References

Chierchia, G. & McConnell-Ginet S. (2000) (2nd ed.). Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press Grice, P. H. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harv. Univ. Press Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press Meyer-Fujara, J. & Rieser, H. (2003). A General Framework for Metonymy Resolution. Report of SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld, to appearMeyer-Fujara, J. & Rieser, H. (1999). Zur Semantik von Repräsentationsrelationen II. Report 1999/01 of SFB 360, Univ. BielefeldRieser, H. & Meyer-Fujara, J. (eds.) (2000). BI-Metonymy 6th to 8th of October, 2000, Proceedings, Report 2000/01 of SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld Rieser, H. & Meyer-Fujara, J. (1997). Zur Semantik von Repräsentationsrelationen I. Report 1997/07 of SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld SFB 360 (eds.): o. J., Wir bauen jetzt also ein Flugzeug. Konstruieren im Dialog. Arbeitsmaterialien Interaktion sprachlicher und visueller Informationsverarbeitung.

SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld

Contact

josef.meyer-fujara@fh-stralsund.de

hannes.rieser@uni-bielefeld.de

.ppt-File downloadable from www.sfb360.uni-bielefeld.de and www.user.fh-stralsund.de/~jmeyer

Op

Case 1: Violation of quality maxim

= airplane’

Op() = u C (depicts(u,C) x (xC airplane’(x)))

Case 2: Violation of relevance maxim

This is not a motorbike said of an airplane model

= xi (motorbike(xi) y (xi=y) this’)

Op() = xi (C (depicts(xi,C)

x (xC motorbike(x))) this’=xi)

this’

Pred2: y (=(y,xi))

VP: y (=(y,xi))

Vcop: =

=

NP: xi

S’: y (=(y,xi)) this’

xi

NP: this’

Det: this’

Op

NPi: S’ xi (C (depicts(xi,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) S’)

an’

N: u C (depicts(u,C) x (xC airplane’(x)))

u C (depicts(u,C) x (xC airplane’(x)))airplane’

Det:PS’xi (P(xi) S’)

S: xi (C (depicts(xi,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) this’ = xi)

Result of Op-application to lf-structure

Reconstructed lf-expression

With = s airplane’(s)

Op[N s airplane’(s)] = [N Op(s airplane’(s))] = [N Op(airplane’)]

= [N x C (depicts(x,C) y (yC airplane’(y)))]

or, e.g.

= [N x u (noise_of(x,u) airplane’(u))]

For = xi (airplane’(xi) y (=(y,xi)) this’), a possible result of applying Op is

Op() = xi (C (depicts(xi,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) y (=(y,xi)) this’)

⑩ Updating information state with formula Op() derived by default and constructing M’ by persistently extending M, especially V

Determining the scope of metonymy by reconstructing false lf-expression via Op

Intuition: Op() yields readings of which cannot be derived lexically.

For a tree T, Op(T) is defined recursively as the tree that results applying Op to the daughters of T’s root.

For every one-place predicate , Op() is either or an expression which contains and is applicable to an argument, such as a one-place -expression.

Op(x P) = x Op(P)

Etc.

⑧ Conversational Implicature (Grice) by Default

Cooperativity Assumption

Two Cases:

Violation of quality maxim Utterance under lf is false.Scope of metonymy: subutterance with lf

M,w,i,c,g avail(c) =

Op()M’,w,i,c,g avail(c)

Default: Meaning of subutterance is Op()M’,w,i,c,g

Meaning of utterance is Op()M’,w,i,c,g

by recursiveness of Op

Violation of relevance maxim, similarly

Metonymical interpretation of false lf-expression

by default =

Interpretation of reconstructed lf-expression in model M’:

Case 1: Violation of quality maxim

Op()M’,w,i,c,g = 1

Case 2: Violation of relevance maxim

Op()M’,w,i,c,g = 1 and non-trivially so

Reconstructed lf-expression

Intensional Semantics

Mapping of LF into lf (intensional predicate calculus, IPC) yields expression

Uses possible worlds, time instants, contexts and modal bases

Grammar: Syntax (GB-version)

• Context-free base

• Raising rules

[S X NP Y ] [S NPi [S X ei Y ] ], where NP = [Det Nom] and X and Y cover the rest of the sentence

[S NP INFL X ] [S INFL [S NP X] ]

generate LF

Scope of fragment:

This is an airplane.Peter believes/knows that this is an airplane.The airplane is left to the car and/or the car is right to

the airplane.Max gives that airplane to Peter.

Interpretation in model M (cf )

M,w,i,c,g = 0 (quality maxim violated)

M,w,i,c,g = 1 trivially (relevance maximviolated)

Models M used: Kaplan models

characterized by(1) a set of worlds W, and a set of instants I, giving the

set of circumstances W I = {<w, i> | wW, iI },

(2) a context c specifying (i) sp(c), the speaker in c(ii) ind-ob(c), the indicated objects in c, (iii) avail(c), the set of accessible objects in c (iv) mdb(c), the modal base in c

(3) a valuation function V for IPC(4) a variable assignment function g

DataCorpus of task-oriented dialogues(construction dialogues from SFB 360)

Case of violated quality maxim

Interpretation in model M:

as

=

Real-world airplanes

avail(c)

xi (airplane’(xi) y (=(y,xi)) this’)M,w,i,c,g = 0

Case of violated quality maxim

Interpretation in model M’:

V is extended to include, e.g., depict, noise_of

depict

Real-world airplanes

avail(c)

xi (C (depicts(xi,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) this’ = xi) M,w,i,c,g = 1

Baufix toy airplane used in construction dialogues

Example sentence

This is an airplane.

this’

Pred2: y (=(y,xi))

VP: y (=(y,xi))

Vcop: =

=

NP: xi

S’: y (=(y,xi)) this’

Det:P S’xi (P(xi) S’)

xi

NP: this’

Det: this’

S’: x (airplane’(xi) y (=(y,xi)) this’)

NPi: S’ xi (airplane’(xi) S’)

an’

N: z airplane’(z)

airplane’

= xi (airplane’(xi) y (=(y,xi)) this’)

lf-Structure of This is an airplane

Kaplan model M

W = {w1, w2}, I = {i1},

W I = {<w1, i1>, <w2, i1>}

U = {airplane-model1, airplane1, airplane2,

, {airplane1, airplane2}}

ind-obj(c) = airplane-model1

avail(c) = {airplane-model1}

mdb(c) = {<w1, i1>}

V(airplane’)(c)(<w,i>) = {airplane1, airplane2} for all <w,i> W I

g(x1) = airplane1, g(C) = , etc.

this

Pred

is

NPNPi

an airplane

Nom

S

VP

Vcop

ei

NP

S

LF-Structure of This is an airplane

Det

Semantics-Pragmatics-Interface for Metonymy Resolution

Josef Meyer-Fujara (FH Stralsund), Hannes Rieser (Uni Bielefeld)