MODELS OF DISCOURSE

COMPUTATIONAL MODELS

Pres; Series in Artificial Intelligence

The MIT Rcss
Intclligcnce

ArriJicial
Volurne II:: Exper1
Artificial Inlelligence:
Intelligence: An AllT
AlIT Persprctii~e.
Perspective, Volume
Expert Problem
Problem Solving
Solving,
Narural
Urrdersrandif~g,Inrelligerlt
Coffrpuler Coaches,
Coaches. Rc[~resenlalioft
Natural Ianguage
Language Understanding,
Intelligent Computer
Representation
cditcd by Patrick Hcnry
Hcnry Brown,
IIrown, 1979
1979
and Learfrrng
Gnd
Learning edited
Henry Winston and Richard Henry

Artificial/n/cliigence:
An /MIT
Perspective. Volume
Arlr$cial
l~rleliigencr: Afr
I T Perspcclivc
Volume 1/:
11: UlIderstGllding
Urrdersrarrding Vision,
Visiorz
Manipulation, Computer
Design, Sj,rnbo/
Symbol blarripula~ion
Manipulation cditcd
edited by I'atrick
Patrick Henry
Maniyulariun,
(-ompuler Drsign~,
Winston and Richard Henry
Hcnry Brown, 1979
1979
System for
for Repre$en/ing
Representing afrd
alld Using
Real- World Knowledge
Knowledge by Scott
NETL: A Sysrern
Usirrg RmlFahlman, 1979
1979

The Irrlerprera~iort
f Visual
i'isual b!o/io~r
1979
The
Interpretation o
of
Motion by Shimon Ullman, 1979
A Theory
Syntactic Recogrzition
Recognition for
for Natural I.anguage
l.anguage by Mitchcll
Mitchell P. Marcus.
Marcus,
Theory of
of Syr~ractic

1980
1980
Turtle
Afedium for
for Exploring Atarhernarics
Afothemotics by
Turrle Geometry:
Gromerfy: The
The Computer
Cor~rpureras a Medium

Harold Abelson
Abclson and Andrea diSessa,
diScssa, 1981
1981
From Images
Con~puroriar~ol
Study of
of !he
Visual
Images to Surjace:
Surfaces: AA Computational
the Human Early Visual
Sj'srem
1981
System by William Eric Lcifur
Leifur Grimson, 1981
Computational
Models of
Michael Brady and Robert C.
Co~npurationalModels
of Discourse Edited by Michacl
Ucrwick,
1983
Berwick, 1983

Robor
Conrrol by Michael
Michacl Brady, John Hollcrbach,
Rabat Moriorr:
Motion: Planning and Control
Hollerbach, Tomas
Lozano-Perez, Matthew
Matthcw Mason, and Timothy Johnson, 1983
1983

COM PUT ATIONAL MODELS

MODELS OF
OF DISCOURSE
COMPUTATIONAL

Edited by Michael Brady and Robert C. Berwick

Contributors:
James Allen
Robe rt C. Berwick
Be rwick
Robert
Je rrold Kaplan
Jerrold
David McDonald
L. Sidner
Candace L.
Bonnie Lynn Webber

The
The MIT
MIT Press
Press
Cambridge.
Cambridge,Massachusetts
Massachusetts
London.
Idndon, England
England

PUBLISHER'S NOTE
PUBLISHER'S
This format
fortT!at is intended to rcducc
reduce the cost of
of publishing certain works in book
'lhis
fonn and to shorten the gap bctwccn
between editorial preparation
preparation and final publication.
form
expense [IF
of dctailcd
detailed editing and composition in print
print have been
The time and cxpcnsc
the
of this
tllis book dircctly
directly from the author's
author's
avoided by photographing L
he text of
computer
printout.
cotnputcr
printing, 1989
1989
Fourth printing,

1983
1983 by
Copyright O
The Massachusetts Institute ofTcchnology
ofTechnology
'lhe
reserved. No part of
of this book may bc
be rcproduccd
reproduced in any form,
fonn, or by
All rights rcscrvcd.
means, electronic
electronic or mcchanical.
mechanical. including photocopying.
photocopying, recording, or by
any mcans,
infonnation storage and rctricval
retrieval system, without pcnnission in writing from
any information
publisher,
the publisher.
United States of America,
America.
Printed in the Unitcd

Library of Congress
Congress Cataloging
Catalopil~gin Publication
Publication Data
Main entry under tltle:
title:

Computational Models
Models of Discourse
(The MIT Press
Press series
scries in artificial
artificial intelligence)
intelligence)
Bibliography: p,
p.
Includes
Includes index.
index.
I.
1. Artificial
Artificial Intelligence.
Intclligence. 2.
2. Linguistics--Data
Linguistics--Data
3.
Speech
processing
processing.
processing. Speech prwcssing systems.
systems. I.Brady,
I.Brady,
Miehacl,
C. Ill.
1945- 11.
11. Berwick,
Bcrwick, Robert
RobertC.
Ill. Allen,
Allen.
Michacl, 1945James.
1V. Series.
Series.
James. IV.
001.53'5
Q335.C56
Q335.CS6 ln3
1983
M11.53'5 ~2-20402
82-20402
ISBN
ISBN 0-262-02183-8
0-262-02183-8
ISBN
ISBN: 0-262-52391-4
0-262-52391-4 (paperback)
(Paperback)

CONTENTS

CONTENTS
Forcword

Foreword
Rlichacl Brady
Michael Brady

xiii

Preface

PreCacellavid Isracl
Dalid Israel

C:omputational aspccts of discourse

Computational
of discourse
Hobcrt C.aspects
I3crwick
Hobert C. Bemick
Why computational models?
Why computational models?
Thc syntax of discourse: Wcbbcr and Sidncr
The syntaxCreating
of discourse:
Webber
and Sidner
and linking
discourse
entities
discourse
entities
Creating
and [inking
discoursc
cntitics:
Wcbbor
Creating
Creating
discourse the
entities:
Webbor
Webber
LF
Computing
Computing
the discoursc
Webber LF
Linking
cntities: Sidner
LinkingEvidcncc
discoursefor
entities:
Sidner
Sidncr's
focus theory
Evidence for Sidner's focus theory
The world as database: Kaplan
The world MQL
as database:
and thcKaplan
interaction of syntax and scmantics
MQL and
interaction
of syntax
semantics
of syntax
andand
scmantics
'I'hcthe
interaction
of
syntax
and
semantics
The interaction
Questions, empty scts, and intentions
Questions, empty sets, and intentions
Allcn: Meaning and plans
Allen: Meaning
plans the details
Allen'sand
systcm:
Allen's system: the details
McDonald: saying what you mean
McDonald:'Ihc
saying
what you
mean
McDonald
model
The McDonald model

Recognizing intcntions from natural language uttcrances

Recognizing
Jamesintentions
Allen Crom natural language utterances
James Allen
Introduction
Introduction
An overvicw of the model
An overview
of lie plans,
model and speech acts
Actions,
Actions,Plan
plans,
and
speech acts
construction
Plan construction
Plan inference
Plan inference
Obstacle detection
ObstacleRclated
detection
work
Related work
Plan infcrcncc and obstacle detection
Plan inference and obstacle detection

xlii

27
27

37
37
42

46
50

59

63

66

68
70

74

77

84
87

107

107

110

HO

HI

112

113
114

llS

xiii

xvii

Contents
Contents
Bclicf, knowledge, and wants
nelief,Actions
knowledge,
and wants
and plans
Actions
and
plans
I h c plan infcrcnce rules
Thc plan
inference
rules
Rating
hcuristics
Rating?11c
heuristics
control of plan inferencing
111e control
of plan
inferencing
Obstacle
detection
Obstacle detection
Examplcs of hcfpful responses
Examples 'fie
ofhclpful
responses
train domain
'The train
domain
I h c spccch act definitions
111e speech
act definitions
Examplc
1: providing more information than requcstcd
Example
I:
providing
more information
than requested
Examplc 11: a ycs/no
question answered
nn
Example 11: a yes/no question answered n"
Indircct spccch acts
Indirect speech
acts
acts and mutual belief
Spccch
Speech acts and mutual belief
Surface linguistic acts
Surface13xtcndcd
linguisticplan
acts infcrcncing
Extended plan inferencing
Examplcs of indircct acts
Examples
of indirect
acts
Using
gcncraI knowledge
Using general
knowledge
l>iscussion
Discussion
Analyzing sentcncc fragments
Analyzing An
sentence
fragments
example
of a scntcnce fragment
An example of a sentence fragment
Conclusions
Conclusions

vi

vi

116
117

120
126
129
132

134
134

135
137
142

134
134
135
137
142

144
148
151
152
155
159

160

161

162
164

164

Coopcrstive responscs from a portlhle natural languagc databasc qucry system

Cooperative
responses
Jcrrold
Kaplan from a portable natural language database query system
167
Jerrold Kaplan
167
Introduction
Introduction
Computational pragmatics
Computational
Whatpragmatics
is a loaded question?
What isCorrective
a loaded question?
indircct responscs
Correctivc indirect responses
Relevance to database queries
Relevance
to database queries
Language-driven
and domain-driven inference
Language-driven and domain-driven inference
CO-OP: a cooperative qucry system
CO-OP: a IIle
cooperative
queryLanguage
system
Mcta Query
111e Meta
Query Language
Computing
corrcctivc indirect responses
Computing
indirect
responses
Focuscorrective
and suggcstivc
indircct
responses
Focus and
suggestive
responses
Vagucness
andindirect
supportive
indirect responscs
Vagueness and supportive indirect responses
CO-OPsample queries
CO-OP sample queries
Portability
Portability Ibmain-specific structures
Domain-specific structures
Effort required and cxtcnt of new domain
Effort required and extent of new domain

167
170

172

174
175
176
177
178

180
183
187

189
199

200

201

167

vii

Rcsults and cxillnplcs

Results and examples
Conclusion
Conclusion

201
205

Natural I;~ngsagcgcncr:ltion as a comput~lionalproblcm: an introduction

Naturall;wguage
generation as a computational problem: an introduction
I h r i d 1). hlcnonald
Da~id D.l\lcDonald
209
Introduction
209
Rcsults for tcst spcakcrs
Results for'Thc
test diffcrcnt
speakers input rcprcscntations
210
The different
input representations
212
domain
?'he LOGIC
The LOGIC
domain assertions
214
Planncr-stylc
PlanneNtyle assertions
219
A computational modcl
A computational
model thc problem
222
Characterizing
Characterizing
thegcncration
problem as decision-making
223
languagc
Language
generation
as
decision-making
224
Rcstrictions on thc rnodcl
Restrictions on the model
224
'The relationship bctwccn thc spcakcr and the linguistics component
The relationship
between the speaker and the linguistics component
226
Messages
Messages
226
Run-time relationships
Run-time relationships
229
lhc'intcrnal structure of the linguistics componcnt
The"internal
thetransducers
linguistics component
231
A structure
cascade ofoftwo
A cascade
of two transducers
231
Rcprcscnting
linguistic context: the tree
Representing
linguistic
context:
the
tree
234
The controller
The controller
236
An example
An example
244
Recursive descent through thc formula
Recursive
descentthethrough
the through
formula the tree
247
Stcpping
controllcr
Stepping
the
controller
through
the
trce
248
Thc realization process
Thc realization
process
249
Continuing
through the tree
Continuing
through
the
tree
252
Delaying decisions
Delaying
decisions
254
Intcractions between decisions
Interactions
between
decisions
257
Realizing
mcssagc
elcnicnts in terms of their roles
Realizing message clements in terms of their roles
258
Contributions and limitations
Contributions
and limitations
259
Spccific
contributions of this research
SpecificRelation
contributions
of thisA1
research
to previous
work on natural language generation 259
RelationWhcn
to previous
AI work on
natural language
generation
260
is this linguistics
componcnt
appropriate?
When isWhat
this linguistics
component
appropriate?
262
this modcl cannot d o
What this model cannot do
264

Focusing in thc comprehension of dcfinitc anaphora

Focusing
in the comprehension
of definite anaphora
Candace
L. Sidner
Candace L. Sidncr
Jntroducdon
Introduction
Rcscarch on anaphora
Research on anaphora

267
267
270

Con tents
Contents

The focusing
approach
to anaphora
The focusing
approach
to anaphora
of focus
Thc definition
The definition
of focus
A skctch of the proccss model of focusing
A sketch
of the process model of focusing
'Ihc rcprcscntation
of focus
The representation
offocus
the
discourse
Finding
Finding the discourse focus focus
Kcjecring
thc cxpcctcd
Rejecting
the expected
focus focus
I
n
fcrring
and
focusing
In ferri ng and focusing
An algorithm for focusing
An algorithm for focusing
rnovcment
Focus Focus
movement
Rackwards
focus movcment
Rack wards focus movement
b e focusing algorithm for movcment
Using Using
the focusing
algorithm for movement
fur pronoun
interpretation
Focus Focus
for pronoun
interpretation
focus
for
pronoun
intcrprctation rules
Using
Using focus for pronoun interpretation rules
Focus
and
knowlcdgc
rcprcscntation
Focus and knowledge representation
rcstrictions
on co-specification
on co-specification
Focus Focus
restrictions
Pronouns
which
have
no co-specifiers
Pronouns which have no co-specifiers
'Ihc
problcm
of
parallelism
The problem ofparaJlclism

viii

273
278
278
280
283
287
289
291
295
299
302
304
305

310

314
316
318

Thc intcrprctation
and that
of this of
and[his
that
The interpretation
Co-prcscnt
foci
in anaphor disambiguation
Co-present foci in anaphor disambiguation
of co-prcscnt
[hisand lhal
lntcrpretation
Interpretation
of co-present
this and thai
This and [hat in focus movement
This and that in focus movement
themovement
focus movcmcnt
algorithm
Using Using
the focus
algorithm

320
320
321
323
327

Conclusions

328

Socan
what
talk now?
about now?
So what
wecan
talkwe
about
Bonnie
L.
Wcbber
Bonnie L. Webber

331

Introduction
Introduction
Fundamental
assumptions
Fundamental
assumptions

331

in forming
discourse-dependent
descriptions
in fanning
discourse-dependent
descriptions
FactorsFactors
The
dcfinitc/indcfinite
distinction
The definite/indefinite distinction
Quantifier
Quantifier
scopingscoping
Membcr/set
information
Member/set
information
of
I'hrce
uses
Three uses of pluralsplurals
An appropriate formalism for computing descriptions
An appropriate
fonnalism for computing descriptions
Noun phrases
in general
Noun phrases
in general
Singular
noun
Singular noun phrasesphrases
noun phrases
Plural Plural
noun phrases
Deriving
discoursc
entity IDS
Deriving
discourse
entity IDs
IDS
for
specific
discourse entities
IDs for specific discourse entities

339
340

334

342

345

345
347

347

349
350

353
353

ix

Ills for dcrivcd entities: generic sets

IDs for derived entities: generic sets
One anaphora

One anaphora

Conclusion

Conclusion

Bihliography

361
364
370

Bihliography

373

Index

391

THE
THE AUTHORS

James
James /\lIen
Allen
Assistant
Assistant Professor
Profcssor
Department
Science
13cpartrncntof Computer
Co~npi~tcr
University
Rochester
University of
oTRochcster
Rochester,
Ilochesler. NY 14627
14627
Robert
C. Berwick
IlobenC.
Bcrwick
Assistant
Assistant Professor
Professor
Ilcpartmcnt of Eke.
Elcc. Eng.
Eng. and Computer
Cornputcr Science
Department
Mti
nciallntelligence
Artificial
lntclligcncc l.ahoratory
laboratory
Massachusetts
hlassathusctrs Institute
lnstitutc ofTeehnology
of Technology
Carnbridgc M/\
MA 02139
02139
Cambr.idge

Michael Brady
J.J. Michael
Senior Research
Rcscarch Scientist
Scientist
Senior
Artiticial lntclligcncc Laboratory
Mtinciallntelligence
Massachusctls Institute ofTeehnology
of Technology
Massachusetts
Cambridge. MA 02139
02139
Cambridge,
David Israel
David
Rcscarch Scientist
Scientist
Research
Bolt, Beranek,
Bcranek, and Newman Inc.
Bolt,
50 Moulton Street
50
02139
Cambridge, MA 02139
S. Jerrold
Jcrrold Kaplan
S.
Vice
President. Business
Business Development
Vice President,
Tcknowledge Inc
Teknowledge
525 University
University Avenue
525
Palo
Alto, CA 94301
94301
Palo /\Ito,

Authors

David Mcllonald
McDonald
Ilavid
Assistant
Assist.int Professor
k'rofcssor
Computcr and Information
Information Science
Science
Computer
Massachusetts
University of Mass.achusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Amhcrst
01003
Candace L.
I,. Sidner
I<cscarch
Scicntist
Research Scientist
Bolt, ncranck,
Beranek. and Ncwman
Newman Inc.
Ilolt.
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
MI39
Cambridge.
Bonnie Lynn
Ijonnic
l.ynn Webber
Wcbbcr
Associate Professor
l'rofcssor
Department of Computer
Information Science
Computcr and lnformation
1)cpartmcnt

Moorc
School of Elcctrical
Moore School
Electrical Engineering
Univcrsity
Universily of Pennsylvania
I'hiladelphia.
19104
Philadelphia. PA 19104

xii

FOREWORD

FOREWORD

Michael Brady
Michael Brady

It should be notcd at thc outsct that my pcrsonal rcscarch interests in artificial

It should be noted at the outset that my personal research interests in artificial
inrclligcncc arc in vision and robotics, not in linguiqtics. Two ycars ago, however,
intelligence arc in vision and robotics, not in linguistics. Two years ago, however,
at thc timc that 1 was joining MIT, my gcncral rcading of thc natural language
at the time that I was joining M IT, my general reading of the natural language
literature in artificial intclligcncc suggested to mc an undcrcurrcnt of changc in
literature in artificial intelligence suggested to me an undercurrent of change in
computational linguistics analogous to that which has takcn placc, for example, in
computationallinguistics analogous to that which has taken place, for example, in
vision IIirady 19811. 'Illis book on computational modcls of discourse stcms from
vision [Brady 1981]. '1l1is book on computational modcls of discourse stems from
a scrjcs of conversations bc~wccnmysclf and thc othcr editor, Robcrt C. Bcrwick,
a series of conversations between myself and the other editor, Robert C. Berwick,
that cxplorcd that changc and thc closcncss of thc analogy with vision.
that explored that change and the closeness of the analogy with vision.
~ 1 1 aist thc naturc of die changc? I n a nutshell. it sccrns to me that artificial
What is the nature of the change? In a nutshell. it seems to me that artificial
inrclligcncc is crystallizing into more or less indcpcndcnt subdisciplines as an
intelligence is crystallizing into more or less independent subdisciplines as an
inevitable side-cffcct of maturing. Spccialist journals have appeared, catering to
inevitable side-effect of maturing. Specialist journals have appeared, catering to
spccializcd subdisciplines from linguistics to robotics. Evcn the field's traditional
specialized subdisciplines from linguistics to robotics. Even the field's traditional
non-specialist journal Artificial Inrellige~rccrcccntly devoted a special issue to
non-specialist journal Artificial Intelligence recently devoted a special issue to
vision [nrady 19811. It rccognizcd that artificial intclligence researchers outside
vision [Brady 1981]. It recognized that artificial intelligence researchers outside
vision increasingly fccl out of touch with work in that area. On the othcr hand
vision increasingly feel out of touch with work in that area. On the other hand,
increasing numbers of perceptual psychologists want to bccomc familiar with the
increasing numbers of perceptual psychologists want to become familiar with the
computational approach to vision. Many artificial intclligence rcscarchcrs feel
computational approach to vision. Many artificial intelligence researchers feel
similarly out of touch with othcr subdisciplines, notably robotics, search, and
similarly out of touch with other subdisciplines, notably robotics. search, and
automatcd dcduction.
automated deduction.
Before exploring thc symptoms of change. lct us consider thc state of natural
Defore cxploring the symptoms of change. let us consider the state of natural
languagc understanding rcscarch, say up to the time of the Schank and Colby's
language understanding research. say up to the time of the Schank and Colby's
collection (Schank and Colby 19731, or thc influcntial workshop on Theoretical
collection (Schank and Colby 1973], or the influential workshop on Theoretical
issues in rlatural language processing. The vast cxpcnditurc of timc and money on
issues in natural language processing. The vast expenditure of time and money on
the machine translation projects of the .1950's and early 19603, and the dctailcd
the machine translation projects of the .1950's and early 1960's, and the detailed
formal mathcnatical study of parsing in thc 1960's. providcd little rcal insight into
formal mathematical study of parsing in the 1960's, provided littlc real insight into
the problcms of how natural languagc could be understood by, or through the use
the problems of how natural language could be understood by, or through the use
of, cornputcrs. Ihe first wave of efforts in what is nowadays called computational
of, computers. The first wave of efforts in what is nowadays called computational
linguistics had a considerable impact both on artificial intclligence and on ir.
linguistics had a considerable impact both on artificial intelligence and on a

Brady

xiv

conventional linguists.
linguists. The
I h e work of Schaok,
Schank, Winograd,
Winograd, Wilks,
Wilks,
limited number of conventional
Woods, and their associates,
associatcs, suggested that it was
was possible
possible to build a (huge)
(huge)
Woods,
program capable
capable of interesting
intcrcsting linguistic
linguistic behavior.
computer program
cmphascs of different research
research efforts
efforts were
wcrc in different aspects
aspects
Although the
the emphases
Although
language, they
thcy shared
sharcd the
the characteristic
charactcristic that they
thcy resulted
rcsultcd in entire
entirc (mostly)
(n~ostly)
of language,
working systems.
systcms. All the
thc systems
systcms were
wcrc required
rcquircd to
to deal
dcal with a wide
wide range
range of
working
challengcs. 'Iney
'lhcy included a parser, a lexicon,
Icxicon, and emhodied
cmbodicd proposals
proposals
linguistic challenges.
linguistic
rcprcscntation and role
rolc of semantic
scmantic and pragmatic
pragmatic information
information in
about the representation
scntcnce. 'Ine
'lhe detailed
dctailcd interaction
intcraction
undcrstanding and responding to an English sentence.
understanding
bctwcen the
thc various subsystems
subsystc~nswas au central
ccntral concern.
conccrn. In Winograd's
Winograd's system,
system, fOi
fo~
between
example, the
thc fact
bct that ti,e
rhe sequence
scqucnce of
uf processing
pr(rcssing could not be
bc specified in
example,
advancc was claimed as a major
majur feature.
feature. The
'l'he program
pn~gramSIIRDLU
SI1ItDI.U contributed to
advance
the theory that sophisticated process
prtress interaction
intcraction is central
ccntral to modeling
modcling the
thought. perception,
pcrccption. and language
language understanding.
undcrstanding. In
flexibility of human thought,
reuospcct however,
howcvcr, these
thcsc approaches
approachcs to
tu computational
computatit~nallinguistics
linguistics seem
scc~nto be
retrospect,
rncchanism.
overly concerned with mechanism.
achieve a total, working.
working, natural
natural language
language
Incvitably, in order to achieve
Inevitably,
undcrstanding program,
program. early systems
systcms were
wcrc forced
forccd to ignore,
ignore, gloss over,
over, or
understanding
otherwise compromise
compromisc on. many aspects
aspects of language understanding.
undcrstanding. The
otJ1crwisc
treatment of time,
tirnc. mood.
mood, purpose. theme,
thcmc, the
thc determination
dctcrmination of focus
focus and
reference, as well as many othcr
other issues.
issues, were
wcrc accorded only a preliminary
rcference,
lreatmcnt. Some
Somc of the
thc main insights which informed
ink~rmedthc
Uic construction of these
treatmenl.
systems wcrc
were computational, and some of the main lcssons
lessons which thc
the authors
claimed could bc
lcarncd
from
their
research,
were
about
computational
issues.
be learned
research,
issue~.
the architecture of process interactions
interactions and the dcsign
design of rcprcscntations
representations for
scmantic
semantic processing. For this reason.
reason, thc
the dctailcd
detailed operation
opeT:.ltion of
of thc
the early
early natural
language
language undcrstanding
understanding systems and the issues Ulcy
they addressed wcre
were largely
accessible to the gcncral
general artificial intclligcncc
intelligence community.
community. At thc
the i~~tcrdisciplinary
interdisciplinary
workshop on Theoretical issues if,
in norural
nalural larigunge
language proccssb~g
processing [Nash-Webber and
19751, six of the eight sessions
Schank 1975),
sessions conccrncd
cuncemed mcmory
memory and knowledge
representation. Must
of
the
papers
in
thosc
sessions
could
have justas
Most of
those
just.as easily been
presented at a workshop on vision or reasoning (many
(many wcrc).
were). Interestingly, only
prcscnted
one of
of the forty papcrs
papers prcscntcd
presented at that workshop
workshop is rcfcrcnced
referenced in this volume?
volume. l
What are
arc tllc
tile symptoms ofchange
of change in computational
computational linguistics that
tllat II referred
to earlier? First
First, likc
like vision,
visiun, robotics.
robotics, search,
search, and filrnmal
formal reasoning,
reasoning, it has become

1.
N l . A P - I were refined
L To be
be fair, some ol
of !be
the syslelns
systems dcarihed
described a1
at nllNLAP]
relined and re-presented at
TINLAP-2. Several relcreneoare
referencc~ are made LOTINLAP-2.
lo TINLAP2.

xv

increasingly tcchnical, In vision and robotics tcchnical typically rcfcrs to

increasingly technical. In vlSlon and robotics technical typically refers to
sophisticated mathematical analysis. Although linguistics is, for Lhc most part,
sophisticated mathematical analysis. AlLhough linguistics is, for the most part,
(currently) lcss dcmanding ~nathcmatically than vision, thcrc arc, as always.
(currently) less demanding m<Jthematically than vision, there are, as always.
cxccptions. Ikrwick's grammatical analysis (and many similar analysts) of the
exceptions. Berwick's grammatical analysis (and many similar analyses) of the
Marcus parscr and tl~cMcllonald gcncration program (chapter 4) is a modcl of
Marcus parser and the McDonald gcneration program (chapter 4) is a model of
prccision. Similarly, Wcbbcr's (chnptcr 6) rcprcscntation of rhc possiblc meanings
precision. Similarly, Wehber's (chapter 6) representation of the possible meanings
of noun phcacs f i ~ t l ycxploirs the power of thc prcdicatc cirlci~lus.Mathcrnatics
of noun phrases fully exploitS the power of the predicate calculus. Mathematics
asidc, tcchnical rcfcrs to dlc prccision and closc attention to dctail that is a feature
aside, technical refers to the precision and close attention to detail that is a feature
of much currcnt work in ct~mputationallinguistics.
of much current work in computational linguistics.
Sccond, though rcla~cd to the first point, thc problcin with which any
Second, though related to the first point, the problem with which any
individual rcscarchcr is conccrncd in any particular projcct, sccms to hate
individual researcher is conccrned in any particular project, seems to haye
narrowcd cotlsidcrably, with a corresponding incrcase in dcpth of analysis. ?he
narrowed considerably, with a corresponding increase in depth of analysis. The
individual chaptcrs in this volumc restrict thcir attcntion to rcsponsc generation,
indiddual chapters in this volume restrict their attention to response generation.
thc dctcrmination of rcfcrencc and focus, and thc scope of quantifiers. In vision,
the determination of reference and focus, and the scope of quantifiers. In vision,
pcoplc work on such problcms as dircctional sclcctiviry. thc shapc of subjective
people work on such problems as directional selectivity, the shape of subjective
contours, and binocular stcrcu. 1 ) c subjcct mattcr is primarily limited to what
contours, and binocular stereo. ll)e subject matter is primarily limited to what
might bc considcrcd modutcs in tllc human's visual or linguistic systcln rathcr
might be considered modules in the hlJman's visual or linguistic system rather
than bcing limitcd by a domain of application that potentially rcqnircs the
than being limited by a domain of application that potentially requires the
deployment of dlc fill1 panoply of linguistic or visual abilitics. ?'his docs not
deployment of the full panoply of linguistic or visual abilities. This docs not
imply that thc cpistc~nologicalbasc of a piccc of work can always bc complctely
imply that the epistemological base of a piece of work can always be completely
unrcstrictcd, as thc papcr by Allcn in this volumc illustrates. Donisin rcsuictions
unrestricted, as the paper by Allen in this volume illustrates. Domain restrictions
arc mostly a rcflcction or thc lack of musclc and inappropriate architccture of
arc mostly a reflection of the lack of muscle and inappropriate architecture of
today's computers. As the subjcct nlattcr of individual research papcrs has
loday's computers. As the SUbject matter of individual research papers has
become more rcstrictcd and spccialixed, so thcy in turn have become of less
bccome more restricted and specialized, so they in turn have become of less
intcrcst to artificial intclligcncc rcscarchers whose primary interests are in other
interest to artificial intelligence researchers whose primary interests are in other
subdisciplines.
subd iscipIi nes.
Recent papcrs in computational linguistics arc also morc demanding to read.
Recent papers in computational linguistics arc also more demanding to read.
One reason for this is immediately apparent to the casual artificial intelligence
One reason for this is immediately apparent to the casual artificial intelligence
reader. Considerably more than lip scrvicc is paid to non- computational
reader.. Considerably more than lip service is paid to lIon- computational
linguistics and vision. A morc specialized background is assumcd of the reader.
linguistics and vision. A more specialized background is assumed of the reader.
Although thc architects of early systcms rcfcrrcd to thc linguistics Iitcrature, they
Although the architccts of early systems referred to the linguistics literature, they
typically did so in gcncral terms. Jndccd it was even suggcstcd by some authors
typically did so in general teoos. Indeed it was even suggested by some authors
that linguistics researchers simply had not uncovcred idcas which wcre precise
that linguistics researchers simply had not uncovered ideas which were precise
enough to constrain the dctailcd construction of a program or against which to
enough to constrain the detailed construction of a program or against which to
evaluate its detailcd behavior, n c r c scems to have bcen an implicit assumption
evaluate its detailed behavior. There seems to have been an implicit assumption
that Lhc new conccptualizations introduced by computation wcre so radically
that the new conceptualizations introduced by computatiDn were so radically
diffcrcnt from anything that had bccn uscd previously in modeling language
different from anything that had been used previously in modeling language
understanding that jt was appropriate to make a complctcly frcsh start.
understanding that it was appropriate to make a completely fresh start.
In many rcccnt papcrs, including those in this volume, cxtensive rcfcrence is
In many recent papers, including those in this volume. extensive reference is
made to dctailcd psychological and linguistic data. Results cited are uscd as
made to detailed psychological and linguistic data. Results cited are used as

Brady

Brady

xvi

xvi

c\idcncc in support of Ulc importance or appropriateness of a piccc of work, as a

evidence in support of the importance or appropriateness of a piece of work. as a
sourcc of constraint, or to justify solnc constraint or dcsign decision, for cxarnple
source of constraint, or to justify some constraint or design decision, for example
of a rcprcscntation. Mitchell Marcus, for cxamplc, claims to have dcsigncd his
of a representation. Mitchell Marcus, for example, claims to have designed his
parsing systcm PAltSIFAL [Marcus 19801 to cmbody thc constraints on human
parsing system PARSIFAL [Marcus 1980] to embody the constraints on human
parsing which Chomsky has uncovcrcd. l'hc constraints are cxtrcmcly detailed,
parsing which Chomsky has uncovered. The constraints are extremely detailed.
concerning tcchnical issucs such as subject raising and cnlbcddcd complcrncnts.
concerning technical issues such as subject raising and embedded complements.
Morcovcr. Marcus makcs a nurnbcr of dctailcd cjaims about program organization
Moreover. Marcus makes a number of detailed claims about program organization
which hc claims arc implicd by Cho~nsky'slinguistics findings. l'hc flow is not
which he claims are implied by Chomsky's linguistics findings. The flow is not
onc way l~owcvcr.Computation contributes powcrful ideirs about rcprcscntation
one way however. Computation contributes powerful ideas about representation
and proccss, cvcn if thcy arc not oinnipotcnt. Whilc. thc coupling of artificial
and process. even if they are not omnipOlent. While. the coupling of artificial
intclligcncc with linguis~icsand psychology is not ncw, it has perhaps bccome
intelligence with IinguiSlics and psychology is not new, it has perhaps become
rnorc carncst and dctailcd.
more earnest and detailed.
Onc conscqucncc of this changc in computational linguistics is the tendency,
One consequence of this change in computational linguistics is the tendency.
rcmarkcd carlicr, to publish in spcciali~cdjournals. and to havc Ihc work
remarked earlier, to publish in specialized journals, and to have the work
rccognizcd by thc linguistics, philosophy, and psychology colnmunities. This
recognized by the linguistics, philosophy, and psychology communities. This
rcquircs that computational lingi~istsbc able to discuss their ideas at least in part
requires that computational linguists be able to discuss their ideas at least in part
in rcrrns that rcgular linguists arc fatniliar wilh. A growing number of
in terms that regular linguists arc familiar with. A growing number of
computational linguists havc a formal qualifici~tionin linguistics, philosophy, or
computational linguists have a formal qualification in linguistics, philosophy. or
psychology.
psychology.
'rhc editors chose the contributions ro this volume in part to illustrate the
The editors chose the contributions to this volume in part to illustrate the
issucs raiscd abovc, and in part to form a cohcrcnt wholc. Jerrold Kaplan and
issues raised above, and in part to form a coherent whole. Jerrold Kaplan and
Jamcs Allcn provide rather different views of what is involved in understanding
James Allen provide rather different views of what is involved in understanding
tfic meaning of a question in a discourse. An issue of dccp and immediate
the meaning of a question in a discourse. An issue of deep and immediate
concern for both of thcm is the necd to gcncrate responses, to participate in the
concern for both of them is the need to generate responses, to participate in the
discourse. David McIIonald's contribution can bc critically evaluated in the
discourse. David McDonald's contribution can be critically evaluated in the
contcxt of thcir work, and conversely. Also, they need to determine reference and
context ofthcir work, and conversely. Also, they need to delennine reference and
focus, for, as both of thcm point out, much is left unstated in a discourse, and a
focus, for. as both of them point out, much is left unstated in a discourse, and a
participant has to cxploit his or her knowledge to thc full to keep talking. These
participant has to exploit his or her knowledge to the full to keep talking. These
are thc questions studied by Candace Sidncr and Bonnie Webber. Roben
are the questions studied by Candace Sidner and Bonnie Webber. Robert
Bcrwick's introduction cxplorcs thesc interactions in rnorc depth, and provides an
Berwick's introduction explores these interactions in more depth. and provides an
ovcrall contcxt and critical rcview of the other five contributions. 'The overlap
overall context and critical review of the other five contributions. The overlap
between thc separate contributions is apparent even from the refercnccs cited;
between the separate contributions is apparent even from the references cited;
accordingly we have providcd a unified bibliography.
accordingly we have provided a unified bibliography.

