File size: 70,513 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 | {
"paper_id": "P85-1022",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:39:17.326201Z"
},
"title": "A Computational Semantics for Natural Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lewis",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Creary",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Hewlett-Packard Laboratories",
"location": {
"addrLine": "1501 Page Mill Road",
"postCode": "94304",
"settlement": "Palo Alto",
"region": "CA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Carl",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Pollard",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Hewlett-Packard Laboratories",
"location": {
"addrLine": "1501 Page Mill Road",
"postCode": "94304",
"settlement": "Palo Alto",
"region": "CA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "In the new Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) language processing system that is currently under development at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, the Montagovian semantics of the earlier GPSG system (see [Gawron et al. 19821) is replaced by a radically different approach with a number of distinct advantages. In place of the lambda calculus and standard first-order logic, our medium of conceptual representation is a new logical forrealism called NFLT (Neo-Fregean Language of Thought); compositional semantics is effected, not by schematic lambda expressions, but by LISP procedures that operate on NFLT expressions to produce new expressions. NFLT has a number of features that make it well-suited {'or natural language translations, including predicates of variable arity in which explicitly marked situational roles supercede order-coded argument positions, sortally restricted quantification, a compositional (but nonextensional) semantics that handles causal contexts, and a princip[ed conceptual raising mechanism that we expect to lead to a computationally tractable account of propositional attitudes. The use of semantically compositional LiSP procedures in place of lambda-schemas allows us to produce fully reduced translations on the fly, with no need for post-processing. This approach should simplify the task of using semantic information (such as sortal incompatibilities) to eliminate bad parse paths.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P85-1022",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "In the new Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) language processing system that is currently under development at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, the Montagovian semantics of the earlier GPSG system (see [Gawron et al. 19821) is replaced by a radically different approach with a number of distinct advantages. In place of the lambda calculus and standard first-order logic, our medium of conceptual representation is a new logical forrealism called NFLT (Neo-Fregean Language of Thought); compositional semantics is effected, not by schematic lambda expressions, but by LISP procedures that operate on NFLT expressions to produce new expressions. NFLT has a number of features that make it well-suited {'or natural language translations, including predicates of variable arity in which explicitly marked situational roles supercede order-coded argument positions, sortally restricted quantification, a compositional (but nonextensional) semantics that handles causal contexts, and a princip[ed conceptual raising mechanism that we expect to lead to a computationally tractable account of propositional attitudes. The use of semantically compositional LiSP procedures in place of lambda-schemas allows us to produce fully reduced translations on the fly, with no need for post-processing. This approach should simplify the task of using semantic information (such as sortal incompatibilities) to eliminate bad parse paths.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Someone who knows a natural language is able to use utterances of certain types to give and receive information about the world, flow can we explain this? We take as our point of departure the assumption that members of a language community share a certain mental system --a grammar --that mediates the correspondence between utterance types and other things in the world, such as individ-u~ds, relations, and states of ~ffairs, to a large degree, this system i~ the language. According to the relation theory of meaning (Barwise & Perry !1983!) , linguistic meaning is a relation between types of utterance events and other aspects of objective reality. We accept this view of linguistic meaning, but unlike Barwise and Perry we focus on how the meaning relation is mediated by the intersubjective psychological system of grammar.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 521,
"end": 545,
"text": "(Barwise & Perry !1983!)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I. Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[n our view, a computational semantics ['or a natural language has three essential components: 172 a. a system of conceptual representation for internal use as a computational medium in processes of information retrieval, inference, planning, etc. b. a system of linkages between expressions of the natural language and those of the conceptual representation, and c. a system of linkages between expressions in the conceptual representation and objects, relations, and states of affairs in the external world.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I. Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[n this paper, we shall concentrate almost exclusively on the first two components. We shall sketch our ontological commitments, describe our internal representation language, explain how our grammar (and our computer implementation) makes the connection between English and the internal representations, and finally indicate the present status and future directions of our research.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I. Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our internal representation language. NFLT. is due to Creary 119831. The grammatical theory in which the present research is couched is the theory of head grammar (HG) set forth in [Pollard 1984] and [Pollard forthcoming i and implemented as the front end of the HPSG (Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar) system, an English [auguage database query system under development at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories. The non-semantic aspects of the implementation are described in IFlickinger, Pollard ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 195,
"text": "[Pollard 1984]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 485,
"end": 492,
"text": "Pollard",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I. Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To get started, we make the following assumptions about what categories of things are in the world.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ontological Assumptions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "a. There are individuals. These include objects of the usual kind (such as Ron and Nancy) as well as situations. Situations comprise states (such as Ron's being tall) and events (such as Ron giving his inaugural address on January 21, 1985).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ontological Assumptions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "b. There are relations (subsuming properties). Examples are COOKIE (= the property of being a cookie) and BUY (= the relation which Nancy has to the cookies she buys). Associated with each relation is a characteristic set of roles appropriate to that relation (such as AGENT, PATIENT, LO-CATION, etc.) which can be filled by individuals. Simple situations consist of individuals playing roles in relations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ontological Assumptions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Unlike properties and relations in situation semantics [Barwise & Perry 1983 [, our relations do not have fixed arity (number of arguments). This is made possible by taking explicit account of roles, and has important linguistic consequences. Also there is no distinguished ontological category of locations~ instead, the location of an event is just the individual that fills the LOCATION role. c. Some relations are sortal relations, or sorts. Associated with each sort {but not with any non-sortal relation) is a criterion of identity for individuals of that sort [Cocchiarella 1977 , Gupta 1980 I. Predicates denoting sorts occur in the restrictor-clanses of quantifiers (see section 4.2 below), and the associated criteria of identity are essential to determining the truth values of quantified assertions.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 76,
"text": "[Barwise & Perry 1983",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 585,
"text": "[Cocchiarella 1977",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 598,
"text": ", Gupta 1980",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ontological Assumptions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Two important sorts of situations are states and events. One can characterize a wide range of subsorts of these (which we shall call situation types) by specifying a particular configuration of relation, individuals, and roles. For example, one might consider the sort of event in which Ron kisses Nancy in the Oval Office, i.e. in which the relation is KISS, Ron plays the AGENT role, Nancy plays the PATIENT role, and the Oval Office plays the LOCATION role. One might also consider the sort of state in which Ron is a person, i.e. in which the relation is PERSON, and Ron plays the INSTANCE role. We assume that the INSTANCE role is appropriate only for sortal relations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ontological Assumptions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "d. There are concepts, both subjective and objective. Some individuals are information-processing organisms that use complex symbolic objects (subjective concepts) as computational media for information storage and retrieval, inference, planning, etc. An example is Ron's internal representation of the property COOKIE. This representation in turn is a token of a certain abstract type ~'COOKIE, an objective concept which is shared by the vast majority of speakers of English. t Note that the objective concept ~COOKIE, the property COOKIE, and the extension of that property (i.e. the set ofall cookies) are three distinct things that play three different roles in the semantics of the English noun cookie.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ontological Assumptions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "e. There are computational processes in organisms for manipulating concepts e.g. methods for constructing complex concepts from simpler ones, inferencing nmchanisms, etc. Concepts of situations are called propositions; organisms use inferencing mechanisms to derive new propositions from old. To the extent that concepts are accurate representations of existing things and the relations in which they stand, organisms can contain information. We call the system of objective concepts and concept-manipulating mechanisms instantiated in an organism its conceptual ~ystem.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ontological Assumptions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Communities of organisms can share the same conceptual system. f. Communities of organisms whose common conceptual system contains a subsystem of a certain kind called a grammar can cornnmnicate with each other. Roughly, grammars are conceptual subsystems that mediate between events of a specific type (calh:d utterances) and other aspects of reality. Grammars enable organisms to use utterances to give and receive information about the world. This is the subject of sections 4-6.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ontological Assumptions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Representation Language: NFLT",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Internal",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "The translation of input sentences into a logical formalism of some kind is a fairly standard feature of computer systems for natural-language understanding, and one which is shared by the HPSG system. A distinctive feature of this system, however, is the particular logical formalism involved, which is called NFLT (Neo-Fregean Language of Thought). 