Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically Heterogeneous ... · Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in...

2
Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically Heterogeneous Social Networks Gerhard Schaden To cite this version: Gerhard Schaden. Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically Heterogeneous Social Net- works. Linking Social Effects in Language Processing to Social Effects in Language Evolution, Sep 2016, Nim` egue, Netherlands. 2016. <hal-01369378> HAL Id: hal-01369378 http://hal.univ-lille3.fr/hal-01369378 Submitted on 20 Sep 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destin´ ee au d´ epˆ ot et ` a la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publi´ es ou non, ´ emanant des ´ etablissements d’enseignement et de recherche fran¸cais ou ´ etrangers, des laboratoires publics ou priv´ es.

Transcript of Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically Heterogeneous ... · Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in...

Page 1: Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically Heterogeneous ... · Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically Heterogeneous Social Networks Gerhard Schaden To cite this version:

Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically

Heterogeneous Social Networks

Gerhard Schaden

To cite this version:

Gerhard Schaden. Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically Heterogeneous Social Net-works. Linking Social Effects in Language Processing to Social Effects in Language Evolution,Sep 2016, Nimegue, Netherlands. 2016. <hal-01369378>

HAL Id: hal-01369378

http://hal.univ-lille3.fr/hal-01369378

Submitted on 20 Sep 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinee au depot et a la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publies ou non,emanant des etablissements d’enseignement et derecherche francais ou etrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou prives.

Page 2: Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically Heterogeneous ... · Mind-Reading vs. Simulation in Epistemically Heterogeneous Social Networks Gerhard Schaden To cite this version:

Mind-Reading vs. Simulationin Epistemically Heterogeneous

Social NetworksGerhard Schaden

[email protected]

Université de Lille & CNRS UMR 8163 STL

Mind-Reading vs. Simulationin Epistemically Heterogeneous

Social NetworksGerhard Schaden

[email protected]

Université de Lille & CNRS UMR 8163 STL

Background:¿e Nature of Pragmatic Inference

•Pragmatics concerns context-dependent inferences (generally assumed to be linked torational use of language by situated agents)

•How is this done (beyond and independent of particular algorithms, e.g., Gricean conversa-tional maxims, relevance theory or argumentation theory)?

Mind-Reading

(see, e.g., Sperber and Wilson, 2002)– Figure out epistemic state of interlocutors–Determine inferences based on inferredepistemic state of addressee

Simulation¿eory

(see, e.g., Carruthers and Smith, 1996, p. 3)–Assume that interlocutor has same epis-temic state as yourself

– Simulate likely inferences

•Di�erence might matter when agents’ epistemic contexts are not identical, that is, whenthey do not know and believe the same things (in real life: always)

•Not clear to which degree Mind-Reading is assumed to be psychologically real•Mind-Reading is slow and error-prone (especially when agents share little common ground)

Epistemically Heterogeneous Social Networks

•Humans are an unusually social and cooperative species (for primates). As a consequence,all langage learning (and most of language use) takes place in social networks.

Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completelyhomogeneous speech-community [. . . ] (Chomsky 1965, p. 3)

•¿is position necessarily ignores everything related to variation•Variation is a key ingredient in language change•Two kinds of heterogeneity will be investigated:– contact in social networks; and– partly di�ering epistemic contexts.

Reinforcement Learning with Polya Urns

•Polya-Urns provide a mathematical modelof reinforcement learning.

•Randomly draw a ball from the urn.• If the ball corresponds to the correct answer,a further ball will be added to the urn.

URNtwhite:1red:1

URNt+1white:2red:1

¿e probability of drawing ‘‘white’’ rises from 0.5 to 0.6

Learning Internally Di�erentiated Lexical Items

• I assume internally di�erentiated lexical representations like Pustejovsky’s qualia-structure.Lexical Usage Pro�le of an Agent

is represented as array of pondered submeanings with respect to these 2 words:

W1Q1 W1Q2 W1Q3 W1Q4 W2Q1 W2Q2 W2Q3 W2Q4Ag 1 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Ag 2 2000 2000 2000 1 1 1 1 2000

• Scenario:–Two words are absolute synonyms (see Skyrms, 2010): any draw = success–Each submeaning is an independent Polya urn (balls correspond to Word1 &Word2)– Speaker draws a word, and signals to hearer– Speaker & Hearer update weights for the chosen word

Mutation

•At some point in simulation: change in the surrounding world → agents adapt lexicalrepresentations

• In a submeaning, two types are distinguished (Type1 keeps weight; Type2 initialized at 1)• Instead of four submeanings, agents discriminate �ve di�erent submeanings•Epistemic state of mutants is superset of epistemic state of non-mutants

General Pattern: Absence of Mutation vs. Mutation (Regardless of Inference Method)

