Meaning in Context

  • Henning Christiansen
  • Veronica Dahl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3554)

Abstract

A model for context-dependent natural language semantics is proposed and formalized in terms of possible worlds. The meaning of a sentence depends on context and at the same time affects that context representing the knowledge about the world collected from a discourse. The model fits well with a “flat” semantic representation as first proposed by Hobbs (1985), consisting basically of a conjunction of atomic predications in which all variables are existentially quantified with the widest possible scope; in our framework, this provides very concise semantic terms as compared with other representations. There is a natural correspondence between the possible worlds semantics and a constraint solver, and it is shown how such a semantics can be defined using the programming language of Constraint Handling Rules (Frühwirth, 1995). Discourse analysis is clearly a process of abduction in this framework, and it is shown that the mentioned constraint solvers serve as effective and efficient abductive engines for the purpose.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdennadher, S., Christiansen, H.: An Experimental CLP Platform for Integrity Constraints and Abduction. In: Larsen, H.L., Kacprzyk, J., Zadrozny, S. (eds.) Proceedings of FQAS 2000, Flexible Query Answering Systems. Advances in Soft Computing series, pp. 141–152. Physica-Verlag (Springer), Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdennadher, S., Schütz, H.: CHR \(^\lor \): A flexible query language. In: Andreasen, T., Christiansen, H., Larsen, H.L. (eds.) FQAS 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1495, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christiansen, H.: Open theories and abduction for context and accommodation. In: Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Brézillon, P., Benercetti, M., Castellani, F. (eds.) CONTEXT 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1688, pp. 455–458. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christiansen, H.: Abductive Language Interpretation as Bottom-up Deduction. In: Wintner, S. (ed.) Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, Proceedings of the 2002 workshop, Roskilde University, Comp. Sci. Dept. Datalogiske Skrifter, vol. 92, pp. 33–47 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christiansen, H.: CHR Grammars web site. Source text, manual, and examples (2002), http://www.ruc.dk/~henning/chrg
  6. 6.
    Christiansen, H.: CHR grammars. International Journal on Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, special issue on Constraint Handling Rules (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christiansen, H., Dahl, V.: Assumptions and Abduction in Prolog. In: Muñoz-Hernández, S., Gómez-Perez, J.M., Hofstedt, P. (eds.) Proceedings of WLPE 2004: 14th Workshop on Logic Programming Environments and MultiCPL 2004: Third Workshop on Multiparadigm Constraint Programming Languages Workshop Proceedings, Saint-Malo, France, September 2004, pp. 87–101 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Console, L., Theseider Dupré, D., Torasso, P.: On the Relationship between Abduction and Deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation 1(5), 661–690 (1991)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dahl, V., Tarau, P.: From Assumptions to Meaning. Canadian Artificial Intelligence 42 (Spring 1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frühwirth, T.W.: Theory and Practice of Constraint Handling Rules. Journal of Logic Programming 37(1–3), 95–138 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hobbs, J.: Ontological Promiscuity. In: Proceedings of the 23rd conference on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA, July 8-12, pp. 61–69 (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hobbs, J.R., Stickel, M.E., Appelt, D.E., Martin, P.: Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63, 69–142 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaffar, J., Maher, M.J.: Constraint logic programming: A survey. Journal of logic programming 19, 20, 503–581 (1994)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: The role of abduction in logic programming. In: Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 5, pp. 235–324. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kazantzakis, N.: \(B\acute{\iota} o\varsigma\;\; \kappa\alpha\iota\;\; \Pi o\lambda\iota\tau\epsilon\acute{\iota}\alpha\;\; \tau o\upsilon\;\; A\lambda\acute{\epsilon}\xi\eta\;\; Zo\rho\mu\pi\acute{\alpha}\). [Eng.: Life and career of Alexis Zorbas.] (1946)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mishler, E.G.: Meaning in Context: Is there any other Kind? Harward Educational Review 49(1), 1–19 (1979)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montague, R.: Formal philosophy. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Penn, J.R.: The Other Syntax: Approaching Natural Language Semantics through Logical Form Composition. In: Christiansen, H., Skadhauge, P.R., Villadsen, J. (eds.) CSLP 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3438, pp. 48–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pereira, F.C.N., Warren, D.H.D.: Definite clause grammars for language analysis. A survey of the formalism and a comparison with augmented transition grammars. Artificial Intelligence 10(3-4), 165–176 (1980)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rieger, C.: Conceptual overlays: A mechanism for the interpretation of sentence meaning in context. In: Proc. IJCAI 1975, pp. 143–150 (1975)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stalnaker, R.: On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7, 3–19 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1989th edn. Gramercy Books, dilithium Press (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henning Christiansen
    • 1
  • Veronica Dahl
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science Dept.Roskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations