Skip to main content
Log in

Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment

Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aqvist, L.: 1972, ‘Logic of Conditionals’,Journal of Philosophical Logic.

  • Asher, N.: 1993,Reference to Abstract Objects in English: A Philosophical Semantics for Natural Language Metaphysics, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Boutilier, C.: 1992,Conditional Logics for Default Reasoning and Belief Revision, PhD Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Technical Report 92-1.

  • Caenepeel, M.: 1991, Event Structure vs. Discourse Structure, inProceedings of the DANDI Workshop on Discourse Coherence, Edinburgh April 1991.

  • Chellas, B. F.: 1980,Modal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E.: 1991, (eds.)Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, K.: 1988,Naive Semantics for Natural Language Understanding, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Grosz, B. J. and Sidner, C. L.: 1986, ‘Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse’,Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, E.: 1986, ‘Temporal Anaphora in Discourses of English’,Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. R.: 1979, ‘Coherence and Coreference’,Cognitive Science 3, 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Konolige, K.: 1988, Hierarchic Autoepistemic Theories for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Preliminary Report, Technical Note No. 446, SRI International, Menlo Park, August 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascarides, A.: 1988, The Semantics of Aspectual Classes Using Reference to Intervals, Research Report, EUCCS/RP-22, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.

  • Lascarides, A.: 1992, ‘Knowledge, Causality and Temporal Representation’,Linguistics 30(5).

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Lascarides, A. and Oberlander, J.: 1993a, ‘Temporal Coherence and Defeasible Knowledge’,Theoretical Linguistics 19.

  • 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.

  • Levesque, H.: 1990, ‘All I Know: A Study in Autoepistemic Logic’,Artificial Intelligence 42, 263–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lifschitz, V.: 1984, ‘Some Results on Circumscription’, inProceedings of the Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, AAAI, New York, October 1988, pp. 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J.: 1980, ‘Circumscription: A Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning’,Artificial Intelligence 13, 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moens, M. and Steedman, M. J.: 1988, ‘Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference’,Computational Linguistics 14, 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. C.: 1984, ‘A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action’, Technical Note, SRI International Number 320, February 1984.

  • Morreau, M.: 1992,Conditionals in Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence, PhD thesis, IMS Universitat Stuttgart, Report number 26-1992.

  • 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.

  • Pearl, J.: 1988,Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Partee, B.: 1973, ‘Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English’,Journal of Philosophy 70(18), 601–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B.: 1984, ‘Nominal and Temporal Anaphora’,Linguistics & Philosophy 7, 243–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Reichenbach, H.: 1947,Elements of Symbolic Logic, London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R.: 1980, ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’,Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Veltman, F.: 1990,Defaults in Update Semantics, DYANA deliverable 2.5a, available from Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.

  • Webber, B.: 1991, ‘Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis’,Language and Cognitive Processes 6(2), 1–7–135.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

We would like to thank Mimo Caenepeel, Hans Kamp, Marc Moens, Michael Morreau, Jon Oberlander, Jeff Pelletier and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

The support of the Science and Engineering Research Council through project number GR/G22077 is gratefully acknowledged. HCRC is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lascarides, A., Asher, N. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguist Philos 16, 437–493 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986208

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986208

Keywords

Navigation