Volume 17, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In robotics research with language-based interaction, simplifications are made, such that a given event can be described in a unique manner, where there is a direct mapping between event representations and sentences that can describe these events. However, common experience tells us that the same physical event can be described in multiple ways, depending on the perspective of the speaker. The current research develops methods for representing events from multiple perspectives, and for choosing the perspective that will be used for generating a linguistic construal, based on attentional processes in the system. The multiple perspectives are based on the principle that events can be considered in terms of the force driving the event, and the result obtained from the event, based on the theory of Gärdenfors. In addition, within these perspectives a further refinement can be made with respect to the agent, object, and recipient perspectives. We develop a system for generating appropriate construals of meaning, and demonstrate how this can be used in a realistic dialogic interaction between a behaving robot and a human interlocutor.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. AbdulSabur N , Xu Y , Liu S , Chow H , Baxter M , et al.
    2014 Neural correlates and network connectivity underlying narrative production and comprehension: A combined fMRI and PET study. Cortex57: 107–27 doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.017 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates E , MacWhinney B
    1987 Competition, variation, and language learningInMechanisms of language acquisition, ed. B MacWhinney , E Bates , pp. 157–93. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Becker RB , Ferretti TR , Madden-Lombardi CJ
    2013 Grammatical aspect, lexical aspect, and event duration constrain the availability of events in narratives. Cognition129: 212–20 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bruner J
    1991 The narrative construction of reality. Critical inquiry: 1–21 doi: 10.1086/448619
    https://doi.org/10.1086/448619 [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft W
    2012Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft W , Wood EJ
    2000 Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligenceMeaning and Cognition: A multidisciplinary approached. by Liliana Albertazzi : 51–78 doi: 10.1075/celcr.2.04cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.2.04cro [Google Scholar]
  7. Dominey P , Boucher J
    2005a Developmental stages of perception and language acquisition in a perceptually grounded robot. Cognitive Systems Research6: 243–59 doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2004.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2004.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dominey PF
    2001 A model of learning syntactic comprehension for natural and artificial grammarsInBasic mechanisms of language and language disorders., ed. E Witruk , AD Friederici , T Lachmann , pp. 61–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
    [Google Scholar]
  9. . 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston 2003.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2005 Aspects of descriptive, referential, and information structure in phrasal semantics: A construction-based model. Interaction Studies6: 287–310 doi: 10.1075/is.6.2.07dom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.6.2.07dom [Google Scholar]
  11. 2013 Recurrent temporal networks and language acquisition-from corticostriatal neurophysiology to reservoir computing. Frontiers in psychology4: 1–14 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00500
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00500 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dominey PF , Boucher JD
    2005b Learning to talk about events from narrated video in a construction grammar framework. Artificial Intelligence167: 31–61 doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2005.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2005.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dominey PF , Hoen M Blanc JM , Lelekov-Boissard T
    2003 Neurological basis of language and sequential cognition: evidence from simulation, aphasia, and ERP studies. Brain Lang86: 207–25 doi: 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00529‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00529-1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dominey PF , Hoen M , Inui T
    2006 A neurolinguistic model of grammatical construction processing. J Cogn Neurosci18: 2088–107 doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2088
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2088 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dominey PF , Inui T
    2009 Cortico-striatal function in sentence comprehension: insights from neurophysiology and modeling. Cortex45: 1012–8 doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2009.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dominey PF , Inui T , Hoen M
    2009 Neural network processing of natural language: II. Towards a unified model of corticostriatal function in learning sentence comprehension and non-linguistic sequencing. Brain & Language109: 80–92 doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dominey PF , Ramus F
    2000 Neural network processing of natural language: I. Sensitivity to serial, temporal and abstract structure of language in the infant. Language and Cognitive Processes15: 40 doi: 10.1080/016909600386129
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909600386129 [Google Scholar]
  18. Doshi F , Roy N
    2008 Spoken language interaction with model uncertainty: an adaptive human–robot interaction system. Connection Science20: 299–318 doi: 10.1080/09540090802413145
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09540090802413145 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dowty D
    1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. language: 547–619 doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  20. Feldman CF
    1987 Thought from language: the linguistic constructino of cognitive representations In Making sense: the child's construction of the world, ed. J Bruner , pp. 131–46. London: Methuen & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gärdenfors P
