1. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK THE ARGUMENT-BASED COMPUTATION: SOLVING THE BINDING PROBLEM Velina Slavova, NBU Alona Soschen, MIT

2. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK We offer an experimental support of the developed formal model of Argument Based Syntax. In this paper, we further developed the argument-based model of syntactic operations that is argued to represent the key to basic mental representations. The binding problem arises when the same noun occupies either a Subject or an Object position. The cat chases the mouse The mouse chases the cat The results of our experiments confirmed that semantic relations between the images in conceptual nets influence syntactic computation. We use the absence of of Accusative Case marker in Bulgarian and its rather free word order, and we show how the syntactic structure of ambiguous sentences is interpreted by means of other cognitive mechanisms.

3. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK by the (formal) semantic system (Hauser et al., 2002). Introduction Language Semantic system Following one of the widely accepted linguistic theories, the key component of Faculty of Language is a computational system (narrow syntax) that generates internal representations and maps them into the conceptual-intentional interface

4. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Language SYNTACTIC RULES ? Semantic knowledge COMPUTATION There is a consensus that the core property of FL is recursion, which is attributed to narrow syntax. The claim is that this computation is based on a primitive operation that takes already constructed objects to create a new object. This basic operation, called “Merge”, provides a “language of thought”, an internal system to allow preexistent conceptual resources to construct expressions (Chomsky, 2006). Introduction

5. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK One step in this direction was provided in Slavova and Soschen (2007). Syntactic structures, presented in the traditional sense of Chomskyan theory (Bare Phrase Structures, XP-structures), were re-defined in terms of finite recursive binary trees. XP X X’ S : The boy likes the girl The boy/ NP V’/ likes the girl NP/ The girl Specifier Head X Complement The study of syntactic recursion by mathematical means may provide valuable insights into the principles underlying the human language. Introduction

6. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK X’ XP X X’ XP X X’ XP X’X’ X’ X XP X’ X XP X’X’ X X’X’ X X’ X XP X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ X’ XP X X’ XP X X’ XP X’X’ X’ X XP X’ X XP X’X’ X X’X’ X X’ X XP X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ X’ XP X X’ XP X X’ XP X’X’ X’ X XP X’ X XP X’X’ X X’X’ X X’ X XP X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ X’ XP X X’ XP X X’ XP X’X’ X’ X XP X’ X XP X’X’ X X’X’ X X’ X XP X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ X X X X XXX X’ XP X’ XP X’ XP X’X’ X’ XP X’ XP X’X’ X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ The “traditional syntactic tree” was modified: the nodes related to syntactic role of verbs were discarded. Introduction

7. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK X X X X X XXX X’ XP X’ XP X’ XP X’X’ X’ XP X’ XP X’X’ X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ One reason to introduce this modification was to build a structure that complies with the principles of optimization, namely with the principle of efficient growth (Soschen 2006, 2008). Introduction

8. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK X X X X XXX X’ XP X’ XP X’ XP X’X’ X’ XP X’ XP X’X’ X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ X’ XP X’X’

9. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK XP X’ XP X X’ XP X X’ XP X’X’ X’ X XP X’ X XP X’X’ X X’X’ X X’ X XP X’X’ X’ XP X’X’ The structure obtained in this way is a tree of FibonacciIntroduction

10. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK XP Introduction

11. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK XP X3X3 Ø Ø X4X4 Ø Ø X5X5 Ø X2X2 Ø X1X1 Ø Ø Introduction

12. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK XP X3X3 Ø Ø -merge Ø XP X4X4 Ø Ø Ø -merge X5X5 Ø XP X2X2 Ø Ø -merge X1X1 Ø Ø merge Language of thought? This tree can be seen as is an operator – it “performs” a bottom-up Merge, its nodes are the results of Merge. The tree shows the patterns of relating arguments Xs.

13. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK This maximal configuration corresponds to thematic roles agent, recipient, and theme (the arguments in a sentence). These schemes represent all possible configurations and relations between arguments in the human theta-role Semantic Space. Introduction

14. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK The difficulty of designing an appropriate experiment is that mental computation runs on a deep (pre-linguistic) level and cannot be captured on the lexical level by a standard experiment. EXPERIMENT 1 One possible way to extract some information about the primary mechanisms is to force the mental system to solve ambiguities on the lexical level and to analyze the system’s response. Language Rules, Operators Semantic knowledge “computation” Introduction

15. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT 1 In Bulgarian, sentences of type: are ambiguous where the used verb allows a Recipient (to whom). SubjectVerbthe Object на the Z NB Bulgarian exhibits certain peculiarities that set it apart from other Slavic languages, such as elimination of Case marking and the development of a suffixed definite article. They assign two different meanings to Z - Recipient and Possessor: SubjectVerbthe Object to the Z SubjectVerbthe Object of the Z Introduction

16. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Test statement Анна подаде стола на директора. Анна продаде ябълките на момчето. Елена продаде къщата на кучето. Иван показа пътеката на баща си. Иван продаде къщата на баща си. Кумчо Вълчо продаде къщата на кучето. Мария показа колата на съседката. Мария продаде колата на съседката. Михаил продаде къщата на съседа си. Монтьорът показа колата на съседката. Петър донесе стола на директора. Петър показа къщата на баща си. Тапицерът донесе стола на директора. In normal listening or reading-comprehension conditions, native Bulgarian speakers are never mistaken about the conveyed meaning - they interpret one of these two senses depending on the context. EXPERIMENT 1 Introduction

17. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK The subjects of our experiment wore 62 students with different backgrounds (economists, sociologists, biologists, linguists, engineers etc.) all of them fluent speakers of French Test statement Анна подаде стола на директора. Анна продаде ябълките на момчето. Елена продаде къщата на кучето. Иван показа пътеката на баща си. Иван продаде къщата на баща си. Кумчо Вълчо продаде къщата на кучето. Мария показа колата на съседката. Мария продаде колата на съседката. Михаил продаде къщата на съседа си. Монтьорът показа колата на съседката. Петър донесе стола на директора. Петър показа къщата на баща си. Тапицерът донесе стола на директора. Translate into French! (Quickly, please) The 124 written translations of the test statements were stored in a database. EXPERIMENT 1 In order to understand which meaning is captured first by the subjects in our experiment, we used the fact that the sentence structure, including word order, is exactly the same in French. Introduction

18. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Test statement Анна подаде стола на директора. Анна продаде ябълките на момчето. Елена продаде къщата на кучето. Иван показа пътеката на баща си. Иван продаде къщата на баща си. Кумчо Вълчо продаде къщата на кучето. Мария показа колата на съседката. Мария продаде колата на съседката. Михаил продаде къщата на съседа си. Монтьорът показа колата на съседката. Петър донесе стола на директора. Петър показа къщата на баща си. Тапицерът донесе стола на директора. Translate into French! (Quickly, please) EXPERIMENT 1 The crucial difference is that the preposition на is translated in French as “à” (to) for the Recipient-meaning and as “de” (of) for the Possessor-meaning. Introduction

19. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Here the result: The important observation is that these changes do not depend on the verb. Introduction

20. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK The Z The Y Verb X на Concept Achievement Concept Preposition Concept SYNTACTIC PROCEDURE WITH SEMANTIC MERGE

21. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK SYNTACTIC PROCEDURE WITH SEMANTIC MERGE Semantic Merge (M) is modeled as binary operation, performed in sequential progression between concepts verb Y* X* Z* The result of M consists of a couple, in which each element obtains an image , representing the concept in the semantic context of the other member of the couple. For example, the image  of the concept X* within the couple [X*V] is the image of X* as Subject, performing V. verb X* X Acts V

22. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK  Z*= Recipient (  X*)  X* = M (X*,V) = [X*,V]  X* = X*V (Y*, ?R) X* V (?O, ?R) Y* Z* M ([  X*,Y* ], [  X*,Z*])  X*= X*V (Y*, Z*)  Y* = Object of X* to Z*  Z*= Recipient of X* Acts Y* 1.1. 4.4. на M (  X*, Y*) = [  X*, Y*] 3.3. = X*V (?O, ?R)  Y* = Object X* V M (  X*, Z*) = [  X*, Z*] 2.2. SEMANTIC MERGE – experimental results 1 Recipient scheme PRIMARY

23. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK  X* = M (X*,V*) = [X*,V*]  X* = X* Acts (?what, to Ø) X* V*( ?O, ?R) Y* Z* M ([  X*,  Y* ], [  X*, Ø ])  X*= X* Acts Y* of Z*  Y* = belongs to Z* and Acted by X*  Z*= Possessor of Y* 1.1. 4.4. на M (  X*, Ø) = [  X*, Ø] 2 b. = X* Acts (?O, ?R) M (  X*,  Y*) = [  X*,  Y*] 3.3.  Z* = (Z*  Y*) = Poss of Y*  Y* = (Z*  Y*) = belongs to Z* Ø 2 a.  Y* = X* Acts Y*, to Ø) = X* Acts (?O) Possessor scheme IF RECIPIENT IS REJECTED SEMANTIC MERGE – experimental results 1

24. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK  Z*= Recipient (  X*)  X* = M (X*,V) = [X*,V]  X* = X*V (Y*, ?R) X* V (?O, ?R) Y* Z* M ([  X*,Y* ], [  X*,Z*])  X*= X*V (Y*, Z*)  Y* = Object of X* to Z*  Z*= Recipient of X* Acts Y* 1.1. 4.4. на M (  X*, Y*) = [  X*, Y*] 3.3. = X*V (?O, ?R)  Y* = Object X* V M (  X*, Z*) = [  X*, Z*] 2.2. Recipient scheme The experimental results show that if in the semantic space there exists a previous knowledge about Z* as a natural Possessor of Y*, that influences the process on step 2. Z Y Previous semantic knowledge SEMANTIC MERGE – experimental results 1

25. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK  X*  [X*, V] = M (X*,V) = [X*,V] X* V (?O, ?R) Y* Z* 1.1. на = X*V (?O, ?R) The experimental results show that if in the semantic space there exists a previous knowledge about Z* as a natural Possessor of Y*, that influences the process on step 2. Z Y  Z* = (Z*  Y*) = Poss of Y*  Y* = (Z*  Y*) = belongs to Z* 2 a.  X* = X* Acts (?what, to Ø) M ([  X*,  Y* ], [  X*, Ø ])  X*= X* Acts Y* of Z*  Y* = belongs to Z* and Acted by X*  Z*= Possessor of Y* 4.4. M (  X*, Ø) = [  X*, Ø] 2 b. M (  X*,  Y*) = [  X*,  Y*] 3.3.  Y* = X* Acts Y*, to Ø) = X* Acts (?O) Possessor scheme SEMANTIC MERGE – experimental results 1

26. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK  Z*= Recipient (  X*)  X* = M (X*,V) = [X*,V]  X* = X*V (Y*, ?R) X* V (?O, ?R) Y* Z* M ([  X*,Y* ], [  X*,Z*])  X*= X*V (Y*, Z*)  Y* = Object of X* to Z*  Z*= Recipient of X* Acts Y* 1.1. 4.4. на M (  X*, Y*) = [  X*, Y*] 3.3. = X*V (?O, ?R)  Y* = Object X* V M (  X*, Z*) = [  X*, Z*] 2.2. X* Y* на Recipient scheme Y X The knowledge about Y* as usual Object of actions of X* forms in the semantic space a relation X*-Y*. Previous knowledge SEMANTIC MERGE – experimental results 1

27. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK  Z*= Recipient (  X*)  X* = M (X*,V) = [X*,V]  X* = X*V (Y*, ?R) X* V (?O, ?R) Y* Z* 1.1. на M (  X*, Y*) = [  X*, Y*] 3.3. = X*V (?O, ?R)  Y* = Object X* V M (  X*, Z*) = [  X*, Z*] 2.2. X* Y* на Recipient scheme Y X The knowledge about Y* as usual Object of actions of X* forms in the semantic space a relation X*-Y*. M ([  X*,  Y* ], [  X*, Ø ]) 4.4. SEMANTIC MERGE – experimental results 1

28. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK  X*  [X*, V] = M (X*,V) = [X*,V] X* V (?O, ?R) Y* Z* 1.1. на = X*V (?O, ?R) Possessor scheme The knowledge about Y* as usual Object of actions of X* forms in the semantic space a relation X*-Y*. Y  Z* = (Z*  Y*) = Poss of Y*  Y* = (Z*  Y*) = belongs to Z* 2 a.  X* = X* Acts (?what, to Ø) M ([  X*,  Y* ], [  X*, Ø ])  X*= X* Acts Y* of Z*  Y* = belongs to Z* and Acted by X*  Z*= Possessor of Y* 4.4. M (  X*, Ø) = [  X*, Ø] 2 b. M (  X*,  Y*) = [  X*,  Y*] 3.3.  Y* = X* Acts Y*, to Ø) = X* Acts (?O) X SEMANTIC MERGE – experimental results 1

29. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK  Z*= Recipient (  X*)  X* = M (X*,V) = [X*,V]  X* = X*V (Y*, ?R) X* V (?O, ?R) Y* Z* M ([  X*,Y* ], [  X*,Z*])  X*= X*V (Y*, Z*)  Y* = Object of X* to Z*  Z*= Recipient of X* Acts Y* 1.1. 4.4. на M (  X*, Y*) = [  X*, Y*] 3.3. = X*V (?O, ?R)  Y* = Object X* V M (  X*, Z*) = [  X*, Z*] 2.2. X* Y* на Recipient scheme Z X When between X* and Z* exists a strong semantic relation, Z* takes the (natural) role of Recipient of the actions of X*. SEMANTIC MERGE – experimental results 1

30. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK The general conclusion is that people very much construct the meaning of what has been said.

31. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK (SVO): децата прочетоха писмoто. ‘The children have read the letter’. (SOV): децата писмoто прочетоха. ‘The children the letter have read’. (OSV): писмoто децата прочетоха. ‘The letter the children have read’. (OVS): писмoто прочетоха децата. ‘The letter have read the children’. (VOS): прочетоха писмoто децата. ‘Have read the letter the children’. (VSO): прочетоха децата писмoто. ‘Have read the children the letter’. EXPERIMENT 2 Subject Verb Object (Bulgarian) Although the Bulgarian nouns are not marked for Case, the word order is rather free. Thus, in a Bulgarian the sentence ‘The children have read the letter’ can be expressed as the following: the Noun 1Verb the Noun 2 The children have read the letter the Noun 1Verb the Noun 2

32. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT 2 Subject Verb Object (Bulgarian) The children have read the letter the Noun 1Verb the Noun 2 Although SVO is the basic WO, all permutations are possible; they are grammatically correct, even thought some are used mostly in poetry. According to the Institute of Bulgarian at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, this grammatical particularity of permutation is possible because of the agreement between Subject and Verb which clarifies the role of Object. But what If the Verb is in agreement with both nouns? s There exists in Bulgarian a particular grammatical operation (clitic doubling) that marks Object in cases of a reverse word order, as in: (OVS): Иван го поздрави Мария. Ivan him congratulated Maria ‘Maria congratulated Ivan’.

33. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT 2 Subject Verb Object (Bulgarian) Noun 1 Noun 2 Noun 1 Verb Noun 2 The clitic (го/ги) is obligatory only when the subject and the object are in the third person, and they are both either singular or plural. According to the Institute of Bulgarian at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, When the meaning is clear from the context, the clitic can be omitted. (OVS): Иван го поздрави Мария. Ivan him congratulated Maria ‘Maria congratulated Ivan’. го/ги (OVS):Ролите озвучиха артистите: (list). The roles sound-screened the artists: ‘ The artists (from the list) sound-screened the roles’. for example:

34. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT 2 (Merge patterns) M (X*,V) = [X*,V]  X* = X*V (Y) X* V (?O) Y* 1. M (  X*, Y*) = [  X*, Y*] 2. X Acts (?O)  Y* = Object X* V Noun 1Noun 2 verb The first mental operator in this treatment is to merge nouns with V* Stage I : Merge Subject-Verb M (X*V*) = [X*, V] (?O)  X* = X* Acts (?O) Y*  X* Stage II : Merge Acting Subject with Object  Y*  [  X*, Y*] = Object X* V X*  X* V Object Y*

35. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT 2 (Merge patterns) M (Y*,V) = [Y*,V] X* V (?O) Y* 1. M (  Y*, X*) = [  Y*, X*] 2. = Y Acts (?O)  Y* = X*V (Y)  X* = Object Y* V Stage I : Merge Subject-Verb M (Y*V*) = [Y*, V] (?O)  Y* = Y* Acts (?O) Stage II : Merge Acting Subject with Object X*  Y* Y*  Y* V Object X*

36. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT 2 (Merge patterns)  X* M (X*,V) = [X*,V]  X* = X*V (Y) X* V (?O) Y* 1. M (  X*, Y*) = [  X*, Y*] 2. = X*V (?O)  Y* = Object X* V  Y* M (Y*,V) = [Y*,V]  Y* = Y*V (X) X* V (?O) Y* 1. M (  Y*, X*) = [  Y*, X*] 2. = Y*V (?O)  X* = Object Y* V We assume that these operations are semantically supported by the meaning of the concepts X* and Y*. X* Y* IF THERE ARE NOT GRAMMATICAL MARKERS…

37. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT 2 (Bulgarian) In this case, either X or Y can appear as Object: We used Bulgarian sentences of type: Where V is in agreement with both X and Y. X(noun)VerbY(noun) Subject Verb Object X(noun) Verb Y(noun)

38. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT 2 (Bulgarian) The following folk verses that contain sentences of the above kind were used in our experiment:

39. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Живееше мишка, сива и красива Once upon a time there lived a mouse, grey and beautiful нейде на тавана, дето бе дивана. Somewhere in the attic, where the sofa was Появи се тук Котанчо, котаракът на Стоянчо. There appeared Kotantcho, the cat of Soyantcho Мишката Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The mouse Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa

40. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Живееше куче, сиво и красиво Once upon a time there lived a dog, grey and beautiful нейде на тавана, дето бе дивана. Somewhere in the attic, where the sofa was Появи се тук Котанчо, котаракът на Стоянчо. There appeared Kotantcho, the cat of Soyantcho Кучето Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The dog Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa

41. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Живееше мишка, сива и красива Once upon a time there lived a mouse, grey and beautiful нейде на тавана, дето бе дивана. Somewhere in the attic, where the sofa was Появи се тук Котанчо, котаракът на Стоянчо. There appeared Kotantcho, the cat of Soyantcho Мишката Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The mouse Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa X(noun)VerbY(noun)

42. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Живееше куче, сиво и красиво Once upon a time there lived a dog, grey and beautiful нейде на тавана, дето бе дивана. Somewhere in the attic, where the sofa was Появи се тук Котанчо, котаракът на Стоянчо. There appeared Kotantcho, the cat of Soyantcho Кучето Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The dog Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa X(noun)VerbY(noun) The two sentences in the verses have identical structure X* Y* V* and there are no grammatical markers indicating which noun is Subject and which is Object.

43. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK The subjects of our experiment wore 36 students with different backgrounds (economists, sociologists, biologists, linguists, engineers etc.) all of them fluent speakers of French Translate into French! (Quickly, please) The written translations of the test statements were stored in a database. We designed our experiment as a translation (from Bulgarian to French) task. In French the word order is fixed. Thus, our subjects had to assign a fixed word order to their French translations, thus bringing out their interpretation of the same noun as either Subject or Object. Живееше мишка, сива и красива Once upon a time there lived a mouse, grey and beautiful нейде на тавана, дето бе дивана. Somewhere in the attic, where the sofa was Появи се тук Котанчо, котаракът на Стоянчо. There appeared Kotantcho, the cat of Soyantcho Мишката Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The mouse Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa Живееше куче, сиво и красиво Once upon a time there lived a dog, grey and beautiful нейде на тавана, дето бе дивана. Somewhere in the attic, where the sofa was Появи се тук Котанчо, котаракът на Стоянчо. There appeared Kotantcho, the cat of Soyantcho Кучето Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The dog Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa Subject Verb Object Noun 1 Noun 2

44. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Кучето Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The dog Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa X(noun) Verb Y(noun) The dog Caught (activity) Kotantcho (cat) SUBJECTVerbOBJECT Result: 17 (100%)

45. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Мишката Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The mouse Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa X(noun) Verb Y(noun) The mouse Caught (activity) Kotantcho (cat) Result: 12 (100%) ‘retell the story in two sentences’ condition SUBJECTVerbOBJECT All translations were structured as S V O (le chat a attrapé la sourris).

46. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Мишката Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The mouse Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa X(noun) Verb Y(noun) The mouse Caught (activity) Kotantcho (cat) Result: 16 (72,7%) ‘translate the story’ condition SUBJECTVerbOBJECT

47. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Мишката Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The mouse Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa X(noun) Verb Y(noun) The mouse Caught (activity) Kotantcho (cat) Result: 4 (18,2%) ‘translate the story’ condition SUBJECTVerbOBJECT

48. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Мишката Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The mouse Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa X(noun) Verb Y(noun) The mouse Caught (activity) Kotantcho (cat) NOT CLEAR Result: 2 ‘translate the story’ condition SUBJECTVerbOBJECT The cases which are not clear represent mot-à-mot translations: the result in French does not make sense because of the fixed word order.

49. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK EXPERIMENT: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Мишката Котанчо хвана и изчезна под дивана. The mouse Kotantcho caught and disappeared under the sofa X(noun) Verb Y(noun) The mouse Caught (activity) Kotantcho (cat) ‘translate the story’ condition SUBJECTVerbOBJECT An attempt to comply with the original word order is seen in a couple of cases where the “subject first” rule is respected, leading to the translation of sentences in a passive form “La sourris a été par Kotantcho attrapée” (The mouse has been by the cat caught).

50. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Following our model, the cognitive system first assembles a fractional representation of the sentence-meaning structure (coupled words for example) and uses working memory loops for checking the semantic consistency. EXPERIMENT : ANALYSIS Long Term Memory Concepts Events verbs Attributes Semantic primitives Syntactic categories prep. Semantic Operators Syntactic rules ….…. … nouns adjectives Sentence Working memory Z 24 Z 25 Z 26 Z 27  λ  l 81 l 105 l 70 l 89 l 87 l 85 l 86 l 84 l 83 l 82 l 100 l 88 l 94 l 95 l 96 l 91 l 92 l 93 l 90 λ l 12 l 69 l 49 φ φ φ

51. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK Z 24 Z 25 Z 26 Z 27  λ  l 81 l 105 l 70 l 89 l 87 l 85 l 86 l 84 l 83 l 82 l 100 l 88 l 94 l 95 l 96 l 91 l 92 l 93 l 90 l 12 l 69 l 49 φ φ φ Verb Y X λ The grammatical information is not sufficient to build the syntactic structure. The treatment can continue only by applying other mechanisms. verb Y X Concept Achievement EXPERIMENT : ANALYSIS

52. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK SYNTACTIC PROCEDURE WITH SEMANTIC MERGE verb Y X MouseCat Caught Stage I : Merge Subject-Verb M (X*V*) = [X*, V] (?O)  X* = X* Acts (?O) TheMouse Caught

53. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK SYNTACTIC PROCEDURE WITH SEMANTIC MERGE verb Y X Stage I : Merge Subject-Verb M (Y*V*) = [Y*, V] (?O)  Y* = Y* Acts (?O) TheCat Caught MouseCat Caught

54. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK SYNTACTIC PROCEDURE WITH SEMANTIC MERGE verb Y X Stage I : Merge Subject-Verb M (X*V*) = [X*, V] (?O)  X* = X* Acts (?O) TheMouse Caught Stage II Merge Acting Subject with Object The Mouse Caught the Cat MouseCat Caught The Cat is the Object of TheMouseCaught REJECTED

55. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK SYNTACTIC PROCEDURE WITH SEMANTIC MERGE verb Y X Stage I : Merge Subject-Verb M (Y*V*) = [Y*, V] (?O)  Y* = Y* Acts (?O) TheCat Caught MouseCat Caught Stage II Merge Acting Subject with Object The CatCaught the Mouse The Mouse is the Object of TheCatCaught ACCEPTED

56. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK CONCLUSIONS Experimental evidence is provided in support of the argument-based model. The semantic role of entities (nouns) is primary in syntax. The analysis provided here is based on the assumption that the syntactic treatment includes a Merge operation between the images of the concepts. The obtained formal description of the stages of syntactic treatment explains the experimental results.

57. CML 2010 DUBROVNIK The Mouse is the Object of TheCatCaught THANK YOU!