David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 7 (1):1-55 (1997)
Fodor's and Pylyshyn's stand on systematicity in thought and language has been debated and criticized. Van Gelder and Niklasson, among others, have argued that Fodor and Pylyshyn offer no precise definition of systematicity. However, our concern here is with a learning based formulation of that concept. In particular, Hadley has proposed that a network exhibits strong semantic systematicity when, as a result of training, it can assign appropriate meaning representations to novel sentences (both simple and embedded) which contain words in syntactic positions they did not occupy during training. The experience of researchers indicates that strong systematicity in any form is difficult to achieve in connectionist systems.Herein we describe a network which displays strong semantic systematicity in response to Hebbian, connectionist training. During training, two-thirds of all nouns are presented only in a single syntactic position (either as grammatical subject or object). Yet, during testing, the network correctly interprets thousands of sentences containing those nouns in novel positions. In addition, the network generalizes to novel levels of embedding. Successful training requires a, corpus of about 1000 sentences, and network training is quite rapid. The architecture and learning algorithms are purely connectionist, but classical insights are discernible in one respect, viz, that complex semantic representations spatially contain their semantic constituents. However, in other important respects, the architecture is distinctly non-classical
|Keywords||Connectionism Language Learning Science Semantics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Antoni Gomila, David Travieso & Lorena Lobo (2012). Wherein is Human Cognition Systematic? Minds and Machines 22 (2):101-115.
Stefan L. Frank, Willem F. G. Haselager & Iris van Rooij (2009). Connectionist Semantic Systematicity. Cognition 110 (3):358-379.
Robert F. Hadley (1997). Cognition, Systematicity, and Nomic Necessity. Mind and Language 12 (2):137-53.
Robert F. Hadley (1997). Cognition, Systematicity and Nomic Necessity. Mind and Language 12 (2):137-153.
Similar books and articles
Robert J. Matthews (1994). Three-Concept Monte: Explanation, Implementation, and Systematicity. Synthese 101 (3):347-63.
Tim van Gelder (1994). On Being Systematically Connectionist. Mind and Language 9:288-30.
L. F. Niklasson & Tim van Gelder (1994). On Being Systematically Connectionist. Mind and Language 9 (3):288-302.
Brian P. McLaughlin (2009). Systematicity Redux. Synthese 170 (2):251 - 274.
S. Phillips (1998). Are Feedforward and Recurrent Networks Systematic? Analysis and Implications for a Connectionist Cognitive Architecture. Philosophical Explorations.
Jerry A. Fodor & Zenon W. Pylyshyn (1988). Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture. Cognition 28 (1-2):3-71.
Michael V. Antony (1991). Fodor and Pylyshyn on Connectionism. Minds and Machines 1 (3):321-41.
Robert F. Hadley (1994). Systematicity in Connectionist Language Learning. Mind and Language 9 (3):247-72.
Robert F. Hadley (2004). On the Proper Treatment of Semantic Systematicity. Minds and Machines 14 (2):145-172.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads42 ( #104,187 of 1,934,735 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #91,970 of 1,934,735 )
How can I increase my downloads?