1. Embodiment & Compositionality Two fundamental, but unreconciled, aspects of human language: embodiment and compositionality Embodiment – the realization that scientific understanding of mind and language entails detailed modeling of the human brain Compositionality - only people can express and understand an essentially unbounded range of messages

2. Compositionality Anything that deserves to be called a language must contain meaningful expressions built up from other meaningful expressions” [4] strong compositionality states that the meaning of a expression is totally determined by its form and is independent of context “In its strict version, this claim is clearly wrong” [5].

3. Truth-conditional Semantics The existence of these forms of context-dependence would thus appear to spell the doom for truth- conditional semantics, understood as the project of assigning properties to syntactic items (partly by finding principles for determining properties of complex syntactic items on the basis of their parts) such that we await only the specification of something like an index to know what the truth- conditions of a given utterance of a given assertive sentence would be.- Jason Bridges Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: A Critical Guide, A. M. Ahmed (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2009.

4. Simulation Semantics Lectures 1 and 3 => embodied But what about public language, text? Skeletal shared meaning => schemas Language Community (LC) –Shares grammar, schemas, analysis rules

5. Compositionality Put the parts together to create the meaning of the whole. Questions: –what is the nature of the parts? –How and why do they combine with one another? –What meaning is associated with this composition?

6. Short NTL answers Parts = constructions, schemas Combination = binding, unification Meaning of the whole : –Public (LC) ~ Semantic Specification = SemSpec –Private ~ Enactment/Simulation of SemSpec

7. ECG Lattices Schemas – Image, X-schemas, Frames Constructions – Lexical, Grammatical Language Communities Situations ~ Mental Spaces Maps ~ Metaphor, etc.

8. Lectures I. Overview 2. Simulation Semantics 3. ECG and Best-fit Analysis 4. Compositionality 5. Simulation, Counterfactuals, and Inference Constructions Simulation Utterance Discourse & Situational Context Semantic Specification : image schemas, bindings, action schemas Analyzer: incremental, competition-based, psychologically plausibleA

9. Conceptual Structure Embodied Schematic (Partially) language-independent Conceptual Composition Highly interconnected Primitives Conceptual composition Metaphor

10. Image Schemas parameters of spatial cognition action schemas - controller goals, force-dynamics (causation) parameters of parts & boundaries Time Social World young/ mature/ old authority, approval, help value, exchange, obligation theory of mind, perception and intention, Communication speaker/ hearer, direct/ indirect true/ false question, command, etc. Grammaticalized concepts person, gender, age, agent, speaker possession, mass/count, reflexives, Primal scenes/ event types – transitive, tense, aspect General Logic connectives, numbers similarity, inference, uncertainty part/ whole, scales, magnitude binding, variables, indefinites, generalization Mental Operations Learning, matching, binding mental spaces, mappings simulation, displacement Some Conceptual Primitives

11. Conceptual Composition Ellen Dodge Thesis 1. Conjunction – horse with stripes 2. Modification – camel without hump 3. Abstraction - vehicle 4. Mapping a. Metonymy – London thinks b. Metaphor – causes are forces 5. Blending – apple bus 6. Relational – horses eat grass

12. First example He bit the apple.

13. schema MotorControl subcase of Process roles Actor ↔ Protagonist Effector Effort Routine constraints Actor ← animate Schemas

14. schema ForceApplication subcase of MotorControl evokes ForceTransfer as FT roles Actor ↔ FT.Supplier ↔ Protagonist Acted Upon↔ FT.Recipient Effector Routine Effort ↔ FT.Force.amount schema ForceTransfer evokes Conact as C roles Supplier ↔ C.entity1 Recipient ↔ C.entity2 Force schema MotorControl subcase of Process roles Actor ↔ Protagonist Effector Effort Routine constraints Actor ← animate schema Contact subcase of SpatialRelation roles Entity1 : entity Entity2 : entity

15. Schema Lattice MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact Agentive Impact SelfMotion Path MotionPath

16. Construction BITE1 subcase of Verb form: bite meaning: ForceApplication constraints: Effector ← teeth Routine ← bite // close mouth Verb Constructions schema ForceApplication subcase of MotorControl evokes ForceTransfer as FT roles Actor ↔ FT.Supplier ↔ Protagonist Acted Upon ↔ FT.Recipient Effector Routine Effort ↔ FT.Force.amount

17. Verb Constructions schema ForceApplication subcase of MotorControl schema Agentive Impact subcase of ForceApplication cxn BITE meaning: ForceApplication schema MotorControl cxn GRASP meaning: ForceApplication cxn PUSH meaning: ForceApplication cxn SLAP meaning: AgentiveImpact cxn KICK meaning: AgentiveImpact cxn HIT meaning: AgentiveImpact

18. Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

19. Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

20. CauseEffect schema schema CauseEffect subcase of ForceApplication; Process roles Causer ↔ Actor Affected ↔ ActedUpon ↔ Process.Protagonist Instrument ↔ Effector

21. MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact SelfMotion Path MotionPath Agentive Impact Process Schema Lattice

22. Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

23. Important points  Compositionality does not require that each component contain different information.  Shared semantic structure is not viewed as an undesirable redundancy

24. Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED ; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

25. schema EventDescriptor roles EventType: Process ProfiledProcess: Process ProfiledParticipant: Entity ProfiledState(s): State SpatialSetting TemporalSetting Event Descriptor schema

26. Preconditions, resources, fine control structure are important aspects of events

27. Argument Structure Construction Construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED ; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

28. construction NPVP1 constituents: Subj: NP VP : VP form Constraints Subj f before VP f meaning: EventDescriptor ProfiledParticipant ↔ Subj m Bindings with other cxns construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V ; NP form: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant Affected ↔ NP m

29. Construction NPVP1 constituents: Subj: NP VP : VP form constraints Subj f before VP f meaning: EventDescriptor ProfiledParticipant ↔ Subj m Bindings with other cxns construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V ; NP form: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant Affected ↔ NP m schema EventDescriptor roles EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant ProfiledState(s) SpatialSetting TemporalSetting

30. Bindings with other cxns schema EventDescriptor roles EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant ProfiledState(s) SpatialSetting TemporalSetting construction NPVP1 constituents: Subj: NP VP : VP form Constraints Subj f before VP f meaning: EventDescriptor ProfiledParticipant ↔ Subj m construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V ; NP form: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant Affected ↔ NP m

31. Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 HE NP1 NPVP1 THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor MeaningConstructions

32. Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 HE NP1 NPVP1 THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor resolved referent MeaningConstructions

33. Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 Verb HE NP1 NPVP1 THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor resolved referent MeaningConstructions

34. Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 HE NP1 NPVP1 subj THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor MeaningConstructions

35. Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 NP HE NP1 NPVP1 THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor MeaningConstructions

36. Semantic Specification He bit the apple EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon routine  bite effector  teeth RD55 category Person Apple RD27 category

37. Argument Structure Construction He was bitten (by a toddler) construction PassiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : PassiveVerb (PP: agentivePP) form constraints: V F before PP F meaning: CauseEffectAction evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Affected ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Causer ↔ PP.NP m

38. Semantic Specification He was bitten (by a toddler) EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon routine  bite effector  teeth RD48 category Person Person RD27 category

39. Variations on a theme He shattered the window The window was shattered The window shattered

40. Construction SHATTER1 subcase of Verb form: shatter meaning: StateChange constraints: Initial :: Undergoer.state ← whole Final :: Undergoer.state ← shards Verb Construction -- shatter schema StateChange subcase of Process roles Undergoer ↔ Protagonist

41. Argument Structure Construction He shattered the window construction ActiveTransitiveAction3 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; StateChange as SC constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant SC ↔ V m Affected ↔ SC.Undergoer Affected ↔ NP m

42. Semantic Specification He shattered the window EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected StateChange Undergoer state  “wholeness” RD189 category Person Window RD27 category

43. Argument Structure Construction The window was shattered construction PassiveTransitiveAction3 subcase of VP constituents: V : PassiveVerb (PP: agentivePP) form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; StateChange as SC constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Affected ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant SC ↔ V m Affected ↔ SC.Undergoer Causer ↔ PP.NP m

44. Semantic Specification The window was shattered EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected StateChange Undergoer state  “wholeness” RD175 category Window

45. Argument Structure Construction The window shattered construction ActiveIntransitiveAction1 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb form meaning: Process evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; StateChange as SC constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Protagonist ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant SC ↔ V m Protagonist ↔ SC.Undergoer

46. Semantic Specification The window shattered EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant Process protagonist StateChange Undergoer state  “wholeness” RD177 category Window

47. Summary Small set of constructions and schemas Composed in different ways Unification produces specification of simulation Sentence understanding is simulation Different meanings => different simulations

48. NTL Compositionality Language understanding is simulation Simulation activates conceptual structures Conceptual Compositionality is basic Grammatical Compositionality is inherently constructional, not surface SemSpec ~ Semantic Specification –Skeletal Meaning –Captures shared understanding of an LC –Site of Compositionality

50. Argument Structure Construction His white teeth bit into the apple construction ActiveEffectorMotionPath3 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb PP: Spatial-PP form constraints: V F before PP F meaning: EffectorMotionPath evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Effector ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Actor ↔ FA.Actor // INI Effector ↔ FA.Effector Target ↔ FA.ActedUpon SPG ↔ PP m Target ↔ PP m.Prep.LM

51. Simulation: His white teeth bit into the apple Action SourcePathGoal Effector Motion Protagonist = Actor Protagonist = Effector

52. Non-agentive biting He landed on his feet, hitting the narrow pavement outside the yard with such jarring impact that his teeth bit into the edge of his tongue. [BNC] The studs bit into Trent's hand. [BNC] His chest burned savagely as the ropes bit into his skin. [BNC]

53. MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact SelfMotion Path MotionPath Agentive Impact Process Schema Network

54. Simulation: His teeth bit his tongue SourcePathGoal Motion Protagonist = Mover

55. Key assumptions of NTL Language understanding is simulation Simulation involves activation of neural structures

56. Constructions Construction Grammar Constructions are form-meaning pairings A given utterance instantiates many different constructions Embodied Construction Grammar Construction meaning is represented using schemas Meaning is embodied

