The labyrinths of meaning

A recent study found that regardless how thoroughly AI-powered chatbots are trained with real, sensible text, they still have a hard time recognizing passages that are nonsense.

Given pairs of sentences, one of which makes semantic sense and the other of which clearly doesn't -- in the latter category, "Someone versed in circumference of high school I rambled" was one example -- a significant fraction of large language models struggled with telling the difference.

In case you needed another reason to be suspicious of what AI chatbots say to you.

As a linguist, though, I can confirm how hard it is to detect and analyze semantic or syntactic weirdness.  Noam Chomsky's famous example "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is syntactically well-formed, but has multiple problems with semantics -- something can't be both colorless and green, ideas don't sleep, you can't "sleep furiously," and so on.  How about the sentence, "My brother opened the window the maid the janitor Uncle Bill had hired had married had closed"?  This one is both syntactically well-formed and semantically meaningful, but there's definitely something... off about it.

The problem here is called "center embedding," which is when there are nested clauses, and the result is not so much wrong as it is confusing and difficult to parse.  It's the kind of thing I look for when I'm editing someone's manuscript -- one of those, "Well, I knew what I meant at the time" kind of moments.  (That this one actually does make sense can be demonstrated by breaking it up into two sentences -- "My brother opened the window the maid had closed.  She was the one who had married the janitor Uncle Bill had hired.")

Then there are "garden-path sentences" -- named for the expression "to lead (someone) down the garden path," to trick them or mislead them -- when you think you know where the sentence is going, then it takes a hard left turn, often based on a semantic ambiguity in one or more words.  Usually the shift leaves you with something that does make sense, but only if you re-evaluate where you thought the sentence was headed to start with.  There's the famous example, "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."  But I like even better "The old man the boat," because it only has five words, and still makes you pull up sharp.

The water gets even deeper than that, though.  Consider the strange sentence, "More people have been to Berlin than I have."

This sort of thing is called a comparative illusion, but I like the nickname "Escher sentences" better because it captures the sense of the problem.  You've seen the famous work by M. C. Escher, "Ascending and Descending," yes?

The issue both with Escher's staircase and the statement about Berlin is if you look at smaller pieces of it, everything looks fine; the problem only comes about when you put the whole thing together.  And like Escher's trudging monks, it's hard to pinpoint exactly where the problem occurs.

I remember a student of mine indignantly telling a classmate, "I'm way smarter than you're not."  And it's easy to laugh, but even the ordinarily brilliant and articulate Dan Rather slipped into this trap when he tweeted in 2020, "I think there are more candidates on stage who speak Spanish more fluently than our president speaks English."

It seems to make sense, and then suddenly you go, "... wait, what?"

An additional problem is that words frequently have multiple meanings and nuances -- which is the basis of wordplay, but would be really difficult to program into a large language model.  Take, for example, the anecdote about the redoubtable Dorothy Parker, who was cornered at a party by an insufferable bore.  "To sum up," the man said archly at the end of a long diatribe, "I simply can't bear fools."

"Odd," Parker shot back.  "Your mother obviously could."

A great many of Parker's best quips rely on a combination of semantic ambiguity and idiom.  Her review of a stage actress that "she runs the gamut of emotions from A to B" is one example, but to me, the best is her stinging jab at a writer -- "His work is both good and original.  But the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good."

Then there's the riposte from John Wilkes, a famously witty British Member of Parliament in the last half of the eighteenth century.  Another MP, John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, was infuriated by something Wilkes had said, and sputtered out, "I predict you will die either on the gallows or else of some loathsome disease!"  And Wilkes calmly responded, "Which it will be, my dear sir, depends entirely on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

All of this adds up to the fact that languages contain labyrinths of meaning and structure, and we have a long way to go before AI will master them.  (Given my opinion about the current use of AI -- which I've made abundantly clear in previous posts -- I'm inclined to think this is a good thing.)  It's hard enough for human native speakers to use and understand language well; capturing that capacity in software is, I think, going to be a long time coming.

It'll be interesting to see at what point a large language model can parse correctly something like "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."  Which is both syntactically well-formed and semantically meaningful.  

Have fun piecing together what exactly it does mean.

****************************************

Couplespeak

Like a lot of couples, my wife and I have a great many inside jokes and turns of phrase that amuse us no end but must puzzle the hell out of everyone else.

Part of the reason, of course, is that we've been together for over twenty years, and during that time shared experience has given us a rich reservoir to draw from.  Sometimes, it's a combination of two or more memories that gives words their relevance, and those are even harder to explain should anyone ask.  For example, I ended a series of texts with my wife a couple of weeks ago, "Thank you, Bloopie," and she started laughing so hard she was afraid her coworkers would come in and demand to know what was so funny, which would have required her to explain that it was a combination of bits from Seinfeld and an obscure British spoof of middle school educational videos called Look Around You, and there was no way the explanation would have elicited anything more than puzzled head tilts and questions about why that was even funny.

