Learning word meanings Concept learning review Simple associations
- Slides: 49
Learning word meanings
Concept learning review Simple associations not enough • Goal direction / determining tendency • Essences for some types of concept (“natural kinds”) • Defining features present early for some concepts (robber) • Characteristic defining for others (uncle)
Concept learning review ctd Concept of race Interaction of universal / innate part with social learning A “developmental” approach
Concept learning review ctd But: • Simple associationism illuminates asymmetric category learning • Its failures highlight what remains to be explained • Its limitations don’t mean we can’t model concept learning
Overview of lecture A. The computational problem B. Constraints that might help C. Summary
A. The computational problem 1. Quine’s rabbit 2. Searching a concept space 3. Winston’s arch
Gavagai
Inductive concept learning (eats-meat fluffy small red) (eats-meat fluffy big red) (eats-fruit fluffy small red) (eats-fruit smooth small red) (eats-meat fluffy small red) + + What's the concept? (eats-meat fluffy small) Can a concept like this be learned automatically?
A search problem For a given number of attributes, a space can be defined of possible concepts (eats-meat) (eats-fruit) (fluffy) (eats-meat smooth) (eats-meat fluffy small) () (smooth). . . (eats-fruit fluffy). . . (eats-meat smooth small) . . . etc. Operators: generalisation & specialisation
Generalisation Cover more examples: drop an attribute from a concept First positive case initialises concept: (eats-meat fluffy small red) + (eats-meat fluffy small blue) + Generalise: (eats-meat fluffy small) This is a 'move in concept space'
Specialisation Cover fewer examples: add an attribute to a concept (eats-meat fluffy) + - Specialise: try (eats-meat fluffy small) … a 'move in concept space'
Winston's arch learner
B. Constraints that might help 1. General expectations 2. Cognitive constraints 3. Language form (syntax) constraints 4. Pragmatic constraints 5. World knowledge
Balaban & Waxman (1997) 9 month old children prediction - if child forms category while viewing instance: 1. they get bored (habituate) 2. they'll show a novelty preference is the effect greater with naming? 9 rabbits then a pig and a rabbit More children showed pig preference (sig. ) with words than tones accompanying
Waxman & Markow (1995) novelty preference method 12 -13 mths - N or Adj (novel word), or no label Train: 4 instances (eg. 4 animals) Test: choice of new instance, or non-member This one is an X This one is X-ish Look at this Novelty preference No novelty preference
Waxman & Markow ctd Words prompt (very young) children to form concepts A general expectation about word forms The infants didn’t differentiate between the noun and adjective form However: Children with a high vocabulary facilitated superordinate but not basic level category formation Children with a low vocabulary neither clearly assisted
Booth & Waxman (2002) Stages 1 and 2: Training Stage 1 Familiarisation 4 novel objects with characteristic shape & colour This one is a dax, and this one, … Look what I can do with this one… [demo] Look at this one… Stage 2 Contrast
Booth & Waxman ctd Stage 3: Generalisation Forced choice between a new instance and a non-member Can you find me another one of these? At 14 mths, demo of function helps - because it focuses child on a relevant subset of properties
Cognitive constraints • • • Perceptual constraints eg. shape Constraints can be learned Ontological constraint Taxonomic constraint Mutual exclusivity
Landau, Smith & Jones (1988) Is this a Dax? YES Does this one match? NO YES NO
Jones, Smith & Landau (1991) Trained example . 50 . 53 . 76 . 48 . 82 . 80
Soja, Carey, & Spelke (1991) 2 yrs Novel object introduced, described, and handled My blicket, this blicket Then a forced choice: point to the blicket
Soja et al. ctd Object learned: another same shape different stuff or three little chunks same stuff Substance learned: another pile or slick the same shape, but different stuff or three blobs the same stuff
Soja et al. ctd If just ask to choose (no trained item, no word) responses were at chance = another same shape different stuff three little chunks same stuff and = another pile or slick the same shape, but different stuff three blobs the same stuff
Soja et al. ctd By 2 years Children know about the distinction between objects and substances And they use it to organise the generalisation of word meanings
Colunga & Smith (2003) Previously (Soja, Carey, & Spelke, 1991, Cognition, 38, pp 179 -211) Children aged 24/30 months solid objects same shape non-solid objects same material But not at 18 months… Hypothesis: learn this pattern by association First 300 words Most denote solid objects, objects that have a consistent shape … and non-solid mostly denote substances i. e. child learns to apply this mapping pattern from associations present in first words learned
Colunga & Smith (2003) Output units [words] Hidden units […] Inputs Train: Test: ball [shape] [substance] [ball-shape] [random] [solid, not s. ] [1 0] novel shapes/materials Prediction - hidden unit activation patterns ("representations") will be similar for non-solid / same material or solid / same shape
Colunga & Smith (2003) Prediction - hidden unit activation patterns ("representations") will be similar when non-solid and same material solid and same shape Testing Forced choice non-solid / same material solid / same shape Pick shape 30% 55%
Markman & Hutchinson (1984) Taxonomic constraint words refer to whole objects; of same type 3 -4 year old children Target picture eg. poodle Test pictures eg. alsation or dog food Give the puppet the one that’s the same. without label with label - prefer thematic prefer taxonomic
Markman & Wachtel (1988) mutual exclusivity constraint - two words don’t mean the same thing Expt 1 (3 years old) Offer child choice of objects, one unfamiliar. Familiar object already has a name. Give me a merk Children tend to choose the novel object
Markman & Wachtel (1988) Expt 2 to check for response bias Present one object (with a salient part) FAMILIAR fish (fin) UNFAMILIAR microscope (platform) Which is the fripe, the whole thing or just this part? - What predictions do the constraints make? whole object constraint? mutual exclusivity? 20% chose part for unfamiliar object 57% chose part for familiar object