PREFACE
PREFACE

David Israel
Israel

In the
researchers talked confidently about
thc early
carly days
days of Artificial Intelligence.
lntclligcncc. rcscarchcrs
building
simulate (or emulate) any
building fully
fully intelligent
iotclligcnt entities,
entilics. "robots",
"robots". which could simulatc
natural
achievements, of
of course, is
ct~gnitivchuman achievement.
achic\,cmcnt. Among such achicvcmcnts,
natural cognitive
the
language. IThe
semi-official
thc (learning,)
(Icarning,) use and understanding
undcntanding of natural languagc.
h e early, semi-c~fficial
view
be duplicated by
view seems
sccms to
to have
havc been
bccn that the human linguistic
linguistic capacity could bc
the
thc application
application of perfectly
pcrfcctly general,
gcncral. non-domain specific operations to the
adtnittcdly special,
spccial, but largely
largcly then uncharted,
unchartcd, domain of
language. This was.
admittedly
oflanguagc.
was, at
timc, a perfectly
pcrfcctly reasonable
rcasunablc position. It has ccased
the time.
the
ceased to be so and the essays in
this volume
volume bespeak the recognition of that fact by the vast majority of
dlis
of natural
language
renouncing
lntclligcncc. They do so precisely by rcnouncing
language researchers
rcsearchcrs in Artificial Intelligence.
cvcn a residual
rcsidual obligation to speak
spcak to the issue. Whcrcof
even
Whereof we should no longer
haw to
to speak.
spcak, we should
should pass over
ovcr in silence.
silence.
have
longcr OK to "work
"nork in natural languagc"
Thus. it isis no longer
language" completely innocent
innocent of
of
rcsearch in syntactic
syntactic theory. It should,
should. by the way,
current research
way. be less than perfectly
alright for
filr people in syntactic theory to be as innocent of work in computational
alright
linguistics, especially
cspccially in the theory of parsing, as many still are. The same point
linguistics,
could
be
made
about the inexcusability of ignorance of contcmporary
could
contemporary work in
scmantics: but nowhere near so glibly. II shall rcturn
semantics;
return to this difference later.
scmantics "covered", can pragmatics be far behind? Indeed
With syntax
syntax and semantics
With
not, but here the situation
situation is very
vcry different.
diffcrcnt. Certainly
Ccrtainly the source of
no~
of the concepts
A1 researchers
rcscarchcrs is to be found in the works of philosophers (especially
deployed by AI
deployed
Strawson. Grice
Gricc and Searle).
Searlc). I1 think it can plausibly be maintained,
Austin and Strawson,
those concepts would remain,
remain ,"blind"
however, that those
however,
"blind" without having to
to
accommodate
the
"intuitions"
that
comc
from
attempts
to
design
computational
accommodate
come
artifactscapable
capablc of becoming
bccorning language-users.
languagc-users. (My apologies
artifacts
apologies to
to lmmanucl
Immanuel Kant)
wantcd to
to build a thing which could reasonably
Imagine, for
for instance,
instancc, that one wanted
Imagine,
be said
said to
to understand what you were talking aboutabout - at least when you were talking
about some
some previously
previously delimited domain; and to
about
to act accordingly, again within the

Israel

lsracl

xviii

xviii

limits of its sensors and cffcctors. (I shall limit mysclf to imagining a

limits of its sensors and effectors. (I shall limit myself to imagining a
natural-languagc undcrstandine, system, lcaving iaidc the difficulties of
natural-language understanding system, leaving aside the difficulties of
gcncration. Sce Ilavid Mcllonald's piccc in thc volumc for a pionccring cffon in
generation. See David McDonald's piece in the volume for a pioneering effort in
production.) Imagine. further, that you havc bcen givcn - frcc of charge - a
production.) Imagine, further, that you have been given - free of charge - a
pcrfcctly adcquatc parscr for ~ n ~ 1 i s h .Clasc
I
your eyes cvcn morc tightly and
perfectly adequate parser for English.] Close your eyes even more tightly and
supposc you find, undcr your bcd. say, a tractable algorithm which assigns a
suppose you find, under your bed. say. a tractable algorithm which assigns a
corrcct scinantic rcprcscntation to cach ~~nambigunus
scntcncc-under-analysis o f
correct semantic representation to each unambiguous sentence-under-analysis of
English and the right n such to cach n-ways ambiguous scntcncc-undcr-analysis.
English and the right n such to each noways ambiguous sentence-under-analysis.
('lhis last bit of fantasizing might rcquirc large doscs of mind-altcring substances.)
(This last bit of fantasizing might require large doses of mind-altering substances.)
How much work havc you got left to do? A wholc lot, and one would have to
Bow much work have you got left to do? A whole lot, and one would have to
bc an unrcgcncratc syntactico-scmantic impcrialist to Ulink otl~crwisc.~
But it was
be an unregenerate syntactico-semantic imperialist to think otherwise. 2 But it was
to build such devices that onc could sce
only with thc disciplincd attempts acr~~ally
only with the disciplined attempts aClually to build such devices that one could see
just how much and what. And more: for it is only with such attcmpts that one
just how much and what. And more: for it is only with such attempts that one
could appreciate tlic extent of fecd-back, and fccd-forward, across thc heretofore
could appreciate the extent of feed-back, and feed-forward. across the heretofore
largely insurpassable boundarics of thc scnlcncc and, indcpcndcntly, of the black
largely insurpassable boundaries of the sentence and, independently, of the black
box.
box.
For notice that, a priori, it scems natural to elaborate thc littlc daydream
For notice that, a priori, it seems natural to elaborate the little daydream
hinted at above by supposing that our parscr-cum-semantic interpreter works on
hinted at above by supposing that our parser-cum-semantic interpreter works on
individual scntcnccs in glorious isolation onc from another; as if cvcn a
individual sentences in glorious isolation one from another; as if even a
monologue (dircctcd, though, at anothcr presumably intclligcnt agent) could bc
monologue (directed, though, at another presumably intelligent agent) could be
thought of as built up out of indcpcndently intclligiblc units of mcaning. The
thought of as built up out of independently intelligible units of meaning. The
fully modularized dream, surely, is that onc runs thc scntcnccs first through the
fully modularized dream, surely, is that one runs the sentences first through the
parser, then through the semantic intcrprctcr. and thcn passes the output of that
parser, tllcn through the semantic interpreter. and then passes the output of that
stage to a module (or two or three) which, inter alia, kceps usable track of the
stage to a module (or two or three) which, inter alia, keeps usable track of the
prcvious sentences (dleir syntactic analysis and their meaning?) and of the
previous sentences (their syntactic analysis and their meaning?) and of the
"current non-linguistic situation". (Ah, but which aspects of this, and in what
"current non-linguistic situation". (Ah, but which aspects of this, and in what
form?)
form?)
Dreams die hard; but not many arc left who insist that the processing story, for
Dreams die hard; but not many arc left who insist that the processing story, for
individual scntcnccs, must go the route traced by the little arrows in diagrams of
individual sentences, must go the route traced by the little arrows in diagrams of
thc linguistic module; that is, who insist on rcading high-levcl structural diagrams
the linguistic module; that is. who insist on reading high-level structural diagrams
as flow 3c h a r k 3 Still, there is the mattcr of the assumption that one can, and
as flow charts. Still, there is the matter of the assumption that one can, and
should, do tJlc syntactic-semantic analyses of individual scntenccs in principled
should, do the syntactic-semantic analyses of individual sentences in principled
1. Mind you. fiere arc interesting questions afoot as to the appropriate conditions o f adequacy, let
1. Mindalone
you. "perlcct
there areadequacy".
interestingonquestions
parsen. afoot as to the appropriate conditions of adequacy, let
alone "perfect
adequacy",
on parser.;.
2. 'lhere
are radicals
who wonder whether lhjs package from the gods is ndccsary. Jn parljcular,
2. Therethcrc
are are
radicals
this bcyond
packagethe
from
the gods
i~ nccessary.
particular,
thosewho
whowonder
wonderwhether
how much
lexicon
one really
requires In
rrom
semantics: such
there arepeople
those who
how much as
beyond
the himn one hegcrnonisu.
really requires We
fromshall
semantics:
such Tor the
ignore them
mightwonder
be characterized
synucticwpragmatic
people might
be characteriled as syn13cticO'"pragmalic hegcmonislS. We shall ignore them for the
duraoon.
1uralion. 3. We shall relum to this point shortly.
1 We shall return to this point shortly.

leix

ignorance of rhc uscs to which thosc scntcnccs, now considcrcd as mcmbcrs of a

ignorance of the uses to which those sentences, now considered as members of a
cohcrcnt collcctive, might bc put in thc situation at hand. ' h i s assumption may
coherent collective, might be put in the situation at hand. This assumption may
not do. Much of thc bcst work on discourse suggests that it will not do.
not duo Much of the best work on discourse suggests that it will not do.
Considerations such as thc abovc, fleshcd out, of course, with the study of
Considerations such as the above, fleshed out, of course, with the study of
actual data and thc analysis of hypothcsizcd co~nputationalrcgirncns may sccm to
actual data and the ani1lysis of hypothesized computational regimens may seem to
lead rcscarchcrs in discourse phcnomcna to a dilemma of sons. Rcmcmbcr what
lead researchers in discourse phenomena to a dilemma of sorts. Remember what
was said abovc about thc importance of contqct with rcscarch in lingi~isticsand
was said above about the importance of contact with research in linguistics and
philosophy. Much of rhc bcst work from those qilartcrs is bascd on and argues for
philosophy. Much ortlle best work from those quarters is based on and argues for
a vrry suict modularity as among syntax, sctnantics and, wcll, thc rest 'Ihcrc is a
a Vl.J)' strict modularity as among syntax, semantics and, well, the resL There is a
tension, isn't thcrc, bctwccn the import of this work and thc interactions among
tension. isn't there, between the import of this work and the interactions among
modulcs hintcd at above?' Ycs and no.
modules hinted at above?l Yes and no.
'l'hcre is a tangle of issues hcrc; and, fortunatcly, this is not the place to
There is a tangle of issues here; and. fortunately, this is not the place to
attcmpt to unlanglc them. (For an hcroic and ii~sightfulattempt, scc Jcrry Fodor's
attempt to untangle Ulem. (For an heroic and insightful attempt, see Jerr)' Fodor's
"The hlodularity of hlind" [Fodor 19821. For a morc circumscribed study. see
"The Modularity of Mind" [Fodor 1982]. For a more circumscribed study, see
nerwick and Wcinbcrg's "The liolc of Grammars in Modcls of I.snguage Use"
Derwick and Weinberg's "The Role of Grammars in Models of Language Use"
[Bcrwick and Weinbcrg 19821) A first point to notc is that. qua dcsigncrs of
[I3erwick and Weinberg 1982]) A first point to note is that, qua designers of
natural-language undcrstanding cornpu~tionalartifacts, rcscarchcrs in Artificial
natural-language understanding compul<\lional artifacts, researchers in Artificial
Intelligcnce need not be bound by currcnt thcorics of hutnan cognition, in
Intelligence need not be bound by current theories of human cognition, in
partic~ilarof psycholing~iistics;although they may be, pcrhaps should be, and as a
particplar of psycholinguistics; although they may be, perhaps should be, and as a
numbcr of the pieccs in this volumc make clear, have been, influcnccd by such
number of the pieces in this volume make clear. have been, inlluenced by such
work. (And a little morc vice-vcrsa,plcase.)
work. (And a lillIe more vice versa, please.)
More concrctcly, H'C should bear in mind the happy comparibility of thcories
More concretely, we should bear in mind the happy compatibility of theories
of sta~icmodularity with prt~cssing modcls incorporating high dcgrces of
of static modularity with processing models incorporating high degrees of
dynamic intcraction. (1 borrow thc two phrascs, and much clsc, from my
dynamic interaction. (I borrow the two phrases, and much else, from my
collcaguc Rusty Bobrow, who has thought long and wcll about thcsc issues.)
coJleague Rusty Bobrow, who has thought long and well about these issues.)
More concretcly still, prnccssing hypotheses which strcss rich interactions bctwccn
More concretely still, processing hypotheses whieh stress rich interactions between
syntax, semantics and clcn pragmatics are not rulcd out. for example, by any sane
syntax, semantics and e'en pragmatics are not ruled out, for example, by any sane
version of the thesis of thc Autonomy of syntax2 Thc crucial constraint imposed
version of the thesis of the Autonomy of Syntax. 2 The crucial constraint imposed
by acccptancc of the Autonomy thcsis is that the syntactic module have, so to
by acceptance of the Autonomy mesis is that the syntactic module have, so to
speak, a mind - and rules and rcprcscntations - of its own, lhat it not speak or
speak, a mind - and rules and representations - of its own. that it not speak or
understand semanticcsc, for cxamplc. Just so, the scmantic intcrprclcr should be
understand semanticese, for example. Just so, the semantic interpreter should be
untainted by acquaintance with the rulcs of conversation. 'Ihcrc is no prohibition.
untainted by acquaintance with the rules of conversation. There is no prohibition,
though. against thc autonomously spccificd syntactic componcnt bcing guided, as
though. against me autonomously specified syntactic component being guided, as
it goes about its busincss of assigning syntactic structures to inpul by requested
it goes about its business of assigning syntactic structures to input, by requested
output from, c.g. the scmantic componcnt - as long as use of lhat output rcquircs
output from, e.g. the semantic component - as long as usc of that output requires
I

1. Notc that here the insurpasablc bamcr i<not the sentence,bul Lhc boundaries of the black box.
1. Note that
heresornc
the insurpassable
i~ not thesubject.
sentence,
the boundaries
of "Questions
the blaek box.
2. For
rclicf on thisbarrier
o n lorlurcd
seebutNoam
Chomsky's
or Form and
2. For some
relief on (in
this[Chomsky
oil tOrlured
subject.. see Noam OlOmsly's "Queslions of Form and
Interprclation"
19771).
Interpretation" (in [Chomsky 1977).

Israel

Israel

xx

xx

no "knowlcdgc" on syntax's part of scmanticcsc. As long. that is, as the

no "knowledge" on syntax's part of semanticese. As long, that is, as the
communication medium bctwccn thc two colnponcnts is highly constrained,
communication medium between the two components is highly constrained,
constrained cnough to bc "neutral" as bctwccn thc conccpts propcr to syntax and
constrained enough to be "neutral" as between the concepts proper to syntax and
thosc ~ i t h i nthc purvicn of scmantics alone. Notc, by thc way, that it rnakcs no
those within the purview of semantics alone. Note, by the way, that it makes no
scnsc to i~naginch a t thc semantic intcrprctcr understands no syntactic conccpts;
sense to imagine that the semantic interpreter undefSlands no syntactic concepts;
structures dcscribablc only by usc of thcm arc, aftcr all, its input- So again, highly
struclUrcs describable only by usc of them are, after all, its inpuL So again, highly
interactive modcls can capturc h e "asymmetry" bctwccn syntax and scmantics
interactive models can capture the "asymmetry" between syntax and semantics the first can remain ignorant of thc othcr's tcrms; not so, thc second. Neither, of
the first can remain ignorant of the other's tenns; not so, the second. Neither, of
course, necd know anyllling about thc othcr's intcrnal workings.
course, need know anything about the other's internal workings.
Things bccomc much rnorc controversial, and much tnorc interesting. whcn
1l1ings become much more controversial, and much more interesting, when
wc vcnturc bcyond the confincs of the "linguistic system propcr"; as, it sccms, wc
we venture beyond the confines of the "linguistic system proper"; as, it seems, we
must ahcn wc vcnturc upon the treatment of pragmatics and discot~rsc
must when we venture upon the treatment of pragmatics and discourse
pl~cnomcnagcncrally.
phenomena generally.
Now is almost as bad a timc as any to makc somc terminological distinctions;
Now is almost as bad a time as any to make some tenninological distinctions;
or to confcss to having ignorcd thcm in thc forcgoing. Thcrc is pragmatics and
or to confess to having ignored them in the foregoing, There is pragmatics and
thcrc is pragmatics. Whcn 1 havc talkcd ofpragmatics. 1 havc not had in mind the
there is pragmatics. When I have talked of pragmatics, I have not had in mind the
work of Richard Montaguc. David Kaplan, and others on the logic of indcxicals or
work of Richard Montague, David Kaplan, and others on the logic of indexicals or
tokcn-rcflcxive elcmenrs, cxyrcssions whosc dcnotata arc a function of specifiable
token-reflexive elemenl~, expressions whose denotata arc a function of specifiable
aspects of the contcxts of thcir use. Rathcr, as suggcstcd carlicr. I havc meant thc
aspects of the contexts of their use. Rather, as suggested earlier, 1have meant the
thcory of thc ~ s ofc languagc in communication. ' h i s delimitation is irrcmcdiably
theory of the usc oflanguage in communication. 'r1lis delimitation is irremediably
vaguc and opcn-cndcd: and thcrcin lics thc rub. Formal pragmatics (as thc work
vague and open-ended; and therein lies the rub. Fonnal pragmatics (as the work
o f Monwgue cL al. [Montaguc 39743 might bc called) is an annex of fonnal
of Montague eL al. (Montague 1974] might be called) is an annex of fonnal
scmantics; hcncc, part and parcel of the study of the linguistic system.
semantics; hence, part and parcel of the study of the linguistic system.
Communication-thcorclic accounts, on the other hand, can rcspcct no such
Communication-theorelic accounts, on the other hand, can respect no such
dcparuncntal boundaries. Sotne discourse phenomena ca11 bc traccd directly to
departmental boundaries. Some discourse phenomena cal! be traced directly to
syntactic and semantic fcaturcs of thc constituent scntcnccs, taken one at a rime as
syntactic and semantic features of the constituent sentences, taken one at a lime as
it were; somc, cannot. Again, thc rub of opcn-cndcd intcractionism.
it were; some, cannot. Again, the rub ofopen-ended interactionism.
With the ntb comcs the challcngc. Evcryonc agrccs that the actual use of
With the mb comes the challenge. Everyone agrees that the actual use of
languagc in communication involves all manncr of cognitive modulcs acting
language in communication involves all manner of cognitive modules acting
together. Kcscarchcrs in language, from I,ingujstics, Pl~ilosophy,and Artificial
together. Researchers in language, from Linguistics, Philosophy, and Artificial
Intclligcnce, hold that this intcraction must not bc understood as evidcncc against
Intelligence, hold that this interaction must not be understood as evidence against
a high dcgree of (static) modularization, cspccially with rcspcct to thc linguistic
a high degree of (static) modularization, especially with respect to the linguistic
system, takcn now as a whole, as against the rcst of the rncntal apparatus. The
system, taken now as a whole, as against the rest of the mental apparatus. The
challcngc is to think clcarly and in a thcorctically wcll-motivated and disciplined
challenge is to think clearly and in a theoretically well-motivated and disciplined
way about modcs and mcdia of intcraction. It's dirty work; but sorncbody's got to
way about modes and media of interaction. It's dirty work; but somebody's got to
d o it. Past this preface, the rcadcr will find cvidcncc that somc, a t lcasf arc trying.
do it. Past this preface, the reader will find evidence that some, at least, are trying.
And now for an anticlimax. I wamcd the rcadcr that we would have to return
And now for an anticlimax, I warned the reader that we would have to return
to the issue of formal scmantics for natural languages. Forcwarncd is forearmed.
to the issue of fonnal semantics for natural languages. Forewarned is foreanned.
The papcrs in this volumc arc by and largc silcnt on spccific grammatical issues;
The papers in this volume arc by and large silent on specific grammatical issues;
the rcscarchcrs.in most cases assumc thc availability of parsers with uscfully broad
the researchers.in most cases assume the availability of parsers with usefully broad

xxi

syntactic covcragc. (It is no small praisc of work in Computational 1,inguistics to

syntactic coverage. (It is no small praise of work in Computational Linguistics to
notc that this assumption is a reasonably safc onc.) 'Ihcrc arc, of coursc, opcn
note that this assumption is a reasonably safe one.) There are, of course, open
problems in both syntax and parsing: but wc arc by no mcans complclcly at sea.
problems in both syntax and parsing: but we arc by no means completely at sea.
Oddly cnough, a bit of thc same can bc said for the theory of pragmatics and
Oddly enough, a bit of the same can be said for the theory of pragmatics and
discourse. Hcrc, building on the work ofGricc. Scarlc, and others. and cxtcnding
discourse. Here, building on the work of Grice, Searle, and others, and extending
it imprcssjvcly across hefry chunks of talk, rescarchcrs in A1 havc dcvclopcd, at
it impressively across hefty chunks of talk, researchers in 1\.1 have developed, at
thc vcry I c a s ~a hsbitiiblc framcwork for hypothesis and cxpcrirncntation. (Sce.
the very least, a habitable framework for hypothesis and experimentation. (See,
for instiincc, thc papcrs in this volumc.)
for instance, the papers in this volume.)
With rcspcct to scmantics, it's sad1y a horsc of a diffcrcnt color. As one rcads
With respect to semantics, it's sadly a horse of a different color. l\.s one reads
the essays, onc ]nay gct thc impression that rhcrc has bccn n principled dccision to
the essays, one may get the impression that there has been a principled decision to
opt for cxtcnsion;~l. first-ordcr languagcs (i~suallysortali~cd)as gcncrating $e
opt for extensional. first-order languages (usually sortalized) as generating ~e
logical fonns or English ultcranccs and hcncc as thc vchiclcs of scmantic
logical fonns of English utterances and hence as the vehicles of semantic
rcprcscntation. My own view is that this decision is bcst sccn as purely a tactical
representation. My own view is that this decision is best seen as purely a tactical
or pedagogical onc: at soincthing Icm than worsc. it might bc understood as forced
or pedagogical one: at something less than worse, it might he understood as forced
on one, faute dc micux. With thc tictics and/or thc pedagogy. I havc no
on one, faute de micux. With the tactics and/or the pedagogy. I have no
argurncnt. For thc wistfi~llonging for a better way, 1 havc only sympathy. As for
argument. For the wistful longing for a better way, I have only sympathy. l\.s for
thc principlc, I dcny it. I cvcn hnvc somclhing of an argumcnt.
the principle. I deny it. [even have som<:thing of an argument.
AN A~GUMENT:

(a) All (both) programs for fonnulatillg fonnal scmantic accounts for
(a) 1\.11 (both) programs for fonnulating fonnal semantic accounts for
significant fragmcnts of natural languagcs (fragmcnts containing "intcrcsting"
significant fragments of natural languages (fragments containing "interesting"
scmantic constructions) cxploit formal languagcs quite diffcrcnt Lllan thc language
semantic constructions) exploit fonnallanguages quite different than the language
of first-ordcr logic. We havc in mind Montaguc-stylc scmantics and thc Situation
of first-order logic. We have in mind Montague-style semantics and the Situation
Scmantics of Barwisc and Pcrry [1982].
Semantics ofDarwise and Perry (1982].
(b) In other words: to our knowlcdgc, no significant fragment of any natural
(b) In other words: to our knowledge, no significant fragment of any natural
language has cvcr bccn scmantically analyzcd by way o f a (systematic) translation
language has ever been semantically analyzed by way of a (systematic) translation
into a shndard first-ordcr languagc. Indccd, again lo our knowlcdge, no one has
into a standard first-order language. Indeed, again to our knowledge, no one has
ever even seriously attcmptcd it.
ever even seriously attempted it.

(c) I h c foregoing facts don't sccm to bc accidcntq of history and thcre do seem
(c) The foregoing facts don't seem to be accident~ of history and there do seem
to bc good methodological rcasons for thc history. 'fhc main considcration is the
to be good methodological reasons for the history. The nwin consideration is the
ad hoc and unsystematic charactcr of attcmpts at scmantic analysis of articular
ad hoc and unsystematic character of attempt~ at semantic analysis of particular
scntcnccs of English by way of paraphrasc into shndard first-order languagcs.
sentences of English by way of paraphrase into slJ.ndard first-order languages.
Crucial herc is thc sourcc of h i s ad hm: charactcr. Any account of the scmantics
Crucial here is the sourcc of this ad hoc character. l\.ny account of the semantics
of natural languagcs which cxploits a formal languagc has a choicc about whcrc to
of natural languages which exploits a fonnallanguage has a choice about where to
be risk-taking. (Such choices go with thc territory of dccp and gcncral unsolved
be risk-taking. (Such choices go with the territory of deep and general unsolved
problems.) It can hc novcl and daring in thc specification of thc formal language
problems.) It can be novel and daring in the specification of the formal language
and its semantics. 'lhis is Lhc route takcn by Montaguc and Barwisc-Perry,
and its semantics. 'Ibis is the route taken by Montague and Barwisc-Perry.

Israel

Israel

xxii

xxii

Montaguc's languagc (thc languagc II_ in "The Propcr 'rrcatrncnt of

Montague's language (the language IL in "The Proper Treatment of
Quantification i11 Ordinary English") is a "throw in cvcrything but the kitchen
Quantification in Ordinary English") is a "throw in everything but the kitchen
sink" nmcga-ordcr intcnsional logic, with free use of lambda-abstraction and
sink" omega-order intensional logic, with free usc of Iambda-abSLraction and
intcnsional opcrators of all dcgrccs. To put it crudcly. the stratcgy sccms to have
intensional operators of all degrees. To put it crudely, the strategy seems to have
bccn to dcvise a constnlct in thc fonnal languagc for each construct in the natural
been to devise a COnSlnlct in the fonnal language for each construct in the natural
languagc. Morcovcr, Montaguc was at all dmcs motivated by concerns for
language. Moreover, Montague was at all times motivated by concerns for
gcncrality: indccd. his iipproi~chmight bc callcd "Pentagon Sanantics". Look at
generality: indeed, his approach might be called "Pentagon Semantics". Look at
thc worst-casc cantcxr in tllc fragmcnt in which, c.g., noun phrascs occur, and
tJle worst-case context in the fragment in which. e.g. noun phrases occur. and
assign a scmantic typc to noun phrascs accordingly. 1)cspitc this. the scmantic
assign a semantic type to noun phrases accordingly. Despite this, the semantic
account of 11- is, in a scnsc. standard: il consists in cxtcnding 'Tarski-style
account of IL is, in a sense, standard: it consists in extending Tarski-style
trcatmcnts of quantificalional languagcs of arbitrary ordcr to modal and
treatments of Quantificational languages of arbitrary order to modal and
intcnsionrll languages. an cxtcnsion pionccrcd by - iiltcr alia - Montague.
intensional languages, an extension pioneered by - inter alia - Montague.
13arwiw and Pcrry's formal languagc AI.IASS, on the othcr hand, is dcsigncd
Barwise and Perry's formal language AI.lASS, on the other hand, is designed
to bc much closcr in its syntax to tllc surface syntax of English. Exac~Iywhat its
to be much closer in its syntax to Ille surface syntax of English. Exactly what its
scrnantics looks like is not yet fully clcar in that no trcatrncnt of a significant
semantics looks like is not yet fully clear in that no treatment of a significant
fi'agmcnt has ycl bccn (widcly) published. (Thcrc is an underground litcrature;
ti-agment has yCl been (widely) published (There is an underground literature;
tllerc is cycn a bulnpcr stickcr: Another Farnilv for Sittlation Scrnanlics,) In some
tllere is even a bumper sticker: Another Family fill: Situation Semantics,) In some
thoroughly unintcrcsting scnsc, it too will be nlorc of thc same; h a t is, more set
tJ1Oroughly uninteresting sense, it too will be more of the same; that is, more set
thcory. But this may bc quitc rnislcading, as thcre are hints at a morc properly
theory. But this may be quite misleading, as there are hints at a more properly
recursion-thcorctic trcatment. l ~ u s special
,
constraints may bc put on the kinds
recursion-theoretic treatment. TIlUS. special constraints may be put on the kinds
of sets, and operations thcrcon, to be allowed. ClassicaI Tarski-style semantics
of sets, and operations thereon, to be allowed. Classical Tarski-style semantics
placcs no such constraints.
places no such constraints.
To rcturn to our thcmc, then, thc route taken by Montague and by
To return to our theme. then, the route taken by Montague and by
I3arwisc-Perry has the advantagc that thc inventiveness is confined to an area
Barwise-Perry has the advantage that the inventiveness is confined to an area
susccprible to prccisc matlicmatico-logical ucatmcnt. It also allows (in thcory at
susceptible to precise mathematico-Iogical treatment. It also allows (in theory at
Icast) for simplc (rccursivc) translation proccdurcs between English and the target
least) for simple (recursive) translation procedures between English and the target
formal language.
formal language.
The other, standard first-ordcr, route focuscs on the procedures for paraphrase
The other, standard first-order, route focuses on the procedures for paraphrase
(lranslation) from the natural to h e formal language. If leaves such procedures,
(translation) from the natural to the fonnal language. It leaves such procedures,
however, in just the state that thcy assume in introductory logic texts: imprecise,
however, in just the state that they assume in introductory logic texts: imprecise,
non-forrnalizablc rulcs-of-thumb; heuristics based on appeals to intuition. The
non-formaJiz.able rules-of-thumb; heuristics based on appeals to intuition. The
contrast is illuminating, and, on grounds of good scientific mcthodology, highly
contrast is illuminating, and, on grounds of good scientific methodology, highly
unfavorable, we think, to thc "conservative" strategy.
unfavorable, we think, to the "conservative" strategy,
(d) Once the set-thcorctic semantics of a new, non-standard, formal language
(d) Once the set-theoretic semantics of a new, non-standard, formal language
has bccn given, one can see in general how to "compile" that language into a
has been given, one can see in general how to "compile" that language into a
first-ordcr languagc, typically with a bloated ontology. Such compilation may
first-order language, typically with a bloated ontology. Such compilation may
make grcat practical scnsc if, for instance, one has a powerfill first-ordcr logic
make great practical sense if, for instance, one has a powerful first-order logic
machine sitting on one's desk. Still, kccp in mind that it just may turn out that the
machine sitting on one's desk. Still, keep in mind that it just may turn out that the
detour through the weird and wonderful is necessary; that it may just be
detour through the weird and wonderful is necessary; that it may just be

xxiii
(psychologically?) impossibtc to translaic directly and syslcrnatically from a
(psychologically?) impossible to translate directly and systematically from a
nati~rallanguagc into thc languagc of first-order logic.
nalurallanguage into the language of first-order logic.
So much by way of argument; nccdlcss to say, lnorc nccds to be said. In the
So much by way of argument; needless to say, more needs to be said. 1n the
mcantimc. it's a plcasurc to wclcomc thc rcndcr to his volume, to taslc sorne of
meantime. it's a pleasure to welcome the reader to this volume, to taste some of
thc first fruits of a happy blending of thc scicnccs of language.
the first fruits of a happy blending afthe sciences of language.

COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF DIScOU

RSE
DISCOURSE

CHAPTER 1
Introduction:
Introduction: Computational Aspects of Discourse
Robert C. Berwick

1.1 Why computational models?

Talk,
'Talk, as everyone
cvcryo~lcknows, is cheap.
clicap. In stark contrast,
contrast. an scientific
scicnlific account of talk is
cxpcnsivc ..
-- we
wc have no good theory,
thcory, let
ict alone
alr~nca computational
computation;~lone, of this
expensive
behavior. This
mismatch bctwccn
between superficial
perhaps most facile
pcrhaps
facilc human bchavior.
l'his blatant n~islnatch
supcrficial
thcorctical mechanical intractability agrees
agrccs with the general
human case and theoretical
experience
twenty years of rcscarch
research in anilicial
artificial intelligence.
intclligcncc. Whereas
cxpcriencc of the past twcnty
"cxpcrl" problcm
duplicatcd -- thcrc
"experl"
problem solving bchavior
bebavior can bc
be roulincly
routinely duplicated
there are
progratns
that do
d o as wcll
inlcrprcting mass spectrograms
well or bcttcr
bettcr than pcoplc
people in inlerpreting
programs d,at
or calculus .--- the
mundane of human abilities rcmain
remain beyond the
die most munda~lc
UIC reach of
current computer
computcr programs. The
l h c following five
fivc chapters
chaprcrs descrihe
dcscrihc initial
computational forays
the difficult
territory of thc
the cognitivcly effortless
forays into thc
diff~culttcrritory
cffortlcss ~.
discourse.
Thc study of discourse bcgins
tc~lkis for.
The
begins with what wlk
for. In this crucial rcspcct.
rcspect, all
five
researchers share
largely unargued.
fivc rcscarchers
sharc a largcly
unargt~cd,but commonly accepted
acccptcd viewpoint: that
communicative behavior.! Packed
linguistic bchavior
behavior is basically abollt
abnttt c~mmunicativc
Packcd into these
fact is thc
gluc dJat
illat binds logcthcr
fivc rcscarch
cffons. The
two words, in fact,
the glue
together all five
research efforlS.
word "communication"
the I.lntin
.'.ttill cuiieitu~lilar,
communitas, to
reflecting
"communication" is derived
dcrivcd from thc
t oslwrc,
m , rcflccting
sulnc vague yet
an intuition that the touchstanc
touchstone for co~nmunication
communication involves, in some
-- bc
knowledge, or feelings.
feelings.
compelling sense. a notion of sharine
sharing -be it thoughts, knowledge.
Ijut what is even
cvcn morc
more remarkable about discourse is how this sharing comes
But
about. The
mere &
external forms
ronns -_. their uucranccs
utterances -Thc participants exchange mcrc
-- and
arrivc at an internal
yet manage to arrive
internal correspondence, presumably one of partially
shared
wi states.
sharcd men
mcntal
hcarcr is to somehow
view then, the job of a hearer
On the communicative vicw
the speaker's
spcakcr's internal
intcrnal life -- namely, those the speaker
reconstruct a portion of d,e
wishes to convey (call this the speaker's
message. or (;ommunicative
spcakcr's message,
sommunicative intent,
intent or

--

1.
without its
its own
problems; it
a~sumcs bar
that "communication"
whatever
I. This
This view
vicw is not without
own problems:
il (tacitly)
(lacilly)ssumes
"communication" - whatever
that is - mun
must have been functionally
This
may
funclionally supreme
supreme in the cvolutionary
cvolulionary "design"
"design" of
or language. n
is may
very wcll
well be true,
true, bul
but one must
must give some argument
to Olis
this effect;
not apodictic.
argumcnt lo
erect: it11is not
apadiclic.

28

Berwick

wh3teicr) -- and the job of tlic spcakcr is to somchow fncilitatc this rcconstructinn.
whatever) -- and the job of the speaker is to somehow facilirate this reconstruction.
is for communication, all
'Ihus, simply by adopting thc usual ~ i c wthat Ii~ngt~agc
'lllUS, simply by adopting the usunl view that language is for communication, all
usc:
fivc rcscnrchcrs have cmt)mced thc following embryonic model of l;~~iguage
five n:searchers have embraced the following embryunic model of language usc:

SPEAKER

intcrior form 1
interior form
spcakr wants (intcnbs) to am)
(what speater wants (intends) to sh~)

uaerance
(cxtcrior form of mcssagc)
(exterior fOffil of message)

intctior fomr
. interior form

of speaker's in tended

(reconstruction ofspcaker's inrendedmessasc)

HEARER
HEARER

Figure I A modcl of Ianguagc use.

Figure I A model ofJanguage use.
What demands cxplrlnation is how this can all bc mndc to work: Just what are
What demands explanation is how this can all be made lO work: Just what are
s uttcranccs, and h e n
thc rnystcrious arrows that map a spcakcr's intcrior b ~ m to
the mysterious arrows that map a speaker's interior fOims to utterances, and then
back again in thc mind of the listcncr? Somehow thc hcarcr is ablc to i n f part
~ of
back again in the mind of the listener? Somehow the hearer is able to infer part of
thc spcaker's intcrior m c n d world s i m ~ l v bykina notc of cxtcrl~alutterance$
the speaker's interior mental world simply .hx ~..i.ng D..Q1g ill extrrnal utterances
and thcir conIcxt. It a!l sounds likc so much magic, or cvcn a kind of tclepathy;
!!ill!. thrir~, It all sounds like so much mngic, or even a kind of telepathy;
iiidced ir would be if nothing marc could bc said about thc arrows connecting the
indeed it would be if nothing more could be said about the arrows connecting the
boxcs in our c n ~ d cinformation flow diagram above. What rnakcs thc hearer's
boxes in our cnlde information flow diagram above. What makes the hearer's
rccovcry of part of a spcaker's inncr mcnhl ljfc biological commonplace instead of
recovery of part of a speaker's inner mental tife biological commonplace instead of
magic is that tl~crcare significant constraints at every stcp of the proccss sketched
magic is that there are significant constraints at every step of the process sketched
abovc -- the relationship bctwccn communicative inlcnt and utterance, bctween
above -- the relationship between communicative intent and utterance, between
inner and outcr form, is svstcmatic. When I want to say that lliscounq
inner and outer form, is systematic. When I want to say that Discourse ill fu
~ c l c ~ a t h not
v . just any suing of sounds will do. A wholc scrics of regularities -te1cp'ilhy. not just any string of sounds will do. A whole series of regularities -phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic -- intcrvcnc so as to dictate what
phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic -- intervene so as to dictate what
can and cannot bc counted as a n uttcrance that properly conveys my intended
can and cannot be counted as an utterance that properly conveys my intended
mcssagc. It is thc hcarer's knowlcdgc of thcse wcll-fnrmcdncss requircments that
message. It is the hearer's knowledge of these well-fonnedncss requirements that
permit the rccovcry of my intcndcd mcssagc; sitnilarly, it is my knowledge of
peffilit the recovery of my intended message; similarly, it is my knowledge of
thcse vcry sarnc constraints (and my knowlcdgc that my listcncr knows these
these very same constraints (and my knowledge that my listener knows these
constraints) that guides the cxtcrior form that I producc. In bricf, the hearer
constraints) that guides the exterior form that I produce. In brief, the hearer
knows the rulcs of the gamc by which I produced my uttcrance, and uscs these
knows the rules of the game by which J produced my utterance, and uses these

29

nIles
Shared knowlcdgc
knowledge niakcs
makes
nllcs to
to infer
infcr inner
inncr form
form from
from exterior
cxtcrior utterance. Shi~rcd

further
Ule mundane.
further sharing
sharing possible, trDnsforming
transfor~ningUle
dlc magical
1~1agic;ll
into Uic
From this
vantage
point,
Ule
study
of
discourse
reduces
tl,e study of
of these
thc
discoursc rcduccs to the
this vant;lgc
regularities.
he
is the chicf
chief contribution of
of the
rcgularitics. It should
shr~l~ld
be no surprise,
surprisc. then,
thcn, tllat
that this isthc
research
of thc
the systematic
Ulis book.:
book: to prmiidc
probidc a partial account of
rcscarch presented
prcscntcd in this
conventions
ctllic of
of thc
the artilicial
artificial intclligcncc,
intelligence.
conventions of discourse.
discoursc. According
Accurding to the
thc work ctl~ic
the
discourse rcgularitics
regularities they
tllCy havc
have
Uic authors
authors have
havc for
fur the
thc most part exploited
cxploitcd the
tllc discoursc
uncovered
uncovcrcd by embedding
cnibcdding thelll
thcm into working computer
computcr programs that actually aim
to
participants. A snapshot of
of ~which
Uic behavior
bch;lvior of human discourse
disco~~rsc
,l~ich
to mirror the
regularities
upnn looks solncthing
something likc
like the
rcgularitics each
c:sh c\mlrHmlor
cantributor has decided
dccidcd to focus
ftcus upon
following,
communicative intcnt
intent (as
k~llowing,where
uhcrc the
Uic reconstruction
rccunstruction of the
thc speaker's
spcakcr's co~n~nunicativc
represented
been brokcn
bmkcn down as follows:
rcprcscntcd internally
internally by tlle
the hearer)
hcarcr) has now bccn

SPEAKER

lca
communicative intent planning ~rules.
rulcsof inference
inferetlCe
rulerof
interior fann
McDonald
(what
speaker wants (intends)
(intends) ttoo share)
shale)
(whatspxkcr
rulcs
fonn
mlcs of logical form
paning mles.
parsing
rules,
I

'----:-t-.....
I

uttcram (exterior form ofmcssage)

utterance
ofmessage)

I1

parsing
rules,
parain8 N
~ S
N~U
of kl&d form
rules
oflogical
fonn

Webber,
Webber,
Sidner
Sidner

Kaplan,
Kaplan,
Allen
Allen

l i W meaning
wurlag
literal

rulcs of inference
rules
planning rules
speatds intended
in&
mmtng
speaker's
meanIDg
(-tion
of
speaker's m
)(recoDIlruction
ofspeater's
mesuae)
I
HEARER

cxpandcd version of the modcl

language use.
Figure 22 An expanded
model of
oflanguage
use,
the diagram
diagram indicates.
indicates the work of each contributor to this volume has its
As me
As

Berwick

30

own
own rolc
role ta
to play
play in
in aa full
full account
account of
of discourse
discourse behavior.
behavior. I.ct
Let us
us rcvicw
review thcse
these
contributions, one by onc.
one.
contrihutio~~s,
of all, it is worlhwliilc
worthwhile to point
point out that Uic
tl,e discounc
discourse flowchart skctched
sKetched
First of
abovc
above splirs
SpliLS into two distinct parts. Onc
Olle is UIC
the tr;~nslation
translation from surfacc
surface form
fonn to
fonn: thc
the input to aa computcr
computer progrttm
program is just
just son~c
sOllie string of
of tokcns,
tokens, e.g.,
internal form:
"Discourse is likc
like magic",
magic", and our first task is u1
to translate, or associate,
associ;Hc. thcse
these
"1)iscoursc
those of
of ;lo
all intcmnl
internal Iango;~gc.
language, typically tokcns
tokens of
of somc
some ling~~islic
linguistic type.
tokcns with diosc
of thc
the input scrvcs
serves as tlic
the 1:1\1nching
launching pad for
'Il,C internally-formaltcd
internallY'fonnalted counterpart of
'llic
A
fi~rthcr
further processing.
prncessing. What should this
tllis internal language
languagc look likc?
like?
/I trivial
simply add lexical catcgory
category labcls
labels to cacli
each of thc
the tokens of
translntion would bc
be to 5in1ply
translation
the input string: typically, huwcvcr,
however, aa morc
more sophisticated translation is assumed.
assumed,
Uic
labeled br;tckcting
bracketing rcprcscnting
representing aa parsc
parse of
of thc
the input string.
string. Figuring out
such as aa labclcd
Olis itllcrnal
intcrnal language should bc
be likc
like is Wcbbcr
Webber and Sidncr's
Sidner's domain of
of
what Uiis
research. As
/Is wc
we shall see,
sec, Sidncr
Sidner and Wehbcr
Webber adopt so~ncthing
sometlling in the spirit of
of
rcscarcli.
~nodcrn
modern gcncrative
generative grammar, ifif not its cxilcf
CX<Jct detail.
detaiL Whatcvcr
Whatever thc
the process, it is
crllcially a formal
fonnal one.
onc. l'hc
The input is aa scqucncc
sequence of tokcns,
tokens, and the output is a
crucially
string of
of symbols
symbols in somc
some internal formal
formal language. Crucially,
Crucially, the relation
between surface
surface and intcrnal
internal languagc
language is not onc
one of idcntity
identity -- somc
some real work is
bctwccn
d(~ne in tlic
the conversion to an inlcrnal
intcrnal1anguage
the ctrmputation
computation that rnust
must
dqnc
languagc and so thc
likewise not ncccssarily
necessarily trivial. (We shall scc
see prcciscly
precisely how nun-trivial
non-trivial
be done is likcwise
below.)
we arc
are on familiar,
familiar, if not altogcthcr
altogether steady.
steady, ground. After
lifter all.
all,
So far wc
philosophers
pliilosophcrs since
since Frege
Fregc have claimed
claimcd that sentences
sentences of naturallanguages
natural 1;tnguagcs have
"underlying" representations
rcprcscnfations that are non-isomorphic to their surface fOnTIs.
forms. And
they have used distinctions in Ihe
ihc form of these
thcsc representations
reprcscntations to account for
seman
tical distinctions.
Allcn, though,
though, want to go this
this project
projcct one
scrnantical
distinctions. Kaplan and /llIen,
better.
bcltcr. If differences
differcnccs in underlying fonn
form can be
bc used
uscd to capture scmantical
scmantical
differences
-the
Frege-Russell
program
-then
why
not
expand
the
notion of
Frcgc-l<usscll
cxpand
diffcrcnccs
"undcrlying form"? Kaplan and /llIen
Allcn do just tha~
that, and attempt to recover
recover a
"underlying
partial representation
rcprcscntation of the
thc speaker's
spcakcr's beliefs
bclicfs and intentions.
intentions. Now, aa system
system that
knows
knows when
whcn and how
how to
to fix
fix beliefs
bclicfs isis aa different
diffcrcnt order of beast O,an
than one
one that
knows simply
simply how to
to map
map tokens
tokcns to
to linguistic
linguistic types.
typcs. Indeed,
Indccd, talk about fixing
fixing
knows
beliefs
bclicfs isis part and parcel
parcel of what
what it means
means to
to talk about
about higher
higher cognitive processes
processes
generally.
the province
province of the
thc language
language processor,
proccssor, at least
least not
gcncrally. It isis not necessarily
ncccssarily ille
in the
thc conception
conccpfion of the
the language
language processor
proccssor as
as ordinarily entertained
entenaincd in modern
linguistic
course, to
to ti,e
the extent
cxtcnt that the
thc mapping of tokens to
to internal
internal
linguistic theory.
theory. Of course,
ncr's theories
fonn
thc groundwork
groundwork for
for O,e
the fixation
fixation of
of belief,
bclicf, Webber
Webber and
and Sid
Sidner's
theories
fonn lays
lays the
provide the
thc cornerstone
cornerstone for
for Kaplan
Kaplan and
and /llIen's
Allcn's systems
systems as
as well.
well. (Entirely
(Entirely
provide
analogous,
sccm, to
to the
the way
way that
that early
early visual
visual processing
processing provides the
the
analogous, itit would
would seem,
chair.)
representational
rcprcscntational foundation
foundation for
for calling
calling aa chair
chair aachair.)

31
Returning now to our Cook's tour, Wcbbcr iind Sidncr's aim is to dcvclop thc
Returning now to our Cook's tour, Webber and Sidner's aim is to develop the
right internal format in which to formally rcnrcscllt uttcranccs, and how (in
right internal format in which to formally represent utlerances, and how (in
Sidncr's casc) to comoutc with thal rcprcscntation in ordcr to kccp track of thc
Sidner's case) to compute with thal representation in order [0 keep track of the
things talkcd about in a discoursc. Thc purpose of ihis forn~atis to dcfinc the
things talked about in a discourse. The purpose of this fom1at is to define the
doniains of individuals or cntitics U~at arc to bc madc availa1)lc Tor further
domains of individuals or entities that arc to be made available for further
computational ni;~nipulationhy thc hci~rcr. For instilncc, whcn 1 say, "1 saw a
computational manipulation hy the hearer. For instance, when I say, "I saw a
Pcrsiaii cat," [hcn Wcbbcr's systcln is to nlakc it clcar thal I am talking about a
Persian cat," [hen Webber's system is to make it clear thal I am talking about a
ccrtain domain of individuals, nanlcly, Pcrsian cats. Wcbbcr's systcm pairs
certain domain of individuals, namely, Persian cats. Webber's system pairs
cxprcssions in a fonnal languagc -- thc Ii~nguagcinto which strings likc "I saw a
expressions in a fonnal language .. the language inlO which strings like "I saw a
Pcrsian car"
gct mappcd -- with an intcmal (presumably mentalistic)
Persian cat"
get mapped -- with an internal (presumably mentalistic)
rcprcscntation of sets of individuals
representation of seLS of individuals
For thc most part Wcbbcr is conccrncd only with a scmanlics for Noun
For the most part Webber is concerned only with a semantics for Noun
Phrascs. For cxamplc. Wcbbcr claiins that thc string (and Noun Plirasc) IJlrce
Phrases. For example, Webber claims that the string (and Noun Phrase) three
bovs [hat atc a
"crcntcs" two possiblc discoursc c~ititicsrcflccting h e
boys that ate i! pizza "crea[es" two possible discourse entities renecting the
individuativc and collcctivc rcrtdings of tllis scntcncc. In onc rcading, a sct of boys
individualive and collective readings of this sentence. In one reading, a set of boys
togcther cat a singlc p i r ~ a ;in thc othcr, thrcc boys individually cach cat a pizza.
together cat a single piua; in the other, three boys individually each cat a pizza.
Crucially, Wcbbcr ciipturcs die diffcrcncc in meaning bctwccn thcsc two rcadings
Crucially, Webber captures the difference in meaning between these two readings
via a diffcrcncc in thc fr,rm ofpossiblc internal rcprcscntations. A syntactic dcvice
via a difference in the fOlm of possible internal representations. 1\ syntaclic device
-- the scoping of a SKI' operator -- is dcploycd to mirror [hc diffcrcnce in
.- the scoping of a SET operator -- is deployed to mirror the difference in
mcaning:
meaning:

(la) ~(v:SKl'(boy))[(3y:Pi1za). Atc v,y A Ivl= 31

(l a) >..(v:SET
(boy})
[(3y:Pizza)
.I\tc
v,y cxists
A Ivl onc
3] sct of boys that
(thc
collcctivc
reading:
thcrc

(the collective
there exists
one set of boys that
serves asreading:
thc argumcnt
to "ate")
serves as the argument to "ate")

(lb) ~(u:SFl'(A(v:boy~(3y:Pizza).Ate v,y])))[lul=3]

(lb) ),.(u:SET(,>,,(v:boy[(3y:Pizza).l\te
v,y]))}
[lui = 3]scparatcly as an
(thc i~~dividual
rcading: cach
boy scrvcs
(the individual
argurncntreading:
to "ate")each boy serves separately as an
argument tu "ate")
As we scc thcn, Wcbber's approach to explaining diffcrcnt "readings" of
As we see then, Webber's approach to explaining different "readings" of
scntcnccs lics firmly within thc Frcgcan "madcrn" tradition of the study of thc
sentences lies firmly within the Fregean "modern" tradition of the study of the
"logical syntax" of languagc: somc (not all) scmantical diffcrcnccs arc cncodcd as
"logical syntax" of language: some (not all) scmantical differences are encoded as
diffcrcnccs in thc "shape" of a formal languagc into wllich surfacc strings are
differences in the "shape" of a fonnal language into which surface strings are
mappcd.
mapped.
Sidncr's research bcgins whcrc Wcbbcr's ends. It assumes a formalism
Sidner's research begins where Webber's ends. It assumes a formalism
mughly likc Wcbbcr's, mapping surfacc arings into cxprcssions in logical form
roughly like Webber's, mapping surface strings into expressions in logical form
(hcnccforth LF), but this is just Sidncr's first stcp. 'I'hc ultimate goal is to
(henceforth LF), but this is just Sidner's first step. The ultimate goal is to
understand how tllc rcprcscntations of discoursc cntitics, for thc most part rcflexes
understand how the representations of discourse entities, for the most part reflexes
of Noun I~hrascs,arc inanipulatcd ovcr the lifctimc of a discoursc. It is this
uf Noun Phrases. are manipulated over the lifetime of a discourse. It is this
cmphasis on manipulation, on
thc discoursc rcprcscntation enters into
emphasis on manipulation, on how the discourse representation enters into
languagc usc, rathcr than just what thc rcprcscntation is, that marks Sidncr's study
language usc, rather than just what the representation is, that marks Sidncr's study

Berwick

32

as a quintcsscntially mmpulrltional, rather than pl~ilosophical,analysis.

as a quintessentially computational, rather than philosophical. analysis.
In particular, Sidncr wants to bc able to cxplain how pcoplc link togcthcr what
In particular, Sidner wants to be able to explain how people link together what
is talkcd about ia a discoursc -- thc fnci of a discourse, in Sidncr's terminology.
is talked about in a discourse -- the foci of a discourse, in Sidner's terminology.
Wcbbcr's formalism plays a kcy rolc hcrc bccausc Sidncr must first bc nblc to just
Webber's fonnalism plays a key role here because Sidner must first be able to just
rcprcscnt wliat is hcing talkcd about, nut thcrc is an additional. co~nputational
represent what is being talked about. nut there is an additional. computational
story that must bc unravclcd, and that is how pcoplc "point back" ro what is bcing
story that must be unraveled, and that is how people "point back" to what is being
talkcd about (via the usc of anaphors like pronouns), liow rhcy cnmputc tllis
talked about (via the use of anaphors like pronouns), how they compute this
conncction, and how, from ti~ncto iirnc, dlcy changc what they arc talking about.
connection. and how, from time to time, they change what they arc talking about.
For instance, in thc simplc dialoguc bclow:
For instance. in the simple dialogue below:

(2) 'l'hcrc wcrc somc strawbcrrics in thc fridge last weck.

(2) There'I'hcy
were wcrc
sometasty,
strawberries
in last
the fridge
hut didn't
long. last week.
They were
tasty,
but
didn't
last
long.
John found thcm, :ind that was thc last wc saw of thcm.
John found
them,
and that was
the last we saw of them.
a pcnchant
for fruit.
John has
John has a penchant for fruit.
what rcqiiircs explanation is (1) how it is that we know the first few scntcnccs are
what requires explanation is (I) how it is that we know the first few sentences are
in scntcncc (2) and
about strawbcrrics: (2) how the conncction bctwccn
about strawberries; (2) how the connection between they in sentence (2) and
strawbcrrics is cstablishcd; (3) how a shift in focus -- such as to John by the end of
strawberries is established; (3) how a shift in focus- such as to John by the end of
tllc di;~lnguc-- is computcd. Sidncr's bcory acconlplishcs this by combining
the dialogue -- is computed. Sidner's theory accomplishes this by combining
Wcbbcr's formalism for rcprcscnting NP's with a push-down stack bookkceping
Webber's formalism for representing NP's with a push-down stack bookkeeping
sy;tcln for "what is being talkcd about." 'll~usit scrvcs in cffcct as a part of a
system for "what is being talked about." 'Oms it serves in effect as a part of a
formal account of multiple-scntcncc logical form, a levcl of rcprcscntation we
formal account of multiple-sentence logical fonn, a level of representation we
might call "discoursc structurc". Just as tlicrc are rulcs of scntence grammar that
might call "discourse structure". Just as there are rules of sentence grammar that
tcll us that he may -- but need not -- bc linkcd with John in John thinks that !yg
tell us that he may" but need not be linked with John in John thinks!.lli!t ~
should
--win. Sidncr's computational machinery is a first attcmpt to scc how the
should win. Sidner's computaLional machinery is a first attempt to see how the
structure of language dctcrmincs this kind of linking over h e domain of several
structure of language determines this kind of linking over the domain of several
scntenccs.
sentences.
In short then, both Wcbbcr and Sidncr arc intcrcsted in Ihc first stages of
In short then, both Webber and Sidner arc interested in the first stages of
translating from surface strings to a purely syntactic logical form -- hcnce their
translating from surface strings to a purely syntactic logical form -- hence their
placerncnt in the discoursc flowchart. But is logical form all thcrc is to meaning?
placement in the discourse flowchart. But is logical form all there is to meaning?
Clearly not: thcrc is nothing in thc theory of logical form as given so far that
Clearly not: there is nothing in the theory of logical form as given so far that
connects fonnally spccificd discoursc cntitics to the world, nothing to providc an
connects fonnally specified discourse entities to the world. nothing to provide an
intcmrctation for thc purcly formal objcct "(3x, x a Sct(boy)..)". Wcbbcr and
inLemretation for the purely formal object "(3x, x a Set(bny)..)". Webber and
Sidncr have offcrcd an approach to the logical semantics of discourse (a syntactical
Sidner have offered an approach to the logical semantics of discourse (a syntactical
scmantics), and a way to pair 1-F exprcssions with othcr mcntal rcprcsentations.
semantics), and a way to pair LF expressions with other mental representations.
How Uicn are expressions in thc I,F language to bc rclatcd to thc "outside" world?
How then arc expressions in the LF language to be related to the "outside" world?
Kaplan and Allen both takc cracks at this most difficult of qucstions. though I
Kaplan and Allen both take cracks at this most difficult of questions. though I
bclicve that ncithcr of them considered this to be one of thcir actual rcscarch aims.
believe that neither of them considered this to be one ofthcir actual research aims.
Kaplan's approach says in effcct that people arc conncctcd to the world via a list
Kaplan's approach says in effect that people are connected to the world via a list
of (observable) propcrtics of objccts -- an cxtcnsional viewpoint. That is, LF
of (observable) properties of objects -- an extensional viewpoint That is, LF
cxprcssions arc linkcd to objccts in the world simply by listing thc objects that fall
expressions arc linked to objccts in the world simply by listing the objects that fall
n

33

undcr thc prcdicatc i~nplicdby thc objcct; for Kaplan, tllc cxprcssloll "three boys
under the predicate implied by the object; for Kaplan. the expreSSHlJI "three boys
that atc a pizza" (or rather its Ingicnl tr;~nslation)mcans a list of namcs of boys
that ate a pizza" (or rather its logical translation) means a list of names of boys
who cilhcr togcthcr o r scparatcly ate a pi?:/a. In contrast, Allcn's modcl ccntcrs on
who either together or separately ate a pizza. In contrast, Allen's model centers on
thc causal connection bctwccn humiun actions and dlc world. It involvcs in an
the causal connection between human actions and the world. It involves in an
csscntial way wlii~tthe spcakcr or hcarcr w:ints or inlcnds. On diffcrcnt occasions,
essential way what the speaker or hearer wants or intends. On different occasions,
dcpcnding on thc bclicfs, dcsircs, and party allcgiancc o f thc agcnts involved, one
depending on the bclicf.s, desires. and party allegiance of the agents involved, one
and thc samc sct o f formal objccts (hence objects with the simc propcrtics, hcnce
and the same set of formal objects (hence objects with the S<lme properties. hence
thc sarlic cxtcnsions) could llavc dirfcrcnt intcnsions. Kaplan is awarc of this
the same eXlensions) could have different intensions. Kaplan is aware of this
distinction; as hc obscrvcs. thc "propcr"answer to thc ~ucstion,
distinction; as he observes. the "propcr"answer to the ~uestion.
Which employees profit share?
Which employees profit share?
could, on onc occasion. bc simply a list of cmployccs -- the "cxtcnsional"
could, on one occasion, be simply a list of employees .- the "extensional"
mcaning. Rut dcpcnding on what thc spcakcr or hcarcr wants to & with the
meaning. But depending on what the speaker or hearer wants to do with the
answcr. it might hc sornc dcscription, such as, "thc Vicc I'rcsidents".
answer, it might he some description, such as, "the Vice Presidents".
In part this diffcrcncc in approach is Ulc rcsult of thc diffcrcnccs bctwccn the
In part this difference in approach is the result of the differences between the
objccts cach has chosca to study. Kaplan opts for a ~.clatibclyrich world of objccts
objects each has chosen to study. Kaplan opts for a relatively rich world of objects
and propcrtics, but an impovcrishcd thcory of bclicf and action: by fixing as his
and properties, but an impoverished theory of belief and action: by fixing as his
"rcal world" a relational dalabasc ([)I]) of objccts with ccrtain propcrtics and
"real world" a relational dawbase (DB) of objects with certain properties and
rcducing all human purposcs to onc, nan~cly.finding out thc answer to queries
reducing all human purposes to one, namely, finding out the answer to queries
about thc datahasc. Knplan can assume that cxtcnsions, now si~nplylists of
about the database, Kaplan can assumc that extensions. now simply lists of
databasc objccts, fix mcaning. With this thcory about how forn~alobjccts canncct
database objects, fix meaning. With Ulis theory about how formal objects connect
to the dawhssc world. Ki~plancan now build a systcln that constructs thc proper
to tllC datahase world. Kaplan can now build a system that constructs thc proper
rcsponsc to qucstions that arc poindcss to answcr whcn ccrtain logical conditions
responsc to questions that are pointless to answer when certain logical conditions
obtain- (such as Lhc qucstion " H o w many I3la1dy Marys did John drink at the
obtain' (such as the question "How many Bloody Marys did John drink at the
party?" if no liquor was served at the party). Kaplan's program is ablc to dcduce
party?," ifno liquor was served at the party). Kaplan's program is able to deduce
whcn such qucstions arc pointless to answcr bccausc in his simplc cxtcnsional
when such questions arc pointless to answer because in his simple extensional
world mcaninglcss questions corrcspond to occurrcnccs of clnpty sets in the
world meaningless questions correspond to occurrences of empty sets in the
middlc of a scarch through a databasc to locarc thc objccts that mcct the
middle of a search through a database to locate the objccts that mcet the
dcscription dcmandcd by the qucstion. Kaplan's system can detcct these gaps,
description demandcd by the question. Kaplan's systcm can detect these gaps,
and then cxploit a close corrcspondcncc bctwccn the surface syntactic form of the
and then exploit a close correspondence between the surface syntactic form of the
qucstion and the database search it dcmands to gcncratc an appropriate corrcctive
question and the database ~earch it demands to generate an appropriate corrective
or suggcstivc rcsponsc (such as, Nonc, bccausc therc was no liauor scrvcd.).
or suggestive response (such as, None. because there was!J..Q liquor served,).
I n contrast, Allcn assumcs an impovcrishcd univcrsc of propcrtics of objccrs.
In contrast, Allen assumes an impoverished universe of properties of objects.
but a rich thcory of human action. Allcn's basic idca is to conjoin a thcory of
but a rich theory of human action. Allen's basic idea is to conjoin a theory of
linguistic bchavior -- thc thcury o f spccch acts as devclopcd by Austin and Searle
linguistic behavior -- the theory of speech act~ as developed by Austin and Searle
-- with a largcly Al-bascd approach -- a thcory of planning complex tasks. Speech
-- with a largely AI-based approach -- a theory of planning complex tasks. Spcech
act thcory providcs a framework in which linguistic activity is "just anothcr" kind
act theory provides a framework in which linguistic activity is "just another" kind
of human action. But as a kind of action, a spccch act must be planned, and it is
of human action. But as a kind of action, a speech act must be planned, and it is
thcn susccptible to explanation via a theory of planning. What Allcn docs is to
then susceptible to explanation via a theory of planning. What Allen docs is to

Berwick

34

show how a tilCory

planning can in
be uscd
used to infer
thcory of
ofpl;~nning
i n fact bc
infcr what
wliat plan or "action
scqucncc" a questioner
qucstioncr must have had in mind when
whcn a certain
ccrtain question
qucstioli was asked,
asked,
sequence"
knowlcdgc can be
bc exploited
cxploitcd to respond
rcspond appropriately
appropri;ltcly (it thus
and how that knowledge
subsumes
spccific case where
whcrc the
thc questioner's
qucstic~ncr's "plan" was to
suhsumcs Kaplan's more specific
discover
discovcr information about the
tllc existence
c~istcriccor properties
~propcrticsof certain
ccrtain objects).
objccts). Allen
Allcn
dcmonstratcs that
tllat his theory
thcory of planning behavior
bchavior is general
gcncral enough to handle
also demonstrates
spccch acts", that is, cases
cascs where
whcrc an intended
intcndcd meaning
mciining is not
so-callcd "indirect speech
so-called
transparcntly encoded
cilcodcd in the
thc surface
surfacc fonn
form of an utterance.
uttcrancc. For example.
cx;~rnplc.''I'm
"I'm
transp<lfcntly
mcall "Please
"l'lcasc close
closc the window." 'nlC
'11)~theory
thcory of purposive
purposivc behavior
bchdvior
cold" can mean
embraced
cmbr;~ccdby Allen's
Allcn's system
systcm is thus quite
quit? broad.
hruad. This
'I'his universality
onivcrsality in modeling
nodc cling
planning is bougl~t
Allcn's extensional
cxtclisional world of objects
objccts and thcir
bought at a price: AlIen's
rcstrictcd. In
I n fact. in
ill his implemented
i~nplcmcntcdsystem,
systcm, one
onc can only
propcrtics
properties is quite restricted.
board or meet
mcct trains.
bOJrd
Mc[)onald's work stands apart from
from Uic
othcr four efforts
cfforts in that it deals
dcals solely
McDonald's
u1e other
with the production
prtrduction of uttcrances
uttcranccs rather than
Uian the
thc recovery
rccovcry of communicative
(Kaplan and Allen's
Allcn's work incidcntally
incidclitally involves
intcnt given an uttcrancc. (Kaplan
constructing adequate
adcquatc natural Ianguagc
languagc rlllk:s in rcsponsc to natural languagc
language
constmcting
input, but this is not thcir chicf
cllicf conccrn.) That is, rathcr
rnthcr than starting with
cxtcrnal sentencc
scntcnce form.
filr~n.McDonald
Mcl)onald is in the
thc busincss of starting with an internal
eX.lcrnal
message
mcssage and gcnerating
gcncrating a corresponding external
cxtcrnal linguistic
li~lguisticfonn.
form. This dual effort
cffort
Icss important
irnportalit than that of the
thc other
othcr four contributors', since
sincc success
succcss of tile
tllc
is no less
cnlcrprisc of communitas
cnmmunit;~~
dcmands that the speaker
spcakcr adhere
adhcrc to the
chc discourse
discourse
cllterprise
clcarly demands
convcntions that thc listencr
cxpccting to usc to "decode"
"dccodc" the
thc speaker's
spc;~kcfsmessage.
mcssage.
listcncr is expccting
Like
Allen,
McDonald
assumes
that
the
ultimate
strtlcture
behind
a
"message"
I.ikc Allcn, Mcl)onald assumcs
thc ultimatc stnlcturc bchind
corresponds
corrcsponds to an action sequence.
scqucncc, a plan. This plan --- hierarchically structured
structurcd if
the
of many
thc plan is composed
comp~~scd
m;lny parts is mapped
mappcd onto surfilce
surfirc string of words in
two steps,
stcps. The
'Ihc first lays out u1e
die general
gcncral shape of the
thc utterance,as
ottcrance.as defined
dcfincd by an
annotated constituent structure
structurc tree
trcc --- the
thc arrangement
urrangcmcnt of Noun Phrases,
Plirascs. Verb
Phrases,
I'hrascs, and .the
.thc like
likc as per the general
gcncral dictates of a grammar and certain
ccnain
pragmatic constraints,
pragmatic
constraints. The
I h c second step
stcp is a grammatical
grammatical "polishing"
"polishing" operation
that actually produccs
produces the words to bc
be output, adds the finery
finery of grammatical
agreement,
agrccmcnt. and so forth.
forth. The
Thc resulting machine is quite
quitc efficient;
cfficicnt: we
wc shall sec
see just
cfficicnt bclow.
how efficient
below,
cffcct McDonald's program must rely on many of the sub-components
sub-components that
In effect
have gone
before, from
gonc bcforc,
from Webber's
Wcbbcr's to Men's,
Allcn's. It depends
dcpcnds on Webber's
Wcbbcr's logical fonn
form
to enumerate
possible things to talk about,
spacc of possiblc
about. on Sidncr's linking rules to
cnumcratc the space
whcn a pronoun or abbreviatory
abbrcviatory Noun Phrase
Phrasc may bc
uscd instead of a
say just when
be used
full
Noun
Phrase,
and
on
AlIen's
planning
theory
to
map
out,
at
the
thc highest level,
full
Allcn's
thcory
ordcr to achieve
achicvc certain
ccrtain conversational goals.
what has to be said in order
11,e
behavior explored
l l i c types of conventional discourse bchavior
cxplorcd in this volume are thus

