The Processing Consequences of the Imperfective Paradox

In this paper we present a semantic analysis of the imperfective paradox based on the Event Calculus (van Lambalgen & Hamm 2004), a planning formalism characterizing a class of models which can be computed by connectionist networks. We report the results of a questionnaire that support the semantic theory and suggest that different aspectual classes of VPs in the progressive give rise to different entailment patterns. Further, a processing model is outlined, combining the semantic analysis with the psycholinguistic principle of immediacy in the framework of recurrent networks. The model is used to derive predictions concerning the electrophysiological correlates of the computations described by the Event Calculus.

[1]  Keith Stenning,et al.  Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science , 2008 .

[2]  Edward J. O'Brien,et al.  Situation-Based Context and the Availability of Predictive Inferences , 2001 .

[3]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Monotonicity and Processing Load , 2005, J. Semant..

[4]  Raúl Rojas,et al.  Neural Networks - A Systematic Introduction , 1996 .

[5]  Fritz Hamm,et al.  If it can be done , why do it ? , 2002 .

[6]  Henriëtte de Swart,et al.  Aspect shift and coercion , 1998 .

[7]  Robin Clark,et al.  Quantifier comprehension in corticobasal degeneration , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[8]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

[9]  H. Eysenck.  THINKING , 1958 .

[10]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[11]  Frank Rosenblatt,et al.  PRINCIPLES OF NEURODYNAMICS. PERCEPTRONS AND THE THEORY OF BRAIN MECHANISMS , 1963 .

[12]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  From Understanding Computation to Understanding Neural Circuitry , 1976 .

[13]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Sentence processing: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[14]  Edgar J. Andrade-Lotero.  Meaning and Form in Event Calculus , 2006 .

[15]  James D. Church,et al.  Comments on Clark's “The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy” , 1976 .

[16]  A. Friederici.  Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  F. Landman.  The progressive , 1992 .

[18]  F van der Velde.  Is the brain an effective Turing machine or a finite-state machine? , 1993, Psychological research.

[19]  Laura A. Michaelis.  A Unification-Based Model of Aspectual Type-Shifting , 2003 .

[20]  Zeno Vendler,et al.  Verbs and Times , 1957, The Language of Time - A Reader.

[21]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Semantic Integration in Sentences and Discourse: Evidence from the N400 , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[22]  Karl Magnus Petersson,et al.  On the relevance of the neurobiological analogue of the finite-state architecture , 2005, Neurocomputing.

[23]  Frank van der Velde,et al.  Is the brain an effective Turing machine or a finite-state machine? , 1993 .

[24]  Hans-Georg Zimmermann,et al.  Recurrent Neural Networks Are Universal Approximators , 2006, ICANN.

[25]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[26]  Wilemm J. M. Levelt.  Are multilayer feedforward networks effectively Turing Machines? , 1990 .

[27]  Kees Doets,et al.  From logic to logic programming , 1994, Foundations of computing series.

[28]  Hans Reichenbach,et al.  Elements of symbolic logic , 1948 .

[29]  M. Kutas,et al.  Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association , 1984, Nature.

[30]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators , 1989, Neural Networks.

[31]  P. Blackburn,et al.  Book Reviews: The Proper Treatment of Events, by Michiel van Lambalgen and Fritz Hamm , 2005, CL.

[32]  Keith Stenning,et al.  Semantic Interpretation as Computation in Nonmonotonic Logic: The Real Meaning of the Suppression Task , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  Logic programs and connectionist networks , 2004, J. Appl. Log..

[34]  H. Barlow.  Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information: David Marr. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982. pp. xvi + 397 , 1983 .

[35]  H. H. Clark.  The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[36]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. , 1994 .

[37]  Mathieu Koppen,et al.  Modeling knowledge-based inferences in story comprehension , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[38]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[39]  P. Hagoort,et al.  Integration of Word Meaning and World Knowledge in Language Comprehension , 2004, Science.

[40]  W S McCulloch,et al.  A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity , 1990, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[41]  Robin Clark,et al.  Neural basis for generalized quantifier comprehension , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[42]  H. Kamp.  A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation , 2008 .

[43]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  The memory, unification, and control (MUC) model of language , 2007 .

[44]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Access and integration: projecting sound onto meaning , 1989 .

[45]  R. Jackendoff.  Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution , 2002 .