2 This is a new logical language that is being developed to serve as the internal representation medium in computer agents with natural language capabilities. The language is the result of augmenting and partially reinterpreting the standard predicate calculus formalism in several ways, some of which will be described very briefly in this section. Historically, the predicate calculus was de-ve|oped by mathematical logicians as an explication of the logic of mathematical proofs, in order to throw light on the nature of purely mathematical concepts and knowledge. Since many basic concepts that are commonplace in natural language (including concepts of belief, desire, intention, temporal change, causality, subjunctive conditionality, etc.) play no role in pure mathematics, we should not be especially surprised to find that the predicate calculus requires supplementation in order to represent adequately and naturally information involving these concepts. The belief that such supplementation is needed has led to the design of NFLT, While NFLT is much closer semantically to natural language than is the standard predicate calculus, and is to some extent inspired by psycho[ogistic considerations, it is nevertheless a formal logic admitting of a mathematically precise semantics. The intended semantics incorporates a Fregean distinction between sense and denotation, associated principles of compositionality, and a somewhat non-Fregean theory of situations or situation-types as the denotations of sentential formulas. ~\" The formalism is called ~neo-Fregean\" because it incorporates many of the semantic ideas of Gottlob Frege, though it also departs from Frege's ideas in several significant ways. It is called a \"language of thought\" because unlike English, which is first and foremost a medium of communication, NFLT is designed to serve as a medium of reasoning in computer problem-solving systems, which we regard for theoretical purposes as thinking organisms, (Frege referred to his own logical formalism, Begriffsschrift, an a \"formula language for pure thought\" [Frege 1879, title and p. 6 (translation)]).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Internal",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "calculus, in which the roles are order-coded. This explicit representation of roles permits each predicate-symbol in NFLT to take a variable number of arguments, which in turn makes it possible to represent occurrences of the same verb with the same predicate-symbol, despite differences in valence (i.e. number and identity of attached complements and adjuncts). This clears up a host of problems that arise in theoretical frameworks (such an Montague semantics and situation semantics) that depend on fixed-arity relations (see [Carlson forthcoming] and [Dowry 1982] for discussion). In particular, new roles (corresponding to adjuncts or optional complements in natural language) can be added as required, and there is no need for explicit existential quantification over ~missing arguments\". The base-predicate 'KISS' takes a variable number of arguments, depending on the needs of a particular context. [n ,iLe display syntax, the arguments are explicitly introduced by abbreviated lowercase role markers.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Predicates of Variable Arity",
"sec_num": "3.1."
},
{
"text": "Quantificational expressi..s in NFLT differ from those in predicate calculus by alway~ rontaining a restrictor-clause consisting of a sortal predication, in addition to the u, sual scope-clause, as in the following example:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sortal Quantification",
"sec_num": "3.2."
},
{
"text": "(2a) English:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sortal Quantification",
"sec_num": "3.2."
},
{
"text": "Ron ate a cookie in the Oval Office. Note that we always quantify over instances of a sort, i.e. the quantified variable fills the instance role in the restrictorclause.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sortal Quantification",
"sec_num": "3.2."
},
{
"text": "This style of quantifier is superior in several ways to that of the predicate calcuhls for the purposes of representing commonsense knowledge. It is intuitively more natu-ral, since it follows the quantificational pattern of English. More importantly, it is more general, being sufficient to handle a number of natural language determiners such as many, most, few, etc., that cannot be represented using only the unrestricted quantification of standard predicate calculus (see [Wallace 1965 ], {Barwise & Cooper 1981 ). Finally, information carried by the sortal predicates in quantifiers (namely, criteria of identity for things of the various sorts in question) provides a sound semantic basis for counting the members of extensions of such predicates (see section 2, assumption c above).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 477,
"end": 490,
"text": "[Wallace 1965",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 516,
"text": "], {Barwise & Cooper 1981",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sortal Quantification",
"sec_num": "3.2."
},
{
"text": "Any internal structure which a variable may have is irrelevant to its function as a uniquely identifiable placeholder in a formula, in particular, a quantified formula can itself serve as its own ~bound variable\". This is how quantitiers are actually implemented in the HPSG system; in the internal (i.e. implementation) syntax for quantified NFLTformulas, bound variables of the usual sort are dispensed with in favor of pointers to the relevant quantified formulas. Thus, of the three occurrences of X5 in the displayformula (2b), the first has no counterpart in the internal syntax, while the last two correspond internally to LISP pointers back to the data structure that implements (2b). This method of implementing quantification has some important advantages. First, it eliminates the technical problems of variable clash that arise in conventional treatments. There are no ~alphabetic variants\", just structurally equivalent concept tokens. Secondly, each occurrence of a quantified ~bound variable\" provides direct computational access to the determiner, restrictor-clause, and scope-clause with which it is associated.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sortal Quantification",
"sec_num": "3.2."
},
{
"text": "A special class of quantificational expressions, called quantifier expressions, have no scope-clause. An example is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sortal Quantification",
"sec_num": "3.2."
