Did anyone ever heard of the term biolinguistics?

In our largest project we’ve ever done called ‘research’  we’re identifying ALL research journals related to humanlike artificial AI. And we stumbled upon a journal having this term in it title.

I love the term biolinguistics

http://www.biolinguistics.eu

Well Now…. Looks interesting to me Erwin.
Yesterday I was just wondering about how to incorporate meta-information about mood swings based on precise facial recognition, combined with voice stress analysys. Using Peter Plantec’s model* I think there is so many distinctive polygonic junctions in the"visages” that a mood comparator model may be created for at least ONE inividual. (say for a well lighted facial image of yourself).
When this meta-information is time locked to the speech context it would seem a good approach, . I am interested in developing “a specific type of chatbot”  but I need this meta-information in real-time along with tone and stress analysis, so I will certainly look into anything on this biolinguistics journal business

*Plantec’s model scale:
S-H scale indicates Sad-Happy
A-C scale indicates Angry-Calm
S-P scale indicates Shame-Pride
P-S scale indicates Pensive-Surprized

Question response results are further biased acording to tone and stress analysis

Raymond
Gee!!! I get to travel back in time today.

Ok well I did read the details:
BIOLINGUISTICS is a peer-reviewed journal exploring theoretical linguistics that takes the biological foundations of human language seriously.
The whole Journal is probably a very good academic way to start this process however Biolinguistics and “precise facial recognition” as well as voice tonality analysis must eventually be merged for the meta-information to be successfully used for processing the dynamics of future human-to-chatbot speech dynamics.

I can’t really carry on a very consicive disscussing through this or any other forum unless I can see the face of my conversation partner or hear his or her voice quality. Visually we can percieve moods during conversations. In speech recognition there are some ways to sense mood but I sometimes wonder how Blind people deal with the fact that they can’t see visual cues during a conversation.

This is just my personnal opinion and I’m really talking about something which I would like to be able to do eventually.

Raymond

Raymond Lavas - May 8, 2010:

Wow, I see that once posted our remarks can’t be edited….

Sorry about that. I think it should work again now. Let me know if you still have problems.

So actually you’re suggesting to setup a new academic journal: International Journal on Humanlike Conversational Agents? 

That should take these issues:

I can’t really carry on a very consicive disscussing through this or any other forum unless I can see the face of my conversation partner or hear his or her voice quality. Visually we can percieve moods during conversations.

into account.

Erwin Van Lun - May 10, 2010:

So actually you’re suggesting to setup a new academic journal: International Journal on Humanlike Conversational Agents?

That should take these issues:

I can’t really carry on a very consicive disscussing through this or any other forum unless I can see the face of my conversation partner or hear his or her voice quality. Visually we can percieve moods during conversations.

into account.

I’m not so sure that it does not already exist!
In other words, This subject matter should be discussed in several fields of research like science fiction, psychology of body language, and social study. Here is an excellent place to find such valued information as needed to examine human-to-chatbot interactions:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTING ANTICIPATORY SYSTEMS ISSN 1373-5411.
CHAOS, Liège, Belgium
Sample volumes include:Volume 1, Biological & Ecological Systems, Neural networks, Systems of Computation, Partial Proceedings of the First International Conference CASYS’97 on Computing Anticipatory Systems, Liège, Belgium, August 11-15, 1997, D. M. Dubois (Ed.),

The key words for our purposes is “Anticipatory Systems”.  A chatbot should ANTICIPATE cues which are non-verbal communication interaction, by whatever means possible.

Raymond

Yesterday “biolinguistics”, today “biosemiotics”

And additionally: the Journal of Biosemiotics, dedicated to building a bridge between biology, philosophy, linguistics and communication studies.

Which “bio” combination is next?

Cool stuf:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/120965

Here’s a link to a paper about similarities and differences between biolinguistics and biosemiotics:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/6120715666w69551/?p=2141ef7a54934d3181b9defdbe0a201c&pi=5

Abstract
Thomas Sebeok and Noam Chomsky are the acknowledged founding fathers of two research fields which are known respectively as Biosemiotics and Biolinguistics and which have been developed in parallel during the past 50 years. Both fields claim that language has biological roots and must be studied as a natural phenomenon, thus bringing to an end the old divide between nature and culture. In addition to this common goal, there are many other important similarities between them. Their definitions of language, for example, have much in common, despite the use of different terminologies. They both regard language as a faculty, or a modelling system, that appeared rapidly in the history of life and probably evolved as an exaptation from previous animal systems. Both accept that the fundamental characteristic of language is recursion, the ability to generate an unlimited number of structures from a finite set of elements (the property of ‘discrete infinity’). Both accept that human beings are born with a predisposition to acquire language in a few years and without apparent efforts (the innate component of language). In addition to similarities, however, there are also substantial differences between the two fields, and it is an historical fact that Sebeok and Chomsky made no attempt at resolving them. Biosemiotics and Biolinguistics have become two separate disciplines, and yet in the case of language they are studying the same phenomenon, so it should be possible to bring them together. Here it is shown that this is indeed the case. A convergence of the two fields does require a few basic readjustments in each of them, but leads to a unified framework that keeps the best of both disciplines and is in agreement with the experimental evidence. What is particularly important is that such a framework suggests immediately a new approach to the origin of language. More precisely, it suggests that the brain wiring processes that take place in all phases of human ontogenesis (embryonic, foetal, infant and child development) are based on organic codes, and it is the step-by-step appearance of these brain-wiring codes, in a condition that is referred to as cerebra bifida, that holds the key to the origin of language.