\documentclass{beamer}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{graphicx}
%\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{verbatim}
%\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
%\usepackage{natbib}
\mode<presentation>
\usetheme{Warsaw}
\setbeamercovered{transparent}
%\definecolor{blue}{rgb}{0.1,0.1,0.7}
\definecolor{blue}{rgb}{0.51,0.0,0.0} %bordeaux
\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}

\title[] % (optional, use only with long paper titles)
{Simulating Language Games \\ of the Two Word Stage}

\subtitle[]
{\emph{ . . . being an endeavor in cognitive simulation to
parsimoniously re-enact verbal interactions of a toddler through translation
and reckoning with pragmatic and semantic annotations of its linguistic
history.}}

\author[] % (optional, use only with lots of authors)
{Andreas van Cranenburgh (0440949)}

\institute[] % (optional, but mostly needed)
{Bachelor project, University of Amsterdam}

\date[] % (optional)
{\today}

\subject{Talks}
% If you wish to uncover everything in a step-wise fashion, uncomment
% the following command:

%\beamerdefaultoverlayspecification{<+->}

\begin{document}
\section{Title}

\begin{frame}
% Can't ... resist ...
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{tufte}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \titlepage
\end{frame}

\renewcommand{\emph}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}
\section{Abstract}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Abstract} 
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Goal}: Model of parent-child dialogues
	\begin{itemize}
	\item Linguistic knowledge stored in \emph{examplars} of utterances and
		meanings
	\item Model difference in \emph{performance} between production and
		comprehension 
	\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Evaluation}: compare responses to Childes data, demonstrate generalization with novel utterances.
\end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\section{Main talk}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Introduction}

\begin{itemize}
\item Developmental Psychology: focus on observation, Usage-Based (UB)
\item Chomskians posit the \emph{UG}, we (mere mortals) have the \emph{UB}
\item A Rationalism vs.\ Empiricism debate
\end{itemize}

What to do?
\end{frame}


\newpage
\begin{frame}

\begin{quote}
``Instead of trying to produce a programme to simulate the adult mind, why not
rather try to produce one which simulates the child's? [...] Presumably the
child-brain is something like a note-book as one buys it from the stationers.
Rather little mechanism, and lots of blank sheets.'' -- Turing, 1950
\end{quote}

Let's make a model
\\

...If it works, we don't need the UG!
\end{frame}

\begin{comment}
\newpage
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Previous work}
2nd year project: focused on semantics of two word stage

Understanding ``car gone'' gives rise to a generalization:

\begin{verbatim}
1. "ball gone"  la score = 1
LINGUISTIC ABSTRACTION:
     WORDORDER: VAR:gone
     FRAME: action
            ID: action:move
            FRAME: object
                   ID: VAR
                   ABSTR: object:toy
\end{verbatim}

So {\texttt VAR} can be any toy. Here \texttt{VAR == "ball"}

NB: Semantic categories, not syntactic!
\end{frame}

\newpage
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Issues}

\begin{itemize}
\item Semantic representation was arbitrary, \\
	could not express function words
\item Only modeled language comprehension
\item No notion of dialogue / discourse
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
\end{comment}


\newpage
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Research question}

\begin{itemize}
\item Can we implement both comprehension and production using an \emph{examplar-based} model?
\item Can we account for the difference between these two? (\emph{comprehension} better than production)
\item Is it possible to \emph{produce} childlike responses in simple language games?
\end{itemize}

In short: a Turing Test with 2 year olds . . .

\end{frame}

\newpage
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{The Model / exemplars}

\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Semantic-pragmati}c representation:
	\begin{itemize}
	\item include speech acts, focus (things pointed to), \\
		categories, actions and objects (variable or not) \\
	\item minimal (flat) structure.
	\item Start with `\emph{seed}' exemplars with correct interpretations:
	\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}

\small{
\begin{verbatim}
"what's a kitty say " : 'whquestion: do(X) animal(cat[2])',
"that's a donkey"     : 'assertion: point(donkey) animal(donkey)',
'meouw'               : 'assertion: do(meouw) animal(cat)',
[..]
\end{verbatim}
}
\end{frame}

\newpage
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{The Model / mechanisms}
%new slide. utterance overlap + meaning compatibility:

\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{interpolate} exemplars with overlap in word forms
 using partial \emph{unification} on meanings to interpret novel utterances:

 \texttt{assertion: animal(bunny) do(X)'}  \\
 $\oplus$ 
 \texttt{assertion: do(hop) animal(bunny)} \\
 $=$ assertion: animal(bunny) do(hop) \\ (instantiated (X) with (hop))

\item . . . and \emph{extract} to produce relevant responses: \\
 \texttt{assertion: do(hop) animal(bunny)} \\
  "it hop ."
  $\Rightarrow$ hop

\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\newpage
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Interpretation depicted as resolution process}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{playwithres.pdf}
%\caption{Interpretation depicted as resolution process}
%\label{res}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}

\newpage
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Output - generalize novel utterance}
\begin{verbatim}
Parent:  where lives birdie ?
initial exemplar:
           ("that's where a birdie lives is in a nest .", 
            'assertion: point(nest) animal(bird)')
      '?' in "who's this ?"
      and 'whquestion: point(X) person(X)' 
      matches 'assertion: point(nest) animal(bird)'
      interpretation: assertion: point(nest) animal(bird)
      reaction: assertion: point(nest) animal(bird)
reduced: that's where a birdie lives is in a nest .
      topic: animal(bird)
Child:  nest
\end{verbatim}
\end{frame}

\begin{comment}
\newpage
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Results: simulate dialogue from Childes}
\begin{verbatim}
*MOT:  that's the cow .
*CHI:  cow
*MOT:  what's this ?
*CHI:  
*MOT:  is that a donkey ?
*CHI:  donkey
*MOT:  right .
*CHI:  
*MOT:  that's a donkey .
*CHI:  donkey
*MOT:  what's this [=duckie] ?
*CHI:  duckie
*MOT:  what does a duckie say ?
*CHI:  quack@o
\end{verbatim}

\end{frame}
\end{comment}

\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Results}
        \emph{ Letting the model talk to itself:}
\begin{verbatim}
*MOT: this is a gate .
*CHI: gate
*MOT: okay well Mommy will color too .
*CHI: Mommy color
*MOT: what does a cow say ?
*CHI: moo@o
*MOT: oh isn't that [= CHI's paper] nice .
*CHI: nice
\end{verbatim}

\end{frame}
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Results}

        \emph{ Ellipsis: }
\begin{verbatim}
Parent: kitty do ?
interpretation: whquestion: do(X) animal(cat)
reaction: assertion: do(meow) animal(cat)
Child: meow@o
\end{verbatim}

        \emph{ Establishing a topic:}
\begin{verbatim}
Parent:  ball
Child:  ball
Parent:  throw it
Child:  ball
\end{verbatim}

\end{frame}


\end{document}

\newpage

\section{Bibliography}
\begin{frame}
{\bf Bibliography}
%\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\begin{thebibliography}{9}

\bibitem{Clark} 
	Andy Clark,
	\emph{Magic words: How language augments human computation},
	in Language \& Thought, P.\ Carruthers and J.\ Boucher (eds.)

\end{thebibliography}
\end{frame}
