Knowledge Representation

Conceptual Dependency

Based on the work done by Roger Schank

and his group at Yale University in the
1970s.

Deepak Khemani
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
IIT Madras

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 1

 Perception / Understanding

Making sense of some inputs.

Natural Language Understanding

Speech Understanding
Image Understanding

Understanding is like parsing.

Thesis : Understanding has a strong top down component.
It involves concept driven mapping into preconceived
notions, rather than data driven bottom up approach.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 2

 A short story From "Identification of Conceptualizations
underlying Natural Language" – Roger Schank

John meets Fred on the road. Fred has a knife. John is angry because
his wife Mary has yelled at him…

Fred : Hi
John : What are you doing with the knife?
Fred : Thought I'd teach the kids to play mumbly-peg.
John : I could use a knife right now.
Fred : What's the matter?
John : Damn Mary, always on my back. She'll be sorry.
Fred : I don't think a knife will help you.
John : You're just on her side. I think I ought to . . .

… at this point the listener has some expectations

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 3

 Expectations
Syntax a verb
Meaning a "conceptual structure" type and a filler for it
Context the conceptual structure predicts an "action".
Context delimits the range of possible actions,
for example end relationship
hurt someone
go to some place
emote
Conversational people talk for a reason. To arouse sympathy, or to
inform about intent, etcetra…
World view of listener
If John is known to be a convicted murderer the
expectation would be different from if he were
known to be an avowed pacifist.
Cultural norm what is accepted within a culture
What kind of knowledge structures in memory
would generate such expectations?

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 4

 A short story
John meets Fred on the road. Fred has a knife. John is angry because
his wife Mary has yelled at him…

Fred : Hi
John : What are you doing with the knife?
Fred : Thought I'd teach the kids to play mumbly-peg.
John : I could use a knife right now.
Fred : What's the matter?
John : Damn Mary, always on my back. She'll be sorry.
Fred : I don't think a knife will help you.
John : You're just on her side. I think I ought to . . .

One would be considerably surprised to hear

“I think I ought to go and eat some fish"

Jokes exploit such

violation of expectation.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 5

Vision..

Courtesy: Richard Gregory

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 6

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 7
Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 8
 Conceptual Dependency Theory

•  The CD theory defines a semantic base for knowledge representation.

•  The objective was to understand natural language stories.
•  The CD theory is designed for everyday actions.
•  More specific domains would require a specific set of primitives.

Basic unit à CONCEPTUALIZATION

something like a Well Formed Formula

Main component à EVENT defined by an ACTOR

an ACTION
an OBJECT
a sense of DIRECTION

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 9

 Concepts
Conceptualization

Concepts + Relations

nominals actions modifiers

picture aiders (PA)

picture producers (PP)
action aiders (AA)
actions (ACT)

Inherently governing categories Inherently dependent categories

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 10

 Conceptualizations

•  Nominals and actions can exist as independent notions.

–  Nominals stand for objects and people.
–  Actions are acts of nominals.

•  Modifiers give additional information on the nominals or actions.

•  A dependent concept predicts the existence of a governer.
•  A conceptualization is a collection of concepts and relations in which
there is at least a two way dependency.
•  A conceptualization tells you something about the world.
•  Conceptual Dependency theory defines the set of actions that can be
done by people.
•  Can be described in a logic like syntax
–  For example in “Artificial Intelligence”, by Charniak and McDermott.

•  Can be depicted graphically by C-diagrams.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 11

 Example 1.

John hit his little dog.

PP – Can be Act – PP – a governor.

understood by Conceptually an Related to act hit as
itself. action. object of action. Is
dependent on hit :
cannot be
A two way dependency understood in the
between the two concepts. conceptualization
The core of the without it.
conceptualization.
Objective dependency.

John hit dog

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 12

 Example 1 (continued)

John hit his little dog. A little more complex - “his” is

dependent on “dog”. But it is
also a linguistic item – pronoun
– for “John”. One PP as
A PA dependent on the dog.
dependent on another PP :
Attributive Dependency.
Prepositional Dependency.
Label indicates type of
dependency.

Poss-by

John hit dog

little
John

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 13

 Time

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 14

 Conceptual Dependencies

1. PP ACT Certain PPs can ACT

2. PP PA PPs (and some Conceptualizations)

can be described by an attrtibute.
3. ACT PP ACTs have objects.

