\documentclass{beamer}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{graphicx}
%\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{verbatim}
%\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
%\usepackage{natbib}
\mode<presentation>
\usetheme{CambridgeUS}
\usefonttheme{professionalfonts}
\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)
{Critical appraisal of the Language and Situated Simulation theory
}
\subtitle[]
{\emph{  }}

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

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

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

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

%\beamerdefaultoverlayspecification{<+->}

\begin{document}
\section{Title}

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


\renewcommand{\emph}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}
\section{Background \& motivation}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Language \& thought}

\begin{itemize}
\item 17th century philosophy: thought is \emph{imagery} (Locke, Hume, Kant, etc.)
\item 20th century psychology: thought is uninterpreted \emph{formal symbols} (Fodor)
\end{itemize}

Current theories argue that perceptual and linguistic representations must
be combined to ground meaning.

\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
\frametitle{LASS} 

Barsalou et al. (2008)

\begin{itemize}
\item Most theories of cognition assume single type of representation:
	\begin{itemize}
	\item amodal symbols
	\item modal information
	\item statistical (e.g., connectionism)
	\item linguistic context-vectors (DSM)
	\end{itemize}
\item Language and Situated Simulation (\emph{LASS}) proposes two: \\
	linguistic forms \& situated simulations
\item \emph{linguistic forms}: associations as in DSM
\item \emph{situated simulation}: reactivation of modal brain states in
			perception, action \& introspection \\
	situated, because the context/background matters
\item Both representations are probably implemented as 
	statistical representations
\item Completely amodal representations probably do not exist
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{LASS}

\begin{enumerate}
\item Linguistic processing: purely based on form, superficial, fast
\item Situated simulation: follows 1), activation of associated simulations
\item Interactions of 1) and 2): simulations form contents of thought, words
	provide indexing and manipulation of this content
\item Statistical underpinnings: it is assumed that that the statistical
	structures of 1) and 2) mirror each other, because language often
	describes current situations
\end{enumerate}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Evidence for LASS}

\begin{itemize}
\item Paivio's dual code theory: 
	\begin{itemize}
	\item similar to LASS but assumes that abstract concepts are 
		defined in linguistic system
	\item assumes deeper processing in linguistic system
	\item provides much empirical support for the existence of two
		systems of representation
	\item developmental evidence shows modal system to develop faster
	\end{itemize}
\item Glaser's lexical hypothesis
	\begin{itemize}
	\item lexical hypothesis: superficial processing independent of conceptual system
	\item results: words are categorized slower than pictures \\
		pictures produce stronger conceptual effects
	\item hypothesis: pictures access conceptual system directly
	\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

	
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Evidence for LASS}
Evidence from Barsalou's laboratory
	\begin{itemize}
	\item word association: quickest responses are linguistic,
			slowest object-situation,
			with taxonomic responses in between
	\item property generation: mostly object-situation responses because
			subjects had more time. 
	\item abstract concepts: given appropriate tasks, situation system
			is activated for abstract concepts as well
			(deciding if a picture fits a word, instead of simple
			lexical decision task)
	\end{itemize}	

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{The Symbolic Species}

Terrence Deacon (1997)

\begin{itemize}
\item Language co-evolved with the brain
\item However, evolution of language is much faster than that of brain, \\
 thus language has adapted to be learnable, instead of relying on an innate LAD
\item Brain evolved for concrete sensorimotor tasks, 
	not language-specific functions
\end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{The Symbolic Species}

Triadic theory of signs (Peirce):

\begin{enumerate}
\item icon: similarity to target
\item index: physical or temporal correlation \\
	An index is an association of two icons, for example sound images of a
	word and percepts of an object. (Saussurean signs)
\item symbol: conventional
	A symbol arises from a web of indexical relations (e.g., knowing the
	word dog, having seen dogs and knowing that it's a barking pet etc.)
\end{enumerate}

Only the symbolic level makes abstract and counterfactual thought possible.
This requires unlearning the associated indexical (correlational) aspects
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{The Symbolic Species}

\begin{itemize}
\item Only humans seem to display symbolic reference
\item Except Kanzi, a chimp that acquired proficience with symbols while
	experimenters were (unsuccessfully) training its mother
\item This suggests that chimps also have a \emph{critical period}, but
	since chimps do not learn language in the wild, this implies
	that the critical period is not an argument for a LAD
\item Critical period is when brain is still maturing --- high distractibility,
	poor working memory, prefrontal cortex looking for something to do
\end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Material Symbols}

Andy Clark (2006)

\begin{itemize}
\item Relation of language \& thought: either we think in language, or ...
\item Translation view: thought is mentalese (Fodor) or state vectors (Churchland)
\item Complementarity view: cognitive benefits of language depend on
	complementary action of material symbols and more basic internal
	representations.
\end{itemize}

Three advantages of complementarity:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Language as source for additional targets for attention \& learning
\item Coping with complex conjoined cues (integrating different cues seems
		to require linguistic processing)
\item Hybrid thoughts: '98' is usually not imagined differently from '97',
		so it is probably copied verbatim in thought
\end{enumerate}

\end{frame}

\section{Main aim}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{}

Goals of paper:

\begin{itemize}
\item Argue that abstract thought is a hybrid of language and imagery
\item Determining whether LASS is compatible with Deacon's triadic symbolic 
	reference
\item Argue that Clark's material symbols are necessary to explain the
	coordination and integration of the two systems of LASS
\end{itemize}

\end{frame}


\end{document}