},
{
"text": "(3) NFLT Display Syntax:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sortal Quantification",
"sec_num": "3.2."
},
{
"text": "(SOME gl (COOKIE inst: xl) )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sortal Quantification",
"sec_num": "3.2."
},
{
"text": "Such expressions translate quantified noun phrases in English, e.g. a cookie.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sortal Quantification",
"sec_num": "3.2."
},
{
"text": "According to the standard semantics for the predicate calculus, predicate symbols denote the extensions of relations (i.e. sets of ordered n-tuples) and sentential formulas denote truth values. By contrast, we propose a noneztensional semantics for NFLT: we take predicate symbols to denote relations themselves (rather than their extensions), and sentential formulas to denote situations or situation types (rather than the corresponding truth values). 3 The motivation for this is to provide for the expression of propositions involving causal relations among situations, as in the following example:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Causal Relations and Non-Extensionality",
"sec_num": "3.3."
},
{
"text": "a The distinction between situations and situation types corresponds roughly to the fnite/infinitive distinction in natural language. For discussion of this within the framework of situation semantics, see [Cooper 1984 ].",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 206,
"end": 218,
"text": "[Cooper 1984",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Causal Relations and Non-Extensionality",
"sec_num": "3.3."
},
{
"text": "John has brown eyes because he is of genotype XYZW.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(4a) English:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(4b) NFLT Display Syntax:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(4a) English:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "( C~USE conditn: (GENOTYPE-XYZW inst:JOHN) result: (BROWN-EYED bearer:JOHN} ) Now, the predicate calculus is an extensional language in the sense that the replacement of categorical subparts within an expression by new subparts having the same extension must preserve the extension of the original expression. Such replacements within a sentential expression must preserve the truth-value of the expression, since the extension of a sentence is a truth-value. NFLT is not extensional in this sense. [n particular, some of its predicatesymbols may denote causal relations among situations, and extension-preserving substitutions within causal contexts do not generally preserve the causal relations. Suppose, for example, that the formula (4b) is true. While the extension of the NFLT-predicate 'GENOTYPE-XYZW' is the set of animals of genotype XYZW, its denotation is not this set, but rather what Putnam I1969] would call a \"physical property\", the property of having the genotype XYZW. As noted above (section 2, assumption d) a property is to be distinguished both from the set of objects of which it holds and from any concept of it. Now even if this property were to happen by coincidence to have the same extension as the property of being a citizen of Polo Alto born precisely at noon on I April ].956, the substitution of a predicatesymbol denoting this latter property for 'GENOTYPE-XYZW' in the formula (4b) would produce a falsehood.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(4a) English:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "However, NFLT's lack of extensionality does not involve any departure from compositional semantics. The denotation of an NFLT-predicate-symbol is a property; thus, although the substitution discussed earlier preserves the extension of 'GENOTYPE-XYZW', it does not preserve the denotation of that predicate-symbol. Similarly, the denotation of an NFLT-sentence is a situation or ~ttuation-type, as distinguished both from a mere truth-val,e and from a propositionJ Then, although NFLT is not at~ extensional language in the standard sense, a Fregean a.alogue of the principle of extensionality does hold for it: The replacement of subparts within an expression by new subparts having the same denotation must preserve the denotation of the original expression (see [Frege 18921). Moreover, such replacements within an NFLT-sentence must preserve tile truth-value of that sentence, since the truth-value is determined by the denotation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(4a) English:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Intentionality and",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3.4.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The NFLT notation for representing information about propositional attitudes is an improved version of the neo-Fregean scheme described in [Creary 1979 I, section 2, which is itself an extension and improvement of that found in [McCarthy 1979] . The basic idea underlying this scheme is that propositional attitudes are relations between peo-ple (or other intelligent organisms) and propositions; both ternm of such relations are taken as members of the domain of discourse. Objective propositions and their component objective concepts are regarded a.s abstract entities, roughly on a par with numbers, sets, etc. They are person-independent components of situations involving belief, knowledge, desire, and the like. More specifically, objective concepts are abstract types which may have as to-ken~ the subjective concepts of individual organisms, which in turn are configurations of information and associated procedures in various individual memories (cf. section 2, assurnption d above).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 228,
"end": 243,
