the interplay between conceptual and referential …...the interplay between conceptual and...

The interplay between conceptual andreferential aspects of meaning

Gemma BoledaUniversitat Pompeu Fabra

(work in collaboration withLouise McNally)

BRIDGE WorkshopESSLLI 2018, 6–10 August 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria

1

Acknowledgements

I Co-authors in cited papersI Laura Aina, Kristina Gulordava, Carina Silberer,

Ionut-Teodor Sorodoc, Matthijs Westera

I This project has received funding from the EuropeanResearch Council (ERC) under the European Union’sHorizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grantagreement No 715154). AMORE: A distributional Model OfReference to Entities).

2

The problem

Modifier-noun relations bifurcate:I Strong default interpretationsI In context, anything goes

How to explain this?

3

Example: adjectives with little/no context

Canadian visit / attack / decision. . .must denote agent (Kayne 1984, a.o.)

(1) Yeltsin met the prospective Democratic presidentialcandidate Bill Clinton on June 18. His itinerary alsoincluded an official visit to Canada/??an officialCanadian visit.

(2) Put the scarf in the red box.

4



(1) Yeltsin met the prospective Democratic presidentialcandidate Bill Clinton on June 18. His itinerary alsoincluded an official visit to Canada

/??an officialCanadian visit.


4



(1) Yeltsin met the prospective Democratic presidentialcandidate Bill Clinton on June 18. His itinerary alsoincluded an official visit to Canada/??an officialCanadian visit.


4

Adjectives in context

(3) Prince Edward and wife begin Canadian visit

(4) (Context: For a fundraising sale, Adam and Barbara aresorting donated scarves according to color in different,identical, brown cardboard boxes. Barbara distractedlyputs a red scarf in the box containing blue scarves.)Adam: Hey, this one belongs in the red box!

5

More specific questions

I Strong default interpretationsI Why does the default seem so strong?

I In context, anything goesI Why/How can context ameliorate anything?

I What kind of theory can account for this compositionalphenomenon?

6

Previous work: Two general approaches tomodification

I Semantic primitivesI Underspecification of modification relation + resolution in

context

The closest thing we have seen to a mixed approach appearsin Asher (2011).

7

Resolution via semantic primitives

I Long traditionI Makes explicit how the concepts introduced by the modifier

and the head are composedI Examples:

I Levi (1978): CAUSE, HAVE, MAKE, USE, BE, IN, FOR,FROM, ABOUT, ACT, PRODUCT, AGENT, PATIENT

I Pustejovsky (1995): FORMAL, CONSTITUTIVE,AGENTIVE, TELIC

I Ó Séaghdha and Copestake (2009): BE, HAVE, IN,AGENT, INSTRUMENT, ABOUT

8

Resolution via semantic primitives

(5) Canadian visit : λx .visit(x) ∧ AGENT(x , Canada)

(6) red apple: λx∃y .apple(x) ∧CONSTITUTIVE(apple)=PART-OF(y,x) ∧ red(y)

9

Pros and cons

I ProsI intuitions about default interpretationsI predicts productivity

I ConsI too strongI too weakI huge methodological issues

10

Underspecification + context

I Also a long traditionI Relations are established indexically or by valuing a

variable that stands for the relationI Examples:

I Bosch (1983), Rothschild and Segal (2009): Adjectivesdenote functions from contexts to contents

I McNally and Boleda (2004), Kennedy and McNally (2010):Adjectives introduce variables over relations that are valuedby context

11

Underspecification + context

(7) Canadian visit : λx .visit(x) ∧ Ri(x , Canada)

(compare to λx .visit(x) ∧ AGENT(x , Canada)

12

Pros and cons

I Pro: appropriately flexibleI Con: too weakI Pending: a theory of how context plays its role

13

Summing up

default context-dependentsemantic primitives (4) 8

underspecification + context 8 (4)

14

Synthesis: Conceptual and referential affordance inlanguageMcNally and Boleda 2017

Distinct aspects of language afford concept composition indifferent ways:

I The concepts describedI The entities referred to

Affordance (Chemero (2003), based onGibson (1979)):

I relation between features of situationsand abilities of organisms

15

Synthesis: Conceptual and referential affordance inlanguage

Assumption (semiotic models, a.o.):

Proposal

I the connection to concepts and to the world are distinctfeatures of language

I each of them affords distinct composition processI speakers avail themselves of both

16

Conceptual affordance

The concepts contributed by the components of a phrasesuggest the ways in which they should be composed

→ default interpretations, little or no need for contextI productive: speakers use regularities in our lexical

knowledge


17


The concepts contributed by the components of a phrasesuggest the ways in which they should be composed→ default interpretations, little or no need for context

I productive: speakers use regularities in our lexicalknowledge


17


The concepts contributed by the components of a phrasesuggest the ways in which they should be composed→ default interpretations, little or no need for contextI productive: speakers use regularities in our lexical

knowledge


17

Referential affordance

Independently available information about the referent indicateshow the concepts should be composed

→ Ad hoc interpretations, heavy context dependenceI plastic: speakers use information about the world


18



→ Ad hoc interpretations, heavy context dependence

I plastic: speakers use information about the world


18



→ Ad hoc interpretations, heavy context dependenceI plastic: speakers use information about the world


18

Conceptual vs. referential effects in compositionAsher 2011, McNally and Boleda 2017

“cafetera italiana”(Italian coffee maker )

⇓conceptually afforded

composition

“cafetera italiana”, too!(Italian coffee maker )

⇓referentially afforded

composition

19

Contribution 1

I Strong default interpretationsI Why does the default seem so strong?→ conceptually afforded modification→ model with distributional semantics

I In context, anything goesI Why/How can context ameliorate anything?