--

35

quite broad
broad inin scope.
scope. The
'l'hc regularities
rcgul;~riIiesthat
tliat have
havc been
hccn probed
prohcd range
rangc from
from patterns
patterns
quite
in the
tlic usc
usc of
of "dbbrc\'iatory"
"dhbrcviatory" Noun
Noun Phrase
I'hrssc expressions
cxprcssions and
and pronouns
pronouns (Sidncr,
(Sidncr,
in
Wcbbcr), to
to helpful
hcll)ful responses
rcsponscs to
to questions
questions (Allen,
(Allen, Kaplan),
Kaplon), to
to the
thc production
production of
of
Webber),
utterances,
uttcranccs, given
givcn an
an intended
intcndcd communicative
co~nmunicalivc"message"
"mcssagc" (McDonald).1
( ~ c l ) o n a l d ) . l 'n,e
llie
constraints exploited
cxploitcd by
by the
thc contributors
contributors also
also run
run d,e
thc gamut
gamut of
of linguistic
linguistic and
and
constraints
rcgul;~rilics. They
non-linguistic regularities.
include dlC
dic purely
purcly syntactic
synt:tctic (such
(such as
as the
the
'l'hcy include
non'linguistie
knowlcdgc that
that inin d,e
Ulc sentence
scntcncc Bill
llill wants
w:~nt?him
l1i1tiill
111 leave,
lcavc. Bill
I3il1 and
and him cannot
cannot be
be
knowledge
co-rcfcrcntial): semamic
scrnatltic (such
(such as
:IS d,e
thc knowledge
knowlcdgc that
that the
thc verb
vcrb giy
& h a has
s aa kind
kind of
of
eo-referemial);
"argumcnt stnlcturc"
stn~cturc"that
that requires
rcquircs aa giver,
givcr, aa givec.
givcc, and
and object
objcct to
to be
b e given);
givcn):
"argument
pragtnatic (knowledge
(knonlcdgc that
tliat has
h;~sto
to do
d o with
with the
thc context
contcxt of
of the
thc utterance,
uttcrancc. such
such as
as the
the
pragmatic
knowlcdgc
that
whcn
I
ask
thc
qucstion,
"Wlicn
d
m
s
the
train
to
New
York
knowledge that when I ask the question, "When docs the train to New York
prcsumc the
tlic existence
cxistcncc of
of aa train
train to
to New
New York,
York, because
bccausc otherwise
othcrwisc II would
would
lcavc?" II presume
leave?"
alrcady know
know d,e
dic answer
ans\\,cr to
to my
my question);
qucstion): and
and inferential
infcrcntial (such
(such as
as dlC
Ute simple
simple
already
inrcrcncc that
that ifif II kll(lw
kl~owth~lt
di:~tA
A wants
wants some
somc action
ilction K
X to111occur,
occur, then
then 1\A wants
wan& the
the
inference
preconditions of
of that
that act
act to
to obtJin.
obtain. or
o r more
tnorc complex
ct~mplcxinferences
itifcrcnccs grounded
groundcd upon
upon
preconditions
morc highly
Iiiphly structured
structurcd bundles
bundles of
of information,
informolion, like
like aa causally
causally structured
structured ;lelian
action
more
scqtlcncc plan for
for boarding aa train),
train).
sequence
clcar by now
now that this
d ~ i svicw
vicw of
of discourse
d i r o u n c as
as communicative
communicative
should be
bc clear
ItIt should
bchavior calls
calls for
for aa theory
thcory compounded
compounded of
o f two
two parts: d,e
thc first
first aa dlCory
Uicory of
o f what
what isis
behavior
sharcd ..-- messages
lncssagcs or
o r menwi
mcntal stuff;
stoff; the
thc second
sccond aa theory
thcory of
o f how
& that stuff
stuff comes
comes to
to
shared
sharcd. A study
study of
of whal
nhar the
thc regularities
rcgularitics of
of discourse
d i r o u r s c are
arc is,
is, of
o f course,
coursc, part of
of
bc shared.
be
thc domoin
domain of
of many
many other
other fields"
ficlds -- psychology,
psychology, sociology,
sociology. among
among others.
others. What
the
distingt~islicsthe contributions oFthis
of this volume
volumc From
from these
thcsc more traditional ways
ways of
dislinguishes
vicwing d,e
thc subject
subjcct (since
(sincc 011
all these fields
ficlds also,
also, by and large,
largc. adopt something
something like a
viewing
bchavior view
vicw of discourse). isis that they
thcy study the problem of
communicative behavior
diroursc from
from the stmdpoint
sondpoint of comptlt.1tion.
comwt~l?tion. Part of this commitment
commiment to
discourse
co~nputationlies
lics of
o f course in the very fact
fact that the authors all
all
explanation via computation
from
actually carry out the mapping from
construct working computer programs that actually
uttcrancc to
to internal
intcrnal fortn
form or
o r its
its reverse. More broadly, dlOugh,
though, the contributors
utterance

1. All the
!he contributors
contributors do
doadd
impohlnt qualification
qualificationto
lo the "naturalness"
"naturalness" of the
Lhe input that
Ulat isir; the
Ule
1.
add one important
a%~umcdstarting
slaning point
poinl for
far analysis:
analysis: the
!hc actual
actual input to
l o the
Ulc programs
programs is in orthographic
onhagraphie form.
form,and
and thus
lhus
a<;sumed
omis such
smch possibly important
imponant characteristics
characlcrirlia of
of the
thc speech
spccch stream
aream as
as StrN,
Srm, intonational
intonational contour,
mntour.
omits
pauses, and the like,
like. as
as well
wcll as
as those
those obviously "non-verbal"
"non-verbal" concomitanL~
concomibnu of communication
communication like
pauses,
geslurcs. This
Ihis is the
!he usual qualification
qualification made in computational
compula1ional research of
ol this
!his kind, and itif deserves
dnerves
gestures.
abslraclingaway
away from
from these
these well
well known
known properties
propcniesof
olcommunicative
behavior, itit
rome comment
commcnL In abstracting
some
communicative behavior.
imDoMnl to
lo keep
kcen in mind
mind whether
ahcthcr potential
~olmtialgcneralil.3tions
rcneraliwlions will be lost
losL Some
Some of
o fthese
h w features
fcalures of
isis important
speech _.--such
as fundamental
findamcnlal frequency
lrcqucn;y contour
contour(Ule
"pilch level"
lcvel" of
o l the
h c voice)
voice) and contrastive
conwive
speech
such as
(the basic "pilch
strm -- could
a u l d be
be accommodated into
inlo the
thc research
mcarch presented
presented in this
Ulis book.
book. In panicular.
panicular, itit will be
be
slrcss
how contrastive
contrastive stress
stress might
mighl be
be factored
bctorcd into
into the
the approach
approach that
h t Sidner
Sidncr takes
lake; 10
lo the
Ule resolution
resolution of
shown how
delinile anaphors.
anaphorr.
definite

Berwick

36

to this book arc conccrncd with & it is Ular what thc spcakcr has in mind comcs
to this book arc concerned with how it is that what the speaker has in mind comes
to hc rcconstructcd by thc hcarcr, in short, with t l ~ csrt~dyof (mcntal) prtrcsscs.
to he reconstructed by the hearer, in shan, with the study of (mental) processes.
Implicit in this idcntificiition of computation with rncntal p r t ~ c s sis a key
Implicit in this identification of compUli.ltion with mental process is a key
assumption of A1 rcscarch with rcspcct to thc study of discoursc bcl~avior,an
assumption of AI research with respect to the study of discourse behavior, an
assumplion that thc livc autllors all ti~kcfor grantcd, and onc that in fact providcs
assumption that the five authors all take for granted, and one that in fact provides
thc conlcrstonc for tlicir rcscarch and almost all cogniiivcly-oricntcd Al work
the cornerstone for their research and almost all cognitivcly-oriellted AI work
con,t>utational, whcrc
gcncrally. 'I'his is thc assumption that mcnt:~lprwcsscs
generally. This is the assumption that mental processes are computational, where
by co~npolation;~l
onc may takc Ibdor's dcliniticrn of co~npu~rticln:
o~crations
by computational one may take Fodor's definition of compu!<ltion: operations
dcfincd o \ c r (mcnti~l)rc~~rcscntations..
[Fodor 19751 Co~nputationalproccsscs are
defined-o\cr (ment,il) representations.. [Fodor 1975) Computational processes are
to bc distinguished fi~rthcrin that tlicir intcractions with rcprcscntations arc
to be distinguished further in that their interactions with representations arc
purcly firrrnal. '1'h;lt is, it is thc strrlclurc of a rcprcscntatiou tll;~tdictatcs the
purely funnal. That is, it is the stnlcllire of a representation that dictates the
coursc of a computation, and not its contents; a rcprcscnlation must wear its
course of a computation, and nut its contents; a representation must wear its
computational propcrtics 'on its slceve.'
computational properties 'on its sleeve.'
A onc-line surnmilry of what thc co~~tl-ibutors
to this volumc arc after cnds up
A one-line summary of what the contributors to this volume arc after ends up
sounding very mucli likc the goal of rnodcrn gcnerativc gcirnmar: rules and
sounding very much like the goal of modern generative grammar: rules and
rcprcscntations. Howcvcr, thcrc is a crucial diffcrcncc. As rncntioncd, since the
representations. However, there is a crucial difference. As mentioned, since lhe
con~ributorsto his vdlumc subscribe to tlic A1 work cthic, thcy aim to do more
contributors to this volume subscribe to the AI work ethic, they aim to do more
than si~nplycharactcrizc thc mapping bctwccil rcprcscntational lcvcls as some sort
than simply characterize lhe mapping between representational levels as some sort
of fi~nction,they aim to charactcrizc it as a c o m ~ u t l h l cfi~nctioq,prcfcrably, an
o~ function, they aim to characterize it as a computable function, preferably, an
cfficicntly computable function. 'lhis addcd cornputaticmal dcrnand is the real
efficiently computable function. This addcd computational demand is lhe real
spicc of A l rcscarch. and is what distiuguishcs tlic rcscarch described in this
spice of AI research, and is what distinguishes the research described in this
volumc from more standard approaches.
volume from more standard approaches.
From a pl~ilosophical point of vicw, the incorporation of a computational
From a philosophical point of view, the incorporation of a computational
vicwpoint into thc study of discoursc appcars to havc had two substantial bcncfits.
viewpoint into the study of discourse appears to have had two substantial benefits.
1-irst. ibr whatc\.cr reasons, thinking hard about computational issucs has Icd some
First. for whate\'er reasons, thinking hard about computational issues has led some
of the A1 rcscarch in this volurnc to actually anticipate certain dcvclop~ncntsin
of the 1\1 research in this volume to actually anticipate certain developments in
linguistic thcory and philosophy. Sccond, thc co~nputi~tional
vicw as cspoused in
linguistic theory and philosophy. Second, the comput.ltional view as espoused in
this volume leads dircctly to a morc nodular explanation of linguistic bchavior.
this volume leads directly to a more modular explanation of linguistic behavior.
lly "modular" I rncan that part of obscrvcd surfacc bchavior -- in this case,
By "modular" I mean that part of observed surface behavior -- in this case,
discoursc bchavior -- is to be accouiltcd for by thc intcraction of two componcnts.
discourse behavior -- is to be accounted for by the interaction of two components,
one bascd on the pure form of internal, mcntal rcprcscntations, and thc other
one based on the pure form of internal, mental representations, and thc other
bascd on cornpittations dcfincd ovcr thosc rcprcscntations. Of coursc, as any
based on computations defined over those representations. Of course, as any
compi~tcrscientist would point out. rcprcscntationnl and computational dcmands
computer scientist would point out. representational and computational demands,
data stnrcturcs and i~lgorithmiccornplcxity, arc intirnatcly rclatcd. 'Ihc prcsurned
data structures and algorithmic complexity, arc intimately related. The presumed
advantage o f a modular account is that it allows onc to factor out and state
advantage of a modular account is that it allows one to factor out and state
constraints for cach module scparatcly, with h e intcraction bctwcen ComponenD
constraints for each module separately, with lhe interaction between components
giving risc t o thc superficially cornplcx surface bchavior. In short, at lcast for the
giving rise tf} the superficially complex surface behavior. In short, at least for the
studics prcscntcd in this volume, thc introduction o f thc additional dcrnand of
studies presented in this volume. the introduction of the additional demand of
computability providcs an additional sourcc of cxplnnatory constraint that can be
computability provides an additional source of explanatory constraint that can be
mined.
mined.

37

I n summary thcn, thc compulritionalist has two uniquc contributions to makc

In summary then. the compu~ltionalist has two unique contributions to make
lo thc study of language: (1) all itdditional sourcc of col~straint,co~nputnbility,
to the study of language: (l) all additional source of constraint. computability.
with which to cxpliiin linguistic behavior; (2) an cxplicit conccrn with partitioning
with which to explain linguistic behavior; (2) an explicit concern with partitioning
cxplallations of lingi~istic bchavior into rcprcscntational and compu~~tional
explanations of linguistic behavior into representational and computational
cornponcnts.
components.
With this compulation;il \.icwpoint in mind, Icr us takc a morc dctailcd tour of
With this computational \"iewpoint in mind. let us take a more detailed tour of
how thc contributors to this volunlc fit into thc di5coursc diagram and what
how the contributors to this volullle fit into tile discourse diagram and what
discourse rcgularitics Ihcy attclnpt 10 cxplclin, placing spccial cniphasis on what
discourse regularities tlley attempt to explain, placing special emphasis on what
sccms at stake from a computational point of vicw.
seems at stJke from a computiltional point of view.
1.2 'l'hc Syntax of 1)iscoursc: \Ycbl~cri~ndSidncr
1.2 The Syntax of Discourse: Webber alld Sidoer
1.2.1 Crcirting and lirtking discoi~rscclititlcs
1.2.1 Creating and linking discourse entitles
It is a familiar intuition that spccch or writtcll tcxt "hangs together" in part
It is a familiar intuition that speech or written text "hangs together" in part
bccausc pcoplc cc~nuention:illy usc pronouns or abhrcviatory Noun Phrascs for
because people convcntionally use pronouns or abhreviatory Noun Phrases for
previously rncnlioncd Noun Phrascs. I'or instance, in thc scntcncc bclow, & is
previously menlioned Noun Phrases. For instance. in the sentcnce below.
is
takcn to stand for thc Scnators: die Scnators is said to bc thc Noun Phrasc
taken to stand for the Sen;Hors; the Senators is said to be the Noun Phrase
antcccdcnt of the pronoun &:
anteced"ent or the pronoun they:

(1) S ~ C ~ I:I ~I Iicilrd

C J thc two Scnators arguc yesterday.
(l) Speaker]:
I heard
the two
yesterday.ovcr cxtcnding
2: Ycs,
thcySenators
wcrc inargue
disagrccnlcnt
Spcakcr

Speaker
2: Yes.
tlley Act.
were in disagreement over extending
thc Voting
I<ights
the Voting Rights Act.

7lic pn)blcm to bc invcstigatcd hcrc can bc illustrated by a simple example

problem to bc invcstigated here can be illustrated by a simple example
that Wcbbcr suggests. Shc obscrvcs that thc same lircral tcxt string fivc dollars
tIlat Webber suggests. She observes Ulat the same lilCral text string .tlY.c. !ll2lJ.Ms
con bc rcfcrrcd 'to anaphorically by cithcr the singular pronoun it or thc plural
call be referred to anaphorically by either the singular pronoun i! or tile plural
pronoun
pronoun them:
'J11C

m:

(2a) I gavc llill fivc dollars...It was morc than I gavc Dill
(2a) I gave
fiveI3ill
dollars
1t was...
more
Ulan
I gave
(2b) Bill
1 gavc
fivc dollars
Onc of
them
wasDiU
torn.
(2b) I gave Bill five dollars One of them was torn.
Ilicre arc actually two scparatc puulcs to solvc hcrc. Onc is simply to figure
'J11ere arc actually two separate puzzles to solve here. One is simply to figure
out that fivc dollars can havc two diffcrcnl "mcanings", cithcr as a collcctivc entity
out that five dollars can have two different "meanings", eitller as a collective entity
or as a set of singlctons. Ihc othcr is to dctcr~ninch a t it can bc linked to the
or as a set of singletons. The other is to determine that i! can be linked to the
collcctivc cnlity, and them to thc singlctons, and not vicc-vcrsa. 'I'he solution to
collective entity, and them to the singletons. and not vice-versa. 'Inc solution to
thc first problcm is rcprescntational in character. ' n c aim is to dcvclop a
the first problem is representational in character. The aim is to develop a
languagc that can cxpress the spacc of possihlc logical rcprcscntations for the
language that can express tile space of possible logical representations for the
discoursc cntitics implicit in a givcn litcral tcxt string. In Ihc five dollar$ example,
discourse entities implicit in a given literal text string. In the five dollars example,
thcrc would bc two possiblc logical translations of thc tcxt: a collective rcading
tIlere would be two possible logical translations of tile text: a collective reading
and an individuativc rcading, corresponding to fivc dollars considcrcd as a single
and an individuative reading, corresponding to five dollars considered as a single

38

Berwick

cntity and f i x dollars considcrcd as a collcc~ionof fivc singlc bills. Onc must also
entity and fhe dollars considered as a collection of five single bills. One must also
supply a set of & h a t say cxactly how litcral strings arc to bc translatcd into this
supply a set of rules that say exactly how literal strings are to be translated into this
language. 'Ihis is the problc~nthat Wcbhcr scts out to solvc, and it is csscntially a
language. 'Illis is the problem that Webber sets out to solve, and it is essentially a
qucstion allout thc propcr rcprcscntation of tllc syntax of logical form.
question about the proper representation of the syntax of logical form.
Thc sccc~ndpu~.,.dcis lnorc compu~ationalin character: with the possiblc array
The second puzzle is more computational in character: with the possible array
o f discoursc cntitics in hand, what arc tllc rulcs that tcll us which onc (or morc) of
of discourse entities in hand. what arc tile rules that tell us which olle (or more) of
thcsc possibilities is ac1u;rlly linkcd lo su1)scqucnt pronouns and Noun Phrascs
these possibilities is actually linked to subsequent pronouns and Noun Phrases
that appear latcr in thc tcxt or discoursc? 'Ihc solurion tc) Ihis problcm is Sidncr's
that iJppear later in the text or discourse? 'Ille solution to tilis problem is Sidner's
work.
work.
Sctting out to solve thcsc problctns is extraordinarily an~bitious, in that
Setting out to solve these problems is extraordinarily ambitious, in that
Wcbbcr and Sidncr aim to do for discou~scwhat rcccnl ling~iisticthcory has
Webber and Sidner aim to do for discourse what recent linguistic theory ha~
accomp~ishcdonly for singlc scntcnccs. For singlc scntcnccs thcrc arc various
accomplished only for single sentences, For single sentences therc arc various
analogues of cxamplcs likc (1) abouc. For cxamplc, thc reciprocal anaphor
analogues of examples like (1) abovc, For cxample, the reciprocal anaphor each
other
can bc uscd as an cxprcssion that dcsignatcs a Noun Phrasc that has
other can be used as an expression that designates a Noun Phrase that has
prcvio~tsly appcarcd:
previously appeared:
(3)'Thc lncn sccm to likc cach o!her. (cncli othcr = the men)
(3) The mcn scem to like each o~her. (each other;; the men)
This kind of relationship is capturcd in scvcral currcnl linguistic thcorics by
This kind of relationship is captured in several current linguistic theories by
tlrc notational dcvice of ro-indexing.' In tllc cxamplc abovc. onc could rcprescnt
tire notational device of en-indexing.] In tile example above, one could represent
co-dcsignation by thc simplc dcvice of subscripling the NP thc mcn and the
co-designation by tile simple device of subscripting the NP tile men and the
rcciprt~aleach othcr with thc samc index:
reciprocal each other with the same index:
(4) [nlc rn~n],,,~sccm to likc [each otherIi.
(4) [rhe men]NP. seem to like [each other]..
I

Onc may disagree about whcthcr co-indexing is thc right sort of notational
One may disagree about whether co-indexing is the right sort of notational
machincry with which to cxprcss the indisputable fact that a tcxt "hangs together."
machinery with which to express the indispulablc fact that a text "hangs together."
n u t whatcvcr machinery one chooscs, what is crucial from a linguistic and a
nut whatever machinery one chooses, what is crucial from a linguistic and a
computational point of view is that "binding rclationships" arc apparcntly subject
computational point of view is that "binding rclationships" are apparently subject
to svnlactic constraints:
to syntactic constraints:

(5) Ihtry womani thinks that the man shei married

(5) Every woman i tllinks tIlat tile man shcj married
is wondcrful.
is wonderful.

1. Sce, for cxample, thc Govcrnmcnt-Bindinglheory [Chomsky 19811: Lhc lrxical-I:unclional theory
1. Sec, [Kaplan
for example.
the Government-Binding
theory [Chomsky 1981]: the l.cxical-Funclional theory
and Rranan
19811.
(Kaplan and Bresnan 1981].

39

1-or instance, whcthcr cach orhcr can dcsignatc onc and thc srimc entity as ~ h men
c
For instance, whcther each othcr can designate one and the same elltity as ~ ~
dcpcnds in part on thc puccl! configuratinnal aspects of scntcnccs. [;or cxarnplc, a
depends in part Oil the purc1) configurational aspects of sentences. For example. a
lcxical Subjcct of a11cmbcddcd clausc sccms ttr block binding bctwccn cach c~thcr
lexical Subject of an embedded clause seems tu block binding between each other
and a possiblc Noun l'hrasc nntcccdcnt:
and a pussible Noun Phrase antecedent:
(6) 'lhc rncn want Jolln to likc cach other.
(6) *The men want John to like each other.
-- thc so-callcd Spccificd Subjcct constraint

[Chomsky 19731. Sitnilarly, if the

-- the 50-called Specified Subject constraint [Chomsky 1913]. Similarly, if the

quantifier cvcrv docs not conslit~~cnt
co11irn;ind (c-command) a pronoun, then the
qu,mli/ier every dues nol C(ln~lilllcnt command (c-command) a pronoun, then the
tho arc not natur,~llyin~crprctablcasco-indcxcd [t ligginl)o~l~am
19801:~
tv,u arc not naturally interpretable as co-indexed [II igginholham 1980]: 1

(7) 'l'hc wolnrln ovclithcrc who likcs [cvcry manji in thc room
(7) *Thc wom<ln oyeretherc who likes [eyery m,m]i in the room
thinks [tliat [hcl] is too rich]. (every man =he)
thinks [that [he,] is too rich]. (every man =he)

S
~
NP
,. . . vP-..........
thinks
~
V"
S

iCWOilliiri

I:::-:----....

S thinks
hc 1s too rlch
Swho Iikcs cvcrv man
he is too rich
who likes everv man

Contrary to first imprcssiotls Uicn. it is nor just tllc mcaning of a sclltcncc that
Contrary to first impressions then, it is not just the meaning of a sentence that
dctcnnirlcs what can hang togcthcr ~ i t hwhat ((hough his is ccrtninly yct anothcr
dc!ennines what can hang together \lith whal (though this is certainly yet another
dimcn%ionof thc problcm). Further, whatcvcr the intcrprcratiun of this array of
dimension of the problem). Further, whatever the interpretation of this array of
facts -- and thcrc is substantial disputc about thc fi~l-mulationof principlcs like
facts .. and there is substantial dispute about the fOl1nulalion of principles like
constituent command -- one point is clcar: to thc cxtcnt that one can make
constituent comm<lnd .. one point is clear: lo the extent that one can make
binding conslraints like Ihc Spccificd Subjcct and c-comrndnd prccisc. one can
binding constraints like the Specified Subject and c-command precise, one can
rcplacc vaguc intuitions about "tcxt cohesion" with justifiablc principlcs, a me
replace vague intuitions about "text cohesion" with justifiable principles, a true
thcory of binding2
theory ofbinding. 2
A constrained thcory of binding also offcrs substatltial colnputational bonuses.
A constrained theory of binding also offers substantial computational bonuses.
For instance, as obscrvcd in [Bcrwick and Wexlcr 19821, the c-command
For instance, as observed in [Berwick and Wexler 19&2], the c'command

!. For our purposes hcrc, a phrase a conslirucnt commands anolher phrase P iT he first branching
1. For our
purposes
here. a phrase
a con~ti!Uent
P if the
first branching
category
that dorninaws
a dominala
,8. Scecommands
[Kcinhari another
19761 lorphrase
Ihe original
rormulation.
~tegory 2.
thatComparc,
dominates
domjnatc.~1 lalliday's
fl. See (Reinhart
1976] accou~ir
Cor the original
TorQ examplc,
unconsrraincd
(cilcd byformulation.
Wcbbcr) of how cohcsivenm in
2. Compare,
account substitu~inn
(cited by Webber)
of how cohesiveness
a textforis example,
oblaincdllalliday's
lhrough unconstrained
"rvord substitution":
is "specilicd
through the inuse of a
a tcxt isgrarnrndl~cal
obtained Ihrough
"word ~ubsLitution":
is "sllccified
through
Ihe use
signal indicating
lhat i r i s lo bcsubstitulion
rccovcrcd from
what has gone
beforc."
Ihisof
justa mlates
grammatical
signal indicating
it i~ toand
be recovered
fromphrases
what has
before." for
lhis
just rcslates
the observation
lhat that
pronouns
abbrevialory
aregone
subslitutcd
previously
mentioned
the obscrvation
that Itpronouns
and abbreviator)'
are substituted for prcviously mentioned
expressions.
is a dcscrintion
of what is lophrases
beexplained
expressions. It is a description of what is to be explained.

Bcrwick
Berwick

40

40

constraint cuts down thc computation Ulat tnust bc donc in co-indcxing

constraint cuts down the computation U1at must be done in co-indexing
cxprcssions with antcccdcnts (at lcast as formulated within a parsing framework
expressions with antecedents (at least as filftllulated within a parsing framework
likc that of [Marcus 19801); in thc bcst casc, it rcduccs the "scarch space" of
like that of [Marcus 1980)); in the hest case, it reduces the "search spacc" of
possiblc anlcccdcnts by an cxpuncntial fi~1or.l 'Illis is, of coursc. a familiar lesson
possible antecedents by an exponential faclor. 1 '01is is, ofcourse, a f<lmiliarlcsson
in artificial intclligcncc rcscarch: by imposing appropriatc constraints, onc can
in artificial intelligence research: by imposing appropriate constraints, one can
clilninate tlic nccd for blind, cu~nbinatorial scarch. In short, thc study of
eliminate the need for blind, combinatorial search. In short, the study of
rcgi~laritics in binding relationships within singlc scnrcnccs has Icd to thc
regularities in binding relationships within single sentences has led to the
discovery of a sct of rcprcscntational constraints. and thcsc constraints can
discovery of a set of representational constraints, and these constraints can
appi~rcntlybc cxploitcd hy computational modcls. '1-0 thc cxtcnt h a t such
apparelltlybe exploitcd by computational models. To the extent that sllch
constraints account ror all array or linguistic f:cts and can bc naturally
constraints account for an array of linguistic facts and can be naturally
incorporated into parsing and gcncration modcls. wc advancc towards thc goals of
incorporated into parsing and generation models. we advance towards the goals of
cllaractcri~ingwhilt knowlcdgc o f language is and how that kuowlcdgc is put to
characterizing what knowledge of language is and how that knowledge is put to
USC.
usc.
Now. this analysis is ob\ iously just a start. So far, all wc havc said is ihat thcrc
Now, this analysis is obviously just a start. So far, all we have said is that there
sccrn to bc two sorts of linguistic plicnomcna. thosc that obcy some sort of
seem to be two sorts of linguistic phenomena, those that obey some sort of
constraints (and hcncc that onc might say wc ~)arliallyunderstand) and those that
constraints (and hence that one might say we partially understand) and those that
do not (and hcncc rcmaill mysrcries).
Kclabcling the lnystcrics as
do not (and hence remain mysteries).
Relabeling the mysteries as
"context-dcpcndcnt" or "part of discoursc" hclps not at all. What is nccdcd, as
"context-dependent" or "part of discourse" helps not at all. What is needed, as
[Willialns 19771obscrvcs,
[Williams 19771 observes,
is a carcfi~l articu1:ttion of thc discourse component of
is a careful
of thewhat
discourse
of
grammar,articulation
on a par with
has bccncomponent
donc for Scntcnce
grammar,
on
a par with what has been done for Sentence
Gr;lmmar. I f it is a tlicorctically valid entity, thcn it will be
a theoretically
then it will
be
Grammar.
If itto isformulate
possiblc
it as a valid
sct of entity,
rulcs govcrncd
by gcncrally
possible
to
formulate
it
as
a set of rules governed by generally
valid laws. It is nnt Iikcly. in my opinion, that cvcrytlling that
valid laws.
It is namcd
not likely.
in my
that everything
thatwill be
has bccn
undcr
the opinion,
tcrm "discoursc
grammar"
has been
named
under
the
term
"discourse
grammar"
will
cxplaincd by a singlc coherent thcory; morcbc Jikcly,
explained
by a single coherent theory; more likely,
explanations will follow from the interaction of a number of
explanations
follow from the interaction of a number of
distinctwill
theorics.
distinct theories.
[I977page 1381
(1977 page 138]
In Williams' schc~nc,rulcs likc cach othcr intcrpretadon and ccrtain cases of
In Williams' scheme, rules like ~ Q1hcr interpretation and certain cases of
quantificr indcxing apply at a lcvcl of syntactic suucturc, within individual
quantifier indexing apply at a level of syntactic structure, within individual
scnrcnccs; rhcy output a Icvel of reprcscntation looscly called logical form (LF).
senlences; they output a level of representation loosely called logical fonn (LF).
In contrast, thc rules that interpret
thc othcrs, or
(to citc an cxarnple
In contrast, the rules that interpret they, the others, or ones (to cite an example
that Wcbbcr is conccrncd with) apply & the rulcs of scntcncc grammar.
that Webber is concerned with) apply after the rules ofsenlence grammar.

m,

1. To see this, notc that in the casc of a full blnary tree with n leaves and with a pronoun on Ihe
1. To sec
this, notc
that ina bthe
of a nodcz
full binary
trce
!l leaves
with a pronoun
on ccornmand
the
righvmost
branch,
wg
~case
intcrior
have to
bewith
examined
for and
co-indcxing
without the
rightmost branch, about!l interior nodes have to be examined for co-indexing without the c-command
condition, b u ~
only about log n nodes w i ~ hthe c-command condition.

condition, but only about log n nodes with the c-command condition.

41

What cvidcnce is thcrc that lhcrc arc rulcs ihat opcratc on logical rather Khan
What evidence is there that there are rules that operate on logical rather than
syntactic forms? Considcr an cxamplc that [Willianls 19771offers:
syntactic forms? Consider an example that [Williams 1977] offers:
(8) Spcakcr 1: Bob lcfl.
Spcakcr 2: ]%illwill, too.
Speaker 2: Bill will, too.

(8) Speaker 1; Bob left.

I h c second scntcncc has a missing Vcrb Pllrasc that is. intuitively, supplicd by
The second sentence has a missing Verb Phrase that is, intuitively, supplied by
h c first scntcncc:
the first sentence:
(9) 51: Bob
[lcftIVp
(9) 51: nob
[left]\IP
S2: I3ill will [cmptylyptoo
S2: Bill will [empty]vp too

As Williains obscrvcs howcvcr, it cannot bc that thc V1) of the sccund scntence
As Williams observes however, it cannot be that the VP of tile second sentence
is rcconstructcd by mpying (or co-indexing) thc svntactic VP of the first scntcnce,
is reconstructed by copying (or co-indexing) the syntactic VP of the first sentence,
since thc rcsult is ill-formcd:
since the resuIL is ill-formed:
(10)51: Bob

[left]\IP.'
I

S2: Ilill will

[ c ~ n p t y ]too.
~,
S2: Bill will
[empty]\IP. too.
I

*Bill will left too.