"text": "[McCarthy 1979]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conceptual Raising",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Unlike Montague semantics [Montague 19731, the semantic theory underlying NFLT does not imply that an organism necessarily believes all the logical equivalents of a proposition it believes. This is because distinct propositions have as tokens distinct subjective concepts, even if they necessarily have the same truth-value.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conceptual Raising",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Here is an example of the use of NFLT to represent information concerning propositional attitudes: [n a Fregean spirit, we assign to each categorematic expression of NFLT both a sense and a denotation. For example, the denotation of the predicate-constant 'COOKIE' is the property COOKIE, while the sense of that constant is a certain objective concept -the ~standard public\" concept of a cookie. We say that ~COOKIE' expresses its sense and denotes its denotation. The result of appending the \"conceptual raising\" symbol ' l\" to the constant \"COOKIE' is a new constant, ' TCOOKIE', that denotes the concept that 'COOKTE' expresses (i.e. ' 1\"' applies to a constant and forms a standard name of the sense of that constant). By appending multiple occurrences of ' T' to constants, we obtain new constants that denote concepts of concepts, concepts of concepts of concepts, etc. 5",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conceptual Raising",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[n expression (5b), ' 1\" is not explicitly appended to a constant, but instead is prefxed to a compound expression. When used in this way, \" 1\" functions as a syncategorematic operator that \"conceptually raises\" each categorematic constant within its scope and forms a term incorporating the raised constants and denoting a proposition. 4 Thus, something similar to what Barwise and Perry call \"situation semantics\" 119831 is to be provided for NFLTexpressions, insofar as those expressions involve no ascription of propositional attitudes (the Barwise-Perry semantics for ascriptions of propositional attitudes takes a quite different approach from that to be described for NFLT in the next section):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conceptual Raising",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "s For further details concerning this Fregean conceptual hierarchy, see [Creary 1979 I, sections 2.2 and 2.3.1. Capitalization, '$'-postfixing, and braces are used there to do the work done here by the symbol ' t'.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conceptual Raising",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Thus, the subformula ' T (TICKLE aqt:I ptnt:RON) ' is the name of a proposition whose component concepts are the relation-concept TTICKLE and the individual concepts TI and I'RON. This proposition is the sense of the unraised subformula ' (TICKLE agt: I pint: RON) '.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conceptual Raising",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The individual concept TI, the minimal concept of self, is an especially interesting objective concept. We assume that for each sufficiently self-conscious and active organism X, X's minimal internal representation of itself is g token of TI. This concept is the sense of the indexical pronoun I, and is itself indexical in the sense that what it is a concept of is determined not by its content (which is the same for each token), but rather by the context of its use. The content of this concept is partly descriptive but mostly procedural, consisting mainly of the unique and important role that it plays in the information-processing of the organisms that have it.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conceptual Raising",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "HPSG's head grammar takes as its point of departure In a computer implementation, we model such a conceptual object with a data object of this form:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "(6) (cookie ;COOKIE} Here the symbol 'cookie' is a surrogate for a phonological representation (in fact we ignore phonology altogether and deal only with typewritten English input). The symbol 'COOKIE' (a basic constant of NFLT denoting the property COOKIE) models the corresponding semantic representation. We call a data object such as (6) a lezical entry.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "Of course there must be more to a language than simple signs like (6). Words and phrases of certain kinds can characteristically combine with certain other kinds of phrases to form longer expressions that can convey :,nformation about the world. Correspondingly, we assume that a grammar contains in addition to a lexicon a set of grammatical rules (see next section) for combining simple signs to produce new signs which pair longer English expressions with more complex NFLT translations. For rules to work, each sign must contain information about how it figures in the rules. Still more information is required, however. Certain expressions (heads) characteristically combine with other expressions of specified categories (complements) to form larger expressions. (For the time being we ignore optional elements, called adjuncts.) This is the linguistic notion of subcategoeization. For example, the English verb touches subcategorizes for two NP's, of which one must be thirdperson-singular. We encode subcategorization information as the value of a feature called SUBCAT. Thus the value of the SUBCAT feature is a sequence of categories. (Such features, called stack-valued features, play a central role in the HG account of binding. See [Pollard forthcomingi. ) Augmented with its SUBCAT feature, the [exical sign (2b) takes the form: (Symbols like 'NP' and 'NP-3RDSG' are shorthand for certain sets of feature specifications). For ease of reference, we use traditional grammatical relation names for complements. Modifying the usage of Dowry [1982] , we designate them (in reverse of the order that they appear in SUBCAT) as subject, direct object, indirect object, and oblique objects.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1245,
"end": 1269,
"text": "[Pollard forthcomingi. )",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1551,
"end": 1557,
