SYSTEMS: one implementation mentioned but not named
The basis of natural language is conceptual.
The conceptual level is interlingual while the sentential level is
language-specific.
Natural language understanding is largely predictive (i.e. based on expectations), thanks to the syntax and semantics of the conceptual level.
For NLU, syntax is only a pointer to the conceptual meaning and it is
used at the same time as (interleaved with) conceptual processing.
Language cannot be studied without taking memory into consideration.
Summary
The main claim of this paper is that the "basis of natural language is
conceptual." This conceptual base is interlingual, that is made up of
concepts and relationships between concepts that are shared across
languages. Understanding language means getting at that conceptual base.
This is to be contrasted with the goal of most linguists which is to
study whether specific sentences can be generated using formal methods
essentially based on syntax. In Schank's view, "syntax ... is a pointer to
semantic information rather than ... a first step to semantic analysis".
The Conceptual Dependency (CD) theory is proposed as a way of representing
the information at the conceptual level. The main categories of concepts
are PP's (i.e., picture producers, in other words, concrete nouns) and
actions. Relations between concepts are dependencies. The main
conceptualization of a clause is a two-way dependency between a PP
(the actor) and an action. It is important to note that actions are broken
down into primitive ACT's and do not correspond to verbs (the latter can be
represented by several ACT's).
The syntax of the conceptual level is described by a set of rules which
specify which type of concepts can depend on which other type, as well as
the different kinds of dependency relationships between concepts. The
semantics of the conceptual level determines which specific concepts can
depend on other concepts based on the particular meaning of these concepts.
There exists a dictionary of ACT's which specifies for each verb, its
different meanings, and for each of the latter, its conceptual structure.
In particular, each verb meaning requires a set of "conceptual cases"
(among OBJECTIVE, RECIPIENT, DIRECTIVE, INSTRUMENTAL) and it is these rules
that allow conceptual
analysis to be largely guided by expectations about what should come
next. In other words, the necessary cases constitute expectations to be
confirmed. They can also be used to make inferences about details or about
facts that are not mentioned because they are assumed to be known by the
communicating parties.
At a higher level, conceptual relations indicate dependencies between
conceptualizations, annotated with conceptual tenses (such as
past, future, conditional, timeless). Note that these causal
relationships will become central when Schank later represents higher level
knowledge structures. For example, scripts are nothing but
stereotyped causal chains. Other types of conceptual relations are the time
and location of a conceptualization.
Towards the end of the paper, Schank emphasizes the difference between
the meaning of a sentence (that is the conceptual content that CD is
claimed to understand) and the meaning of the speaker (that is the
intention of that content). This latter level of comprehension
(interpretation or pragmatics) requires to consider the belief system
of the understander, his/her world knowledge etc. In other words, NLU cannot
be done without considering memory processes and content.
Summary author's notes:
In this summary, I have tried not to mention the details of
CD because these have changed quite a bit over the years. For example, in
this paper, Schank talks about a few classes of ACT's (like PACT, EACT, TACT,
etc.). Later on, he will come up with eleven primitive ACT's (such as
ATRANS, PTRANS, MBUILD etc.). But the motivation and the claims remain the
same.