Changing semantic role representations with holographic memory

AAAI Fall Symposium - Technical Report

Volumn FS-07-03, Issue , 2007, Pages 40-45

  Levy, Simon D ^a  

^a WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Development; Distributed representations; Learning; Representation change; Semantic roles

Indexed keywords

HOLOGRAPHY; MODELING LANGUAGES;

DEVELOPMENT; DISTRIBUTED REPRESENTATION; LEARNING; REPRESENTATION CHANGE; SEMANTIC ROLES;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 51849098927     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Anderson, J.; Silverstein, J.; Ritz, S.; and Jones, R. 1977. Distinctive feathers categorical perception and probability learning: some applications of a neural model. Psychological Review 84(5):413-451.
2. Bellman, R. 1961. Adaptive Control Processes. Princeton University Press.
3. Bowerman, M. 1982. Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di semantica 3.
4. Chomsky, N. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper and Row.
5. Clocksin, W., and Mellish, C. 1994. Programming in Prolog, Berlin: Springer Verlag.
6. Dominey, P.; Hoen, M.; and Inui, T. 2006, A neurolinguistic model of grammatical construction processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18:2088-2107.
7. Eliasmith, C., and Thagard, P. 2001. Integrating structure and meaning: a distributed model of analogical mapping. Cognitive Science 25(2):245-286.
8. Falkenhainer, B.; Forbus, K. D.; and Gentner, D. 1990. The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence 41:1-63.
9. Fillmore, C. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, E., and Harms, R., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory. Holt, Rinehart. 1-90.
10. Fodor, J., and Pylyshyn, Z. 1988. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition 28:3-71.
11. Gayler, R. 2003. Vector symbolic architectures answer jackendoffs challenges for cognitive neuroscience. In Slezak, P., ed., ICCS/ASCS International Conference on Cognitive Science, CogPrints, 133-138. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales.
12. Gibson, J. J. 1977. The theory of affordances. In Shaw, R., and Bransford, J., eds., Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 67-82.
13. Hinton, G. 1984. Distributed representations. Technical Report CMU-CS-84-157, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University.
14. Hummel, J. E., and Holyoak, K. J. 2005. Relational reasoning in a neurally-plausible cognitive architecture: An overview of the lisa project. Current Directions in Pychological Science 14(3):153-157.
15. Jones, M. N., and Mewhort, D. J. K. 2007. Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological Review 114.
16. Kohonen, T. 2001. Self-Organizing Maps. Secaucus, NJ: Springer-Verlag, 3 edition.
17. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
18. Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. 1997. A solution to plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104:211-240.
19. Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford University Press.
20. McClelland, J.; Rumelhart, D.; and Hinton, G. 1986. The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In Rumelhart, D., and McClelland, J., eds., Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, volume 1. MIT Press.
21. Minsky, M. L., and Papert, S. A. 1988. Perceptions. MIT Press.
22. Plate, T. 1991. Holographic reduced representations. Technical Report CRG-TR-91-1, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.
23. Plate, T. A. 2003. Holographic Reduced Representation: Distributed Representation for Cognitive Science. CSLI Publications.
24. Pollard, C. J., and Sag, I. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Schank, R. C. 1972. Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural language understanding. Cognitive Psychology 3(4):pages 532-631.
26. Shastri, L., and Ajjanagadde, V. 1993. From simple associations to systematic reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16(3):417-494.
27. Shlens, J. 2005. A tutorial on principal component analysis. Technical report, Systems Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Insitute for Biological Studies, http://www.snl.salk.edu/shlens/pub/notes/pca.pdf.
28. Smolensky, P 1990. Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist systems. Artificial Intelligence 46:159-216.
29. Steedman, M. 2002. Plans, affordances, and combinatory grammar. Journal Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5-6).
30. Tomasello, M. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge University Press.
31. van Gelder, T. 1999. Distributed versus local representation. In The MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 236-238.
32. Whorf, B. L. 1939. The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Duranti, J. A., ed., Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.