"text": "[1982]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "(Under this definition, determiners count as subjects of the nouns they combine with.) Complements that themselves subcategorize for a complement fall outside this hierarchy and are called controlled complements. The complement next in sequence after a controlled complement is called its controller.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "For the sign (8) to play a communicative role, one additional kind of information is needed. Typically, heads give information about relation.~, while complements give information about the roles that individuals play in those relations. Thus lexical signs must assign roles to their complements. Augmented with role-assignment information, the lexical sign (8) takes the form: (9) (kisses ; KISS; IMAJOR: V: VFORM: FIN i SUBCAT: ~NP, patient), (NP-3RDSG, agent? } Thu~ (9) assign,, the roles AGENT and PATIENT to the subject and direct object respectively. (Note: we assume that nouns subcategorize for a determiner complement and assign it the instance role. See section 6 below.)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "[n addition to the lexicon, the grammar must contain mechanisms for constructing more complex signs that mediate between longer English expressions and more complex NFLT translations. Such mechanisms are called grammatical rules. From a purely syntactic point of view, rules can be regarded as ordering principles. For example, English grammar has a rule something like this:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "(lO) If X is a sign whose SUBCAT value contains just one category Y, and Z is a sign whose category is consistent with Y, then X and Z can be combined to form a new sign W whose expression is got by concatenating the expressions of X and Z.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "That is, put the final complement (subject} to the left of the head. We write this rule in the abbreviated form:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "(11) -> C H [Condition: length of SUBCAT of H = 11",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "The form of (11) is analogous to conventional phrase structure rules such as NP -> DET N or S -> NP VP; in fact (11) subsumes both of these. However, (11) has no left-hand side. This is because the category of the constructed sign (mother) can be computed from the constituent signs (daughters) by general principles, as we shall presently show.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "Two more rules of English are:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "(12) -> H C [Condition: length of SUBCAT of H = 2 I (13) -> I-I C2 C1 [Condition: length of SUBCAT of H = 31 (12) says: put a direct object or subject-controlled complement after the head. And (13) says: put an indirect object or object-controlled complement after the direct object. As in (11), the complement signs have to be consistent with the subcategorization specifications on the head. In (13), the indices on the complement symbols correspond to the order of the complement categories in the SUBCAT of the head.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "The category and translation of a mother need not be specified by the rule used to construct it. Instead, they are computed from information on the daughters by universal principles that govern rule application. Two such principles are the Head Feature Principle (HFP) (14) and the Subcategorization Principle (15):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "(14) Head Feature Principle:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "Unless otherwise specified, the head features on a mother coincide with the head features on the head daughter.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "(For present purposes, assume the head features are all features except SUBCAT.) (15) Subcategorization Principle: The SUBCAT value on the mother is got by deleting from the SUBCAT value on the head daughter those categories corresponding to complement daughters.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "(Additional principles not discussed here govern control and binding.} The basic idea is that we start with the head daughter and then process the complement daughters in the order given by the indices on the complement symbols in the rule. So far, we have said nothing about the determination of the mother's translation. We turn to this question in the next section.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical Rules",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "Now we can explain how the NFLT-translation of a phrase is computed from the translations of its constituents. The basic idea is that every time we apply a grammar rule, we process the head first and then the complements in the order indicated by the rule (see [Proudian & Pollard 1985i) . As each complement is processed, the corresponding category-role pair is popped off the SUBCAT stack of the head; the category information is merged (unified) with the category of the complement, and the role information is used to combine the complement translation with the head translation. We state this formally as:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 261,
"end": 287,
"text": "[Proudian & Pollard 1985i)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "(16) Semantic Interpretation Principle (SIP):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "The translation of the mother is computed by the following program:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "a. Initialize the mother's translation to be the head daughter's translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "b. Cycle through the complement daughters, setting the mother's translation to the result of combining the complement's translation with the mother's translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "c. Return the mother's translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "The program given in (16) calls a function whose arguments are a sign (the complement), a rolemark (gotten from the top of the bead's SUBCAT stack), and an NFLT expression (the value of the mother translation computed thus far). This function is given in (17). There are two cases to consider, according as the translation of the complement is a determiner or not. 17Function for Combining Complements:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "a. If the MAJOR feature value of the complement is DET, form the quantifier-expression whose determiner is the complement translation and whose restriction is the mother translation. Then add to the restriction a role link with the indicated rolemark (viz. instance} whose argument is a pointer back to that quantifier-expression, and return the resulting quantifier-expression.