[Prev][Next][Index]
Newsletter Jan. 24, No. 13
-
Subject: Newsletter Jan. 24, No. 13
-
From: csli@csli.stanford.edu
-
Date: Wed 23 Jan 1985 17:22:05-PST
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
___________________________________________________________________________
January 24, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 13
___________________________________________________________________________
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
____________
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, January 24, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Kendall Walton, University of Michigan
Conference Room ``Representation and Make-Believe''
Discussion led by Helen Nissenbaum
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar (see below)
Redwood Hall ``Negative Anaphora''
Room G-19 Larry Moss, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Discourse Representation Theory and Common Noun
Room G-19 Antecedents''
Wynn Chao, Pennsylvania State University
_________________
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, January 31, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Psycholinguistic Correlates of Defense and Coping''
Conference Room Hans Steiner, M.D.
Dept. of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
(Abstract on Page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic''
Room G-19 Moshe Vardi, CSLI
Discussion led by John Etchemendy
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium scheduled for this week
Room G-19
_________________
**CHANGE**
The CSLI Seminar by Moshe Vardi originally scheduled for this week has been
postponed until next week.
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter January 24, 1985
___________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT OF THIS WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Negative Anaphora''
I will discuss anaphoric phenomena involving the word ``other''. Consider,
for example, sentences like ``Every other child envied Sonia'' or ``No
other student annoys a student from Louisiana''. I will present an
analysis of this phenomenon which explains the acceptability of some
sentences of this type, the unacceptability of others (e.g. ``Every other
carpenter knows every carpenter''), and the range of possible
anti-anaphors. For example, the second sentence above has three differing
interpretations, (not counting discourse anaphora) and these correspond to
three analysis trees of this sentence. I will also prove a theorem which
relates to the questions of expressive power in the theory of generalized
quantifiers. If we consider determiners like ``every other'', then in a
sense to be made precise, all possible determiner interpretations are
boolean combinations of interpretations of determiners of the form
``every'' and ``every other''. --Larry Moss
_________________
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Psycholinguistic Correlates of Defense and Coping''
Hans Steiner, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Stanford University, School of Medicine
Psychiatry has a great interest in studying defense and coping mechanisms.
They have been shown prospectively to contribute to adaptation (Veillant,
1977) in both psychological health and disease. Self report measures,
observer ratings, and projective psychological testing have been the
predominant instruments for defense assessment. However, the three
methodological approaches do not exhibit a sufficient degree of validity
and reliability. In contrast, analysis of spontaneously produced speech
seems more appropriate to the task. Three types of speech analysis are
commonly used: paralinguistic analysis, content analysis, and syntactical
analysis. Emotional arousal can be measured in a variety of ways. For
our defense and coping assesment, we selected the syntactical approach of
Weintraub (1981). Syntax lends itself to easy recognition and largely
operates outside of an individual's awareness. We have used the method in
several recent studies. One of them investigated the relationship of acute
stress response to course and outcome of anorexia nervosa, another one used
defensive style during a stressful task to predict recognition of bronchial
asthma changes.
_________________
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic''
In Kripke semantics for modal logic, both notions of possible worlds and the
possibility relation are primitive notions. This has both technical and
conceptual shortcomings. From a technical point of view, the mathematics
associated with Kripke semantics is often quite complicated. From a
conceptual point of view, it is not clear how to model propositional
attitudes by Kripke structures. We introduce modal structures as models
for modal logic. We use the idea of possible worlds, but in Leibniz's
style rather than Kripke's style. It turns out that modal structures model
individual nodes in Kripke structures, while Kripke structures model
collections of modal structures. Nevertheless, it is much easier to study
the standard logical questions using modal structures. Furthermore, modal
structure offer a much more intuitive approach to modelling propositional
attitudes. --Moshe Vardi
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter January 24, 1985
___________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF LAST WEEK'S F1 MEETING
In the course of two meetings last week, we examined several of the
applications of a theory of abstract objects which encode properties.
Situations, worlds, complete individual concepts (monads), fictional
characters, stories, and mathematical objects were identified as species of
the objects generated by the theory. Also, by supposing these abstract
objects to be files of information to which our minds have access, we
investigated ways these objects could serve as the intermediate, repre-
sentational objects (or contents) of the propositional attitudes.
