Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.3115/981131.981158dlproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaclConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free access

The detection and representation of ambiguities of intension and description

Published: 10 July 1986 Publication History

Abstract

Ambiguities related to intension and their consequent inference failures are a diverse group, both syntactically and semantically. One particular kind of ambiguity that has received little attention so far is whether it is the speaker or the third party to whom a description in an opaque third-party attitude report should be attributed. The different readings lead to different inferences in a system modeling the beliefs of external agents.We propose that a unified approach to the representation of the alternative readings of intension-related ambiguitoes can be based on the notion of a descriptor that is evaluated with repsoect to intensionality, the beliefs of agents, and a time of application. We describe such a representation, built on a standard modal logic, and show how it may be used in conjunction with a knowledge base of background assumptions to license restricted substitution of equals in opaque contexts.

References

[1]
BRAWISE, Jon and PERRY, John (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1983.
[2]
DAHL, Veronica (1981). "Translating Spanish into logic through logic." American journal of computational linguistics, 7(3), 149--164.
[3]
DOWTY, David R; WALL, Robert E; and PETERS, Stanley (1981). Introduction to Montague semantics (Synthese language library 11). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1981.
[4]
FAGIN, Ronald and HALPERN, Joseph Y (1985). "Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning: Preliminary report." Proceedings of the Ninth Internatioal Joint Conference on Artificial Inteligence, Los Angeles, August 1985. 491--501.
[5]
FAWCETT, Brenda (1985). The representation of ambiguity in opaque constructs. MSc thesis, published as technical report CSRI-178, Department of Computer Science University of Toronto, October 1985.
[6]
FODOR, Janet Dean (1980). Semantics: Theories of meaning in generative grammar (The language and thought series). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.
[7]
HOFSTADTER, Douglas R; CLOSSMAN, Gary A; and MEREDITH, Marsha J (1982). "'Shakespeare's plays weren't written by him, but by someone else of the same name.' An essay on intensionality and framebased knowledge repressentation." Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club, November 1982.
[8]
HORTON, Diane (1986). Incorporating agents' beliefs in a model of presupposition, MSc thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, forthcoming (June 1986).
[9]
LESPÉRANCE, Yves (1986). "Toward a computational interpretation of situation semantics." Computational intelligence, 2(1), February 1986.
[10]
LEVESQUE, Hector (1983). "A logic of implicit and explicit belief." Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-839), Washington, D.C., August 1983, 198--202.
[11]
MONTAGUE, Richard (1973). "The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English." {1} In: Hintikka, Kaarlo Jaakko Juhani; Moravcsik, Julius Matthew Emil and Suppes, Patrick Colonel (editors). Approaches to natural language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1973. 221--242. {2} In: Thomason, Richard Hunt (editor). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. 247--270.
[12]
MOORE, Robert C (1981). "Problems in logical form." Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, June 1981, 117--124.
[13]
POPOWICH, Fred (1984). "SAUMER: Sentence analysis using metarules." Technical report 84--2, Laboratory for Computer and Communications Research, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B. C., Canada. August 1984.
[14]
POPOWICH, Fred (1985). "The SAUMER user's manual." Technical report 85-4, Laboratory for Computer and Communications Research, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B. C., Canada. March 1985.

Cited By

View all
  • (1990)Sentential semantics for propositional attitudesComputational Linguistics10.5555/124992.12499616:4(213-233)Online publication date: 1-Dec-1990
  • (1988)Interpretation of noun phrases in intensional contextsProceedings of the 12th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 110.3115/991635.991712(378-383)Online publication date: 22-Aug-1988
  1. The detection and representation of ambiguities of intension and description

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image DL Hosted proceedings
    ACL '86: Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics
    July 1986
    280 pages

    Publisher

    Association for Computational Linguistics

    United States

    Publication History

    Published: 10 July 1986

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 85 of 443 submissions, 19%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)36
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
    Reflects downloads up to 26 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (1990)Sentential semantics for propositional attitudesComputational Linguistics10.5555/124992.12499616:4(213-233)Online publication date: 1-Dec-1990
    • (1988)Interpretation of noun phrases in intensional contextsProceedings of the 12th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 110.3115/991635.991712(378-383)Online publication date: 22-Aug-1988

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media