3.8 Article

Semantic Systematicity in Connectionist Language Production

期刊

INFORMATION
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/info12080329

关键词

systematicity; compositionality; compositional generalization; deep learning; semantics; neural networks; sentence production; language production; language generation; generalization

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [232722074-SFB 1102]
  2. National Science Foundation [BCS-1734304]
  3. Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies suggest that connectionist models can achieve systematicity, especially in language production. The new model proposed in the research can generate multiple new sentences in different situations, demonstrating semantic and syntactic generalization and arguably systematicity.
Decades of studies trying to define the extent to which artificial neural networks can exhibit systematicity suggest that systematicity can be achieved by connectionist models but not by default. Here we present a novel connectionist model of sentence production that employs rich situation model representations originally proposed for modeling systematicity in comprehension. The high performance of our model demonstrates that such representations are also well suited to model language production. Furthermore, the model can produce multiple novel sentences for previously unseen situations, including in a different voice (actives vs. passive) and with words in new syntactic roles, thus demonstrating semantic and syntactic generalization and arguably systematicity. Our results provide yet further evidence that such connectionist approaches can achieve systematicity, in production as well as comprehension. We propose our positive results to be a consequence of the regularities of the microworld from which the semantic representations are derived, which provides a sufficient structure from which the neural network can interpret novel inputs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据