--Ed Zalta
_________________
NL1 MEETING
``On the Semantics (and/or Syntax) of Plurals''
Friday, Jan. 25, 2 pm, Ventura Hall Conference Room
Copies are available in the Ventura reception of two relevant papers: Dowty
and Brodie, ``The semantics of ``Floated'' Quantifiers in a TransformationLESS
Grammar,'' and Hoeksema, ``Plurality and Conjunction''. I will first
explain the theory of the singular/plural and individual/collective
distinctions developed by Jack Hoeksema, and then show how a range of data,
considered ``counterexamples'' to a semantic theory of plurality by linguists
such as Jerry Morgan, can all be adequately described in Hoeksema's
approach. Although it still seems to be the case that neither a syntactic
nor a semantic characterization of plurality suffices for English by
itself, the number of cases where the two can be made to coincide is
surprisingly large. Assuming such overlapping descriptions are correct, I
will conclude with some speculations as to why this overlap might exist.
--David Dowty
_________________
P1 MEETING
``Representing and Recognizing Natural Forms''
Alex Pentland, CSLI
Where: SRI's AI Lab Conference Room (EK242),
333 Ravenswood, Menlo Park
When: Tuesday, January 29, 2:30pm
I will argue that the world can be modeled as a small set of generic
processes that recur in relatively simple combinations. A simple model of
a tree, for instance, is the composition of a branching process with
three-dimensional texture processes, to generate bark and leaves. On this
view, the central problems for perception are to find a set of generic
models that accurately capture uniformities in the physical structure of
the world, to understand how they combine to generate regularities in
images, and to understand how one perceives the content of an image by
recognizing it as a combination of these generic primitives. Previous
attempts at finding such primitives are Pentland's fractal model and Witkin
and Kass's flow pattern model. In this talk, I will propose a small set of
modeling primitives (e.g., a representation) that allow surprisingly simple
and natural description of such diverse diverse forms as the human body,
mountainous terrain, furniture, and trees. I will then present new results
showing that many of these primitives are directly recognizable from their
associated image regularities. For directions call 859-6154, or mail to
Pentland@sri-ai.
Page 4 CSLI Newsletter January 24, 1985
___________________________________________________________________________
AREA C MEETING
``From Function Level Semantics to Program Transformation and Optimization''
John Backus, IBM Research Lab, San Jose CA 95193
Wednesday, January 30, 1:30-2:30, Ventura Seminar Room
The software crisis results from our disorderly concepts of ``program''.
These make programming an art, rather than an engineering discipline. Such
a discipline would at least require that we have stocks both of useful
off-the-shelf programs and of standard theorems that can be applies
repeatedly. We have neither. Mathematical systems are often distinguished
by a set of operations that (a) map a set S into itself, S^n -> S, (b) have
simply understood results, and (c) obey a set of strong algebraic laws.
Neither conventional programs nor ``object level'' functional [e.g., LISP]
programs form a mathematical system of this kind. Neither kind of program
has program-forming operations that build new programs from existing ones
and satisfy (a) (b) and (c). Other problems of these program concepts are
reviewed. Function level programs do form such a mathematical system:
programs are build by program-forming operations that have good algebraic
properties. Hence they are the subject of a large number of general
theorems, theorems that are applicable in practice. We give examples.
Function level programs also provide solutions to the other problems
reviewed. This talk reviews the function level FP system of programs,
gives some of its semantic equations, and exhibits some moderately general
results derived from those equations. Some results from the literature
about program schemas are reviewed and shown to be essentially function
level results that are most conveniently stated and recognized in that
form. The last part of the talk is about optimization; it shows how some
FP programs can be transformed into others that run as fast as Fortran
programs. It introduces ``Fortran constructs'' into FP, pure functions that
have an obvious corresponding Fortran-like program. It exhibits a number
of function level equations governing these constructs and shows how these
can be used to convert inefficient FP programs into efficient Fortran-like
ones.
_________________
TUTORIAL LECTURES ON LINGUISTICS FOR NON-LINGUISTS
CSLI will host 3 sessions intended for non-linguists on Government and
Binding (Chomsky), Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (Gazdar/Klein/
Pullum/Sag), and Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan/Kaplan). The sessions
will be in the trailer seminar room on Tuesdays from 1:00 to 3:00 PM. Each
lecturer will sketch the leading ideas of one theory, and (perhaps)
contrast it with the other theories.
Jan. 29 GB Lecture by Peter Sells
Feb.5 GPSG Lecture by Geoff Pullum
Feb. 12 LFG Lecture by Joan Bresnan
Linguists are asked not to attend
_________________
**CORRECTION**
In last week's list of visitors, it was incorrectly stated that Susan
Fischer is from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; she is actually
from the Rochester Institute of Technology.
-------