*llill will1cft too.

In contrast, copying makes scnsc if it is somc part of the l[>cicalfunn that is

In contrast, copying makes sense if it is some part of the logical fonn that is
copicd or co-indcxcd. Thus thcrc are actual data that support Wcbbcr's insight
copied or co-indexed. Thus there are actual data that support Webber's insight
that thc anaphoric rclationsl~ipbctwccn pronouns and Nl"s cannot be awounted
that the anaphoric relationship between pronouns and NP's cannot be aocounted
for just by copying surface or text strings.
for just by copying surface or text strings.
Adopting Williams' proposal about thc rcprcscntation of tcnse in logical form
Adopting Williams' propo5.:11 about the representation of tense in logical fonn
(open to disputc, but not at issuc here), one would have thc following:'
(open to dispute, but not at issue here), one would have the following: l

1. In more derail. Williams proposes lhatm!g& has roughly Ihe foltowing LFstrucrurc:
1. In more detail, Williams proposes thai BilIlefl has roughly the following LF struClure:
(11) b'ast (Bill)Np [ h ( x hve)lVpIS
(11) P'asl (Bill)NI' [;l.x(x lcave}]yp]S
While one may conceivably mpy (or co-index) any pan of lhis formula to Ihc "cmpty" position in &&
While one may conceivably copy (or co-index) any part of this formula 10 the -empty" position in ~
will &g, only copying h e VP in squarc brackets rcsults in a well-formed LF.
will !QQ. only copying the VP in square brackets results in a well-formed LF.

Berwick

42

S1: [Bob
[Hob
(12) Sl:

[ I ~ f t ] (level
(lcvcl
~ ~ ] of
ofsyntactic
[Ieftlvpl
syntactic rcprcscntation)
representation)

(---Rule
tense interpretation
<---Ruleof tcnsc
[Past [Bob
[Ilob [leavelvp
[ I c a v ~(level
(lcvcl
] ~ ~ of logical
form)
[past
logical form)

SZ:
S2:

(---Rulc
<---RuleofVP
of VP co-indexing
co-indexing
[Futllrc [Bill
[Ili:l [emptylvl'.
[c~npty]~,,;
too]
(ICVCI of logical
logical fonn)
[Future
tool (level

Ihis example
cxample also points oot
out thc
similarity of this approach to
111is
the striking similarity
Webber's and Sidner's
tense is rcprcscntcd
represented at the
Wcbber's
Sidncr's work: figuring
liguring out how how tcnsc
level of LF
ti,e kind of Cjtlestion
Webbersecks
while the rule
1.F is just Uic
qlcstion that Wcbbcr
sccks to answer, nhilc
lcvcl
(or copying)
copying) is just the sort of rule
rulc that
th;~t Sid
Sidncr
of VP.
VP, co-indexing (or
ncr wants to
formulate. In the
thc rcmaindcr
section, wc
scc in morc
dctail just how
fonnulate.
remainder of this section,
we shall sec
more detail
close tl~csc
ti,ese approaches arc. in
particular, one can show tllat
ti1at Webber's
closc
In particular,
Wcbber's
rcprcscnlationallanguJge
with recent
rcccnt proposals for the structure of
rcprcscntational language is compatible wilh
1.LF,
1:. and Ulat
Wcbbcr's account of Q!lj;
g~ "naphora
nnaphora is simply another
anothcr Discourse
ti1al Webber's
Grammar "rule
construal", just like
VI' copying rulc.
rule, importantly,
"rulc of constru;~l",
likc the
thc VI'
Importantly, one key
finding that
Ulat Williams' approach
;~ppro;shdocs a
subsunic is Sidncr's observation that the
not subsume
co-indexing
rules for pronoun intcrprctation
interpretation appear
crrindcxing rulcs
appcar to follow push-down stack
diaiplinc: as we will sec,
scc, this is thc
allaloguc of the Specified
Spccificd
discipline:
the 1)iaoursc
Discourse Grammar analogue
Subject
Subjcct condition. If Sidncr's theory
U~coryis correct.
corrcct. then the
tlie rules
mlcs of Discourse
Discourse
constrsincd in a;I computationally
camputarionally advantageous fashion,
Grammar arc constrained
fashion, just as the
rules of Sentence
rulcs
Scntcncc Grammar seem
sccm to be.

1.2.2
1.2.2 Creating
Cre~tingdiscourse
discoursc entities:
cntitics: Webber
\Vebbcr
Wcbber's
go;~l.thcn,
logical precondition
prccondition to Sidncr's
Sidncis work. Discourse
Discourse
Webber's research goal,
then, is a logical
co-indexing involves
co-indexing at the
lcvcl of LF;
1.F: therefore.
co-indexing
involves co-indexing
ti,e rcprcscntational
rcpresentationalleve!
therefore,
befure
discourse entities
cntitics arc linked.
linked, onc
before onc
one can know which discourse
one must know what the
single sentences, one set of
space of candidate indcxable
indexable entities is.
is. In the case of single
corrcsponds to phrases that can be displaced according
according
possible index.ble
indcxablc objects corresponds
to a transformational
transformational movement rule:

(13) The
l h c officer arrested John(13)
John~

[ J ~ h n ] ~wasarrcstcd
, , ~arrested [empty
[cmpty Ii], by the officer,
oficer.
. [John]NI'.
was

For Webher,
Wcbber, thc
analogue of this task is thc
formulation of an LF
the analogue
the proper formulation
syntax for Noun Phrases,
Phrases, or, as shc
she pull
puts it, th?
th~ "combinatoric
"combinatoric representation" of

text. Here we may take "naturally evoke"

Noun Phrases "naturally evoked"
cvokcd by a text

43

to bc a gloss for an <IF,domain of individt~;~ls>

pairi~~g
-- tllilt is, c3ch 1.F
to be a gloss for all <I.F, domain of illdh'idlla]s) pairing .- that is, each LF
cxprcssion ctrrrcspouding to a11input string is paired with ~ h csct of individuals
expression cnrrl'!-:ponding to <III input string is paired with the set of individuals
tliat it cot~lddc~~otc.
Wci)bc~.'siv~>i.k~ ~ I Y O I spccilling
~S
tllcsc thrcc ccllnl!oncnts:
that it could denote. Webber's work involves specifying these three cllmponents:
tlic I.'i: lang~~:tgc,tllc do~t~ains
oF individuals, ;111d thc pairing fi~ncijun. A kcy
Ole I.F language. the d01llains 01" individuals, and the piliring fhnction. A key
point of rllc work is that thc ~n;ipping bctwcerl 11.: caprcssions and sets or
poim of the work is that the mapping hetween LF expressions and sets of
indi\iduals is s h~nction,not a rclatior~. '17icrcforc, 3ltcrnativc "~ncmings"
individuals is it function, not a relation. Therefore, allerniltive "meanings"
dcri\.cd fr111niI singlc input string. slrch its t l ~ calicrnativc collcutivc/inclividi~i~tive
dcri\ed from a single input string. such as the alternative collective/individll<ltive
readings of. "'Il\rcc boys [cnch/togcthcr] aLc a pizza," cnunol hingc on thc pairing
readings of. "'Illrec boys [e;Jr,;h/together] ate a pil.Zil," c<Innot hinge on the pairing
anc dcnota(ion with an 1.1: cxprcssion, Uic
fi~nrtinn.which ciln only ;~sstxi:l~c
function, which can only associ:ue onc denotalion with an LF expression, 111C
orrly altcrnativc is to crilrslruct dil'!:crcnt I,I:cxp~~cssions
for dimcrcnt rcatlings, one
only altcrn<ltive is to construct different LF expressions fiJr ditTerent readings, one
for cach a1tcrn;llivc.
for cach alternative.
input cxprcssion (wid1 two mcnnings)
input expression1,1'#l
(with (Wo mC;'lOings)
LF#2
LF #1
LF #2

dcnotatum 1

dcnotalmn 2

Figure 3 1\ syntact it: 1'cpresent<ltiOll ,)f differences in meaning.

Wliicli disri~~c:ionsi n ~ncaningarc to t)c C S ~ I I I Iby

. C ~Iugic31 for111 itself, as
Whidl distinctions in meaning arc to bc captured by logical form itself. as
nlipcwxi ro vsryiog the domains of objccts oucr wl~icllprcdicatcs may mngc?
opposed to \'Jrying the domain~ of objects OYl'l' which prcdicates I11Jy rnngc?
Itcc,~:l(hi131tnrivhitlcry is a t our colnn~nodTor c;~plul-itig
s~iclidisl~!~ctio~is.
Ail wc
Rec.t:1 wh,lt m"chiIlcry is ill our ClJ1nm.1I11J for capturing such distinctions. 1\11 we
can r ~ l oy n is syntilx: \vc can v;~rythc ordcl- in which cxprcoiio~~
arc laid out in a
can rely Oil is syntax: we can vary the order in which cxprcs'iiol1s arc laid out in a
li~ri.. 'I'his is how thc iui~biguityis "cvcryonc lovss sonlconc" 11ascl;~ssicallybccn
lillc. This is how the al1lbiguity is "cvcryollr lows sonwonc" has classically bccll
(3W or V3). Sitnil;~l'ly,all of
ancodcd: by rcvcrslng Ihc ordcr of qu;~nlilicatic,~
\:ncoded: by reversing the order of qllanlilicatioll (3\t llr V3). Similarly, all of
Wcbbcr's mcnniog distinctioas tt~atarc cncodcd via 1,l: tliffircnccs in h n n arc
Webber's mCilllillg distinctions that arc encoded via LF ditTcrcnccs in form arc
donc SO by vi~ryingthc scoping of virrious qurlntificrs. \\'chhcr handles the
done SI) by v,lrying the seoping of various qU~ll1tifiers. Webber handles U1C
fbili!u wing distinclions:
t{ll1owing distinctions:
opcr~tc~r/quitntificr
uscd to
operator Iquantificr used to
--obt;~indistinction via sco~ing
distinction
9istin~liQn
obt'lUl distinction via ~coQing

c~rllcctivc/individuativc ~u:StIl'-- SI:l'(hu)

wlkctive/individuativc
Au:SEI'-- SET(>..u)
tu~ivcrsal/cxistcntial
3 V -- V 3
universallexistcntial
3\1 -- V3
ddi11itc/indcfinitc
I! 1
dclinitc/indclinitc
3! :3
cardi~~ality
cardinality
Ixl 1x1
IIow iirc surf;)ce string:; tc? hc nl;~ppcdto 1.1' cxl)tcssion:i? tG'ortllc 111crstpart,
How ,Ire surface ~lring~; to he mapped to LF expression:;? ~ior the llIost part,
this is not ~ h csul~jcciuF WcI)L;cr's rcscnrc!l. llowcvcr. sllc in:~kcsdic Sollo~ir~g
this is nut Ihe subject of WcbbN'S research. However. she makes the folluwing
rt1~1g.11-a~id-vcdydsncialion hctwcc~~surracc consiiti~cnt structure (a
roug.h-antl-ready <1sso<:ialinll between sUlfac~ cOllstituent structure (a
rcprcscnta~ion:hat might bc cit.livc~.cdt g ;1 P:I~SCT)
and I ,t:cxprcssions:
representation ~hat might be delivered l~y a p:lrser) and I J' expressions:

--

Berwick

44

Verbs
Relative
llclative clauses
clauscs
Adjectives
Adjcctircs
Nouns
Prepositions
Prcpositions
Articles,
Dctcnnincrs.
1)ctermincrs. etc.
Number quantifiers
quantifies

plurals

Predicates
Predicates

lambda-abstracted predicate
predicate
Restriction
Ilcstriction clause
clausc in quantification
quantification
llcstrict domain
domain of
~~fquantification
Restrict
quantification
Predicates
I'rcdicatcs (e.g.,
(c.g., On(x))

Quantifiers as described
dexribcd in text
Counting restriction
rcstriction on
domain ofquantification

El'aluating the
fi7aluaring
rhe Webber
IVebber theory
rheury
How can Webber's
I.F be
Wcbbcr's proposals
propo%ls for l.F
bc evaluated?
cvoluatcd? TIle
The question
qucstion to keep
kccp in mind
here is why Wehher
Webbcr has adopted this p;~nicl~lar
logical languagc in which to map
particular logicall"nguage
surface
LF expressions
cxprcssions rather
rathcr than some
some other.
othcr. At first glance,
glance,
surfacc phrases
phrascs to 1.F
uncovering
uncovcring evidence
evidcncc !.hat
that would choose
choose among alternative
altcrnatibc proposals
proposals would seem
secm
to be problematic: what we arc talking about, at least for people, arc differences
diffcrcnces in
fonn
fonn that arc not visible at
a1 the
Ule surface".
"surface". At best.
bcst. we can observe only indirectly

the
lhc effects
cffccts of different
diffcrcnl choices
choiccs for a logical
logical fonn,
form, and so there
thcre can only be indirect
evidence
cvidcncc that bears
bcars on our choice.

Pursuing
I'ursuing this line
linc of discussion,
discussion, why should one an adopt a logical fonn that is
different
hypotllesis, after
all? The
'The null hypothcsis,
aftcr all,
all, would be
diffcrcnt from surface phrasal form at all?
assumc that LF
1.F looks just like asurfaee
a surface parse of the input string:
to simply assume
(14)
LF)
(surface parse = the LF)
(14) 1saw
I saw Jnhn
John --)
-->(I(I (saw
(saw (John)
(John))) (surface
instead
predicate calculus
instcad of the predicate
calculus fonnul.:
formula:
(15)
(IS) Saw (I,
(I. John)
It would certainly
ccnainly be
bc computationally
computationally simpler to just adopt the fonner
former sort of
representation
rcprcsentation as our LF; then no translation at all would be required. In short,
shon,

one
prcnex
onc must furnish
furnish some
somc sort of an argument for why LF
LF should look like a prenex
normal form rather
rathcr than just its surface form.
nonnat
As it turns out, howcvcr,
however, there
thcre ~
& evidence
cvidcncc for adopting an LF in a prenex
fonn,
at
least
for
sentences
containing
such
quantifiers as everv
every and m.
some. This is
form. lcast
the wen-known
well-known evidence
cvidcnce for an optional rule that moves quantifiers from the

45
placc whcrc thcy trcur in surfacc form and adjoins thc~nto the front of the
place where they occur in surface form and adjoins them to the front of the
ncarcst "S" (scntcncc) nodc. ('l'hc mlc of "quantificr raising" -- "QR" -- proposcd
nearest "S" (sentence) node. (The rule of "qualltificr raising" -- "OR" -. proposed
in [May 19771).
in [May 1977]).
'Ihis modcl prcdicts that scntcnccs in which thcrc arc two quantifiers and only
'Jllis model predicts that sentences in which there arc two quantifiers and only
clnc S-boundary, such as, "F.vcryonc lovcs somconc." should hc ambiguous. The
one S-boundary, such as, "Everyone loves someone." should be ambiguous. The
rcason: sincc thc rulc Q R can apply in any ordcr to first rnovc "everyone" and
reason: since the rule QR can apply in any order to first move "everyone" and
thcn "somconc". or vicc-vcrs, wc can dcrivc two structurcs. onc in which
then "someone". or vice-versa. we can derive two structures. one in which
"cvcryonc" titkcs widc scopc over "sornconc", and onc in which it docs not. And
"everyone" lakes wide scope over "someone", and one in which it does not. And
in fact such scntcliccs arc ambiguous in just this way. It is in his scnsc that QR
in fact such sentences arc ambiguous in just this way. It is in 01is sense Olat QR
accounts For thc apparent ambiguity of such scntcnccs. Silnilarly, the Q R lnodcl
accounts for Ule apparent ambiguity of such sentences. Similarly, the OR model
prcdicts that scntcnccs in which thcrc arc two quantificrs but onc is cmbcddcd in
predicts that sentences in which there arc two quantifiers but one is embedded in
such a way Illat thc rulc QK must cross two houndarics will nof bc ambiguous.
such a way that the rule OR must cross two houndaries will not be ambiguous.
'Ihis prediction too is bornc out, accounting for thc apparcnt lack of ambiguity in
'1l1is prediction too is borne Ollt, accounting for the apparent lack of ambiguity in
John lovcs someone":'
such scntcnccs as."F.vcryonc hclicvcs
such sentences as:'Everyone believes t11at John loves someone,,:l
In short, by assuming QR to bc a movcmcnt nilc, wc can usc thc samc
In short, by assuming OR to be a movement mle, we can use the same
constraints on movc~ncntknown to hold in other cascs to account for the observed
constraints on movement known to hold in other cases to account for the observed
surfacc distrilnltion of ambiguous quantifier rcadings.
surface distrihution of ambiguous quantifier readings.
Siinilarly, judg~ncntsabout group vs. individual rcadings of scntcnccs such as,
Similarly, judgments about group vs. individual readings of sentences such as,
a pjua scctn to bc conditioncd by a rulc of Q R . In the reading
Ihrcc
Three ~ ~ a Dina seem to be conditioned by a rule of OR. In the reading
~ h c r ckrcc boys scpariltcly cat a piz;r;l, wc may assumc that the rulc QR has
where three boys separately eat a piZ7.a. we may assume that the rule OR has
applicd to front thc quantificr tcrm Ihrcc bovs:
applied to front Ole quantifier term three~:
(16) r h r c c xi, x i a boy. [xi Ate a pizza]]

(16) [Three Xi- Xi a boy. [Xi Ate a pizza])

Whcn Qli docs not apply, we gct a collcctivc intcrprctation whcrc ?hc three boys
WhetT QR does not apply. we get a collective interpretation where me three boys
as a group cat a pizza:
as a group cat a pizza:

(17) [tllrcc boys Ate a p i 7 4

(17) [t11fee boys Ate a pinal

Webbcr's usc of a SEr opcralor in this casc parallcls the work donc by QR; SET
Webber's usc of a SET operator in this case parallels the work done by QR: SEf
may bc ordcrcd ciihcr inside or outside thc argument to the vcrb. Schematically,
may be ordered either inside or outside the argument to the verb. Schematically,

are much
I. As it turns out, judgtncnts when h e quasi-quantifiers & or a arc subslitutcd Tor
1. As i! turns out, judgments when the qua~;-quantifiers the or g are substituted for SYm are much
Icss precise. Hut recall bat *is mag be because thcse itcms are no1 " m e " quanlifien at all, hcnce are
[~precise. But rccalllhatthis may be because these items are not "true" quantifiers at all, hence are
not subject to QK.

not subject to QR.

Berwick

46

(18) SEI'I xi, xi a boy] [xi atc a p i m ]

(18) SET I Xi' xi a boy) [Xi ate a pi7La]
(A sct of hrcc xi's that each atc a pizza.)
(/\ set ofuuec xi's that each atc a pizza.)
SF:[' [ill~.ccboys],^ ( u atc a p i m ]
SET [three( Aboys).u
ate a boys
piZl.a)!hat atc a pizza.)
group (u
of thrcc
(/\ group of three boys that ate a pi7.l.a.)
Wcbber's use of tcsYictcd quantification, 8s in,
Webber's usc ofrcsarictcd quantification, as in,

(19) 3x: boy

(19)3x: boy

to indicate that X has bccn drawn from thc domain of individuals that arc boys, is
to indicate that X has been drawn from the domain of individuals that arc boys, is
also fairly standard. For cxiimplc, it follows h c nolarion chosen b y [Chumsky
also fairly standard. For example, it follows the notation chosen by [Chomsky
19751:
1975):
(20) Who did John kiss -->

>

(20) WhoWh-x,
did John
kiss
x a person.John
kisscd x

Wh-x, Xa person,John kissed x

In sum, to thc cxtcnt that Wcbbcr uscs 1.F diffcrcnccs, particularly scoping
In sum, to the extent that Webber uses l.F differences, particularly scoping
diffcrcnccs, to account for diffcrcnt scntcncc rcadings, the rcprcscntational format
differences, to account for different sentence readings, the representational format
adopted by Wcbbcr stands squrircly within twcnticth century philosophical and
adopted by Webber stands squarely within twentieth century philosophical and
current linguistic tradition.
current linguistic tradition.
1.2.3 Conipating thc Wcbbcr I,F

1.2.3 Computing the Webber LF

We arc lcft then with thc qucstion of computation. Givcn an input scntencc, or a
We arc left then with the question of computation. Given an input sentence, or a
prc-parsed rcprcscntation of a sentcncc, how hard is it to actually construct
pre'parsed representation of a sentence, how hard is it to actually construct
Wcbber's I.F? Hcrc uc must be careful to distinguish bctwccn two aspccts of the
Webber's LF? Here we must be careful to distinguish between two aspects of the
complcxity of asystcm such as Wcbbcr's. First, thcrc is the complcxity of simply
complexity of a "System such as Webber's. First, there is the complexity of simply
translating from surfiicc strings to a prcncx form. Sccond, thcrc is fhc complexity
translating from surface strings to a prenex fonn. Second, there is the complexity
of actually computing thc prcdicatcs irnplicd by thc rcprcscntations so constructed
of actually computing the predicates implied by the representations so constructed
-- c.g., "Ate Bill, x". 'Ihcsc arc two diffcrcnt, rhough obviously conncctcd tasks.
-- e.g., "Ate Bill, x". These arc two different, though obviously connected tasks.
Thc second dcpcnds on the prcdicatcs involvcd, how domains of individuals are
The second depends on the predicates involved, how domains of individuals are
actirally dcfincd, and so forth; it is thus diflicult to make any claims about the
actually defined, and so forth; it is thus difficult to make any claims about the
complcxity of this problcm without a model. As we shall scc, part of what Kaplan
complexity of this problem without a model. As we shall sec, part ofwhal Kaplan
and Allcn aim to do is to in fact proposc simplc world modcls for rcstrictcd
and Allen aim to do is to in fact propose simple world models for restricted
domains so as to actually provide an intcrprctation for a Webbcr-type LF. We
domains so as to actually provide an interpretation for a Webber-type LF. We
will rcstrict oursclvcs hcrc to the complcxity of just thc translation of surface
will restrict ourselves here to the complexity of just the translation of surface
strings to a prencx form.
strings to a prenex fonn.
Even so restricted, interesting questions of computational complexity arise.
Even so restricted, interesting questions of computational complexity arise.
Suppose that we adopt Wcbbcr's prcncx form. It is rclarivcly casy to show that if
Suppose that we adopt Webber's prenex form. It is relatively easy to show that if
thc input and output languages for thc uanslation can be generated by a
the input and output languages for the translation can be generated by a

47
particularly rcstrictcd contcxt-frcc grammar, tllcn thc translation will lakc only
particularly restricted context-free grammar, then the translation will take only
ti~nclincar in thc Icngtli or lhc input strings, using push-down stack machincry.
time linear in the length of the input strings, using push-down stack machinery,
Flowcvcr. if wc sssumc iinything likc a "rcal-lifc" pl~rascslr~~clurc
(with NI' and
However, if we assume anything like a "reaHife" phrase structure (with NP and
VI' nodcs), thcn it can bc shown that Ihc translalion will tukc morc than simplc
VP nodes), then it can be shown that the translation will take more than simple
push-down machincry.' In short, translating to a prcncx fonn quickly is nor
push-down machinery.] In short, translating to a prenex f0I111 quickly is not
ncccssarily a trivial task.
necessarily a trivial task.
'1'0 gain soinc iipp~.cciation of thc issucs itlvolvcd hcrc, wc will considcr a
To gain some appreciation of the issues involved here, we will consider a
sirnplificd prcllcx translation and thctl show that cvcn this nlinimal proccdurc will
simplified prenex translation and then show that even this minimal procedure will
dclnand at Icast push-down storc prt~cssing.
demand at least push-down store processing.
Supposc that the input knguagc consists of Flnglish surfacc strings already
Suppose that the input language consists of English surface strings already
translated into solnc kind of I;il~clcdhe~ckcling-- a parsc trcc, likc that provided
translated into some kind of labeled bracketing -- a parse tree, like that provided
by, c.g., thc Marcusparscr. FurLl~crassunic f i a t thcrc is but onc parsc trcc output
by, e.g., the Marcus parser. Further assume that there is but one parse tree output
for cuch scpsrntc input string -- an obvioudy fatsc simplifying assumption, givcn
for each separate input string _. an obviously false simplifying assumption, given
thc cxistcncc of stntcturally atnbiguous scntcnccs. ? h c otltput Ianguagc, thc l.F, is
the existence of stnlcturally ambiguous sentences. 11le output language, the J.P, is
also ;ssumcd to bc uniqircly rcadablc (unambiguous). A simplc grammar for the
also assumed to be uniquely readable (unambiguous). A simple grammar for the
input langungc, ignoring the cxistcncc of VI-' structure, might look like this:
input language, ignoring the existence ofVP structure, mighllook like this:
NP! V NP2; NP:::;. NP (S)
N I ' 3 13c~crtnincr(Adjectivc)Noun or Name
NP= \)etenniner(i\djective) Noun or Name
N o u n a b o y , girl: Ilctcrmincr*a, evcry;
Noun~boy, girl: Detenniner:::::>a, every;
Adjcctivc-big. young ...
i\djectivc~ big. young....
V*lovcs; Nanic* John, Mary, ...
V=>lovcs; Name=>John, Mary,...

S~

Givcn thc input string. "John lovcs a girl", the dcsircd prcnex output is,
Given the input string. "John loves a girl", the desired prcncx output is,
(3x:girl) lovcs John, x
(3x:girl) loves John, x
Evcn givcn hcse imrncnsc simplifications howcvcr thc translation is still not
Even given these immense simplifications however the translation is still not
computationally trivial. Why is this? Intui~ivcly,thc rcason is that the ordcr of the
computationally trivial. Why is this? Intuitively, the reason is that the order of the
NP arguments can bc rcvcrscd in thc translation -- Jolln prcccdcs &Iin surface
NP arguments can be reversed in the translation -- John precedes il gil!. in surface
syntax, but thc ardcr is rcvcrscd in the 1,F. This suggcsts that onc must cithcr (1)
syntax, but the order is reversed in the LF. This suggests that one must either (1)
abandon thc prcncx form; or (2) move to a powcrful sort of computational
abandon the prencx fonn; or (2) move to a powerful sort of computational
machinery.
machinery.
More formally, supposc that thc mapping is cffccted by a syntax-directed
More fonnally, suppose that the mapping is effected by a syntax-directed
translation. 'That is, far cvcry contcxt-frcc rule of thc gnmmar for the input
translation. That is, for every context-free rule of the grammar for the input
language, we associate a corresponding translation rc-writc rule. F ~ c htime that a
language, we associate a corresponding translation re-write rule. Each time that a
re-write rule is uscd to build a portion of thc input Ianguagc parse uec, the
re-write rule is used to build a portion of the input language parse tree, the

1. Though linear time translation is g111possible on an augmented processor.

1. Though linear time translation is slill possible on an augmented processor.

48

Berwick

corrcsponding rule is triggcrcd to build Lhc trcc for the output I,F string. (Thus
corresponding rule is triggered to build the tree for the output LF string. (Thus
syn~ax-dircctcdtranslation maps trccs to trccs.)
syntax-directed translation maps trees to trees.)
Givcn thc input rulc, S+NP1 V NP2 we thcrcforc havc a corrcsponding
Given the input rule, S:::;. NPI V NP2 we therefore have a corresponding
output rulc that looks sorncrl~inglike,
output rule that looks somcthing like,

'I'(NP2) V NPI X2. whcre 'f(NPZ)= thc translation of NP2,

T(NP2) V NP 1 X2' where T(NP2)= the translation of NP2'
whatcvcr tllal may bc: and X2= a ncw tcrminal clcmcnt of the
whate\'er that may be; and X2 = a new terminal clement of the
outpt~tlangungc, a placcholdcr for Lhc argitmcnt NPZ.
output language, a placeholder for the argument NP2'
'['his is a so-callcd non-sitn~lcsyntax-dircctcd translation schcma, so-called
This is a so'called non-simple synrax-directed translation schema. so-called
bccausc thc output rulc has non-terminals in an order diffcrcnt from the order
because the output rule has non-terminals in an order different from the order
rhcy appcitr in the corrcsponding input rule (hcrc NPI and NP2) llut a thcorcm
they appear in the corresponding input rule (here NP 1 and NP 2). But a theorem
of formal language thcory tclls us this kind of translation may dcmand fairly
of formal language theory tells us this kind of translation may demand fairly
powerful computa~it~nal
machincry: A syntax dircclcd translation is s i m ~ l cif and
powerful computational machinery: A syntax directed translation is simple if and
only if it can bc dcscribcd by a nun-dctcrministic push-down automaton.
only if it can be described by a non-deterministic push-down automaton.
'Ihcrcforc, wc can conclude h a t cvcn in this ovcrly-simplified casc. thc translation
111erefore, we can conclude that even in this oYerly-simplified case, the translation
dctnandcd by Wcbbcr's prcncx form cannot bc donc by a non-deterministic
demanded by Webber's prenex form cannot be done by a non-deterministic
push-down automaton.'
push-down automaton.!
Intuitively, Lhc rcvcrsnl translation cannot be donc by a push-down automaton
lntui~ivelYI the reversal translation cannot be done by a push-down automaton
bcdausc all of Ihc sccond NP must bc constructed before we cvcr output the
because all of the second NP must be constructed before we ever output the
translation string. NP2 V. But since NP2 may be rccursivc, as in a rclativc clause.
translation string, NP2 V. nut since NP 2 may be recursive. as in a relative clause.
this could titkc forcvcr, and we would havc to proccss all of thc input before evcr
this could take foreYer, and we would have to process all of the input before ever
constructing any part of thc output 1-F. Evcn in this restricted casc, then, the
constructing any part of the output LF. Even in this restricted case, then, the
translation from surface string to prcncx form can run into computational
translation from surface string to prenex form can run into computational
difficulties. There arc two ways to prtrced. firs^ as we did above, one could
difficulties. There are two ways to proceed. First, as we did above. one could
move to a non-simple syntax-directcd translation. IAho a ~ Ullman
~ d 19731 show
move to a non-simple syntax-directed translation. IAho and Ullman 1973J show
that an cxtcnsion of a push-down machine, a push-down Droccssor, can simulate
that an extension of a push-down machine, a push-down processor, can simulate
all such tmn~lations.~
Second, onc could modify the Wcbber prencx form so that
all such translations. 2 Second, one could modify the Webber prenex fonn so that
1. Sce [Aho and Ullman 1972 page 2301.
1. See [Aha
Ullman 1972
page 230].
2. Aand
push-down
processor
has the power to manipulate pointers to a directcd graph, ralher than jusl a
2. A push-down
processor
thee.~amine
power tok manipulate
to a directed
graph,
rather
a
list or nodcs.
It canhas
also
nodes up i!spointers
push-down
stack. rather
just
one.11Ian
Thejust
machine
can
list of nodes.
can also
examine
1 nodes
up ils connecting
push-downnodcs
stack. hrather
just one. poinls
The machine
add orItdclclc
dircclcd
edges
to a graph,
a t it currently
to; it cancan
also create

add or delete
directed
a graph,
connecting
thatnew
it currcntly
create
ncw nodcs
andedges
Iabcltothem.
Because
it a nnodes
conncct
nodcs topoints
cithcrto;theit can
left also
or the
righl of old
new nodes
and such
label athem.
Because
it can conncct
newuce
nodes
either itthe
left or the
of old
node,
machine
un pennutc
the output
(thetograph)
construcb
withright
rcspxt
to the tree
nodes, such
a machine
permute
11Ie output
tree iL$
(theability
graph)toit handtc
construclS
wiLh respect
to the tree Such a
grammar
hcncc
non-simple
mnslructions.
specified
by caninput
sped liedmachine
by 11Ie can,
inputhowever
grammar
ability operating
to handleinnon-simple
still- behence
quiteil~cffieicnl.
time linearconstructions.
in Lhc length orSuch
inputastrings if
machine the
can.underlying
however still
be quiteforemdent,
operating
time orlinear
in the
leng11l
of inputofstrings
if
grammar
the Iranslation
is in
LK(k)
Iuk).
(Sce
the section
this chapter
on
the underlying
grammar
for for
the atranslation
lhe section
of 11Iisgrammar
chapler is,
on roughly,
McDonald's
system
definition is
of LR(k)
I.R(k) or
andI.l~k).
LIik) (See
grammars.
An LR(k)
McDonald's
for a delinition
of LR(k)
andbeL1~k}
An LR(k)
grammar is,
roughly,
one system
that gcncratcs
a language
that can
pamdgrammars.
dclcrminidcally.
IcCt-lo-right
with
rhc parse tree
one that being
generates
a
language
that
caR
be
parsed
detcnninisLicaJly,
left-to-right.
with
the
parse
tree of his
conklnrctcd from batom to top.) Ihe Marcus parser is basically a push-down processor
being con1;tnlcted
from with
bottom
totended
top_} The
parser is basically a push-down processor of 11Iis
SOT(. operaling
an ex
LR(kMarcus
)-grammar.
sort. operating with an extended LR{krgrammar_

49
it is simple.
it is simple.
Cor~sidcrnprion (2). Supposs that \ec adopt Willi3nis' xhctnc in part, %I that
Cunsider option (2). Suppose that II'C adopt Willi<lllls' scheme in part, so that
LC t~;mslatios ot' NPI i'NI', - is NPI NI', V* X1 X2. X I and X2 being
Ihe tran~latioll of NP 1 V NP:! is NP I NP2 V'" Xl X2' Xl and X2 being
plnceholdcr clclncnts for the ;Ir,gumcnts NPI and NP2. ].'or cz:n~nplc,b l 1 1 1Ivvq
placeholder clements for tl1e ,lrgumcnts NP t and NP2' For example, .fu!lu loves
*-Alarv will now gcl ~nnppcdtt! tho hnn, "Jollnl hlriry2 lovcs XI Xi'. Obsc~vc
}.1MV will now gel mapped to tlle fOIlTl, "Johnl MarY2 loves Xl X2". Observe
IRst this now 3 silnplc synti~x-dircctcd~n~isInlic,o
-- tllc ordcr of non-lcnninals
IhJt this now .h a simple ~yntax-directed trall~[;)Linn .- the order llf nnn-lenninals
in iopitt ; I I K . ~ot~lptrln~lcsis thc s;lmc. Wc illustrittc an c~i111iplc
tri~n~lation
ofJ&~
in input and output n11c~ is the same. We i1Iustl'(j[C an example translation of 191m
loves
cvcrv
Iwy:
loves evcry !..2m:
Slack:

stack:

NPI

laM
y

NP2

NP2

Step

Step No.
No,
1

1
2

y.

