Second order inferencje in natural language semantics

• Autorzy: Pulman S.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v6i1.185

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In this paper I look at a number of apparently trivial valid inferences (as well as some invalid and missing inferences) associated with the possessive construction and with different types of adjectival modification of nouns. In the case of possessives, all analyses I know of, whether implemented or not, systematically sanction invalid inferences. In the case of adjectives, there are some model-theoretic linguistic analyses that are adequate at a theoretical level, but no satisfactory practical computational implementations that I am aware of which capture the correct inference patterns. A common thread between the possessive and the adjectival construction is that to derive the correct inferences we need secondo order quantification. This is an uncontroversial move within modeltheoretic formal semantics but a problem for computational semantics, since we have no fully automated theorem provers for anything Rother than first order logic (and only for subsets of first order logic do we have provers that are both fully decidable and efficient). I explore what is needed to provide a proof-theoretic account of the relevant inference patterns, and suggest some analyses requiring second order axioms. In order to make this a practical computational possibility I go on to propose two techniques for approximating such inferences in a first order setting. The suggested analyses have been fully implemented, and in an appendix I provide a small FraCaS-like corpus of relevant examples, all of which are handled correctly by the implementation.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

first order; second order; inference; adjectives; possessives

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 6, No. 1
• Strony: 1--40
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 31 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Pulman S.

• Department of Computer Science, Oxford University, United Kingdom

Bibliografia

• [1] Marilisa Amoia and Claire Gardent (2007), A First Order Semantic Approach to Adjectival Inference, in Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, pp. 185-192, Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague, http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W07-1430.
• [2] Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah L. McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors (2003), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, ISBN 0-521-78176-0.
• [3] Johan Bos (2009), Computing Genitive Superlatives, in Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Semantics, IWCS-8’09, pp. 18-32, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, ISBN 978-90-74029-34-6, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1693756.1693763.
• [4] Johan Bos, Stephen Clark, Mark Steedman, James R. Curran, and Julia Hockenmaier (2004), Wide-Coverage Semantic Representations from a CCG Parser, in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’04), pp. 1240-1246, Geneva, Switzerland.
• [5] Stergios Chatzikyriakidis and Zhaohui Luo (2014), Natural Language Inference in Coq, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 23(4):441-480, ISSN 0925-8531, doi: 10.1007/s10849-014-9208-x, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10849-014-9208-x.
• [6] Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee, and Raymond Turner (1989), Introduction, in Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee, and Raymond Turner, editors, Properties, Types and Meaning. Volume I: Foundational Issues, pp. 1-16, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
• [7] Robin Cooper, Dick Crouch, Jan van Eijck, Chris Fox, Josef van Genabith, Jan Jaspars, Hans Kamp, David Milward, Manfred Pinkal, Massimo Poesio, and Steve Pulman (1996), Using the Framework, LRE 62-051, The FraCaS Consortium, ftp://ftp.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/pub/FRACAS/del16.ps.gz.
• [8] Donald Davidson (1967), The Logical form of Action Sentences, in Nicholas Rescher, editor, The Logic of Decision and Action, pp. 81-95, University of Pittburgh Press: Pittsburgh.
• [9] Jos de Bruin and Remko Scha (1988), The Interpretation of Relational Nouns, in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 25-32, Association for Computational Linguistics, Buffalo, New York, USA, doi: 10.3115/982023.982027, http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P88-1004.
• [10] Guillermo Del Pinal (2015), Dual Content Semantics, Privative Adjectives, and Dynamic Compositionality, Semantics and Pragmatics, 8 (Article 7): 1-53.
• [11] Chris Fox and Shalom Lappin (2005), Foundations of Intensional Semantics, Blackwell.
• [12] Jerry R. Hobbs (1985), Ontological Promiscuity, in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 60-69, Association for Computational Linguistics, Chicago, Illinois, USA, doi: 10.3115/981210.981218, http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P85-1008.
• [13] Gerard Huet (1975), A Unification Algorithm for Typed λ-Calculus, Theoretical Computer Science, 1: 27-57.
• [14] Joe Hurd (2002), An LCF-Style Interface between HOL and First-Order Logic, in Andrei Voronkov, editor, Automated Deduction - CADE-18, 18th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 27-30, 2002, Proceedings, volume 2392 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 134-138, Springer, ISBN 3-540-43931-5.
• [15] Johannes A. W. Kamp (1975), Two Theories about Adjectives, in Edward L. Keenan, editor, Formal Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 123-155, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [16] Daniel Lassiter and Noah D. Goodman (2017), Adjectival Vagueness in a Bayesian Model of Interpretation, Synthese, 194 (10): 3801-3836, doi: 10.1007/s11229-015-0786-1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0786-1.
• [17] Bill MacCartney and Christopher Manning (2008), Modeling Semantic Containment and Exclusion in Natural Language Inference, in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), pp. 521-528, Coling 2008 Organizing Committee, http://aclweb.org/anthology/C08-1066.
• [18] William McCune (2005-2010), Prover9 and Mace4, http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/prover9/.
• [19] Koji Mineshima, Pascual Martínez-Gómez, Yusuke Miyao, and Daisuke Bekki (2015), Higher-order Logical Inference with Compositional Semantics, In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2055-2061, Association for Computational Linguistics, Lisbon, Portugal, https://aclweb.org/anthology/D15-1244.
• [20] Marcin Morzycki (2014), Modification, https://www.msu.edu/~morzycki/work/papers/modification_book.pdf, accessed Jan 3 2015.
• [21] Barbara H. Partee (2007), Compositionality and Coercion in Semantics: The Dynamics of Adjective Meaning, in Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer, and Joost Zwarts, editors, Cognitive foundations of interpretation, p. 145-161, University of Chicago Press.
• [22] Barbara H. Partee and Vladimir Borschev (2003), Genitives, Relational Nouns, and Argument-modifier Ambiguity, in Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, editors, Modifying Adjuncts, Interface Explorations, pp. 67-112, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
• [23] Stanley Peters and Dag Westerståhl (2006), Quantifiers in Language and Logic, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• [24] Stanley Peters and Dag Westerståhl (2013), The Semantics of Possessives, Language, 89 (4): 713-759.
• [25] Jessica Rett (2014), The Semantics of Evaluativity, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, Oxford University Press.
• [26] Stuart M. Shieber (1993), The Problem of Logical-form Equivalence, Computational Linguistics, 19 (1): 179-190, ISSN 0891-2017, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=972450.972460.
• [27] Mark Steedman (2012), Taking Scope, MIT Press.
• [28] Colin Stirling (2010), Introduction to Decidability of Higher-Order Matching, in Luke Ong, editor, Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures, volume 6014 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1-1, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3-642-12031-2, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12032-9_1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12032-9_1.
• [29] Zoltán Gendler Szabó (2017), Compositionality, in Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, summer 2017 edition.
• [30] Raymond Turner (1992), Properties, Propositions and Semantic Theory, In Mike Rosner and Rod Johnson, editors, Computational Linguistics and Formal Semantics, pp. 159-180, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [31] Richard Waldinger and Jeff Shrager (2008), Answering Science Questions: Deduction with Answer Extraction and Procedural Attachment, AAAI Spring Symposium: Semantic Scientific Knowledge Integration.