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "b. Otherwise, add to the mother translation a role link with the indicated rolemark whose argument is a pointer to the complement translation (a quantifier-expression or individual constant).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "[f the complement translation is a quantifier-expression, return the quantificational expression formed from that quantifier-expression by letting its scope-clause be the mother translation; if not, return the mother translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "The first case arises when the head daughter is a noun and the complement is a determiner. Then (17) simply returns a complement like (3). In the second case, there are two subcases according as the complement transiation is a quantifier-expression or something else (individual constant, sentential expression, propositional term, etc.) For example, suppose the head is this: concatenating the expressions of X and Z.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "That is, put the final complement (subject) to the left of the head. We write this rule in the abbreviated form:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "(11) -> C H [Condition: length of SUBCAT of H = 11",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "The form of (11) is analogous to conventional phrase structure rules such as NP -> DET N or S -> NP VP; in fact (U) subsumes both of these. However, (11) has no left-hand side. This is because the category of the constructed sign (mother) can be computed from the constituent signs (daughter8) by general principles, as we shall presently show.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "Two more rules of English are: [Condition: length of SUBCAT of H = 3] (12) says: put a direct object or subject-controlled complement after the head. And (13) says: put an indirect object or object-controlled complement after the direct object. As in (11), the complement signs have to be consistent with the subcategorization specifications on the head. In (13), the indices on the complement symbols correspond so the order of the complement categories in the SUBCAT of the head.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "The category and translation of a mother need not be specified by the rule used to construct it. instead, they are computed from information on the daughters by universal principles that govern rule application. Two such principles are the Head Feature Principle (HFP) (14) and the Subcategorization Principle (15):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "(14) Head Feature Principle:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "Unless otherwise specified, the head features on a mother coincide with the head features on the head daughter.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "(For present purposes, assume the head features are all features except SUBCAT.) (15) Subcategorization Principle: The SUBCAT value on the mother is got by deleting from the SUBCAT value on the head daughter those categories corresponding to complement daughters.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "(Additional principles not discussed here govern control and binding.) The basic idea is that we start with the head daughter and then process the complement daughters in the order given by the indices on the complement symbols in the rule. So far, we have said nothing about the determination of the mother's translation. We turn to this question in the next section.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "The Semantic Interpretation Principle Now we can explain how the NFLT-translation of a phrase is computed from the translations of its constituents. The basic idea is that every time we apply a grammar rule, we process the head first and then the complements in the order indicated by the rule (see !Proudiaa & Pollard 19851) . As each complement is processed, the corresponding category-role pair is popped off the SUBCAT stack of the head; the category information is merged (unified) with the category of the complement, and the role information is used to combine the complement translation with the head translation. We state this formally as:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 309,
"end": 325,
"text": "& Pollard 19851)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(16) Semantic Interpretation Principle (SIP):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The translation of the mother is computed by the following program:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "a. Initialize the mother's translation to be the head daughter's translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "b. Cycle through the complement daughters, setting the mother's translation to the result of combining the complement's translation with the mother's translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "c. Return the mother's translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The program given in (16) calls a function whose arguments are a sign (the complement), a rolemark (gotten from the top of the head's SUBCAT stack), and an NFLT expression (the value of the mother translation computed thus far). This function is given in (17). There are two cases to consider, according as the translation of the complement is a determiner or not. 17Function for Combining Complements:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "a. If the MAJOR feature value of the complement is DET, form the quantifier-expression whose determiner is the complement translation and whose restriction is the mother translation. Then add to the restriction a role link with the indicated rolemark (viz. instance)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "whose argument is a pointer back to that quantifier-expression, and return the resulting quantifier-expression.