Frank Förster
Skip Abstract Section
Skip Supplemental Material SectionAbstract
“No” is one of the first ten words used by children and embodies the first form of linguistic negation. Despite its early occurrence, the details of its acquisition remain largely unknown. The circumstance that “no” cannot be construed as a label for perceptible objects or events puts it outside the scope of most modern accounts of language acquisition. Moreover, most symbol grounding architectures will struggle to ground the word due to its non-referential character. The presented work extends symbol grounding to encompass affect and motivation. In a study involving the child-like robot iCub, we attempt to illuminate the acquisition process of negation words. The robot is deployed in speech-wise unconstrained interaction with participants acting as its language teachers. The results corroborate the hypothesis that affect or volition plays a pivotal role in the acquisition process. Negation words are prosodically salient within prohibitive utterances and negative intent interpretations such that they can be easily isolated from the teacher’s speech signal. These words subsequently may be grounded in negative affective states. However, observations of the nature of prohibition and the temporal relationships between its linguistic and extra-linguistic components raise questions over the suitability of Hebbian-type algorithms for certain types of language grounding.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
zip
forster.zip (1.2 MB)
Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Robots Learning to Say “No”: Prohibition and Rejective Mechanisms in Acquisition of Linguistic Negation
- David W. Aha (Ed.). 1997. Lazy Learning. Springer-Science+Business Media, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Minoru Asada, Koh Hosoda, Yasuo Kuniyoshi, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Toshio Inui, Yuichiro Yoshikawa, Masaki Ogino, and Chisato Yoshida. 2009. Cognitive developmental robotics: A survey. IEEE Trans. Auton. Mental Dev. 1, 1 (2009), 12--34.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Langshaw Austin. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Lawrence W. Barsalou. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 4 (1999), 577--660.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Melissa Bowerman. 1988. The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In Explaining Language Universals, J. Hawkins (Ed.). Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 73--101.Google Scholar
- Patricia J. Brooks, Michael Tomasello, Kelly Dodson, and Lawrence B. Lewis. 1999. Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Dev. 70, 6 (1999), 1325--1337.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Angelo Cangelosi. 2010. Grounding language in action and perception: From cognitive agents to humanoid robots. Phys. Life Rev. 7, 2 (2010), 139--151.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Walter Daelemans and Antal van den Bosch. 2005. Memory-based Language Processing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Misti DeWeerd. 2011. Daddy says no. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/6b8dafQ5OQw.Google Scholar
- P. F. Dominey and J. D. Boucher. 2005. Learning to talk about events from narrated video in a construction grammar framework. Artific. Intell. 167 (2005), 31--61.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Larry Fenson, Philip S. Dale, J. Steven Reznick, Elizabeth Bates, Donna J. Thal, and Stephen J. Pethick. 1994. Variability in early communicative development. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 59, 1 (1994), i--185.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank Förster. 2013. Robots that Say “No”: Acquisition of Linguistic Behaviour in Interaction Games with Humans. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
- Frank Förster. 2018. Coding Scheme for Negative Utterances. Technical Report. Adaptive Systems Research Group, University of Hertfordshire. https://doi.org/10.18745/pb.20312Google Scholar
- Frank Förster, Joe Saunders, and Chrystopher L. Nehaniv. 2018. Robots that say “No”: Affective symbol grounding and the case of intent interpretations. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst. 10, 3 (2018), 530--544. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2017.2752366Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clare Gallaway and Brian J. Richards. 1994. Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
- Susan A. Gelman, William Croft, Panfang Fu, Timothy Clausner, and Gail Gottfried. 1998. Why is a pomegranate an apple? The role of shape, taxonomic relatedness, and prior lexical knowledge in children’s overextensions of apple and dog. J. Child Lang. 25, 2 (1998), 267--291.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alison Gopnik. 1988. Three types of early word: The emergence of social words, names and cognitive-relational words in the one-word stage and their relation to cognitive development. First Lang. 8, 22 (1988), 49--70.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Harnad. 1990. The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42 (1990), 335--346.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elaine Hatfield, John T. Cacioppo, and Richard L. Rapson. 1993. Emotional contagion. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 2, 3 (1993), 96--99.Google ScholarCross Ref
- George Hollich, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta Michnick Golinkoff. 2000. I. what does it take to learn a word? Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 65, 3 (2000), 1--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ian Hutchby and Robin Wooffitt. 1999. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices, and Applications. Blackwell, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
- Gail Jefferson. 1989. Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a “standard maximum” silence of approximately one second in conversation. In Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Derek Roger and Peter Bull (Eds.). Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Chapter 8, 166--196.Google Scholar
- Casey Kennington and Sarah Plane. 2017. Symbol, Conversational, and Societal Grounding with a Toy Robot. arXiv:1709.10486.Google Scholar
- Stavroula-Thaleia Kousta, Gabriella Vigliocco, David P. Vinson, Mark Andrews, and Elena Del Campo. 2011. The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. J. Exper. Psychol. 140, 1 (2011), 14--34.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Caroline Lyon, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, Joe Saunders, Tony Belpaeme, Ambra Bisio, Kerstin Fischer, Frank Förster, Hagen Lehmann, Giorgio Metta, Vishwanathan Mohan, et al. 2016. Embodied language learning and cognitive bootstrapping: Methods and design principles. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 13, 3 (2016), 105.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, Frank Förster, Joe Saunders, Frank Broz, Elena Antonova, Hatice Köse, Caroline Lyon, Hagen Lehmann, Yo Sato, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2013. Interaction and experience in enactive intelligence and humanoid robotics. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life (ALIFE’13). IEEE, 148--155.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elissa L. Newport. 1977. Motherese: The speech of mothers to young children. In Cognitive Theory Vol. 2, John N. Castellan, David B. Pisoni, and George R. Potts (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 177--217.Google Scholar
