MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2780322822

Learning verb alternations in a usage-based Bayesian model - eScholarship

2010· article· en· W2780322822 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Parisien, Suzanne Stevenson

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueLanguage Development and Disorders
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVerbArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceLanguage acquisitionLinguisticsSyntaxNatural language processingArgument (complex analysis)Class (philosophy)InferenceBayesian inferenceBayesian probabilityPsychologyPhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Learning verb alternations in a usage-based Bayesian model Christopher Parisien and Suzanne Stevenson Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada {chris, suzanne}@cs.toronto.edu Abstract One of the key debates in language acquisition involves the degree to which children’s early linguistic knowledge employs abstract representations. While usage-based accounts that fo- cus on input-driven learning have gained prominence, it re- mains an open question how such an approach can explain the evidence for children’s apparent use of abstract syntactic gen- eralizations. We develop a novel hierarchical Bayesian model that demonstrates how abstract knowledge can be generalized from usage-based input. We demonstrate the model on the learning of verb alternations, showing that such a usage-based model must allow for the inference of verb class structure, not simply the inference of individual constructions, in order to account for the acquisition of alternations. Keywords: Verb learning; language acquisition; Bayesian modelling; computational modelling. Introduction An important debate in language acquisition concerns the na- ture of children’s early syntax. On one side of the debate lies a claim that children develop their syntactic knowledge in an item-based manner. This claim of usage-based learning ar- gues that very young children associate verb argument struc- ture with specific lexical items, only gradually abstracting syntactic knowledge after four years of age (e.g., Tomasello, 2003). An alternative claim suggests that young children do indeed possess abstract syntactic representations—i.e., gen- eralizations about the structure of their language that are not necessarily tied to lexical items (e.g., Fisher, 2002). Syntactic alternation structure is often considered to be a central phenomenon in this debate. Consider the following example of the English dative alternation: (1) I gave a toy to my dog. (2) I gave my dog a toy. These sentences mean roughly the same thing, but are ex- pressed in different ways. The first, a prepositional dative, expresses the theme (a toy) as an object and the recipient (my dog) in a prepositional phrase. The second, a double-object dative, expresses both the theme and recipient as objects and reverses their order. Verbs that allow similar alternations often have similar se- mantics (Levin, 1993), which suggests that alternations re- flect much of our cognitive representations of verbs. Fur- thermore, these regularities appear to influence our language use. In word learning experiments, children as young as three years of age appear to use abstract representations of the da- tive alternation (Conwell & Demuth, 2007). While this is ev- idence of abstract syntax at a very young age, it does not nec- essarily invalidate the usage-based hypothesis, since the ab- stractions may originate from item-specific representations. One way to bring these opposing positions together is to demonstrate, using naturalistic data, how to connect a usage- based representation of language with abstract syntactic gen- eralizations. We argue that alternation structure can be ac- quired and generalized from usage patterns in the input, with- out a priori expectations of which alternations may or may not be acceptable in the language. We support this claim us- ing a hierarchical Bayesian model (HBM) which is capable of making inferences about verb argument structure at multiple levels of abstraction simultaneously. We show that the in- formation relevant to verb alternations can be acquired from observations of how verbs occur with individual arguments in the input. In this sense, we present a competency model showing what can be acquired, but we do not make claims regarding the specific processing mechanisms involved. From a corpus of child-directed speech, our model acquires a wide variety of argument structure constructions over hun- dreds of verbs. Moreover, by forming classes of verbs with similar usage patterns, the model can generalize knowledge of alternation patterns to novel verbs. This stands in contrast to earlier models which have focused on either the acquisition of the constructions themselves, or the formation of classes over given constructions. The integration in our model of these two important aspects of verb learning has implications for current theories of language acquisition, by showing how abstract syntactic knowledge can be acquired and generalized from usage-level input. Related work Previous computational approaches to language acquisition have used HBMs to represent the abstract structure of verb use. Alishahi and Stevenson (2008) used an incremental Bayesian model to cluster individual verb usages (or tokens), simulating the acquisition of verb argument structure con- structions. Using naturalistic input, the authors showed how a probabilistic representation of constructions can explain chil- dren’s recovery from overgeneralization errors. In another Bayesian model of verb learning, Perfors et al. (2010) clus- ter verb types by comparing the variability of constructions for each of the verbs. The model can distinguish alternating from non-alternating dative verbs and can make appropriate generalizations when learning novel verbs. Both of the above models show realistic patterns of gen- eralization, but they operate at complementary levels of ab- straction. The model of Alishahi and Stevenson does not cap- ture the alternation patterns of verbs, while Perfors et al. as- sume that the individual constructions participating in the al- ternation have already been learned. Furthermore, Perfors et

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,192
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,484

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,294
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science SocietyMême sujetLanguage Development and DisordersTravaux en français237 207