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "b. Otherwise, add to the mother translation a role link with the indicated rolemark whose argument is a pointer to the complement translation (a quantifier-expression or individual constant). If the complement translation is a quantifier-expression, return tile quantificational expression formed from that quantifier-expression by letting its scope-clause be the mother translatio,; if not, return the mother translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The first case arises when the head daughter is a noun and the complement is a determiner. Then (17) simply returns a complement like (3). In the second c,~e. there are two subcases according as the complement translation is a quantifier-expression or something else (individual constant, sentential expression, propositional term, etc.) For example, suppose the head is this: (a quantifier-expression), the mother translation is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars, Head Grammars, and Natural Language. Doc-, torsi dissertation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Carl",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pollard, Carl [19841 . Generalized Phrase Structure Gram- mars, Head Grammars, and Natural Language. Doc-, torsi dissertation, Stanford University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "~A Semantic Approach to Binding in a Monostratal Theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Carl",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pollard, Carl [forthcomingl. ~A Semantic Approach to Binding in a Monostratal Theory.\" To appear in Linguistics and Philosophy.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "~Parsing Headdriven Phrase Structure Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Derek",
"middle": [],
"last": "Proudian",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Carl",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Proceedings of the ~Srd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linouistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Proudian, Derek, and Carl Pollard [1985]. ~Parsing Head- driven Phrase Structure Grammar.\" Proceedings of the ~Srd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linouistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "On Properties",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hilary",
"middle": [],
"last": "Putnam",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1969,
"venue": "Dordrecht. Reprinted in Mind, Language, and Reality: Philosophical Papers",
"volume": "I",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Putnam, Hilary [1969 I. \"On Properties.\" In Essays in Honor o/Carl G. Hempel, N. Rescher, ed., D. Rei- del, Dordrecht. Reprinted in Mind, Language, and Reality: Philosophical Papers (Vol. I, Ch. 19), Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Gouts de Linguistiquc Generale. Paris: Payot. Translated into English by Wade Baskin as Course in General Linguistics, The Philosophical Library",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ferdinand",
"middle": [],
"last": "Saussure",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "De",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1916,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Saussure, Ferdinand de [1916]. Gouts de Linguistiquc Gen- erale. Paris: Payot. Translated into English by Wade Baskin as Course in General Linguistics, The Philosophical Library, New York, 1959 (paperback edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Sortal Predicates and Quantification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wallace",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1965,
"venue": "The Journal o[ Philosophy",
"volume": "62",
"issue": "",
"pages": "8--13",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wallace, John [1965 I. \"Sortal Predicates and Quantifica- tion.\" The Journal o[ Philosophy 62, 8-13.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Atomic formulas in NFLT are compounded of a basepredicate and a set of rolemark-argument pairs, as in the following example: (la) English: Ron kissed Nancy in the Oval Office on April 1, 1985.(lb) NFLT Internal Syntax:",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"text": "(5a) English: Nancy wants to tickle Ron. (5b) NFLT Display Syntax: (WANT appr: NANCY prop: t(TICKLE agt:I ptnt:RON))",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Saussure's [1916 t notion of a sign. A sign is a conceptual object, shared by a group of organisms, which consist,~ of two associated concepts that we call (by a conventional abuse of language) a phonolooical representation and a semantic representation. For example, members of the English-speaking community share a sign which consists of an internal representation of the utterance-type /kUki/ together with an internal representation of the property of being a cookie.",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"uris": null,
"text": "We call this information the (syntactic) category of thesign. Following established practice, we encode categories as specifications of values for a finite set of features. Augmented with such information, lexical signs assume forms such as these: (7a) {cookie ; COOKIE; [MAJOR: N; AGR: 3RDSGI} (7b) (kisses ; KISS; [MAJOR: V; VFORM: FINI} Such features as MAJOR (major category), AGR (agreement), and VFORM (verb form) encode inherent syntactic properties of signs.",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF5": {
"uris": null,
"text": "{kisses ; KZflS; [MAJOR: V; VFORM: FIN 1 SUBCAT: NP, NP-3RDSG}",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF6": {
"uris": null,
"text": "{jogs ; JOG; [MAJOR: V; VFORM: FIN I SUBCAT: <NP-3RDSG, agent) } If the (subject) complement translation is 'RON' (not a quantifier-expression), the mother translation is just: (19) {JOG aqt:RON); but if the complement translation is '{I~LL P3 (PERSON inst:P3)}'(a quantifier-expresslon), the mother translation is:",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF8": {
"uris": null,
"text": "{jogs ; JOG; [MAJOR: V; VFORM: FIN I SUBCAT: <NP-3RDSG, agent.>} If the (subject) complement translation is 'RON' (not a quantifier-expression), the mother translation is just: (19) {JOG agt:RON); but if the complement translation is '{ALL P3 (PERSON inst:P3))'",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
}
}
}
} |