Easy Solutions for a Hard Problem? The Computational Complexity of Reciprocals with Quantificational Antecedents

We report two experiments which tested whether cognitive capacities are limited to those functions that are computationally tractable (PTIME-Cognition Hypothesis). In particular, we investigated the semantic processing of reciprocal sentences with generalized quantifiers, i.e., sentences of the form Q dots are directly connected to each other, where Q stands for a generalized quantifier, e.g. all or most. Sentences of this type are notoriously ambiguous and it has been claimed in the semantic literature that the logically strongest reading is preferred (Strongest Meaning Hypothesis). Depending on the quantifier, the verification of their strongest interpretations is computationally intractable whereas the verification of the weaker readings is tractable. We conducted a picture completion experiment and a picture verification experiment to investigate whether comprehenders shift from an intractable reading to a tractable reading which should be dispreferred according to the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis. The results from the picture completion experiment suggest that intractable readings occur in language comprehension. Their verification, however, rapidly exceeds cognitive capacities in case the verification problem cannot be solved using simple heuristics. In particular, we argue that during verification, guessing strategies are used to reduce computational complexity.

[1]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reachability is harder for directed than for undirected finite graphs , 1988, [Proceedings 1988] 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[2]  Marcin Mostowski,et al.  Computational complexity of the semantics of some natural language constructions , 2004, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[3]  Ian Pratt-Hartmann,et al.  Fragments of Language , 2004, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[4]  Barbara Tomaszewicz Linguistic and Visual Cognition: Verifying Proportional and Superlative Most in Bulgarian and Polish , 2013, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[5]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  Contribution of working memory in parity and proportional judgments , 2011, Cognitive and Empirical Pragmatics.

[6]  Phokion G. Kolaitis,et al.  On the Complexity of Model Checking and Inference in Minimal Models , 2001, LPNMR.

[7]  Rineke Verbrugge,et al.  Logic and Complexity in Cognitive Science , 2014, Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics.

[8]  Howard Lasnik,et al.  Reciprocity and plurality , 1991 .

[9]  Oliver Bott,et al.  The Processing of Events , 2010 .

[10]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach , 2009 .

[11]  Oliver Bott,et al.  Interpreting tractable versus intractable reciprocal sentences , 2011, IWCS.

[12]  Shane Steinert-Threlkeld,et al.  Iterating semantic automata , 2013 .

[13]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  Computational complexity of polyadic lifts of generalized quantifiers in natural language , 2010 .

[14]  Gregory F. Cooper,et al.  The Computational Complexity of Probabilistic Inference Using Bayesian Belief Networks , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[15]  M. Dalrymple,et al.  Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity , 1998 .

[16]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  Quantifiers vs. Quantification Theory , 1973 .

[17]  Yoad Winter,et al.  Typicality Effects and the Logic of Reciprocity , 2009 .

[18]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  Quantifiers in TIME and SPACE : computational complexity of generalized quantifiers in natural language , 2009 .

[19]  Nina Gierasimczuk,et al.  Branching Quantification v. Two-way Quantification , 2009, J. Semant..

[20]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[21]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  Automata and Complexity in Multiple-Quantifier Sentence Verification , 2013 .

[22]  Marcello Frixione,et al.  Tractable Competence , 2001, Minds and Machines.

[23]  Jorie Koster-Hale,et al.  Quantification and ACD: Evidence from Real-Time Sentence Processing , 2012, J. Semant..

[24]  Iris van Rooij,et al.  Parameterized Complexity in Cognitive Modeling: Foundations, Applications and Opportunities , 2008, Comput. J..

[25]  Robert C. Berwick,et al.  Computational complexity and natural language , 1987 .

[26]  David Marr,et al.  VISION A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2009 .

[27]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  Grounding the cognitive neuroscience of semantics in linguistic theory , 2011 .

[28]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  Comprehension of Simple Quantifiers: Empirical Evaluation of a Computational Model , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[29]  Giosuè Baggio,et al.  The Processing Consequences of the Imperfective Paradox , 2007, J. Semant..

[30]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  Computational complexity of some Ramsey quantifiers in finite models , 2007 .

[31]  Iris van Rooij,et al.  The Tractable Cognition Thesis , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  J. Benthem Essays in Logical Semantics , 1986 .

[33]  Sigrid Beck Reciprocals are Definites , 2001 .

[34]  Ian Pratt-Hartmann On the Computational Complexity of the Numerically Definite Syllogistic and Related Logics , 2008, Bull. Symb. Log..

[35]  Ian Pratt-Hartmann,et al.  Computational Complexity in Natural Language , 2010 .

[36]  Deborah A. Joseph,et al.  On the complexity of reachability and motion planning questions (extended abstract) , 1985, SCG '85.

[37]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[38]  Micha Sharir,et al.  Planning, geometry, and complexity of robot motion , 1986 .

[39]  Christopher Davis,et al.  Decisions, Dynamics and the Japanese Particle yo , 2009, J. Semant..

[40]  Stanley Peters,et al.  Quantifiers in language and logic , 2006 .

[41]  Tony Veale,et al.  The Competence of Sub-Optimal Theories of STructure Mapping on Hard Analogies , 1997, IJCAI.

[42]  Wolfgang Sternefeld,et al.  Reciprocity and Cumulative Predication , 1998 .

[43]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems , 1972, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

[44]  Michael R. Fellows,et al.  Systematic parameterized complexity analysis in computational phonology , 1999 .

[45]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  A computational approach to quantifiers as an explanation for some language impairments in schizophrenia. , 2011, Journal of communication disorders.

[46]  Paul M. Pietroski,et al.  Interface transparency and the psychosemantics of most , 2011 .

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

[48]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[49]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  A Remark on Collective Quantification , 2008, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[50]  Johan Kwisthout,et al.  Intentional Communication: Computationally Easy or Difficult? , 2011, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[51]  Jakub Szymanik,et al.  Semantic bounds for everyday language , 2012 .

[52]  Jeffrey Lidz,et al.  The Meaning of ‘Most’: Semantics, Numerosity and Psychology , 2009 .

[53]  Allan Third,et al.  More Fragments of Language , 2006, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[54]  Eric Sven Ristad The language complexity game , 1993 .

[55]  Barbara Tomaszewicz Quantifiers and visual cognition: the processing of proportional and superlative most in Bulgarian and Polish , 2012, ESSLLI Logic & Cognition Workshop.

[56]  Merlijn Sevenster,et al.  Branches of imperfect information : logic, games, and computation , 2002 .