20

Distributional semantics for conceptually affordedmodification

I default interpretations are very sensitive to the lexicalsemantics of the phrase components

I both coarse- and fine-grained

defaultsemantic primitives (4)underspecification + context 8

I distributional semantics provides the necessaryinformation, like primitive-based accounts, without theirdrawbacks

21

Distributional semanticsAka vector-space semantics, related to Neural Networks / deep learning

(See Stefan Evert’s course this week at ESSLLI for more!)

likely) mug of bourbon in hand. Somestewed milk into a heavy mug, granules ofholding his coffee mug cupped in his hands.drained his mug, dropping it over histablespoons of coffee and a single mug ofmilk into the mug plus four spoons of sugarplacing the empty mug on the floorpicking up my mug with one hand andfollowed by a very hot mug of tea into whichfrom time to time to drink a mug of tea. Thebriefed, relax over a mug of tea and acake and cheese and a mug of strong, blackthen we had a mug of cocoa and a gingerbreadand a white mug with a blurred inscription.was carrying a mug of tea and

reasonable proxy forconceptual information(shown in a lot of work inCognitive Science,ComputationalLinguistics)

22

Meaning in distributional semanticsBoleda and Erk 2015

manwomangentlemangray-hairedboypersonladmengirl

+HUMAN +MALE +ADULT

Words most similar to man in Baroni et al. (2014).23



+HUMAN

+MALE +ADULT




+HUMAN +MALE

+ADULT




+HUMAN +MALE +ADULT


Meaning in distributional semanticsBoleda and Herbelot 2016

man chap lad dude guywoman bloke boy freakin’ blokegentleman guy bloke woah chapgray-haired lad scouser dorky doofusboy fella lass dumbass dudeperson man youngster stoopid fella

Words most similar to man, chap, lad, dude, guy in Baroni et al. (2014).

24

Composition in distributional semanticsBaroni and Zamparelli 2010, Boleda et al. 2013

I works pretty well for composition of content words (quite abit of work in Computational Linguistics)

I table shows/expresses resultsI map shows/??expresses locationI (Grefenstette et al., 2013)

I our proposal: what it models is conceptually affordedmodification

25

Distributional semantics for conceptually affordedcompositionPredicting productivity in adjectival modification

Vecchi et al. 2011, 2017

I distributional semantics distinguishes between acceptablevs. deviant phrases

I unattested phrases in huge corpus

I acceptable: vulnerable gunman, huge joystick, blind cookI deviant: blind pronunciation, parliamentary potato, sharp

glue

→ good model for conceptually afforded modification

26




I unattested phrases in huge corpusI acceptable: vulnerable gunman, huge joystick, blind cookI deviant: blind pronunciation, parliamentary potato, sharp

glue


26




I unattested phrases in huge corpusI acceptable: vulnerable gunman, huge joystick, blind cookI deviant: blind pronunciation, parliamentary tomato, sharp

glue


26

(So far,) distributional semantics can’t modelreferentially afforded compositionBoleda, Baroni, Pham, McNally IWCS 2013

easy difficultformer commentator former colourlikely threat likely basewide perspective wide detail

conceptually referentiallyafforded? afforded?

27

(So far,) distributional semantics can’t modelreferentially afforded compositionBoleda, Baroni, Pham, McNally IWCS 2013

easy difficultformer commentator former colourlikely threat likely basewide perspective wide detailconceptually referentiallyafforded? afforded?

27

After contribution 1

default context-dependent(conc. aff.) (ref. aff.)

semantic primitives (4) 8

underspecification + context 8 (4)distributional semantics 4 8

28

Contribution 2

I Strong default interpretations→ conceptually afforded modification→ model with distributional semantics

I In context, anything goesI Why/How can context ameliorate anything?→ largely due to referentially afforded composition


29

Empirical support: Relational adjectives

I respiratory, tropical, planetary, Canadian, . . .I typically denominal; adjective morphology claimed to be

transparent (e.g. Spencer 1999) – they express a relationI McNally and Boleda (2004): this relationship is

underspecifiedI expectation: relational adjectives are used more when the

relationship is specified in the previous contextI explains data from two statistical corpus studies

I Catalan (Boleda, 2007)I English (Boleda et al., 2012) - focused on ethnic adjectives

(Canadian, French)

30

Catalan(Boleda, 2007)

I qualitative: tou ‘soft’, imperfecte ‘imperfect’I relational: respiratori ‘respiratory’, americà ‘American’

