[Prev][Next][Index]
CSLI Calendar, 11 May 1995, vol.10:27
-
To: friends
-
Subject: CSLI Calendar, 11 May 1995, vol.10:27
-
From: Tom Burke <burke>
-
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 14:38:13 -0700
C S L I C A L E N D A R O F P U B L I C E V E N T S
______________________________________________________________________________
11 May 1995 Stanford Vol. 10, No. 27
______________________________________________________________________________
A weekly publication of the Center for the Study of Language and
Information (CSLI), Stanford University, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305-4115
____________
CSLI ACTIVITIES DURING 10 -- 19 MAY 1995
WEDNESDAY, 10 MAY
1:15 - Intensional Logic Lecture
Building 90, Room 92-Q
Relevant Logic
Phil Kremer, Stanford Philosophy
THURSDAY, 11 MAY
12:15 - CSLI Seminar
Series on Intelligent Agents
Cordura Hall, Room 100
Toward Building an Android: Recent Developments
of the Cog Project
Cynthia Ferrell, MIT AI Laboratory
Abstract below
4:15 - SSP Forum
Building 60, Room 61-F
Recent Developments of the Cog Project (cont'd)
Cynthia Ferrell, MIT AI Laboratory
Abstract below
FRIDAY, 12 MAY
12:00 - Logic Lunch
Building 380, Room 383-N
The Undecidability of Second Order Multiplicative Linear Logic
Andre Scedrov, Univ Pennsylvania
Abstract below
12:30 - HCI Seminar
Skilling Auditorium
The Juno-2 Constraint-Based Drawing Editor
Allan Heydon, DEC Research
Abstract below
3:15 - Philosophy Colloquium
Building 90, Room 91-A
Ordering Selves
Marcia Cavell, UC Berkeley Philosophy
4:30 - Linguistics Colloquium
Cordura Hall, Room 100
Partial Class Behavior and Nasal Place Assimilation
Jaye Padgett, UC Santa Cruz
Abstract below
SATURDAY, 13 MAY
9:30 - Phonology Conference
TREND (TRI-lateral Phonology Week-END): UC Santa Cruz, UC
Berkeley, and Stanford
At UC Santa Cruz, Cowell 131 <ito@ling.ucsc.edu>
Schedule below
MONDAY, 15 MAY
1:15 - Intensional Logic Lecture
Building 90, Room 92-Q
Object Theory I
Ed Zalta, CSLI
TUESDAY, 16 MAY
8:00pm - The 1995 Tanner Lectures in Human Values
Annenberg Auditorium, Cummings Art Building
Responding to Racial Injustice: What's Wrong With
Color Blindness?
Amy Gutmann, Princeton Politics and Center for Human Values
Schedule below
WEDNESDAY, 17 MAY
1:15 - Intensional Logic Lecture
Building 90, Room 92-Q
Object Theory II
Ed Zalta, CSLI <zalta@mally.stanford.edu>
3:15 - The 1995 Tanner Lectures in Human Values
Building 200, Room 217
Discussion Seminar
Amy Gutmann, Princeton Politics and Center for Human Values
Schedule below
4:00 - Seminar on Computational Learning and Adaptation
Cordura Hall, Room 100
Bayesian Model Merging for Probabilistic Grammar Induction
Andreas Stolcke, SRI International
Abstract below
THURSDAY, 18 MAY
10:00 - STASS Seminar
Cordura Hall, Room 100
Discourse Structure and the Flow of Time in Narrative
Livia Polanyi, CSLI
Abstract below
12:15 - CSLI Seminar
Series on Intelligent Agents
Cordura Hall, Room 100
Learning to Surf: Adaptive Agents on the World-Wide Web
Marko Balabanovic, Stanford Computer Science
Abstract below
2:15 - CSLI Seminar
Cordura Hall, Room 100
If Consciousness is Back, How Can We Approach It?
Bernard J. Baars, Wright Institute
Abstract below
4:15 - SSP Forum
Building 60, Room 61-F
Action-Based Logic
Tom Burke, CSLI
Abstract below
8:00pm - The 1995 Tanner Lectures in Human Values
Annenberg Auditorium, Cummings Art Building
Responding to Racial Injustice: What's Right About
Race Consciousness?
Amy Gutmann, Princeton Politics and Center for Human Values
Schedule below
FRIDAY, 19 MAY
12:15 - The 1995 Tanner Lectures in Human Values
Building 90, Room 91-A
Discussion Seminar
Amy Gutmann, Princeton Politics and Center for Human Values
Schedule below
12:30 - HCI Seminar
Skilling Auditorium
KidSim: End-user Programming of Simulations
Allen Cypher and David C. Smith, Apple Computer
Abstract below
3:30 - Linguistics Colloquium
Cordura Hall, Room 100
Negation in Korean and English: A Lexicalist,
Constraint-Based Perspective
Jong-Bok Kim, Stanford Linguistics
Abstract below
____________
The CSLI Calendar appears on Thursday of each week throughout the academic
year. Announcements, abstracts, and other information to appear in the
Calendar on a given Thursday should be submitted by e-mail to
<incalendar@csli.stanford.edu> by 5:00 p.m. on the previous Tuesday.
Past issues of the CSLI Calendar, a quarterly schedule of upcoming CSLI
events, and other information about CSLI are available at URL
<http://www-csli.stanford.edu/>. The Calendar, with available abstracts, is
also posted each week to the csli.bboard newsgroup.
____________
INTENSIONAL LOGIC LECTURE
on Wednesday, 10 May
1:15 p.m., Building 90, Room 92-Q
Relevant Logic
Phil Kremer
Stanford Philosophy
<kremer@csli.stanford.edu>
This is the second in a series of talks on recent developments in and around
modal logic by some guest speakers, illustrating connections with linguistics,
philosophy, computer science, and AI. The first part of this quarter has been
devoted to basic techniques: models and bisimulation, frame correspondences,
modal deduction, completeness arguments, filtration and finite model property.
All interested persons are welcome! All sessions will be in 90-92Q (upstairs
colloquium room, Philosophy Department), Mondays & Wednesdays 1:15--2:30 p.m.
May 8 Modal Phrase Structure Grammar Johan van Benthem
10 Relevant Logic Phil Kremer
15,17 Two Lectures on Object Theory Ed Zalta
22 Processes and Bisimulation Rob van Glabbeek
24 Modal theories of Context Sasa Buvac
31 Modal Theorem Proving Grisha Mints
June 5 Dynamic Modal Logic Jan Jaspars
____________
CSLI SEMINAR
SERIES ON INTELLIGENT AGENTS
on Thursday, 11 May
12:15 p.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100
Toward Building an Android: Recent Developments of the Cog Project
Cynthia Ferrell
MIT AI Laboratory
<ferrell@ai.mit.edu>
Building an android, an autonomous robot of humanoid form coupled with human
like cognitive processes, has been a fantasy of science fiction and a long
standing goal of Artificial Intelligence. In his 1948 paper, "Intelligent
Machinery" (not published until 1970), Alan Turing outlined his view of how to
make computers intelligent. He carefully considered the question of
embodiment, but acknowledged that this route to intelligence was infeasible
given the available technology of the time period. Consequently, he concluded
that the best domains to explore the mechanisms of thought were those which
required little contact with the outside world, such as various games and
cryptanalysis.
Modern computational, sensing, and mechanical technologies have improved
dramatically since the time of Turing, and the possibility of building an
android is becoming more and more plausible. The Cog Project is an attempt to
address this long standing challenge. It has two goals: (1) an engineering
goal of building a robot, Cog, that resembles a human in form and function,
and (2) a scientific goal of understanding human cognition. Given the nature
of this challenge, our research draws from diverse scientific influences such
as Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, Ethology, evolutionary
considerations, Neuropsychology, Society of Mind, Connectionism, and Robotics.
The Cog Project is in its infancy, and its members are pursuing a wide variety
of research topics. This talk presents an smorgasbord of current work. Topics
to be covered include Cog's system design (mechanical, computational,
perceptual), and early results in vision, audition, and learning.
CYNTHIA FERRELL is a graduate student at the MIT Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory. She has worked for Professor Rodney Brooks for several years,
receiving her MS degree in May 1993. Her Masters' work focused on autonomous
control and fault tolerant behavior of a small insect-like robot. Currently
she is pursuing her PhD, and is the senior graduate student leading the Cog
Project.
NOTE: A complete schedule for the CSLI seminar series on intelligent agents is
available at URL <http://www-csli.stanford.edu/>. These talks are scheduled
for 12:15 (usually) on Thursdays throughout the Spring quarter. If you order
beforehand, we will provide a sandwich and beverage (for $4.50, paid at the
door; quarters and small bills preferred). Send sandwich orders (turkey, ham,
roastbeef, or vegetarian) to <bocata@csli.stanford.edu> some time on or before
Tuesday of the week of the given talk.
____________
SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FORUM
on Thursday, 11 May
4:15 p.m., Building 60, Room 61-F
Recent Developments of the Cog Project
Cynthia Ferrell
MIT AI Laboratory
<ferrell@ai.mit.edu>
____________
LOGIC LUNCH
on Friday, 12 May
12:00 noon, Building 380, Room 383-N
The Undecidability of Second Order Multiplicative Linear Logic
Andre Scedrov
University of Pennsylvania
<andre@theory.stanford.edu>
Much of the plasticity of linear logic may be traced to the removal of
structural rules of contraction and to some extent weakening. These rules are
reintroduced into linear logic in a controlled fashion by the logical rules
for modalities, which allow, for instance, intuitionistic implication A => B
to be expressed as !A -o B. It is surprising to discover that contraction and
weakening can be simulated by the multiplicative connectives using second
order propositional quantification, without any use of modalities.
Joint work with P. Lincoln and N. Shankar describes a simple encoding of
second order propositional intuitionistic logic in the "intuitionistic"
version of second order multiplicative linear logic. The encoding uses the
formula Forall X.(X -o X*X) to encode contraction. This encoding does not
yield the undecidability in the classical case.
Instead, recent joint work with Y. Lafont approximates the modality !X by the
multiplicative formula #X = X * (X -o 1). A restricted kind of contraction is
encoded by the formula Forall X Forall Y.(#X * #Y -o X * X * #Y * Y). A new
encoding of register machines is presented that avoids the use of additive
connectives in the encoding of the zero-test instruction. The faithfulness of
the encoding is obtained as an application of the soundness theorem for the
phase semantics of linear logic, a technique introduced by Y. Lafont in the
presence of additive connectives.
____________
SEMINAR ON HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
on Friday, 12 May
12:30 p.m., Skilling Auditorium
The Juno-2 Constraint-Based Drawing Editor
Allan Heydon
DEC Research
<heydon@pa.dec.com>
Constraints are an important enabling technology for interactive graphics
applications. However, today's constraint-based systems are plagued by
several limitations, and constraints have yet to live up to their potential.
Juno-2 is a constraint-based double-view drawing editor that addresses some of
these limitations. Constraints allow you to specify locations in your drawing
declaratively. The constraints are maintained whenever part of the picture is
changed, so constraints make it easier to maintain a picture in the face of
modifications. Some constraints are pre-defined by the Juno-2 application,
but the program also includes a powerful extension language that allows users
to define new constraints. The system demonstrates that fast constraint
solving is possible with a highly extensible, fully declarative constraint
language.
The talk will include a videotape demonstration of Juno-2, including some of
our recent experiments using it to model constrained three-dimensional shapes,
and to produce animations.
This is joint work with Greg Nelson.
ALLAN HEYDON works at Digital Equipment Corporation's Systems Research Center
in Palo Alto, CA. He is a co-developer of Juno-2, a constraint-based drawing
editor. More recently, he has been working on the Vesta software configuration
management system. His general research interests include formal methods,
visual specification languages, programming development environments, and user
interfaces. He received his PhD in computer science from Carnegie Mellon
University in 1991, where he designed and implemented a system for processing
visual specifications of file system security.
____________
PHILOSOPHY COLLOQUIUM
on Friday, 12 May
3:15 p.m., Building 90, Room 91-A
Ordering Selves
Marcia Cavell
UC Berkeley Philosophy
____________
LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM
on Friday, 12 May
4:30 p.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100
NOTE THE NEW TIME
Partial Class Behavior and Nasal Place Assimilation
Jaye Padgett
UC Santa Cruz
<padgett@ling.ucsd.edu>
This talk pursues work on feature classes in Padgett (1995). That paper
argues for an understanding of feature classes like Place and Laryngeal in
non-representational (non-nodal) terms. A central argument for this point of
view comes from instances of partial class behavior: though a constraint
targets a class, certain members of that class (but not others) violate the
constraint, due to interference from higher ranking constraints. That is,
constraints mentioning classes are gradiently violable. The best account of
such facts allows constraints to mention classes like Place, while thereby
targeting the individual members of that class directly (rather than by a
proxy class node); notions like "place" are seen as standing for properties
that features have.
After laying out and illustrating the basic idea, I will examine cases of
partial class behavior involving nasal place assimilation. This in turn
requires some means of accounting for nasal place assimilation itself, and
this issue forms a major sub-theme of the talk.
_____________
PHONOLOGY CONFERENCE
on Saturday, 13 May
Starting 9:15 a.m., at UC Santa Cruz, Cowell 131
TREND (TRI-lateral Phonology Week-END)
UC Santa Cruz, UC Berkeley, Stanford
9:15am- Coffee and sweet rolls
Session 1 (9:30--11:30)
Junko Ito^ and Armin Mester, UC Santa Cruz
"Edge reversal as a correspondence effect"
Orhan Orgun, UC Berkeley
"Correspondence and faithfulness in OT"
Arto Anttila, Stanford University
"Semi-free variation in Finnish morphology"
Lunch (11:30--1:00)
Session 2 (1:00--3:00)
Larry Hyman and Armindo Ngunga, UC Berkeley
"Two kinds of moraic nasal in Ciyao"
Gary Lutes, Stanford University
"The Representation of Scandinavian Accent"
Motoko Katayama, UC Santa Cruz
"Loanword Accent and Minimal Reranking in Japanese"
Coffee Break (3:00--3:30)
Session 3 (3:30--5:30)
Joyce Mathangwane, UC Berkeley
"Aspirates: their development and depression in Ikalanga"
Rachel Walker, UC Santa Cruz
"Nonfinality in Unbounded Stress: New Evidence from Mongolian"
Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University
"Livonian Sto/d"
*****Party at Stevenson Provost House*****
____________
INTENSIONAL LOGIC LECTURE
on Monday, 15 May
1:15 p.m., Building 90, Room 92-Q
Object Theory I
Ed Zalta
CSLI
<zalta@mally.stanford.edu>
____________
THE 1995 TANNER LECTURES IN HUMAN VALUES
on Tuesday/Thursday, 16 and 18 May
8:00 p.m., Annenberg Auditorium
Responding to Racial Injustice
Amy Gutmann
Department of Politics
Director, Center for Human Values
Princeton University
Schedule: "What's Wrong with Color Blindness?"
Tuesday, 16 May, 8:00 p.m.
Annenberg Auditorium, Cummings Art Building
Discussion Seminar
Wednesday, 17 May, 3:15 p.m.
Building 200, Room 217
"What's Right about Race Consciousness?"
Thursday, 18 May, 8:00 p.m.
Annenberg Auditorium, Cummings Art Building
Discussion Seminar
Friday, 19 May, 12:15 noon
Building 90, Room 91-A
Commentators: Kwame Anthony Appiah of Harvard and David Wilkins of Princeton.
____________
INTENSIONAL LOGIC LECTURE
on Wednesday, 17 May
1:15 p.m., Building 90, Room 92-Q
Object Theory II
Ed Zalta
CSLI
<zalta@mally.stanford.edu>
____________
SEMINAR ON COMPUTATIONAL LEARNING AND ADAPTATION
on Wednesday, 17 May
4:00 p.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100
Bayesian Model Merging for Probabilistic Grammar Induction
Andreas Stolcke
Speech Technology and Research Lab, SRI International
<stolcke@speech.sri.com>
I will discuss a framework for inducing probabilistic grammars (language
models) from corpora of positive samples, termed "Bayesian model merging." In
this approach, samples are first incorporated by adding ad-hoc rules to a
working grammar; subsequently, elements of the model (such as states or
nonterminals) are merged to achieve generalization and a more compact
representation. The choice of what to merge and when to stop is governed by
the Bayesian posterior probability of the grammar given the data, which
formalizes a trade-off between a close fit to the data and a default
preference for simpler models ("Occham's Razor"). A localized search
strategy, such as best-first or beam search, is used to locate models that
have high posterior probability. Although this framework is quite general,
the talk will focus on variants and applications for learning hidden Markov
models and stochastic context-free grammars.
This talk describes joint work with Steve Omohundro.
____________
STASS SEMINAR
on Thursday, 18 May
10:00 a.m., Building 90, Room 92-Q
Discourse Structure and the Flow of Time in Narrative
Livia Polanyi
CSLI
<livia@csli.stanford.edu>
In their recent study of stylized documents, Devlin and Rosenberg (1994)
appreciatively quote from an early discussion of sociolinguistics in which
Gumperz and Hymes (1972) celebrate the view that "for socio-linguistic
analysis, social phenomena are of the same order as linguistic phenomena".
For my part, twenty years after Gumperz and Hymes, I find it regrettable that,
for discourse analysts, concern with social phenomena has so overshadowed
concern with linguistic phenomena that the linguistic structure of written and
spoken discourse has largely escaped the systematic, rigorous analysis which
has characterized work on other components of the grammar.
In order to demonstrate the utility of adopting a principled treatment of
discourse level phenomena, in this talk, I will revisit some of the issues of
genre and narrative structure raised in Devlin and Rosenberg and Polanyi 1989.
Specifically, I will show how the notions and mechanisms of the Linguistic
Discourse Model (Polanyi and Scha 1984; Scha and Polanyi 1988; Polanyi 1988;
Prust Scha and v.d. Berg 1995) can provide an account of the development of
narrative time which preserves the Strong Narrative Hypothesis which holds
that the order of event clauses in a narrative is isomorphic with the order of
events in the semantic model of the text (Labov and Waletzsky 1965; Labov
1972; Kamp and Rohrer 1983; Hinrichs 1986; Dowty 1986) while, simultaneously
accounting for apparent disturbances in that ordering arising from flash
sequences, repairs, interruptions, and other putative counter-examples which
have been put forward in the literature.
____________
CSLI SEMINAR
SERIES ON INTELLIGENT AGENTS
on Thursday, 18 May
12:15 p.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100
Learning to Surf
Marko Balabanovic
Stanford Computer Science
<marko@flamingo.stanford.edu>
One of the big problems facing users of the "information superhighway" even
today is the vast and rapidly increasing amount of information. One approach
to this problem has been to build indexes and retrieval systems which collate
information relevant to some query, thus automating the searching process. I
will describe a complementary system which automates the browsing process,
taking as its domain the world-wide web. In the "LIRA" system the user never
specifies a query but merely gives scores to pages seen. Simple machine
learning and information retrieval techniques are used to improve the system's
performance over time.
This is joint work with Yoav Shoham and Yeogirl Yun, and started out as a
class project for CS227 (AI Programming in Prolog).
MARKO BALABANOVIC is a graduate student in the CS department at Stanford. He
works in Professor Yoav Shoham's Nobotics group and is also associated with
the Digital Library project. For more information see
http://robotics.stanford.edu/people/marko/marko.html
____________
CSLI SEMINAR
on Thursday, 18 May
2:15 p.m., Cordura Hall, Room 10
If Consciousness is Back, How Can We Approach It?
Bernard J. Baars
Wright Institute, Berkeley
<baars@cogsci.berkeley.edu>
Conscious experience is widely considered to be one of the thorniest subjects
in psychological science. Its study has been neglected for many years, partly
because it was thought to be conceptually incoherent and partly because the
relevant evidence was believed to be poor. That situation is now changing
rapidly. The conventional history of psychology that laid the grounds for the
rejection of consciousness has now been challenged on many grounds. The
expulsion of consciousness now appears to be part of a general triumph of
physicalism in philosophy, biology, and psychology about 1900, associated with
names like Pavlov, John B. Watson, Mach, Russell, Wittgenstein, B. F. Skinner,
and many others.
It now seems that the issues motivating physicalistic scientism were not
mainly empirical. We need only read William James' Principles, published in
1890, to recognized how much cognitive science and even brain science was
already well-known before 1900. Many aspects of consciousness are not
untestable at all, witness the solid research traditions on selective
attention, perception, psychophysics, protocol analysis, spontaneous thought
monitoring, imagery, neuropathology and the like, which survived behaviorism
intact. All of these research enterprises meet the most widely used
operational criterion of conscious experience, namely verifiable voluntary
report of some event as conscious: "I see the airplane," "She smelled a rat,"
or "My stomach hurts." In many cases only the word "consciousness" was
avoided; the reality could not be banished.
The approach I have developed over the last fifteen years suggests we follow
William James's suggestion to study "the distribution of consciousness." The
key is to find well-matched conscious and unconscious mental processes, so
that we can keep content constant while treating consciousness as a variable.
There are natural contrasts between well-established conscious phenomena --
such as mental events known to be attended, perceptual and informative -- and
closely comparable unconscious ones -- like those that are pre-perceptual,
unattended, or habituated. By focusing on very clear, uncontroversial
findings, we can outline a solid foundation of evidence.
Many sources of evidence converge to show that consciousness reflects a basic
architectural aspect of the nervous system -- a "global workspace" capacity in
an otherwise mainly parallel and distributed set of neural functions. This
architectural view helps clarify many difficult questions, and allows us to
easily incorporate other current hypotheses. It is really a modern version of
the "theater hypothesis" of consciousness, which goes back to Plato's Allegory
of the Cave. Proposals by Daniel Schacter, Francis Crick, Rodolfo Llinas,
Philip Johnson-Laird, Anthony Damasio, Tim Shallice, George Mandler and others
can be readily incorporated in this framework. The Global Workspace (GW)
model allows us to update the traditional theater metaphor, providing both
testability and formal implementability. As Allan Newell has pointed out, the
GW architecture is equivalent at a certain grain size to other unified
theories of cognition, such as Newell's SOAR and John Anderson's ACT*.
Barbara Hayes-Roth and others have proposed the GW architecture as a general
problem-solving framework, and some neural net modelers have attempted to
design connectionist versions.
The result is a surprising simplification of a great deal of evidence.
Consciousness emerges as an essential adaptive aspect of the nervous system, a
major biological fact, playing a number of indispensible roles in all
psychological tasks.
____________
SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FORUM
on Thursday, 18 May
4:15 p.m., Building 60, Room 61-F
Action-Based Logic
Tom Burke
CSLI
<burke@csli.stanford.edu>
How does logic accommodate the dynamic character of information processing?
What kinds of developments beyond traditional truth-functional,
quantificational, and modal formalisms are called for? Dynamic logic is an
important development in this regard. Developments in other directions are
also needed: (1) We need an action-based theory of variables and the objects
they range over. And (2) we should step back and look at how these formal
details relate to a study of the formulation and use of information in, e.g.,
problem-solving tasks. In this talk I will discuss claim (1). My aim will be
to explain in intuitive and nontechnical terms what an action-based logic is.
I will start with a short overview of elementary logic, and then explain
action-based logic primarily in terms of a couple of examples.
An "action", as I will use the term, denotes a kind of change different from
that of a change of state. Actions are not programs. Actions are instead the
means by which state changes are accomplished. Formally, actions are to
programs what terms are to formulas. The upshot of this talk is that programs
and the changes of state which programs effect make up only a partial account
of the dynamic character of information processing. The mechanics of actions
constitute another essential part of the story.
____________
SEMINAR ON HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
on Friday, 19 May
12:30 p.m., Skilling Auditorium
KidSim: End-user Programming of Simulations
Allen Cypher and David C. Smith
Apple Computer
<cypher@apple.com>
KidSim is an environment that allows children to create their own simulations
and video games. They create their own characters, and they create rules that
specify how the characters are to behave and interact. KidSim is programmed
by demonstration, so that users do not need to learn a conventional
programming language or scripting language. Informal user studies have shown
that children are able to create simulations in KidSim with a minimum of
instruction, and that KidSim stimulates their imagination. We will
demonstrate the system, discuss its design, and show some worlds that children
have built.
ALLEN CYPHER is a Research Scientist at Apple Computer, Inc. His main
interest is in end-user programming -- giving all computer users capabilities
that have traditionally belonged to programmers. Allen is a co-inventor of
KidSim. He also created the Eager system, which observes a users' actions and
creates programs to automate repetitive activities. He edited the book "Watch
What I Do: Programming by Demonstration", published in 1993 by MIT Press.
DAVID CANFIELD SMITH, while on the Xerox "Star" project, invented icons and
the desktop metaphor for computer interfaces, today used by 100 million
people. For the past several years at Apple, Dave has worked on educational
software, particularly on finding a way for children to program computers.
KidSim(tm) is the culmination of that work. Dave's research interests include
human-computer interaction, educational software, programming language design,
programming environments, end-user programming, and getting rid of the
"priests" of computing. The unifying theme behind his work for the past
twenty years has been the attempt to make computers more accessible to
ordinary people.
____________
LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM
on Friday, 19 May
3:30 p.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100
Negation in Korean and English: A Lexicalist,
Constraint-Based Perspective
Jong-Bok Kim
Stanford Linguistics
<jongbok@csli.stanford.edu>
In a typological study of sentence negation, Dahl (1979) has identified three
major ways of expressing negation in natural languages: as a morphological
category on verbs, an auxiliary verb, and an adverb-like particle. Many
current syntactic treatments of these three types of negation have been
couched in terms of transformational operations and a proliferation of
functional projections including NegP, AgrOP, AgrSP, and TP (Pollock 1989,
Ouhalla 1990, Laka 1990, Zanuttini 1991, Chomsky 1991, among others). This
derivational view claims that the interaction of NegP with syntactic movement
and other hierarchically fixed functional projections can account for their
identical semantic scope as well as all the surface possibilities exhibited by
these three types of negation. However, research on the negation of several
languages including Korean, English, and French shows that the evidence for
the existence of the uniform syntactic category, Neg, and its maximal
projection, NegP, is neither empirically nor theoretically well-grounded. The
research proposed in this talk will challenge this nonlexicalist, derivational
view, and develop an alternative theory of negation within the strictly
lexicalist and nonderivational framework of Head-driven Phrase Structure
Grammar (HPSG).
The talk begins with Korean which has both morphological negation and a
negative auxiliary. After reviewing the existing arguments for the existence
of NegP in Korean, I will show how an alternative approach, maintaining the
lexical integrity principle (Bresnan and Mchombo in press), makes it
unnecessary to introduce the functional projection NegP. I will then turn to
English which employs the third type, adverbial negation. I will present some
basic properties of English negation, and then sketch a nonderivational
analysis where the English negator not is treated either as an adverbial
modifier or as the complement of a "type-shifted" finite verb. Also I will
briefly show how this lexicalist view can be incorporated into French, and can
capture the parametric variation between French and English negation.
____________