Another example is why we always laugh when we hear Bill Withers's song "Ain't No Sunshine," the lyrics of which are anything but funny.  This one is at least explainable; when we were in Spain about fifteen years ago we rented a room for the night in a B&B, and the guy in the next room spent what seemed like hours practicing the trombone.  Amongst his Greatest Hits was -- I kid you not -- "Ain't No Sunshine."

He seemed to particularly enjoy the "WOMP WOMP WOMP" part at the end of each line.

The whole subject comes up because of a paper a couple of weeks ago in the Journal of Communication, which gave the results of a longitudinal study of communication between couples as they moved deeper -- and subsequently, sometimes out of -- relationships.  Instead of verbal communication, which would have required the participants to recall accurately what they'd said, the researchers used text messages, and found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that as relationships progress, the language of the texts becomes more and more similar.

The research, done by Miriam Brinberg (Pennsylvania State University) and Nilam Ram (Stanford University), looked at three parts of electronic communication: syntactic alignment (sentence structure, use of the different parts of speech, use of punctuation), semantic alignment (word meaning, including similarity of word choice where there's more than one way of expressing the same concept), and overall alignment (including features like the use of shortcuts like "omwh" for "on my way home").  They found that at the beginning of a romantic relationship, all three of them converge fairly quickly, and the process of becoming more similar continues -- albeit at a slower pace -- thereafter.

One interesting potential direction for further research is whether both partners shifted their speech, or if one of them moved more than the other.  "There's some research in this area that looks at power dynamics," study co-author Brinberg said, in an interview with The Academic Times.  "For example, in a job interview, the interviewee might make their language more similar to the interviewer to indicate they are more similar to them, or employees may alter their language to match that of their supervisor.  As with those examples, one might wonder if, in romantic relationship formation, there is one person who is changing their language to match the other."

In my own case, it doesn't seem like one of us altered our language use further than the other; more that we both gradually picked up phrases that then had a shared meaning.  The one exception I can think of is that there's been an unequal trade in words from our respective ethnic backgrounds.  My wife, who is Jewish, has a great many words and phrases from Yiddish that are incredibly expressive, explaining why I now use words like bupkis and verklempt and schvitz and schmutz.  Carol has picked up fewer French words from me, although I know that she's used words like macacries (Cajun French for "knick-knacks") even though there's a perfectly good Yiddish word for the same concept (tchotckies).  Other than that, I think most of the French words she's learned from me have to do with cooking, which I suppose makes sense.

But it's a fascinating phenomenon.  Language is much more than flat denotative meaning; there are wide shades and gradations of connotation that can be extremely subtle, one reason why it's so hard to learn a second (or third or fourth) language fluently.  I still remember my Intro to Linguistics professor explaining the difference between denotation and connotation using the example of "Have a nice day" versus "I hope you manage to enjoy your next twenty-four hours."

If there are cultural nuances that would be difficult to explain to a non-native speaker, consider that within those there are additional personal nuances that might be incomprehensible outside of the small number of people in the in-group who "get it," making the interpretation of informal speech a lot more complex than you might have guessed.

So that's our excursion into the subtleties of linguistics for today.  Now, I gotta go get ready for work, and I need to take a shower and wash off the schvitz and schmutz.  Can't show up looking all verklempt.

************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is pure fun: Arik Kershenbaum's The Zoologist's Guide to the Galaxy: What Animals on Earth Reveal About Aliens and Ourselves.  Kershenbaum tackles a question that has fascinated me for quite some time; is evolution constrained?  By which I mean, are the patterns you see in most animals on Earth -- aerobic cellular respiration, bilateral symmetry, a central information processing system/brain, sensory organs sensitive to light, sound, and chemicals, and sexual reproduction -- such strong evolutionary drivers that they are likely to be found in alien organisms?

Kershenbaum, who is a zoologist at the University of Cambridge, looks at how our environment (and the changes thereof over geological history) shaped our physiology, and which of those features would likely appear in species on different alien worlds.  In this fantastically entertaining book, he considers what we know about animals on Earth -- including some extremely odd ones -- and uses that to speculate about what we might find when we finally do make contact (or, at the very least, detect signs of life on an exoplanet using our earthbound telescopes).

It's a wonderfully fun read, and if you're fascinated with the idea that we might not be alone in the universe but still think of aliens as the Star Trek-style humans with body paint, rubber noses, and funny accents, this book is for you.  You'll never look at the night sky the same way again.

[Note: if you purchase this book from the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]