Interpreting Presuppositions Using Active Logic: From Contexts to Utterances

Abstract

Presupposition is a pervasive feature of human language. It involves many interesting interactions between the utterances of a discourse and the context of the discourse. In this paper we focus on issues of logical form connected with the interaction of presupposition and discourse context, and illustrate our theory with some implementational work using the active logic framework. After reviewing some of the major issues in presupposition theory we turn to a largely successful unified approach of Heim. We show how the main principles of this theory can be implemented in active logic. But we also find two serious difficulties. These consist in (a) a straightforward counterexample and (b) a type of discourse that we call a garden-path discourse. We maintain that both the counterexample and the garden-path type of discourse can be handled by our active-logic version of Heim's theory. This requires us to reformulate and extend Heim's theorey. Although this work is largely theoretical, both Heim's theory and ours have important things to say about the incremental processing of the utterances that make up discourse. And we present our theory as a specification of a processing device that takes logical form of a sentence along with current discourse context as input and delivers an updated discourse context as output. As an experiment, we have implemented portions of this device.

Conversational adequacy: mistakes are the essence

“…There has to be the ability to reason about time in time. We have evidence for that from a series of studies of common-sense reasoning (Nirkhe et al, 1997), including some aspects of dialog (Perlis, Gurney & Purang, 1996;Gurney, Perlis & Purang, 1997), that we have conducted. An example of that is interpreting pauses in an ongoing dialog.…”

Five Dimensions of Reasoning in the Wild

“…A manifold is not just the letter M but a spreading multi-dimensional surface that the mathematician's "eye" can peer about in, while assessing what to consider next about M. In addition, symbols get huge re-use, so M may refer to multiple things, and assessment has to work out such symbol-clashes as well. (Miller 1993) has made an encouraging start on this latter issue, but in an NLP and CSR setting; see also (Gurney et al 1997).…”

Inferences, suppositions and explanatory extensions in argument interpretation

“…Several researchers have considered presuppositions, a type of suppositions implied by the wording of a statement or query (Kaplan 1982;Motro 1986;Mercer 1991;Gurney et al 1997). For instance, "How many people passed CS101?"…”