perm filename CSLI.S85[BB,DOC] blob
sn#802850 filedate 1985-09-24 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00060 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00009 00002 ∂01-Apr-85 1132 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA program synthesis seminar
C00016 00003 ∂02-Apr-85 0858 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk by albert meyer (mit)
C00019 00004 ∂03-Apr-85 1436 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics Drinks Resume Fridays
C00021 00005 ∂03-Apr-85 1718 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Apr. 4, No. 23
C00035 00006 ∂05-Apr-85 1553 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for non-linguists
C00037 00007 ∂10-Apr-85 1740 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Apr. 11, No. 24
C00057 00008 ∂11-Apr-85 0924 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Colloquium Cancelled
C00058 00009 ∂15-Apr-85 0810 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Reminder: Meyer talk Mon, 4:15, @SRI
C00060 00010 ∂15-Apr-85 0820 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge
C00066 00011 ∂17-Apr-85 0807 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Program:Meeting of Society for Philosophy and Psychology
C00096 00012 ∂17-Apr-85 1800 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Apr. 18, No. 25
C00111 00013 ∂19-Apr-85 1300 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA fodor talk
C00114 00014 ∂24-Apr-85 1742 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Apr. 25, No. 26
C00128 00015 ∂25-Apr-85 0942 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA logic seminar
C00130 00016 ∂26-Apr-85 0946 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Psych. Dept. Friday Cognitive Seminar
C00134 00017 ∂01-May-85 1647 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 2, No. 27
C00147 00018 ∂03-May-85 1215 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA ling colloq
C00151 00019 ∂08-May-85 1748 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 9, No. 28
C00163 00020 ∂13-May-85 0832 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk by shankar, weds, 4:15, in EJ232, on Mechanical Proofs in Metamathematics
C00166 00021 ∂13-May-85 1343 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA This Thursday's Colloquium
C00170 00022 ∂13-May-85 1631 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Hausser talk
C00172 00023 ∂15-May-85 1721 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 16, No. 29
C00187 00024 ∂17-May-85 1200 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Situation Semantics
C00189 00025 ∂22-May-85 1929 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 23, No. 30
C00205 00026 ∂23-May-85 0825 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Special seminar
C00209 00027 ∂24-May-85 1254 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Situation Semantics
C00211 00028 ∂30-May-85 0651 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 30, No. 31
C00222 00029 ∂03-Jun-85 0923 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Situation Semantics Made Easy
C00224 00030 ∂05-Jun-85 1729 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter June 6, No. 32
C00235 00031 ∂06-Jun-85 1027 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Announcement Correction
C00236 00032 ∂06-Jun-85 1040 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Today's Seminar
C00237 00033 ∂12-Jun-85 1736 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter June 13, No. 33
C00246 00034 ∂13-Jun-85 1131 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA TINLUNCH
C00249 00035 ∂19-Jun-85 1809 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter June 20, No. 34
C00268 00036 ∂26-Jun-85 1743 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter June 27, No. 35
C00280 00037 ∂03-Jul-85 1740 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter July 4, No. 36
C00286 00038 ∂08-Jul-85 1638 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA An Object Model of Information
C00290 00039 ∂10-Jul-85 1705 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter
C00291 00040 ∂17-Jul-85 1740 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter July 18, No. 37
C00301 00041 ∂18-Jul-85 1353 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA CSLI Talk
C00303 00042 ∂23-Jul-85 0817 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk on rplaca wed., 4:15
C00306 00043 ∂24-Jul-85 1747 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter July 25, No. 38
C00322 00044 ∂26-Jul-85 1336 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:GOGUEN@SRI-CSLA.ARPA Round table on Semantics of Programming Languages
C00326 00045 ∂29-Jul-85 1710 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA [Lauri Karttunen <Lauri@SU-CSLI.ARPA>: Question]
C00329 00046 ∂31-Jul-85 1707 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 1, No 39
C00337 00047 ∂07-Aug-85 1718 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 8, No. 40
C00346 00048 ∂14-Aug-85 1743 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 15, No. 41
C00358 00049 ∂21-Aug-85 1736 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 22, No. 42
C00369 00050 ∂30-Aug-85 1355 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--September 3rd
C00376 00051 ∂30-Aug-85 1427 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 29, No. 43
C00386 00052 ∂04-Sep-85 1354 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Sept 10
C00391 00053 ∂04-Sep-85 1736 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter September 5, No. 44
C00406 00054 ∂11-Sep-85 1741 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter September 12, No. 45
C00415 00055 ∂12-Sep-85 0908 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Sept. 17
C00421 00056 ∂16-Sep-85 1004 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA CSLI talk
C00424 00057 ∂18-Sep-85 2112 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:davies%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar, Sept. 24, 1985
C00430 00058 ∂19-Sep-85 0850 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter September 19, No. 46
C00444 00059 ∂24-Sep-85 1144 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:KAELBLING@SRI-AI.ARPA Course Announcement
C00447 00060 ∂24-Sep-85 1722 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:KAELBLING@SRI-AI.ARPA Room Change
C00448 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂01-Apr-85 1132 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA program synthesis seminar
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 11:32:03 PST
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Mon 1 Apr 85 10:31:11-PST
Mail-From: WALDINGER created at 1-Apr-85 10:21:21
Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 10:21:21-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: program synthesis seminar
To: AIC-Associates: ;
ReSent-date: Mon 1 Apr 85 10:26:03-PST
ReSent-From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 11:28:28-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Seminar in Program Synthesis
CS400C MW 11-12:15 (note change in time)
MJH 352
Richard Waldinger
A unified treatment of current research on the
systematic derivation of programs to meet given
specifications, with an emphasis on the deductive
approach.
Related topics in theorem proving, program
transformation, logic programming, and planning.
Individual projects.
-------
∂02-Apr-85 0858 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk by albert meyer (mit)
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Apr 85 08:58:13 PST
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Mon 1 Apr 85 17:13:06-PST
Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 17:04:23-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: talk by albert meyer (mit)
To: AIC-Associates: ;,
CSL: ;, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, bboard@SRI-AI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: meyer@MIT-MC.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 2 Apr 85 08:53:52-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
when: mon, april 15, 4:15pm
where: csl conference room (el381)
building e, sri, on ravenswood av. opposite pine street, menlo park
coffee: 3:45 pm in waldinger's office (ek292)
REASONING ABOUT BLOCK STRUCTURED VARIABLES: WHAT MAKES THE FREE-LIST FREE?
Albert R. Meyer
Abstract: Let Q be an identifier denoting a "global" (i.e., unknown) procedure
which takes a procedure parameter. In many familiar programming languages (say
Pascal or ALGOL, but not C) the block
BEGIN
INT X:=0;
PROCEDURE P();
x:=x+2;
END(*of P*);
Q(P);
IF EVEN?(x) THEN RUN←FOREVER
ELSE...FI
END
always runs forever. The reason is that the "new" variable x is initialized to
0, and the global procedure Q, which has no independent access to x, is only
given the ability to increment x by 2, so if and when Q(P) terminates, it can
only have added 2 to 0 a finite number of times, thereby leaving x even.
None of the logical systems in the literature for reasoning about procedures is
powerful enough to prove this fact. Indeed, this fact is not even true
according to the standard models of storage allocation. In this talk, we
discuss some of the theoretical difficulties in reasoning about local storage.
-------
∂03-Apr-85 1436 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics Drinks Resume Fridays
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Apr 85 14:35:57 PST
Mail-From: BRESNAN created at 2-Apr-85 20:09:51
Date: Tue 2 Apr 85 20:09:51-PST
From: Joan Bresnan <BRESNAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Linguistics Drinks Resume Fridays
To: researchers@SU-CSLI.ARPA, RAS@SU-CSLI.ARPA, visitors@SU-CSLI.ARPA,
folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Wed 3 Apr 85 14:30:15-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
To Linguists of All Persuasions & Affiliations--
Starting this Friday, April 5, on the full moon of the month
drinks will resume in the Lounge of Linguistics, Building 100, at
4:30 p.m. Everyone with any affinal, agnatal, intellectual, or
disinterested connection to linguistics is welcome. You may also
wish to come unconnected, simply to observe real linguists, who
are known for their charisma, panache, and eloquence under drink,
interact ("interact": a California euphemism for . . . what we'll
be doing).
Your hostess will be a noted theoretical linguist (someone has
noted everything, Berkeley).
-------
∂03-Apr-85 1718 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Apr. 4, No. 23
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Apr 85 17:18:13 PST
Date: Wed 3 Apr 85 16:26:36-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Apr. 4, No. 23
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
April 4, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 23
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, April 4, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Types, Translations, and Prepositions''
Conference Room by Mark Gawron, New York University
Discussion will be led by Mark Gawron
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Manipulating Models in Syllogistic Reasoning''
Room G-19 Marilyn Ford, CSLI
Tom Wasow will lead the discussion
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Two Cheers for Functional Role Semantics''
Room G-19 Ned Block, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, April 11, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Semantics for Natural Language: Metaphysics
Conference Room for the Simple-minded?''
Chris Menzel, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``What if the World Were Really Quite Simple?''
Room G-19 Alex Pentland, CSLI
Discussion leader to be announced
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``A Formal Theory of Innate Linguistic Knowledge''
Room G-19 Janet Dean Fodor, University of Connecticut and CSLI
(Abstract on page 3)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter April 4, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Semantics for Natural Language: Metaphysics for the Simple-minded?''
What, exactly, is the connection between semantics and metaphysics?
A semantical theory gives an account of the meaning of certain
expressions in natural language, and, intuitively, the meaning of an
expression has to do with the connection between the expression (or an
utterance of it) and the world. Thus, a simple-minded view might be
that (as far as it goes) a correct semantical theory ipso facto yields
the sober metaphysical truth about what there is.
To the contrary, implicit in much work in semantics is the idea
that all we should expect of a good theory is that it be, in Keenan's
terms, descriptively adequate: it should provide a theoretical
structure which preserves our judgments of logical truth and
entailment, never mind the question of the literal metaphysical
details of the structure (e.g., that the denotations of singular terms
are complex sets of sets rather than individuals).
For next week's TINlunch I will provide a framework for discussion
by laying out the simple-minded view and its chief rival in somewhat
more detail. Being rather simple-minded myself, I'll attempt to
defend a reasonable version of the former. As grist for both
philosophical mills I will draw upon recent work in intensional logic,
Montague grammar, generalized quantifiers, the semantics of plurals,
and situation semantics. --Chris Menzel
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``What if the World Were Really Quite Simple?''
One of the major stumbling blocks for efforts in AI has been the
apparent overwhelming complexity of the natural world; for instance,
when an AI program tries to decide on a course of action (or the
meaning of a sentence) it is often defeated by the incredible number
of alternatives to consider. Results such as those of Tversky,
however, argue that people are able to use characteristics of the
current situation to somehow "index" directly into the two or three
most likely alternatives, so that deductive reasoning per se plays a
relatively minor role.
How could people accomplish such indexing? One possibility is that
the structure of our environment is really quite a bit simpler that it
appears on the surface, and that people are able to use this structure
to constrain their reasoning much more tightly than is done in current
AI research.
Is it possible that the world is really relatively simple? In
forming a scientific theory we may trade the size and complexity of
description against the amount of error. Because modern scientific
endeavors have placed great emphasis on increasingly accurate
description, very little effort has gone toward discovering a grain
size of description at which the world may be relatively simply
described while still maintaining a useful level of accuracy.
I will argue that such a simple description of the world is
plausible, discuss progress in discovering such a descriptive
vocabulary, and comment on how knowledge of such a vocabulary might
have a profound impact on AI and psychology. --Alex Pentland
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter April 4, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``A Formal Theory of Innate Linguistic Knowledge''
I assume that an infant is innately provided with some sort of
representational medium in which to record what he observes about his
target language. It has occasionally been suggested that the formal
properties of this mental metalanguage could be the source of
universal properties of natural languages. This differs from the
standard ( = substantive) approach, which assumes in addition that
certain statements of this metalanguage are innately tagged as true.
I propose to take the formal approach seriously. The way to do so
seems to be to try for a theory which accounts for ALL universals in
this way, i.e., solely on the basis of what can and cannot be
expressed in the metalanguage. The attempt is very informative, even
if ultimately it fails.
Success is certainly not guaranteed, for the formal theory
overthrows many familiar assumptions. For instance, it can be shown to
be incompatible (on standard assumptions about children and their
linguistic input) with the existence of any constraints on rule
application or on derivational representations. All the work of
distinguishing well-formed from ill-formed sentences must be done by
rules only. Constraints can determine the shape of the rules, but
cannot tidy up after them if they overgenerate.
It is easiest to see how to set about formulating grammars of this
kind within the framework of GPSG, and it is encouraging that a number
of universals do fall out as consequences of the GPSG formalism. But
there are problems too. Syntactic features, in particular, create
headaches for learnability. --Janet Fodor
[Note to attendees of the Berkeley Cognitive Science Seminars -- this
is the same as the paper presented there on 3/19.]
←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORT
Report No. 14C, ``Aspectual Classes in Situation Semantics'' by
Robin Cooper, has just been published. This analysis of certain tenses
of English, using the theory of situation semantics, may be obtained
by writing to Dikran@SU-CSLI or Dikran Karagueuzian, CSLI, Ventura
Hall, Stanford, CA 94305.
-------
∂05-Apr-85 1553 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for non-linguists
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Apr 85 15:52:40 PST
Mail-From: BLOCK created at 5-Apr-85 15:02:29
Date: Fri 5 Apr 85 15:02:29-PST
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Linguistics for non-linguists
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Fri 5 Apr 85 15:43:11-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
PANEL DISCUSSION ON SYNTACTIC THEORIES
The lecturers in our series on syntactic theories for non-linguists
are back, this time in a panel discussion. Joan Bresnan, Geoff
Pullum, and Peter Sells will take questions from the audience (no
initial presentations, so come with questions). This time, linguists
ARE allowed, but they are asked to stick to matters that non-linguists
will have a chance of understanding. If you think of questions in
advance, send them to the panelists so that they can think about them
(BRESNAN@SU-CSLI,PULLUM@SU-CSLI,SELLS@SU-CSLI).
Tuesday, April 16
1:30
Redwood G-19
-------
∂10-Apr-85 1740 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Apr. 11, No. 24
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Apr 85 17:39:52 PST
Date: Wed 10 Apr 85 17:26:31-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Apr. 11, No. 24
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
April 11, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 24
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, April 11, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Semantics for Natural Language: Metaphysics
Conference Room for the Simple-minded?''
Chris Menzel, CSLI
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``What if the World Were Really Quite Simple?''
Room G-19 Alex Pentland, CSLI
Discussion led by Jerry Hobbs, SRI International
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``A Formal Theory of Innate Linguistic Knowledge''
Room G-19 Janet Dean Fodor, University of Connecticut and CSLI
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, April 18, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall A. P. Martinich's ``A Theory for Metaphor''
Conference Room Discussion led by Paul Schacht
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall Title to be announced
Room G-19 Brian Smith, Xerox PARC and CSLI
Discussion led by Stan Rosenschein
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Two Examiners Marked Six Papers: Interpretations
Room G-19 of Numerically Quantified Sentences''
Martin Davies, Birkbeck College, U. of London
NEW DIRECTOR
Jon Barwise, CSLI's first Director, stepped down on April 1 in
order to devote more time to research. John Perry, the newly endowed
Henry Waldgrave Stuart professor of philosophy at Stanford, succeeds
him.
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter April 11, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
Much work has been done on the concept of metaphor, but most of
this work does not place metaphor within a general theory of language
or language use. So argues A. P. Martinich in his article ``A Theory
for Metaphor.'' Martinich attempts to explain metaphor in terms of
Grice's theory of conversation, maintaining that metaphor is
pragmatically rather than semantically based and that, while ``there
is a sense in which the sentence used metaphorically has a
metaphorical meaning, this meaning is itself a consequence of the
mechanisms that give rise to the metaphor and are not what makes the
metaphor possible.'' We will use Martinich's assertions as a point of
departure-- as it were--for a general discussion of metaphor.
←←←←←←←←←←←← --Paul Schacht
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Two Examiners Marked Six Papers''
Interpretations of numerically quantified sentences
Numerically quantified sentences, such as
(1) Two examiners marked six scripts
admit of several different readings. In ``Ambiguity and Quantification'',
Ruth Kempson and Annabel Cormack proposed four interpretations to be
derived from a ``single semantic representation''. I begin with a brief
exposition of their proposal, and raise several questions about it.
My main aim is to present an alternative semantic proposal. After
a brief glance at the distributive reading of sentences with just one
numerical quantifier, I move to the group or collective reading. Here
I rely on work by Barry Taylor on articulated predication. This is
related to Adam Morton's multigrade relations, and Richard Grandy's
anadic logic.
Iterated deployment of the semantic resources used for the
distributive and collective readings of very simple sentences
provides, in principle, for eight readings of a sentence like (1).
But some of the readings turn out to be equivalent, and the pattern of
equivalences varies with different choices of binary predicate in
place of ``marked''. After comparison of these readings with those
proposed by Kempson and Cormack, a branching quantifier representation
is proposed for the so-called complete group interpretation. I
conclude with some reflections on the questions raised at the outset.
←←←←←←←←←←←← --Martin Davies
LOGIC SEMINAR
``On the Model Theory of Shared Information''
Jon Barwise, CSLI
April 16, at 4:15, Room 381 T (Math Corner)
The traditional model-theoretic approach to the problem of shared
understanding (public information, common knowledge, mutual belief)
has been through an iterated hierarchy of attitude reports (c knows
that b knows ... that c knows that P), mirroring the iterated
hierarchy in set theory and higher-order model theory. In this talk I
want to show that Aczel's work on non-wellfounded sets gives us a new
tool for a ``direct'' model-theoretic approach through situations. I
will go on to state some approximation theorems that show to what
extent the hierarchy approach does and does not add up, in the limit,
to the direct approach. The results raise a number of interesting
model-theoretic questions that only arise in the context of
non-wellfounded sets.
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter April 11, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT SEMINAR
``Morphological & Prosodic Cues in the Learning
of a Miniature Phrase-Structure Language''
Richard Meier, Stanford
April 12, 3:15pm, Jordan Hall, Rm. 100
I will claim that the input to language learning is a grouped and
structured sequence of words and that learning operates most
successfully on such structures, and not on mere word strings. After
briefly reviewing evidence for such groupings in natural language,
this claim will be supported by three experiments in artificial
language learning. These experiments allow rigorous control of the
input to the learner. Prior work had argued that, in such
experiments, adult subjects can learn complex syntactic rules only
with extensive semantic mediation. In the current experiments,
subjects fully learned complex aspects of syntax if they viewed, or
heard, sentences (paired with an uninformative semantics) containing
one of three grouping cues for constituent structure: prosody,
function words, or agreement suffixes on the words within a
constituent. Absent such cues, subjects learned only limited aspects
of syntax. These results suggest that, in natural languages, such
grouping cues may subserve syntax learning.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI SEMINAR
``Tacit Knowledge: Subdoxasticity and Modularity''
Martin Davies, Birkbeck College, London
10:15, Tuesday, April 16, Ventura Seminar Room
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CONFERENCE ON EVOLUTION AND INFORMATION
A conference on Evolution and Information with major support from
CSLI will be held at Stanford this April 19-21. The specific focus of
the conference will be on the use of optimality models both in biology
and in the human sciences. Papers will be contributed to the
conference by biologists, philosophers, psychologists, and
anthropologists. Apart from addressing problems and limitations of
optimality models within biology, an important aim of the conference
will be to explore the relevance of biological results, either
factually or methodologically, to other areas of inquiry.
Contributors will be asked to give a brief summary of their papers
at the conference sessions but papers will not be read. For further
information about the conference contact John Dupre, Philosophy,
Stanford University (415-497-2587, Dupre@Turing).
←←←←←←←←←←←←
PHILOSOPHY COURSE
The seminar ``Nonexistent Objects and the Semantics of Fiction''
will now be meeting regularly on Tuesdays from 12:30 - 2:15 in the
Ventura Trailers Conference Room. The course, though listed in the
Philosophy Department, will satisfy requirements for the formal
systems major. --Ed Zalta
!
Page 4 CSLI Newsletter April 11, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
WORKSHOP ON FINITE STATE MORPHOLOGY
CSLI, Stanford July 29-30, 1985
In the area of syntax there has been for a long time a connection
between linguistics and computer science. Mathematical and
computational issues are often raised in connection with certain kinds
of syntactic problems. Some concepts, such as unification, that have
their origins in computer science have been added to the linguistic
vocabulary as a result of this interaction.
In phonology and morphology, the situation has so far been
different. In this domain, descriptive and theoretical work for the
most part has proceeded without parallel mathematical and
computational effort. It appears that this situation is about to
change. There is a great deal of new activity in computational
morphology that stems from yet unpublished work by Martin Kay and
Ronald Kaplan on implementing phonological rules as finite state
transducers. Because the use of finite state devices is the central
idea that characterizes this approach, it seems appropriate to talk
about FINITE STATE MORPHOLOGY. One major piece of work in this line
of research is Kimmo Koskenniemi's recent dissertation on Two-level
Morphology. There are many features in current phonology that are
missing from implementations of Finite State Morphology that have been
built so far. It has not been shown that all relevant phenomena can
be handled in a satisfactory way by finite state means.
Given this state of affairs, the stage is set for useful exchanges
between theoretical and descriptive phonologists, computer scientists,
and linguists who are working on computational morphology. We are
planning a workshop on Finite State Morphology in Palo Alto under the
auspices of CSLI. The dates for the workshop are July 29-30. Among
the topics that we expect to discuss are the following:
- Points of friction between Finite State approaches to phonology
and linguistic theory; phenomena that present fundamental problems.
- New ideas within this framework.
- Descriptive work on particular languages.
- Representation of rules as transducers, compilation.
- Mathematical properties of rule systems. Send comments and
inquiries to Lauri Karttunen (LAURI@SU-CSLI.ARPA).
