Cover not available
Article published In:
Computational Construction Grammar and Constructional Change
Edited by Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30] 2016
► pp. 251–264

Embodied cognitive semantics for quantification

| SONY CSL Paris
| Universitat de Barcelona

The present paper proposes an operational semantic model of natural language quantifiers (e.g., many, some, three) and their use in quantified noun phrases. To this end we use embodied artificial agents that communicate in and interact with the physical world. We argue that existing paradigms such as Generalized Quantifiers (Barwise and Cooper 1981; Montague 1973) and Fuzzy Quantifiers (Zadeh 1983) do not provide a satisfactory models for our situated-interaction scenarios and propose a more adequate semantic model, based on fuzzy-quantification.

Published online: 10 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.11pau
References
Barwise, Jon and Robin Cooper
1981 “Generalized quantifiers and natural language.” Linguistics and philosophy 4 (2): 159–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glöckner, Ingo
2006 Fuzzy quantifiers: a computational theory. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kurita, Takio
1991 “An efficient agglomerative clustering algorithm using a heap.” Pattern Recognition 24 (3): 205–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lappin, Shalom
1997 The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “An intensional parametric semantics for vague quantifiers.” Linguistics and philosophy 23 (6): 599–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montague, Richard
1973 “The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English.” In Approaches to Natural Language. Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics, ed. by Jaakko Hintikka, Julius Moravcsik, and Patrick Suppes, 221–242. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pauw, Michael and Joseph Hilferty
2012 “The Emergence of Quantifiers.” In Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution, ed. by Luc Steels, 277–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pauw, Simon and Michael Spranger
2010 “Embodied Determiners.” In Proceedings of Language Evolution and Computation Workshop at ESSLLI 2010, ed. by Marija Slavkovik, 184–192. Copenhagen: ESSLLI.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor and Barbara B. Lloyd
(eds) 1978 Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1944 “Grading, a study in semantics.” Philosophy of Science 11 (2): 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spranger, Michael
2008 “World Models for Grounded Language Games.” German diplom (master) thesis, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin.Google Scholar
2012a “The Co-Evolution of Basic Spatial Terms and Categories.” In Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution, ed. by Luc Steels, 111–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b “Emergent Functional Grammar for Space.” In Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution, ed. by Luc Steels, 207–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spranger, Michael and Martin Loetzsch
2009 “The semantics of SIT, STAND, and LIE embodied in robots.” In Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Cogsci09), ed. by Niels A. Taatgen and Henderik van Rijn, 2546–2552. Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Spranger, Michael, Martin Loetzsch, and Simon Pauw
2010 “Open-ended Grounded Semantics.” In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2010), ed. by Helder Coelho, Rudi Studer, and Michael Wooldridge, Volume 2151, 929–934. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Spranger, Michael, Simon Pauw, and Martin Loetzsch
2010 “Open-ended semantics co-evolving with spatial language.” In The Evolution of Language (Evolang 8), ed. by Andrew D. M. Smith, Marieke Schouwstra, Bart de Boer, and Kenny Smith, 297–304. Singapore: World Scientific Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc
2001 “Language games for autonomous robots.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 16 (5): 16–22.Google Scholar
Van Den Broeck, Wouter
2008 “Constraint-based compositional semantics.” In The Evolution of Language (EVOLANG 7), ed. by Andrew D. M. Smith, Kenny Smith, and Ramon Ferrer i Cancho, 338–345. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westerståhl, D.
1995 “Quantifiers in natural language: A survey of some recent work.” In Quantifiers: Logics, Models and Computation. Volume One: Suverys, ed. by Michal Krynicki, Marcin Mostowksi, and Leslaw W. Szczerba, Volume 2481 of Synthese Library, 359–408. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winogrady, Terry
1980 “What does it mean to understand language?.” Cognitive science 4 (3): 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, Lotfi A.
1965 “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and control 8 (3): 338–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983 “A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages.” Computers & Mathematics with Applications 9 (1): 149–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Jain, Minni, Sidharth Bansal & Yatin Gupta
2021. Experimental Comparison and Scientometric Inspection of Research for Word Embeddings. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Computing Informatics and Networks [Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 167], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.