Open-ended Procedural Semantics



This chapter introduces the computational infrastructure that is used to bridge the gap between results from sensorimotor processing and language. It consists of a system called Incremental Recruitment Language (IRL) that is able to configure a network of cognitive operations to achieve a particular communicative goal. IRL contains mechanisms for finding such networks, chunking subnetworks for more efficient later reuse, and completing partial networks (as possibly derived from incomplete or only partially understood sentences).

Key words

Incremental Recruitment Language cognitive semantics procedural meaning flexible interpretation open-ended conceptualization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bleys J (2008) Expressing second order semantics and the emergence of recursion. In: The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 7Th International Conference, World Scientific Publishing, pp 34–41Google Scholar
  2. Borning A (1981) The programming language aspects of thinglab, a constraintoriented simulation laboratory. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 3(4):353–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fujita M, Sabe K, Kuroki Y, Ishida T, Doi TT (2005) Sdr-4x ii: A small humanoid as an entertainer in home environment. In: Dario P, Chatila R (eds) Robotics Research, Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Springer, pp 355–364Google Scholar
  4. Gerasymova K, Spranger M (2012) An Experiment in Temporal Language Learning. In: Steels L, Hild M (eds) Language Grounding in Robots, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Hild M, Siedel T, Benckendorff C, Thiele C, Spranger M (2012) Myon, a NewGoogle Scholar
  6. Humanoid. In: Steels L, Hild M (eds) Language Grounding in Robots, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Holmqvist K (1993) Implementing Cognitive Semantics: Image Schemata, Valence Accommodation and Valence Suggestion for AI and Computational Linguistics. Lund University Cognitive Studies 17, University of Lund, LundGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson-Laird PN (1977) Procedural semantics. Cognition 5(3):189–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kiczales G, Des Rivieres J, Bobrow D (1991) The art of the metaobject protocol. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Lakoff G (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Pauw S, Hilfery J (2012) The emergence of quantifiers. In: Steels L (ed) Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  12. Spranger M (2011) The evolution of grounded spatial language. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB), Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  13. Spranger M, Loetzsch M (2011) Syntactic Indeterminacy and Semantic Ambiguity: A Case Study for German Spatial Phrases. In: Steels L (ed) Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Spranger M, Pauw S (2012) Dealing with Perceptual Deviation: Vague Semantics for Spatial Language and Quantification. In: Steels L, Hild M (eds) Language Grounding in Robots, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Spranger M, Steels L (2012) Emergent Functional Grammar for Space. In: Steels L (ed) Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution, John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Spranger M, Loetzsch M, Pauw S (2010a) Open-ended Grounded Semantics. In:Google Scholar
  17. Coelho H, Studer R, Woolridge M (eds) Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2010), IOS Press, Amsterdam, NL, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol 215, pp 929–934Google Scholar
  18. Spranger M, Pauw S, Loetzsch M (2010b) Open-ended semantics co-evolving with spatial language. In: Smith ADM, Schouwstra M, de Boer B, Smith K (eds) The Evolution of Language (Evolang 8), World Scientific, Singapore, pp 297–304Google Scholar
  19. Spranger M, Loetzsch M, Steels L (2012) A Perceptual System for Language Game Experiments. In: Steels L, HildM(eds) Language Grounding in Robots, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Steels L (1982) Constraints as consultants. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Orsay, France, pp 75–78Google Scholar
  21. Steels L (2000) The emergence of grammar in communicating autonomous robotic agents. In: Horn W (ed) Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), IOS Press, Berlin, Germany, pp 764–769Google Scholar
  22. Steels L (2003) Language re-entrance and the ’inner voice’. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10(4-5):173–185Google Scholar
  23. Sussman G, Steele G (1980) Constraints - a language for expressing almosthierarchical descriptions. Artif Intell 14(1):1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Talmy L (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Concept Structuring Systems, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Den Broeck W (2008) Constraint-based compositional semantics. In:Google Scholar
  26. DM Smith A, Smith K, Ferrer i Cancho R (eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG 7),World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 338–345Google Scholar
  27. Winograd T (1971) Procedures as a representation for data in a computer program for understanding natural language. PhD thesis, MITGoogle Scholar
  28. WoodsWA (1981) Procedural semantics as a theory of meaning. In: Joshi AK,Webber BL, Sag IA (eds) Elements of Discourse Understanding, Cambridge University Press, pp 300–334Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sony Computer Science LaboratoryParisFrance
  2. 2.Systems Technology LaboratorySony CorporationTokyoJapan
  3. 3.ILLCUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
  4. 4.AI LabVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.ICREA Institute for Evolutionary Biology (UPF-CSIC)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations