Generalized Relations in Linguistics and Cognition

  • Bob Coecke
  • Fabrizio Genovese
  • Martha Lewis
  • Dan Marsden
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10388)

Abstract

Categorical compositional models of natural language exploit grammatical structure to calculate the meaning of sentences from the meanings of individual words. This approach outperforms conventional techniques for some standard NLP tasks. More recently, similar compositional techniques have been applied to conceptual space models of cognition.

Compact closed categories, particularly the category of finite dimensional vector spaces, have been the most common setting for categorical compositional models. When addressing a new problem domain, such as conceptual space models of meaning, a key problem is finding a compact closed category that captures the features of interest.

We propose categories of generalized relations as source of new, practical models for cognition and NLP. We demonstrate using detailed examples that phenomena such as fuzziness, metrics, convexity, semantic ambiguity and meaning that varies with context can all be described by relational models. Crucially, by exploiting a technical framework described in previous work of the authors, we also show how we can combine multiple features into a single model, providing a flexible family of new categories for categorical compositional modelling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by AFSOR grant “Algorithmic and Logical Aspects when Composing Meanings” and FQXi grant “Categorical Compositional Physics”.

References

  1. 1.
    Abramsky, S., Coecke, B.: A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 415–425. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baez, J.C., Erbele, J.: Categories in control. Theory Appl. Categ. 30(24), 836–881 (2015)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baez, J.C., Fong, B.: A compositional framework for passive linear networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.05625 (2015)
  4. 4.
    Baez, J.C., Fong, B., Pollard, B.S.: A compositional framework for Markov processes. J. Math. Phys. 57(3), 033301 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bankova, D., Coecke, B., Lewis, M., Marsden, D.: Graded entailment for compositional distributional semantics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.04908 (2015)
  6. 6.
    Bankova, D.: Comparing meaning in language and cognition - p-hypononymy, concept combination, asymmetric similarity. Master’s thesis, University of Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barr, M.: Exact categories. Exact Categories and Categories of Sheaves. LNM, vol. 236, pp. 1–120. Springer, Heidelberg (1971). doi: 10.1007/BFb0058580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barsalou, L.W.: Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 11(4), 629 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bolt, J., Coecke, B., Genovese, F., Lewis, M., Marsden, D., Piedeleu, R.: Interacting conceptual spaces. In: Kartsaklis, D., Lewis, M., Rimell, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2016 Workshop on Semantic Spaces at the Intersection of NLP, Physics and Cognitive Science, SLPCS@QPL 2016, Glasgow, Scotland, 11 June 2016. EPTCS, vol. 221, pp. 11–19 (2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.221.2
  10. 10.
    Bolt, J., Coecke, B., Genovese, F., Lewis, M., Marsden, D., Piedeleu, R.: Interacting conceptual spaces I: Grammatical composition of concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.08314 (2017)
  11. 11.
    Bonchi, F., Sobocinski, P., Zanasi, F.: Full abstraction for signal flow graphs. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 50(1), 515–526 (2015)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borceux, F.: Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 3, Categories of Sheaves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borceux, F.: Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 2, Categories and Structures, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coecke, B., Grefenstette, E., Sadrzadeh, M.: Lambek vs. Lambek: functorial vector space semantics and string diagrams for lambek calculus. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 164(11), 1079–1100 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coecke, B., Sadrzadeh, M., Clark, S.: Mathematical foundations for distributed compositional model of meaning. Lambek festschrift. Linguist. Anal. 36, 345–384 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coecke, B., Kissinger, A.: Picturing Quantum Processes. A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning. Cambridge University Press (2017, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coecke, B., Paquette, E.O.: Categories for the practising physicist. In: Coecke, B. (ed.) New Structures for Physics, pp. 173–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dale, R., Kehoe, C., Spivey, M.J.: Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars. Mem. Cogn. 35(1), 15–28 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dostal, M., Sadrzadeh, M.: Many valued generalised quantifiers for natural language in the DisCoCat model. Technical report, Queen Mary University of London (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fong, B.: The algebra of open and interconnected systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gärdenfors, P.: The Geometry of Meaning: Semantics Based on Conceptual Spaces. MIT Press, Cambridge (2014)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grefenstette, E., Sadrzadeh, M.: Experimental support for a categorical compositional distributional model of meaning. In: The 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods on Natural Language Processing, pp. 1394–1404 (2011). arXiv:1106.4058
  24. 24.
    Hampton, J.A.: Disjunction of natural concepts. Mem. Cogn. 16(6), 579–591 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hampton, J.A.: Overextension of conjunctive concepts: evidence for a unitary model of concept typicality and class inclusion. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 14(1), 12 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hofmann, D., Seal, G.J., Tholen, W.: Monoidal Topology: A Categorical Approach to Order, Metric, and Topology, vol. 153. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnstone, P.T.: Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnstone, P.T.: Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kartsaklis, D., Sadrzadeh, M.: Prior disambiguation of word tensors for constructing sentence vectors. In: The 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods on Natural Language Processing, pp. 1590–1601. ACL (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kissinger, A.: Finite matrices are complete for (dagger-)hypergraph categories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5942 (2014)
  31. 31.
    Lambek, J.: Type grammar revisited. In: Lecomte, A., Lamarche, F., Perrier, G. (eds.) LACL 1997. LNCS, vol. 1582, pp. 1–27. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi: 10.1007/3-540-48975-4_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    MacLane, S., Moerdijk, I.: Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to Topos Theory. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marsden, D., Genovese, F.: Custom hypergraph categories via generalized relations. In: CALCO 2017 (2017, to appear)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marsden, D.: A graph theoretic perspective on CPM(Rel). In: Heunen, C., Selinger, P., Vicary, J. (eds.) Proceedings 12th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic, QPL 2015, Oxford, UK, 15–17 July 2015. EPTCS, vol. 195, pp. 273–284 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.195.20
  35. 35.
    Osherson, D.N., Smith, E.E.: Gradedness and conceptual combination. Cognition 12(3), 299–318 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Piedeleu, R., Kartsaklis, D., Coecke, B., Sadrzadeh, M.: Open system categorical quantum semantics in natural language processing. In: Moss, L.S., Sobocinski, P. (eds.) 6th Conference on Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science, CALCO 2015. LIPIcs, vol. 35, pp. 270–289. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B.: Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cogn. Psychol. 7(4), 573–605 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sadrzadeh, M., Clark, S., Coecke, B.: The Frobenius anatomy of word meanings I: subject and object relative pronouns. J. Logic Comput. 23(6), ext044 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sadrzadeh, M., Clark, S., Coecke, B.: The Frobenius anatomy of word meanings II: possessive relative pronouns. J. Logic Comput. 26(2), exu027 (2014)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schütze, H.: Automatic word sense discrimination. Comput. Linguist. 24(1), 97–123 (1998)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Selinger, P.: Dagger compact closed categories and completely positive maps. Electron. Not. Theor. Comput. Sci. 170, 139–163 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shepard, R.N., et al.: Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science 237(4820), 1317–1323 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sobocinski, P.: Graphical linear algebra. Mathematical blog. https://graphicallinearalgebra.net/
  44. 44.
    Stubbe, I.: Categorical structures enriched in a quantaloid: categories and semicategories. Ph.D. thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain (2003)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tversky, A.: Features of similarity. Psychol. Rev. 84(4), 327 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bob Coecke
    • 1
  • Fabrizio Genovese
    • 1
  • Martha Lewis
    • 1
  • Dan Marsden
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations