[Prev][Next][Index]

Newsletter October 17, No. 50




                      C S L I   N E W S L E T T E R
_____________________________________________________________________________
October 17, 1985                Stanford                       Vol. 2, No. 50
_____________________________________________________________________________
                                
     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 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
			
   2:15 p.m.		CSLI Seminar
     Redwood Hall	``On the Notion of `Logophoricity' ''
     Room G-19		Peter Sells, CSLI
						
   3:30 p.m.		Tea
     Ventura Hall		

                              ____________
          CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, October 24, 1985

   12 noon		TINLunch
     Ventura Hall       ``A Problem for Actualism About Possible Worlds''
     Conference Room    by Alan McMichael
			Discussion led by Edward Zalta
			(Abstract on page 1)

   2:15 p.m.		CSLI Seminar
     Redwood Hall	Discourse, Intention, and Action
     Room G-19		Two talks given by Phil Cohen and Amichai Kronfeld
			(Abstract on page 2)

   3:30 p.m.		Tea
     Ventura Hall		

                              ____________
                    ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
            ``A Problem for Actualism About Possible Worlds''

   In this paper, McMichael discusses a problem for the treatment of
   modality in ``actualist'' semantic theories, i.e., theories which
   eschew possible objects (situation semantics seems headed in this
   direction).  McMichael focuses on examples of iterated, or embedded,
   modalities and argues that their natural interpretation is
   incompatible with actualism.  The objection is formalized in an
   appendix by showing how the ordinary representation of the data is
   inconsistent with four principles accepted by actualists.  He also
   shows that an actualist solution employing properties is not of much
   help.						--Edward Zalta


Page 2                     CSLI Newsletter                   October 17, 1985
_____________________________________________________________________________
                        NEXT WEEK'S CSLI SEMINAR

      As this is a presentation of the Discourse, Intention, and Action
   GROUP, there will be two short talks:

   First,
                       Speech Acts and Rationality
                               Phil Cohen

      This brief talk will present an overview of a theory of
   communication that is grounded in a theory of rational interaction.  I
   will sketch a logic, jointly developed with Hector Levesque, that
   characterizes how an agent's beliefs, goals, commitments, and action
   are interrelated.  Communicative acts are modelled along the lines of
   Grice's account of non-natural meaning.  I will show how definitions
   of illocutionary acts, specifically the speech act of requesting, can
   be derived (rather than stipulated).

   Second,
                 The Referential/Attributive Distinction
                              Ami Kronfeld

   	I will present an analysis of Donnellan's distinction between
   referential and attributive uses of definite description.  My main
   point will be that the intuitive appeal of Donnellan's distinction
   actually masks three independent aspects of uses of definite
   descriptions: one has to do with our beliefs, another has to do with
   intentions, and the third has to do with the analysis of the speech
   act of referring itself.
                              ____________
                       ENVIRONMENTS GROUP MEETING
               October 21, 1985, Ventura Trailer Classroom

      Terry Winograd will speak on his group's research toward developing
   a Language Development Environment which provides facilities for
   defining languages and for creating and manipulating objects (e.g.,
   programs, specifications, etc.) in a language that is under active
   development and change.
                              ____________
                          PIXELS AND PREDICATES
                 ``Presentation Based User Interfaces''
                    Eugene C. Ciccarelli, Intellicorp
         Wednesday, October 23, 1:00 p.m., Ventura Seminar Room

   This research has the goal of making it easier to build good user
   interfaces.  A prototype ``presentation system base'' is described.
   It offers mechanisms, tools, and ready-made parts for building user
   interfaces.  A general user interface model underlies the base,
   organized around the concept of a ``presentation'': a visible text or
   graphic form conveying information.  The base and model emphasize
   domain independence and style independence, to apply to the widest
   possible range of interfaces.  To demonstrate the base's utility,
   three interfaces to an operating system were constructed, embodying
   different styles: icon, menu, and graphical annotation.


Page 3                     CSLI Newsletter                  October 17, 1985
_____________________________________________________________________________
            INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE

      The working group on Morphology/Syntax/Discourse Interactions will
   be giving a series of open presentations of the results of its summer
   research project, which have been abstracted in the CSLI Newsletter.
      On Thursday, October 24, at 10:00 a.m. in the Ventura Conference
   Room.  Joan Bresnan will present Bresnan and Mchombo's ``Subject,
   Topic, and Agreement in Chichewa.''  A written version of this work
   will be available on Monday, October 21, at the Ventura Receptionist's
   Desk.
      Peter Sells' TINLunch, ``On the Notion of `Logophoricity','' on
   October 17 is also part of the Morphology/Syntax/Discourse
   Interactions series of presentations.  A written version of the paper
   will be available upon request from the author by Monday, October 21.
                              ____________
                              LOGIC SEMINAR
                  ``Branching Generalized Quantifiers''
                          Dag Westerstahl, CSLI
                    Friday, October 25, Noon to 1:15
           Room 383N (Faculty lounge, 3rd floor, Math. Bldg.)
                              ____________
                  SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTS GROUP MEETING
                            October 14, 1985