D LOC
4. ACT ACTs have direction.
LOC

R PP
5. ACT ACTs have recipients..
PP

6. ACT MTRANS requires conceptualizations

as objects, and MBUILD has its own
object type.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 15

 Conceptual Dependencies

PP ACT

PP PA

ACT PP

D LOC
ACT
LOC

R PP
ACT
PP

ACT

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 16

 Conceptual Dependencies

I
7. ACT ACTs have conceptualizations as instruments.

8. PP PP PPs can be described by the conceptualizations

in which they occur.

T
9. Conceptualizations have times.

LOC
10. Conceptualizations have locations.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 17

 Conceptual Dependencies

ACT I

PP PP

T LOC

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 18

 Conceptual Dependencies

11. r Conceptualizations can result in state changes for PPs.

12. R Conceptualizations involving mental ACTs can server as

reasons for conceptualizations.

13. State or state changes can enable

E E conceptualizations to occur.

14. PP PP One PP is equivalent to or an instance of

another PP.
ACT
15. ACTs can be varied along certain dimensions
(e.g. speed for motions ACTS).
AA

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 19

 Conceptual Dependencies

r
Rashmi watch Movie

scary indefinite
R

Rashmi ate Hot dog

E E huge definite

PP PP

ACT

AA

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 20

 Conceptual Dependencies

yesterday

Piyush read book

tf

big Piyush

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 21

 State Variables

HEALTH : goes from –10 to +10

Examples: dead -10
gravely ill -9
sick -9 to -1
under the weather -2
all right 0
tip top +7
perfect health +10

PHYSICAL STATE: goes from -10 to +10

Examples: dead -10
harmed -9
injured -5
broken (for objects) -5
harmed -1 to -7
hurt -1 to -7
OK 10

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 22

 State Variables

ANGER : goes from -10 to 0

Examples: furious -9
enraged -8
angry -5
irked -3
upset -2
calm 0

MENTAL STATE: goes from -10 to +10.

Examples: catatonic -9
(same as JOY in MARGIE) depressed -5
upset -3
sad -2
OK 0
pleased +2
happy +5
ecstatic +10

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 23

 State Variables
FEAR : goes from -10 to 0
Examples: terrified -9
scared -5
anxious -2
calm 0

CONSCIOUSNESS: goes from 0 to +10

Examples: unconscious 0
asleep 5
awake 10
“higher drug
consciousness” > 10

SURPRISE : goes from 0 to 10

Examples: surprised 5
amazed 7
astounded 9

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 24

 State Variables
HUNGER: goes from -10 to +10.
Examples: Starving -8
ravenous -6
“could eat a horse” -5
hungry -3
no appetite 0
satisfied 3
full 5
stuffed 8
satiated 3 - 10

DISGUST : goes from -10 to 0

Examples: nauseated -8
revolted -7
disgusted -6
bothered -2

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 25

 Compound states

•  shocked = SURPRISE (6)

DISGUST (-5)

•  calm/cool = SURPRISE (0)

DISGUST (0)
FEAR (0)
ANGER (0)
CONSCIOUSNESS (>0)

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 26

 Margie : Inference mode

INPUT : John told Mary that Bill wants a book.

OUTPUT 1 : A book about what?

OUTPUT 2 : Mary knows that Bill wants a book.
OUTPUT 3 : Bill wants to come to have a book.
OUTPUT 4 : Bill wants someone to cease to have a book.
OUTPUT 5 : Bill wants to read a book.

INPUT : John gave Mary a beating with a stick.

OUTPUT 1 : A stick touched Mary.

OUTPUT 2 : Mary became hurt.
OUTPUT 3 : John wanted Mary to become hurt.
OUTPUT 4 : Why was John angry?

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 27

 Margie : Inference mode

INPUT : John gave Mary an aspirin.

OUTPUT 1 : John believes that Mary wants an aspirin.

OUTPUT 2 : Mary is sick.
OUTPUT 3 : Mary wants to feel better.
OUTPUT 4 : Mary will ingest the aspirin.

INPUT : John is going to go to the store.

OUTPUT 1 : John wants to be at the store.