←←←←←←←←←←←←
PANEL DISCUSSION ON SYNTACTIC THEORIES
1:30, Tuesday, April 16, Redwood G-19
The lecturers in our series on syntactic theories for non-linguists
are back, this time in a panel discussion. Joan Bresnan, Geoff
Pullum, and Peter Sells will take questions from the audience (no
initial presentations, so come with questions). This time, linguists
ARE allowed, but they are asked to stick to matters that non-linguists
will have a chance of understanding. If you think of questions in
advance, send them to the panelists so that they can think about them
(BRESNAN@SU-CSLI,PULLUM@SU-CSLI,SELLS@SU-CSLI).
-------
∂11-Apr-85 0924 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Colloquium Cancelled
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Apr 85 09:24:30 PST
Date: Thu 11 Apr 85 09:21:02-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Colloquium Cancelled
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
THIS THURSDAY'S COLLOQUIUM
``A Formal Theory of Innate Linguistic Knowledge''
Janet Fodor
Has been postponed because of illness (laryngitis). The new time will
be announced later.
-------
∂15-Apr-85 0810 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Reminder: Meyer talk Mon, 4:15, @SRI
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Apr 85 08:10:34 PST
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 12 Apr 85 17:13:14-PST
Date: Fri 12 Apr 85 17:05:32-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Reminder: Meyer talk Mon, 4:15, @SRI
To: AIC-Associates: ;,
CSL: ;, bboard@SRI-AI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: Meyer@MIT-MC.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 15 Apr 85 08:06:01-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
on: Reasoning About Block Structured Variables:
What Makes the Free List Free?
in: EL381 (the Computer Science Lab Conference Room)
Building E, SRI International, on Ravenswood
Avenue, opposite the Pine Street Intersection, Menlo Park
at: 4:15pm, this Monday (not last Monday), 4/15
(note that time=date)
coffee: in Waldinger office (ek292) at 3:45pm
(come on time, it goes fast)
The speaker is Albert Meyer
-------
∂15-Apr-85 0820 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Apr 85 08:20:15 PST
Return-Path: <halpern.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 12 Apr 85 21:20:10-PST
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id a009239; 13 Apr 85 0:17 EST
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 85 19:24:07 PST
From: Joe Halpern <halpern%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory@wisc-crys.ARPA
Subject: Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge
CC: arpanet-bboards@mit-mc.ARPA, ailist-request@sri-ai.ARPA,
friends@su-csli.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 15 Apr 85 08:06:42-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
CONFERENCE ON THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF REASONING ABOUT KNOWLEDGE:
FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS
A conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge
will be held Mar. 19-22, 1986, at the Asilomar Conference Center in
Monterey. While traditionally research in this area was mainly done by
philosophers, recently it has been shown to be of great
relevance to computer science, especially in such areas as artificial
intelligence, distributed systems, database systems,
and cryptography. There has also been interest in the area among
linguists and economists. The aim
of this conference is to bring together
researchers from these various disciplines
with the intent of furthering our theoretical understanding of
reasoning about knowledge.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
* Semantic models for knowledge and belief
* Resource-bounded knowledge (appropriate for modelling reasoners with
limited reasoning power and reasoning about cryptographic protocols)
* Using knowledge to specify and reason about distributed systems
* Semantic models of knowledge acquisition and learning
* Nonmonotonic reasoning
Please send 8 copies of a detailed abstract
not exceeding 10 double-spaced typewritten pages in length
(not a full paper),
by September 15, 1985, to the program chair:
Dr. J. Halpern
IBM Research, K51/281
5600 Cottle Rd.
San Jose, CA 95193
The abstract should include a clear description of the problem being
addressed, comparisons with extant work, and a section on major
original contributions of this work. The abstract must provide
sufficient detail for the program committee to make a decision.
Papers will be chosen on the basis of scientific merit, originality,
and appropriateness for this conference.
Authors will be notified of acceptance by Nov. 1, 1985. Accepted
papers typed on special pages will be due at the above address
by Dec. 15, 1985.
The program committee members are:
M. Fischer, Yale
J. Halpern, IBM San Jose
H. Levesque, University of Toronto
R. Moore, SRI
R. Parikh, CUNY/Brooklyn College
R. Stalnaker, Cornell
R. Thomason, Pittsburg
M. Vardi, Stanford/CSLI
We hope to allow enough time between the talks during the conference
for private discussions and small group meetings. In order to
ensure that the conference remains relatively small, attendance will
be limited to invited participants and
authors of accepted papers.
Support for the conference has been received from IBM and AAAI;
an application for further support is pending at ONR.
∂17-Apr-85 0807 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Program:Meeting of Society for Philosophy and Psychology
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Apr 85 08:06:53 PST
Mail-From: BLOCK created at 16-Apr-85 15:46:50
Date: Tue 16 Apr 85 15:46:50-PST
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Program:Meeting of Society for Philosophy and Psychology
To: su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 08:02:02-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
PROGRAM AND ABSTRACTS FOR MEETING OF SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY AND
PSYCHOLOGY
University of Toronto Wednesday May 15 - Saturday May 18, 1985
For information about the program [note that there may still be
room for some discussants or speakers], the usenet address for
the Program Chairman, Stevan Harnad, is:
bellcore!princeton!mind!srh
or write to: Stevan Harnad, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 20 Nas-
sau Street, Suite 240, Princeton NJ 08540
For information about local arrangements, write to: David Olson,
McLuhan Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
M5S 1A1
For information about the Society and attendance, write to: Owen
Flanagan, Secretary/Treasurer, Society for Philosophy & Psycholo-
gy, Philosophy Department, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02181
Workshop (2 full sessions)
Ia & Ib. Artificial Intelligence Versus Neural Modeling in
Psychological Theory
Participants include: D. Ballard, J. Barnden, P. Churchland,
P.C. Dodwell, J. Feldman, A. Goldman, S. Grossberg, S.J. Hanson,
P. Kitcher, W. Lycan, A. Newell, R. Schank, W. Seager.
Symposia (11)
II. Category Formation
Participants include: S. Harnad, G. Hirst, M. Lipton, G.
Matthews, R. Jackendoff, N. Macmillan, R. Millikan, R. Schank.
III. Unconscious Processing
Participants include: T. Carr, P. Kolers, A. Marcel, P. Merikle,
W. Savage, A. Treisman.
IV. Memory and Consciousness
Participants include: K. Bowers, M. Moscovitch, D. Schacter, A.
Marcel, R. Lockhart, E. Tulving.
V. New Directions in Evolutionary Theory
Participants include: E. Balon, O. Flanagan, A. Jensen, A. Rapo-
port, A. Rosenberg, M. Ruse, E. Sober, W. Shields.
VI. Paradoxical Neurological Syndromes
Participants include: O. Flanagan, M. Gazzaniga, A. Kertesz, A.
Marcel, R. Puccetti, O.Sacks.
VII. The Empirical Status of Psychoanalytic Theory
Participants include: M. Eagle, E. Erwin, A. Grunbaum, P. Kar-
vath, J. Masling, B. von Eckardt, R. Woolfolk.
VIII. The Scientific Status of Parapsychological Research
Participants include: J. Alcock, K. Emmett, R. Hyman, C. Honor-
ton, R.L. Morris, M. Truzzi.
IX. The Reality of the "G" (General) Factor in the Measurement
and Modeling of Intelligence
Participants include: D. Detterman, P. Hertzberg, A. Jensen, W.
Rozeboom, R. Traub.
X. The Ascription of Knowledge States to Children: Seeing,
Believing and Knowing
Participants include: D. Olson & J. Astington, J. Perner & H.
Wimmer, M. Taylor & J. Flavell, F. Dretske, S. Kuczaj.
XI. Psychology, Pictures and Drawing
Participants include: J. Caron-Prague, S. Dennis, J. Kennedy, D.
Pariser, S. Wilcox, J. Willats, S. Brison, W. Savage.
XII. Interpretation Versus Explanation in Cognitive and Social
Theory
Participants include: R. DeSousa, A. Grunbaum, S. Harnad, R. Ni-
choloson, A. Rosenberg, E. Sullivan, R. Woolfolk.
Contributed Paper Sessions (4):
XIII. Perception and Cognition (chairman: C. Normore)
To What Extent Do Beliefs Affect Apparent Motion (M. Dawson, R.
Wright) (discussant: P. Kolers)
Images, Pictures and Percepts (D. Reisberg, D. Chambers) (discus-
sant: W. Savage)
What the First Words Tell Us About Meaning and Cognition (A. Gop-
nik) (discussant: G. Matthews)
XIV. Induction and Information (chairman: R. Cohen)
Beyond Holism: Induction in the Context of Problem-Solving (P.
Thagard, K. Holyoak) (discussant: C.F. Schmidt)
The Semantic of Pragmatics (M.A. Gluck, J.E. Corter) (discussant:
D. H. Helman)
About Promises (J. Astington) (discussant: L. Forgerson)
XV. Evolution of Cognitive and Social Structures (chairman: C.
Olsen)
Is Decision Theory Reducible to Evolutionary Biology? (W.E. Coop-
er) (discussant: F. Wilson)
Human Nature, Love and Morality: The Possibility of Altruism (L.
Thomas) (discussant: N. Mrosovsky)
On How to Get Rid of the Craftsman (B. Dahlbom) (discussant: K.
Norwich)
XVI. Inferences About the Mind (chairman: J. Poland)
The Puzzle of Split-Brain Phenomena (S.C. Bringsjord) (discus-
sant: R. Puccetti)
The Mark of the Mental (R. Puccetti) discussant: L. Alanen
Natural Teleology (S. Silvers) (discussant: J. Barnden)
SYMPOSIUM ABSTRACTS FOLLOW:
I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE VERSUS NEURAL MODELING IN PSYCHOLOGI-
CAL THEORY
The issues will be discussed at two levels, a practical one (P)
and a foundational one (F). At the practical level the following
two questions will be considered: (P1) Is psychological theory-
building more successful with or without constraints from neuros-
cientific evidence and neuroscientific considerations? (P2) Are
the current differences between models that are neurally motivat-
ed (which tend to be statistical, connectionistic, and lately,
parallel) and models that are not neurally motivated (which tend
to be symbol/sentence manipulative) fundamental differences, and
is one approach more promising than the other?
At the foundational level the questions will be: (F1) What are
the data that psychological theory should account for (behavioral
performance? cognitive competence? real-time topography and exe-
cution? neural activity?)? (F2) Is a successful functional theory
of higher cognitive performance and competence necessarily
"implementation-independent" (i.e., independent of the architec-
ture of the mechanism that embodies it)? Tne issues will be dis-
cussed in the context of actual current work in modeling.
II. CATEGORY FORMATION
Categorization is a fundamental human activity. It is involved in
everything from operant discrimination to perceptual recognition
to naming to describing. Five different approaches to categori-
zation now exist more or less in parallel: (1) The nativist ap-
proach, which holds that there are few, if any, nontrivial induc-
tive categories, and hence that most categories are preformed
[see Symposium V]; (2) the statistical pattern recognition and
multidimensional scaling approach, which computer-models category
formation probabilistically; (3) the artificial intelligence ap-
proach, which models categorization with symbol-manipulation
rules; (4) the natural category approach, which investigates
categorization through reaction time studies and typicality judg-
ments and developmentally; (5) the categorical perception ap-
proach, which investigates categorization through discrimination
and identification studies. These approaches will be presented
and the interaction will aim at a synthesis.
III. UNCONSCIOUS PROCESSING
It is undeniable that most cerebral information processing is un-
conscious. Not only are vegetative functions such as posture and
respiration (as well as automatized, overlearned skills) uncons-
ciously controlled by the brain, but even the basic processes
underlying higher cognitive activity are unavailable to conscious
introspection: No one knows "how" he actually adds two and two,
retrieves a name, recognizes a face. This is what makes cognitive
modeling a nontrivial enterprise. But apart from these basic cog-
nitive processes (about which our ignorance is sufficient to
demonstrate that that they are not conscious), there are some
kinds of processes that are at least normally accompanied by some
awareness of their occurrence. These include the detection,
discrimination and identification of verbal and perceptual in-
puts. New data indicate that even these activities may sometimes
occur without introspective awareness of their occurrence. This
new look at "subliminal perception" and related phenomena in a
contemporary psychophysical, information processing framework
will examine the evidence, methodological criteria and theoreti-
cal interpretations of the newer findings. [See also Symposium
VI.)
IV. MEMORY AND CONSCIOUSNESS
The symposium will examine the distinction between memory (the
consequence of some experience) and remembering (the awareness of
past events), which involves consciousness of a past experience.
The distinction involves the relation between mental processes
that reasonably decribe the performance of intelligent systems
(whether animals, people or machines), that is, "subpersonal"
cognitive psychology, and the intentional mental activities and
states of conscious human adults: "intentional psychology."
V. NEW DIRECTIONS IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Among the current developments in evolutionary theory and their
implications for psychology that will be discussed are: (1) The
"new preformationism," arising chiefly from develomental biology,
according to which there are substantial structural constraints
on the variation on which selection can operate; this implies
that there are structures and functions that cannot be regarded
as having been shaped by random variation and selection by conse-
quences but rather as having arisen from boundary conditions on
biological structures. The issue is particularlly relevant to
questions about the origins of cognitive and linguistic struc-
tures [Symposium II]. (2) Current sociobiological theory has be-
come concerned with cognitive questions, in particular, the ex-
istence of "cognitive primitives" on which selection would
operate in a way that is analogous to its effects on traits coded
by genes: Is this "gene-culture co-evolution" and its new unit,
the "culturgen" just overinclusive curve-fitting or is there a
real empirical phenomenon here? (3) In general, are the kinds of
assumptions and inclusive-fitness calculations that characterize
sociobiological theorizing (and that have been critically re-
ferred to as "just-so stories") a reasonable explanatory handicap
or signs of taking the wrong theoretical direction? In particu-
lar, when is a conscious, cognitive explanation of a behavior
[Symposium III] preferable to an unconscious, fitness-related
one?
VI. PARADOXICAL NEUROLOLOGICAL STATES
This symposium will consider neurological states that (based on
their symptoms and inferences from their symptoms) are very hard
to imagine "being in." These include: (1) "blindsight," i.e., the
loss of all conscious visual experience, but with the retention
of "visual" information (e.g., object location); (2) the anosag-
nosias and attentional disorders, i.e., the apparent unawareness
and denial of dramatic neurological deficits such as loss of
large portions of the visual field or of body sensation; (3)
deconnection phenomena such as alexia without agraphia (intact
vision with the loss of all ability to read but the retention of
the ability to write) or the split-brain patient's ability to
match but inability to name out-of-sight objects grasped with the
left hand; (4) various memory disorders such as the ability to
acquire cognitive information and skills with complete inability
to remember the episodes in which they were acquired [cf. Sympo-
sium IV]; (5) confabulations arising from these paradoxical
states (i.e., the unusual way patients rationalize having these
deficits). The clinical phenomenology of these paradoxical states
will be decsribed and then they will be discussed in terms of
current philosophical, psychological and neurological theories of
cognition and consciousness.
VII. THE EMPIRICAL STATUS OF PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
The empirical status of psychoanalytic theory will be considered
in terms of the following questions: (1) Is psychoanalytic theory
testable? (2) If so, how much of it is testable, and, in particu-
lar, what parts? (3) How is it testable (clinically? experimen-
tally? epidemiologically?)? (4) How much of psychoanalytic theory
has actually been tested in these ways, and was the theory sup-
ported by the evidence? (5) Are future tests of psychoanalytic
theory likely to yield outcomes that support the theory, and is
this theory the best one to use to guide future research? (6) Is
the proportion of psychoanalytic theory that is testable compar-
able to the proportions of other scientific theories that are te-
stable, or is evidence disproportionately remote from or ir-
relevant to psychoanalytic theory? (7) Is testability irrelevant
to some kinds of theoretical understanding? (8) Is psychoanalytic
theory based on adequate views of conscious and unconscious
processes and explanation? These questions will be discussed by
clinicians, experimentalists and methodologists of science.
VIII. THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
In parapsychology there appears to be a chronic polarization of
rival views in a way that only occurs occasionally and briefly at
the frontiers of other kinds of scientific research. The polari-
zation consists of those who accept the validity of the reported
phenomena and of the theoretical framework accounting for them
and those who do not. The following questions will be considered:
(1) Is the polarization merely a prejudice, or are there objec-
tive characteristics that set this field of research apart? (2)
Are there special problems with furnishing replicable positive
evidence in this area? (3) Are there logical problems with the
theoretical framework in which the research is undertaken? (4)
Are there statistical problems with the data-analysis and the
underlying assumptions? (5) Is there any possibility of resolu-
tion, or will the field always continue to split among believers
and nonbelievers, and if the latter, (6) what does that imply
about the scientific validity of this domain of inquiry? These
questions will be discussed, in the context of representative
current experimental work in parapsychological research, by
parapsychologists, skeptics and (as yet) uncommitted methodolo-
gists.
IX. THE REALITY OF THE "G" (GENERAL) FACTOR IN THE MEASUREMENT
AND MODELING OF INTELLIGENCE
When intelligence tests are factor-analyzed (i.e., the structure
of their correlations with one another is reduced to a small
number of underlying variables), one general, overall factor al-
ways emerges, along with a number of special factors peculiar to
some groups of tests and not others. The general ("g") factor has
been interpreted as a unitary measure of general intelligence.
Some have challenged the reality of "g" on the grounds that indi-
vidual test items (and indeed entire tests) are so constructed as
to correlate with one another, and hence the overall positive
correlation factor is built in; moreover, it is argued that it is
fallacious to think in terms of an underlying, one-dimensional
unitary intelligence. Others have argued that "g" is an empirical
finding after all, because even tests constructed and validated
to measure the special abilities (e.g., verbal versus spatial
skills) have high "g" loadings, and indeed the more discriminat-
ing tests (the ones that are more sensitive to and predictive of
individual differences) tend to have the higher "g" loadings. The
technical and conceptual problems of measuring, validating and
modeling human cognitive capacities will be discussed in the con-
text of the interpretation of "g."
X. THE ASCRIPTION OF KNOWLEDGE STATES TO CHILDREN: SEEING,
BELIEVING AND KNOWING
Considerable discussion in cognitive science surrounds the issue
of the ascription of beliefs to animals, machines and young chil-
dren. Opinions range from that of Davidson, who argues that one
cannot have beliefs unless one has a concept of belief, to that
of Searle, who argues that "only someone in the grip of a philo-
sophical theory would deny that dogs and children have beliefs."
Recent research on children's ascription of beliefs to others and
to themselves in the interpretation of visual events may cast
some light on this question.
XI. PSYCHOLOGY, PICTURES AND DRAWING
The past decade has seen considerable interest in theory of dep-
iction and allied theories of drawing. Current theories are
technically well constructed, significant in themselves and, in
addition, have important implications for neighboring areas of
psychology. Yet they are often distinct in the assumptions they
make about perception, communication and the environment. The
present symposium draws together philosophers, educators and
psychologists who have developed theories about pictures, percep-
tion and drawing. Assumptions will be reviewed and implications
will be discussed.
XII. INTERPRETATION VERSUS EXPLANATION IN COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL
THEORY
The following questions will be considered: (1) What is an expla-
nation, and is "scientific" explanation an atypical case or a
paradigmatic one? (2) What is the role of testability and falsi-
fiability in explanation? (3) What is the role of considerations
of satisfyingness, coherence, elegance and other subjective cri-
teria in explanation? (4) Are there different explanatory metho-
dologies in the natural sciences and ther "human" sciences? (5)
Is there an objective way to choose among rival interpretations?
(Should there be? Is there one in the case of rival scientific
theories?) (6) Is there anything objective to replace the outmod-
ed "positivistic" stereotype? Pro and antihermeneuticists will
participate and the discussion will focus on the role of in-
terpretation in psychological and social scientific theory.
PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE
Wed am: VII vs. XIII (parallel sessions)
Wed pm: III vs. XIV
Wed eve: VI
Thurs am: II
Thurs pm: Ia
Thurs eve: Ib
Fri am: IV vs. XVI
Fri pm: II vs XV
Fri eve: (presidential address and business meeting)
Sat am: V vs. XI
Sat pm: VIII vs X
Sat eve: XII
SEND COMMENTS TO STEVAN HARNAD,
srh%mind%princeton%bellcore@ucb-vax
-------
∂17-Apr-85 1800 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Apr. 18, No. 25
Received: from [36.9.0.46] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Apr 85 17:59:51 PST
Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 17:11:18-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Apr. 18, No. 25
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
April 18, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 25
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, April 18, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall A. P. Martinich's ``A Theory for Metaphor''
Conference Room Discussion led by Paul Schacht
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``The Formality of Computation''
Room G-19 Brian Smith, Xerox PARC and CSLI
Discussion led by Stan Rosenschein
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Two Examiners Marked Six Papers: Interpretations
Room G-19 of Numerically Quantified Sentences''
Martin Davies, Birkbeck College, U. of London
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, April 25, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Cell Psychology: An Evolutionary Approach to
Conference Room the Symbol-Matter Problem'' by H. H. Pattee
Discussion led by Ivan Blair, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Whither CSLI?''
Room G-19 John Perry, Director, CSLI
(Abstract on page 3)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``The Representational Basis for Everyday Aesthetic
Room G-19 Experience -- A Motivational Constraint on Learnable
Systems of Knowledge''
Tom Bever, Columbia University and CASBS
(Abstract on page 3)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter April 18, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF THIS WEEK'S SEMINAR
``The Formality of Computation''
Most people would agree that computation is ``formal'' -- as for
example in the claim that computation is ``formal symbol manipulation''.
I will argue, however, that there is no reading of the term ``formal''
under which such a claim is both interesting and true. More
specifically, I will argue that the conditions we have called formality
are really projections into the symbolic or representational domain of
constraints arising from physical embodiment. As a consequence, I
will propose that a proper account of computation -- especially one
designed to mesh with other concerns at CSLI -- should set aside the
notion of formality and pay much more attention to matters of embodiment.