31

Contribution 3

I Strong default interpretations→ conceptually afforded modification→ model with distributional semantics

I In context, anything goes→ largely due to referentially afforded composition


I referentially afforded modification has resisted distributionaltreatments

→ mixed model for the two types of semantic composition

32

Towards an analysis

I Adaptation of Discourse Representation Theory (DRT,Kamp, 1981); also builds on (Zamparelli, 1995) and(McNally, 2016)

(10) a box

a. standard:u

box(u)

b. (McNally, 2016)u

Realize(u,−−→box)

33

Towards an analysisI Conceptually-afforded composition

(11) a red box

uRealize(u, comp(

−−→red,

−−→box))

I Referentially-afforded composition

(12) Adam: Hey, this one belongs in the red box!

a. option 1:u

Realize(u, compu(−−→red,

−−→box))

b. option 2:u

Realize(u, comp(f (u,−−→red),

−−→box))

34

Summing up: McNally and Boleda 2017




mixed model 4 (4)

35

Conclusions

I Language interpretation cannot be understood withoutsimultaneously considering

I what we are referring toI the concepts associated with the words we are using

I Linguistic expressions encode significant regularitiesI conventions of language use (long tradition; also Westera

and Boleda, submitted, and Aina, submitted)I speakers use these regularities profitably

I Once a linguistic expression is applied to a referent, it isgrounded in a very specific way

I the referential act has consequences:I people will continue using the same expression for the

same referent (Clark, 1992)I it influences the way we understand the expression in the

first placeI semantic change: e.g. narrowing deer - Tier

36

Outlook

I Understand the interplay between conceptual andreferential aspects of meaning . . .

I . . . and between cognition and language more generallyI conceptual structure and the lexiconI conceptual structure and grammar

I e.g.: grammar is sensitive to how adjectives compose withnouns McNally and Boleda (2004)

I Integrate into linguistic theory

37

The future?




mixed model 4 (4)AMORE 4 4

38

The interplay between conceptual andreferential aspects of meaning

Gemma BoledaUniversitat Pompeu Fabra

(work in collaboration withLouise McNally)

BRIDGE WorkshopESSLLI 2018, 6–10 August 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria

39

Asher, N. (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Boleda, G. (2007). Automatic acquisition of semantic classes for adjectives.PhD thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Boleda, G., Evert, S., Gehrke, B., and McNally, L. (2012). Adjectives assaturators vs. modifiers: Statistical evidence. In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V.,Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G. W., Schulz, K., and Westera, M., editors, Logic,Language and Meaning - 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam, TheNetherlands, December 19-21, 2011, Revised Selected Papers, LectureNotes in Computer Science 7218, pages 112–121. Springer.

Bosch, P. (1983). “Vagueness” is context-dependence. A solution to theSorites Paradox. In Ballmer, T. and Pinkal, M., editors, ApproachingVagueness, pages 189–210. North Holland, Amsterdam.

Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. EcologicalPsychology, 15:181–195.

Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. HoughtonMifflin, Boston, MA.

Grefenstette, E., Dinu, G., Zhang, Y.-Z., Sadrzadeh, M., and Baroni, M.(2013). Multi-Step Regression Learning for Compositional DistributionalSemantics. In Proceedings of IWCS 2013 (10th International Conferenceon Computational Semantics), pages 131–142, East Stroudsburg PA. ACL.

39

Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. InGroenendijk, J., Janssen, T., and Stokhof, M., editors, Formal Methods inthe Study of Language, volume 1, pages 277–322. MathematischCentrum, Amsterdam.

Kennedy, C. and McNally, L. (2010). Color, context, and compositionality.Synthese, 174:79–98.

Levi, J. (1978). The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. AcademicPress, New York.

McNally, L. (2016). Kinds, descriptions of kinds, concepts, and distributions.In Balogh, K. and Petersen, W., editors, Bridging Formal and ConceptualSemantics: Selected Papers of BRIDGE-14, pages 37–59. dup,Düsseldorf.

McNally, L. and Boleda, G. (2004). Relational adjectives as properties ofkinds. In Bonami, O. and Cabredo Hofherr, P., editors, Empirical Issues inSyntax and Semantics, volume 5, pages 179–196.http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss5.

Ó Séaghdha, D. and Copestake, A. (2009). Using lexical and relationalsimilarity to classify semantic relations. In Proceedings of the 12thConference of the European Chapter of the ACL, pages 621–629, Athens,GA.

Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.39

Rothschild, D. and Segal, G. (2009). Indexical predicates. Mind andLanguage, 24(467–493).

Spencer, A. (1999). Transpositions and argument structure. In Booij, G. andvan Marle, J., editors, Yearbook of Morphology 1998, pages 73–101.Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Vecchi, E. M., Baroni, M., and Zamparelli, R. (2011). (linear) maps of theimpossible: Capturing semantic anomalies in distributional space. InProceedings of the Workshop on Distributional Semantics andCompositionality, pages 1–9, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association forComputational Linguistics.

Zamparelli, R. (1995). Layers in the Determiner Phrase. PhD thesis, U.Rochester.

39

the interplay between conceptual and referential …...the interplay between conceptual and...

Documents