OUTPUT 2 : What does John want to buy?
OUTPUT 3 : John will trade money to the store for something.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 28

 Margie : Paraphrase mode

INPUT : John advised Mary to drink the wine.

OUTPUT : John told Mary that drinking the wine would

benefit her.

INPUT : John killed Mary by choking Mary.

OUTPUT 1 : John strangled Mary.

OUTPUT 2 : John choked Mary and she died because she
could not breathe.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 29

 Margie : Paraphrase mode

INPUT : Reading the book reminded Rita to loan the

book to Bill.

OUTPUT : Rita remembered to give the book to Bill and

she expects him to return it to her because
someone read the book.

INPUT : John prevented Bill from giving a banana to

Mary by selling a banana to Rita.

OUTPUT 1 : Bill was unable to give a banana to Mary

because Rita traded John some money for a
banana.
OUTPUT 2 : Mary could not get a banana from Bill
because Rita bought a banana from John.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 30

 Conceptual Dependency Theory

Representation of the meaning of sentences. Basic axioms-

1.  For two sentences with identical meaning, regardless of

language, there should be only one representation.
2.  Any information that is implicit in the sentence must be made
explicit in the representation (via inferences).
3.  The meaning propositions underlying language are called
conceptualizations – active or stative.

4.  Active à Actor Action Object Direction (Instrument)

5.  Stative à Object (is in) State (with Value).

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 31

 Margie : Inferences
•  Specification Inferences
John picked up a rock.
He hit Bill.
JOHN HIT BILL WITH THE ROCK.

John and Bill were alone on a desert island.

Bill was tapped on the shoulder.
JOHN TAPPED BILL.

•  Causative Inferences
John hit Mary with a rock.
JOHN WAS PROBABLY MAD AT MARY.

•  Resultative Inferences
Mary gave John a car.
JOHN HAS THE CAR.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 32

 Inferences (continued)
•  Motivational Inferences
John hit Mary.
JOHN PROBABLY WANTED MARY TO BE HURT.

•  Enablement Inferences
Pete went to Europe.
WHERE DID HE GET THE MONEY?

•  Function Inferences
John wants the book.
JOHN PROBABY WANTS TO READ IT.

•  Enablement-Prediction Inferences
Dick looked in his cook book to find out how to make a roux.
DICK WILL NOW BEGIN TO MAKE A ROUX.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 33

 Inferences (continued)
•  Missing Enablement Inferences
Mary couldn’t see the horses finish.
She cursed the man in front of her.
THE MAN BLOCKED HER VISION.

•  Intervention Inferences
The baby ran into the street.
Mary ran after him.
MARY WANTS TO PREVENT THE BABY
FROM GETTING HURT.

•  Action Prediction Inferences

John wanted some nails.
HE WENT TO THE HARDWARE STORE.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 34

 Inferences (continued)
•  Knowledge-Propogation Inferences
Pete told Bill that Mary hit John with a bat.
BILL KNEW THAT JOHN HAD BEEN HURT.
•  Normative Inferences
Does Pete have a gall bladder?
ITS HIGHLY LIKELY.
John saw Mary at the beach Tuesday morning.
WHY WASN’T SHE AT WORK?
•  State Duration Inferences
John handed a book to Mary yesterday.
Is Mary still holding it?
PROBABLY NOT.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 35

 Inferences (continued)

•  Feature Inferences
Andy’s diaper is wet.
ANDY IS PROBABLY A BABY.

•  Situation Inferences
Mary is going to a masquerade.
SHE WILL PROBABLY WEAR A COSTUME.

•  Utterance-Intent Inferences
Mary couldn’t jump the fence.
WHY DID SHE WANT TO?

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 36

 Heuristics for inferences

1.  John drooled as he viewed the banana. He ate

•  FILL IN THE BANANA AS THE CONCEPTUAL OBJECT OF EATING.

2.  Pete and Bill were alone on a desert island. Someone tapped Bill on the
shoulder.
•  FILL IN PETE AS THE CONCEPUTAL ACTOR OF “MOVE” WHICH
UNDERLIES “TAP”

3.  Mary picked up the rock. She hit John.

•  PREDICT THAT IT WAS THE ROCK WAS THE OBJECT OF MARY’S
PROPELLING ACT

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 37

 Heuristics (continued)

4.  John was driving his car. He hit Mary.

•  PREDICT THE CAR AS THE OBJECT OF THE PROPEL.