8
9

(Rcc:iIl t l ~ a la cyl~t~lr-dircctcd
tr:~n.;l;~tion rcquircs that Lhc
~Ylltaxdirt'ct('d tr,Il1"lalilll1 rcqllirc~ that the
sy~iibol<
c j f ttic outpi~t[:.in:,Iit(1011 !?r:~~~~rlli~r
bc in~cnpcr!icdwith
sYlllbol~ of the Dulput (~i1nsla(i()ll !~r:J111Hlar be inlc~rerscd with
host of chc i ~ ~ p gl-rnilll?ar.
i~t
'I'liis is tllc ~c;~.;unfor thc
!hllS( of the illput gr'rllllnar. This is* the lcaStln for the
appcilw!iCC or Lhc dihtincr V and V syln!~ols.)
appeill';lflCC or the dhtinct V lInd V'" symbols.)

mccall that a

t Iowcvcr, Ulcrc is ot:c prt~l~lcln

witli this 11ir'lllc)d. C1bsrl.v~111i1t his Ir;l~lsl;rlicln
Ilowc\'cr, Ulcre is one prohlem with this J1wthod. Ohscl've thaI this trallslation
ccinsidci.; thc ucrh is if it wcrc :r ~cl.~ilinal
itcni. 'l'h;rt is. rhcrc is no VIP slruclurc iis
I;onsidcf\ the verb as if it were a tC'r1l1ill,I[ itelll. That is. Ihere is no VP strll((ure as
~ 1 1 ~ 1 1I.f this ;1~:;lin1lltit)!lis ~lii>g:~i~lcd.
and ~c Irlus!, ~ ~ I Va Cdistinct Ve1.11 IJhrasc.
such. I f this a~:;lImpti.m is ll1i~gllided. and we mllst h;lve a distinct Verb Phrase.
then the iranslutior~is ,?gain I:O lo~igcrsilnplc, i>cc;lusc tllc ~ l u t p i gr;lntlmar
~t
will
thell the Ir,105latioll is Clg<lin Ill) l'lnger simplc, becallS\.: lhe 011tPlIl grammar will
I I Iilljn~tp,ra11111;1r
order
!l;r~c11trn-tcrrnin;~lsin the oi-dcr N1'--V. C O I . I - C ' L ; ~ > ~ ILOI ~a11
!l<lYC non-tcrmin;i1s in thc order NP-- V. COITC,;poIIlJillg to all input grilllllllar order
of V--Nf'. 1it.r~h e n wc nccd nwrc than pusll-down sl'ick 111ncllincrylo carry out
of V-- NI'. But then we need more than push'down s[;ick madlincry 1.0 carry out
what nccds to bc dotic.
what necds to be done.
I n xI.lort, our cunclusisn is that it is qi~itc diffici~lt to o!;tain ;I si~nplc
In ~h()rl, our conclllSi01l is tlut it is quite difikult to obtain a simple
to covcr ;inytIii~l~
likc tllc translation involvcd in
synt;rx-ijircctrj. ~r;lnsli~ti~ln
syntax-dircct','J Ir:1I151"tl(1I) 1O cover anything like the transLitioll involvcd in
tl;~~urnl
I;.ulgua~c. Iti R I I ~I.C;II C;LSC, wc iirC I i k ~ I y10 t ~ .it ~1 cd~ ~ tI I C puwcr of a
ll;llUr<ll ];.U1~lIa~c. In any rcal ':ase, we ,ire likely [,1 need at 1c.:lsl the power of a
push-doun prtxc;r[rr. r;cthcr II!JII ;\ S I I ~ \ \ I ~~LI 'L I S I I - ~ ~ ~ W;\ltI(1llliILOl1.
~I
WC scc thcn
p[j~.h-down pnll:c:>~lJr, r,ithcr th:lJ1 ;1 simple pLlsh-dt1wn <I111(lIllaton. We sec then
LJldr cvcl~whcti \NC rcutric! oar dttc!lt.itnl to j\!:it ~ l ? clil.s[ slcp in ihc tr;~~lsliition
that CVCII when we rest ric! oar ,1ltenl.inll to j\l~;t the Iirsl step in thC' translation
rig
o f cotnputati~lll.~!co~nplcxity
nssulrrcd I)y i\'cbiici"s ttrcory, i ~ ~ ~ r c s r iqucxtions
assumed Ily Wcbl'cr's theory, :nlcresling qlle~til1ns of cOll1putalilll\J! complexlty
;a'ix. In i ~ d c !to rn:$i11t3i11
~ o l ~ l p ; i t i l t iica:;ihiliiy,
~ll~~
ric nli~~.t
ci!Iicl 111c)difythe
arbe. In ordc,' tn m:lintain wlTlpaWtiOilJI ll'il:;ihilily, we l1lW,t ei!Jlcr Hlodify the
pl.cni.:< normal tbl-111(pcr11,rps in :!n ~ ~ ~ r t ' ; l l iwa;),
~ i ~ i cor clsc ;~dop:cil~nj)utational
prl'nc:< JlllfJnal [(,rill (pcrh"ps in ;\11 11l1n:ali';l~r: wa,), or else adopt computational
in:cl~inciy lhat is I!c.jonJ uh;il o!lc 1nipJ1t sxpcc~10 rcquirc. F.i\,ctiiri this caw, iT
In;lchinci'y that is beyonJ Wh;tl !HIe might ex pen to require. hCll in this case, if

Berwick

50

onc dcmands lincar time opcraticrn, it may ~ ~ cbcl l h a t thc undcrlying grammar
one dem:mds linear time nperdtion, it may well be that the underlying grammar
for thc input langt~agc~nusibc I.ll(k) or I,l<(k)-likc.
for the input language must be I.R(k) or LR(k)-likc.

1.2.4 Idinlingdiscoursc cntitics: Sidncr

1.2.4 Linking discourse entities: Sidner

To scc u11cl.c wc havc goltcn so far, corisidcr Following discourse:

To sec where we have gotten so far, consider following discourse:
(2l)'l'hci-c wcrc somc strawbcrrics in the fridge.

(21) There'I'hcy
werewcrc
sometasty,
strawberries
in the
and didn't
last fridge.
long.

They were tasty, and didn't last long.

Wcbbcr's ~nodclpro~idcs11s with n rcprcscntrition for a diwoursc cntity cvokcd by

Webber's model provides us with a representation for a discourse entity evoked by
rhc Noun Phrase solnc strawbcrrics. or a rcpl.cscntalion for thc clausc as a whole.
the Noun Phr,lse some strawberries. or a representation for the clause as a whole.
'I'hc first kind of rcprcscntation rcsulrs in an c~utputsoincthing like:
The first kind of representation results in an output something like:
(22) Av:set(strawberries).in-fridgc v

w.

Wchhcr's modcl also can construct a similar rcprcscntation for

What it
Wehbcr's model also can construct a similar representation for they. What it
docs not tcll us, howcvcr, is that& t
and
striiwbcrrics arc intcndcd to pick
docs not tell LIS, however, is that they and some strawberries arc intended to pick
ou{ thc samc "objcccs" of a (prcsurn;lbly mental} rcprcscnlation -- that is, that
ou~ the same "objeClS" of a (presumably mentnl) representation -- that is, that
thcsc two Nl"s arc co-indcxcd. Wcbbcr's rulc givc us a rcprcscntation of all
these two NP's arc co-indexed. Webber's rule give us a representation of all
possiblc things bcing "talkcd about" in a discoursc, but lcavcs us with the
possible tJlings being "talked about" in a discourse, but leaves us with the
computational problcm of picking out thc right fonn to co-indcx with a
computational problem of picking out the right fonn to co-index with a
subscqucnt pronoun or dcfitlitc NP. Of course, thcrc is a brute forcc way out of
subsequent pronoun or definite NP. Of course, there is a brute force way out of
this dilcmma. Sincc Wcbbcr's rulcs arc suppvscd to exhaust tllc space of possible
this dilemma. Since Webber's rules arc supposed to exhaust the space of possible
discoursc cntitics, tl~cyarc mcant to cxha~~stivcly
cnumcratc all rcprcscntations for
discourse entities, t11ey arc meant to exhaustively enumerate all representations for
thc Nl's some strawbcrrics and h.
Onc could thcn simply try all possiblc
the NPs some strawberries and they. One could then simply try all possible
anaphor-anlcccdcnt co-indcxing combinations, subjcct to consuainls of
anaphor-antecedent co-indexing combinations, subject to constraints of
plausibility, mcaningfulncss, and so forth. l'hc problcm with this approach is
plausibility, meaningfulness. and so forth. The problem with this approach is
two-fold. First, tllcrc can hc an cnormous nutnbcr of possibilitics to try. 1,ct us
two-fold. First, there can be an enormous number of possibilities to try. Let us
call this thc co-indcxing pro~os;rl problcm. As computationalists, we should
call this the co-indexing proposal problem. As computationalists, we should
worry about his. In thc worst casc, as rcscarchcrs in ct~rnpulationallinguistics
worry about t11is. In the worst case, as researchers in computational linguistics
havc discovcrcd, the possibilitics cxplodc so that cxponcntial computational
have discovered, the possibilities explode so that exponential computational
resources may b e rcquircd.' Sccond, thc prcdicatc tcsts implicit in the terms
resources may be required. I Second, the predicate tests implicit in the tcnns

1. To we this. consider the case where thcrc is some leading paticrn o f Noun Phrases. NP1.
1. To see this, consider the case where there is some leading patlcm of Noun Phrases, NP1,
NI'2....,KP,, followed by a pattern of pronouns to which it must be linked. Pronoun l,....Pronoun..
NI'2....,NPn followed by a pauern of pronouns to which it must be linked, Pronounl .....Pronounn.
'Ihcre are an cxponcnlial number or p m i b l c pallcrns of binding rclaiionships between antecedent
There areNI"s
an exponential
number
possible
patterns
bindinginvrsligalcd.
relationshipscxponcntial
between antecedent
and pronouns.
IT allofof
these must
be of
cxplici~ly
rmurccs will be
NP's andconsumed
pronouns. If all of these must be explicitly investigated exponential resources will be
consumed.

51
"plausibility" and "n~caningfulncss"rcmain unclaborarcd. I .ct us call this sccond
"plausibility" and "meaningfulness" remain unc1aborated. I.et us call this second
diffic~lltytfic CO-indcxiiigconfirm:~tionprobfcm.
difficulty the co-indexing confirmation problem.
Sidncis rcscarch aims to solvc just thc first of thcsc problcrns, thc co-indcxing
Sidner's research aims to solve just the first of these problems, the co-indexing
proposal problctn. Sidncr3s solulion, not surprisingly, is to posit an additional
proposal problem. Sidner's solulion, not surprisingly, is 10 posit an additional
constraint that cuts down thc spacc of possiblc anlcccdcnt-ana]>llorpairs that must
constraint that cuts down the space of possible anlecedent'anJphor pJirs that must
bc cxamincd. Out ofall tlic NPs porcntially availablc Tor co-indcxing in a tcxt at a
be examined. Qut of al1 the NPs potentially availJble for co-indexing in a text at a
givcn point, only onc, dcsignatcd thc currcnt f t ~ u sis actunllv availablc as thc
given point, only one, designated the current focus is actu;JlIy avaibble as the
"first choicc" Tor eel-indcxing. .l'hc kcy idca is that what is currently bcing talkcd
"first choice" fill' co-indexing. The key idea is th;Jt what is currently being talked
about, dlc so-callcd currcnt ftrus cstablislics a local contcxl or "first rcsort" for
about, the so-called current focus establishes a local contexl of "first resort" for
resolving i~naphorarclationsl~ips. In tlrc scntcnccs abovc, sincc "stmwbcrrics" is
resolving anaphora relationships. In tJle sentences above, since "strawberries" is
t l ~ ccurrcnr f t r t ~ sat Ihc timc thcy is cncounrcrcd. by dcfault thcv is co-indexed
tJle current foclls <ll the time tJley is encountered. by default tlley is co-indexed
with strawbcrrics. If for somc reason thc local binding fails, tllcn and only thcn
with stri)wberries. If for some reason the local binding fails, then and only then
will altcrnativcs bc tricd. I:or instance, if thc sccond scntcncc was, "tJc ....",thcn
will alternatives be tried. For instance. if the second sentence was, "He....", then
bccausc thc dcfrlult antcccdcnt str:iwbcrrics is pluri~ltlic default binding would be
because the default antecedent strawberries is plural the default binding would be
rejected.
rejected.
flow is focus cliangcd? Simply by proposing and confirming n ncw potential
How is focus changed? Simply by proposing and confinning a new potential
focus. just as the vcry first firus of a discourse is computed. Notc Ilowcvcr that
focus. just as the very first focus of a discourse is computed. Note however that
thc currcnt f i ~ u scrvcs
s
as Lhc d c f a ~ ~ctr-indcxcr
lt
until it is dislodgcd by explicit
the current fiJeus serves as the default co' indexer until it is dislodged by explicit
disconfirmation. 'I'hus thc patrcrn for computing a ncw focus whcn a current
disconfirmation. Thus the pattern for computing a new focus when a current
focus alrcady cxisls must bc lo (I) propnsc a new ftcus; (2) disconfirm dlc current
focus already exists must be to 0) propose a new focus: (2) disconfirm the current
fmus; and (3) confirm the ncw focus. (Actually, (1) and (2) could be
focus: and (3) confirm the new f(Jeus. (Actually, (1) and (2) could be
intcrchangcd.) What happcns to thc old focus? Sidncr clnims that prcvious foci
interchanged.) What happens to We old focus? Sidner claims tJlat previous foci
arc availablc for later usc. lndccd, thcrc sccms to be snmc cvidcncc -- suggestive
arc available for later usc. Indeed, tJlere seems to be some evidence -- suggestive
but not ovcrwliclming -- that old foci arc maintained in a last-in, first-out ordcr.'
but not overwhelming -- t1lat old foci are maintained in a last-in, first-out order. l
As we shall scc, this stack consmint, if truc, has the cffcct c~flimiting thc numbcr
As we shall sec, this stack conslfaint, if true, has the effect of limiting the number
of an~cccdcnt-anapllrrrbindings that milst be invcstigatcd, and iil ccrtain cascs
of antecedellt-,JIlaphor bindings that must be investigated, and iil certain cases
cntircly climindtcs tllc combinatorial scarch for antcccdcnls that markcd carlicr
entirely eliminates the combinatorial search for antecedents tJlat marked earlier
computatiuna1 syslcrns dcaling with anaphora resolution. It is a kind of
computational systems dealing with anaphora resolution. It is a kind of
multi-scntcncc analogue of ccrtain single scntcncc constraints such as the
multi-sentence analogue of certain single sentence constraints such as the
Spccificd Subjcct Constraint IChomsky 19751 or Sul)jaccncy [Chonlsky 19771.
Specified Subject Constraint IChomsky 1975] or Subjacency [Chomsky 1977].
Such a finding is of i~nmcnscintcrcsr to h e computalionalist, bccausc such
Such a finding is of immense interest to the computationalist, because such
constraints play a valuable rolc in restricting thc amount of work that a language
constraints playa valuable role in restricting tile amount of work that a language
processor must do. For cxamplc, [Marcus 19801 has suggcstcd that St~bjacency
processor must do. For example, [Marcus 1980] has suggested that Subjacency
and thc Spccificd Subject Constraint arc intirnatcly connectcd to thc dcsign of a
and We Specified Subject Constraint arc intimately connected to the design of a
machine h a t can parsc English fairly cficicntly on-linc without backup. If
machine that can parse English fairly efficiently on-line without backup. If
1. Sidncr says nothing about whcther a "stack" of foci can be of arbilrary deplh. Presumably. as is
J. Sidner
says nothing
about
whether
of foci
be of arbitrary
deplh.
as isin such a
typically
assumcd,
there
is somca "stack"
finite limit
lo hcan
e amount
of malcrial
that Presumably.
can be rclalned
typicallymanner.
assumed, there is some finite limit to the amount of material that can be retained in such a
manner.

nerwick

52

Sidncr's constraints on discourse can I?c maintained, tl~cyprovidc a similar and

Sidner's constraints 011 discourse C<ln be maintained, they provide a similar and
i~nporrant wcdgc into thc dimcult task of constraining lhc computational
important wedge into the dimcult task of constraining the computational
co~nplcxilyof multi-scntcncc intcrprctation. It is also of i~itcrcstthat Sidncr's
complexity of multi-sentence interpretation. It is also of intercst that Sidner's
cxplannrion is an csscntially modular onc; it btcnds a rcprcscntationa1 framcwork.
explanation is an essentially modular one; it blends a representational framework,
basically Wcbbcr's, aith a computational propowl. 'Ihc rcsult is an interaction
basically Webber's, '" ith a computational proposal. 'Ille result is an interaction
h a t produccs cnmplcx sul.facc bd~avior from two quitc simple, interacting
that produces complex surface behavior from two quite simple. interacting
sub-componcii ts. I
sub-componcnts,]
I-low cxactly is thc co~nputationof fixi carricd out? If thc ftzus machinc is on
How cxactly is the computation of foci carried out? Ifthc focus machinc is on
virgin soil. tlicn its first.stcp is to makc a list of what could be a firus -- what
virgin soil. thcn its first.step is to makc a list of what could be a focus -- what
Sidncr calls "potential fc~i."This amounts to an cxhaustivc casc atialysis. 'Ihe
Sidncr calls "potcntial foci:' 111is amounts 10 an exhaustivc casc analysis. The
cxpccicd focus (bcforc confinn:ttion) is:
expected fUCllS (before confinnalion) is:
(I) 'Ihc subjcct of a scntciicc in a & copulative
The subject of a sentence in a be copulative
scntcncc. ("'l'hcrc is a book on thc tablc;" "John is
sentence. elllere is .1! book on the table;" "1.Qhn is
sick." or
sick." or
(i)

(ii) I h c lhcmc of thc scntcncc (roughly, ihc "affected

(ii) The theme of the sentence (roughly, the "affected
objcct", in Jnckcndoffs tc~rninology),as in. "John hit
object", in JackendllfTs telmino[ogy), as in. "10hn hit
thc
car." or thc thcrnc of Lhc Vcrb complcmcnt, if the
-thc car." or the theme of the Verb complemcnt. if the
complcmcni is scntcntial. or
complement is sentential. or
(iii) Otlicr thc~naticpositions (such as instrument, in
(iii) Other thematic positions (such as instrument. in
"John hit i ~ car
c with a hiimmcr", with thc agcnt last
"10hn hit tile car with g hammer", with the agent last
in this list. or
in this list. or

(iv) Thc Vcrb I'hrasc itself.

(iv) TIle Verb Phrase itself.
Howcvcr, thcre is rcally n o nccd for this casc-by-casc dcfinition of how foci
However, there is really no need for this casc-by-case definition of how foci
arc proposed. 'I'hc rciison is that thc list just cnirrncratcs cvcry possible thematic
arc proposed. The reason is that the list just cnumeratcs every possible thematic
position in a scntcncc. and Lhrows in h c Vcrb I'hrasc to boot. It would seem more
position in a sentence. and throws in the Verb Phrase to boot. It would seem more
ccanomical to simply rcplacc Sidncr's list with tllc following shortcr dcfinition:
economical to simply rcplace Sidner's list with the following shorter definition:

(23) FOCUS = a rcprcscntation of the x such that

(23) FOCUS
a representation of the x such that
ITx), whcrc t'(x) is a prcdication in x corresponding to
P(x), where (l(x) is a predication in x corresponding to
thc main verb.
the main verb.

There

'I'hcrc onc purposc, though, that is scrvcd by Sidncr's list: it provides an

~ one purpose, though. that is served by S!dner's list: it provides an

1. Bclow we shall see lhal by graning an addiljonal laycr o f structure onto Sidner's basic lhmry a
1. Below
we shall
see thai by gralling
an gruclure
addiLional1ayer
or structure
Sidner's
thoory
- a can be
rhcory
or task-oricnted
d~xoursc
proposed
by IGroszonlo
19781
-- the basic
Sidncr
approach
theory or
task-orieoted
discourse
structure
proposed
by
[Grosz
1978]
-the
Sidncr
approach
can
be
made to handle discourns h a t go beyond simple narraliva.
made to handle discourws that go beyond simple narratives.

S3

l!!ik!:
Ule potc~itinl
potential focus is first considcrcd
considered to
&k]r for checking
chccking potential
potential foci.
firi. That
'l'li;it is.
is. Uic
be
is c110t
not
be copular, h~lCc htheme
thc Subject
Subjcct uf
o raabeh copula
copula sentence;
scnlcncc: if
i f the
Uic sentence:
s c ~ i t c ~ is
~
c &copulsr,
cmc
bc the
of the
sentence
is
considered
to
be
the
most
promising
potential
focus;
if
the
potcntial krus;
thc scntcncc is c~msidcrcd be thc nlost
theme
focus.
thematic mlcs
roles arc clicckcd.
checked. and so
thcmc cannut
cannot be
be confirmed
confirmed as
S
I;
h ~ u s ,other
otlicr tllcmatic
forth.
formulation ooffoclls,
Lirtli. If
I f we
wc translate
transli~tcthis
Uiis ranking
ranking into the
tlic "predication"
"prcdicr~tion"formulalion
f fmocus, we
sec
Ulat
ulis
order
simply
makes
explicit
a
set
of
heuristics
for
determining
scc chat U~is
makcs cxplicit
licuristics Tor dctcrmining what
the
relevant in tliat
that somc
some indcpcndcnt
independent
tlic predication
prcdica~ionof
o f the
tlic sentence
scntcncc is. This
'I'llis fllct
k t is rclc\-;~nt
work
the predication 11f
of a scntcncc
sentence is
has been
bccn done
donc in
in classifying
cl;~ssifyingthe
thc way in
ill which
wliicli Uic
work has
determined,
ncr's potcnti;d
potential kfoci
heuristics.
dctcrmi~icd.and
and the
the results
rcsults apparently
npparcnlly fe-state
rc-statc Sid
Sidncr's
r i Iic~~ristics.
'Illis
some
evidence that thc
the rc-dclinition
fe-definition ooff
coincidcncc thus
t l l ~ ~provides
providcs
s
solnc additional cvidc~icc
'Illis coincidence
focus
extends Sidncr's
Sidoer's list
lis~ in
krusSas
I; "the
"tlic x such
SLIC~I that I'(x)"
I'(x)" is
is on the right
riglit track. It also cxtcnds
that
cases arc handled
heuristics.
that some
s~~mccascs
liandlcd that
tliat arc
;ire not
nut covered
co\,crcd by her
hcr original ssetc ~ooff hcuristics.
I.et
tinguistic %(irk
work in morc
more dcuil:
detail: the
I.ct us
us sketch
skctcli out some
same of
o f the results
rcsults of this linguihtic
theory
us say that
Ulat thcrc
there is a rulc
rule that builds
t h a ~ r yis
is Ulat
Uiat of
o f (Williams
[Willi.lms 1980J.
19801. I.et
I.ct us
predicate
hy means ofco-iodcxing.
of co-indexing. thcrcby
thereby
prcdicalc structure
struculrc out of constituent
cc~nstitucntstructure
strocturc by
asn~ci;~tingDrcdicotcs
with arguments.
nrgumcnts. The
'lhc general
gcncral co-indexing
associating
predicates with
co-indexing sclicma
schema is simply,

(24) Co-index
Co-indcx NP
NP and
and X
whcrc X =
= ao
an Adjective
Adjcctivc Phrase
I'hrasc (AP),
(AP), a PP,
where
PI',
an NP,
Nl', a VI',
VP, or an
an S
an
'Thcrc is
is certainly
certainly not
nut much
much in
i n the
thc way of constraint
co~istrai~lt
in this prc~posal.
There
proposal. What is
missing
be co-indcxcd,
co-indexed, a
thc machinery
machincry telling
t c l l i ~ ~LIS
us
g which NP's and X's arc to bc
missing is
is the
rnattcr which
which we
wc will take
takc lip
up shortly. Assuming for now that Lhc
matter
the rules cxist
exist to
propcl.ly co'index
co-indcx items,
itcms, their
thcir effect
cffcct will bc
properly
be to !nap
map a constituent suucturc
structure like (i)
(i)
bclow into
i!lto structure
structure Oi):
(ii):
below
J,[ohn]
is (AI'
iAP
sick]]
(25) (i) ([~pJohol
is
sick))
Predication co-indexing
Predication
(ii) I[NI, JohnIi is FAp sickli]

l l e NP
NP John
& and
and the
thc AI'
AP sick
sic): wind up
up with idcnticnl
The
identical indiccs,
indices. corresponding --perhaps
-to
intuitions
that
&
is
bcing
prcdicatcd
ofJohn.
Co-indcxing
thus
has
perhaps -- to intuitions
ill.!>. is being predicated
Co-indexing
thc effect
cffcct of telling
tclling us
us which
which thing x is being
bcing prcdicatcd
the
predicated about --- that is,
is, ooff
11s "the
"thc Xsuch
X such Ulat
Ulat P(X)".
P(X)". Given proper co-indcxing,
pointing out to liS
pointing
co-indexing, a trivial rule
focus interpretation
intcrprctaiiun can
can then
then supply the
thc right focus:
of focus
of

54

Berwick

(26)
(26) II~I'
I[,, John]
John] is [AI'
I,,, sick]]
sick]]
Predication co-indexing
I'rcdication

11,1'
[I,, John];
J o l ~ nis] ~[AI'
[,, sick])
sickli]
xX

PIX)
I'W)

Focus
interpretation
Focns intcrprctation

In this sense
rule of intcrprctation,
interpretation. relating aa
scnsc the
thc focus
flrus rule
rulc is simply
silnply a rulc
rcprc~cntatjQn
structure)
another
lcvcl (thar
(that at
rcprcscntatiun at one
onc le\'el
lcvcl (that
(tl~atof COllstilucnl
C O I I S ~ ~ I U CS
I I~~ ~ I I C I U
toTanothcr
C)
lcscl
which other
operate). llcsidcs
Besides thcse
these cascs
casc~ of
of
othcr "semantic
"scniantic interpretive"
intcrprctivc" mles
n ~ l c sopcratc).
prcdiciJtion
there are
arc cxamplcs
examples of
of
prcdicetion that arc grammatically
gratnmatic;~lly(structurally) based, thcrc
thematic predication
observe, in such cascs
eases
prcdication control.
colitrol. /Is
As both Sidner
Sidncr and Williams ohscrvc.
the
U,e prcdication
predication can bc
be propcrly
properly bcatcd
located ifif it
tllc NP that is the
tllc focus
RICUS or
ur Subject of UIC
isis identified
where lhcmc
theme ct~rrcsponds
corresponds rt~ughly
roughly to
idclirificd with the
thc thcme ofU,e
oflhc sentence,
scntcncc. whcrc
the
thc notion
norion of "affected
";~ffccrcdobject."
objcct." '1l1is
'lliis approach is only as good as onc's ability to
identify
dillieulties of
lif its
idcntiry the U,eme
U~cmcof a sentence,
scntcncc, a problem that is fraught with diflicultics
own.
"case framc"
frame" rcprcscnlations
representations of
of scntenccs:
sentences;
(Scc, for
fur example,
cxarnple, U,e
the studies of
of"c5se
own. (Sec,
[Jackcndoff 1972].)
19721.) In any case, at worst (Williams notes) each
[Filllnorc 1968]:
19681: (Jackendoff
[Fillmore
verb
indicate which
which NP is the Uicme.
U,eme.
vcrb can
can bc individually
individually markcd
mnrkcd so that it will indicatc
cx;~mplc.the verb
vcrb struck probably requires
rcqujrcs cxccplio~~al
For example,
exceptional marking to handle
han<lle aa
scntcncc such
such as.
as.
sentence

(27) John struck Bill as foolish,

foolish.
(27)

John is the Subject

Subject of the
thc predicatIon
prcdicat~onof the scntcnce,
Hcrc. John
Here,
sentence, hence the (initial)
focus. In
In contrast,
contrast in
focus.
(28) John struck Bill,
Bill,
(28)
the affected
affcctcd object
objcct or theme,
thcmc, hence
hcncc the primc
Hill isis the
prime potential focus.
focus_

I.ct us now sec

scc how this revised definition of focus can subsume the original
I.et
focusalgorithm.
initial expected
expected focus
initial
algorithm.
--insertion
and & caputa
copula cases.
1.1.!b.lli-inscrtion
and.b
trace-thcorctic analysis,
analysis, the annotated surface structure of
(i) On the standard trace-theoretic
(i)
of
thcrc
insertion
scntcnces
is
roughly
like
the
following,
with
the
lexical
NP
there
sentences
following,
following the
tlle copula be
&co-indexed
following
w-indexed to M:
there:

55
'I'hcrc arc pcc~plc111 Ihc room.
There arc people III the room.
,,[ t l i c r ~ ][bc]
~ [N PIi [in thc room]
I..I.... p there].1 [be] [NPllin
the room]
I
As a rcsult, ~ h c s cscntcnccs fall togctlicr with schc~naI ofgrammatical prcdication
As a result. these sentences fall together with schema 1 of grammatical predication
control, N I ' k AP, with AP= rhc rcmnining postvcrbal coniplcmcnt; tlic NI'is thc
control, NP be AP, with AP = the remaining postverbal complement; the Nt> is the
Subjcct of thc prcdication, lic~iccthc fixlus. just as dictatcd by Sidncr's algorithm.
Subject of the predication, hence the focus, just as dictated by Sidner's 'llgorithm.

(ii) &-copuli~s 611 directly undcr schcma 1 of grammatical control: thc NI' subject
(ii) Jk-copulas filII directly under schema 1 of grammatical control: the NP subject
is t l ~ cSubjcct of tlic Predication.
is the Subject of the Predication.

2. l'hcmc as focus: All cascs ~ h c r cfocus is Lhc thctnc of a scntcncc fi~tlundcr the
2. Theme as foclls: All cases where focus is tl1e theme of a sentence fall under the
hcading of thcmatic control of prcdication co-indcxing. Oiicc again. thc St~bjcct
heading of thematic control of predication co-indexing. Once again, the Subject
of the prcdication (as dctcnnincd by t l ~ cco-indcxing rules) corrcsponds prcciscly
of the predication (as detennined by tlle co-indexing rules) corresponds precisely
co thc initial focus.
to the initial focus.
3. Otlicr tllclnatic rolcs: other rolcs markcd by thc vcrb (such as Instn~mcnt)arc
3. Other tl1ematic roles: other roles marked by the verb (such as JnstnuTIcnt) are
somctimcs optional: that is why ihcy arc in gcncral lowcr in ilic hierarchy of
sometimes optional: mat is why they arc in general lower in the hierarchy of
potcntial foci. 'I'hcrc arc two subcascs: thc additional rolcs can bc either
potential foci. There arc two subcases: the additional roles can be either
obligatory -- rcquircd by thc vcrb -- or optional.
obligatory -- required by the verb -- or optional.
(i) Obligatory thclnatic rolcs: thcsc arc, c.g., chc rccipicnt of an action, as in double
thematic roles: these arc, e.g., the recipient Df an action, as in double
objcct constnlctions such as. JJ in 1 gavc thc strrtwbcrrics
object constnlctions such as, llill in 1gave the strawberries ill llill.

(i) Obligatory

w.

