A Gold Standard to Measure Relative Linguistic Complexity with a Grounded Language Learning Model

This paper focuses on linguistic complexity from a relative perspective. It presents a grounded language learning system that can be used to study linguistic complexity from a developmental point of view and introduces a tool for generating a gold standard in order to evaluate the performance of the learning system. In general, researchers agree that it is more feasible to approach complexity from an objective or theory-oriented viewpoint than from a subjective or user-related point of view. Studies that have adopted a relative complexity approach have showed some preferences for L2 learners. In this paper, we try to show that computational models of the process of language acquisition may be an important tool to consider children and the process of first language acquisition as suitable candidates for evaluating the complexity of languages.

[1]  F. Newmeyer,et al.  'All languages are equally complex': The rise and fall of a consensus , 2012 .

[2]  Verónica Dahl,et al.  HYPROLOG: A New Logic Programming Language with Assumptions and Abduction , 2005, ICLP.

[3]  Leonor Becerra-Bonache,et al.  Could Machine Learning Shed Light on Natural Language Complexity? , 2016, CL4LC@COLING 2016.

[4]  Leonor Becerra-Bonache,et al.  A First-Order-Logic Based Model for Grounded Language Learning , 2015, IDA.

[5]  Leonor Becerra-Bonache,et al.  A model of language learning with semantics and meaning-preserving corrections , 2017, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Verónica Dahl,et al.  Meaning in Context , 2005, CONTEXT.

[7]  Leonor Becerra-Bonache,et al.  Effects of Meaning-Preserving Corrections on Language Learning , 2011, CoNLL.

[8]  J. McWhorter,et al.  The worlds simplest grammars are creole grammars , 2001 .

[9]  C. Lawrence Zitnick,et al.  Bringing Semantics into Focus Using Visual Abstraction , 2013, 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[10]  Henning Christiansen.  Constraint Programming for Context Comprehension , 2014, Context in Computing.

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

[12]  Leonor Becerra-Bonache,et al.  Learning Language Models from Images with ReGLL , 2016, ECML/PKDD.

[13]  Henning Christiansen,et al.  Natural language processing with (tabled and constraint) logic programming , 2018, Declarative Logic Programming.

[14]  Leonor Becerra-Bonache,et al.  A Model of Semantics and Corrections in Language Learning , 2010 .

[15]  Kaius Sinnemäki,et al.  Language complexity: typology, contact, change , 2008 .

[16]  Gabriele Pallotti,et al.  A simple view of linguistic complexity , 2015 .

[17]  Östen Dahl,et al.  The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity , 2004 .

[18]  Ursula Schaefer.  Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable , 2012 .

[19]  Patrizia Grifoni,et al.  A survey of grammatical inference methods for natural language learning , 2011, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[20]  Christiaan Wouter Kusters,et al.  Linguistic complexity : the influence of social change on verbal inflection , 2003 .

[21]  Henning Christiansen,et al.  Reasoning about Use Cases using Logic Grammars and Constraints , 2007 .

[22]  Jerry R. Hobbs.  Ontological Promiscuity , 1985, ACL.

[23]  Frederick J. Newmeyer,et al.  Measuring Grammatical Complexity , 2014 .

[24]  Henning Christiansen,et al.  From use cases to UML class diagrams using logic grammars and constraints , 2007 .

[25]  Afsaneh Fazly,et al.  A Probabilistic Computational Model of Cross-Situational Word Learning , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[26]  Leonor Becerra-Bonache,et al.  Relational Grounded Language Learning , 2016, ECAI.