References Chierchia, G. & McConnell-Ginet S. (2000) (2 nd 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 appear Meyer-Fujara, J. & Rieser, H. (1999). Zur Semantik von Repräsentationsrelationen II . Report 1999/01 of SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld Rieser, H. & Meyer-Fujara, J. (eds.) (2000). BI-Metonymy 6 th to 8 th 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 Contact [email protected] [email protected] .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 = x i (motorbike(x i ) y (x i =y) this’) Op() = x i (C (depicts(x i ,C) x (xC motorbike(x))) this’=x i ) this’ Pred 2 : y (=(y,x i )) VP: y (=(y,x i )) V cop : = = NP: x i S’: y (=(y,x i )) this’ x i NP: this’ Det: this’ Op NP i : S’ x i (C (depicts(x i ,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))) airpla ne’ Det: PS’ x i (P(x i ) S’) S: x i (C (depicts(x i ,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) this’ = x i ) 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 = x i (airplane’(x i ) y (=(y,x i )) this’), a possible result of applying Op is Op() = x i (C (depicts(x i ,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) y (=(y,x i )) 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 NP i [ S X e i 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 maxim violated) 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 Data Corpus of task-oriented dialogues (construction dialogues from SFB 360) Case of violated quality maxim Interpretation in model M: as = Real- world airplan es avail(c ) x i (airplane’(x i ) y (=(y,x i )) 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 airplan es avail(c ) x i (C (depicts(x i ,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) this’ = x i ) M,w,i,c,g = 1 Baufix toy airplane used in construction dialogues Example sentence This is an airplane. this’ Pred 2 : y (=(y,x i )) VP: y (=(y,x i )) V cop : = = NP: x i S’: y (=(y,x i )) this’ Det:P S’ x i (P(x i ) S’) x i NP: this’ Det: this’ S’: x (airplane’(x i ) y (=(y,x i )) this’) NP i : S’ x i (airplane’(x i ) S’) an’ N: z airplane’( z) airplan e’ = x i (airplane’(x i ) y (=(y,x i )) this’) lf-Structure of This is an airplane Kaplan model M W = {w 1 , w 2 }, I = {i 1 }, W I = {<w 1 , i 1 >, <w 2 , i 1 >} U = {airplane-model 1 , airplane 1 , airplane 2 , , {airplane 1 , airplane 2 }} ind-obj(c) = airplane-model 1 avail(c) = {airplane-model 1 } mdb(c) = {<w 1 , i 1 >} V(airplane’)(c)(<w,i>) = {airplane 1 , airplane 2 } for all <w,i> W I g(x 1 ) = airplane 1 , g(C) = , etc. thi s Pre d is NP NP i an airplan e Nom S VP V cop e i NP S LF-Structure of This is an airplane De t Semantics-Pragmatics- Interface for Metonymy Resolution Josef Meyer-Fujara (FH Stralsund), Hannes Rieser (Uni Bielefeld)