Advertisement

A Programmatic Theory of Linguistic Performance

  • M. J. Steedman
  • P. N. Johnson-Laird
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 4b)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present a unitary model of some of the mental processes involved in speaking and listening. The model is cast in the form of a computer program, but the program is not intended as a contribution to either Artificial Intelligence or Computer Simulation. We regard it as an exercise in programmatic psychology, and perhaps a few words are necessary in order to explain the nature of this claim. On the one hand, proponents of Artificial Intelligence (AI) aim to develop machines capable of intelligent behaviour and, in particular, to devise computer programs capable of such tasks as interpreting visual scenes, providing theorems, and understanding natural language. Although the methods implemented in these programs are likely to interest a psychologist, any resemblance to human performance may be entirely coincidental. AI is concerned with intelligence in general, not merely its embodiment in living organisms. On the other hand, proponents of Computer Simulation aim to understand human behaviour by simulating it.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Deep Structure Relative Clause Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Programmatic Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, D.B. (1972). Documentation for LIB PICO-PLANNER. School of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University,Google Scholar
  2. Bresnan, J. (1976). Towards a realistic model of transformational grammar. Paper presented at the Convocation on Communications, M.I.T., April, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. Burstall, R.M., Collins, J.S., and Popplestone, R.J. (1971). Programming in POP-2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, H.H. and Haviland, S.E. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewart, M.H. (1975). A psychological investigation of sentence comprehension by children. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
  6. Emonds, J.E. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fillenbaum, S. (1973). Syntactic factors in memory? The Hague; Mouton.Google Scholar
  8. Fillmore, C.J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach and R.T. Harms (Eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Firbas, J. (1964). On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague,1, 267–280.Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, J.A., Bever, T.G., and Garrett, M.F. (1974). The psychology of language. New York:McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Forster, K.I. (1976). The autonomy of syntactic processing. Paper presented at the Convocation on Communications, M.I.T., April, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. Forster, K.I., and Olbrei, I. (1973). Semantic heuristics and syntactic analysis. Cognition, 2, 319–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrett, M.F. (1976). Word perception in sentences. Paper presented at the Convocation on Communication, M.I.T., April, 1975.Google Scholar
  14. Halliday, M.A.K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, II. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 177–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hewitt, C. (1969). PLANNER: a language for proving theorems in robots. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Bedford, Mass.: Mitre Corporation. Pp. 295–301.Google Scholar
  16. Jesperson, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen &Unwin.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1976). Psycholinguistics without linguistics. In N.S. Sutherland (ed.) Tutorial Essays in Psychology. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. In press.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson-Laird, P.N., and Miller, G.A. (1976). Procedural semantics. Paper presented at the Conference on Philosophy and Psychology, Cornell Universitv, April, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson-Laird, P.N., Steedman, M.J., and Huttenlocher, J. The psychology of syllogisms. (In preparation).Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan, R.M. (1972). Augmented transition networks as psychological models of sentence comprehension. Artificial Intelligence, 3, 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katz, J.J., and Fodor, J.A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210. Reprinted in J.A. Fodor and J.J. Katz (Eds.) (1964). The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kay, M. (1975). Syntactic processing and functional sentence perspective. In R.C. Schank and B.L. Nash-Webber (Eds.) Theoretical Issues in natural language processing. M.I.T., June, 1975. Supplement,pp.12–15 .Google Scholar
  23. Levelt, W.J.M. (1974). Formal grammars in linguistics and psycholinguistics, Vol. III. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCawley, J.D. (1968). The role of semantics in a grammar. In E. Bach and R.T. Harms (Eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  25. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1976). Linguistic descriptions and psychological assumptions in the study of sentence perception. In E.C.T. Walker and R. Wales (Eds.) New Approaches to language mechanisms. Amsterdam: North Holland. In press.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, G.A., and Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Savin, H.B. (1973). Meaning and concepts: a review of Jerrold J. Katz’s Semantic theory. Cognition,2, 213–238.Google Scholar
  28. Slobin, D.I. (1966). Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,5, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steedman, M.J. (1976), Verbs, time and modality. Cognitive Science. In press.Google Scholar
  30. Thorne, J., Bratley, P., and Dewar, H. (1968). The syntactic analysis of English by machine. In D. Michie (Ed.) Machine Intelligence, 3, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wanner, E., and Maratsos, M. (1975). An augmented transition network model of relative clause comprehension. Mimeo, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  33. Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—A computer program for the study of natural language. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 9, 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Woods, W. (1970). Transition network grammars for natural language analysis. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13, 591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. Steedman
    • 1
  • P. N. Johnson-Laird
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SussexUK

Personalised recommendations