    2014 The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. MIT Press.
  22. Gärdenfors P , Warglien M
    2012 Using conceptual spaces to model actions and events. Journal of Semantics: ffs007 doi: 10.1093/jos/ffs007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs007 [Google Scholar]
  23. Givón T
    2001Syntax: an introduction. John Benjamins Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gorniak P , Roy D
    2004 Grounded semantic composition for visual scenes. J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 21: 429–70
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hassin RR , Aarts H , Ferguson MJ
    2005 Automatic goal inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology41: 129–40 doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hinaut X , Dominey PF
    2013 Real-time parallel processing of grammatical structure in the fronto-striatal system: a recurrent network simulation study using reservoir computing. PLoS One8: 1–18 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052946
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052946 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hinaut X , Petit M , Pointeau G , Dominey PF
    2014 Exploring the acquisition and production of grammatical constructions through human-robot interaction with echo state networks. Front Neurorobot8 doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2014.00016
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2014.00016 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jackendoff R
    2002Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kollar T , Tellex S , Roy D , Roy N.
    2010 Proceeding of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction - HRI ’10. Osaka, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff G , Narayanan S.
    2010AAAI Fall Symposium: Computational Models of Narrative.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lallée S , Hamann K , Steinwender J , Warneken F , Martienz U , et al
    2013Cooperative Human Robot Interaction Systems: IV. Communication of Shared Plans with Naïve Humans using Gaze and Speech. Presented at IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Tokyo
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lallée S , Madden C , Hoen M , Dominey P
    2010 Linking language with embodied teleological representations of action for humanoid cognition. Frontiers in Neurobotics doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2010.00008
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2010.00008 [Google Scholar]
  33. Langacker RW
    1987Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford university press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lauria S , Bugmann G , Kyriacou T , Klein E
    2002 Mobile robot programming using natural language. Robotics and Autonomous Systems38: 171–81 doi: 10.1016/S0921‑8890(02)00166‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00166-5 [Google Scholar]
  36. Levin B , Hovav MR
    2005Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  37. Li P , Macwhinney B
    2013Competition Model. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Maguire MJ , Hirsh-Pasek K , Golinkoff RM , Imai M , Haryu E , et al
    2010 A developmental shift from similar to language-specific strategies in verb acquisition: a comparison of English, Spanish, and Japanese. Cognition114: 299–319 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Metta G , Fitzpatrick P , Natale L
    2006 YARP: yet another robot platform. International Journal on Advanced Robotics Systems3: 43–48
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Palomares NA
    2008 Toward a Theory of Goal Detection in Social Interaction Effects of Contextual Ambiguity and Tactical Functionality on Goal Inferences and Inference Certainty. Communication Research35: 109–48 doi: 10.1177/0093650207309364
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207309364 [Google Scholar]
  41. Peelen MV , Romagno D , Caramazza A
    2012 Independent representations of verbs and actions in left lateral temporal cortex. Journal of cognitive neuroscience24: 2096–107 doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00257
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00257 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pointeau G , Petit M , Dominey PF
    2014 Successive Developmental Levels of Autobiographical Memory for Learning Through Social Interaction. Autonomous Mental Development, IEEE Transactions on doi: 10.1109/TAMD.2014.2307342
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TAMD.2014.2307342 [Google Scholar]
  43. Regier T , Zheng M
    2007 Attention to Endpoints: A Cross‐Linguistic Constraint on Spatial Meaning. Cognitive Science31: 705–19 doi: 10.1080/15326900701399954
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701399954 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rosen ST
    1999 The syntactic representation of linguistic events. Glot International4: 3–11
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Roy D
    2002 Learning visually grounded words and syntax for a scene description task. Computer Speech and Language16: 353–85 doi: 10.1016/S0885‑2308(02)00024‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2308(02)00024-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Semin GR , Fiedler K
    1988 The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54: 558 doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.54.4.558
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558 [Google Scholar]
  47. Talmy L
    1988 Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science12: 49–100 doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  48. Tomasello M , Carpenter M , Call J , Behne T , Moll H
    2005 Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences28: 675–91 doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129 [Google Scholar]
  49. Warglien M , Gärdenfors P , Westera M
    2012 Event structure, conceptual spaces and the semantics of verbs. Theoretical Linguistics38: 159–93 doi: 10.1515/tl‑2012‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2012-0010 [Google Scholar]
  50. Yu C , Smith LB
    2012 Embodied attention and word learning by toddlers. Cognition125: 244–62 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.016 [Google Scholar]
  51. Zacks JM , Tversky B
    2001 Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological bulletin127: 3 doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.127.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  52. Zwaan RA , Madden CJ , Whitten SN
    2000 The presence of an event in the narrated situation affects its availability to the comprehender. Mem Cognit28: 1022–8 doi: 10.3758/BF03209350
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209350 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zwarts J
    2008 Aspects of a typology of direction. Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects: 79–106 doi: 10.1075/la.110.05zwa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.110.05zwa [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error