Note that I will NOT claim:
(i) that ``formal'' doesn't mean anything at all (in fact I will
propose several different coherent things it can mean);
(ii) that computation isn't representational (only that adding the
term ``formal'' doesn't buy you anything extra);
(iii) that current computers aren't formal, under at least one
coherent reading of the term (in fact I think they are).
I will also argue that we should distinguish two different reigning
notions of computation: one digital, one representational. Most
current computer systems, I will suggest, are digital, representational,
and formal. My claim is only that these three notions differ in
meaning, and could differ in extension as well. Only the first two
seem likely candidates in terms of which to define the notion(s) of
computation. --Brian Smith
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Cell Psychology:
An Evolutionary Approach to the Symbol-Matter Problem''
The central problem that Pattee is concerned with is that of the
relation between a symbol and its referent, what he calls the
matter-symbol problem. In other papers, he draws the same basic
distinction in terms of a dynamic (physical) mode and a linguistic
(symbolic) mode of operation of certain systems. Pattee has
consistently argued that the matter-symbol problem occurs at the level
of the single cell (genetic symbol and phenotypic referent, where this
terminology is to be taken seriously and literally, not
metaphorically), and that we should study this comparatively simple
example, using it as a test case for theories about the nature of
representation. One question to which we would like an answer is,
What distinguishes physical interaction from genuine symbol
manipulation?
In this article, Pattee considers both the information processing
approach and ecological realism, arguing that neither can offer any
real insight into the central problem, since each ignores one half of
it. The computational approach typically omits constraints that could
arise from material structures (instantiation in specific hardware)
from consideration and focuses on the more abstract level of programs,
while ecological realism ignores totally the symbolic side of the
problem. Adoption of formal, or logical concepts in the one case, and
physical concepts in the other, prohibits formulation of the problem.
Pattee's own approach, which embraces both the perspectives of symbol
processing and physical dynamics, attempts to relate these and
provides necessary conditions for a system to be dealing in symbols.
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter April 18, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Whither CSLI?''
Since no other forum is conveniently available, I am going to abuse
the seminar format for a practical talk rather than a report of
research.
I will discuss the problems and opportunities facing CSLI, and how
they relate to budget, computing environment, future funding
opportunities and the structure of our research effort. --John Perry
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``The Representational Basis for Everyday Aesthetic Experience --
A Motivational Constraint on Learnable Systems of Knowledge''
The structure of everyday aesthetic judgements depends on computations
of mental representations and relations between representations.
Examination of objects of everyday aesthetic preference (e.g., simple
rhythms, shapes, and songs) affords a definition of the aesthetically
satisfying experience: such experiences involve the formation of
incompatible representations and their resolution within the framework
of an overarching representational system. The enjoyment of such
experiences follows from the extent to which they are like solving a
problem during normal cognitive development. Indigenous systems like
language must have formal properties that stimulate aesthetically
satisfying experiences as an immediate motivation for the acquisition of
abstract structures. That is, we learn a multi-levelled representational
structure for language because it is fun. --Tom Bever
←←←←←←←←←←←←
LINGUISTICS DEPARTMENT COLLOQUIUM
``Deterministic Parsing and Subjacency''
Janet Dean Fodor, University of Connecticut and CSLI
Rm. 200-217 (History Corner), Tuesday, April 23, 3:15
Berwick and Weinberg (1984, MIT Press) claim that their
deterministic parser predicts the existence and range of application
of Subjacency, and that this provides simultaneous support for
Subjacency as the correct description of the linguistic facts, and for
deterministic models of the human sentence parsing mechanism.
I argue that the determinism of their parser is irrelevant to their
predictions, and that in any case all four of their predictions are
false.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA P-2 MEETING
``Lexical Phonology and Tone in Temne''
Will Leben, CSLI
Ventura Conference Room, Wednesday, April 24, 4:30
-------
∂19-Apr-85 1300 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA fodor talk
Received: from [36.9.0.46] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Apr 85 13:00:22 PST
Mail-From: KEMMER created at 18-Apr-85 17:06:27
Date: Thu 18 Apr 85 17:06:27-PST
From: Suzanne Kemmer <KEMMER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: fodor talk
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Fri 19 Apr 85 12:56:29-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
STANFORD LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM
Speaker:Janet Dean Fodor
University of Connecticut and CSLI
Date: Tuesday, April 23
Time: 3:15pm
Location: Bldg. 200, Rm.217
(History Corner, Quadrangle)
Reception following.
DETERMINISTIC PARSING AND SUBJACENCY
Berwick and Weinberg (1984, MIT Press) claim that their
deterministic parser predicts the existence and range of application
of Subjacency, and that this provides simultaneous support for
Subjacency as the correct description of the linguistic facts, and for
deterministic models of the human sentence parsing mechanism.
I argue that the determinism of their parser is irrelevant to
their predictions, and that in any case all four of their predictions
are false.
-------
-------
∂24-Apr-85 1742 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Apr. 25, No. 26
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Apr 85 17:42:42 PST
Date: Wed 24 Apr 85 17:10:00-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Apr. 25, No. 26
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
April 25, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 26
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, April 25, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Cell Psychology: An Evolutionary Approach to
Conference Room the Symbol-Matter Problem'' by H. H. Pattee
Ivan Blair, CSLI
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Whither CSLI?''
Room G-19 John Perry, Director, CSLI
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``The Representational Basis for Everyday Aesthetic
Room G-19 Experience -- A Motivational Constraint on Learnable
Systems of Knowledge''
Tom Bever, Columbia University and CASBS
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, May 2, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Categorizing the Senses of `Take' ''
Conference Room by Peter Norvig
Discussion led by Douglas Edwards
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Property Theory and Second-Order Logic''
Room G-19 Chris Menzel, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``A Formal Theory of Innate Linguistic Knowledge''
Room G-19 Janet Fodor, University of Connecticut
Originally scheduled for April 11
(Abstract on page 3)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter April 25, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Categorizing the Senses of `Take' ''
Polysemy is a perennial problem for semantic analysis of natural
language. Most common words are highly polysemous, and in a way which
is not plausibly construed as simple ambiguity among unrelated senses.
Polysemy also, though less obviously, offers a serious challenge to
efforts at understanding commonsense reasoning: apparently clear
verbal statements of goals, beliefs, and modes of reasoning may
conceal unanalyzed complexity due to systematic ambiguity of the terms
in which they are stated. (There may be an analogy between
commonsense concepts and the ``generic operations'' in object-oriented
programming environments, which apply to heterogeneous data types and
are differently interpreted according to the data type operated upon.)
In the paper under consideration, Norvig attempts to analyze about
130 uses of the verb ``take'' into 15 main senses clustered in a graph
about a single primary sense. He considers syntactic differences
between senses, pragmatic appropriateness of usage (in answering
questions), as well as a wide variety of intuitions and prior theories
about case structure, motivation and intended use of concepts, and
metaphorical and metonymic extension. Understanding the derivation of
the senses of words, in the way that Norvig tries to come to grips
with the derivation of the subsenses of ``take'' from its primary
sense, will be a necessary step toward characterizing commonsense
knowledge of the world. --Douglas Edwards
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Property Theory and Second-Order Logic''
Much recent work in semantics (e.g., Barwise and Perry, Chierchia,
Sells, Zalta) involves an extensive appeal to abstract logical
objects--properties, relations, and propositions. Such objects were
of course not unheard of in semantics prior to this work. What is
noteworthy is the extent to which the conception of these objects
differs from the prevailing conception in formal semantics, viz.,
Montague's. Two ways in which they differ (not necessarily common to
all recent accounts) stand out: first, these abstract objects are
metaphysically primitive, not set theoretic constructions out of
possible worlds and individuals; second, they are untyped--properties
can exemplify each other as well as themselves, relations can fall
within their own field, and so on.
With properties, relations, and propositions playing this more
prominent role in semantics (as well as in philosophy), it is
essential that there be a rigorous mathematical theory of these
objects. The framework for such a theory, I think, is second-order
logic; indeed, I will argue that second-order logic, rightly
understood, just IS the theory of properties, relations, and
propositions. To this end, building primarily on the work of Bealer,
Cocchiarella, and Zalta, I will present a second-order logic that is
provably consistent along with an algebraic intensional semantics
which yields significant insights into the structure of the abstract
ontology of logic and the paradoxes. Time permitting, I will apply the
logic to two issues, one in semantics and the other in the philosophy
of mathematics--specifically, to the analysis of noun phrases
involving terms of order like `fourth' and `last', and the question of
what the (ordinal) numbers are, to which I will give a logicist answer
adumbrated by Russell. --Chris Menzel
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter April 25, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``A Formal Theory of Innate Linguistic Knowledge''
I assume that an infant is innately provided with some sort of
representational medium in which to record what he observes about his
target language. It has occasionally been suggested that the formal
properties of this mental metalanguage could be the source of
universal properties of natural languages. This differs from the
standard ( = substantive) approach, which assumes in addition that
certain statements of this metalanguage are innately tagged as true.
I propose to take the formal approach seriously. The way to do so
seems to be to try for a theory which accounts for ALL universals in
this way, i.e., solely on the basis of what can and cannot be
expressed in the metalanguage. The attempt is very informative, even
if ultimately it fails.
Success is certainly not guaranteed, for the formal theory
overthrows many familiar assumptions. For instance, it can be shown to
be incompatible (on standard assumptions about children and their
linguistic input) with the existence of any constraints on rule
application or on derivational representations. All the work of
distinguishing well-formed from ill-formed sentences must be done by
rules only. Constraints can determine the shape of the rules, but
cannot tidy up after them if they overgenerate.
It is easiest to see how to set about formulating grammars of this
kind within the framework of GPSG, and it is encouraging that a number
of universals do fall out as consequences of the GPSG formalism. But
there are problems too. Syntactic features, in particular, create
headaches for learnability. --Janet Fodor
[Note to attendees of the Berkeley Cognitive Science Seminars -- this
is the same as the paper presented there on 3/19.]
←←←←←←←←←←←←
LOGIC, LANGUAGE, AND COMPUTATION MEETINGS
July 8-19, 1985, Stanford University
The Association for Symbolic Logic (ASL) and the Center for the
Study of Language and Information (CSLI) will be combining the CSLI
Summer School (July 8-13) with the ASL Meeting (July 15-19). For
further information and registration forms, write to Ingrid Deiwiks,
CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305, or call (415)497-3084 or send
computer mail to Ingrid@su-csli.arpa. The deadline for registering is
June 1, 1985.
-------
∂25-Apr-85 0942 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA logic seminar
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Apr 85 09:42:35 PST
Mail-From: SF created at 25-Apr-85 09:34:24
Date: Thu 25 Apr 85 09:34:24-PST
From: Sol Feferman <SF@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: logic seminar
To: emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA, clt@SU-AI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Thu 25 Apr 85 09:38:56-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Seminar in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics
Speaker: Prof. Itala d'Ottaviano, Univ. of Campinas, Brazil,
visiting Stanford and UC Berkeley
Title: Extension model theorems, definability and quantifier-
elimination for some many-valued theories.
Time: Tuesday, April 30, 4:15-5:30 P.M.
Place: Room 381-T, Math. Dept., Bldg. 380, Stanford
S. Feferman
-------
∂26-Apr-85 0946 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Psych. Dept. Friday Cognitive Seminar
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Apr 85 09:46:33 PST
Return-Path: <gluck@SU-PSYCH>
Received: from SU-PSYCH ([36.36.0.202].#Internet) by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 25 Apr 85 19:08:45-PST
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 85 05:01:59 pst
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
Subject: Psych. Dept. Friday Cognitive Seminar
To: friends@CSLI, su-bboards@score
ReSent-Date: Fri 26 Apr 85 09:36:03-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
A Computational Model of
Skill Aquisition
KURT VAN LEHN (Xerox PARC)
Abstract:
A theory will be presented that describes how people learn certain
procedural skills, such as the written algorithms of arithmetic and
algebra, from multi-lesson curricula. There are two main hypotheses.
(1) Teachers enforce, perhaps unknowingly, certain constraints that
relate the structure of the procedure to the structure of the lesson
sequence, and moreover, students employ these constraints, perhaps
unknowingly, as they induce a procedure from the lesson sequence. (2)
As students follow the procedure they have induced, they employ a
certain kind of meta-level problem solving to free themselves when their
interpretation of the procedure gets stuck. The theory's predictions,
which are generated by a computer model of the putative learning and
problem solving processes, have been tested against error data from
several thousand students. The usual irrefutability of computer
simulations of complex cognition has been avoided by a linguistic style
of argumentation that assigns empirical responsibility to individual
hypotheses.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
April 26th 3:15pm Jordan Hall; Rm. 100
∂01-May-85 1647 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 2, No. 27
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 May 85 16:47:34 PDT
Date: Wed 1 May 85 16:34:55-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter May 2, No. 27
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
May 2, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 27
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, May 2, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Categorizing the Senses of `Take' ''
Conference Room by Peter Norvig
Discussion led by Douglas Edwards
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Property Theory and Second-Order Logic''
Room G-19 Chris Menzel, CSLI
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``A Formal Theory of Innate Linguistic Knowledge''
Room G-19 Janet Fodor, University of Connecticut
Originally scheduled for April 11
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, May 9, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Scenes and Events''
Conference Room by Steven Neale, Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Approaches to Generalized Quantifiers in
Room G-19 Heim/Kamp Semantics''
Mats Rooth, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Reduced Forms of Comparative Clauses''
Room G-19 James D. McCawley, University of Chicago
(Abstract on page 3)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter May 2, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Scenes and Events''
In his paper ``The Logic of Perceptual Reports", Jim Higginbotham
presents an alternative to Situation Semantics' treatment of the
semantics of naked-infinitive perceptual reports such as ``John saw
Mary wink''. Drawing on an idea of Davidson's, Higginbotham attempts
to make explicit the implicit quantification over events in
NI-perceptual reports by augmenting the valency of certain verbs with
an extra quantifiable place. In this way, he purports to capture
Barwise's semantic generalizations purely formally at a level of
linguistic representation intimately related to LF in
Government-Binding theory.
In ``Scenes and Events'' Stephen Neale critically evaluates
Higginbotham's proposal, concluding that it fails on both semantic and
syntactic grounds: (i) it neither gives an adequate account of the
semantic facts it was meant to account for nor meshes with the sorts
of syntactic considerations which are supposed to motivate it, (ii) it
fails to confront problems which must be encountered by any purely
formal account of certain classes of semantic facts, and (iii) it
admits of no simple incorporation into the GB framework within which
Higginbotham wishes to embed it.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Approaches to Generalized Quantifiers in Heim/Kamp Semantics''
The original versions of Heim's file change semantics and Kamp's
discourse representation theory treated the quantificational
determiners ``every'' and ``no''. It has been pointed out that
extensions to other quantifiers are not immediate. One problem is
that the variable corresponding to the head of a quantified NP and the
variables corresponding to indefinites in the NP are given equal
status, although ``many a man who owns a donkey beats it'' and ``many
a donkey which is owned by a man is beaten by him'' appear to have
different truth conditions. Recently, generalized quantifier
treatments for DR theory have been proposed by Klein and others. I
will show how Barwise's parameterized set quantifiers can be
considered a theory of generalized quantifiers for file change
semantics, and consider extensions to plurals. --Mats Rooth
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter May 2, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Reduced Forms of Comparative Clauses''
Russell in 1905 observed that ``than''-clauses within a subordinate
clause can be ambiguous with regard to scope, e.g., (1) is ambiguous
with regard to whether the clause introduced by ``than'' is
semantically part of the complement of ``think.'' However, not all
reduced forms of ``than''-clauses exhibit this ambiguity; i.e., for
example, it is absent from the fully reduced ``than''-clause of (2).
(1) I thought your yacht was longer than it is.
(2) I thought your yacht was longer than her yacht.
If the clause introduced by ``than'' or ``as'' is treated as a
definite description (the x such that your yacht is x much long) and
underlying structures are assumed in which quantified expressions
(including definite descriptions) are sisters of the Ss that serve as
their scopes, the difference in possible interpretations of the
different reduced ``than''-clauses follows from the typology of
deletion transformations that distinguishes pronominal deletions,
which are subject only to the general constraints on where pronouns
can occur in relation to their antecedents, from REDUCTIONS, which
delete all but one constituent of an item and are subject to a
locality condition.
The resulting analysis of fully reduced ``than''-clauses, as in
(2), reveals them in fact to be ambiguous, but in a different way from
(1), and, in conjunction with an analysis in which tenses and
auxiliary verbs are external to their host Ss in underlying structure,
accounts for the 3-way ambiguity of (3).
(3) John has eaten more pizza than Bill.
--James McCawley
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF AREA NL-1 MEETING
``New Aspects of Aspect: A Look at Mandarin Chinese''
Carlota S. Smith, University of Texas
Friday, May 10, 2:30 pm, Ventura Hall Conference Room
A study of the aspectual system of Mandarin Chinese tests current
approaches to aspect: the system is considerably more complex than
that of familiar Indo-European languages, with several perfectives and
two imperfectives. Certain features of Chinese are particularly
interesting. One perfective involves an interval that spans beyond
the final endpoint of the situation talked about; it requires a
viewpoint component of aspect separate from situation type. Another
perfective, with reduplication, presents a particular situation type.
It can be accounted for with an aspect-changing lexical rule and
suggests the notion of marked, language-specific situation types. The
imperfectives differentiate the internal structure of statives and
non-statives. Finally, the Aristotelian situation types are realized
in Chinese within the general pattern of the language. Some verbs are
subtly different from their English counterparts, realizing different
situation types in each language. Thus, ``die'' is an Accomplishment
in English and an Achievement in Chinese. (No interpretation of this
point is offered.)
-------
∂03-May-85 1215 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA ling colloq
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 May 85 12:14:34 PDT
Mail-From: KEMMER created at 2-May-85 15:58:48
Date: Thu 2 May 85 15:58:48-PDT
From: Suzanne Kemmer <KEMMER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: ling colloq
To: linguists@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Fri 3 May 85 12:07:48-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
STANFORD LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM
Speaker: Leonard Talmy
University of California, Berkeley
Date: Tuesday, May 7
Time: 3:15pm
Location: Bldg. 200, Rm.217
(History Corner, Quadrangle)
Reception following.
FORCE DYNAMICS IN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT
The term 'force dynamics' describes a previously neglected semantic
domain, that of how entities interact with respect to force,
including: the exertion of force, resistance to such a force, the
overcoming of such a resistance, etc. For example, contrast the
force-dynamically neutral expression 'John doesn't go out', which
merely reports an objective observation, with 'John can't go out'.
The latter indicates a force-dynamic complex: that John WANTS to go
out (conceivable as a force-like tendency toward that act), that there
is some external force opposing that tendency, and that the latter is
stronger than the former, with a net result of no overt action.
Force dynamics is a major semantic system evident across a range
of language levels. It has direct grammatical representation, for
example in auxiliaries, conjunctions, quantifiers and the particle
system of English. Force dynamic configurations are extensively
represented in the lexicon, in lexical items referring to both
physical force interactions and also psychological and social
interactions. Finally, force dynamic principles can be seen to operate
in discourse that is involved with persuasion, governing connective
particles and, implicitly, the propositional content.
Force dynamics is a major conceptual organizing system,
constituting one of four major "imaging" systems that I have developed
which provide an integrated semantic schematization of a referent
scene. Cognitively, it is a part of "naive (socio-)psychology",
analogous to "naive physics".
-------
∂08-May-85 1748 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 9, No. 28
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 May 85 17:47:52 PDT
Date: Wed 8 May 85 17:07:29-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter May 9, No. 28
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
May 9, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 28
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, May 9, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Scenes and Events''
Conference Room by Stephen Neale, Dept. of Philosophy, Stanford
Discussion led by Mark Johnson, Dept. of Linguistics
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Approaches to Generalized Quantifiers in
Room G-19 Heim/Kamp Semantics''
Mats Rooth, CSLI
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Reduced Forms of Comparative Clauses''
Room G-19 James D. McCawley, University of Chicago
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, May 16, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Combinators, Categorial Grammars, and Parasitic
Conference Room Gaps'' by Mark Steedman, University of Edinburgh
Discussion led by Hans Uszkoreit, CSLI and SRI
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Action Theory for Dialogue Games''
Room G-19 Lauri Carlson, CSLI
Discussion led by Phil Cohen
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Tracking Dogs and the Traces of Speech''
Room G-19 Vicki Hearne, Yale University
(No abstract available)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter May 9, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Combinators, Categorial Grammars, and Parasitic Gaps''
In his previous work, Steedman has applied an augmented version of
Categorial Grammar (CG) to discontiguous dependencies such as
Wh-Fronting and cross-serial dependencies in Dutch. This paper
extends the use of functional composition in CG to permit the
generation of parasitic gaps. The operations on functions that are
allowed in the resulting grammar formalism are defined as combinators.
It is argued that the utilization of a certain class of combinators in
syntax, semantics, and morphology leads to a natural and adequate
extension of CG. --Hans Uszkoreit
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Action Theory for Dialogue Games''
I will describe a theory of social action which generalizes the
game theoretical concept of a game in extensive form. To generalize
the game theoretical model, I make use of a number of analogies
between the game theoretical notion of a game and certain varieties of
possible worlds semantics. The key game theoretical notions are
generalized as follows. Game trees are reinterpreted as branching
future temporal logic frames. Preferences and strategies are
represented by choice functions over possible courses of events.
Information sets are generalized into sets of epistemic alternatives.
The result is a definition of a ``game theoretical'' possible worlds
semantics frame. Sentences describing agents' beliefs, wants,
abilities, and plans can be interpreted against such frames. Desired
interdependencies among the different action-related modalities can be
shown to fall out. Different schemata purporting to characterize
rational action can be evaluated in the resulting semantics using
examples from game theory.
The resulting theory of action is intended to be used to partially
formalize the informal dialogue game approach to discourse theory
described in my book, Dialogue Games (Reidel 1983).
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
``Quantified Modal Logics of Provability''
Prof. Craig Smorynski, San Jose State University
Tuesday, May 14, 4:15-5:30
Math Bldg., Room 381-T, Stanford University
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA NL-1 MEETING
``New Aspects of Aspect: A Look at Mandarin Chinese''
Carlota S. Smith, University of Texas
Friday, May 10, 2:30, Ventura Conference Room
(for the abstract see last week's newsletter)
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA NL-2 MEETING
There will be an NL-2 meeting on Tuesday, May 14th at 2.15 in
Redwood Hall in which I will present some of the amendments to
Government- Binding Theory proposed in Chomsky's manuscript
``Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins, and Use.'' The
discussion will cover roughly pages 100-285; all are welcome though a
knowledge of current GB would be useful. --Peter Sells
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter May 9, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA NL MEETING
There will be a NL meeting on Friday, May 17th at 2.15 in the
Ventura Conference Room to discuss James Higginbotham's paper, ``On
Semantics''. Copies of the paper will be made available at the front
desk in a few days. --Peter Sells
←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI LECTURE NOTES
Number 2 in the Lecture Notes series, ``Emotion and Focus'' by
Helen Nissenbaum, has just appeared. The author describes this work as
follows:
``After examining several prominent views on object directedness,
including those of Hume, Kenny, and J. R. S. Wilson, I conclude that
the notion is no longer a viable one. I propose a reconceptualization
of the phenomena that it is seen to cover. The result is a breakdown
of object directedness into a number of independent conceptual units
that I call `aspects of emotional episodes.' I reject the picture of
emotion traditionally forwarded in academic writings, offering another
in its place, one that preserves the complexity and variation
suggested in the common conception of emotion.''
The list price of ``Emotion and Focus'' is $6, with a 25% discount
to the CSLI community. California residents should add 6.5% sales tax.
To obtain a copy, contact David Brown (Brown@CSLI), CSLI, Ventura
Hall, Stanford, CA 94305.
-------
∂13-May-85 0832 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk by shankar, weds, 4:15, in EJ232, on Mechanical Proofs in Metamathematics
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 May 85 08:32:26 PDT
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 10 May 85 17:15:07-PDT
Date: Fri 10 May 85 17:08:40-PDT
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: talk by shankar, weds, 4:15, in EJ232, on Mechanical Proofs in Metamathematics
To: AIC-Associates: ;,
CSL: ;, bboard@SRI-AI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: cl.shankar@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 13 May 85 08:27:46-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
That's May 15th.
This is different from Shankar's talk at Stanford.
Abstract below:
MECHANICAL PROOFS IN METAMATHEMATICS
N. Shankar
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
Metamathematics is a source of many interesting theorems and difficult
proofs. Among these are theorems which express the soundness of
derived inference rules. The talk will describe a formalization of
first-order logic within the Boyer-Moore logic and discuss some
well-known derived inference rules that were proved to be sound using
the Boyer-Moore theorem prover. The most important of these is the
tautology theorem which states that every tautology has a proof. The
proof of the tautology theorem will be discussed in some detail. Such
proofs demonstrate a feasible way to construct sound, efficient, and
extensible proof-checking programs. No familiarity with automated
theorem-proving will be assumed.
Visitors from outside SRI should come to the Engineering building
reception, on Ravenswood Avenue opposite Pine street.
-------
∂13-May-85 1343 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA This Thursday's Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 May 85 13:43:15 PDT
Mail-From: EMMA created at 13-May-85 13:31:34
Date: Mon 13 May 85 13:31:34-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: This Thursday's Colloquium
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
ReSent-Date: Mon 13 May 85 13:32:08-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
From: Richard Jeffrey <JEFFREY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Vicki Hearne
Extended examination of the language by means of which tracking dog handlers
think about their work and actually do work their dogs. What's at stake is an
initial question about whether there is any knowledge that language can
provide that can go outside of the exchanges that are our performance of
knowledge. I use the case of tracking dogs to challenge the skeptic's sense
that the problem of the other is the problem of knowing the other, not in
order foolishly to attempt to bring skepticism to an end but rather to suggest
a new turn skepticism might take. But skepticism must admit that dogs exist
in order to find itself again.
Vicki Hearne is a poet and an animal trainer (dogs, horses). She
teaches at Yale. Has published two books of poetry and a couple of
philosophical articles on our relations with animals (in the Raritan
Review: "How to say `fetch!'" and "A walk with Washowe - How far can
we go?"). She has been much influenced by (you should pardon the
expression) Stanley Cavell. I find her ideas very sympatico, and
especially interesting because of the difference between our
philosophical slants - as well as because her ideas are informed by a
great deal of experience with animals (whereas my relations with our
family cat, even, are correct but distant). Like me, she's in polar
opposition to (say) Donald Davidson in the matter of the
intelligibility of attributions of thoughts (beliefs, desires) to our
furry friends but, unlike me, she has a really nuanced of what these
friends are on about.
--Richard Jeffrey
{Copies of the two articles mentioned above are in the CSLI reading room}
-------
-------
∂13-May-85 1631 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Hausser talk
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 May 85 16:31:14 PDT
Date: Mon 13 May 85 16:18:01-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Hausser talk
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Tomorrow (probably today by the time you read this, Roland Hausser
will give a talk and demonstration of a system of grammar and parsing
he has been working on during his stay at CSLI. The presentation will
take place from in the CSLI trailer Classroom 1 till 1:45 on May 14th.
He will illustrate his system by applying it to German. The
grammar contains 32 linguistic rules covering declarative and
interrogative main clauses, relative clauses embedded to
arbitrary depth or extraposed, variant word-orders, adverbs and
adverbial clauses, discontinuous constituents, coordinate
structures, and other phenomena. The parser employs a bottom-up,
left-associative, data-driven algorithm and is implemented in
Interlisp-D on the Dandelion.
-------
-------
∂15-May-85 1721 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 16, No. 29
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 May 85 17:19:52 PDT
Date: Wed 15 May 85 16:59:50-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter May 16, No. 29
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
May 16, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 29
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, May 16, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Combinators, Categorial Grammars, and Parasitic
Conference Room Gaps'' by Mark Steedman, University of Edinburgh
Discussion led by Hans Uszkoreit, CSLI and SRI
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Action Theory for Dialogue Games''
Room G-19 Lauri Carlson, CSLI
Discussion led by Phil Cohen
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Tracking Dogs and the Traces of Speech''
Room G-19 Vicki Hearne, Yale University
(Abstract on page 2)
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, May 23, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``A Procedural Logic''
Conference Room Michael Georgeff (SRI and CSLI), Amy Lansky (SRI),
and Pierre Bessiere (SRI)
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Representations, Information, and the
Room G-19 Physical World'' by Ivan Blair
Discussion led by Meg Withgott
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Lexical Structure Constraints and Morphological
Room G-19 Parsing''
John McCarthy, AT&T Bell Laboratories
(Abstract on page 3)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter May 16, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF THIS WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Tracking Dogs and the Traces of Speech''
Extended examination of the language by means of which tracking dog
handlers think about their work and actually do work their dogs. What's
at stake is an initial question about whether there is any knowledge
that language can provide that can go outside of the exchanges that
are our performance of knowledge. I use the case of tracking dogs to
challenge the skeptic's sense that the problem of the other is the
problem of knowing the other, not in order foolishly to attempt to
bring skepticism to an end but rather to suggest a new turn skepticism
might take. But skepticism must admit that dogs exist in order to find
itself again. --Vicki Hearne
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``A Procedural Logic''
Much of our commonsense knowledge about the real world is concerned
with the way things are done. This knowledge is often in the form of
`procedures' or `sequences' of actions for achieving particular goals.
In this paper, a formalism is presented for representing such
knowledge based on the notion of `process'. A declarative semantics
for the representation is given, which allows a user to state `facts'
about the effects of doing things in the problem domain of interest.
An operational semantics is also provided, which shows `how' this
knowledge can be used to achieve given goals or to form intentions
regarding their achievement. The formalism also serves as an
executable program specification language suitable for constructing
complex systems. --Michael Georgeff and Amy Lansky
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Representations, Information, and the Physical World''
The notions of representation and information have been much used
in recent cognitive psychology and philosophy of mind, yet much
remains to be done to determine more precisely what is meant by these
notions, particularly in elucidating the basis of their
intentionality. I think that the place to start with an investigation
of these matters is the analysis proposed by Howard Pattee. Pattee
has for a long time wrestled with the question of how symbols are
related to their referents, and has tried to establish some general
principles of the symbol-referent or symbol-matter relation.
I shall attempt to do two things in this presentation. Firstly, I
want to explain as briefly as possible Pattee's view of symbolic
information (information carried by a symbol or string of symbols) and
the relation of symbolic information to the physical world. Secondly,
I shall consider a prominent theory of information -- Dretske's, as
presented in his book, ``Knowledge and the Flow of Information''
(1981), -- in the light of various results about the nature of symbols
and information that emerge from Pattee's analysis. --Ivan Blair
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter May 16, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Lexical Structure Constraints and Morphological Parsing''
A number of formal constraints on lexical structure developed on
the basis of investigations in linguistic theory can be shown to
contribute directly to the design of a morphological parser. These
constraints include both exceptionless principles and well-established
tendencies of lexical entries, drawn from Semitic languages and other
nonconcatenative morphological systems. A constraint like the
Obligatory Contour Principle, which in the instance prohibits Arabic
roots with adjacent identical elements, has a straightforward analogue
in the parser: modulo affixation, identical surface consonants must
derive from the same root consonant. A tendency for Arabic roots to
avoid containing `t' or `y' in initial position can permit parsing
without regard to at least some of the affixational possibilities of
Arabic verbs as well. The observation that reduplicative affixes
constitute well-formed phonological constituents (McCarthy and Prince
1985) suggests ways of bringing reduplication under the purview of
recent results in finite-state parsing. In addition to these, several
other such observations will be discussed. --John McCarthy
←←←←←←←←←←←←
LINGUISTICS DEPARTMENT TALK
``How Panini's Grammar is Composed''
S. D. Joshi, University of Poona
Monday, May 20, 3:15, Bldg. 200, Room 303 (History Corner)
The composition of a grammar consisting of `sutras' which are to
be committed to memory and orally transmitted in recitation poses
peculiar problems for the author: how to achieve the necessary
brevity, how to indicate the connection between the rules, how to mark
off individual rules in the continuous text. We discuss, in a way
intended to be accessible to non-Sanskritists, the formal techniques
by which these problems are dealt with in the ``Astadhyayi'': a
procedure for condensing sequences of partially similar rules,
disjunctivity between general and particular rules, and special
conventions for the use of the conjunction `ca'. Their precise
formulation yields criteria for resolving ambiguities of the `sutra'
text and adds support for the hypothesis of multiple authorship.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF PARSER DEMONSTRATION
On Monday, May 14, Roland Hausser gave a talk and demonstration of
a system of grammar and parsing he has been working on during his stay
at CSLI. He illustrated his system by applying it to German. The
grammar contains 32 linguistic rules covering declarative and
interrogative main clauses, relative clauses embedded to arbitrary
depth or extraposed, variant word-orders, adverbs and adverbial
clauses, discontinuous constituents, coordinate structures, and other
phenomena. The parser employs a bottom-up, left-associative,
data-driven algorithm and is implemented in Interlisp-D on the
Dandelion.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA NL-2 MEETING
Monday, May 20, 4:30, Ventura Seminar Room
The discussion of Noam Chomsky's manuscript, ``Knowledge of
Language: Its Nature, Origins, and Use,'' will continue.
-------
∂17-May-85 1200 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Situation Semantics
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 May 85 11:59:50 PDT
Mail-From: BLOCK created at 16-May-85 16:07:46
Date: Thu 16 May 85 16:07:45-PDT
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Situation Semantics
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, SU-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Fri 17 May 85 10:49:35-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
SITUATION SEMANTICS MADE EASY
Three lectures by
John Perry
M,W,F, June 3, 5, 7, at 3:15
REDWOOD G-19
The first lecture will be aimed at those who know nothing at all about
situation semantics.
-------
∂22-May-85 1929 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 23, No. 30
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 May 85 19:29:20 PDT
Date: Wed 22 May 85 17:10:28-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter May 23, No. 30
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
May 23, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 30
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, May 23, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``A Procedural Logic''
Conference Room Michael Georgeff (SRI and CSLI), Amy Lansky (SRI),
and Pierre Bessiere (SRI)
Discussion led by Michael Georgeff and Amy Lansky
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Representations, Information, and the
Room G-19 Physical World'' by Ivan Blair
Discussion led by Meg Withgott
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Lexical Structure Constraints and Morphological
Room G-19 Parsing''
John McCarthy, AT&T Bell Laboratories
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, May 30, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Computers and Emotion''
Conference Room Discussion led by Helen Nissenbaum
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``On Modelling Shared Understanding''
Room G-19 Jon Barwise, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Natural Kinds, Homeostasis, and the Limits of
Room G-19 Essentialism''
Richard Boyd, Prof. of Philosophy, Cornell University
(Abstract on page 2)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter May 23, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Computers and Emotions''
Emotion is an integral part of human consciousness. Yet common
practice in AI takes its ideal to be an intelligent, goal-driven agent
entirely devoid of passion. The assumption behind the practice is
that emotionless intellect is possible, and that a purely cognitive
agent is a valid abstraction from the total human individual. The
TINLunch, inspired by a TINLunch held October 13, 1981, titled ``Will
Robots Need Emotions?'', probes the AI assumption. I offer the
following as starting points for the discussion:
- What would it take to have a computer with emotions?
- Why worry about this? A passionless automaton is fully rational
and far better off for not having emotions. (Too bad we humans suffer
this affliction.)
- These are idle speculations. A sufficiently complex robot, that
could truly be said to understand and be goal-driven, will, of
necessity, have emotion, no matter what the intentions of its
creators.
Background readings are excerpts from Hume's ``Of the Passions'',
Jerome Shaffer's ``An Assessment of Emotion'' and TINLunch Outline
``Will Robots Need Emotions?'' by A. Archbold and N. Haas.
--Helen Nissenbaum
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``On Modelling Shared Understanding''
There are basically three approaches to understanding shared
understanding -- things like public information, common knowledge, and
mutual belief: the iterated attitude approach, the fixed point
approaches, and the shared environment approach. In this talk I will
discuss ways to model each of these, and show how the resulting models
are related. I will conclude with a brief discussion of applications
to language, deterrence and the Conway paradox. --Jon Barwise
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Natural Kinds, Homeostasis, and the Limits of Essentialism''
An account of naturalistic definitions is offered which applies to
a wide class of natural kinds, properties and relations. It agrees
with current naturalistic accounts in holding that natural kinds,
properties, etc., possess `a posteriori' naturalistic definitions:
that they are defined by ``real essences'' rather than by conventional
``nominal essences''. It departs from the picture suggested by the
definition ``water = H2O'' in that it holds that `a posteriori'
definitions are sometimes provided by partially indeterminate
homeostatic property clusters. In this regard, it resembles ordinary
language property cluster conceptions of definitions, except that the
unity of definitions is held to be causal rather than conceptual.
Several philosophical applications of the proposed account are
offered. In particular, it is argued that realism regarding kinds
with such real essences entails indeterminacy rather than bivalence,
that such real essences support a much narrower range of
counterfactuals than contemporary essentialism might suggest, and that
key philosophical notions like knowledge and reference are among those
which possess homeostatic cluster definitions. Implications for
philosophical methodology are explored. --Richard Boyd
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter May 23, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF THE RRR MEETING
A new seminar on the Role of Representation in Reasoning (``RRR'')
has been meeting since the beginning of the spring quarter. It
combines a variety of groups that met last spring to discuss similar
issues: F1, F3, F4, C3, and the special representation group that Meg
Withgott organized. The format is to have a one-hour presentation
followed by a full hour of discussion. So far this quarter, Stan
Rosenschein and Fernando Pereira have presented a discussion of
situated automata, including a suggestion as to how to include a
notion of representation in their theory; David Israel led a
discussion reexamining the notion of a Turing machine; and John Perry
led two sessions on his paper ``Circumstantial Attitudes and
Benevolent Cognition''. The RRR group meets at 2:15 each Tuesday in
the Ventura Hall seminar room.
On May 21, Brian Smith presented an overview of a general theory of
representation that he is developing, covering what we normally think
of as models, representations, perhaps in the end leading up even to
language. This theory will play a role in his project of developing
an account of embedded computation. Traditionally, representation
relationships are viewed in one of two ways: as forming a strict
hierarchy, like a hierarchy of meta-languages, with use/mention errors
resulting from a failure to distinguish each level. On the other
hand, other representation relationships, like that between a model
and what it models, are sometimes viewed as so close to an isomorphism
that the representation (model) and what is represented (modelled) are
identified. Brian sketched an account of a continuum of
representation relationships, ranging from strong isomorphisms up
through the complexities of language. He identified some increasingly
strong properties such relationships can have, including: absorption
(when a property or relation in the representation, such as linear
order, is used to represent exactly the same property in what is
represented; objectification, when a property or relationship is
represented by an object (as for example in predicate calculus when a
relation is signified by a predicate letter); what he called
``inexistence'', when an object's presence in the representation
signifies an absence in what is represented (such as traces in
linguistics, or ``eof'' signals in computation); and so on and so
forth.
Next week's RRR discussion will be led by Ned Block.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SITUATION SEMANTICS MADE EASY
Three lectures by John Perry
Monday, Wednesday, Friday, June 3, 5, 7, at 3:15
Redwood G-19
The first lecture will be aimed at those who know nothing at all
about situation semantics.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT COLLOQUIUM
``Is Computation Formal?''
Brian Smith, CSLI and Xerox PARC
Friday, May 24, 3:15, Philosophy Seminar Room, 90:92Q
!
Page 4 CSLI Newsletter May 23, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORT
Report No. CSLI--85--23, ``Querying Logical Databases'' by Moshe
Vardi, has just been published. This report may be obtained by
writing to David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or
Brown@SU-CSLI.
-------
∂23-May-85 0825 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Special seminar
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 May 85 08:25:33 PDT
Return-Path: <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 23 May 85 00:00:14-PDT
Date: 23 May 85 0000 PDT
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Special seminar
To: bayboards@SU-AIMVAX.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA,
nail@SU-AIMVAX.ARPA, prolog@SU-SCORE.ARPA
CC: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA, lindstrom@UTAH-20.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Thu 23 May 85 08:22:20-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Thursday 6-6-85, 11am in MJH 352
FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING AND THE LOGICAL VARIABLE
Gary Lindstrom
Department of Computer Science
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
Logic programming offers a variety of computational effects which go beyond
those customarily found in functional programming languages. Among these
effects is the notion of the "logical variable," i.e. a value determined by the
intersection of constraints, rather than by direct binding. We argue that this
concept is "separable" from logic programming, and can sensibly be incorporated
into existing functional languages. Moreover, this extension appears to
significantly widen the range of problems which can efficiently be addressed in
function form, albeit at some loss of conceptual purity. In particular, a form
of side-effects arises under this extension, since a function invocation can
exert constraints on variables shared with other function invocations.
Nevertheless, we demonstrate that determinacy can be retained, even under
parallel execution. The graph reduction language FGL is used for this
demonstration, by being extended to a language FGL+LV permitting formal
parameter expressions, with variables occurring therein bound by unification.
The determinacy argument is based on a novel dataflow-like rendering of
unification. In addition the complete partial order employed in this proof is
unusual in its explicit representation of demand, a necessity given the "benign"
side-effects that arise. An implementation technique is suggested, suitable for
reduction architectures.
∂24-May-85 1254 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Situation Semantics
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 May 85 12:54:26 PDT
Mail-From: BLOCK created at 24-May-85 11:55:33
Date: Fri 24 May 85 11:55:33-PDT
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Situation Semantics
To: bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA, folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA,
friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Fri 24 May 85 12:50:20-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
SITUATION SEMANTICS MADE EASY
Three lectures by
John Perry
M,W,M, June 3, 5, 10, at 3:15
REDWOOD G-19
(Note that the lecture formerly scheduled for June 7 has been changed
to June 10, same time and place.) The first lecture will be aimed at
those who know nothing at all about situation semantics.
-------
∂30-May-85 0651 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter May 30, No. 31
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 May 85 19:55:39 PDT
Date: Wed 29 May 85 17:16:33-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter May 30, No. 31
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
May 30, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 31
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, May 30, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Computers and Emotion''
Conference Room Discussion led by Helen Nissenbaum
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``On Modelling Shared Understanding''
Room G-19 Jon Barwise, CSLI
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Natural Kinds, Homeostasis, and the Limits of
Room G-19 Essentialism''
Richard Boyd, Prof. of Philosophy, Cornell University
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, June 6, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax''
Conference Room by Jerrold Sadock and Arnold Zwicky
Discussion led by Dietmar Zaefferer
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Existential Sentences''
Room G-19 Edit Doron, CSLI
Discussion led by Larry Moss
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``An Assumption-Based Truth-Maintenance System''
Room G-19 Johan De Kleer, Xerox PARC, Intelligent Systems Lab.
(Abstract on page 2)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter May 30, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax''
There is an apparent mismatch between what speech act theorists
claim to be the prototypical speech act types (promises, requests,
etc.) and the speech act types indicated by syntactical means in most
natural languages (assertions, questions, etc.). This paper by Sadock
and Zwicky gives an excellent survey of the sentence types in a sample
of twenty-three languages. It contains a lot of interesting
observations (e.g., ``imperatives have characteristically bare verb
stems'') and raises a lot of interesting questions (e.g., how to
explain the above mentioned fact). It is also a good starting point for
a discussion of the role of typology in the CSLI research program.
--Dietmar Zaefferer
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Existential Sentences''
I will be concerned with the old puzzle concerning existential
sentences: why is sentence 1 odd in a way that sentence 2 is not?
1. There is every man in the garden.
2. There is a man in the garden.
I will discuss a semantic solution, and compare it to proposals by
Barwise and Cooper, Keenan, Higginbotham. --Edit Doron
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``An Assumption-Based Truth-Maintenance System''
This paper presents a new view of problem solving motivated by a
new kind of truth maintenance system. Unlike previous truth
maintenance systems which were based on manipulating justifications,
this truth maintenance system is, in addition, based on manipulating
assumption sets. As a consequence it is possible to work effectively
and efficiently with inconsistent information, context switching is
free, and most backtracking (and all retraction) is avoided. These
capabilities motivate a different kind of problem-solving architecture
in which multiple potential solutions are explored simultaneously.
This architecture is particularly well-suited for tasks where a
reasonable fraction of the potential solutions must be explored.
--Johan De Kleer
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter May 30, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
WORKSHOP ON LANGUAGE PROCESSING
sponsored by CSLI and Sloan
Monday, June 10 through Wednesday, June 12
Several research groups at CSLI are holding an open, informal
workshop on language processing, with invited speakers from the United
States and abroad. The goal of the workshop is to examine current
psychological issues in language processing at the sentence and
discourse level, with particular focus on the relation of language
processing to language structure and the situations in which language
is used. Participants include:
Tom Bever, Herb Clark, Stephen Crain, Gary Dell, Marilyn Ford, Ken
Forster, Don Foss, Willem Levelt, William Marslen-Wilson, James
McClelland, Mark Seidenberg, Dave Swinney, Michael Tanenhaus, and
Lorraine Tyler.
The schedule is available from Suzanne Parker at the front desk of
CSLI (to receive a copy by mail, contact Sandy McConnell-Riggs
(Sandy@csli)). Copies of papers by the speakers relevant to their
workshop presentations are available in the CSLI Reading Room and the
Psychology Library, Jordan Hall. For further information, contact
members of the organizing committee: Herb Clark, Phil Cohen, Marilyn
Ford, Barbara Grosz, Ron Kaplan, Marcy Macken, Stanley Peters and Ivan
Sag. --Marcy Macken (mmacken@su-csli)
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SITUATION SEMANTICS MADE EASY
Three lectures by John Perry
Monday, Wednesday, Monday, June 3, 5, 10, at 3:15
Redwood G-19
The first lecture will be aimed at those who know nothing at all
about situation semantics. Please note that the day for the third
meeting has been changed from Friday, June 7 to Monday, June 10.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
-------
∂03-Jun-85 0923 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Situation Semantics Made Easy
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Jun 85 09:23:21 PDT
Mail-From: BLOCK created at 3-Jun-85 09:12:25
Date: Mon 3 Jun 85 09:12:24-PDT
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Situation Semantics Made Easy
To: su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA, folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 3 Jun 85 09:18:50-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
SITUATION SEMANTICS MADE EASY
First of three lectures by John Perry
is TODAY, Monday, June 3 at 3:15 in Redwood G-19
(#2 will be Wed, #3 next Monday--same time and place)
-------
∂05-Jun-85 1729 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter June 6, No. 32
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Jun 85 17:29:40 PDT
Date: Wed 5 Jun 85 16:59:26-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter June 6, No. 32
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
June 6, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 32
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, June 6, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax''
Conference Room by Jerrold Sadock and Arnold Zwicky
Discussion led by Dietmar Zaefferer
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Existential Sentences''
Room G-19 Edit Doron, CSLI
Discussion led by Larry Moss
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``An Assumption-Based Truth-Maintenance System''
Room G-19 Johan De Kleer, Xerox PARC, Intelligent Systems Lab.
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, June 13, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Type Raising, Functional Composition,
Conference Room and Non-Constituent Conjunction''
David Dowty, Center for the Advanced Study of
the Behavioral Sciences
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall No seminar
Room G-19
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium
Room G-19
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
No seminars or colloquiums are scheduled for June 6 or June 13
because of the University, end-of-quarter break. TINLunch will be
held on these days. Regular activities will resume on June 20.
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter June 6, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Type Raising, Functional Composition,
and Non-Constituent Conjunction''
Examples of so-called non-constituent conjunction, like the
following, remain an outstanding problem for base-generated syntactic
theories:
John eats beans on Tuesday and rice on Thursday
John gave Mary a book and Susan a record
John went to Chicago on Tuesday and Detroit on Thursday
John painted the chair red and the table blue
It will be shown that such examples are correctly generated by a
syntactic theory that involves (i) a categorial, rather than
phrase-structure grammar, (ii) a generalized syntactic rule of
functional composition (such as has been frequently suggested in the
categorial literature), and (iii) category assignments for verbs and
NPs that are similar to but differ crucially from those suggested by
Mark Steedman and Partee/Rooth.
It will also be pointed out that the theory recently proposed by
Mark Steedman, in which functional composition alone is supposed to
describe ``extraction'' constructions (without appeal to SLASH
features), predicts that non-constituent conjunction constructions
will be subject to the same island constraints as extractions are.
Though this prediction seems to be borne out in some cases, it is
problematic in others. Comparison will therefore be made between
theories, like Steedman's, which treat both conjunction and extraction
by functional composition, and theories which use functional
composition for conjunction and other local dependencies (like
reflexives) but use SLASH features for long-distance dependencies.
--David Dowty
---------
CSLI REPORT
Report No. CSLI-85-24, ``Computationally Relevant Properties of
Natural Languages and Their Grammar'' by Gerald Gazdar and Geoffrey K.
Pullum, has just been published. This report may be obtained by
writing to David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or
Brown@SU-CSLI.
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter June 6, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
WORKSHOP ON LANGUAGE PROCESSING
sponsored by CSLI and Sloan
Monday, June 10 through Wednesday, June 12
Several research groups at CSLI are holding an open, informal
workshop on language processing, with invited speakers from the United
States and abroad. The goal of the workshop is to examine current
psychological issues in language processing at the sentence and
discourse level, with particular focus on the relation of language
processing to language structure and the situations in which language
is used. Schedule of speakers follows:
Monday morning Jay McClelland. Marilyn Ford.
afternoon Don Foss. Lorraine Tyler.
Tuesday morning Willem Levelt. Gary Dell.
afternoon William Marslen-Wilson. Mark Seidenberg.
Michael Tanenhaus.
Wednesday morning Tom Bever. Herbert Clark.
afternoon Kenneth Forster. Stephen Crain and Janet Fodor.
Morning sessions begin at 9; afternoon sessions begin at
1:15 (Monday) or 1:30 (Tuesday and Wednesday).
The schedule is available from Suzanne Parker at the front desk of
CSLI (to receive a copy by mail, contact Sandy McConnell-Riggs
(Sandy@csli)). Copies of papers by the speakers relevant to their
workshop presentations are available in the CSLI Reading Room and the
Psychology Library, Jordan Hall. For further information, contact
members of the organizing committee: Herb Clark, Phil Cohen, Marilyn
Ford, Barbara Grosz, Ron Kaplan, Marcy Macken, Stanley Peters and Ivan
Sag. --Marcy Macken (mmacken@su-csli)
-------
∂06-Jun-85 1027 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Announcement Correction
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Jun 85 10:26:49 PDT
Date: Thu 6 Jun 85 08:13:24-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Announcement Correction
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Should read no Seminars or Colloquiums on June 13 and June 20. There
will be a full schedule of events today. Regular schedule will resume
on June 27.
-Emma
-------
∂06-Jun-85 1040 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Today's Seminar
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Jun 85 10:40:33 PDT
Date: Thu 6 Jun 85 10:32:09-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Today's Seminar
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
The 2:15 seminar by Edit Doron has been cancelled. It will be
rescheduled for sometime this summer.
-Emma
-------
∂12-Jun-85 1736 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter June 13, No. 33
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Jun 85 17:36:07 PDT
Date: Wed 12 Jun 85 16:53:43-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter June 13, No. 33
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
June 13, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 33
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, June 13, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Type Raising, Functional Composition,
Conference Room and Non-Constituent Conjunction''
David Dowty, Center for the Advanced Study of
the Behavioral Sciences
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall No seminar
Room G-19
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium
Room G-19
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, June 20, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``How Many Possible Human Languages are There?''
Conference Room by Geoff Pullum, UCSC and CSLI
Discussion led by Gerald Gazdar, CASBS
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall No seminar
Room G-19
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium
Room G-19
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
No seminars or colloquiums are scheduled for June 13 or June 20
because of the University, end-of-quarter break. TINLunch will be
held on these days. Regular activities will resume on June 27.
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter June 13, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``How Many Possible Human Languages are There?''
Linguistic Inquiry 14, 447-467.
Beginning with Chomsky (1980), a number of linguists have claimed
(i) that their favored grammatical framework only allows for the
existence of a finite number of grammars,
(ii) that there only exist a finite number of possible human
languages.
Pullum's paper, published two years ago, argues that claim (i) is
false in every relevant case, and that claim (ii) is uninteresting,
even if true. His paper has been greeted by a deafening silence. How
can this be? Are his arguments so obviously invalid that it would be
cruel and undignified to reply to them? In which case, how did they
get into print? Or are they so obviously valid that those attacked
are ashamed even to allude to the matter? In which case, what are we
to make of their intellectual integrity? --Gerald Gazdar
---------
RRR MEETINGS
The RRR meeting of May 28 was on representationalism and was led by
Ned Block. He mentioned a number of distinctions among representationa-
list views, most importantly the by now familiar (in RRR) distinction
between (1) thoughts have representational parts and (2) thoughts are
sentential. He observed that the arguments usually given for the
latter better support the former, and claimed that evidence for the
latter view is not statable succinctly, but rather is suggested by a
mass of experiments, no small group of which is very convincing.
At the meeting of June 4, Kurt van Lehn gave an exposition and
critique of ``connectionism''. The view's opponents had different
complaints. Van Lehn argued that the successes of the connectionist
movement have had little to do with its controversial architectural
proposals. Jerry Fodor faulted connectionist models for not handling
the kind of thinking involving reasoning from one step to another,
while Brian Smith pointed out that connectionism was committed to an
overly ``iconic'' conception of representation. Pentti Kanerva said
that he was working on a connectionist theory that might be able to
overcome the faults that had been pointed out.
Upcoming meetings: There was NO meeting on June 11 (because of
conflict with the Workshop on Language Processing. The next RRR
meeting will be on June 18; we will discuss Jerry Fodor's ``Why there
STILL has to be a Language of Thought''. Unless there is a change of
plans, the June 18th meeting will be the last for the spring quarter.
We won't meet over the summer; what will happen next year is far from
clear. --Ned Block
---------
CSLI REPORT
Report No. CSLI-85-25, ``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic:
Preliminary Report'' by Ronald Fagin and Moshe Vardi, has just been
published. This report may be obtained by writing to David Brown,
CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or Brown@SU-CSLI.
-------
∂13-Jun-85 1131 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA TINLUNCH
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Jun 85 11:31:11 PDT
Return-Path: <HANS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 13 Jun 85 10:17:33-PDT
Date: Thu 13 Jun 85 10:19:16-PDT
From: Hans Uszkoreit <Hans@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: TINLUNCH
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Thu 13 Jun 85 11:21:05-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
I would like to remind you of today's TINLUNCH. Since TINLUNCH is a
research-oriented discussion series, it will not be affected by breaks
between quarters, dead weeks, and other academic regeneration periods.
Today, David Dowty (CASBS and Ohio State U.) will discuss his recent
paper:
"Type Raising, Functional Composition,
and Non-Constituent Conjunction"
Next Thursday, a paper by Geoff Pullum (UCSC and CSLI) will be
discussed. Title:
"How Many Possible Human Languages are There?"
Gerald Gazdar (CASBS and Univ. of Sussex) will lead the discussion.
For abstracts of the papers, please refer to last week's and this week's
CSLI newsletters.
Finally, let me also remind you of the excellent CSLI lunch service. If
you want to save a trip to the store (or just be on time for TINLUNCH),
send your sandwich order to LUNCH@SU-CSLI.
Hans Uszkoreit
-------
∂19-Jun-85 1809 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter June 20, No. 34
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Jun 85 18:09:18 PDT
Date: Wed 19 Jun 85 17:02:36-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter June 20, No. 34
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
June 20, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 34
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, June 20, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``How Many Possible Human Languages are There?''
Conference Room by Geoff Pullum, UCSC and CSLI
Discussion led by Gerald Gazdar, CASBS
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall No seminar
Room G-19
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium
Room G-19
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, June 27, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``The Algebra of Events''
Conference Room by Emmon Bach
Discussion led by Edit Doron
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``An Organism and Its Internal Model of the World''
Room G-19 Pentti Kanerva, CSLI
Discussion led by Alex Pentland
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Qualitative Process Theory''
Room G-19 Ken Forbus, University of Illinois, Computer Science
(Abstract on page 3)
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
No seminars or colloquia are scheduled for June 20 because of the
University, end-of-quarter break. TINLunch will be held on that day.
Regular activities will resume on June 27.
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter June 20, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``The Algebra of Events''
``The Algebra of Events'' by Emmon Bach takes as its point of
departure the apparently close parallels between the mass-count
distinction in nominals and the distinction between processes and
events (also known as the activity-accomplishment distinction) in
aspectual classes of verbs. These parallels have been commented on by
a number of scholars over the last decade but never analyzed formally.
What Bach demonstrates here is that the richly-structured
model-theoretic semantics for mass, count, and plural nominals
developed by Godehard Link provides the model for a semantics of verb
aspect (including an ontology of events) that is explicitly parallel
to nominal semantics. After sketching this Link-type semnatics for
events, he shows that the resulting formal analogy between the two
domains leads to the discovery of further properties of both events
and nominals, such as a nominal analogue of the so-called
``imperfective paradox.'' --David Dowty
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``An Organism and Its Internal Model of the World''
There is a glaring disparity in how children and computers learn
things. By and large, children are not instructed explicitly but
learn by observation, imitation, and trial and error. What kind of
computer architecture would allow a machine to learn the way children
do?
In the model I have been studying, an organism is coupled to the
world by its sensors and effectors. The organism's mind-ware consists
of a relatively small focus and a large memory. The sensors feed
information into the focus, the effectors are driven from the focus,
the memory is addressed by the contents of the focus, the contents of
the focus are stored in memory, and the memory feeds information into
the focus. The contents of the focus at a moment account for the
subjective experience of the organism at that moment.
The function of the memory is to store a model of the world for
later reference. The memory is sensitive to similarity in that
approximate retrieval cues can be used to retrieve exact information.
It is dynamic in that the present situation (its encoding) brings to
focus the consequences of similar past situations. The model sheds
light on the frame problem of robotics, and it appears that a robot
built according to this principle would learn by trial and error and
would be able to plan actions and to perform planned sequences of
actions.
Reading: ``Parallel Structures in Human and Computer Memory,''
available from Susi Parker at the Ventura Hall receptionist desk and
on line as <PKANERVA>COGNITIVA.PAPER at SU-CSLI.ARPA.
--Pentti Kanerva
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter June 20, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Qualitative Process Theory''
Things move, collide, flow, bend, stretch, break, cool down, heat up,
and boil. Intuitively we think of the things that cause changes in
physical situations as processes. Qualitative Process Theory defines
simple notions of quantity, function, and process that allow
interesting common-sense inferences to be drawn about dynamical
systems. This talk will describe the basics of the Qualitative
Process Theory, illustrate how it can be used to capture certain
aspects of different models of physical phenomena, and discuss the
claims it makes about causal reasoning. --Ken Forbus
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
KROCH LECTURE SERIES
Sponsored by CSLI and Stanford Linguistics Dept.
Tony Kroch (University of Pennsylvania) will give a series of five
lectures on ``Grammar, Processing, and Linguistic Change'' on June 26
- July 2. The lectures will be held at 3:15 p.m. in the CSLI Seminar Room
(not in Cubberley as previously announced).
1. Grammar and Usage -- (Wednesday, June 26) What can we learn
about linguistic structure from looking at usage data? Importance of
this question for historical linguistics, where the data available is
all usage data. The problem that such data show the influence of all
the factors that influence linguistic patterns. The fallacy of
treating usage data as direct indications of grammatical organization
and the contrary fallacy of ignoring the information revealed by
studies of usage.
2. Some Promising Results -- (Thursday, June 27) When and how
usage patterns reflect grammar. The experimental and observational
evidence for syntactic priming; its use as a probe for linguistic
structure. The problem of what determines overall frequencies of use.
The nature of style shifting. Human beings as trackers of
frequencies.
3. A Mathematical Model of Syntactic Change -- (Friday, June 28)
The characteristic S-shaped profile of linguistic drift. Evidence for
its generality. How it can be modeled mathematically and explained
psycholinguistically. The notion of competition among alternative
forms. The problem of competition in the face of differences in
meaning.
4. A Case Study -- (Monday, July 1) The loss of subject-verb
inversion in English. The nature of the change and its relationship
to the loss of Germanic word order. The rise of periphrastic 'do' and
the substitution of subject-aux inversion for subject-verb inversion
in questions. Parallel developments in French and Portuguese.
5. Processing Effects on Usage Patterns and Their Role in Change
-- (Tuesday, July 2) Where can we look for the active force behind the
change described in the previous lecture? Why it cannot be internal
to the grammar. A solution in constraints on sentence processing. The
limits of processing effects on usage.
Copies of selected papers by Kroch, will be available in the
Greenberg Room and at CSLI. To arrange appointments with Kroch,
please call Sonia Oliva at 7-4284.
!
Page 4 CSLI Newsletter June 20, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA P1 MEETING
``Pixels and Predicates''
Beginning Wednesday, June 26 we will start a discussion series on
visual (graphic) communication: how can we relate predicates to
pixels, and vice versa?
Topics will include:
* What image regularities do we perceive as the primitive elements
of form, the ``visual morphemes'' that convey information?
* How do people organize images into these parts, gain information
about the situation from them, and use them in communication?
* How can we use our knowledge of such matters to design graphic
interfaces to facilitate visual communication?
Those interested in these topics are encouraged to attend, debate
vigorously, and perhaps suggest further topics for discussion. The
first speaker (tentative) is:
``Visual Morphemes in the 3-D World.''
Alex Pentland, CSLI
Wednesday June 26th, 3:00pm, Ventura Hall
People have a strong perceptual notion of the ``parts'' of a 3-D
form; a good understanding of what constitues ``a part'' is critical
to communication about visual data. A theory of parts will be
presented and a 3-D graphics modeling tool based on this theory will
be discussed. --Alex Pentland
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
LOGIC, LANGUAGE, AND COMPUTATION MEETINGS
July 8-19, 1985, Stanford University
The final mailing for those coming to the meetings will be sent out
by June 25.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI POSTDOCTORAL STUDENTS
CSLI is sponsoring three, new postdoctoral students for the
academic year 1985-1986. Carol Cleland who arrives July 1 has a Ph.D.
in Philosophy from Brown University and has most recently worked on
developing an expert system. Mark Gawron who will arrive on August 5
has a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of California at
Berkeley and has worked at the Department of Artificial Intelligence,
University of Edinburgh and at the Courant Institute of Mathematical
Science in New York. Helene Kirchner who will come in September has a
These d'Etat in Computer Science from the University of Nancy I in
France and has been a researcher at the Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique.
-------
∂26-Jun-85 1743 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter June 27, No. 35
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Jun 85 17:43:27 PDT
Date: Wed 26 Jun 85 17:18:01-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter June 27, No. 35
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
June 27, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 35
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, June 27, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``The Algebra of Events''
Conference Room by Emmon Bach
Discussion led by Edit Doron
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``An Organism and Its Internal Model of the World''
Room G-19 Pentti Kanerva, CSLI
Discussion led by Alex Pentland
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Qualitative Process Theory''
Room G-19 Ken Forbus, University of Illinois, Computer Science
←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
Next Thursday, July 4, is a National Holiday and no activities will
take place.
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter June 27, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA P1 MEETING: PIXELS AND PREDICATES
``Visual Communication for Severely Impaired Aphasics''
Richard D. Steele, Rehab R&D Center, Palo Alto VA Hospital
Wednesday, July 3, 11:00 a.m., Ventura Hall
The study to be presented concerns the progress of a single,
globally aphasic individual who has been trained on a computerized,
extended version of the visual communication system ``VIC'' originally
developed and tested by Baker (1975), Gardner (1976), and their
colleagues. The VIC system is currently implemented on a Mactinosh XL
computer. The goal has been to produce a device that combines lexical
and grammatical richness with ease of use and practical utility. After
one year of work, results show that:
a) Errors favor telegraphic communications,
b) Prepositions and word order present the greatest difficulty,
c) The patient has learned to comprehend and construct both simple
phrases and complex communications including possessives and conjoined
constructions,
d) Performance is better for reception than for production
performance,
e) The patient readily activates the translation device and
initiates communications in situationally appropriate contexts.
A video tape will be shown of the patient using the computerized VIC
system.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI TALK
``A Situational Theory of Analogy''
Todd Davies, Stanford Philosophy Dept.
Ventura Conference Room
Monday, July 1, 1985, 1:15 p.m.
Analogy in logic is generally given the form:
P(A)&Q(A)
and P(B) are premises
---------
therefore Q(B)
can be concluded, where P is a property or set of properties held by
the analogous situation A in common with the present situation B, and
where Q is a property which is initially held to be true of A. The
question is: What justifies the conclusion? Sometimes the conclusion
is clearly bogus, but for other pairs of situations and properties it
seems quite plausible. I will give examples of both intuitively good
and intuitively bad analogies as a way to argue that theories of
analogy hitherto proposed have yet to answer this question, and that
the rationale for analogy which has been assumed for most early work
on analogy in AI -- namely, that the inference is good if and only if
the situations being compared are similar enough -- is inadequate. I
will also point to traditional logic's inadequacies as a formal
language for analogy and develop a theory which incorporates ideas
from (and finds its easiest expression in) the theory of situations of
Barwise and Perry. The theory suggests a general means by which
computers can infer conclusions about problems which have analogues
for which the solution is known, when failing to inspect the analogue
would make such an inference impossible.
The discussion following will be led by David H. Helman, Case
Western Reserve University and CSLI
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter June 27, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI VISITING SCHOLARS
This is a brief summary of the Visiting Scholars who have already
arrived at the Center for the summer.
1) Kimmo Koskenniemi has been here since the first of June and will be
with us until the first of August. He is currently with the
University of Helsinki and is working on morphological analysis with
Martin Kay, Ron Kaplan, and Lauri Karttunen.
2) Dorit Abusch arrived two weeks ago and will stay until the middle
of October. She will then return to Israel to teach at the University
of Tel Aviv. John Perry is her sponsor.
3) Yves Lesperance has been at the Center since June 10 and will leave
at the end of August. He is from the University of Toronto Computer
Science Department, and his sponsor is David Israel. Among other
things he will participate in the CSLI Summer School.
4) David Helman, who is from the Center for Automation and Intelligent
Systems at Case Western Reserve University, came in late May and will
be here through the first week in August.
5) Manfred Pinkal has been here since the first of the month and will
be here through the end of August. He is from the University of
Duesseldorf, and his sponsor is Hans Uszkoreit.
Thus far, we know of at least four more visitors who will be with us
in the next month.
1) Irene Guessarian arrives on June 30 and will stay for approximately
four weeks. She will collaborate on a paper with Jose Meseguer.
Professor Guessarian is from the National Center for Scientific
Research in France.
2) Peter Mosses will arrive during the second week in July and will be
here for a month. Dr. Mosses is currently at Aarhus University in the
Computer Science Department. His sponsor is Joseph Goguen, and his
specialty is denotational semantics.
3) Luis Monteiro will come on the first of July and will be here for
two months. He is from the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, and his
sponsor is Fernando Pereira.
4) Harald Ganzinger of Dortmund University will be here starting July
19 and will stay until the third of August. Professor Ganzinger's
sponsor is Jose Meseguer. --Dave Brown
-------
∂03-Jul-85 1740 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter July 4, No. 36
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Jul 85 17:39:51 PDT
Date: Wed 3 Jul 85 16:58:09-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter July 4, No. 36
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
July 4, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 36
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
This Thursday, July 4, is a National Holiday and no activities will
take place. No activities will take place on Thursday, July 11.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA P1 MEETING: PIXELS AND PREDICATES
``The Bitmap as Reality''
Scott Kim, author of ``Inversions''
3:00 pm, Wednesday July 10, Ventura Seminar room
What would a truly graphic computer be like? Not just an iconic
veneer on an underlying textual representation, but rather a system in
which everything would be pictorial. ``Viewpoint'' is a computer
system that demonstrates my approach to this question. In Viewpoint
there is no underlying representation lurking behind the screen --
what you see is what you AND the computer get. As consequences of this
radical viewpoint, text and graphics can be treated homogeneously,
bitmap-oriented and structured drawing systems can be truly
integrated, and other graphic media such as paper and videodisks can
be incorporated in computer-based communication.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA NL2 MEETING: INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
On June 26, the Working Group on Interactions of Morphology,
Syntax, and Discourse had its first meeting, and Bresnan and Mchombo's
``Agreement and Pronominal Incorporation in Chichewa'' was discussed.
This group will hold closed meetings throughout the Summer, but the
results of the research will be presented in the Fall, and summaries
will be printed in the Newsletter.
SUMMARY OF THE FIRST MEETING
In Bantu languages, there are highly systematic interactions
between word structure, word order, and discourse structure. Although
these interactions are well known among Bantuists, it is not
recognized in general that they pose deep problems for current
linguistic theory. These interactions are problematic because words,
phrases, and discourses are independent systems in their grammatical
form; yet, despite the autonomy of their structural formation, they
are functionally interdependent to a high degree. How then does
functional information flow between word, phrase, and discourse? The
answer to this question suggests a radically different conception of
the organization of linguistic information fromt that which has been
prevalent in generative grammar. --Joan Bresnan
-------
∂08-Jul-85 1638 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA An Object Model of Information
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Jul 85 16:38:27 PDT
Return-Path: <BEECH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Mon 8 Jul 85 15:57:11-PDT
Date: Mon 8 Jul 85 15:51:21-PDT
From: David Beech <BEECH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: An Object Model of Information
To: Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: Beech@SU-SCORE.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 8 Jul 85 16:30:56-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
I am giving a seminar this Friday which may be of interest to some
CSLI people - I should welcome some comments from the experts in this
kind of thing! Could you perhaps copy your CSLI distribution list?
The first Database Seminar of the summer quarter will be this Friday,
12th July, at 3:15 in MJH352.
For advance copies of the paper or further information, please contact
Beech@Score or call 497-9118.
TOWARDS AN OBJECT MODEL OF THE REPRESENTATION AND USE OF INFORMATION
David Beech
Stanford CIS and HP Laboratories
Future general-purpose information systems will need to deal with a
wide range of information, and offer flexible access to it, if they
are to appeal to the potential millions of non-specialist users.
For example, they should process pictures and sounds as naturally as
numbers and texts; they should answer questions which require some
deduction from the often incomplete information previously given to
the system; and they should move towards the support of natural
language interfaces, including spoken inputs.
An object-oriented model of the representation and use of information
is proposed, with the necessary generality for the description and
design of such systems. Fundamental concepts including those of
agent, object, type, action, formula, process, transaction, predicator
and generator are introduced. Recursive functions, predicate calculus,
and n-ary relations are brought together in a data abstraction framework,
with an emphasis on intensional definition of concepts and their
instantiation by means of predicators and generators.
-------
∂10-Jul-85 1705 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jul 85 17:05:29 PDT
Date: Wed 10 Jul 85 16:53:45-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
There is no newsletter this week. No activities are scheduled for
either Thursday, July 11 or Thursday, July 18.
-Emma Pease
-------
∂17-Jul-85 1740 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter July 18, No. 37
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Jul 85 17:40:06 PDT
Date: Wed 17 Jul 85 16:54:11-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter July 18, No. 37
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
July 18, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 37
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, July 25, 1985
12 Noon CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``Algebraic Semantics and Logics of Programs''
Conference Room Irene Guessarian, National Center for Scientific
Research, France
(Abstract will be printed next week)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``Abstract Semantic Algebras: Theory and Practice''
Conference Room Peter Mosses, Computer Science Dept., Aarhus University
(Abstract on page 1)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
No newsletter was published last week, July 11, since there was
nothing to report. There are no activities this Thursday, July 18.
Please note that Thursday Activities during the summer will generally
consist of one or two talks given by visitors at CSLI and held in the
Ventura Conference room.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI TALK
``Abstract Semantic Algebras: Theory and Practice''
Thursday, July 25, 2:15 p.m.
It seems possible to improve some of the pragmatic aspects of
denotational semantics by using ``abstract semantic algebras'' (ASAs).
Informally, the elements of ASAs can be considered as ``actions'', and
the operations express fundamental ways of combining actions.
Formally, ASAs are just abstract data types, specified axiomatically
in an algebraic framework.
After introducing ASAs, we consider the foundations and pragmatics
of their specification. We conclude by looking at the semantic
analysis of some of the less trivial constructs of programming
languages. --Peter Mosses
(This talk is the same as the one Peter Mosses will have given on
July 23 at Berkeley.)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter July 18, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
``Partitive Quantifier Phrases in Serbo-Croatian''
Summary of the Meeting on July 3
Partitive quantifier phrases in Serbo-Croatian pose a number of
problems for a syntactic treatment. Since they consist of a
non-declinable quantifier and a partitive genitive nominal form, it is
in no way obvious which of the constituents acts as phrasal head. I
argue that the quantifier acts as modifier rather than head, by
showing that its behaviour with respect to cliticization and the
possibility of being questioned parallels that of other NP modifiers
in the language. This makes the genitive nominal an obvious candidate
for head, but which leaves unresolved the issue of case-assigner. It
is therefore proposed that partitive genitive is an example of
ungoverned, i.e., semantic case, which itself acts as case-assigner. In
this function the genitive affix acts as an argument-taking predicate
and takes the nominal stem as its argument. This imposes a
doubled-layered f-structure of the partitive nominal, predicting that
its own features can but do not have to be ``visible'' in the broader
syntactic environment. This is exactly what is found as agreement
behaviour of these phrases, which presents supportive evidence for the
proposed analysis. --Draga Zec
←←←←←←←←←←←←
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
Summary of the Meeting on July 10
Japanese deverbal nominals show verb-like properties in certain
environments: they assign verbal case and can be modified by an
adverb (`Verbal case' includes nominative, accusative and dative,
i.e., case normally assigned by a verb). These case assignment
phenomena pose a problem for current syntactic theories, which assume
that verbs assign case, while nouns do not. I observe the fact that a
deverbal nominal assigns verbal case only when it is concatenated with
a suffix bearing temporal information, which might be encoded with the
feature [+aspect]. The nominal assigns case when the following two
conditions are satisfied:
(i) The nominal has an argument structure.
(ii) It is concatenated with a suffix which bears an aspectual
feature.
I would like to claim that category membership is not sufficient to
license case assignment, but rather that an aspectual feature is also
necessary. --Masayo Iida
←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI COMPUTER DIRECTOR
Richard Cower will start as the new computer director on August 1.
He is presently the Director of Research Computing Facilities for
Columbia University's Department of Computer Science. He has also
worked for both SRI International and Stanford University and is a
Stanford University alumnus.
-------
∂18-Jul-85 1353 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA CSLI Talk
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Jul 85 13:53:42 PDT
Date: Thu 18 Jul 85 13:47:14-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: CSLI Talk
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: bresnan@SU-CSLI.ARPA, sag@SU-CSLI.ARPA, Lauri@SRI-AI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
CSLI TALK
``Some Null Subject Constructions in Modern Irish''
Jim McCloskey, University College Dublin
Tuesday, July 23, 1:00 in Ventura Conference Room
The paper discusses a group of related constructions in Modern Irish
which have two characteristics in common. They have subjects which
are phonologically null and which are pleonastic. The paper is
particularly concerned with the interaction between unaccusatives and
a passive construction.
(This talk is sponsored by the the NL2 group)
-------
∂23-Jul-85 0817 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk on rplaca wed., 4:15
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Jul 85 08:16:54 PDT
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Mon 22 Jul 85 17:15:38-PDT
Date: Mon 22 Jul 85 17:01:31-PDT
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: talk on rplaca wed., 4:15
To: AIC-Associates: ;,
CSL: ;, bboard@SRI-AI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 23 Jul 85 08:13:35-PDT
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
when: wednesday, 24 july, 4:15pm
where: aic new conference room ej226 or so
(that's engineering building, sri, 333 ravenswood, menlo park,
opposite pine street intersection)
who and what:
VERIFICATION OF PROCEDURES INVOLVING POINTERS
Dennis de Champeaux
ADAC Laboratory
San Jose, CA. 95138
408/365-2000 x1255
An axiomatization is given for LISP style entities and pointers. This
formalism is employed to give the symbolic execution semantics of a
subset of LISP primitives, embodying the troublemakers RPLACA and
RPLACD. Side effects due to structure sharing and aliasing are
captured as demnstrated by an application.
coffee: in waldinger's office at 3:45 be on time. ek292.
-------
∂24-Jul-85 1747 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter July 25, No. 38
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Jul 85 17:47:26 PDT
Date: Wed 24 Jul 85 17:04:56-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter July 25, No. 38
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
July 25, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 38
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, July 25, 1985
12 noon CSLI Lunch
Ventura Hall ``Algebraic Semantics and the Logic of Programs''
Conference Room Irene Guessarian, University of Paris VII
(Abstract on page 1)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``Abstract Semantic Algebras: Theory and Practice''
Conference Room Peter Mosses, Computer Science Dept., Aarhus University
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, August 1, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall No TINLunch this week
Conference Room
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``Realism and Antirealism in Cognitive Artificial
Conference Room Intelligence''
David H. Helman, Department of Philosophy, Case
Western Reserve University
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF THIS WEEK'S CSLI LUNCH
``Algebraic Semantics and the Logic of Programs''
Thursday, July 25, 12 noon, Ventura Conference Room
We will present the basic ideas of algebraic semantics. The
overall goal is to describe and prove properties of programs in the
nicest possible way. The algebraic way consists in first
characterizing a program by an infinite tree, which is an object in
some free algebra. We then give the semantics of programs using
algebraic tools which are well-known. After that, we can introduce
progressive constraints on the free algebras, in a modular way, in
order to model the properties of programs. In so doing, we will
relate algebraic semantics to logics of programs, mainly equational
logics. Finally, we will show an application to an equational and
complete proof system for the IF-THEN-ELSE. --Irene Guessarian
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter July 25, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S CSLI TALK
``Realism and Antirealism in Cognitive Artificial Intelligence''
Ventura Conference Room, Thursday, August 1, 2:15 pm
In the philosophy of mind, one controversy between realists and
antirealists concerns the semantics of sentences embedded in attitude
reports. Antirealists believe that the interpretation or reference of
a sentence embedded in an attitude report is a psychological state of
the agent who is the subject of the attitude report. Realists believe
that the interpretation or reference of a sentence is a state of the
world and not a state of mind, whether or not the sentence is embedded
in an attitude report.
In this paper, I show how these two semantic analyses may be
associated with different theories of mental representation in
cognitive artificial intelligence. Realists in cognitive artificial
intelligence describe the mind by supposing that agents partially
represent objects' law-like interactions. Antirealism does not,
perhaps, constitute a single well-defined research strategy in
cognitive artificial intelligences. We may, however, certainly count
as antirealists those researchers in cognitive artificial intelligence
who attempt to simulate mental processes by means of procedures which
mirror tenets of associationist psychology. I argue that acurate
computational models of mind must contain elements from both realist
and antirealist research programs. --David Helman
←←←←←←←←←←←←
PIXELS AND PREDICATES
``Pixels `n' Predicates for Menus `n' Mice''
Henry Lieberman, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
AI Center, Room EK240, SRI International
Wednesday, July 31, 3:00 pm
User interfaces using menu commands, pointing devices, and direct
manipulation of graphical objects constitute a new kind of ``visual
language'' for communicating with computers. What are the basic
building blocks, or ``visual morphemes'' of this new language?
The building blocks supplied by most languages for programming
graphical user interfaces deal mainly with the lowest level of this
visual language: drawing graphical objects such as lines and text,
reading the coordinates of pointing devices. These predicates are too
close to the pixel level to permit rapid construction of modular
interfaces. The next step up is to explicitly represent graphical
representations of manipulable objects, actions the user can perform,
and styles of interaction.
An analogy with interpreters for conventional programming languages
shows how an interpreter can be written for a language of actions
performed by selecting menu commands, operating on arguments obtained
by pointing at graphical objects on the screen.
[This week the meeting is at SRI's AI Center, Room EK240, 333
Ravenswood Ave, Menlo Park which is 1 mile north on El Camino from
Stanford University, turn right on Ravenswood, past first light, go in
driveway on right, ask receptionist for more directions.]
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter July 25, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
``Morphological Structure of Kunparlang Verbs''
Summary of the meeting on July 18
At the meeting, Carolyn Coleman presented the results of some of
her research on the morphological structure of Kunparlang verbs.
Kunparlang verbs are extremely complex morphologically. They
cross- reference Subject and Object functions, incorporate nominal
roots, use `applicative' derivational morphology, carry modal,
directional and aspectual affixes, and inflect for Tense and Mood.
There are two levels of hierarchical morphological structure,
(i) The stem, which carries all morphology having compositional
semantics.
(ii) The lexical base, which caries all semantically idiosyncratic
morphology.
Kunparlang verbs undergo two types of reflexive operation which
have a partially complementary distribution and which have different
semantic effects on the verbs to which they apply. With the first
reflexive operation the reflexive subject is always an Agent; with the
second the reflexive subject is always a Theme. The second reflexive
operation also has incohative and mediopassive readings as well as the
reflexive reading. Both reflexivizing operations are derivations that
apply at the level of the lexical base; given that they have the same
morphological status, there is a problem of how to semantically
characterise them in a manner that will clearly show the semantic
similarities and differences between them. --Carolyn Coleman
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CORRECTION
Rich Cower, the new Computing Director for CSLI, will start August
12 not August 1 as announced last week.
!
Page 4 CSLI Newsletter July 25, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
PROGRAM FOR THE WORKSHOP ON FINITE STATE MORPHOLOGY
Ventura Hall, Trailor Class Room
July 29-30, 1985
For more information please contact Lauri Karttunen (Karttunen@sri-ai)
at (415)859-5082.
Monday, July 29
9:30 Lauri Karttunen ``Issues in Finite State Morphology''
10:30 Ronald Kaplan ``Phonological Rules and Finite-state
Transducers''
11:30 Kimmo Koskenniemi ``Compilation of Automata from
Two-level Rules''
2:00 John Bear ``Implementing Two-level Phonological Rules
Directly''
3:00 Edward Barton ``Complexity of Two-level Morphology''
4:00 Demonstrations by Bear, Karttunen, and Koskenniemi
Tuesday, July 30
9:30 Kenneth Church ``Morphological Stress Decomposition and
Stress Assignment for Speech Synthesis''
10:30 William Poser ``Locality Constraints on Phonological Rules''
11:30 Michael Bateman ``ATEF: A Finite State Model for Morphological
Analysis''
2:00 Mark Johnson ``Acquisition of a Restricted Set of
Phological Rules''
3:00 Martin Kay ``Two-level Morphology with Tiers''
(Discussant: John McCarthy)
4:00 Demonstrations by A. Golding, M. Johnson
-------
∂26-Jul-85 1336 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:GOGUEN@SRI-CSLA.ARPA Round table on Semantics of Programming Languages
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Jul 85 13:36:12 PDT
Received: from SRI-CSLA.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 26 Jul 85 13:28:03-PDT
Date: Fri 26 Jul 85 13:28:58-PDT
From: Joseph A. Goguen <GOGUEN@SRI-CSLA.ARPA>
Subject: Round table on Semantics of Programming Languages
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: Ashcroft@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Boyer@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Crow@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Denning@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, DHare@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Elspas@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Geller@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Geoff@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Goguen@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Jagan@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Jamieson@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, JGoldberg@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Joan@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Kautz@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Ladkin@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Lescanne@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Levitt@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Linde@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Melliar-Smith@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Meseguer@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, MKL@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Morgenstern@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Moriconi@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Moser@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Neumann@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Pease@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Rosanna@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Rushby@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Schwartz@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Shostak@SRI-CSLA.ARPA,
Smolka@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, Tammy@SRI-CSLA.ARPA, VonHenke@SRI-CSLA.ARPA
Title: Round Table Discussion on Semantics of Programming Languages
Speakers: H. Ganzinger, P. Mosses, J. Meseguer, J. Goguen, J. Barwise(?),
plus strong audience participation
Place: Ventura Hall Seminar Room, CSLI, Stanford
Time: 12 noon, Thursday, August 1, 1985
Abstract:
We are fortunate to have visiting CSLI two experts on the semantics of
programming languages, who have unique and promising new approaches. Rather
than schedule yet another formal lecture, we will have a round table
discussion, featuring short presentions by the speakers, followed by
discussion among the speakers, followed by general discussion in which we
hope the audience will play a very strong role.
-------
∂29-Jul-85 1710 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA [Lauri Karttunen <Lauri@SU-CSLI.ARPA>: Question]
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Jul 85 17:10:08 PDT
Date: Mon 29 Jul 85 17:05:28-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: [Lauri Karttunen <Lauri@SU-CSLI.ARPA>: Question]
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Mail-From: LAURI created at 29-Jul-85 17:04:04
Date: Mon 29 Jul 85 17:04:04-PDT
From: Lauri Karttunen <Lauri@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Question
To: emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA
*** REVISED SCHEDULE ***
Program for the Workshop on Finite State Morphology
Ventura Hall, Trailor Class Room
July 29-30, 1985
Tuesday
10:00 Kenneth Church "Morphological Stress Decomposition and
Stress Assignment for Speech Synthesis"
11:00 William Poser "Locality Constraints on Phonological Rules"
1:30 Edward Barton "Complexity of Two-level Morphology"
2:00 Mark Johnson "Acquisition of a Restricted Set of
Phological Rules"
3:30 Michael Bateman "ATEF: A Finite State Model for Morphological
Analysis"
4:30 George Hankamer "Morphological Analysis of Turkish"
(Martin Kay's paper on Arabic was presented on Monday afternoon.)
-------
-------
∂31-Jul-85 1707 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 1, No 39
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Jul 85 17:07:05 PDT
Date: Wed 31 Jul 85 16:53:17-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter August 1, No 39
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
August 1, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 39
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, August 1, 1985
12 noon CSLI Lunch
Ventura Hall ``Round Table Discussion on Semantics of
Conference Room Programming Languages''
(Abstract on page 1)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``Realism and Antirealism in Cognitive Artificial
Conference Room Intelligence''
David H. Helman, Department of Philosophy, Case
Western Reserve University
Discussion led by Ivan Blair
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI LUNCH
``Round Table Discussion on Semantics of Programming Languages''
12 noon, Thursday, August 1, Ventura Hall Seminar Room
We are fortunate to have visiting CSLI two experts on the semantics
of programming languages, who have unique and promising new
approaches. Rather than schedule yet another formal lecture, we will
have a round table discussion, featuring short presentions by the
speakers, followed by discussion among the speakers, followed by
general discussion in which we hope the audience will play a very
strong role.
Speakers will include H. Ganzinger, P. Mosses, J. Meseguer, and J.
Goguen plus strong audience participation. --Joseph Goguen
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI TALK
``The Processing of Motives in Intelligent Systems''
Aaron Sloman, University of Sussex
4 p.m., August 6, Tuesday, Ventura Conference Room
←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORT
Report No. CSLI-85-27, ``Semantic Automata'' by Johan van Benthem,
has just been published. This report may be obtained by writing to
David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or Brown@su-csli.
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter August 1, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
Summary of the meeting on Thursday, July 25
Sells, Zaenen, and Zec presented a typology of reflexive
constructions, showing that there is no simple correlation between the
way the reflexive is morphologically realized and the behavior of the
form as a transitive or an intransitive. They defined three notions of
transitivity and showed which combinations can occur in reflexive
forms:
1. Lexical transitivity, testable through the interactions with
lexical rules that behave differently when applied to verbs that take
objects and those that do not (e.g. causativization and impersonal
passive in several languages)
2. C-structure transitivity, the property of having an overt NP or
pronoun as a PS-constituent separated from the verb in the position
normally assigned to OBJECTS; c-structure intransitive then means to
have no PS-constituent in object position
3. Semantic transitivity, the property of being a two-place
predicate; semantic intransitives then, are one-place predicates
including the ones that are 'derived' from two-place predicates by
variable binding.
Reflexive constructions can be not only intransitive (e.g. Finnish)
or transitive (e.g. English or Walpiri) along all these dimensions at
once but the following cases are also found:
a. Lexically intransitive, c-structure transitive and semantically
intransitive (e.g. German and Serbo-Croatian)
b. Lexically transitive, c-structure transitive and semantically
intransitive (e.g. Dutch and Japanese)
c. Lexically transitive, c-structure intransitive and semantically
transitive (e.g. Chichewa).
The combinations they postulate not to exist are the ones involving
a lexically intransitive and a semantically transitive reflexive form.
Another session will be devoted to the presentation of a theory that
captures the generalizations presented, involving some developments in
the format of lexical rules and a sketch of the integration of DRS and
LFG. --Annie Zaenen
-------
∂07-Aug-85 1718 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 8, No. 40
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Aug 85 17:18:14 PDT
Date: Wed 7 Aug 85 16:44:32-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter August 8, No. 40
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
August 8, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 40
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, August 15, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall No Lunch this week
Conference Room
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``Relevant Arithmetic and Automatic Theorem Proving''
Conference Room Bob Meyer, Australian National University
(Abstract next week)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
No activities take place today.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI TALK
On Situation Semantics
Robin Cooper, University of Wisconsin
Ventura Conference Room, August 14, 2 p.m.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
Summary of the meeting on Thursday, August 1
Sells, Zaenen, and Zec continued their presentation on a typology
of reflexive constructions, focussing on the interpretation assigned
to structures containing reflexive pronouns. In particular, they
argued that the traditional conception of the ``bound variable'' vs.
``coreferential'' distinction is not fine-grained enough and
introduced a third interpretation, called ``discourse binding''; this
builds on the account of anaphora developed in Sells' paper
``Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Modification'' (CSLI Report No. 28).
With regard to the interpretation of reflexive constructions,
languages fall into two classes:
--Those that only allow the bound variable interpretation.
--Those that allow either the bound variable interpretation or the
discourse binding interpretation.
A notational system was presented for representing these
interpretations, using the basics of Kamp's Discourse Representation
Theory, and rules for constructing such representations from syntactic
structures were discussed.
Finally, some speculations were advanced as to the nature of the
interpretations of other constructions involving reflexives, in
particular the mediopassive and inchoative use of the `-yi-' reflexive
in Kungparlang. --Peter Sells
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter August 8, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
PIXELS AND PREDICATES: AREA P1
``Diagram Understanding:
The Intersection of Computer Graphics and Computer Vision''
Fanya S. Montalvo, MIT, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Summary of the meeting on August 7
A problem common to computer vision and computer graphics was
identified. It deals with the representation, acquisition, and
validation of symbolic descriptions for visual properties. The
utility of treating this area as one was explained in terms of
providing the facility for diagrammatic conversations with systems. I
call this area ``diagram understanding'', which is analogous to
natural language understanding. The recognition and generation of
visual objects are two sides of the same symbolic coin. A paradigm
for the discovery of higher-level visual properties was introduced,
and its application to computer vision and computer graphics
described. The notion of denotation was introduced in this context.
It is the map between linguistic symbols and visual properties. A
method was outlined for associating symbolic descriptions with visual
properties in such a way that human subjects can be brought into the
loop in order to validate (or specify) the denotation map. Secondly,
a way of discovering a natural set of visual primitives was
introduced. --Fanya Montalvo
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF NL2 TALK
``Some Null Subject Constructions in Modern Irish''
Jim McCloskey, University College Dublin
Tuesday, July 23, 1:00
The paper discusses a group of related constructions in Modern
Irish which have two characteristics in common. They have subjects
which are phonologically null and which are pleonastic. The paper is
particularly concerned with the interaction between unaccusatives and
a passive construction.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORT
Report No. CSLI-85-28, ``Restrictive and Non-restrictive
Modification'' by Peter Sells, has just been published. This report
may be obtained by writing to David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall,
Stanford, CA 94305 or Brown@su-csli.
-------
∂14-Aug-85 1743 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 15, No. 41
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Aug 85 17:43:24 PDT
Date: Wed 14 Aug 85 16:54:40-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter August 15, No. 41
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
August 15, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 41
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, August 15, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall No Lunch this week
Conference Room
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``Relevant Arithmetic and Automatic Theorem Proving''
Conference Room Bob Meyer, Australian National University
(Abstract on page 1)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
No activities have been scheduled for next Thursday, August 22.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT FOR THIS WEEK'S TALK
``Relevant Arithmetic and Automatic Theorem Proving''
Thursday, August 15, 2:15 pm
Relevant logics were first developed in the 1950's, as systems
satisfying improved versions of the deduction theorem, designed better
to capture the relation between premises and conclusion in an ordinary
valid argument. The time has come to implement the design philosophy
by exhibiting some valid arguments. Those familiar with relevant
deductive technique will appreciate the point that one would not wish
to do this without a computer. Relevant technique, whose major root
has always been deduction-theoretic, does lend itself quite nicely to
mechanization. The program KRIPKE developed at LaTrobe, Melbourne,
and Australian National universities with (and by, mainly)
Thistlewaite and McRobbie realizes this technique for the system LR,
applying a sophisticated decision procedure due to Kripke. KRIPKE is
Gentzen-based, but invokes semantic constraints to keep proof searches
within reasonable bounds. The pay-off is the obvious one; by limiting
the supply of premises from which a conclusion can reasonably come
(which was the idea behind relevant logics all along), the path to a
proof is fast and efficient. Our aim now is to adapt these methods to
concrete theories, as part of a 5-year project beginning in early
1986. We have chosen arithmetic as our first area of concentration,
since it has a smooth first-order relevant formalization (in the
system R#), with many distinctive features. --Bob Meyer
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter August 15, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI TALK
``On the Complementarity of Subject and Subject-verb Agreement''
Edit Doron, CSLI
Wednesday, August 21, 1:30 pm, Ventura Seminar Room
``Pro-drop'' languages allow a null subject in conjunction with
rich inflectional morphology on the verb. This paper is concerned
with the other side of the ``pro-drop'' coin: a null subject is
sometimes REQUIRED under those conditions. The Celtic languages
typically impose such complementarity, and Hebrew does so to some
extent. I will point out some problems with McCloskey and Hale's
``agreement'' analysis for the data, and will propose a variant of the
``incorporation'' analysis.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
←←←←←←←←←←←←
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
Summary of the meeting on Thursday, August 8
A class of five morphemes in Finnish, traditionally called
possessive suffixes (henceforeward Px), raises interesting questions
about the relationship of morphological structure to syntactic
functions. Px's appear to be pronominal (or anaphoric) elements
attached to nominal words (nouns and some adjectives, including
nominalized verbs and participals) following number and case suffixes.
Recent analyses have treated Px's as clitics, that is, parts of
phonological words that are not placed within words exclusively by the
morphology. I argue in two parts, however, that Finnish possessive
suffixes are best analyzed as true suffixes.
The talk, comprising part one of my argument, dealt with
phonological, morphological, and semantic evidence for the suffixal
(or morphological word-internal) status of the Px's. I argued that
any allomorphy or morphophonological alternation in Finnish that is
sensitive to word boundaries treats the undisputed suffixes and Px's
alike as being inside the word and treats a class of clitics as being
outside the word. Furthermore, a variety of semantically
idiosyncratic lexical items containing Px's provide further support
for a suffixal analysis of Px's, insofar as suffixes are more
susceptible to idiosyncratic lexicalization than clitics. I then
argued against the possibility that Px's are lexical level clitics
(i.e., clitics that attach to words at the morphological level) by
showing that it is quite costly to the theory of lexical phonology to
have a lexical level in Finnish that contains all of the undisputed
suffixes yet excludes the Px's; hence Px's must occupy the same
lexical level as other suffixes. Considering, then, all of the
evidence favoring a suffixal analysis for the Px's, it is extremely
weak to set Px's apart from the other suffixes solely on the basis of
morpheme order. If the syntactic facts involving Px's can be analyzed
competently from an entirely lexical basis, then a clitic analysis is
unmotivated and a suffix analysis is correct. Part two of my
argument, to be presented in a later talk, involves such a syntactic
analysis of the Px's. --Jonni Kanerva
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter August 15, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SDF BOARD VISIT
The Board of Trustees of the System Development Foundation visited
Ventura Hall last Monday morning (August 12).
The members of the Board who were here are:
Arnold Beckman, Chairman
Chairman, Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Ralph Tyler, President
Director Emeritus, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Sciences
Edwin Huddleson, Assistant Secretary and Financial Officer
Partner, Cooley, Godward, Castro, Huddlesson & Tatum
Lloyd Morrisett, Chairman, Investment Committee
President, The John and Mary R. Markle Foundation
Carl York and Roberta Ishihara, two members of the SDF staff, were
also here.
-------
∂21-Aug-85 1736 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 22, No. 42
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Aug 85 17:36:08 PDT
Date: Wed 21 Aug 85 17:22:48-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter August 22, No. 42
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
August 22, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 42
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, August 29, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``A Unified Indexical Analysis of ``same'' and
Conference Room ``different'': A Response to Stump and Carlson''
by David Dowty
Discussion led by Mats Rooth
(Abstract on page 1)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall No talk this week
Conference Room
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENTS
No activities have been scheduled for this Thursday, August 22. Next
week, TINLunch will resume.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT FOR NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``A Unified Indexical Analysis of ``same'' and ``different'':
A Response to Stump and Carlson''
Stump's ``A GPSG Fragment for `Dependent Nominals' '' is concerned
with sentences such as
``Mary saw ``Amadeus,'' but John saw a different movie.''
and
``Every student saw a different movie.''
where the interpretation of ``different movie'' is said to be
dependent on the interpretation of another NP in the sentence or
discourse. Stump's analysis involves quantifier storage; Dowty
criticizes some of the data which motivated this approach, and
proposes an indexical or contextual analysis which posits a number of
free variables in the interpretaton of ``same'' and ``different,'' the
interpretation of which is determined by context. In the second
example above, the interpretation of ``different'' includes a free
variable which is bound by the quantifier ``every student.''
--Mats Rooth
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter August 22, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI WORKSHOP ON GERMAN GRAMMAR
On Monday, August 26, and Tuesday, August 27, a small and rather
informal workshop on problems of German syntax and semantics will be
held at CSLI.
The event was not planned as a conference-style workshop with
fixed-length papers, restricted discussion periods and a large
non-participating audience. The goal is rather to present affiliates
and visitors of CSLI who have worked on different theoretically
interesting aspects of German with an opportunity to learn about each
other's work and to get feedback on their own results. We consider
the mix of syntacticians and semanticists among the participants
especially fortunate for the success of the workshop.
Drop-in participants are welcome but are forwarned not to rely too
much on the announced schedule since talks and discussions may
overrun. On both days, participants will be invited to a simple lunch
on the trailer patio.
Monday morning 9-12:
David Perlmutter On German Causatives
(UCSD)
Mark Johnson Constituent Structure of the
(Stanford and CSLI) German VP
Hans Uszkoreit Ordering Principles
(SRI and CSLI)
Lunch on the patio
Monday afternoon 1:30:
John Nerbonne Tense and Temporal Adverbs
(HP and CSLI)
After John's talk, interested participants will be given a brief
overview over projects on German in the area of computational
linguistics. Guenter Goerz (U. Erlangen), Manfred Pinkal (U.
Duesseldorf), Uwe Reyle (U. Stuttgart), and Hans Uszkoreit (SRI and
CSLI) will give 10 minute talks on recent and current projects such as
HAM-ANS, KIT, METAL, PLIDIS, EVAR, SUSY, the Stuttgart LFG
implementation, GPSG in Berlin.
Tuesday morning 9-12:
Godehard Link Generalized Quantifiers and Plural:
(U. Muenchen and CSLI) The case of German 'je' (each)
Dietmar Zaefferer Bare Plurals and Naked Relatives:
(U. Muenchen and CSLI) Semantics of German wh-constructions
Manfred Pinkal Syntactic and Semantic Gender
(U. Duesseldorf)
Lunch on the patio
Departure of the participants to their offices
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter August 22, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
``Logophoricity: SELF and SOURCE in Discourse and Morphology''
Summary of the meeting on Thursday, August 15
Peter Sells gave a presentation on the notion of ``logophoricity''
that is grammatically expressed in many languages, and proposed that
there are more primitive notions of SELF and SOURCE in terms of which
logophoric domains are created and perpetuated. He proposed that the
grammatical conditions on the antecedent of the Japanese reflexive
`zibun' are that:
(a) its antecedent is a grammatical subject, or
(b) its antecedent realises the SELF of the discourse
The SELF may be realised in two ways, either concomitant with the
SOURCE of a verb of communication, as with `Max' in ``Mary heard from
Max that ...'' or ``Max said that ....'' Alternatively, the SOURCE
may be the external speaker, as with the `psychological' predicates,
such as ``That so-and-so distressed Max;'' again `Max' realises the
SELF here. Intuitively, psychological predicates are those predicates
with which an external speaker says something about a mental state of
a sentence-internal protagonist. A simple notion of logophoricity
cannot distinguish these two cases.
A framework for representing these constructs was given, in terms
of the Discourse Representation Theory developed by Kamp, and various
differences between the communicational and psychological predicates
were discussed.
There was also discussion of the English prefix ``self-,'' as in
``self-confidence,'' which also gives evidence in favor of the
constructs proposed by Sells. In particular, nouns like
``self-deception'' give a clear indication that the speaker is
classifying the mental state of some other person. --Peter Sells
-------
∂30-Aug-85 1355 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--September 3rd
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Aug 85 13:52:07 PDT
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 29 Aug 85 14:13:39-PDT
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/5.3)
id AA00676; Thu, 29 Aug 85 14:09:44 pdt
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (5.5/4.48)
id AA27201; Thu, 29 Aug 85 14:12:49 PDT
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 85 14:12:49 PDT
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8508292112.AA27201@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--September 3rd
Cc: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Fall 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A
TIME: Tuesday, September 3, 11:00 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:00 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Leonard Talmy, UCB
TITLE: ``Force Dynamics in Language and Thought''
A semantic category that has previously been neglected in
linguistic research is that of ``force dynamics''--how enti-
ties interact with respect to force. Included here is the
exertion of force, resistance to such a force, the overcoming
of such a resistance, blockage of the expression of force,
removal of such blockage, and the like.
Though scarcely recognized before, force dynamics figures
significantly in language structure. It is, first of all, a
generalization over the traditional notion of ``causative'':
it places naturally within a single framework not only `caus-
ing', but also `letting,' as well as a set of notions not nor-
mally considered in the same context.
Force dynamics, furthermore, plays a structuring role
across a range of language levels. First, it has direct gram-
matical representation. In English, such representation
appears not only in subsets of conjunctions, prepositions, and
other closed-class elements but, most significantly, also as
the semantic category that the modal system as a whole is
dedicated to expressing. Force dynamic patterns are also
incorporated in open-class lexical items, and bring numbers of
these together into systematic relationships. Lexical items
involved in this way refer not only to physical force interac-
tions but, by metaphoric extension, also to psychological and
social interactions, conceived in terms of psycho-social
``pressures.'' In addition, force dynamic principles can be
seen to operate in discourse that is involved with persuasion.
Such rhetorical interchange (including efforts to exhort, con-
vince, or logically demonstrate) involves the deployment of
points to argue for and against conflicting positions.
Force dynamics is a major conceptual organizing system,
constituting one of four major ``imaging'' systems that I have
developed which provide an integrated semantic schematization
of a referent scene. Cognitively, it corresponds to concepts
within ``naive physics'' as well as to ones in ``naive
(social) psychology,'' and can be contrasted with modern
scientific concepts in these domains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
Sept 10: Amos Tversky, Psychology, Stanford
Sept 17: Alan Schoenfeld, Education, UCB
Sept 24: Peter Pirolli, Education, UCB
Oct 1: David Rumelhart, UCSD
Oct 8: Terry Winograd, Computer Science, Stanford
Oct 15: Ron Kaplan, Xerox PARC
∂30-Aug-85 1427 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter August 29, No. 43
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Aug 85 13:45:17 PDT
Date: Wed 28 Aug 85 17:10:02-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter August 29, No. 43
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
August 29, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 43
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, August 29, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``A Unified Indexical Analysis of ``same'' and
Conference Room ``different'': A Response to Stump and Carlson''
by David Dowty
Discussion led by Mats Rooth
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall No talk this week
Conference Room
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, September 5, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Predication, Logical Syntax, and the Type-free
Conference Room Conception of Properties, Relations, and Propositions''
Discussion led by Chris Menzel
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall No talk this week
Conference Room
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter August 29, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT FOR NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Predication, Logical Syntax, and the Type-free Conception
of Properties, Relations, and Propositions''
Since Frege, the (arguably) dominant conception of properties,
relations, and propositions (PRPs) has been typed. The first rigorous
formal development of this view by Russell was motivated largely by
his discovery of the justly famous paradox that bears his name, and
was for many years considered the definitive solution to the problem.
More recently, the view (albeit in extensionalist garb) has enjoyed a
renewed respectability, and a renewed applicability, in linguistics
and the philosophy of language prompted by Montague's assiduous
investigations into the semantics of natural language.
Recent years, however, have seen a growing dissatisfaction with the
typed conception of PRPs. I will begin this week's discussion by
pointing out some of the problems lurking behind this dissatisfaction,
and will then present the basics of a type-free alternative. Despite
the fact that Frege himself had a typed conception of PRPs, the
type-free view I will present is largely Fregean in spirit: I will
argue in particular that properties and relations are in some sense
``unsaturated.'' This insight, however, doesn't require typing, as
Frege seemed to think, and I will show where, in my view, he went
wrong. I will then argue that the standard function/argument notation
of first- and higher-order logic ought, as Frege intended, to be
thought of as representing the ``completion'' of an unsaturated
property or relation, and not, contra Bealer, the standing of two or
more objects in a further relation of predication. This suggests a
number of important questions about the nature of logic that will be
raised for discussion. --Chris Menzel
←←←←←←←←←←←←
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
``Swedish Ditransitives''
Summary of the meeting on Thursday, August 22
In most Swedish ditransitive sentences, either object may
passivize. This talk addressed the question of what special property
of Swedish permits the second object to advance to subjecthood in the
passive. It was argued that the property in question is a disjunction
between two syntactic functions, SUBJECT and TOPIC, on the
sentence-initial position (the verb-second constraint). Subjects can
be distinguished from topics through various syntactic tests (e.g.,
embedding under raising verbs), but this distinction is often opaque
in simple clauses. It was argued that this conflation of two
alternative functions on a single constituent structure node has
caused the topic to be reanalyzed as a subject. Since topicalization
does not alter grammatical relations, it applies freely to second
objects in Swedish and English. But only in Swedish can this
topicalized second object be reanalyzed as a subject. When the source
(before topicalization) is an impersonal passive construction, the
result is a passivized second object.
Finally, a ``movement'' analysis, in which topicalization and
passivization are two instances of a single process defined on
c-structure (such as ``move alpha''), was rejected. With verbs
subcategorized for both a direct object and an oblique function, the
prepositional object topicalizes but does not passivize, even in
identical c-structures. This suggests that the two processes belong
to different sub-components of the syntax. --Steve Wechsler
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter August 29, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORTS
Report No. CSLI-85-29, ``Equations, Schemata and Situations: A
framework for linguistic semantics'' by Jens Erik Fenstad,
Per-Kristian Halvorsen, Tore Langholm, and Johan van Benthem, and
Report No. CSLI-85-30, ``Institutions: Abstract Model Theory for
Computer Science'' by J. A. Goguen and R. M. Burstall, have just been
published. These reports may be obtained by writing to David Brown,
CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or Brown@SU-CSLI.
-------
∂04-Sep-85 1354 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Sept 10
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Sep 85 13:53:39 PDT
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Wed 4 Sep 85 13:44:11-PDT
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/5.3)
id AA00494; Wed, 4 Sep 85 13:40:04 pdt
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (5.5/4.48)
id AA11537; Wed, 4 Sep 85 13:43:19 PDT
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 85 13:43:19 PDT
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8509042043.AA11537@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Sept 10
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Fall 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A
TIME: Tuesday, September 10, 11:00 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Amos Tversky, Department of Psychology,
Stanford University
TITLE: ``Misconception of Chance Processes in
Basketball''
We investigate the origin and the validity of common beliefs
regarding ``the hot hand'' and ``streak shooting'' in the game
of basketball. Basketball players and fans alike tend to
believe that a player's chance of hitting a shot are greater
following a hit than following a miss on the previous shot.
However, detailed analyses of the shooting records of the Phi-
ladelphia 76ers provided no evidence for a positive correla-
tion between the outcomes of successive shots. The same con-
clusions emerged from free-throw records of the Boston Cel-
tics, and from a controlled shooting experiment with the men
and women of Cornell's varsity teams. The outcomes of previ-
ous shots influenced Cornell players' predictions but not
their preformance. The belief in the hot hand and the
``detection'' of streaks in random sequences is attributed to
a general misconception of chance according to which even
short random sequences are thought to be highly representative
of their generating process.
--------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
Sept 17: Alan Schoenfeld, Education, UCB
Sept 24: Peter Pirolli, Education, UCB
Oct 1: David Rumelhart, Cognitive Science, UCSD
Oct 8: Terry Winograd, Computer Science, Stanford
Oct 15: Ron Kaplan, Xerox PARC
Oct 22: Lotfi Zadeh, Computer Science, UCB
∂04-Sep-85 1736 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter September 5, No. 44
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Sep 85 17:36:32 PDT
Date: Wed 4 Sep 85 17:17:57-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter September 5, No. 44
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
September 5, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 44
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, September 5, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Predication, Logical Syntax, and the Type-free
Conference Room Conception of Properties, Relations, and Propositions''
Discussion led by Chris Menzel
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``FORK: A Flavor-Based Environment for Object-oriented
Seminar Room Knowledge Representation''
C. Beckstein, G. Goerz,
University Erlangen-Nuernberg, W. Germany
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, September 12, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Free Word Order in GPSG''
Conference Room by Arnold Zwicky
Discussion led by Hans Uszkoreit, SRI and CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``Arithmetical Truth and Hidden Higher-Order Concepts''
Seminar Room Daniel Isaacson, Oxford University
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter September 5, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT FOR THIS WEEK'S CSLI TALK
``FORK: A Flavor-Based Environment for
Object-oriented Knowledge Representation''
C. Beckstein, G. Goerz, University Erlangen-Nuernberg, West Germany
2:15, Thursday, September 5, Ventura Seminar Room
Most object-oriented extensions of LISP provide only marginal
support for the purpose of knowledge representation. In particular,
there are only poor means---if any---for specifying meta-information
about attributes of objects such as typed domains, methods for
determining values (demons), multiple-valued attributes and explicit
control of inheritance. Furthermore, they usually don't offer
adequate utilities for handling multiple perspectives, retrieving
objects through patterns of characteristic features, and maintaining
structural relations (integrity constraints) in and between objects.
FORK is an attempt to extend Flavors, an object-oriented extension of
LISP, by adding features which are well known from frame-like systems
with the advantage of keeping a systematic distinction between classes
and instances. The procedural knowledge is attached to classes either
in the usual sense of methods as functions or in the form of (forward
chaining) rule sets. In addition, FORK offers a programming
environment to support users in the construction and maintenance of
large, hybrid knowledge bases.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT FOR NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Free Word Order in GPSG''
The ID/LP version of GPSG provides an elegant scheme for describing
certain syntactic phenomena that are usually subsumed under the terms
``free word order'' or ``free constituent order.'' The questions
addressed in this paper are (i) whether (and how) all the variants and
degrees of ordering freedom can be described in the framework and (ii)
whether universal generalizations can be expressed. In this connection,
a universal version of a Pullum-type liberation rule is discussed.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT FOR NEXT WEEK'S CSLI TALK
``Arithmetical Truth and Hidden Higher-Order Concepts''
Daniel Isaacson, Oxford University
2:15, Thursday, September 12, Ventura Conference Room
The natural numbers can be characterized within a given domain by
the second-order condition that they constitute a minimal collection
closed under a given one to one mapping (succession) and containing an
element (zero) not in the range of that mapping. Peano Arithmetic is
what can be expressed of this characterization by first-order
axiomatization, and is in this sense a natural, conceptually intrinsic
formal system. On the other hand, Godel showed that the truths of
arithmetic are not recursively enumerable, so that any true axiomatic
formal system for arithmetic has proper first-order extensions. It
might seem in this way that no one first-order axiomatic system could
be of intrinsic conceptual importance. This talk will explore
considerations that might resolve the tension between these two
observations, in particular to suggest that possibly Peano Arithmetic
can be considered as complete with respect to genuinely arithmetical
truth, in the sense that perceiving the truth of first-order truths in
the language of arithmetic that are not provable in Peano Arithmetic
must be in terms of higher-order concepts which they code.
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter September 5, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
TALK
``Unification-Based Speech Parsing with a Chart''
C. Beckstein, G. Goerz, Univ. Erlangen-Nuernberg, West Germany
2:15, Tuesday, September 10, Ventura Seminar Room
We describe GuLP, a chart parser to be used as a syntactic module
of the Erlangen Speech Understanding System EVAR. Operating with a
unification grammar, GuLP realizes an agenda-based multiprocessing
scheme, which allows the application of various parsing strategies to
fragments of the same utterance in a transparent way. The overall
control mechanism is realized through a general interrupt system. In
order to process speech data, a variety of new features has been
incorporated: in particular the ability to perform incremental
analysis, to do direction independent island parsing, to process gaps
in utterances, and to handle hypothesis scores. Finally, a complexity
estimate and a few experimental results are discussed.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
INTERACTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND DISCOURSE
``Discourse-based Interactions of
Four Morphosyntactic Subsystems in Northern Pomo''
Summary of the meeting on Thursday, August 29
Formal theories of discourse representation face the task of
modelling both text-external deixis (expressions anchored to the
context of utterance) and text-internal deixis (e.g., Partee's (1984)
treatment of Reichenbach's `reference time' or Banfield's (1982)
discourse primitive SELF.) Cathy O'Connor discussed these dimensions
in the light of complex interactions of four morphosyntactic
subsystems of Northern Pomo.
(1) Third person, non-clause-bounded reflexives function
logophorically; they establish that the SELF is anchored
to 3rd person.
(2) A possessive prefix found on kinship terms that is
necessarily a bound anaphor is optional outside the
minimal clause containing its antecedent. If SELF is 3rd
person, the anaphoric prefix is obligatory, deictically
linked to this text-internal discourse entity.
(3) An alternation in case-marking for subjects of
unaccusative verbs conveys subjective expression of
internal experience (`I'm feeling really sick') versus
objective reporting (`I'm sick today'). This is normally
limited to 1st person subjects. In discourse contexts
where SELF is 3rd person, the alternation is sanctioned
for 3rd person subjects.
(4) A set of `evidential' verbal inflections, which
indicate utterance-speaker's evidence for the assertion,
display pragmatically motivated co-occurrence restrictions
with respect to the above phenomena.
In light of these findings the relation of logophoricity and
subjunctive mood was discussed. The proposal was made that mood
subordination in a discourse representation is the appropriate domain
for an account of these complex facts. Finally, the problem of
representing (1) through (4) above was discussed, and the notions of
text-internal and text-external deixis were suggested to be necessary
components in a representation of the discourse structures
involved. --Cathy O'Connor
-------
∂11-Sep-85 1741 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter September 12, No. 45
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Sep 85 17:41:24 PDT
Date: Wed 11 Sep 85 16:56:02-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter September 12, No. 45
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
September 12, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 45
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, September 12, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Free Word Order in GPSG''
Conference Room by Arnold Zwicky
Discussion led by Hans Uszkoreit, SRI and CSLI
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall ``Arithmetical Truth and Hidden Higher-Order Concepts''
Seminar Room Daniel Isaacson, Oxford University
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, September 19, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Some Remarks on the Relationship of Mind to
Conference Room Meaning and Language''
Discussion led by Daniel Isaacson, Oxford University
(Abstract on page 1)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall No talk this week
Seminar Room
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT FOR NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Some Remarks on the Relationship of Mind to Meaning and Language''
These remarks will be attempting to point toward a mind-based
approach to meaning and language, and to say something as to why one
might not be persuaded by considerations which have been taken as
disallowing such an approach and as requiring rather that
understanding of the phenomenon of language must underlie our
understanding of mind. This perspective is partially motivated by
focusing attention on progression of the infant from pre-verbal states
of mind to linguistic expression. Access to pre-verbal mental states
as required on this approach may be provided by psychoanalysis, in
particular by the work of Melanie Klein. In these terms, basic
cognitive and emotional development constitute two aspects of a single
process. --Daniel Isaacson
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter September 12, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
TALK
``Crossing the Rubicon: From a Physics of Dead Coordinate Spaces
to a Physics of Living Coordinate Spaces''
Dr. Peter Kugler, The Crump Institute for Medical Engineering, UCLA
Monday, September 23, 1985, 2:15pm
This talk will be about the Ecological (Gibsonian) view of
language, and will concentrate upon the conceptual tools which the
Ecological approach considers necessary for the study of language. A
more complete abstract will appear in next week's newsletter.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ARTICULATORY PHONETICS
Osamu Fujimura
AT&T Bell Laboratories
A one-week course sponsored by the Linguistics Department and CSLI.
Place: Seminar Room, CSLI, Stanford University
Dates: Tuesday, September 17 - Monday, September 23
Hours: Tuesday 2-5, WThFM 10-12, 2-5
Course description:
The current status of articulatory studies will be reviewed with an
emphasis on recent findings using a computer-controlled x-ray
microbeam system. The movement patterns of articulatory organs such
as the tongue, the lower lip, the mandible and the velum reveal strong
prosodic effects on what usually are considered segmental gestures,
e. g. vowel gestures. The temporal organization of the
multidimensional articulatory patterns cannot be explained by the
conventional segment concatenation models. Some new principles of
phonetic organization will be examined, and their implications
concerning phonological representations of speech will be discussed.
A relatively large sample of microbeam (pellet movement) data will
be provided for student exercise, using the phonetics laboratory's
interactive computer facility and specially prepared analysis tools.
A two-hour lecture in the morning will be normally followed by
laboratory work using the graphics terminals during the afternoon
(and, if there is demand, during the evening as well).
No particular background knowledge will be presupposed, and there
is no registration fee. If you expect to attend, please contact Paul
Kiparsky at CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
94305 (net address: Kiparsky@CSLI.ARPA).
Course Outline
Tuesday 2-5 Anatomy: Articulatory organs, observation and
measurement methods
Wednesday 10-12 Physics: Linear systems and acoustics of speech
production; perception
2-5 Lab setup and basic demo
Thursday 10-12 Some observations from X-ray microbeam data
2-5 Exercise (Lab)
Friday 10-12 Temporal organization of speech
2-5 Exercise (Lab)
Monday 10-12 Models of speech production in relation to phonology
2-5 Overall discussion
-------
∂12-Sep-85 0908 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Sept. 17
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Sep 85 09:08:10 PDT
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 12 Sep 85 09:03:36-PDT
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/5.3)
id AA15013; Thu, 12 Sep 85 08:59:03 pdt
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (5.5/4.48)
id AA15273; Thu, 12 Sep 85 09:03:50 PDT
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 85 09:03:50 PDT
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8509121603.AA15273@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Sept. 17
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Fall 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A
TIME: Tuesday, September 17, 11:00 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Alan H. Schoenfeld, Education & Mathematics, UCB
TITLE: ``Obstacles To Making Sense of Mathematical
Notions, or, The Transfer Problem Rears its
Ugly Head Once Again''
It can be argued that the fundamental difficulty in mathemat-
ics learning is the transfer problem. That is, the power of
mathematics lies in the potential applicability of mathemati-
cal ideas to new situations. It doesn't matter whether the
idea is, for example, function, group, number, or triangle.
Once any particular mathematical entity is recognized as
belonging to an identified class of objects, everything known
about that class of objects applies to that entity. In such
abstaction resides much of the power and utility of mathemat-
ics. This paper explores some theoretical and some pragmatic
obstacles to students' abstraction of mathematical notions.
We look at two domains, whole number arithmetic and plane
geometry. Some parallels between the two domains are drawn,
to indicate that the processes of abstraction are similar in
both. In the case of number, we examine a theoretical para-
dox: the use of good ``hands on'' manipulatives to help stu-
dents make sense of base 10 addition and subtraction may make
it harder to understand the nature of ``number.'' In the case
of geometry, we discuss an empirical obstacle. When things
are compartmentalized in the curriculum, connections that we
would hope are ``natural'' turn out to be very hard to make.
--------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
Sept. 24: Peter Pirolli, Education, UCB
Oct. 1: David Rumelhart, Cognitive Science, UCSD
Oct. 8: Terry Winograd, Computer Science, Stanford
Oct. 15: Ron Kaplan, Xerox PARC
Oct. 22: Lotfi Zadeh, Computer Science, UCB
Nov. 19: Richard Alterman, Computer Science, UCB
∂16-Sep-85 1004 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA CSLI talk
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Sep 85 10:04:44 PDT
Date: Mon 16 Sep 85 10:03:05-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: CSLI talk
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
CSLI TALK
``Proto-Language''
C. B. Martin, Dept. of Philosophy, U. of Calgary
Friday, Sept. 20, 2:15, Ventura Conference Room
C. B. Martin has done a lot of important work in the philosophy of
religion, but also he wrote an extremely important paper on memory
with Max Deutscher, defending a causal theory of memory when this was
quite unfashionable. I think this paper played an important role in
setting the stage for causal theories of reference and action. Martin
is now doing work that sounds extremely interesting to me on the
semantics of non-verbal behavior. This following paragraph from his
paper gives a good indication of what it is about.
"The time is long overdue for the recognition of the semantic
import of non-verbal behaviour. Such behaviour is procedural
and projective for an outcome (that may or may not have
satisfaction). Though "true" and "false" may be reserved for
the verbal cases, there is a basic rightness and wrongness
about the non-verbal behavioural, procedural, projective
representations. Such behaviour is formed in inter-related
patterns strikingly and importantly analogous to that of
verbal language. I shall call such semantic non-verbal
behaviour "proto-language"."
--John Perry
-------
∂18-Sep-85 2112 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:davies%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar, Sept. 24, 1985
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Sep 85 21:12:43 PDT
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Wed 18 Sep 85 21:08:54-PDT
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/5.6)
id AA00948; Wed, 18 Sep 85 12:19:42 pdt
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (5.5/5.7)
id AA07592; Wed, 18 Sep 85 11:12:07 PDT
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 11:12:07 PDT
From: davies%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Catherine Davies)
Message-Id: <8509181812.AA07592@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar, Sept. 24, 1985
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Fall 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A
TIME: Tuesday, September 24, 11:00 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Peter Pirolli, School of Education,
UC Berkeley
TITLE: ``A Cognitive Model and Intelligent Computer
Tutor for Programming Recursion''
Recursion is typically a novel concept for programming stu-
dents that causes them considerable grief and difficulty.
Thus, the study of how people learn to program recursive pro-
grams provides a useful domain for addressing the psychologi-
cal issue of how fundamentally new knowledge is acquired as
well as the instructional issue of how to teach a difficult
programming concept. I will present a production system model
that addresses expert and novice problem-solving, problem-
solving by analogy, and skill acquisition in programming
recursive functions. This research served as the basis for
the development of recursion lessons in an intelligent com-
puter tutor for programming LISP. Specifically, a simulation
model of ``ideal'' and ``buggy'' novice problem-solving was con-
structed for coding recursion. Using this model, the LISP
tutor provides instruction, hints, and feedback in the context
of programming. The LISP tutor also maintains a model of the
skill development of individual students. Evaluations show
that the LISP tutor is more effective in teaching introductory
LISP programming than good classroom instruction and
approaches the effectiveness of human tutors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
Oct 1: David Rumelhart, Cognitive Science, UCSD
Oct 8: Terry Winograd, Computer Science, Stanford
Oct 15: Ron Kaplan, Xerox PARC
Oct 22: Lotfi Zadeh, Computer Science, UCB
Oct 29: Mardi Horowitz, Psychiatry, UCSF
Nov 5: TBA
Nov 12: TBA
Nov 19: Richard Alterman, Computer Science, UCB
Nov 26: Eve Clark, Linguistics, Stanford
∂19-Sep-85 0850 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter September 19, No. 46
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Sep 85 08:50:45 PDT
Date: Thu 19 Sep 85 08:14:26-PDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter September 19, No. 46
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
***** Sorry for the delay but SU-CSLI crashed just as I was about to send
the Newsletter yesterday.******
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
September 19, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 46
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
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, September 19, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Some Remarks on the Relationship of Mind to
Conference Room Meaning and Language''
Discussion led by Daniel Isaacson, Oxford University
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall No talk this week
Seminar Room
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, September 26, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``The Concept of Supervenience''
Conference Room Discussion led by Carol Cleland
(Abstract on page 1)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Talk
Ventura Hall No talk this week
Seminar Room
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT FOR NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``The Concept of Supervenience''
Traditionally the notion of supervenience has been associated with
moral philosophy (particularly, value theory). In recent years,
however, there has been a growing interest among philosophers in
developing a concept of supervenience that could be employed in the
analysis of certain problematic relations, e.g., between the mental
and the physical, between macrostates of the world and microstates of
the world.
The appeal of the concept of supervenience for philosophers
involves several factors. First, supervenience is a weaker relation
that the relation of so-called ``reducibility.'' While reducibility
is traditionally taken to involve the presence of bi-conditional
correlations between every ``reduced'' property and every ``reducing''
property, supervenience does not. Yet, like reducibility,
supervenience appears to be able to provide us with a robust notion of
the determination of one family of properties by another.
The question is: Can supervenience live up to its promise?
--Carol Cleland
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter September 19, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
TALK
``Proto-Language''
Professor C. B. Martin, Dept. of Philosophy, U. of Calgary
Friday, September 20, 2:15, Ventura Conference Room
C. B. Martin has done a lot of important work in the philosophy of
religion, but also he wrote an extremely important paper on memory
with Max Deutscher, defending a causal theory of memory when this was
quite unfashionable. I think this paper played an important role in
setting the stage for causal theories of reference and action. Martin
is now doing work that sounds extremely interesting to me on the
semantics of non-verbal behavior. This following paragraph from his
paper gives a good indication of what it is about.
``The time is long overdue for the recognition of the semantic
import of non-verbal behaviour. Such behaviour is procedural
and projective for an outcome (that may or may not have
satisfaction). Though ``true'' and ``false'' may be reserved
for the verbal cases, there is a basic rightness and wrongness
about the non-verbal behavioural, procedural, projective
representations. Such behaviour is formed in inter-related
patterns strikingly and importantly analogous to that of
verbal language. I shall call such semantic non-verbal
behaviour ``proto-language''.'' --John Perry
←←←←←←←←←←←←
TALK
``Crossing the Rubicon: From a Physics of Dead Coordinate Spaces
to a Physics of Living Coordinate Spaces''
Dr. Peter Kugler, The Crump Institute for Medical Engineering, UCLA
Monday, September 23, 1985, 2:15pm, Ventura Hall
This talk will be about self-organizing systems that involve
low-energy (nonforce) coupling and the nature of the predicates that
constitute the low-energy descriptors, and will be organized around
issues pertaining to general problems of language and information.
The emphasis will be on systems that generate (self-assemble) new
levels of description. These new levels constitute new languages
parasitic on the lower level languages but not reducible to their
predicates. In the self-organizing systems of interest it is the
``coordinate spaces,'' which are themselves evolving, that become the
important objects of study. Instead of assuming a fixed coordinate
space, when the interest focuses on trajectories, attention is devoted
to the coordinate space itself, since this is what provides the semantics.
This approach is very similar to developments in computer
architecture that focus on parallel processing. In these machines
(connection machines, Boltzmann, etc.) the machine language
self-organizes (e.g. programs itself through the emergence of new
stable configurations), and the new predicate descriptions play the
role of symbols in terms of their opacity with respect to the lower
level language. The machine language `gives birth' to the symbolic
level of description. This situation contrasts dramatically with that
of von Neumann machines, for which the symbolic language is
ontologically independent of the machine language. A symbolic
language can run on any of an infinite variety of mechanistic
substrates, the primacy of the symbol prevailing over the substrate
machine. The approach advocated here, puts the focus on the machine
level of interaction, thus preserving an ontological continuity and
avoiding mind/body, syntactic/semantic, etc. problems.
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter September 19, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF A TALK TO THE DISCOURSE INTENTION AND ACTION GROUP
``Reference and Denotation: The Descriptive Model''
Ami Kronfeld, AI Center, SRI
Tuesday, September 10.
The descriptive approach to the problem of reference has
recently been challenged. One of the most devastating weapons
against it has been the Referential/Attributive distinction. I
argue that this distinction is defined by two criteria which are
independent of each other. The first is the ability to refer using
the ``wrong'' description; the second is based on the notion of
``having a particular object in mind.'' The first criterion is
explained in terms of a distinction between a functionally relevant
description (where the description is used only to identify), and a
conversationally relevant description (where the description takes
part in a Gricean implicature). The second criterion is explained
in terms of the de-re/de-dicto distinction. I examine the claim
that an individual concept is neither necessary nor sufficient for
a de-re belief, and I argue that a Russellian notion of
acquaintance and a theory of the pragmatics of reporting beliefs
can provide a descriptive account of de-re thought. The discussion
that followed the talk focused on (a) the ability of the
descriptive model to handle reference to objects that were
perceived in the past, (b) the role of the self in the
individuation of beliefs, and (c) whether the concept of ``simple''
reference, where the description is only functionally relevant, is
really necessary. --Ami Kronfeld
-------
∂24-Sep-85 1144 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:KAELBLING@SRI-AI.ARPA Course Announcement
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Sep 85 11:44:32 PDT
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Tue 24 Sep 85 11:39:24-PDT
Date: Tue 24 Sep 85 11:38:08-PDT
From: Leslie Kaelbling <KAELBLING@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Course Announcement
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
THE LOGIC OF ROBOT DESIGN
This course will explore theoretical issues in the design of software
for intelligent agents. Its aim is to provide conceptual tools for
coping with complexity in robot design, covering processes from the
sensorimotor level through reasoning, planning, and linguistic
communication, emphasizing the role of formal methods in analysis and
synthesis of robot software.
The following topics will be covered:
- applications of epistemic and temporal logic to robotics
- automata-theoretic models of knowledge
- inference and planning
- logic-based tools for programming intelligent robots.
Some familiarity with basic logic and computer programming will be
assumed. Coursework will consist of problem sets and one programming
assignment.
Instructor : Stan Rosenschein (stan@sri-ai; 859-4167)
Time : TTh 11-12:15
Place : e208
Course number : CS428
Units : 3
TA : Leslie Kaelbling (kaelbling@sri-ai, pack@su-sushi,
k.kaelbling@su-lots-b; 859-2578)
-------
∂24-Sep-85 1722 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:KAELBLING@SRI-AI.ARPA Room Change
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Sep 85 17:22:16 PDT
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Tue 24 Sep 85 17:17:14-PDT
Date: Tue 24 Sep 85 17:18:22-PDT
From: Leslie Kaelbling <KAELBLING@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Room Change
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
The initial meeting of The Logic of Robot Design will be in MJH252
(Building 460), not e308 as previously announced.
-------