      David Levy described further aspects of a theory of document
   preparation.  He showed how a basic theory of the production of
   artifacts could be applied at a variety of levels and in recursive
   ways to the document production process.  Such a theory could be the
   basis for a ``production engine'' that operates in a unified way to
   produce objects and activities (both central aspects of writing),
   which would be the underpinning for a tailorable tool for document
   preparation---one that could be suited to specific needs and that
   could cope with the quality requirements of real designers.  An
   overall theory of marking will consist of three components: this
   theory of production, along with a theory of representation (in the
   general sense being explored at CSLI) and a specific theory of marks
   on surfaces.  As an example of his current explorations he discussed
   window systems and his attempts to provide a theoretical analysis of
   the MacIntosh QuickDraw primitves.


Page 4                     CSLI Newsletter                  October 17, 1985
_____________________________________________________________________________
                          CSLI SEMINAR SUMMARY
                    Notes from the STASS Underground
                             October 3, 1985

      David Israel gave an overview of the motivation behind the
   formation of the Group on Situation Theory and Situation Semantics
   (STASS).  The aim of the group is the development of Situation Theory
   as a framework within which to express, analyse, and compare
   treatments of a wide range of problems and phenomena.  Among the
   ``applications areas'' are the semantics of natural languages, the
   semantics of programming and other computer languages, the nature of
   informational content, the nature of computational processes, problems
   in the theory of representation, problems about the nature of truth,
   etc. The method of development is essentially a close and continuous
   interaction between those working on Situation Theory itself and those
   looking to use the theory within their own areas of interest.  This
   interaction is enhanced because everybody in the group is doing both
   things, often simultaneously---though not, of course, equally.
      In the respect of being a background theory within which to develop
   theories of more delimited domains, Situation Theory is analogous to
   Set Theory. Thus, for instance, Montague's treatment of phenomena in
   the semantics of natural language was carried out within set theory.
   So, too, was the treatment by Barwise and Perry in ``Situations and
   Attitudes.''  The crucial transition between the account in that book
   and the present approach is precisely the abandonment of the strategy
   (or was it anyway only a tactic?) of modelling all but a small number
   of basic kinds of things in set theory.  Thus, for instance, in
   ``Situations and Attitudes'' there was no real attempt to explicate
   the nature of propositions---though much of the interest of the book
   was said to lie in its treatment of the propositional attitudes.  The
   reason for this uncomfortable state of affairs was that there was no
   good way of modelling propositions set theoretically. The aim now is a
   direct, non-reductionist treatment of the various kinds of entities
   only modelled in the book---thus, of states of affairs and facts,
   conditions, situations, propositions, etc.  This is thought to have a
   number of happy side effects.  One is that it makes it much easier to
   expose the various modes of modelling to analysis---easier simply
   because one has not committed oneself to modelling as one's major
   theoretical technique.  The second stems from the fact that Situation
   Theory is not only analogous to Set Theory in a certain respect;
   Situation Theory is intended both to encompass and to be modellable by
   Set Theory.  Thus, the demand that Set Theory be capable of providing
   models of Situation Theory imposes constraints on our conception of
   sets.  A crucial example of such a constraint is that there be non
   wellfounded sets.				--David Israel


Page 5                     CSLI Newsletter                  October 17, 1985
_____________________________________________________________________________
                              CSLI PROJECTS

   The following is a list of CSLI projects and their coordinators.
    
    AFT lexical representation Theory.		Julius Moravcsik
	(AFT stands for Aitiuational Frame Theory)
    Computational Models of Spoken Language.    Meg Withgott
    Discourse, Intention, and Action.		Phil Cohen.
    Embedded Computation Group.			Brian Smith (3 sub groups)
        sub 1: Research on Situated Automata.	Stan Rosenschein 
	sub 2: Semantically Rational 
	       Computer Languages.		Curtis Abbott
	sub 3: Representation and Reasoning.	Brian Smith 
    Finite State Morphology.			Lauri Karttunen
    Foundations of Document Preparation.	David Levy.
    Foundations of Grammar.			Lauri Karttunen
    Grammatical Theory and Discourse 
	Structures.				Joan Bresnan
    Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar.	Ivan Sag and Thomas Wasow
    Lexical Project.				Annie Zaenen 
    Linguistic Approaches to Computer
	Languages.				Hans Uszkoreit
    Phonology and Phonetics.			Paul Kiparsky
    Rational Agency.				Michael Bratman 
    Semantics of Computer Language.		Terry Winograd
    Situation Theory and Situation 
	Semantics (STASS).			David Israel 
    Visual Communication.			Sandy Pentland

   In addition, there are some interproject working groups.  These
   include:

    Situated Engine Company.			Jon Barwise and Brian Smith
    Representation and Modelling.		Brian Smith and Terry Winograd
-------