Syntactic constraints • General expectation differentiates into more specific, syntactically driven, expectations • Soja • Language specificity
Syntax – a very brief intro! Word order indicates relationships among event participants The boy kicked the dog Part of speech is indicated by word order function words, and morphology The boy function word (= closed class word) kicked kick morphology (changes word shape)
Syntax – brief intro ctd Word order indicates relationships among event participants Part of speech is indicated by word order, function words, and morphology In some languages, morphology can do nearly all the work, and word order matters less (eg. Latin)
Waxman & Booth (2001; 2003) 1. Training on 4 purple animals, presented in 2 pairs (same colour, same category) 2. Contrast example orange carrot 3. Then test generalisation 11 mths 14 mths Nouns Category [new animal, purple; or purple plate] Property [new animal, purple; or new animal, blue] 0. 57 0. 55 0. 68 0. 44 Adjectives Category [new animal, purple; or purple plate] Property [new animal, purple; or new animal, blue] 0. 59 0. 58 0. 50 0. 52 No word Category [new animal, purple; or purple plate] Property [new animal, purple; or new animal, blue] 0. 46 0. 49 -
Soja, Carey, & Spelke (1991) 2 yrs Novel object introduced, described, and handled My blicket, this blicket Then a forced choice: point to the blicket
Soja et al. ctd Object learned: another same shape different stuff or three little chunks same stuff Substance learned: another pile or slick the same shape, but different stuff or three blobs the same stuff
Soja et al. ctd If just ask to choose (no trained item, no word) responses were at chance = another same shape different stuff three little chunks same stuff and = another pile or slick the same shape, but different stuff three blobs the same stuff
Soja et al. ctd By 2 years Children know about the distinction between objects and substances And they use it to organise the generalisation of word meanings
Soja et al. (1991) If the learned object was introduced with selective syntax a blicket some blicket … it made no difference
Soja (1992) 2 and 2. 5 year olds who had mastered mass-count syntax in their speaking Were partly sensitive to syntax in word learning GENERALISES TO some [substance] a [substance] substance bounded pile
Language specificity English, Spanish - plural marks noun English - mass/count distinction draws attention to shape Korean - classifier language Experiment (3 -5 years; n = 16) novel word applied to an object: "fep", a magnet choice: cube of same substance wood block same shape English, Spanish - prefer shape similar Korean - prefer substance
Language specificity ctd But, classifiers highlight shape: Empitsu pencil Yonpil pencil o gohon kudasi five long thin given tasot caru five long thin
Pragmatic influences Principle of contrast Clark (1993) - every difference of form marks difference in meaning - economical for learning - a pragmatic principle -- used once understand speaker is intentional For Clark, contrast means any difference in meaning (including connotation, register & dialect). Identity of reference is not sufficient
Tomasello & Barton (1994) Dev. Psych 30 639 -650 2 years "Let's go find the toma" look in one of buckets (5) Either find it straight away or first find and reject two ("oh no", scowl, put back) then find the right thing
Akhtar & Tomasello (1996) 2 years Similar expt but one (distinctively shaped) bucket is shut and can't be opened Pre-play, so that child is familiar with the objects in each bucket (no naming) Put them back Adult - "Now, let's find the toma!" Adult expresses disappointment at no access, but plays with other objects Learned equally well whether no access or did retrieve
Role of world knowledge Schank, Collins & Hunter (1986) • Hijackings ® cuba generalisation? ® cuba? • Hijacking ® libya syntactically, do what? drop destination as a dimension? or generalise feature content? e. g. warm country? Target concept - a model of how terrorists select destinations Which are relevant features has to be worked out often not perceptually available
C. Summary 1. Quine’s rabbit & the problem 2. Constraints guide search of the space 3. A variety of factors influence learning word meanings
- Naylor meaning
- Examples of nuances in word meanings
- Concept learning task in machine learning
- Loose associations thought process
- Ideas of reference
- Schizophrenia
- Example of loose associations in schizophrenia
- Negative explanatory style
- Grandiose thinking
- Loose associations
- Loose associations
- Loose associations
- Abstract thinking
- Secondary source of brand knowledge
- Falep bastia
- Thuja mental symptoms
- Example of loose associations in schizophrenia
- Loose thought process
- Loose associations psychology
- Associations between two categorical variables quiz level h
- Realtor associations in arizona
- Mining frequent patterns associations and correlations
- Denver real estate investment association
- Mining frequent patterns associations and correlations
- Secondary brand associations definition
- Primary and secondary brand associations
- International federation of freight forwarders associations
- Savings and loan associations
- Secondary brand knowledge
- Savings and loan associations
- Savings and loan associations
- Community associations for environmental sustainability
- Types of ecological management in biology
- International federation of freight forwarders associations
- Lichen are association of
- Mining frequent patterns associations and correlations
- The fungi basidiomycota are often used for making _____.
- Primary and secondary brand associations
- Simple future past
- Present simple past simple future simple
- Past simple future
- Future simple in the past
- Simple past simple present simple future
- Present simple, past simple, future simple
- Have past present future tense
- Simple present tense review
- Present simple present continuous 4 класс
- Differentiate ideal self from real self
- Pengertian pemasaran
- Electric forces and fields concept review