Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 173–186

Relevant Answers to WH-Questions

  • Helen Gaylard
  • Allan Ramsay


We consider two issues relating to WH-questions:

(i) when you ask aWH-question you already have a description of the entity you are interested in,namely the description embodied in the question itself. You may evenhave very direct access to the entity – see (1) below.In general, what you want is an alternative description of some item thatyou already know a certain amount about.

(ii) the person attempting to answer the question may not be able to lay theirhands on an example, but they may know what they are like, how you recognisethem, where you can get them. If someone asks me “Where can I buy an Italiannewspaper?” then it is better to give them a generic answer like“In any large newsagent.” than to just say “I don't know.

We argue that attempting to deal with these issues requires the person (or system) trying to come up with an answer to reason about thedescription embodied in the question, and we describe a system that is capableof carrying out such reasoning.

inference interrogatives reference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, J.F. and Perrault, C.R., 1980, “Analysing intention in utterances,” Artificial Intelligence 15, 148-178.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J., 1962, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J. and Perry, J., 1983, Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, P. and Kühn, M., 2000, “Abducing coreference by model construction,” Journal of Language and Computation 1, 183-197.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, P.R. and Perrault, C.R., 1979, “Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts,” Cognitive Science 7, 171-190.Google Scholar
  6. Dale, R. and Reiter, E., 1995, “Computational interpretations of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions,” Cognitive Science 19, 233-263.Google Scholar
  7. Dowty, D.R., 1989, “On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role’,” pp. 69-130 in Properties, Types and Meaning II: Semantic Issues, G. Chierchia, B.H. Partee, and R. Turner, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Dowty, D.R., 1991, “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection,” Language 67, 547-619.Google Scholar
  9. Gabbay, D.M., 1996, Labelled Deductive Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gardent, C. and Konrad, K., 2000, “Interpreting definites using model generation,” Journal of Language and Computation 1, 215-230.Google Scholar
  11. Ginzburg, J., 1996, “The semantics of interrogatives,” pp. 385-422 in Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, S. Lappin, ed., Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Green, C., 1969, “Theorem proving as a basis for question-answering systems,” pp. 183-205 in Machine Intelligence 4, B. Meltzer, and D. Michie, eds., Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Green, C. and Raphael, B., 1968, “The use of automated theorem proving techniques in question-answering systems,” pp. 169-181 in Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference of the ACM, R.B. Blue Sr. and A.M. Rosenberg, eds., ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. Grice, H.P., 1975, “Logic and conversation,” pp. 41-58 in Speech Acts, P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, eds., London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1997, “Questions,” pp. 1055-1124 in Handbook of Logic and Language, J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Amsterdam/Cambridge, MA: Elsevier/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Manthey, R. and Bry, F., 1988, “Satchmo: A theorem prover in Prolog,” pp. 415-434 in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-9), R. Lusk and R. Overbeek, eds., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 310, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, D., Nadathur, G., Pfennig, F., and Scedrov, A., 1991, “Uniform proofs as a foundation for logic programming,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 51, 125-157.Google Scholar
  18. Ramsay, A.M., 1999a, “Dynamic and underspecified semantics without dynamic and underspecified logic,” pp. 208-220 in Computing Meaning, Vol. 1, H. Bunt, L. Kievit, R. Muskens, and M. Verlinden, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Ramsay, A.M., 1999b, “Weak lexical semantics and multiple views,” pp. 205-218 in 3rd International Workshop on Computational Semantics, H.C. Bunt and E.G.C. Thijsse, eds., University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
  20. Ramsay, A.M., 2001, “Theorem proving for untyped constructive ?-calculus: Implementation and application,” Logic Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics 9, 89-106.Google Scholar
  21. Ramsay, A.M. and Seville, H., 2000, “Models and discourse models,” Journal of Language and Computation 1, 167-181.Google Scholar
  22. Reiter, R., 1980, “A logic for default reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence 13, 81-132.Google Scholar
  23. Searle, J.R., 1969, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Seville, H. and Ramsay, A.M., 2000, “Making sense of reference to the unfamiliar,” pp. 775-781 in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2000), M. Kay, ed., Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
  25. van Deemter, K., 2000, “Generating referring expressions: Beyond the incremental algorithm,” pp. 50-66 in 4th International Workshop on Computational Semantics, H.C. Bunt, ed., University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
  26. van der Sandt, R., 1992, “Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution,” Journal of Semantics 9, 333-377.Google Scholar
  27. Warren, D.H.D. and Pereira, F.C.N., 1982, “An efficient easily adaptable system for interpreting natural language queries,” American Journal for Computational Linguistics 8, 110-122.Google Scholar
  28. Wedekind, J., 1996, “On inference-based procedures for lexical disambiguation,” pp. 980-985 in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-96), Copenhagen, J.-I. Tsujii, ed., Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Gaylard
    • 1
  • Allan Ramsay
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ExeterExeterU.K.
  2. 2.Department of ComputationUMISTManchesterU.K.

Personalised recommendations