5.  John bought a hammer.

•  “BUY” IS UNDERLIED BY A DUAL ATRANS ACT. WHO IS THE
OTHER ACTOR?

6.  John was asleep.

•  WHAT IS THE LOCATION OF THIS COMMON STATE LIKELY TO
BE IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER EXPLICIT INFORMATION?

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 38

 Heuristics (continued)

7.  Mary went to work.

•  WHAT IS THE TIME OF THIS COMMON ACTION LIKELY TO BE?

8.  John went to Paris.

•  PREDICT THE LIKELY INSTRUMENTATLITY “FLY”.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 39

 Yesterday, John hit his little dog

John hit dog

little
yesterday John

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 40

 The man took a book.

past

p
man take book

But he must have taken the book from someone.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 41

 The man took a book.
Here we have taken the linguistic verb
"take" itself as a conceptual ACT

to
R man
p
man take book
X
from

An explicit conceptual Case Marker

Like Kaarak case markers in Panini

grammar
"Karta ney", "Karma ko", …

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 42

 Conceptual Cases

ACT PP Objective case

D LOC
ACT Directive case
LOC
R PP
ACT Recipient case
PP

I
ACT Instrumental case

Conceptual cases are predictive mechanisms. They create slots that need
to be filled up. The conceptualization is incomplete till they have been filled.
Dialogs are often sustained by the process of filling up empty slots.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 43

 I gave the man a book

to
R man
p
I give book
I
from

Conceptually "giving" and "taking" both involve transfer of something.

Only the ACTOR is different.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 44

 TRANS (fer)

The man took a book to

R man
p
man TRANS book
someone
from

I gave the man a book to

R man
p
I TRANS book
I
from

The underlying conceptual act behind give and take is TRANS

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 45

 John grew the plants with fertilizer
Two events are happening here Linguistically fertilizer
is the instrument.
size = x + y
plants
size = x

State change event The plants

growing …

Conceptual action

o fertilizer
John do

… and John Conceptually it is the

doing something Object of some act.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 46

 A Causal Connection

A more informed listener might create a

more specific conceptual structure.

John did something

with the fertilizer

p
o fertilizer
John do

…which caused
i
Intentional
phys st size = x + y
plants
p
phys st size = x … the plants to
increase in size

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 47

 … John transferred the fertilizer

p D plants ground
John Trans fertilizer
bag

phys st size = x + y
plants
p
phys st size = x

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 48

 CD actions

•  ATRANS The transfer of an abstract relationship such as

possession, ownership or control.
–  Give, take, buy…

•  PTRANS Transfer of physical location of an object.

–  Go, put…

•  PROPEL Application of physical force to an object

(regardless of whether the object is PTRANSed or not).
–  Push, pull, throw, kick have PROPEL as part of them.

•  MOVE The movement of a body part of an animal by that

animal. Often an instrumental act.
–  MOVE foot is the instrument in kick.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 49

 CD actions (continued)

•  GRASP The grasping of an object by an actor

–  Verbs grab, let go, and throw involve GRASP

•  INGEST to take in
–  Eat, drink, smoke, breathe…

•  EXPEL expulsion from the body…

–  Including sweat, spit, and cry…

•  MTRANS The transfer of mental information between

animals or within an animal. Memory partitions – CP (conscious
processor) and LTM (long term memory)
–  Tell – MTRANS between people
–  See – MTRANS from eyes to CP
–  Remember – MTRANS from LTM to CP

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 50

 More CD actions

•  MBUILD The construction by an animal of new information

from old information.
–  Decide, conclude, imagine, consider…

•  SPEAK The actions of producing sounds. Humans often

use it as an instrument for MTRANS.
–  Say, play music, purr, scream involve SPEAK

•  ATTEND The action of attending or focusing a sense organ

towards a stimulus. Also an instrument to MTRANS.
–  See is MTRANS to CP from eye by instrument of ATTEND eye to object.
–  Listen is ATTEND ear

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 51

 Instruments

John ate the ice cream with a spoon

Linguistically the spoon is the

instrument with which John ate.

