How did the discussion go: Discourse act classification in social media conversations

We propose a novel attention based hierarchical LSTM model to classify discourse act sequences in social media conversations, aimed at mining data from online discussion using textual meanings beyond sentence level. The very uniqueness of the task is the complete categorization of possible pragmatic roles in informal textual discussions, contrary to extraction of question-answers, stance detection or sarcasm identification which are very much role specific tasks. Early attempt was made on a Reddit discussion dataset. We train our model on the same data, and present test results on two different datasets, one from Reddit and one from Facebook. Our proposed model outperformed the previous one in terms of domain independence; without using platform-dependent structural features, our hierarchical LSTM with word relevance attention mechanism achieved F1-scores of 71\% and 66\% respectively to predict discourse roles of comments in Reddit and Facebook discussions. Efficiency of recurrent and convolutional architectures in order to learn discursive representation on the same task has been presented and analyzed, with different word and comment embedding schemes. Our attention mechanism enables us to inquire into relevance ordering of text segments according to their roles in discourse. We present a human annotator experiment to unveil important observations about modeling and data annotation. Equipped with our text-based discourse identification model, we inquire into how heterogeneous non-textual features like location, time, leaning of information etc. play their roles in charaterizing online discussions on Facebook

Linguistics and some aspects of its underlying dynamics

In recent years, central components of a new approach to linguistics, the Minimalist Program (MP) have come closer to physics. Features of the Minimalist Program, such as the unconstrained nature of recursive Merge, the operation of the Labeling Algorithm that only operates at the interface of Narrow Syntax with the Conceptual-Intentional and the Sensory-Motor interfaces, the difference between pronounced and un-pronounced copies of elements in a sentence and the build-up of the Fibonacci sequence in the syntactic derivation of sentence structures, are directly accessible to representation in terms of algebraic formalism. Although in our scheme linguistic structures are classical ones, we find that an interesting and productive isomorphism can be established between the MP structure, algebraic structures and many-body field theory opening new avenues of inquiry on the dynamics underlying some central aspects of linguistics.Comment: 17 page

Player agency in interactive narrative: audience, actor & author

The question motivating this review paper is, how can computer-based interactive narrative be used as a constructivist learn- ing activity? The paper proposes that player agency can be used to link interactive narrative to learner agency in constructivist theory, and to classify approaches to interactive narrative. The traditional question driving research in interactive narrative is, ‘how can an in- teractive narrative deal with a high degree of player agency, while maintaining a coherent and well-formed narrative?’ This question derives from an Aristotelian approach to interactive narrative that, as the question shows, is inherently antagonistic to player agency. Within this approach, player agency must be restricted and manip- ulated to maintain the narrative. Two alternative approaches based on Brecht’s Epic Theatre and Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed are reviewed. If a Boalian approach to interactive narrative is taken the conflict between narrative and player agency dissolves. The question that emerges from this approach is quite different from the traditional question above, and presents a more useful approach to applying in- teractive narrative as a constructivist learning activity

CHALLENGES IN THE SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OF DERIVATIONAL MORPHOLOGY: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

The three studies in this dissertation bring together quantitative and qualitative methods in order to understand L2 learning of derivational morphology. By using measures of derivational knowledge developed from L1 research, Study 1 provides a foundation for in-class research by assessing what L2 learners know and do not know about derivational morphology in comparison to adult native English speakers and how factors such as L1 background and L2 proficiency shape L2 knowledge of derivational morphology. Results show that L2 learners have poor knowledge of derivational morphology regardless of L1 background or L2 proficiency.Study 2 follows from these results and investigates the effects of input-processing versus pushed output instruction on the development of productive and receptive morphological abilities. The results of this study support the hypothesis that instruction is beneficial for L2 derivational learning; however, results do not support the hypothesis that pushed output instruction leads to better immediate and long-term learning than the input-processing condition. In fact, results suggest that equivalent learning occurs between the two conditions across all measures of derivational knowledge.Finally, Study 3 was a qualitative investigation of learners' attitudes, actions, and motivations towards the learning of derivational morphology over the course of Study 2. Using activity theory, this study describes how students' initial actions, which were not aligned with the goal of morphological learning, were transformed over the course of the study as students came to realize the importance of derivational morphology for their success in English. The results of this study are also important because they offer an alternative explanation for why the hypotheses in Study 2 regarding the effectiveness of output were not supported. Specifically, many participants in this study became aware of derivational morphology for the first time as a result of this study; therefore, a "novelty effect" (cf. Tulving & Kroll, 1995) may have overridden any potential benefit of the output treatment over the input treatment