"Understanding the recent success of DNN models in NLP requires less to understand the specific technological achievements than to critically reconstruct the image of language that features the properties technological devices
mobilize and encourage." Magnifique article de @giannigastaldi et Luc Pellissier qui fait un point clair et brillant sur les présupposés théoriques derrière les approches TAL - hypothèse distributionnelle etc. https://hal.science/hal-03064480
The Logic of Language: from the Distributional to the Structuralist Hypothesis through Types and Interaction

The recent success of new AI techniques in natural language processing rely heavily on the so-called distributional hypothesis. We first show that the latter can be understood as a simplified version of the classic structuralist hypothesis, at the core of a program aiming at reconstructing grammatical structures from first principles and analysis of corpora. Then, we propose to reinterpret the structuralist program with insights from proof theory, especially associating paradigmatic relations and units with formal types defined through an appropriate notion of interaction. In this way, we intend to build original conceptual bridges between linear logic and classic structuralism, which can contribute to understanding the recent advances in NLP. In particular, our approach provides the means to articulate two aspects that tend to be treated separately in the literature: classification and dependency. More generally, we suggest a way to overcome the alternative between count based or predictive (statistical) methods and logical (symbolic) approaches.

@monterosato Merci! Voici la version (réduite) publiée en accès libre: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03080188.2021.1890484
@giannigastaldi Génial! je vais le mettre comme lecture obligatoire dans mon séminaire et la version longue aurait fait gueuler les étudiant.es ;) (il y a aussi moins de math...)

@monterosato

Honoré :)

Pour une approche plus philo (mais plus longue...), tu peux jeter un oeil sur celui-ci:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-020-00393-9
et pour perspective plus maths il y a aussi ça
https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202402/rnoti-p174.pdf

Je suis curieux d'en savoir plus sur ton séminaire (je connais ton travail sur l’éditorialisation)

Why Can Computers Understand Natural Language? - Philosophy & Technology

The present paper intends to draw the conception of language implied in the technique of word embeddings that supported the recent development of deep neural network models in computational linguistics. After a preliminary presentation of the basic functioning of elementary artificial neural networks, we introduce the motivations and capabilities of word embeddings through one of its pioneering models, word2vec. To assess the remarkable results of the latter, we inspect the nature of its underlying mechanisms, which have been characterized as the implicit factorization of a word-context matrix. We then discuss the ordinary association of the “distributional hypothesis” with a “use theory of meaning,” often justifying the theoretical basis of word embeddings, and contrast them to the theory of meaning stemming from those mechanisms through the lens of matrix models (such as vector space models and distributional semantic models). Finally, we trace back the principles of their possible consistency through Harris’s original distributionalism up to the structuralist conception of language of Saussure and Hjelmslev. Other than giving access to the technical literature and state of the art in the field of natural language processing to non-specialist readers, the paper seeks to reveal the conceptual and philosophical stakes involved in the recent application of new neural network techniques to the computational treatment of language.

SpringerLink
@giannigastaldi
merci pour les liens! je fais un séminaire sur littérature et llm cette année - et justement je cherchais un texte qui explique bien les théories linguistiques derrière. Déçu du fait qu'on en parle si peu... puis je suis tombé sur ton travail!