57. Lectures I. Overview 2. Simulation Semantics 3. ECG and Best-fit Analysis 4. Compositionality 5. Simulation, Counterfactuals, and Inference Constructions Simulation Utterance Discourse & Situational Context Semantic Specification : image schemas, bindings, action schemas Analyzer: incremental, competition-based, psychologically plausible

58. Constructions Simulation Utterance Discourse & Situational Context Semantic Specification : image schemas, bindings, action schemas Analyzer: incremental, competition-based, psychologically plausible

59. Image Schemas parameters of spatial cognition action schemas - controller goals, force-dynamics (causation) parameters of parts & boundaries Time Social World young/ mature/ old authority, approval, help value, exchange, obligation theory of mind, perception and intention, Communication speaker/ hearer, direct/ indirect true/ false question, command, etc. Grammaticalized concepts person, gender, age, agent, speaker possession, mass/count, reflexives, Primal scenes/ event types – transitive, tense, aspect General Logic connectives, numbers similarity, inference, uncertainty part/ whole, scales, magnitude binding, variables, indefinites, generalization Mental Operations Learning, matching, binding mental spaces, mappings simulation, displacement Some Conceptual Primitives

60. Conceptual Composition 1. Conjunction – horse with stripes 2. Modification – camel without hump 3. Abstraction - vehicle 4. Mapping a. Metonymy – London thinks b. Metaphor – causes are forces 5. Blending – trash can basketball

61. Putting the parts together Bindings Unification

62. “Pre-existing” structure Cxn schema Cxn schema

63. Unification Cxn schema Cxn schema

64. Process Simulation - He bit the apple CauseEffect ForceApplication Protagonist = Causer ↔ Actor Protagonist = Affected ↔ ActedUpon

65. Process Simulation - He bit the apple CauseEffect ForceApplication Protagonist = Causer ↔ Actor Protagonist = Affected ↔ ActedUpon

66. MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact SelfMotion Path MotionPath Agentive Impact Process Schema Lattice

67. Prototypes and extensions? CauseMotion Path: He threw the ball across the room He kicked the ball over the table He sneezed the napkin off the table [He coughed the water out of his lungs]

68. Key points In prototypical verb-argument structure construction combinations, verb meaning is very similar to argument structure meaning. Verbs whose meaning partially overlaps that of a given argument structure constructions may also co-occur with that argument structure construction These less prototypical combinations may motivate extensions to the central argument structure constructions

69. Some more variations on a theme He bit the apple He bit into the apple His white teeth bit into the apple.

70. Argument Structure Construction He bit into the apple construction ActiveEffectorMotionPath2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb PP: Spatial-PP form constraints: V F before PP F meaning: EffectorMotionPath evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Actor ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Actor ↔ FA.Actor Effector ↔ FA.Effector // INI Target ↔ FA.ActedUpon SPG ↔ PP m Target ↔ PP m.Prep.LM

71. Schema schema EffectorMotionPath subcase of EffectorMotion subcase of SPG // or evokes SPG roles Actor ↔ MotorControl.protagonist Effector ↔ SPG.Tr ↔ M.Mover ↔ Motion.protagonist Target ↔ SPG.Lm

72. MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact SelfMotion Path MotionPath Agentive Impact Process Schema Lattice

73. Argument Structure Construction He bit into the apple construction ActiveEffectorMotionPath2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb PP: Spatial-PP form constraints: V F before PP F meaning: EffectorMotionPath evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Actor ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Actor ↔ FA.Actor Effector ↔ FA.Effector // INI Target ↔ FA.ActedUpon SPG ↔ PP m Target ↔ PP m.Prep.LM

74. EffectorMotionPath Action SourcePathGoal Effector Motion Protagonist = Actor Protagonist = Effector

75. The ‘subject’ NP (She) is bound to these roles: profiledParticipant of EventDescriptor causer of CauseMotionAction actor of ForceApplication supplier of ForceTransfer [actor of ForcefulMotionAction] [actor of EffectorMotionAlongAPath] protagonist of CauseMotionAction and ForceApplication [protagonist of ForcefulMotionAction and EffectorMotionAlongAPath]

76. The ‘direct object’ NP (his hand) is bound to: affected of CauseMotionAction protagonist2 of CauseMotionAction actedUpon of ForceApplication recipient of ForceTransfer mover of MotionAlongAPath trajector of SPG [actedUpon Target of ForcefulMotionAction] [target of EffectorMotionAlongAPath] (landmark of a different SPG schema)

77. construction CauseMotion4 subcase of CauseMotion1 constructional constituents v : Verb np: NP pp: Path-PP form constraints v.f before np.f np.f before pp.f meaning: CauseMotionAction evokes EventDescriptor as ed evokes ForcefulMotionAction as fma constraints ignore self.m v.m self.m.process1 v.m.process1 v.m fma self.m ed.eventType v.m ed.profiledPorcess self.m.affected np.m self.m.causer ed.profiledParticipant self.m.process2.spg pp.m.spg