Note: arrow meant

for ACT John
p I
John INGEST ice cream
do
o

spoon

At a conceptual level the act of eating is

enabled by an instrumental act that
uses the spoon as an object.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 52

 Eating with a spoon

John
p I
John INGEST ice cream

TRANS
o
CONT
spoon ice cream
The instrumental act is TRANS R

of spoon containing ice-cream

towards John's mouth.
ice cream mouth
POSS-BY

John

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 53

 Instrumental Acts

Every ACT can have an instrumental ACT. For example,

John ingested the icecream, by TRANSing the spoon towards his

mouth, which he did by grasping the spoon and then moving his
hand, by flexing his muscles, by thinking about flexing his
muscles, …

… we truncate our causal reasoning and instrumental

case specification at a granularity suited to our task.

In any domain that we build a conceptual representation system

for we will have to choose an appropriate level for primitive
actions.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 54

 John was sad because Mary hit him

p
o John
Mary hit

Another example of
an ACT causing a
state change. sad
John
Not a CD Act !

In CD theory hit would be modeled as coming into a state

of being in forceful contact, with PROPEL being the basic
ACT and MOVE the instrumental ACT.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 55

 Events can cause other events

When Fred gave Mary a peach she ate it.

p R Mary
Fred Trans peach
Fred

Mary Ingest peach

p

In the conceptualizations we are looking at there are events in which

Actors execute some Acts

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 56

 State change "verbs"

John killed his teacher.

p
John DO

dead
teacher
p alive
POSS-BY

John

In state change verbs the linguistic verbs often focus on the state
change while ignoring the action.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 57

 State change "verbs"

Adora killed a cockroach Adora moved the table to the corner

p p
Adora DO Adora DO

Health(-10) LOC(corner)
cockroach television
p Health(>-10) p LOC(?)

indefinite definite

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 58

 Being more specific

John killed his teacher by shooting him in the head.

head
p R
John propel bullets
gun

dead teacher
teacher
p alive
POSS-BY

John

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 59

 Flying…

Sam flew his plane to San Francisco

p
Sam do

D S.F.
plane fly

POSS-BY

Sam

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 60

 Comforting

John comforted Mary

p
John do

comfortable
Mary

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 61

 Since smoking can kill you, I stopped.

one
p R
one INGEST smoke
cigarette
c

dead tFp

one
p alive INGEST

smoke
R

cigarette I 62

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory

 While going home I saw a frog

D house
I go POSS-BY

I see frog
p

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 63

 Conceptual tenses

•  P past
•  f future
•  t transition
•  ts transition start
•  tf transition finished
•  k continuing
•  ? Interrogative
•  / negative
•  c potential
•  nil present
•  Δ timeless

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 64

Yesterday, the boy in the chair hit the boy on the piano in the mouth in the park.

yesterday

à
boy1 hit mouth

POSS-BY
LOC

boy2
chair park
à

LOC
à
specific
specific
piano

à
specific

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 65

 Separating Action and State

I like books
Books please me.

I do books

I pleased

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 66

 Thinking actions

prevent x do

Cannot
y do
c

instigate x do
i

y do

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 67

 Transitive verbs are causal relations

hurt x do

y hurt

comfort
x do

y comfortableMENT
t

Mental state

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 68

 I comforted John

p
I do

John comfortableMENT
t

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 69

 A more complete probabilistic analysis
Soothing words?
I comforted John

john
p R
I say z
I

^ p
I physcont John

à
gentle

comfortableMENT
John
p upset

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 70

 A more specific sentence…

I comforted John by feeding him.

john
p R
I trans food
I

John ingest food

comfortableMENT
John
t upset

Note : Giving food leads to eating food leads to becoming comfortable

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 71

 A general threat

threaten x communicate

i
cf
y believe
y do

x do

y hurt
t

Note : Y comes to BELIEVE that if Y

does something … it is modeled as Y
in fact getting threatened.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 72

 A general threat

threaten

x MTRANS

i
cf
y CONC
y doY

x doX

y HEALTH(<0)
t

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 73

 A specific threat
I threatened him with a broken nose

he I
poss by

p R
I nose he
I communicate

i doy broken

he believe
he doX
cf
I doy

nose broken
t
POSS-BY

he

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 74

 Another explicit threat
I threatened him with a hammer.