(ii) 'l'n~lyoptional thcmatic roles: thcmatic clcrncnts that nccd not bc prescnt for
(ii) Tmly optional ll1ematic roles: thematic clements that need not be present for
thc scntcncc to mrlkc scnsc, c.g., optional I'rcpositional Yhrascs, as in. 1 kisscd Sue
the seRtence to make sense, e.g.. optional Prepositional Phrases, as in. 1kissed ~
at sundown.
1!! sundown.
Note, as might be cxpcctcd if focus is linkcd to thc prcdication of a sentence,
Note, as might be expected if focus is linked to the predication of a sentence,
that such optional clc~ncntsarc lcss highly valued as potcrilial f~ri;
this is bccause
mat such optional clements arc less highly valued as potential fod: this is because
tlicsc thc~naticclcnicnts do not play an csscntial role in the prcdication structure
these mematic clements do not play an essential role in the predication structure
of thc vcrb. 13y identifying focus with prcdication structure wc thus obtain a
of the verh. By identifying focus with predication structure we thus obtain a
simplc explanation of tllc ordcring of polcntial focus prcfcrcnces that is obscrvcd
simple explanation of the ordering of potential focus preferences iliat is observed
but not accounted for by Sidncr.
but not accounted for by Sidner.
Having calculated thc likely candidate foci, the sccond slcp in thc focus
Having calculated the likely candidate foci. me second stcp in the focus
co-indcxing computation is co~~firmation.
A potcntial focus is conlinncd wlicn it
co-indexing computation is confinnation. A potential focus is confinned when it
is known that a following pronoun or dcfinitc NP
bc co-indcxcd to the
is known iliat a following pronoun or definite NP illl be co-indexed to ilie
potcniial focus. A potcntial focus is disconfinncd if it is dctcrmincd h a t the
potential focus. 1\ potential focus is disconfinncd if it is detennined mat ilie
individual or sct of individual clcmcnts pickcd out by tlic focus cannot bc the
individual or set of individual clements picked out by the focus cannot be the
same sct of individuals pickcd out by a following pronoun or definite NP. Once a
same set of individuah picked out by a following pronoun or definite NP. Once a
focus has bccn confirmed, it is the Furrcnt focus and scrvcs as thc first choice for
focus has been confinned. it is the current focus and serves as me first choice for
any latcr co-indexing.
any later co-indexing.

fkrwick.

56

'Illis rcfomulation of fixus in thc quantifier-likc hrm, "the X s.t. P(X)"

'Illis refurmulation of focus in the quantifier-like form, "the X S.t. P(X)"
suggcsts Lhat onc can rcprcscnt focus structurally, in a by-now familiar
suggests that one can represent focus structurally, in a by-now familiar
opcmtor-bound variable form:
operator-bound variable form:
(29) John was hit by a car -->

(29) John was hit by a car . >

[[JohnIN,. [was hit] [by a car]] -->

[[John]NP. [was hit]
I [by a carll--)
I

Johni [a car hit NPi]

. Johni [a car hit NP i]
h P(xj)
the Xi s t ~ that
the Xi such that P(Xj)
Notc thc similarity of this structurc to that forrncd by the quanrificr rule QR,
Note the similarity of this structure to that formed by the quantifier rule QR,
discussed earlicr. lndccd, as wc shall scc. thcrc is cvidcncc that thc rulc that forms
discussed earlier_ Indeed, as we shall see, there is evidence that the rulc tlJat forms
"ftrus structurc" is just thc rnovc-a rulc in yct anothcr guisc. Morcovcr, the
"focus structure" is just the move-a rulc in yet another guise. Moreover. the
slruclurc is quite closc to dlat C I J I I S ~ ~ U Cby
~ C Wcbber's
~
nllcs chat build 1.F -- not
structure is quite close to that constructed by Webber's niles that build l.f -- not
si~rprisingly,sccing as lhc basic building block of Wcbbcr's LF is a move-a rule as
surprisingly, seeing as the basic building block of Webber's LF is a movca rule as
well.
well.
A confirming scntcncc will also bc in d-lis x--P(x) form:
A confirming sentence will also be in this x-P(x) form:
(30) Hc was hurt badly -->
(30) He was hurt badly --)

Hei
was hurt badly.]
BCi INPi was hurt badly.]
Tnkcn togcthcr, rhc currcnt focus along with its a)-indcxcd pronoun detcrmines a
Taken together, the current focus along with its coindexed pronoun determines a
sct of propositions, wit11 each proposition saying something aboul Che focused
set of propositions, with each proposition saying something about the focused
entity:
entity:

1,ct us call Lhis bundlc of propositions about a particular focus a focus context.

Let us call this bundle of propositions about a particular focus a focus~.

How is a focus (or a ftxus context) changcd? One can propose and confirm a
How is a focus (or a focus context) changed? One can propose and confirm a
new focus. Considcr thc following dialogue from Sidner:
new focus. Consider the following dialogue from Sidner:

57

(31)
(31) Wilbur
Wilhur is as fine
finc scientist
rcicntist and a delightful guy.
He
buok a wbile
gaic me
mc a;I balk
whilc back wbich
which II really enjoyed.
cnjoycd.
Hc gave
It was on relativity
rcl;~tivitytheory
thcory and talked mostly about quarks.
'I'hey arc h<lrd
hard to imagine.
ilnaginc. because
bccausc they
Uicy indicate
indicate
They
nccd for elemenwry
clc~ncnbryfield
ficld theories.
the need
Thcsc theories
tlicorics arc tremendously
trclncndously complicated.
These

It is apparent that the last sentence

scntcncc is talking about elementary
clcmcntary field
ficld theories,
theories, even
ifsomchow
st111"embedded"
"cmlicddcd" in lJlking
wlking about Wilbur and Ule
thc book. Indeed,
Indccd,
if
somehow it is still
il~trospectivcsense
scnsc that the
thc intervening
intcrvcning NOLIn
Noun Phrases
I'hrascs such as Wilbur and &
this introspective
the
hook
are
sornchow
still
acccssiblc
be
confirmcd
hy
thc
addition
book
arc
somehow
still
accessible
can
confinned
by
the
additiun
of
a
single
xntcncc with a pmnoun:
prunoun:
scntence
(32)
part of
(32) Anyway,
Anyway. I got it while JI was working on the initial pan
research.
my research.

'lhc use
anaplioric it forces
'Ibe
usc of an anaphoric
rctricvc the (fonnally
(formally
k~rccsone
onc to "pop back" to retrieve
rcprescnted) description
dcxription oCtile
of am.
hlol-c importantly,
importantly. Sidncr observes
obscrvcs that this
represented)
book. More
bchavior is sl.lck-likc.
intcrvcning foci
fwi between
bctwccn blx,lt
ficld theories
thcories
behavior
stlck-likc. in that the intervening
book and field
-- quarks -- arc apparently "lost" when
whcn one
onc accesses
acccsscs the bol,k.
A picture of the
-book. /\
changc in accessible
acccssiblc Noun
drscriptions might luok
look like this:
change
Nuun Phrase descriptions
Step 2

Step 1
1
(before "Anyway, 1...")
I...")
field theories
accessible)
(most accessible)
quarks

U
the book
t1ie

Wilbur

the book
Wilbur
, (least accessible)
Figure 4 Accessible
Accessible Noun Phrases
I'hrases in a stack model.

interesting to ponder
Although intuitions arc not completely clear here, it is interesting
force of the stack claim comes to. Consider a weaker, alternative
what the force
rcprcsentcd by an
hypothesis: that the "things talked about" in a discourse can be represented
hypothesis:
unordered Jist
To
be
concrete,
let
us
say
that
items
enter
memory
as they are
'
T
o
bc
lct
mcmory
list

Berwick

58

mcntioncd, and thcn arc availnblc for anaphoric acccss strbjcct to a dccay
mentioned, and then are availablc for anaphoric access subject to a dccay
limitation dcpctidi~igon tlic "timc" since thc itcm was last ~ncntioncd.(I.ct us
limitation depending on the "time" since the item was last mentioned. (Let us
ignorc o b v i u ~ objections
~s
about how "timc" is to bc mc~rsurcd.intcrucning effects,
ignore obvious objections about how "timc" is to be mcasured. intervening effecL~,
and thc likc: this "list" hypotllcsis is Incant to be illustrarivc. not a serious
and the likc: this "list" hypothesis is meant to be illustrative, not a serious
suggcstion about actu;tl discoursc bchavior.) Nolc Lhar witi~a dccay factor addcd,
suggestion about aClll;tl discoursc behavior.) Note that with a decay factor ildded,
unordcrcd, sincc itclns arc ordcrcd in an acccssibility liicrarchy
thc list is not
Ule list is not re;llIy unordered, since items arc ordered in an accessibility hierarchy
dcpcnding upon rcccncy of mcntion. On this nltcrnativc vicw, Wilbtrr, tllc book.
depending upon recency of mention. On this alternativc view, Wilbur, the book,
and quarks arc all still acccssiblc aftcr is uscd to pick out t i ~ cbook in the
and Quarks are all still accessible after it is used to pick out ~ book in the
"Anyway" scntcncc, but now 11ic books is morc acccssiblc (sincc it was last
"Anyway" scntence, but now the books is more accessible (sincc it was last
"rcfrcshcd" by being poinkd at by thc i~napliord). 'I'liis list Iiypolhcsis thus
"rcfrcshed" by being pointed at by the anaphor il). This list hypothcsis thus
contrasts with Sidncr's:
contrasts with Sidner's:
Stcp 2
stcp 1
Step 2
Step 1
(Wilbur, thc book, quarks, ficld thcorics) (Wilbur, Q. F1',thc book)
(Wilbur, the book, quarks, field theories) (Wilbur, Q, FT, thc bOOK)
Increasing acccssibility -->
Increasing accessibility --)
Figure 5 Acccssiblc Noun Phrsscs in a list dccay model.
Figure 5 Accessible Noun Phrases in a list decay model.
Which struclurc morc adcquatcly rcflccts hunii~ndiscoursc bchavior? If the
Which structurc more adcquntcly renects human discourse behavior? If the
theories
lisi dccay nlodcl wcrc correct. thcn wc would cxpcct eithcr auarks or
list decay model wcrc correct, then wc would expcct either quarks or field theories
to be (rclativcly) acccssiblc for anaptioric contact aftcr the "Any*ayw scntence
to be (relatively) accessible for annphoric contact aftcr the "Anyway" sentence
(213, just as thc bouk was. Howcvcr, this sccms not to bc thc casc, for scntcnces
(20), just as the book was. Howevcr. this seems not to be the case, for sentences
whcre one attempts to point hack to cithcr of these old, prcsumably vcccssible foci
where one attempts to point back to either of these old, presumably accessible foci
sccm difficult to comprchcnd:
seem difficult to comprchend:

(33) Wilbur is a finc scientist and a dclighlful guy.

Hc gavc mc a book a whilc back which 1 really enjoyed.
He gave
me a book a while back which I really enjoyed.
I t was on relativity thcory and talkcd mostly about quarks.
It was on relativity theory and talkcd mostly about quarks.
Thcy arc hard to imagine, bccausc thcy indicate thc nccd for
They arc hard to imaginc. because they indicate the need for
clcmcntary field thcorics.
elementary ficld theories.
l h c s c theories are tremendously complicated.
Thesc theories arc tremendously complicated.
Anyway, I got it whcn 1 was working on thc initial part of
Anyway. I got it when I was working on the initial part of
my research.
my research.
?'Ihcy [i.e., quarks] wcre na~ncdfrom a linc in a James Joyce
?They [Le., quarks] were named from a line in a James Joyce
novel.
(33) Wilbur is a fine scientist and a delightful guy.

novel.

Instcad, one is apparently forced to rc-introduce such itcrns by full Noun

Instead, one is apparently forced to fe-introduce such itcms by full Noun
Phrases, as if onc wcrc "starting ovcr again", e.g.,
Phrases, as if one were "starting over again", e.g.
(34) Quarks were namcd from a linc by James Joyce.
(34) Quarks were named from a line by James Joyce.
They wcrc first hypolhcsizcd in the early 1960's.
They werc first hypothesized in the early 1960's.

O n thc other hand. the old focus Wilbur -- a n itcm that should have "decayed"
On the other hand, the old focus Wilbur'- an item that should have "decayed"

59

--

asmuch
if not morc than ou;lrks
acccssiblc:
as
much ifnot
quarks is easily accessible:

(35) Wilbur is a fine

finc scientist
scientist and a delightful
dcligl~tfulguy.
He
me a book a \vl~ilc
while back which II rcnlly
really enjoyed.
tlc gavc
gnvc mc
cnjoycd.
a b o ~quarks.
~t
It was on rclativity
relativity theory and tnlkcd
talked inostly
mostly about
quarks.
Ihcy arc hard to imagine, bccausc
indicate thc
They
becausc thcy
U1CY indicatc
the nccd
necd for
clcmcntary licld
thcurics.
elementary
field theuries.
tllcorics arc trcmcndously
cnmplicatcd.
'lhcsc theories
tremendously complicated.
Anyway. II got it whcn II was working on thc
iniual part of
Anyway,
the initial
my research.
He's
Willy nice guy for 11;lving
having givcn it to me.
[Wilbur] a rcidly
lie's [Wilbur]
130th aspects
aspccts of this
cxplaincd by a stack,
stack. bccausc
foci
Both
tbis bchavior arc naturally explained
because if foci
store disciplinc,
UIC first accessible
acccssiblc item
follow push-down
follow
push'down storc
discipline, thcn
then Wilbur bccomcs
becomes O,C
aftcr thc
discoursc "pops back" to @
thc intervening
WEUS (7LlalkS
after
the discourse
the book,
book, and the
intervening focus
quarks is
onc to rc-introduce
ill1 over again. In contrast,
contrast, an
lost, thus forcing one
lost.
fe-introduce quarks all
cannot
cxpli~itrcillrcr
apparellt loss of
of
unordcrcd or list dccay
unordered
decay approach call
not cnsily
ca~ily explain
either LIIC
the apparcnlluss
uld foci or thc
app;~rcntly"refreshed"
"rcfrcshcd" accessibility
acccssibility of
ofothcr
old
the apparently
otber old foci.
foci.

1.2.5 Evidence
b:\idcnce for
lor Sidne,s
Sidner's focus
locus theory
1.2.5
Intuitions about dialogues such as thc
onc above,
above, though
thougl~suggestive,
soggcstivc, arc shaky
Intuitions
the one
cnough that one
onc ougiit
othcr kinds of confirming evidence
evidence for
enough
ought to cast about for other
modcl. Hcrc
Sidncr's model.
Here thcrc
there arc
aTC some
made. First of all,
nlmc genera]
gcneral points to be
bc madc.
all,
rcprcscnt;ainn of focus
fcrus mimics tllc
rulc of QR, u,ith
iti Qx-]l(x)
Qx--l'(x) fonn.
form.
Sidncr's representation
the rule
with its
Sccond. Sidner's
Sidncr's representation
rcprcscntalion is compatible
comp;~tiblcwith strcss
strcss phcnomcna
Second.
phenomena that are
uith focus. This is a particularly
propcrty, sinn:
known to intcract
interact with
particularly interesting property.
since it
h i ~ ~att s how onc would begin
bcgin to intcgratc
propcrtics of spoken language into a
hints
integrate properties
model
Finally, thc
tbe stack-like
behavior of foci
~nodclof discourse.
discoursc. Finally,
stack-likc bchavior
foci is analogous
analogous to the
more
syntactic opacity.
opacity. Let
murc familiar case
casc of
ofsyntactic
I.et us review
rcvicw this evidence
c\idcnce in turn.
Syntactically,
there are a variety of mechanisms
rncchanisms that create
crcatc structures
structurcs of the
Syntactically. thcrc
foom,
p(x)":
s.t. P(x)":
form, "the xx S.t.
Topicalization: Strawberries,
Strawbcrries. II never
ncvcr liked [e]
[el
Topicalization:

Wh-questions: Who did Jobn

John kiss [e)?
[el?
It clefts: It was John that [e]
[c] ate
arc the strawberries.
suawbcmcs.
!l
-

In eacb
the focus
cach case,
casc, the
thc fronled
fronted item
itcm is intuitively thc
focus of the sentence.
scntcnce. Thus, if the
"x S.t.
p(x)" fonm
rigbt one for focus,
s.t. fix)"
form is in fact the right
focus, then, as expected,
cxpcctcd, syntactie
syntactic

60

Berwick

operations that crcatc this form also nltcr what is in focus.

operations that create this form <1lso alter what is in focus.
Furthcr, thcrc is suggcstivc cvidcncc (pointed out by [Chomsky 19761) that
Further, U,ere is suggestive evidence (pointed out by [Chomsky 1976]) that
stress interacts with focus via thc machincry of varjablc binding or co-indexing. A
stress interacts with foclls via the mnehinery of variable binding or co-indexing. A
ftcuscd N P acts likc a quantilicd cxprcssion -- h r t l i ~ support
r
for thc "x--P(x)"
focused NP nets like a quanti lied expression -- furthrr support for the "x--P(x)"
s an
formulntion. If this is so, thcn as a sidc bcncfit thc rc-formulation of f t ~ u as
formulation. I f this is so, then as a side benefit the re-fonnulation of filCUS as an
"X--l'(x)"
str~cturcwould allow US to incorporate scntcncc strcss into thc focus
"x-P(x)" structure would allow us to incorporate sentence stress into the focus
model-- a fciiturc that was not acconl~nodatcdin Sidncr's original proposal.
model-- a feature that was not accommodated in Sidner's original proposal.
'I'hc kcg insight hcrc is to obscrvc dlat according to Ulc "x--P(x)" fonnulation.
The key insight here is to observc that according to the "x--P(x)" fonnulation,
thc "s-stnlcturc" o f a scntcncc -- roughly, its constitucnt structure augmcntcd with
me "s-stmcture" of a sentence .. roughly, its constituent structure augmented with
an indication of rnovcd constituents -- mcchanically dctcrmincs thc focus of a
an indication of moved constitucnts .- mechanically determines the focus of a
scntcncc, or at tcast thc pri~niirycontcndcr for h c ftxus. For cxamplc, considcr
sentence, or at Icas\ the primary contender for the focus. For example, consider
the topicatizcd scntcncc:
!he topicali7.Cd sentence:
(36) Strawbcrrics. 1 ncvcr liked.
(36) Strawberries. I never liked.

Assuming now that this scntcncc has an abstract conslitlicnt structure with an
Assuming now that this sentence has ,111 abstract constituent structure with an
"cmpty" NP acting as a placeholdcr fur the normal position in which
"empty" NP acting as a placeholder for the nonnal position in which
"strr~whcrrics"would be found:
"strawberries" would be found:
(7) IStrawberries]NP [S I [ypnever liked [NpcmptyJ]]

thcn thc scntcncc is in X--P(X) form:

men the sentence is in X--P(X) form:
(38) [ S ~ a w b c r r i c s[S
] ~ I~[ V p n ~liked
~ ~ r[Npcmpty]U
(38) [Strawbcrries]NP [S I [Vpnever liked [Npempty)lJ
X
P(x)
X
P(x)
<--focus<--focusform
form

The focus can thcn be mcchanically rccovcrcd.

The focus can then be mechanically recovered.
On thc phonctic sidc. undcr thc usual assumptions of modern generative
On the phonetic side. under the usual assumptions of modern generative
grammar, s-structure also dctcrmincs phonctic form (PF), in particular, strcss.
grammar, s-structure also determines phonetic foml (PF), in particular. stress.
That is, thcrc are rules that map s-structures to phonctic rcprcsc~ltationsindicating
That is. there are rules that map s-structures to phonetic representations indicating
stress:
stress:

61

A.

s-structure

intcrprctiition rulcs
~.f'XUS<--focus
i'terp"Wdu, ru1"

strcss
stress nltes--)
nlles--)

PI:
I,F
LF of gcncrntivc grammar.
FigurePF
6 A decomposition
Figure 6 1\ decomposition of generative grammar.
It is important to obrcrvc 1113t thc stress rulcs do not intcract with 1,F cxccpt in
It is important 10 (lb~erve that the stress rules do not interact with LF except in
Ole scnsc that h r c is a co~nnionintcrmcdiary rcprcscnt;rtion, s-structure, that
the sense that there is a common jl1termediar~' representation, s'structure, that
scrvcs as the bast dara stroctor-c for both tlic rirlcs that h n n rcprcscntations of
serves as the base daw strucllIre for both the rules that fonn representations of
c s fi)nn'rcprcscntations of ftwus. 'I'hus thc hcnrcr has an
stress and tllc r ~ ~ l that
stress Jnd the rules that fonnrepresenwtions of focus. Thus the hearer has an
indircct rourc that can bc used to dcducc whar fwws must hc, given stress, cven
indirect roUle that can be used to deduce whal focus must he, given stress, even
though strcss docs not, it] itsclf, dcienninc f t ~ u s . Namcly. if the strcss rulcs are
though stress docs not, in itself, detennine focus. Namely, if the stress rules are
invcrtih~c.~
thcn s-structnrc can bc rccovcrcd -- this is just part of paning. Givcn
invertible,l then S'structurc can be recovered -- this isjust part of parsing. Given
s-structure, thc f u c ~ rulcs
~ s may bc applicd to rccovcr Ihc focus.
S'structure, the focus rules may be applied to recover the focus.
T o scc h o w focus interacts with stress. considcr thc cascs discussed by
To sec how focus interacts with stress, consider the cases discussed by
[Chomsk y 19761. I'hc scntcnce.
[Chomsky 1976]. The sentence,
(39) 7hc woman he lovcd bctraycd someone.

. (39) The woman he loved betrayed someone.

cannot bc intcrprctcd with &=somconc. On thc otlicr hand. if somconc appears

cannot be interpreled with he::; someone. On the other hand, jf someone appears
to thc lcft of thc pronoun k, thcn co-indexing of k and somconc is acceptable
to the left of the pronoun ill., then co-indexing of ill. and someone is acceptable
(but not ncccssary).
(but nDt necessary).
(40) [S~rnconc]~
was bctraycd by thc woman [hcIi loved.
(40) [Someone]i was betrayed by the woman (he]j loved.

'Ilic rcason for this follvws from a morc gcncl'al rcstrictinn on co-indexing,
'nle reason for this follows from a more general reslnctlon un co' indexing,
namely, that a quantificr cannot bind a pronoun to its Icft. Compare, for
namely, that a quantifier cannot bind a pronoun to its left. Compare, for
example,2
example,2
(41) (i) *'lhathci was draftcd shouldn't botllcr cvcry soldieri.

(41) (i) *1hal hCi was drafted shouldn't bother every soldierj'
(ii)l'hat hci was draftcd shouldn't bother nil$.
(ii) That hCj was drafted shouldn't bother Ilill j.

I n (39) thc quantificr somconc cannot bind hc for just this rcason.
In (39) the quantifier someone cannol bind he for just this reason.
Now considcr the sucsscd counterparts to thcsc scnlcnccs. (41i) bclow, with
Now consider the stressed counterparts to these sentences. (4li) below, with
1. An additional asumption that must bc justified: it is presumably not a necessary property of lhese
1. An additional
that mustSJbcjuslilied:
it is cxists.
presumably not a necessary property oflhese
mlcs thata~umption
lhcy are onc-lo-onc,
that an invcne
rulcs lhallhey
are onc'lo'one,
lhal an
inverse exists.
2. Thcsc
sentcnccs aresofrom
[llornstcin
19811.
2. These sentences are from [Ilornstein 1981].

Rcrwick
Rerwick

62

62

c~lnriotbc co-indcxcd with h:

in
John strcsscd, is just likc (39) in that
John stressed,
is just like (39) in that hc cannot be co-indexed with John: in
may bc co-indcxcd with
contrast. in (41ii). bc~ravcdrcccivcs niiiin slrcss, and
contrast, in (4Iii), betrayed receives main stress, and he may he co-indexed with
John:
John:

(12) (i) 'Ihc woman hc lovcd bctraycd JOHN.

(42) (i) 'Il1e
woman
he loved betrayed JOHN. ~ l l
(ii).l'hc
woman hc lovcd I l t ~ I ' R A Y ~John.
(ii) The Wllman he loved IlETRA YED John.
Why is this? Following Cho~nsky,supposc that thc focus struclurc For (42i) is as in
Why is this? Following Chomsky, suppose that the focus structure for (42i) is as in
(43):

(43):

(43) John-- dic x such that IJ(x)

John--the x such that P(x)
John-- Qxi S L I C ~~ l l ; t~l t~ cw0111an Iic loved bctraycd xi.
John-- QXi sLich that the woman he loved betrayed Xi'

(43)

'Ihcn the focuscd NI' John is likc a quantificd NY, hcncc cannot bind k,just as in
'1l1en the focused NP John is like a quantified NP, hence cannot hind he, just as in
cast (39). SilniIa1.1y. if John is i~nstrcsscd,as in (42ii), tllc~iwc havc Ihc analoguc
case (39). Similarly, if John is unstressed, as in (42ii), then we have the analogue
of (40): John is not frontcd. hcncc is not quantificd, llcncc can now bind & as in
of(40): John is not fronted, hence is not quantified, hence can now bind ~ as in
(40). (40).
Summi~rizing,thcrc arc two scts of stn~cturalfacts that support a "Qx-l'(x)" or
Summarizing, there arc two sets of stmctural facts that support a "Qx'P(x)" or
operator--bound variahlc rcprcscntation for focus. Onc is thc varicty of syntactic
opcrator--bound variable representation for focus. One is the variety of syntactic
mcchi~nisn~s
tlilit, blindly iis it wcrc, crcatc a Qx--P(x) funn that is intcrprctcd
mechanbms that, blindly ,IS it were, create a Qx-'P(x) fonn that is interpreted
unifol.rnly as altcring Uic focus of a scntcncc: Lhc othcr is thc apparent fact that a
uniformly as altering the focus of a sentence: the other is the apparent fact that a
strcsscd NP th;~tacts as if it wcrc in Qx--l'(x) fimn is likcwisc intcrprctcd as
stressed NP that acts as if it were in Qx--P(x) ronn is likewise interpreted as
indicating thc filcus oTa scnlcnce.
indicating the focus or a sentence.
If disco~lrscstructurc rcally rcprcscnts thc propositional structurc of multiple
If discourse structure really represQnts the propositional structure of multiple
scntcnccs, thcn thcrc should bc no rcason why it could not rcflcct somc larger,
sentences, then there should be no reason why it could not reflect some larger,
ovcr-all 1~1.opositional
strucrurc of a discoursc. Significantly, there is some cvidcnce
overall propositional structure ofa discourse. Significantly, there is some evidence
that this is so.
that th is is so.
Notc first that Sidncr's observations about thc push-down stack bchavior of
Note lirst that Sidne(s observations abollt the push-down stack behavior of
discoursc ftci arc drawn mostly from cxarnplcs of narrativcs -- that is, slorics that
discourse foci arc drawn mostly from examples of narratives -- that is, stories that
follow chronological causal scqucnccs. h s a rcsult, thc propositional structure of
follow chronological causal sequences. As a result, the propositional structure of
niirrativcs tcnds to follow a scqucncilig dctcrlnincd by timc: first PI happened,
narratives tends to follow a sequencing determined by time: first PI happened,
thcn Pa, and st) forth. 'lhis timc-dctcrmincd structurc is rcflcctcd in the basic
then P2- ;md so forth. This time-determined structure is reflected in the basic
suck-likc behavior of foci.
stack-like behavior of foci.
nut one can also imaginc a more gcncral situation where propositional
Out one can also imagine a more general situation where propositional
structurc is not rcstrictcd lo simplc linear ordcr. Indced, [Grosz 19771 has
structure is not restricted to simple linear order. Indeed, [Grosz 1977] has
invcstigatcd just such a domain: a diwoursc about nsscmbling a mnchinc (a pump)
investigated just such a domain: a discourse about assembling a machine (a pump)
from its parts. Grosz discoilcrcd that ia h i s situation co-indcxing dcfaults sccm to
from its parts. Grosz discovered that in this situation co-indexing defaults seem to
follow rhc dccornpositional stn~cturcof thc task itsclf. For cxamplc, if the pump
follow the dccompositional stmcLure of the task itself. For example, if the pump
could bc asscmblcd by first bolting on a sub-asscmbly. 1). thcn a sub-assembly C,
could be assembled by first bolting on a sub'assembly, n, then a sub-assembly C,
and 8 in turn dcmandcd bolting on a brackcl turning scrcws, and so forth, then
and B in turn demanded bolting on a bracket, turning screws, and so forth, then
hcarcrs sccrn to follow this trcc-likc task structurc when figuring out what to
hearers seem to follow this tree-like task structure when figuring out what to

63

co-indcx with
with what.
what. Grosz'
Grosr' observations
obscrvatiuns support
support the
thc contention
contention that
that itit isis the
the
co-index
propositional structure
structure of
of aa discourse
discoursc that
that shapes
shapes its
its syntactic
syntactic form.
form. Sidncr's
Sidncr's linear
lincar
propositional
ordering, then,
then, becomes
bccomcsjust
justaa special
spccial sub-case
sub-cascof
of task
task structuring
structt~ringwhere
whcrc the
thc task
task isis
ordering,
lincarly ordered
ordcrcd by time.
timc. Observe
Obscrvc tilal
that Grosz'
Grosz' more
more general
gcncr;~l tree
tree structure
structure
.Iinearly
tree may
may wel1
wcll be
bc linear
linear in
in appearance,
appcarance.
subsumes Sidncr's
Sidncr's in
in that aa sub-section
sub-scction of
of aa tree
subsumes
and hence
hcncc could
could act
act like
likc one
onc ofSidner's
ofSidncr's focus
fixus stacks.
stacks.
and
It
is
intcrcsting
to
obscrvc that
that the
fit computational
~(~mpotational
advantage accruing
accruing from
from the
the
It is interesting to ohscrrc
advantage
modcl also
also ohtains
obtains inin ti,e
rhc more
rnorc genem!
gcncrill case
casc of
of tree-structured
trcc-strtrcturcd
Sidncr stack
stack focos
focus model
Sidner
x i Suppose.
Suppose. for
for example.
cxamplc, that a task imposes
imposes a natural tree-structured
ucc-structurcd
foci.
on a discourse.
discoursc. Adopting
Adopting Sidncr's
Sidncr's focus
ftxus accessibility constraint,
constraint.
dccolnposition on
decomposition
only antecedents
antcccdcnts at certain sub-tasks
sub-tasks would
would be
bc available
available for
for co-indexing.
co-indexing.
only
Ilepcnding on the
thc branching
branching slructllre
structure of the ulsk.
task, many co'
co-indcxing
Depending
indexing possibilities
(Thc exact
cxact savings
savings would
would depend
dcpcrid upon the task
would thus be ruled out. (The
decomposition.) Now observe
obscrvc t11,1[
that a linear
lincar narrative
narrati\'c task structure
slructurc ---- that assumed
assumcd
decomposition.)
Sidncr
actually obtains the
thc WOfst
worst possible
pussiblc savings,
savings, since
sir~ccunder
undcr a strict
strict linear
lincar
by Sid
ncr --- actually
;dl preceding
prcccding antecedent
antcccdcnt foci
foci are
arc potential
potcrltial candidates,
candidatcs. We see
scc then
thcn that
order all
Sidncr's theory
Uicory obtains only a lower
lowcr bovnd
bound on the
thc computational
colnputational savings
savings to be
Sidner's
adoptingaa focus
focus stack model.
lnodcl. /\
A morc
lnorc complex
complex theory
lheory of task stmcture,
structure.
gained by adopting
corrcct, would probably do better.
if corrcct,

1.3 Kaplan:
Kaplan: the
tllc world
norld as database
1.3
So far,
"connect" thc
far, we bavc
have not yct
yet providcd
provided any way to "connect"
the rcprcscntations
representations of
discourse entities or foci provided
providcd by Wcbbcr
Webber and Sidncr to thc
the world. One way
creatc a sirnplc
simple artificial
artificial world. Kaplan's approach
to attack this problem is to crcatc
docs
does just
just that: in Kaplan's systcm,
system, the world of
of actions and intentions is boiled
down to just
one,
that
of
asking
qucstions:
the
extcrnal
just one.
questions;
external wo~ld
world of objccts
objects is reduced
to that ofobjccts
of objccts and thcir
their properties in a databasc
database of rclational
relational attributes.
Formally,
Formally. we could define such a database as a triple <X,
<X. Die,,
DiEI U>. X
X is a
finitc
finite sct
set of
of database &&&,
objects. likc
like "John".
"John", "Mary"
"Mary" "Computer
"Complller ricncc
science 101". 1 is a
finitc
finite set of allributcs
attributes uscd to indcx
index thc
the domain D such as "scx",
"sex". "Grade",
"Grade", or
"year". U is a function dcfined
defined ovcr
over attributcs
attributes and thcir ~alucs
values that retrieves the
g
ill of
of objccts
objects that have a particular value of
of a specified attributc,
attribute. c.g.,
e.g., U(scx,male)
U(sex,male)
will rcturn
rcturn the subset of
of X
X that bas
has thc attribute "scx"
"sex" with thc
the value "malcs"
"males" -John, etc. The crucial point is that a databasc
database is defined so that it has a
quintcsscntially
quintessentially extensional scrnantics
scmantics ---- what U
U returns is a ill of
of objects. AA
qucstion askcd
asked of
of a databasc,
database. a databasc
database w,
ID!ill. is then simply somc
some scqucnce
sequence of
of
calls to thc
the interrogating function U.
Thc
The goal of
of a datibasc
database user in making a query is assumcd
assumed to be simply to find

--

Bcrwick
Berwick

64

64

out information about the attributes of objccts. Considcr a databasc that has
out information about the attributes of objects. Consider a database that has
infarmation about studcnls, thc courses thcy havc taken, thcir grades, and so forth.
infonnatiol1 about students, the courses they have taken, their grades, and so forth.
A typical qucry is, "Which students got A's in co1nputcr scicncc 101?" 'Ihc point
A typical query is, "Which students got A's in computer science 101?'' The point
of thc qucry is to "find out about X", whcrc X is thc act of objccts possessing the
of the query is to "find out about X", where X is the set of objects possessing the
value "A", for atlributc="gradc in computcr science 101". So wc havc finally
value ";\", for attribute ="grade in computer science 101". So we have finally
forgcd thc last link in the discourse chain:
forged the last link in the discourse chain:

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
surface
--->surface
--->logic;ll--->
(1.F. Scts of individuals>--->])atabase
surfacestring
--->surface
>logiC<ll--->
fonn <LF. Sets ofindividuals>--->Databasc
struclurc
string
structure fonn
(query)(query)Sidncr. Wcbbcr
Kaplan
Kaplan
Sidncr, Webber
Actually, what Kaplan docs is to tclcscopc thc proccss modularized by Wcbber
Actually. what Kaplan docs is to telescope the process modularized by Webber
and Sidncr a bit collapsing intcnncdiatc stcps of recovering stirface structure and
and Sidncr a bit. collapsing intennediate steps of recovering surface structure and
constnrcting 1.F into a singlc computational step:
constructing I.F into a single computational step:
surfacc ---> hybrid logical form ---> LFintcrpreted
surfacestring
---) hybrid
logical stnlcturc
f\lrm ._-> LF
interpreted
sy~ltaclic
with
rcspcct to a database
string
syntactic stnlcture with respect to a database
Kaptan's hybrid synlaclic/logical form is dubbcd MQ1. for "mcta query
Kaplan's hybrid syntactic/logical fonn is dubbed MQI. for "meta query
language". MQI. has all ~ h cpropcrtics of a hybrid: it cncodcs rhc surface
language". MQL has all the properties of a hybrid: it encodes the surface
constirucllt structure of a qttcry as well ns a sl>ccific:ttion of which polcntiaI scts of
constituent structure of a query as well as a specification of which potential sets of
objccts in thc databm thcsc surfi~ccplirascs coiild dcnotc. But how do we find
objects in the database these surface phrases could denote. But how do we find
out what objccrs thcsc imjllicd scts do pick out of thc database? ?his is not
oul what objects the~e implied sets do pick out of the database? 111is is not
difficult: givcn an hiQI, cxprcssion, with a11 its implied scts of objccts and thcir
difficult: given an MQL expression, with all its implied sets of objects and their
attrib;tcs, wc simply construct a qucry that docs thc actual job of "looking up the
allrib~tes, we simply construct a query that docs the actual job of "looking up the
answcr". returning thc sct of objccts that mccts thc stipulations dcmandcd by the
answer", returning the set of objects that meets the stipulations demanded by the
MQI, cxprcssion. Aftcr ;ill, h i s is just what ~llcdalabasc was dcsigncd to do in the
MQL expression. After all, lhis is just what the datahase was designed to do in the
first placc. Ihus, to intcrprct tllc question. "Who did John kiss?", Kaplan'ssystem
first place. 11lus, to interpret the question, "Who did John kiss?", Kaplan's system
would first build a combined syntactic/l-F rcprcscntation,
would first build a combined syntactic/LF representation,

Wh-x, x a pcrson. kisscd (John, x).