Diff

Ag1

Ag2

Diff

Ag4

Ag5

Diff

Ag7

Ag8

Diff

Ag1

Ag3

Diff

Ag2

Ag3

Diff

Ag4

Ag6

Diff

Ag5

Ag6

Diff

Ag7

Ag9

Diff

Ag8

Ag9

Diff

Ag3

Ag6

Diff

Ag6

Ag9

Diff

Ag1

Ag6

Diff

Ag2

Ag6

Diff

Ag3

Ag4

Diff

Ag3

Ag5

Diff

Ag4

Ag9

Diff

Ag5

Ag9

Diff

Ag6

Ag7

Diff

Ag6

Ag8

Diff

Ag1

Ag4

Diff

Ag1

Ag5

Diff

Ag2

Ag4

Diff

Ag2

Ag5

Diff

Ag4

Ag7

Diff

Ag4

Ag8

Diff

Ag5

Ag7

Diff

Ag5

Ag8

Diff

Ag3

Ag9

Diff

Ag1

Ag9

Diff

Ag2

Ag9

Diff

Ag3

Ag7

Diff

Ag3

Ag8

Diff

Ag1

Ag7

Diff

Ag1

Ag8

Diff

Ag2

Ag7

Diff

Ag2

Ag8

0

5000

10000

15000

Lexical Distances: 9 Agents in 3 Cliques

Lexi

cal D

ista

nce

PICIWCDCACCWCPCCDistance=1Distance=2

Without Mutation

Ag3

Ag2

2

Ag1

2

Ag6

12

2

2

2

1

Ag5

2

Ag4

2

Ag9

1

2

2

2

2

1

Ag82

Ag7

2

2

2 22

Island 1

Island 2

Island 3

Diff

Ag1

Ag2

Diff

Ag4

Ag5

Diff

Ag7

Ag8

Diff

Ag4

Ag6

Diff

Ag5

Ag6

Diff

Ag1

Ag3

Diff

Ag2

Ag3

Diff

Ag7

Ag9

Diff

Ag8

Ag9

Diff

Ag3

Ag6

Diff

Ag6

Ag9

Diff

Ag3

Ag4

Diff

Ag3

Ag5

Diff

Ag4

Ag9

Diff

Ag5

Ag9

Diff

Ag1

Ag6

Diff

Ag2

Ag6

Diff

Ag6

Ag7

Diff

Ag6

Ag8

Diff

Ag1

Ag4

Diff

Ag1

Ag5

Diff

Ag2

Ag4

Diff

Ag2

Ag5

Diff

Ag4

Ag7

Diff

Ag4

Ag8

Diff

Ag5

Ag7

Diff

Ag5

Ag8

Diff

Ag3

Ag9

Diff

Ag1

Ag7

Diff

Ag1

Ag8

Diff

Ag2

Ag7

Diff

Ag2

Ag8

Diff

Ag1

Ag9

Diff

Ag2

Ag9

Diff

Ag3

Ag7

Diff

Ag3

Ag8

0

1

2

3

4

Lexical Distances: 9 Agents in 3 Cliques

Lexi

cal D

ista

nce

PICIMCWINMCWDCACCWNMCCCWMCPCC

Mutation of Island 2

Pragmatics in Production

Mind-Reading Inferences

Agents discard for production parts of their own epistemic state the interlocutor lacks

Simulation InferencesAgents always take into account their full epistemic state for production

Signi�cant di�erences (p-values from Kruskal-Wallis test for network of 3 × 10 agents):DCA1 CCWNMC1 CCWMC1 PCC1 DCA2 PCC2

1.54385e-09 1.689598e-49 0.008774732 8.998603e-12 0 4.782354e-09

Mind-Reading Increases Lexical Distance

•With Mind-Reading inference, the lexicaldistance between agents of di�erent islandsis bigger than with Simulation inference

•Because Mind-Readers discard non-sharedepistemic states, they leave a smaller foot-print of their epistemic di�erences

•All things being equal, the less agents takeinto account other’s epistemic states, themore similar they become

DCA1−Sim DCA1−Sim DCA1−MR DCA1−MR

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Lexical Distance: Simulation vs. Mindreading

Lexi

cal D

ista

nce

SimulationMind−Reading

Acknowledgments & Sample ReferencesAll simulations have been performed with sbcl Common Lisp, using the graph-library by Eric Schulte (https://github.com/eschulte/graph). Networks have been drawn with graphviz (Gansner and North, 2000). Data analysis has been performed with GNU R.[1] Carruthers, P. and P. K. Smith, eds. (1996).¿eories of ¿eories of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2] Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the ¿eory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [3] Gansner, E. R. and S. C. North (2000). “An Open Graph VisualizationSystem and its Applications to So ware Engineering”. In: So ware — Practice and Experience 30.11: pp. 1203–1233. [4] Mühlenbernd, R. and M. Franke (2012). “Signaling Conventions: Who Learns What Where and When in a Social Network”. In:¿e Evolution of Language:Proceedings of EvoLang9. Ed. by T. C. Scott-Philips et al. Singapore: World Scienti�c: pp. 242–249. [5] Paul, H. (1995). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 9th ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [6] Pustejovsky, J. (1995).¿e Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press. [7] Schaden, G. (2014).“Markedness, Frequency and Lexical Change in Unstable Environments”. In: Proceedings of the Formal & Experimental Pragmatics Workshop. Ed. by J. Degen, M. Franke, and N. Goodman. ESSLLI. Tübingen: pp. 43–50. [8] Skyrms, B. (2010). Signals. Evolution, Learning, &Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [9] Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (2002). “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-Reading”. In:Mind & Language 17.1–2: pp. 3–23.