- Yael Niv. 2009. Reinforcement learning in the brain. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 3 (2009), 139--154.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Desmond C. Ong, Jamil Zaki, and Noah D. Goodman. 2015. Affective cognition: Exploring lay theories of emotion. Cognition 143 (2015), 141--162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Desmond C. Ong, Jamil Zaki, and N. D. Goodman. 2019. Computational models of emotion inference in Theory of Mind: A review and roadmap. Topics Cogn. Sci. 11, 2 (2019), 338--357.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ugo Pattacini. 2010. Modular Cartesian Controllers for Humanoid Robots: Design and Implementation on the iCub. Ph.D. Dissertation, RBCS, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy.Google Scholar
- Roy D. Pea. 1978. The Development of Negation in Early Child Language. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
- Roy D. Pea. 1980. The development of negation in early child language. In The Social Foundations of Language 8 Thought: Essays in Honor of Jerome S. Bruner, D. R. Olson (Ed.). W. W. Norton, New York, 156--186.Google Scholar
- D. Roy. 2005. Semiotic schemas: A framework for grounding language in action and perception. Artific. Intell. 167, 1--2 (2005), 170--205.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Deb K. Roy and Alex P. Pentland. 2002. Learning words from sights and sounds: A computational model. Cogn. Sci. 26, 1 (2002), 113--146.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jonas Rüsch, Manuel Lopes, Alexandre Bernardino, Jonas Hörnstein, Jose Santos-Victor, and Rolf Pfeifer. 2008. Multimodal saliency-based bottom-up attention—A framework for the humanoid robot icub. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’08). IEEE, 962--967.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joanna Ryan. 1974. Early language development: Toward a communicational analysis. In The Integration of a Child into a Social World, M. P. M. Richards (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
- Joe Saunders, Hagen Lehmann, Frank Förster, and Chrystopher L. Nehaniv. 2012. Robot acquisition of lexical meaning - moving towards the two-word stage. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EpiRob’12). IEEE, 1--7.Google Scholar
- Joe Saunders, Hagen Lehmann, Yo Sato, and Chrystopher L. Nehaniv. 2011. Towards using prosody to scaffold lexical meaning in robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EpiRob’11).Google Scholar
- Joe Saunders, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv, and Caroline Lyon. 2011. The acquisition of word semantics by a humanoid robot via interaction with a human tutor. In New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction, K. Dautenhahn and J. Saunders (Eds.). John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 211--234.Google Scholar
- John R. Searle. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeffrey M. Siskind. 2001. Grounding the lexical semantics of verbs in visual perception using force dynamics and event logic. J. Artific. Intell. Res. 15 (2001), 31--90.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Catherine E. Snow. 1977. Mothers’ speech research: From input to interaction. In Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition, Catherine E. Snow and Charles A. Ferguson (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 31--49.Google Scholar
- René A. Spitz. 1957. No and Yes: On the Genesis of Human Communication. International Universities Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Paul Spivey. 2007. Getting in Trouble. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/QEGZ4RR6mZ8.Google Scholar
- Luc Steels and Jean-Christophe Baillie. 2003. Shared grounding of event descriptions by autonomous robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 43 (2003), 163--173.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karla Štěpánová, Frederico B. Klein, Angelo Cangelosi, and Michal Vavrečka. 2018. Mapping language to vision in a real-world robotic scenario. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst. 10, 3 (2018), 784--794.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Francesca Stramandinoli, Davide Marocco, and Angelo Cangelosi. 2017. Making sense of words: A robotic model for language abstraction. Auton. Robots 41, 2 (2017), 367--383.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yuuya Sugita and Jun Tani. 2005. Learning semantic combinatoriality from the interaction between linguistic and behavioral processes. Adapt. Behav. 13, 1 (2005), 33--52.Google ScholarDigital Library
- TiMBL. 2012. Retrieved from http://ilk.uvt.nl/mblp/.Google Scholar
- Michael Tomasello. 2003. Constructing a Language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Francisco J. Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Virginia Volterra and Francesco Antinucci. 1979. Negation in child language: A pragmatic study. In Developmental Pragmatics, Elinor Ochs (Ed.). Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Chen Yu, Linda B. Smith, Krystal A. Klein, and Richard M. Shiffrin. 2007. Hypothesis testing and associative learning in cross-situational word learning: Are they one and the same? In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, 737--742.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Robots Learning to Say “No”: Prohibition and Rejective Mechanisms in Acquisition of Linguistic Negation
Recommendations
Attribution of autonomy and its role in robotic language acquisition
AbstractThe false attribution of autonomy and related concepts to artificial agents that lack the attributed levels of the respective characteristic is problematic in many ways. In this article, we contrast this view with a positive viewpoint that ...
Learning Communicative Meanings of Utterances by Robots
New Frontiers in Artificial IntelligenceThis paper describes a computational mechanism that enables a robot to return suitable utterances to a human or perform actions by learning the meanings of interrogative words, such as "what" and "which." Previous studies of language acquisition by ...
Making sense of words: a robotic model for language abstraction
Building robots capable of acting independently in unstructured environments is still a challenging task for roboticists. The capability to comprehend and produce language in a `human-like' manner represents a powerful tool for the autonomous ...
Comments