p I R he
I communicate f
I
i do
D he
he believe hammer
I

he do
cf
D he
I do hammer
I
he hurt
t

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 75

 Advise communicates belief of speaker

advise

x R y
x communicate
x
believe

y y

cf
dox pleased

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 76

 Some eating advise

I advised him to try the twice cooked pork

he I

R
p
I communicate
I c
he INGEST pork

à
believe cf twice cooked
he pleased
t

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 77

 Liking ice cream
f
x INGEST ice cream

f No thought
component!
x pleased

x conceptualize X thinks that X will be

pleased if X eats ice
x x cream
f
f

INGEST pleased

ice cream

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 78

 Liking ice cream
f
x INGEST ice cream

f No thought
component!
x pleased

Abasi CONC

Abasi Abasi
f
f
INGEST pleased

ice cream

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 79

 Want has a specific time sense

want
For example

Now

x do

y pleased

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 80

 Past and future
I wanted it

past

I conceptualize

x I

cf
do pleased

future

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 81

 realization

John wants it but he doesn't realize it

speaker conceptualize
x John
Somebody cf
has to realize
it if it is to be
^ do pleased
mentioned!
John conceptualize
x John

cf

do pleased

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 82

 Unwareness

He hit Bill’s car but he doesn’t know it.

p
he hit car
POSS-By

Bill
^

he conceptualize

he hit car
POSS-By

Bill

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 83

 Remembering is thinking about

I remember the time we ate oysters.

I MTRANS

I INGEST oysters
We
R

T1 we
p Poss-by
LTM CP I
I conceptualize

INGEST POSS-BY

I
oysters

Remembering BY Mtransing it from LTM to CP (conscious processor)

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 84

 MTRANS – transferring info - "mental"
communicate

R x
y MTRANS
y

say to / tell

y
R x I
y MTRANS
y
speak

“words”

x y
Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 85
 Movement of info within
Perceive

R CP
y MTRANS
sense-organ

Learn Immediate
Memory
R IM
y MTRANS
CP

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 86

 Forgetting is being unable to remember

remember

R CP
y MTRANS
LTM

forget

c CP
y R
MTRANS
LTM

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 87

 Seeing as conceptualizing
p
I saw John eating soup. I LOOK AT

I
John John,soup
I
p I
I CONC
INGEST
MTRANS

soup
p
John ingest soup
R

eyes CP

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 88

 To Conceptualize is to Ponder

consider x CONC f

ponder x CONC

dream x CONC
while

x asleep

wonder x CONC ?

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 89

 Love and hate are states

love

x CONC y

x love
s

hate
x CONC y

x hate
s

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 90

 Think – another sense
I believe that John is a fool
I think that John is a fool

John

LOC(M)

POSS-BY
fool
I

The conceptualization "John is a fool" is located in my memory.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 91

 Kasparov

LOC(IM)

POSS-BY
brilliant
I

Kasparov

I CONC

brilliant

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 92

 ACTIONS: Inputs to Understanding

•  Goals and Plans are not linguistic entities

•  Instead they form Knowledge Structures
•  Goals and Plans are often not stated explicitly For an intelligent
•  Instead what we see is a sequence of Actions game agent,
•  For example, designing a game playing agent : actions are your
keyboard strokes…
it needs to
understand your
intentions from them.

Software agents have to make sense of information

coming via the keyboard or some other medium.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 93

 Kasparov ! Anand POSS-BY
CP I
I D
MTRANS
I
Match Venue
Play Chess

Kasparov

I CONC

brilliant

Kasparov
POSS-BY
LOC(IM) I

brilliant

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 94

 Kasparov ! Anand POSS-BY
CP I
I D
MTRANS
I
Match Venue
Play Chess

Kasparov

I MBUILD

brilliant

Kasparov

I CONC

brilliant
Kasparov
POSS-BY
LOC(IM) I

brilliant
Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 95
 Believes
Fred believes John.

R
Fred
John MTRANS
I
John

I
LOC(M)

POSS-BY

Fred

Fred tells something to John, and John puts it in his memory.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 96

 Believes – as in agrees with
Fred believes John.

