically represent perceptual conditions or resources; they may be marked as containing one or more tokens (shown as black dots), which indicate that the condition is currently fulfilled or that the resource is available. In the stage depicted in the figure, for example, two places in the percept vector are marked, indicating that the object to be tossed is currently in the tosser’s hand, and that the tosser currently has some energy. (The figure does not show incoming arcs from separate perceptual input mechanisms that detect whether the appropriate conditions hold.) The other places in the figure are control states for the action (e.g., enabled, ready, ongoing, done, which we discuss in Section 3.2.2). The overall state of the x-schema is defined as the distribution of tokens to places over the network; this assignment is also called a marking of the x-schema. er ee ee ee er ee OO ee es
Related topics:
Computer ArchitectureConstruction GrammarMotor SystemMental SimulationLanguage understanding
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved