1 / 29

The Benefits of Modelling Language Production Interactively

The Benefits of Modelling Language Production Interactively. Dr. Ulrich Schade Forschungsgesellschaft für Angewandte Naturwissenschaft e.V. Wachtberg / Bonn. Structure of the Talk. Model Competition Phonological Encoding Grammatical Encoding Interactive Processing

zeheb
Download Presentation

The Benefits of Modelling Language Production Interactively

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Benefits of Modelling Language Production Interactively Dr. Ulrich Schade Forschungsgesellschaft für Angewandte Naturwissenschaft e.V. Wachtberg / Bonn Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  2. Structure of the Talk • Model Competition • Phonological Encoding • Grammatical Encoding • Interactive Processing • the “principle of varying interactivity” • the benefits of modelling interactively Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  3. Milestones in Language Production Modelling Zenon of Kition (334-262 B.C.). Pick (1913). Die agrammatischen Sprachstörungen. Fromkin (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Garrett (1975). The analysis of sentence production. Bock (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax. Kempen & Hoenkamp (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Levelt (1989). Speaking. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  4. Model Competition Levelt’s Speaking is the centre for reference in the field. But scientific progress also needs the challenge of competition. The most influential competitor of the Levelt model is Dell’s interactive model. Dell (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  5. Model Competition Dell’s model is especially well-suited for explaining error data. E.g., it offers a new perspective on exchange errors and explains the fact that the distance between target and error element is shorter in exchange errors than in anticipation errors. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  6. Phonological Encoding Levelt et al. postulated an elaborated “classical” model for the process of lexical of access which includes the process of phonological encoding. Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer (1999). Lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75. However, their model fails to account for basic facts about errors, e.g., the existence of exchange errors and the syllable position effect. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  7. Phonological Encoding Error Type Anticipation Gad Godesberg 75% 80% Perseveration Bad Bodesberg 20% 20% Exchange Error Gad Bodesberg 5% 0% Error distribution according to Nooteboom (1969). Error distribution according to WEAVER. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  8. Phonological Encoding Error Type Anticipation Gad Godesberg + 75% 80% Gad eh Bad Godesberg Perseveration Bad Bodesberg 20% 20% Exchange Error Gad Bodesberg 5% 0% Error distribution according to Nooteboom (1969). Error distribution according to WEAVER. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  9. Phonological Encoding Error Type Anticipation Gad Godesberg + 75% 80% Gad eh Bad Godesberg Perseveration Bad Bodesberg 20% 20% Exchange Error Gad Bodesberg 5% 0% Error distribution according to Nooteboom (1969). Error distribution according to WEAVER. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  10. Phonological Encoding Error distribution according to Nooteboom (2003). Listening to oneself: Monitoring speech production. (http://www.let.uu.nl/~Sieb.Nooteboom/personal/monitor.pdf) Anticipations 34.52%80% Perseverations 22.20%20% Exchange Errors 43.28%0% WEAVER Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  11. Phonological Encoding The syllable position effect can be explained by frame-based production. There is evidence for this kind of production at different production levels. With respect to the morpheme level, see morpheme strandings: “I hate working on two-wordletters.” “It just sounded to start.” “Oh, that is just a backtrucking out.” “I´m not in the read for mooding.” Examples by Garrett (1975). Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  12. Phonological Encoding Frame-based production would attend to sequentialization, Landung N land- -ung Stem+Suffix C-V-C—C-V-C /l/ /a/ /n/ /d/ /u/ /ŋ/ Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  13. Landung N land- -ung Stem+Suffix C-V-C—C-V-C /l/ /a/ /n/ /d/ /u/ /ŋ/ C - V - C --- C - V - C Phonological Encoding Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  14. Phonological Encoding but Levelt et al. deny frame-based sequentialization. Landung N land- -ung Stem+Suffix C-V-C—C-V-C /l/ /a/ /n/ /d/ /u/ /ŋ/ C - V - C --- C - V - C Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  15. syn_cat Landung N land- -ung 1 2 3 4 1 2 /l/ /a/ /n/ /d/ /u/ /ŋ/ C - V - C --- C - V - C Phonological Encoding They use labeled connections, instead, Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  16. Phonological Encoding in order to explain how it is possible to connect words violating word and syllable borders: escort us -skor´-t s However, this approach also means that the syllable position effect is not covered anymore. Consequently, Levelt et al. (1999, p. 21) challenged the effect (with respect to English and Dutch, but not to German and Spanish). e e Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  17. Phonological Encoding Vousden, Brown, & Harley, (2000). Serial control of phonology in speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 101-175. accepted the challenge and demonstrated the effect [with respect to English] once more. So, there is a dilemma which can be overcome by modelling interactively: Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  18. Phonological Encoding Berg: “The phonemes themselves must be allowed to vote for the frame to be used.” Landung N land- -ung Stem+Suffix C-V-C—C-V-C /l/ /a/ /n/ /d/ /u/ /ŋ/ feedback C - V - C --- C - V - C Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  19. Grammatical Encoding Connectionist models in the tradition of Dell’s model compete successfully with other models with respect to phonological encoding. However, with respect to grammatical encoding, classical models dominate. Particularly, with regard to some cases of recursion, connectionist models necessarily fail. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  20. Grammatical Encoding E.g., our interactive model is not able to produce sentences which include a relative clause that is embedded in another relative clause. „Der großzügige Sponsor, der den berühmten Rennfahrer, den der geschickte Mechaniker so bewunderte, an seiner Box erfreut begrüßte, versprach, das gegnerische Team nicht länger zu unterstützen.“ Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  21. Grammatical Encoding Typically, the model leaves out the closing of the outer relative clause: „Der großzügige Sponsor, der den berühmten Rennfahrer, den der geschickte Mechaniker so bewunderte, an seiner Box erfreut begrüßte, versprach, das gegnerische Team nicht länger zu unterstützen.“ Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  22. Grammatical Encoding The behaviour of the model seduced us to run an experiment. Human speakers were asked to complete sentence beginnings like „Der großzügige Sponsor, der den berühmten Rennfahrer ...“ (R1 condition) and „Der großzügige Sponsor, der den berühmten Rennfahrer, den der geschickte Mechaniker ...“ (R2 condition) Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  23. Grammatical Encoding Elisions Under Condition R2 Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  24. Grammatical Encoding • 0 correct • Lex. Rep. Error • Synt. Rep. Error • Elision • Num. Agr. Error • Case Agr. Error • Abort • Repair • ~ correct Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  25. Grammatical Encoding The most common syntax error made by the VPs corresponds to the model’s error. However, the VPs masked the errors by semantic means. „Der talentierte Fußballspieler, der den harten Trainer, der den schielenden Linienrichter zurechtgewiesen hatte, war vom Platz gestellt worden.“ “The talented soccer player who the rigorous trainer who the cross-eyed linesman reprehended had had from field expelled been.” Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  26. Grammatical Encoding In this case, the benefit of modelling interactively had been that the model’s behaviour provoked an experiment which revealed some interesting facts about the cognitive process of language production. Please, cf. Schade, U., Barattelli, S., Lingnau, B., Hadelich, K. & Dipper, S. (2003). Relativsatzproduktion. Linguistische Berichte, 193, 33-55. for details. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  27. Interactive Processing Interestingly, interactive models are on their best behaviour if a process which results in an error has to be modelled. The reason lies in the principle of varying interactivity: Interactive effects can be demonstrated best in production under trouble. Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  28. Interactive Processing + TARGET + Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

  29. Interactive Processing • The benefits of modelling language production interactively: • nice competitor • can account for erroneous production processes / results • has the“principle of varying interactivity” • has feedback voting for frames • (late syllabification and syllable position effect) Forschungsinstitut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie

More Related