R
one
John MTRANS
I
John

I
> LOC(M)

POSS-BY

Fred

John is saying something (to someone) and Fred also believes that.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 97

 But Fred must "put" it in his memory

Poss-by
R
CP Fred
John MTRANS I

John
Fred CONC
I
Poss-by
IM Fred
Fred R
MBUILD I
Poss-by
CP Fred
LOC(IM)
I

POSS-BY
Deciding to believe it, Fred
must create the structure in
Fred his memory

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 98

 Modeling inferences

Conclude – infer Fx from F1, F2, …

o x R IM
x MBUILD
… IM

>
1 2

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 99

 Physical actions in CD

MOVE own body part

PROPEL something else
INGEST input
EXPEL output
PTRANS change of location
GRASP grasp

If a PTRANS happens then infer that (1) the object ceases to be at the
origin location and (2) exists at destination location.

Likewise in ATRANS, but not in MTRANS

(except when donor is CP)

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 100

 I walked to the cafeteria
The key act is PTRANS. Infer
that I am at cafeteria

tr
D
cafeteria
I PTRANS I

POSS BY
I MOVE feet I
p

cafeteria

MOVE is
instrumental act

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 101

 John threw a rock at Sam

Throw = PTRANS in air by doing PROPEL

P D Sam
John PTRANS rock
John

air
John PROPEL
p rock

John Sam

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 102

 John threw a rock at Sam

P Ayumu
D
Adriana PTRANS pencil
Adriana
I

p
Adriana PROPEL pencil

D air

Adriana Ayumu

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 103

 John threw the pencil to Sam.
Throw to – is an instrumental act for ATRANS

P
John R Sam
ATRANS pencil
John
I

John PTRANS pencil

p D

John Sam
I

P
D Sam
John PROPEL pencil
air John

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 104

 John hit Mary

Hit with something. PROPEL that something so

that it comes into (hard) contact

p D
Mary
John PROPEL X
John

X
PHYSCONT
>

Mary

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 105

 John punched Mary

P
D Mary John
John PROPEL fist I

John
POSS-BY
MOVE

John
POSS-BY
fist John
fist PHYSCONT
>

Mary
John Mary

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 106

 More violence…

John hit Mary by throwing a stick at her.

P
air John John
D Mary
John PROPEL stick I
P tr

>
John
MOVE GRASP
stick
PHYSCONT
>

Mary POSS-BY CONT

stick
John hand

John Mary

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 107

 A car hit Mary.

P
D
Mary
PROPEL car
*

car
>

PHYSCONT
Mary

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 108

 I moved the table to the corner.

I do table

corner
table

It could be possible that I PTRANSed the table by using PROPEL, but it

could also be possible that I told someone to move it…

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 109

 I sliced the meat with a knife.

POSS-BY
I
meat
p D
I MOVE hand I
in GRASP
CONT
back & forth
knife
knife
slices
meat D
whole
POSS-BY
hand I

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 110

 Conceptual Analysis
I want to go to the park with the girl.

x y
want cf

human
vs cf

x pleased

cf R
X
one ATRANS Y
one
vt cf

x x y
pleased

human physobj

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 111

 "want" – a third sense

want

cf D
here
Y PTRANS Y
vt cf

x pleased

x y

The first sense of want – state verb – is chosen. human human

The parser is now on the lookout for a complete
conceptualization to fill in.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 112

 I want TO GO…
go

D
someplace
vio x PTRANS x
animal

D
someplace
vio one PTRANS x
physobj

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 113

"to go" fulfills expectation of conceptualization

…to go… …the park…

cf D
“place”
I PTRANS I

I want.. cf

I pleased

cf
park1
D
I PTRANS I
cf

I pleased

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 114

 …with the girl

"with PP" has many conceptual possibilities.

1.  PP is object of instrumental case (4)
2.  PP is additional actor of the conceptualization (3)
3.  PP is an attribute of PP immediately preceding it (1,2,5)
4.  PP is an attribute of the actor of the conceptualization (1,6)

Examples,
1.  I went with a book to the park
2.  I went to the park with the playground
3.  I went with the girl to the park
4.  I hit the boy with the bat
5.  I hit the boy with the girl
6.  I hit the boy with vengeance

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 115

 I want to go to the park with the girl.

