The Story Gestalt: A Model of Knowledge-Intensive Processes in Text Comprehension

How are knowledge-intensive, text-comprehension processes computed? Specifically, how are (1) explicit propositions remembered correctly, (2) pronouns resolved, (3) coherence and prediction inferences drawn, (4) on-going interpretations revised as more information becomes available, and (5) information learned in specific contexts generalized to novel texts? A constraint satisfaction model is presented that offers a number of advantages over previous models: Each of the previous processes can be seen as examples of the same process of constraint satisfaction, constraints can have strengths to represent the degrees of correlation among information, and the independence of constraints provides insight into generalization. In the model, propositions describing a simple event, such as going to the beach or a restaurant, are sequentially presented to a recurrent PDP network. The model is trained through practice processing a large number of example texts and answering questions. Questions are predicates from propositions explicit or inferable from the text, and the model has to answer with the proposition that fits that predicate. The model learns to perform well, though some processes require substantial training. A second simulation shows how the combinatorics in the training corpus can increase generalization. This effect is explained by introducing the concept of identity and associative constraints that are learned from a corpus. Overall, the model provides a number of insights into how a graded constraint-satisfaction model can compute knowledge-intensive processes in text comprehension.

[1]  M. Just,et al.  Cognitive processes in comprehension , 1977 .

[2]  Lynne M. Reder,et al.  The Role of Partial Matches in Comprehension: The Moses Illusion Revisited , 1990 .

[3]  J. Fodor,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis , 1988, Cognition.

[4]  G. R. Potts,et al.  Assessing the occurrence of elaborative inferences: Lexical decision versus naming , 1988 .

[5]  M. Singer,et al.  Psychology of language : an introduction to sentence and discourse processes , 1992 .

[6]  W. Kintsch The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. , 1988, Psychological review.

[7]  Michael G. Dyer,et al.  High-level Inferencing in a Connectionist Network , 1989 .

[8]  Antje S. Meyer Psycholinguistic models of production. Hans W. Dechert and Manfred Raupach (Eds.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1987. , 1990, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[9]  H. W. Dechert,et al.  Psycholinguistic Models of Production , 1987 .

[10]  Robert W Lemky Taking to UNIX in English: An Overview of UC* , 1982 .

[11]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Language and Memory , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  Richard Edward Cullingford,et al.  Script application: computer understanding of newspaper stories. , 1977 .

[13]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Finding Structure in Time , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Assessing the occurrence of eleborative inference with recognition: Compatibility checking vs compound cue theory , 1989 .

[15]  David E. Rumelhart Understanding Understanding , .

[16]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures , 1978 .

[17]  Andrew Ortony,et al.  Interpreting Metaphors and Idioms: Some Effects of Context on Comprehension. Technical Report No. 93. , 1978 .

[18]  T. Reinhart Anaphora and semantic interpretation , 1983 .

[19]  R. Wilensky Primal Content and Actual Content: An Antidote to Literal Meaning , 1987 .

[20]  M. Mattson,et al.  From words to meaning: A semantic illusion , 1981 .

[21]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Natural Language Processing With Modular PDP Networks and Distributed Lexicon , 1991, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  Paul van den Broek,et al.  Causal Inferences and The Comprehension of Narrative Texts , 1990 .

[23]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Schemata and Sequential Thought Processes in PDP Models , 1986 .

[24]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning internal representations by error propagation , 1986 .

[25]  A. Graesser,et al.  Memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities. , 1980 .

[26]  Francis S. Bellezza Recalling script-based text: The role of selective processing and schematic cues , 1983 .

[27]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Pronoun disambiguation: Accessing potential antecedents , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[28]  J. Keenan,et al.  The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory , 1984 .

[29]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Learning and Applying Contextual Constraints in Sentence Comprehension , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[30]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Inferences about predictable events. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  C SchankRoger,et al.  Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People , 1983 .

[32]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Connectionist Learning Procedures , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[33]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Dynamic memory - a theory of reminding and learning in computers and people , 1983 .

[34]  William Hirst,et al.  Contextual aspects of pronoun assignment , 1980 .

[35]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[36]  A. Graesser Prose Comprehension Beyond the Word , 1981 .

[37]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  Passing Markers: A Theory of Contextual Influence in Language Comprehension* , 1983 .

[38]  Robert B. Allen,et al.  Several Studies on Natural Language ·and Back-Propagation , 1987 .

[39]  R. Wilensky Planning and Understanding: A Computational Approach to Human Reasoning , 1983 .

[40]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Natural Language Processing With Modular PDP Networks and Distributed Lexicon , 1991, Cogn. Sci..

[41]  Lokendra Shastri,et al.  A Connectionist Approach to Knowledge Representation and Limited Inference , 1988, Cogn. Sci..