Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 437–493 | Cite as

Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment

  • Alex Lascarides
  • Nicholas Asher


This paper presents a formal account of how to determine the discourse relations between propositions introduced in a text, and the relations between the events they describe. The distinct natural interpretations of texts with similar syntax are explained in terms of defeasible rules. These characterise the effects of causal knowledge and knowledge of language use on interpretation. Patterns of defeasible entailment that are supported by the logic in which the theory is expressed are shown to underly temporal interpretation.


Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Discourse Relation Natural Interpretation Formal Account 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aqvist, L.: 1972, ‘Logic of Conditionals’,Journal of Philosophical Logic.Google Scholar
  2. Asher, N.: 1993,Reference to Abstract Objects in English: A Philosophical Semantics for Natural Language Metaphysics, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Asher, N. and Lascarides, A.: 1993, Lexical Disambiguation in a Discourse Context, inProceedings of the International Workshop on Universals in the Lexicon, Dagstuhl, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Asher, N. and Morreau, M.: 1991, Common Sense Entailment: A Modal Theory of Non-monotonic Reasoning, inProceedings to the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sydney Australia, August 1991.Google Scholar
  5. Blackburn, P. and Lascarides, A.: 1992, Sorts and Operators for Temporal Semantics, inProceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Logic and Language, Budapest, August 1992.Google Scholar
  6. Boutilier, C.: 1992,Conditional Logics for Default Reasoning and Belief Revision, PhD Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Technical Report 92-1.Google Scholar
  7. Caenepeel, M.: 1991, Event Structure vs. Discourse Structure, inProceedings of the DANDI Workshop on Discourse Coherence, Edinburgh April 1991.Google Scholar
  8. Chellas, B. F.: 1980,Modal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E.: 1991, (eds.)Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts USA.Google Scholar
  10. Dahlgren, K.: 1988,Naive Semantics for Natural Language Understanding, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  11. Delgrande, J. P.: 1988, ‘An Approach to Default Reasoning based on a First-Order Conditional Logic: Revised Report’,Artificial Intelligence 36(1), 63–90.Google Scholar
  12. Dowty, D.: 1986, ‘The Effects of Aspectual Class on the Temporal Structure of Discourse: Semantics or Pragmatics?’Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 37–61.Google Scholar
  13. Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.),Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, pp. 1–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Grosz, B. J. and Sidner, C. L.: 1986, ‘Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse’,Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204.Google Scholar
  15. Hinrichs, E.: 1986, ‘Temporal Anaphora in Discourses of English’,Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 63–82.Google Scholar
  16. Hobbs, J. R.: 1979, ‘Coherence and Coreference’,Cognitive Science 3, 67–90.Google Scholar
  17. Hobbs, J. R.: 1985, On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. Report No. CSLI-85-7, Center for the Study of Language and Information, October, 1985.Google Scholar
  18. Joshi, A. Webber, B. and Weischedel, R.: 1984, Default reasoning in interaction. InProceedings of the Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, AAAI, New York, October, 1984, pp. 144–150.Google Scholar
  19. Kamp, H.: 1991, The Perfect and Other Tenses in French and English, in H. Kamp (ed.),Tense and Aspect in English and French, DYANA deliverable 2.3B, available from the Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  20. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U.: in press,From Discourse to Logic; Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Holland.Google Scholar
  21. Kamp, H. and Rohrer, C.: 1983, ‘Tense in Texts’, in R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.),Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pp. 250–269. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Konolige, K.: 1988, Hierarchic Autoepistemic Theories for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Preliminary Report, Technical Note No. 446, SRI International, Menlo Park, August 1988.Google Scholar
  23. Lascarides, A.: 1988, The Semantics of Aspectual Classes Using Reference to Intervals, Research Report, EUCCS/RP-22, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  24. Lascarides, A.: 1992, ‘Knowledge, Causality and Temporal Representation’,Linguistics 30(5).Google Scholar
  25. Lascarides, A. and Asher, N.: 1993, ‘A Semantics and Pragmatics for the Pluperfect’, inProceedings of the Sixth European Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  26. Lascarides, A. Asher, N. and Oberlander, J.: 1992, ‘Inferring Discourse Relations in Context’, inProceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Delaware, June 1992.Google Scholar
  27. Lascarides, A. and Oberlander, J.: 1993a, ‘Temporal Coherence and Defeasible Knowledge’,Theoretical Linguistics 19.Google Scholar
  28. Lascarides, A. and Oberlander, J.: 1993b, ‘Temporal Connectives in a Discourse Context’, inProceedings of the Sixth European Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  29. Levesque, H.: 1990, ‘All I Know: A Study in Autoepistemic Logic’,Artificial Intelligence 42, 263–309.Google Scholar
  30. Lifschitz, V.: 1984, ‘Some Results on Circumscription’, inProceedings of the Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, AAAI, New York, October 1988, pp. 151–164.Google Scholar
  31. McCarthy, J.: 1980, ‘Circumscription: A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning’,Artificial Intelligence 13, 27–39.Google Scholar
  32. Moens, M. and Steedman, M. J.: 1988, ‘Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference’,Computational Linguistics 14, 15–28.Google Scholar
  33. Moore, R. C.: 1984, ‘A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action’, Technical Note, SRI International Number 320, February 1984.Google Scholar
  34. Morreau, M.: 1992,Conditionals in Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence, PhD thesis, IMS Universitat Stuttgart, Report number 26-1992.Google Scholar
  35. Morreau, M.: 1993, ‘Norms or Inference Tickets? A Frontal Collision Between Intuitions’, in E. J. Briscoe, A. Copestake and V. de Paiva (eds.),Default Inheritance in Unification-based Approaches to the Lexicon, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pearl, J.: 1988,Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  37. Partee, B.: 1973, ‘Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English’,Journal of Philosophy 70(18), 601–609.Google Scholar
  38. Partee, B.: 1984, ‘Nominal and Temporal Anaphora’,Linguistics & Philosophy 7, 243–286.Google Scholar
  39. Polanyi, L.: 1985, ‘A Theory of Discourse Structure and Discourse Coherence’, in W. H. Eilfort, P. D. Kroeber and K. L. Peterson (eds.),Papers from the General Session at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, April 25–27, 1985.Google Scholar
  40. Reichenbach, H.: 1947,Elements of Symbolic Logic, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Reiter, R.: 1980, ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’,Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132.Google Scholar
  42. Scha, R. and Polanyi, L.: 1988, ‘An Augmented Context Free Grammar for Discourse’, inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 573–577, Budapest Hungary, 22–27 August 1988.Google Scholar
  43. Thompson, S. and Mann, W.: 1987, ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for the Analysis of Texts’,IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1, 79–105.Google Scholar
  44. Veltman, F.: 1990,Defaults in Update Semantics, DYANA deliverable 2.5a, available from Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  45. Webber, B.: 1991, ‘Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis’,Language and Cognitive Processes 6(2), 1–7–135.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Lascarides
    • 1
  • Nicholas Asher
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Human Communication Research CentreUniversity of EdinburghUK
  2. 2.IMS, University of StuttgartGermany
  3. 3.University of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations