[Prev][Next][Index]
Newsletter October 10, No. 49
-
Subject: Newsletter October 10, No. 49
-
From: csli@csli.stanford.edu
-
Date: Wed 9 Oct 1985 16:51:08-PDT
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
_____________________________________________________________________________
October 10, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 49
_____________________________________________________________________________
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, October 10, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity''
Conference Room by Drew McDermott
Discussion led by Roland Hausser, U. of Munich
(Abstract on page 1)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Ontology and Intensionality''
Room G-19 Edward Zalta, CSLI
Discussion led by John Perry
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
____________
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, October 17, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Economy of Speech Gestures''
Conference Room by Bjorn Lindblom (who will be present)
Discussion led by Bill Poser
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``On the Notion of `Logophoricity' ''
Room G-19 Peter Sells, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
____________
ABSTRACT FOR THIS WEEK'S TINLUNCH
Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity
McDermott discusses three `mistakes', or rather bad habits, which are
frequent in A.I. work. He speaks from his own experience and cites
several illuminating and amusing examples from the literature. In this
TINLunch I will be discussing his thoughts on treating reference in
A.I., which are discussed in the section entitled `unnatural
language'. --Roland Hausser
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter October 10, 1985
_____________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT FOR NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
Economy of Speech Gestures
This paper discusses a functionalist approach to phonetics and
phonology in which the properties of phonological systems are to be
deduced from biological and social factors rather than from from
axioms governing a language-particular formal system. --Bill Poser
____________
ABSTRACT FOR NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
On the Notion of `Logophoricity'
The notion of `logophoricity' was introduced in studies of African
languages in which a morphologically distinct `logophoric' pronoun has
a distribution distinct from other pronouns, used with predicates of
communication and consciousness. More recently, this notion has been
used in accounts of anaphora with non-clause-bounded reflexive
pronouns, as are found in the Scandinavian languages, and Japanese.
Such analyses propose a feature [+log] which is supposed to be
specified on certain NPs by certain predicates. I will present the
beginnings of a formal construction of the notion of `logophoricity'
using the Discourse Representation Structures framework developed by
Hans Kamp. I will propose that there is no such thing as
logophoricity per se, but rather that it stems out of the interaction
of two more primitive notions: the person with respect to whose
consciousness (or `SELF') the report is made, and the person from
whose point-of-view the report is made (the `PIVOT'). I will show how
this system extends to certain facts (from Japanese) which are not
analyzable with the simple feature [+log], and how it enables one to
characterize cross-linguistic variation in what counts for
`logophoricity'. --Peter Sells
____________
ENVIRONMENTS GROUP MEETING
Monday, October 14, noon, Ventura Trailer Classroom
David Levy (Xerox PARC and CSLI) will continue to describe his work
on a theoretical foundation for document preparation environments.
Specifically, he will describe in some detail the theory of marking
itself, and its relevance to various computer systems. We will
discuss some points that came up in questions, such as the relation of
``indirect marking'' to different kinds of tools, the contrast between
a psychological theory (how people think when they use a system) and
an ontological account (of the basic objects, actions, and
relationships that are available for them to work with), and the
problems of multiple levels of representation (e.g., a macro command
stands for a sequence of ``characters'' which in turn represent
various ``figures'', etc.).
See the summary of the meeting on October 7 (later in this
newsletter) for more information.
____________
LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM
``Underspecification and Opacity''
Douglas Pulleyblank, USC
Tuesday, October 15, Bldg. 200, Rm. 217, 3:15 p.m.
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter October 10, 1985
_____________________________________________________________________________
LOGIC SEMINAR
``Computability of Standard Processes in Analysis and Physics''
Marian Pour-El, University of Minnesota
Monday, October 14, Noon to 1:15
Ventura Hall Seminar Room
Note the change of time and place.
The regular meeting time of this seminar has been changed to
Friday, noon. We will meet alternate weeks beginning Friday, October
25. --Sol Feferman
____________
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
Summary of the meeting on September 26
Farrell Ackerman gave a talk entitled ``Brackets and Branches:
Phrasal Verbs.'' Assuming a provisional (and, perhaps, traditional)
definition of phrasal verbs as morpholexically composed entities whose
constitutive pieces exhibit syntactic independence, the discussion
focused on the syntactic and lexical aspects of these Janus-like
elements.
From a syntactic perspective the interaction of phrasal verbs and
rule of V(erb)-movement in, e.g., Vata (a Kru language analyzed in
Koopman 1983) was discussed. V-movement in Vata is one particular case
of V-movement motivated along similar lines, i.e., hypothesizing a V
final d-structure representation, for the Germanic languages German
and Dutch. Evidence of similar syntactic discontinuities between
particles (called `preverbs') and associated verb stems was given for
the Ugric language Hungarian. On the other hand, it was suggested
that in this instance it is not the V but the particle which `moves.'
After a presentation of the preverb-verb sequence possibilities in
Hungarian discussion turned to the lexical aspects of preverb-verb
collocations.
From a lexical perspective the set of Hungarian preverbs can be,
roughly, divided into two groups: prefixes and arguments. The
prefixes (minus a class of intriguing exceptions which were not
discussed ) are categorially indeterminate and do not exhibit
inflectional morphology indicating any relation of the prefix with the
verb. Arguments, in contrast, are categorially determinable (in fact,
are typically instantiated by and restricted to appear as a major
lexical category) and bear inflectional morphology indicating their
grammatical relation to the verb. The combination of prefix + verb
was hypothesized to be a type of verb derivation via prefixation while
argument + verb was regarded as a type of lexical compounding.
Evidence for the lexical nature of these phrasal verbs was taken to be
their ability to serve as input for further derivational processes
such as nominalization and adjectivilization.
The assumption that phrasal verbs are lexical compositions leads to
problems for the so-called Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, the procedure
of Bracket Erasure in Lexical Phonology and, in general, leads to what
have become know as `Bracketing Paradoxes.' It was proposed (following
Simpson 1983 and Komlosy and Ackerman 1983) that there is a process of
`bracket retention' restricted to the domain of predicate formation
which accounts for the main difference, i.e., the syntactic
separability of preverbs, in the behavior of preverbs in numerous
languages.
Page 4 CSLI Newsletter October 10, 1985
_____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTS GROUP MEETING
September 30, 1985
At the first meeting of the environments group we set out the
general directions for our discussions. We identified some major
dimensions along which to compare and examine environments and made an
initial list of examples that might be presented. This list is very
sketchy---the random result of what happened to come up in
conversation. We are eager for further details and suggestions
(either systems for general consideration, or about which specific
people would like to talk):
Programming environments: Interlisp, Smalltalk, Cedar, [all 3 Xerox],
(Linton) [Berkeley/Stanford], Gandalf [CMU], Mentor [INRIA],
ZetaLisp [Symbolics], Kee [Intellicorp], HPRL, HPLisp [last 2
Hewlett-Packard]
Grammar development environments: LFG [CSLI], HPSG [HP], BLT [CSLI],
Specification environments: Aleph [CSLI], (Balzer)[ISI]
Language development environments: MUIR [CSLI]
Document preparation environments: (Levy) [CSLI], Notecards [Xerox]
Data access and manipulation environments:
Mathematical and logical deduction environments: MACSYMA [MIT], FOL
[Stanford]
There is a variety of application areas not as central to CSLI
concerns, but in which environments are built. These include VLSI
design, CAD/CAM, image manipulation, mail systems, etc. In addition,
most operating systems take on the functions of an environment, either
for use outside of applications programs or as a base within them.
So-called ``intelligent agents'' are one attempt to provide a uniform
environment for a particular user interacting with multiple systems.
For each kind of environment there are specific problems dealing
with the particular structures being worked with (programs, proofs,
grammars, formatted documents, etc.). There is also a framework of
common problems having to do with the basic structure of items being
manipulated (text, trees, databases, etc.), their representation on a
screen or hardcopy, interfaces for operating through that
representation, storage on one or more devices, consistency between
aspects (e.g., source and compiled code, specifications and proofs),
change over time (versions, releases, etc.), coordination of access
among a group, etc.
Our plan is to address the basic conceptual issues by looking at
one particular environment or group of related environments in each
session.
Page 5 CSLI Newsletter October 10, 1985
_____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTS GROUP MEETING
October 7, 1985
David Levy gave an overview of his work on a theoretical basis for
document preparation environments. He demonstrated the problems with
existing ``marking environments'' which combine conflicting approaches
to text layout, drawing, and window placement. The failure to
generalize the common elements in all of these leads to greater
complexity and to blind spots that create difficulty in maintaining,
documenting, and using such systems. Many of the relevant issues
apply to older marking technologies, but the computer has two novel
properties that demand a clear and explicit theory. First, marking is
indirect---the linkage between human physical action and what appears
on the screen (or paper) is mediated by linguistic or quasi-linguistic
commands. Second, there is a clear distinction between the surface
presentation (what you see) and the internal representation (its
underlying structure). The computer, unlike earlier forms, lets you
manipulate the underlying structure directly, with possibly complex
and distributed consequences to the surface presentation.
He then showed how we might begin to develop a theory of marking
with a coherent ontological basis. For example, we need to look at
something as mundane as the ``carriage return'' as having distinct and
sometimes confused aspects: it is a character (in the standard
representation), it denotes an area of non-marked space on a page, it
indicates a possible place to split a line in normal formatting, etc.
By carefully delineating the concepts involved in these different
aspects, we can produce systems that are simpler, easier to
understand, and more amenable to generalization.
____________
LICS CONFERENCE
A new conference, LICS, (an acronym for ``Logic in Computer
Science'') will meet in Cambridge, Mass, June 16-18, 1986. The topics
to be covered include abstract data types, computer theorem proving
and verification, concurrency, constructive proofs as programs, data
base theory, foundations of logic programming, logic-based programming
languages, logics of programs, knowledge and belief, semantics of
programs, software specifications, type theory, etc. For a local copy
of the full call for papers, contact Jon Barwise (Barwise@CSLI) or
Joseph Goguen (Goguen@SRI-AI), members of the LICS Organizing
Committee.
Page 6 CSLI Newsletter October 10, 1985
_____________________________________________________________________________
COMMON SENSE AND NON-MONOTONIC REASONING SEMINARS
Organized by John McCarthy and Vladimir Lifschitz
Computer Science Dept., Stanford University
A series of seminars on Common Sense and Non-monotonic reasoning
will explore the problem of formalizing commonsense knowledge and
reasoning, with the emphasis on their non-monotonic aspects.
It is important to be able to formalize reasoning about physical
objects and mental attitudes, about events and actions on the basis of
predicate logic, as it can be done with reasoning about numbers,
figures, sets and probabilities. Such formalizations may lead to the
creation of AI systems which can use logic to operate with general
facts, which can deduce consequences from what they know and what they
are told and determine in this way what actions should be taken.
Attempts to formalize commonsense knowledge have been so far only
partially successful. One major difficulty is that commonsense
reasoning often appears to be non-monotonic, in the sense that getting
additional information may force us to retract some of the conclusions
made before. This is in sharp contrast to what happens in
mathematics, where adding new axioms to a theory can only make the set
of theorems bigger.
Circumscription, a transformation of logical formulas proposed by
John McCarthy, makes it possible to formalize non-monotonic reasoning
in classical predicate logic. A circumscriptive theory involves, in
addition to an axiom set, the description of a circumscription to be
applied to the axioms. Our goal is to investigate how commonsense
knowledge can be represented in the form of circumscriptive theories.
John McCarthy will begin the seminar by discussing some of the
problems that have arisen in using abnormality to formalize common
sense knowledge about the effects of actions using circumscription.
His paper Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense
Knowledge is available from Rutie Adler 358MJH. This paper was given
in the Non-monotonic Workshop, and the present version, which is to be
published in Artificial Intelligence, is not greatly different. The
problems in question relate to trying to use the formalism of that
paper.
The seminar will replace the circumscription seminar we had last
year. If you were on the mailing list for that seminar then you will
be automatically included in the new mailing list. If you would like
to be added to the mailing list (or removed from it) send a message to
Vladimir Lifschitz (VAL@SAIL).
The first meeting is in 252MJH on Wednesday, October 30, at 2pm.
-------