The teachable language comprehender: a simulation program and theory of language

ABSTRACT

The Teachable Language Comprehender (TLC) is a program designed to be capable of being taught to “comprehend” English text. When text which the program has not seen before is input to it, it comprehends that text by correctly relating each (explicit or implicit) assertion of the new text to a large memory. This memory is a “semantic network” representing factual assertions about the world. The program also creates copies of the parts of its memory which have been found to relate to the new text, adapting and combining these copies to represent the meaning of the new text. By this means, the meaning of all text the program successfully comprehends is encoded into the same format as that of the memory. In this form it can be added into the memory. Both factual assertions for the memory and the capabilities for correctly relating text to the memory's prior content are to be taught to the program as they are needed. TLC presently contains a relatively small number of examples of such assertions and capabilities, but within the system, notations for expressing either of these are provided. Thus the program now corresponds to a general process for comprehending language, and it provides a methodology for adding the additional information this process requires to actually comprehend text of any particular kind. The memory structure and comprehension process of TLC allow new factual assertions and capabilities for relating text to such stored assertions to generalize automatically. That is, once such an assertion or capability is put into the system, it becomes available to help comprehend a great many other sentences in the future. Thus the addition of a single factual assertion or linguistic capability will often provide a large increment in TLC's effective knowledge of the world and in its overall ability to comprehend text. The program's strategy is presented as a general theory of

REFERENCES

• 1: ABELSON, R. P., A.ND CARROLL, J. D. Computer simulation of individual belief systems. Amer. Behav. Sci. 8, 9 (1965), 24-30.
• 2: BOBROW, D. G., MURPhy, D. L., AND TEITELMAN, W. The BBN LISP system. Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 1968.
• 3: CHOMSKY, N. Aspecls of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1965.
• 4: COLLINS, A. M., AND QUILLIAN, M. R. Retrieval time from semantic memory. Rep. No. 1692. Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 1968. To appear in J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. (1969).
• 5: Edward A. Feigenbaum , Julian Feldman, Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1963
• 6: Susumu Kuno, The predictive analyzer and a path elimination technique, Communications of the ACM, v.8 n.7, p.453-462, July 1965 [doi>10.1145/364995.365689]
• 7: LONGYEAR, C. The semantic rule. Rep. No. 67TMP-55, General Electric TEMPO Project, Santa Barbara, Calif., 1967.
• 8: Marvin L. Minsky, Semantic Information Processing, The MIT Press, 1969
• 9: NEWELL, A., SHAW, J. C., AND SIMON, H. A. The processes of creative thinking. In Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking, H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, and M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Atherton Press, New York, 1962, pp. 63-119.
• 10: PIAGET, J. The Psyehology of Intelligence. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1950.
• 11: QUILLIAN, M. R. Semantic Memory. In Semantic Information Processing, M. Minsky, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1968.
• 12: Word concepts: a theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behav. Sci. 12 (1967), 410-430.
• 13: ----, WORTMAN, P. AND BAYLOR, G. W. The programable Piaget: Behavior from the standpoint of a radical computerist. Unpublished dittoed paper, Carnegie-Melon U., Pittsburgh, Pa., 1965.
• 14: RAPHAEL, B., BOBROW, D. G., FEIN, L., AND YOUNG, Z. W. A Brief Survey of Computer Languages for Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation. North-Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam, 1968.
• 15: REITMAN, W. R. Cognition and Thought: An Information Processing Approach. Wiley, New York, 1965.
• 16: SIKLOSSY, L., AND SIMON, H. A. Some semantic methods for language processing. Complex information processing Paper 129, Carnegie-Mellon U., Pittsburgh, Penn., 1968.
• 17: R. F. Simmons, Answering English questions by computer: a survey, Communications of the ACM, v.8 n.1, p.53-70, Jan. 1965 [doi>10.1145/363707.363732]
• 18: -- AND BURGER, J. F. A semantic analyzer for English sentences. Rep. No. SP 2987, Syst. Develop. Corp., Santa Monica, Calif., 1968.
• 19: TESLER, L., ENEA, H., AND COLBY, K. M. A directed graph representation for computer simulation of belief systems. Dep. Comput. Sci., Stanford U., Stanford, Calif., 1967.
• 20: THOMPSON, F. B. The deacon project. Rep. No. 65TMP-69, General Electric TEMPO Project, Santa Barbara, Calif., 1965.
• 21: THORNE, J. P., BRATLEY, P., AND DEWAR, H. The syntactic analysis of English by machine. In Machine Intelligence 3, Donald Michie (Ed.), American Elsevier, New York, 1968, pp. 281-309.
• 22: Joseph Weizenbaum, Contextual understanding by computers, Communications of the ACM, v.10 n.8, p.474-480, Aug. 1967 [doi>10.1145/363534.363545]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.5 ARTS AND HUMANITIES
      Subjects: Linguistics

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
  I.6 SIMULATION AND MODELING

General Terms:
Human Factors, Languages, Performance

Keywords:
computer linguistics, human memory simulation, linguistic performance theory, natural language comprehension, natural language processing, psychological simulation, teachable computer program