I cf I D
park
PTRANS
>

>
girl girl specific

specific cf
specific

I pleased

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 116

 Conceptual semantics
The boy ate a book

X Y
X
eat: vt X INGEST Y in
animal food

p boy
*
o
boy INGEST book
in

Given that there is no other

word sense for eat, one has
no choice… but one can mark
the conceptualization is
semantically inconsistent

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 117

 John ate the steak with the odor
1.  PP is object of instrumental case
2.  PP is additional actor of the conceptualization
3.  PP is an attribute of PP immediately preceding it
4.  PP is an attribute of the actor of the conceptualization
First one that fits
semantically

John
D
John INGEST steak
in

smell:odor

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 118

 John ate the steak with the fork

John
John I
D
John INGEST steak in
fork
PTRANS

fork

First one that fits D

semantically

1.  PP is object of instrumental case

mouth
2.  PP is additional actor of the conceptualization POSS-BY
3.  PP is an attribute of PP immediately preceding it
4.  PP is an attribute of the actor of the conceptualization John

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 119

 He shot the girl with a rifle

In the verb-ACT dictionary

"shoot" = PROPEL bullets from gun!
rifle
girl I
D
John PROPEL bullet
rifle
PROPEL
bullet
PHYSCONT
>

girl
bullet

But, he could 1.  PP is object of instrumental case rifle girl

have been a 2.  PP is additional actor of the conceptualization
photographer! 3.  PP is an attribute of PP immediately preceding it
4.  PP is an attribute of the actor of the conceptualization

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 120

 Syntactic ambiguity

Syntactic ambiguity has always been a problem in NLP.

Remember Kuno and Oettinger's "Time flies like an arrow".

Consider a sentence,
I saw the Grand Canyon flying to New York.

Most people are unwilling to accept a flying Grand Canyon and

construct an appropriate structure in which one event marks the
time of another.
ELI also does this because it uses semantic information.

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 121

 Seeing
Understand,
see perceive

Poss-by
IM x
x R
vi MTRANS human
Poss-by
CP x

Poss-by
CP x animal
x R
vs MTRANS

x LOOK-AT y

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 122

 See

y Poss-by
R CP x
vt x MTRANS
BE
I

x LOOK-AT y

animal physobj

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 123

 I saw the Grand Canyon…
I saw the Grand Canyon flying to New York.

I Poss-by
R CP I
I MTRANS I
Grand Canyon Poss-by
eye I
LOOK-AT

Grand Canyon

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 124

 … flying (fly has three senses)
Birds, planes
and insects can
fly….

fly
X
vio I
D
X PTRANS X air

PROPEL

X
D
bird, plane, insect

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 125

 Or humans can fly planes

vt

x DO

D
y PROPEL Y

air

human plane

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 126

 Or humans can fly in planes

vio plane
D I
X PTRANS X air
PROPEL

human

plane
D

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 127

 I saw the Grand Canyon flying to New York

"I" am the only subject in the sentence, so the second or third form of
fly must be used …. An English specific rule says that the second
conceptualization marks the time of the first one.
p IM I
R
I MTRANS I
Grand Canyon
eye
LOOK-AT
while

NY plane
p D I
I PTRANS I air
Grand Canyon
LOC PROPEL
plane

plane

NY
Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 128
 I saw the Grand Canyon flying to New York

IM

eye
I
p I
I MTRANS

Grand Canyon LOOK-AT

while

I
plane
p I Grand Canyon
I PTRANS air
LOC D PROPEL
plane

NY CONT
plane I

NY
Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 129
 Semantic Ambiguity

fill
container
R
y
vt x PTRANS CONT
“liquid” c

human liquid
Q
Q

container
one
R
y I
vt one PTRANS “liquid” c CONT
liquid do
Q
Q

physobj x

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 130

 Semantic Ambiguity

The old man’s glasses were filled with sherry. Glasses in

the sense of
containers!

p
D
glasses
one PTRANS sherry c CONT
POSS-BY
Q
Q
"the old man"

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 131

 Syntactic similarity John CONC Mary

John’s love of Mary was harmful. one

hurt
John love
s

John’s can of beans was edible.

one INGEST beans

CONT-BY

can
POSS-BY

John

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 132

 End

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 133

 D

Poss-by

Cont

Loc

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 134

 Symbols Cont

Loc
D LOC
ACT
LOC Poss-by

R PP
ACT
PP PP ACT
PP
PP PP
I
ACT

ACT

T LOC

Deepak Khemani Conceptual Dependency Theory 135