Flexible word meaning in embodied agents

Learning the meanings of words requires coping with referential uncertainty – a learner hearing a novel word cannot be sure which aspects or properties of the referred object or event comprise the meaning of the word. Data from developmental psychology suggest that human learners grasp the important aspects of many novel words after just a few exposures, a phenomenon known as fast mapping. Traditionally, word learning is viewed as a mapping task, in which the learner has to map a set of forms onto a set of pre-existing concepts. We criticise this approach and argue instead for a flexible nature of the coupling between form and meanings as a solution to the problem of referential uncertainty. We implemented and tested the model in populations of humanoid robots that play situated language games about objects in their shared environment. Results show that the model can handle an exponential increase in uncertainty and allows scaling towards very large meaning spaces, while retaining the ability to grasp an operational meaning almost instantly for a great number of words. In addition, the model captures some aspects of the flexibility of form-meaning associations found in human languages. Meanings of words can shift between being very specific (names) and general (e.g. ‘small’). We show that this specificity is biased not by the model itself but by the distribution of object properties in the world.

[1]  Luc Steels,et al.  Language games for autonomous robots , 2001 .

[2]  Luc Steels,et al.  The emergence and evolution of linguistic structure: from lexical to grammatical communication systems , 2005, Connect. Sci..

[3]  David Gil,et al.  The World Atlas of Language Structures , 2005 .

[4]  Luc Steels,et al.  Situated Grounded Word Semantics , 1999, IJCAI.

[5]  P. Bloom How children learn the meanings of words , 2000 .

[6]  Joachim De Beule,et al.  Does Language Shape the Way We Conceptualize the World? , 2005, BNAIC.

[7]  Luc Steels,et al.  Perspective alignment in spatial language , 2006, Spatial Language and Dialogue.

[8]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  Social symbol grounding and language evolution , 2007 .

[9]  M. Tomasello Perceiving intentions and learning words in the second year of life , 2000 .

[10]  Guido Boella,et al.  Normative framework for normative system change , 2009, AAMAS 2009.

[11]  C. Moore,et al.  Joint attention : its origins and role in development , 1995 .

[12]  Luc Steels A self-organizing spatial vocabulary , 1995 .

[13]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! , 2003 .

[14]  Martin A. Riedmiller,et al.  RoboCup 2004: Robot Soccer World Cup VIII , 2005, RoboCup.

[15]  R. Langacker Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[16]  S. Carey The child as word learner , 1978 .

[17]  Andrew D. M. Smith,et al.  The Inferential Transmission of Language , 2005, Adapt. Behav..

[18]  M. Tomasello The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition , 2000 .

[19]  Paul Vogt,et al.  Investigating social interaction strategies for bootstrapping lexicon development , 2003, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[20]  E. Lieven Crosslinguistic and crosscultural aspects of language addressed to children , 1994 .

[21]  Luc Steels,et al.  Spontaneous Lexicon Change , 1998, ACL.

[22]  J. W. Minett,et al.  Language Acquisition, Change and Emergence-Essays in Evolutionary Linguistics , 2005 .

[23]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[24]  J. Carroll,et al.  Language, Thought and Reality , 1957 .

[25]  Luc Steels,et al.  How Grammar Emerges to Dampen Combinatorial Search in Parsing , 2006, EELC.

[26]  Luc Steels,et al.  The Origins of Ontologies and Communication Conventions in Multi-Agent Systems , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[27]  Luc Steels,et al.  Language re-entrance and the 'inner voice'. , 2003 .

[28]  M. Tomasello Joint attention as social cognition. , 1995 .

[29]  Julian M. Pine,et al.  Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. , 2004 .

[30]  G. Miller,et al.  Linguistic theory and psychological reality , 1982 .

[31]  Andrew D. M. Smith,et al.  Establishing Communication Systems without Explicit Meaning Transmission , 2001, ECAL.

[32]  Charles J. Fillmore,et al.  SCENES- AND- FRAMES SEMANTICS. , 1977 .

[33]  L. Gleitman The Structural Sources of Verb Meanings , 2020, Sentence First, Arguments Afterward.

[34]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  J. Siskind A computational study of cross-situational techniques for learning word-to-meaning mappings , 1996, Cognition.

[37]  Benjamin K. Bergen,et al.  ON THE EMERGENCE OF COMPOSITIONALITY , 2006 .

[38]  Masahiro Fujita,et al.  Autonomous behavior control architecture of entertainment humanoid robot SDR-4X , 2003, Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No.03CH37453).

[39]  Seungjin Choi,et al.  Shaping meanings for language: universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semanti , 2001 .

[40]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Language and Mind , 1973 .

[41]  E. Markman Constraints on word learning: Speculations about their nature, origins, and domain specificity. , 1992 .

[42]  Kenny Smith,et al.  Cross-Situational Learning: A Mathematical Approach , 2006, EELC.

[43]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  A cross-situational learning algorithm for damping homonymy in the guessing game , 2006 .