Whx. x a person. kissed (John, x).
and h c n simply qucry the databasc to see if, in hct, thcrc wcrc any objccts X that
and then simply query the database to see if, in fact, there were any objects X that
havc thc attributes of bcing (1) a pcrson and (2) bcing kisscd by ~ohn. The
have the attributes of being (1) a person and (2) being kissed by John. The
program would return a list of names of such ol~jccts(probably pcoplc's names),
program would return a list of names of such objects (probably people's names),
orjust "nil" if tllcrc wcre none.
orJUSt "nil" if there were none.
I4ow in particular is thc syntactic rcprcscntation of a scntcnce conncctcd to the
How in particular is the syntactic representation of a sentence connected to the
darabasc world? In general, Kaplan's MQI. assumes a straightforward
database world?
In general, Kaplan's MQL assumes a straightforward
relationship bctwccn objccts OF a syntactic typc -- Prepositional phrascs, Noun
relationship between objects of a syntactic type _. Prepositional phrases, Noun
Phrascs, Verb Phrascs -- and o b j c c ~of a database typc. 'I'hus it is the job of MQL
Phrases. Verb Phrases -- and objects of a database type. Thus it is the job of MQL

65

to link syntax to Lhc databasc, via Lhc following ;tssociittions:

to link syntax to the database, via the following associations:
Nouns -- corrcspo~idto databasc objccts (uscrs, advisers, accounts)
Nouns _. correspond to database objecL~ (users, advisers, accounts)

Prepositional Phrascs -- correspond to restrictions on auributc scts: c.g., "Advisor

Prepositional Phrases -- correspond to restrictions on altribute sel~; e.g., "Advisor
with red hair" restricts Ihc qucry to look at just i~dvisorswho also havc the
with red hair" restricts the query to look at just advisors who also have the
attribute rcd hair. 'Ihus, thc "meaning" o f prepositions such as with and of is
attribute fcd hair. Thus, the "meaning" of prepositions such as with and of is
givcn via a specification of a corresponding dalabasc qucry that mirrors the
given via a specification of a corresponding database query that mirrors the
rcstrictivc intcnt of thc prcposition.
restrictive intent oflhe preposition.
Adjcctivcs -- arc also intcrprctcd as restricting somc basic sct, hcncc arc also
Adjectives -- arc also interpreted as restricting some basic Set, hence arc also
mappcd into restriction qucrics.
mapped into restriction queries.
(Kcstrictivc) Rclarivc clauscs -- arc anothcr sourcc of additional specification of
(Restrictive) Relath'e clauses -- arc another SOUfce of additional specification of
w h a t a basic NP rcfcrs too, hcncc arc intcrprctcd likc adjectives.
what a basic NP refers too, hence arc interpreted like adjcctives.
Vcrbs -- arc subficld links in h c diltabnsc. connecting onc Noun to anothcr. For
Verbs -- arc subficld lin ks in the database. connecting one Noun to another. For
exampic, thc vcrb "sponsor" might bc rcprcscntcd as a two-way lablc, with things
example. the verb "sponsor" might be represented as a two-way table, with things
sponsurcd on onc axis, and sponsorccs on tlic othcr. ('l'hc Nouns thus connected
sponsored on one axis. and sponsorees on the other. (The Nouns thus connected
arc thc,argumcnts to tllc vcrb, in thc usual scnsc.)
arc the .arguments to the verb, in the usual sense.)

Connectives and quantifiers (and. cvcrv. some. .I -- arc intcrprctcd as requests for
Connectives and quantifiers (m every. some..,) -- arc interpreted as requests for
set operations, as onc would cxpecl frt!m an cxrcnsional semantics. For example,
set operations, as one would expect fro.m an extensional semantics, For example,
"Who got A's in Cornputcr Scicncc 101 and A's in Coinputcr Scicncc 102?"
"Who gO[ A's in Computer Science 101 and I\'s in Computer Science 1027"
simply in~crscctsthc two scts rctumcd by thc two halvcs of thc full query.
simply i~ler~ccts the two set~ retumed by the two halves of the full query.
S~milarly,qi~antiticrsarc intcrprctcd simply as a scrics of qucrics, c.g., evcrv x Pb)
Similarly, quantifiers arc interpreted simply as a series of queries, e.g. every !fu)
is translatcd as x l P(xl)&x21'(x2) ...ctc.. itcri~tingover cach Nt' in the sct rctunied
is translated as Xl P(xl)&x2P(x2)...etc., iterating over each NP in the set retumed
by the non-quantified query, 1

In thc actual implcmcntation, a dictionary cntry for & or jdyisc specifics

In the actual implementation. a dictionary entry for have or ~ specifics

what databasc paths and nodcs corrcspond to thc arguments of a vcrb. For
what databa~e paths and nodes correspond to the arguments of a verb. For
cxamplc, "advjsc" might havc the following template:

example. "advise" might have the following template:

1. As Kaplan obscrvcs, thcrc are some inlcrcs~ingqucslions to resolve hcre involving the scope of the
I. As Kaplan
observes,asumes
there are
some interesting
10 resolve here involving the scope of the
&. Kaplan
il always
taka widcQuestions
scopc: M(Peoplc
who got an A in coum 1,people who
~. Kaplan
it always
got ana~umes
A in mum
2). takes wide scope: And(People who gOI an A in course I. people who
gOI an A in course 2).

66

Berwick

Advise:
Advisor;--)Daulbase Field {AdviseeS/ProjeclS}-')ProjeclS
or~

wl~ich
databssc fields
liclds corresponding to thc
following
which would list Uic
tl,e rclcvant
relevant datJbase
the following
dat;~bascrepresentation:
rcprcscntation:
database
Addso"
Smith. J.
Advisces (---Advisee
<---Advisccsubfic1d
subficld
Jones, A.
Joncs,
Charles,
Ch;lrlcs, M.
Projects
(---Project
<---Projcct subfield
sublicld
Co~npilcrllcsign
Compiler
Design

The
advise would UIIIS
thus infi11.111
infhrm UIC
the system
that to find
find out.
'l'he entry
cntry for
Tor ndvirc
systcnl tliat
out whether
wlicthcr X
&&
thc advisor subfictd
subficld of lllc
database, then
d ~ c ntracc
frum
ill.yiscs Y. look up the
the database.
tnlcc through from
point to subtlclds
[Idviscc or and return thc
the objccts
there.
that p(1i11t
subficlds 3dViSCC
ohjccts listed thcrc.
1-1. t .1\ lQL ;,md the interaction or s)'ntax and

sl'm~Hltic~

As mcntioJ)ctl.
mcnti~>~~cd,
hlQl. is iJa hybrid LF/surfacc
i.l:/surfncc syntax
sp~i(:lxlangu:lgc.
I:~nguagc. It is instn~ctivc
MQL
inSlmctivc to
colilpnrc
1.1:. Consider
Coasidcr lhe
lhc ",Howing
Ibllowill[: example.
cx.~mplc. Snppose
Supposc the
compare it with Wchbcr's
Werber's 1.1'.
query
to Kaplan's
qurry rrcscnlt'd
prc?.cl~lrdtci
Kaplnn's sy51.('m
systrrn is:
is: "Which user')
users h,:lVC
linvc accounts on projects
projccts
sponsored by NSI,?'
NSF?" The
reflecting the
'l'lic MQI.
MQI. structure built
b~liltfrom this query,
qtlcry, rcflccti~lg
surface syntactic
sy111:sticstrLlcture
structure ofLhis
o f U~isquestion.
question, looks like this:

I1

Uscrs

llavc
("Ilsvc" is just a paU~
uscn to projccts)
path from users
projects)
Hove ("llavc"

Amounts
AccOllnlS

1 an

I1

Oil

("On" is just [\n restriction

accounts.
rcslriction of
ofaccounts,
a dauloHse
path)
dat~hascpall])

Projects
Projects

NSI:
NSF

(rtnolhcr rcslriction)
Sponsored by
hy (another
restriction)

67
'Illat is, thc structurc of Lhc qucry is that (Uscm havc (Accounts on (I'rojccts
'Illat is. the structure of the query is th;]t (Users have (Accounts on (Projects
sponsorcd by (NSF)))). 'I'his structurc is nearly a mirror i~nagcof a Wcbbcr-style
sponsored by (NSF))), This structure is nearly a mirror image of a Webber'style
rcprcscntation for thc salnc scntcncc:
representation for the same sentence:
(wh-x:uscr)
(wh-x:user)
3y : ~ ( y:Account)[31.: h(u:Projcct)
3y:A(y: ACCOll nt)[]z: h(u: Project)
[Sponsor NSF, u] .
[Sponsor NSF. ul .
[On y, z]] . IJave x, y
lOn y, z]] , Have x, Y
'I'lic bri~ckctingrcflccts thc rcstriction scts enforced by thc MQI. verbs and thc
The bracketing renects the restriction 1sets enforced by the MQL verbs and the
prcpositiuni~lrcstriction chains.
prepositional restriction chains. 1
Finillly, wc obscrvc that Kaplan docs M advance a rulc likc QR that "raiscs"
Finally, we ()bser\'e that Kaplan docs not advance a rule like QR that "raises"
quantifiers fl-om their surfire positions and adjoins tlic~n to the front of a
quantifiers from their surface positions and adjoins thcm to the front of a
scntcncc. hlQI, simply iIssumcs that whcrcvcr n quanlificr is found in thc surface
sentence. f\lQL simply assumes that wherever a quantifier is found in the surface
conaitucnt structtlrc o i a phrasc dctcrrnincs its scoping relationship to thc rcst of
constituent structure of a phrase determines its scoping relationship to the rest of
thc scntcncc. Ilur. as wc h a w sccn, this cannot always givc thc right answer,
the sentence. BUl as we have seen, this cannot always give the right answer,
bccausc it docs nut allow for ~ h scoping
c
ambiguitics of, Tor cxa~nplc.Evcrvone
because it docs not allow for the scoping ambiguities of, for example, Everyone
bc modificd to incorporate a
loves
somconc.
In
thcsc
cascs,
MQI.
could
--In these cases, MQL could simplysimply
loves someone.
be modified to incorporate a
rule likc QR.
mle like QR.
In sum, to gct fin answer to a qucry in Kitplan's systcm wc take thc following
In s,um, to get an answer to a query in Kaplan's system we take the following
stcps:
steps:
1. hl;~pLhc surfi~cestring to thc MQI, rcprcscntation
(roughly, Wchbcis I..[' without qitantificr adjunction)
(roughly, Wehber's LF, without quantifier adjunction)
1. t\1ap the surface string to the MQL representation

2. Constrt~ct thc databasc qucry by rctricving the

2. Construct the database query by retrieving the
databasc paths as indicated by thc lexical itcms in the
database paths as indicated by the lexical items in the
MQI. structure and thc bracketing of thc MQL
MQI. structure and the bracketing of the MQL
struclurc itsclf.
structure itself.
I. Asidc: the uqc oilhc pasisc form monsorcd & in the query raiscs onc interesling point about the
1. Aside:
usc of the
pas.shc
form As
Sllonsored
in thc query
oncwcinteresting
point
about the
s a ytheKaplan's
systcm
works.
we havcQy
dcscribcd
thingsraises
so Tar,
would nccd
a scparale
dictionary
way Kaplan's system works. As we have described things so far, we would need a separate dictionary
entry Tor the aclivc form orcach verb,e.g sponsor and the rcrb's corresponding passivc form (if' any).
entry fore thc
active
form lof
e.g., sponsor
I'crb's
corrcsponding
form
any),
. ~ .monsorcd.
,
l ueach
~this verb.
is was~cful.
'Ihcrc and
is nothe
nmd
lo aorc
Ihc propcrpassive
dalnbasc
path(ifTor
monsored
e.g., wonsored.
Butbethis
is wasteful. derivcd
There isfrom
no nced
10 s10rC the proper database path for wonsored
mcchanicatly
the cnlry
for sponsor. Ihcre arc two wals h a 1 his could be
II' il can
Qy if it can
be mechanically
deri~ed from the entry for sponsor. lbere are !wo W3}S !hat this could be
carricd
out in lhis conlcxt:
(1) parsc ihc passive phrasc by converting il iilto active form; then use the
carricd oul in this conlexl; (I) parse 1I1e passivc phrase by convcrting il i~lO aClive form; then use the
dalabasc path spcciLca~ionfor the active form, as usual; or (2) parse the pasqive a5 it appears on the
database path specification for the aclive form, as usual: or (2) parse the pas.sive as it appears on the
on Ihc pah spccilicalion lor theactive
surTacc, and &cn tlcri\.c (he r i g h ~pah by a unirorm ~ranslnl~on
surfacc. Tom.
and 1I1enl or
derive
the righl
by a uniform
on the
path specification for the active
example.
-if path
Ihc dalabaw
palhtranslation
br soonsor
was "1:oundalion sponsor projcct" (thus
form. lor example. if the darabasc path for spnnsor was 'Toundation sponsor projCCl" (thus
and roundallon. the corrc~pondingpassive dictionary entry
specifying ~ w odahbasc nodes,
specifying
two bcdarabasc
:;ponsorioundalion".
and foundalion. the corresponding pas;,ive dictionary entry
would
"projccl(lodes.
sponsored
would be "project
sponsored
Qy foundation".
This lcxical
approach
to h e analysis of pa~5ivcs-- via so-called "lexical redundancy' rules - has
This lexical approach 10 the analysis of passivcs -- via so-called "lexical redundancy rules - has
been proposed by several mearchers in linguislics: see [Wasow 19771; [Rresnan 19781.
been proposed by several researchers in linguistics: see [Wasow 1977): [Bresnan 1978].

68

Berwick

the query
3. Pcrfonn thc
qilcry (or series
scrics of
o f queries)
qucrics) as indicated
indicated
by thc
Q l . stmcture.
stmcturc.
the M
MQL
4. Return
Rcturn thc
sct of
o f objccu
qucry.
the set
objects satisfying the query.
Notc
sct of
o f objects
objccts retllrned
r c t ~ ~ r n bby
c yd Step
Stcp 4 could be
bc empty.
cmply.
Note that thc
the set

1.3.2 The
'l'hc intcrOlction
intcrartion or
of s)'ntax
syntax and semantics
sc~nantics
1.3.2

have seen.
Kaplan's logical form,
As we liavc
SCCII.
the syntax
s y ~ i of
~ xK;~plan's
filnn. MQL,
MQI.. in
in part determines
dctcrmincs the
meaning
q u c s t i ~ nin Uic
SCIISC Uiat
Uic order
ordcr of
o f constituents
co11stili1cntsdctcnnincs tile
die
meaning of a question
the sense
that the
databdsc path
o f thc
qucry, licncc
sct returned
rcturncd by the
lllc query.
qucry, hence
licncc the
Uie
databJse
path of
the query,
hence ihc
I..hc set
meaning of
the query
qucry given
givcn an
;in extensional
cxlcnsional semantics.
sc~nantics. So syntax call
can influence
rnc;!nlng
o f thc
semantics. For example,
the two
cxamplc, differcnt
diffcrcnr syntactic
synt;~ctic(MOl.)
(MQI.) structures
structurcs arc built for thc
questions.
professors taught studCIlL'i
qucstions. "Which
"Which profcssors
studcn~sin
i n computer
computcr science" and "Which
studcnts were
wcrc taught by profcssors":
students
professors":
[Wh'professors
i n computer
computcr science)]
rcicncc]]
[Wli-professors[[taught
wught students
stodcn~sin

Whrr::

suuclure:
cormpunding MQI.
corresponding
MQI. structure:

wh-~rofe~r~

taughtt

. 1
I

,in

students

ID
in computer
campuler SCIence
science

[Wh'SlUdents [ were llIught by professors in computer scienceD

wh-students

1 taught by
I
by profby presson in
t

computer science
skna
computer
Since Ute
the restriction
MQI. structures
rcstriction sets specified
spccificd by the two MQI.
structurcs arc
are different

69
in unc, wc ask about sludcnts in computcr xicncc, in rhc othcr, wc ask about
in one, we ask about students in computer science, in the other, we ask about
pmkssois in cotnpuicr scicncc -- ~ h c1nc:lning of il~csctwo qucrics is dislinct. I n
professors in computer sciC'nce the meaning of the-se two Qlleries is distinct. In
addi~ion.ofcour!;~,thc main quciicd sct is dircrcot in ac two scntcnccs.
addition. ofCOllrsc. the main qucdcd set is different in the two sentences.
If synrax influc~~ccs
sc~n:~nticsin K;~plan'ssyslcal, what i~boutLTIC other way
If syntax influences semantics in Kaplan's system. what aboulthc other way
around? C;ln di~l;tt>;is~
S C I ~ ~ I I ;I!ICT
~~~S
CY
S I I ~ ~'I'hc
I X ?~ I I S W isC ~YCS. If the di~bhasc
around? Can database semantics alter syntax? The answer is yes. If the database
p;~lhas cxtrclctcd A,an~a panicular parsc docsn'l milkc scnsc. wlrcrc "docsn't makc
path a~ extw<;tcd fr~1T1 a partil.:ular parse doesn't make sense. where "doesn't make
scnsc" nicnns U~attllc qucry pat11 sclcctcd was longer lhnn thc qucry palh
sense" means lIlat the Query path selected was longer than the query path
aeoci;itcd with anorhcr pa~xcfi)r dlc qucrjj, Ihcn lhc pnlsc with d ~ cxccssivcly
c
associ;lted with nnother parse for tile query, (hen the parse with tile excessively
l o n g qiicry p;~Ehis tli~cardcd. 1-or cxnmplc, considcr Ihc qucsi.iun. " ~ l l i c huscrs
long query path is di~cardcd. For example, consider the qllesliun, "Which users
work o n projccrs in al.c;i thrcc 1113t 81.c in divisicei 35011?" 'Iliis qucry has a t lcast
work on projects in area three that arc in divisioll 350m" 'Illis query has ~t least
two parscs: onc whcrc thc scntcn~inlco~nplcrncnt"Lhat arc in division 3500"
two p;mes: one where the sentential complement "tIlat arc in divisioll J500"
rnudilics uscn. and onc whcrc il modilics "projects." l'hc altcrr~alivcdatrlbase
modifies users, and one where ;.1 modilies "proj('cts." The alternative dat.1ba:,c
paths for thc:;~~ N S C Sijrc as fullows:
paths for the~;e parses me as follows:

Parsc I

Parse I
NP

/ \ AS,

Corresponding 11i1tnb;lscpath
Corresponding Databilse patll

division number

program tncr
program mer~ s c r s
Su3crs t!ut arc in
'ii?crs tl~ arc
in
division
3500 users uscr~i;imc
t1ivision 3500
username
N

Parse 2
NP

NP

division nurnber

A
NI S,
$GjZ d13t arc users
in
p;:@Cct:~ t1l<lt arc in

~"

USCIS
L I S C 11unibcrs
~

projcct litlcs
division 3500 llser numbers
division 3500
project titles

I'rojccts arc ru~.thcraway from diiisioa number!: U i n r ~iirc uscrs. Hcncc, if we

Projl:cts arc fUJ'lhcr away from division numbers Ulan arc users. Hence. if we
ilssulnc tint d,113hnsc distance is a proxy Tor scnl;~trticrcliltcdncss. t l ~ c nlllc first
a~sume that dalabase distance is a proxy for semantic retJtcdness. lIlen the first
r c Ihc w t ~ . l d(the dil~lbasc)h:ln Lhc
synti~cticstruc~urcis closcr to tl~r~ t r ~ t c t u or
syntactic structure i" closer to tllc stfltClure of tile world (the dalabase) ~1!In the
sccond, hcciiusc in dlc d;rtabi~sc"uscrs" arc cluscr tu "divisions" 111;111 " p r ~ j c c t ~ ' '
second, because in the database "users" arc closer ttl "divisions" th;lI\ "project,>"
i~!.e. (It is intcrcsting LO colnplr: tliis appl-oacli to disariil)igu;~tingprcpositionaf
afe. (It is int.. . resting to C0ll1p1r~ this approach tn disamhiguating prepositional
via disr;o;cc along dil~abiisc pn~h:, %it11 thc approach of
phlnsc attacl~~iic~ils
phrase attachme'lts via disl;u:ce along database paths with the approach of
Ih.l;1rcc1s 19801. Ma~rtisassirmcd a scm~inticrc1:ircdncss "oraclc" Lhat could
[~1JrcHs J980).
Martus assumed a semantic relatedness "oracle" that could
m a g i c a l l y dctcr~ninc*I~ich 1'1' ntt;~climcnt w;ls prcf'crrcd. K;~plan has simply
lnagical1y determine whkh PI' attachment was preferred. Kaplan has simply
constn~ctcdsucl~an or:iclc for a dahbasc world.)
constructed such an oracle for a database world.)

70

Berwick

1.3.3 Questions. empty sets, and intentions

Givcn Kaplan's account of rncaning, wc can now rcturn to our original problem of
Gi\'cn Kaplan's account of meaning, we can now return to our original problem of
answering qucstions. What docs somconc intcnd whcn thcy ask a qucstion?
answering questions. What docs someone intend when they ask a question?
Kaplan assumcs just what onc would cxpcct from a databasc scrnantics: a
Kaplan assumes just what one would expect from a database semantics: a
qucstioncr want to find out &hat collccrion of objects. if any, mcet thc
questioner want to find out \'0 hat collection of objects, if any, meet the
spccification laid out in thcir qucstion -- an If; of thc form, "Wh-x, such that
specification 1<lid out in their question -- an l.F of the form, "Wh-x, such that
I'(x)", wllcrc I'(x)= snmc spccification of x via a combination of attributcs and
P(x)", where P(x):::: some specification of x via a combination of attributes and
valucs for x. 'Ihc spccificalion l'(x) in turn dctcrtnincs what thc qucry fiinction
values for x. '111e specification P(x) in turn determines what the query function
U(attriburc. value) must look likc. Everything works finc if U rcturns a list of
U(attrihure, value) must look like. Everything works fine if U returns a list of
datlbasc ol>jcctssatisfying 1'. I3ut whar should wc do if U rctlrrns tllc cmpty set, if
dawbase objects satisfying P. But what should we do if U returns the empty set, if
no objcct satisfics I? An anafysis of ll~issccond possibility is what occupics thc
ill! object satisfies P? An anarysis of Ulis second possibility is what occupies the
rcrnaindcr of Ki~plan'sstudy.
remainder of Kaplan's study,
All cmpty scts arc crcittcd cqual. hut solnc arc less cqual than othcrs. An
All empty set,> arc created equal, hut some arc less equal than others. An
analysis of
U Ilappcns tt) rcrurn an clnpty sct is thc lynchpin of Kaplan's
analysis of why U happens to return an empty set is me Iynchpin of Kaplan's
analysis of "crnpty" qucstions such as "Who got A's in compurcr scicncc 101". In
analysis of "empty" questions such as "Who got A's in computer science 101". In
this rcspcct, t l ~ ctcrm "cmpty qucstion" is wclf choscn.
mis respect, the term "empty question" is well chosen.
'I'o bc concrctc, considcr Kaplan's cxa~nplcqucry. "llid Sandy pass the bar
To be concrete, consider Kaplan's example query, "Did Sandy pass me bar
cxam?" Ily assumption, t l ~ cgoal of thc qucry is know whcthcr Sandy passcd the
exam?" By assumption, the goal of the query is know whether Sandy passed the
bar cxam. (As wc ail1 scc, this corresponds to a KNOWIF; goal in hllcn's more
bar exam. (As we \~i1I sec, this corresponds to a KNOWIF goal in Allen's more
gcncral sgstan.) '1'0 p r r ~ c c dfurthcr, wc rnust know what it rncans to "pass" a bar
general system.) To proceed further, we must know what il me<lns to "pass" a bar
cxam. A s usual. thc spstcm's knowlcdgc of "pass" is built inlo a dictionary entry
exam. As usual, the system's knowledge of "pass" is built into a dictionary entry
that specifies its mcaning with rcspcct to l11c particular dambase at hand. Lxt us
that specifics ils meaning with respect to the particular database at hand. Let us
an X just in casc X is an cxam that Y took; that Y's grade was
say that Y
say that Y passes an X just in case X is an exam that Y took; that Y's grade was
grcatci than 60; and that Y is a studcnt 'ihus
dcfincs a sct of database
greater Ulan 60; and that Y is a student Thus pass defines a scI of database
attributcs and \lalucs that must bc satisfied if Y may bc said to havc passcd an
attributes and valucs mat must be satisfied if Y may be said to have passed an
exam.
exam.
Evidently wc havc that Sandy passcs the cxam if Sandy takcs thc cxam, and if
Evidently we have that Sandy passes the exam if Sandy takes the exam, and if
Sandy gcts a score of grcarcr than 60, plus somc other conditions that might be
Sandy gets a score of greatcr than 60, plus some other conditions that might be
rclcvant. Symbolically,
relevant. Symbolically,

A = Sandy passcs the exam.

A:::: Sandy
exam.
B, =passes
Sandythe
takcs
thc bar cxam;
III "" Sandy takes the bar exam;
= Sandy gcts a scorc of 60 or more.
132 :::: Sandy gets a score of 60 or more.
Morc simply wc havc h a t A= D1&B2 (sincc if A is true, thcn lil and R2 must be
More simply we have that A=> 1l1&B2 (since if A is true, men BI and B2 must be
truc; but if A is falsc, thcn wc really can't say whcthcr Is1 and ]I2 arc true or false,
true; but if A is false, then we really can't say whemer BI and B2 arc true or false,
bccause we havc not said whcthcr thcy exhaust thc conditions necessary to pass
because we have not said whether they exhaust me conditions necessary to pass
the cxam.)
the exam.)
But for databases with a simple extensional scmantics as dcfincd earlier, a
But for databases with a simple extensional semantics as defined earlier. a

Ili

71
pl~dicatcthat has an ~ ~ ~ l SC!
p i yas ILScxtcnsioii rcst~lbin a failure of the.
predicate that has an cmply se~ as it~ extension result" in a failure of the.
prcsuppo:;itior:s bchind a qucry. If A dcnotcs ~ l i csct rcturncd by some qucry
presuppo:;itions behind a query. If A denotes the s(;! returned by some query
function U tlchncd so ;ts tu spccily Sandy's p;~ssiogt l ~ cexnrn, and if A, the sct of
function U dcfined so as to specify Sandy's passing the exmn, and if A, the set of
cxaln pnsscd by Sandy, is c~npty.thcn Sandy did not pass thc cxatn, llut &
exam passed by Sandy, is cmpty, then Sanuy did not pass the cxam. But why
could A bc cmpty? h is thc ciripty sct if cidlcr I$ or 112 arc cnlply if Sandy
could 1\ be empty? A is the cmpty set if ciUler HI or 11 2 arc empty -- if Sandy
cithcr didn't take thc cxam or didn't gcl n g1.rldc ahovc 60 -- ~hcnSandy didn't pass
either didn't l4lke the exam ur didn't gel a gml1e ahme 60 -- then Sandy didn't pass
tl~ccx3nl. Ilut thcn wc now llaw access to whv A is crnpty. Sincc A implics
the exam. But t11en we now have access to why A is empty. Since A implies
Dj&117. n01(131&112)9~10t-A. 'I'lit~sif cilhcr lil ell. I$ is cnlpty, tllc~lA is crnpty.
B!&B2. not(B I &11 2);:> not-A. Thlls if eiLhcr HI or 112 is empty. tIlen A is empty.
L.ct 11s ~ ' 1 1 1thcsc UIC possihlc rcasons for A's cmptincss. lir;~phicnlly.A is a subset
Let LIS call t11cseUle possible reasons for I\'s emptiness. Graphically. A is a subset
of thc 11's. and i f cilhcr of Lhcin cinpty. tllcn A must be:
of Lhe Irs.md if eit1ler oflhem arc empty, then A must be:

--

.Figure1:igurc
7 Subsct rclstio~~sliips
rcflcct thc implicational
7 Subset relationships reflect the implicatianal
struclurc of a qucry.
structure of a query.

Givcn an cxtcnsional sclnantics. thc ;~r~aloguc

of :in in~l~licntional
chain is
Given an extensional semantics, the arw!ogue of an implicational chain is
siii~plya cli:~in of d;itnl);ec scl inclusions.
simply a ch,lin of database sci inclusions.
howcvcr, As in t l ~ ccxnlnplc i ~ h c ~ v scts
c , can
'l'hcrc iq onc niorc conq~licatii~n.
There is one more romplicatinll. however. I\s in the eXiunple ahoyc. s~ts can
(scoring
sbovc
GO),
and
]I7 is a
fonn chi~insof inclusions -- is ;I s l ~ b x ot f
form chains of inclusions -- ,\ is a subset of B2 (scnring above GO). and B2 is a
suhsct of
(ti~kinpltre exinn). So it 1s rcally more nccutatc to say that
suhset of BI (taking the exam). So it IS rcally more accurate to say Ulat
A=11,*
I$, and llcncc tI1;lt not-l)?= not-Ill trot-A. 'I'r;~nslatin.gilnplicational
A=:> HI =* 112, am! hence that llot-B 2;:> nOI- B] = not-I\. Tr<lnsl<lting implicational
into subsut stiucttrrc, how can 1r.c lind ~ h rcilson
c
for A's cmptincss? WC simply
inlo subset structure, how can we lind the reason for A"s emptine~s? We simply
start ; ~not-A
t
and work backw;inis thlotrgl~tlic :\~hsctinclusioii chnill till wc rcsch
slaft at not-A and work backwards !1lJ()Ugh the sllhsct inclusi(11l eh:lin till we reach
tllc fint Er!-crnply sct. 'l'hc sct ilnlncdi;~tclybcfi~rcllirtt onc in thc inclusio~i
the fiN !l(2!l-empty set. The set immediately hefore Lhat one in the inclusion
C~,ian
. -rs thr. ~'ca:;nn for A's cniptincss.
chain is Ihi.'!ffiill!l for A's emptiness.
Sincc sul~sctch;~insarc, in gc~icral,colnputcd b y thc toutincs already rcquircd
Since subset chains are, in general, computed by the roulines alrendy required
to look i11) databilsc answers -- rc~~icmbcr
h a t database nnswcrs arc just sets, and
til look up datnbase answers -- relllember Ihnl database answers me just sets, and
qucrics just a scr.ics o f sct specifications -- ono cnlb scc h a t wc arc llow in a gvud
qu..:rics just a series of sci spcdfic<ltions -- one CJIl sec that we arc IlOW in a guod
position lo dctcct and rcs[lolld to crnpty questions. 'I'lle hdQId st1-11cturCin
position to detect and respond to empty questions. The MQL stmcturc in
c!)~rjunotion will1 dic~ioliarycntrics providcs tlic i~nplicationalchain. If ss wc arc
conjum:tion with dictionary entries provides the illlplicati(1nal chain. If:ls we arc
rno\.ing drrc~ogll91c pathway .;pcr:ilicd by on MQ1. q:icry wc cncouiitcr an empty
nlm'ing through the pathway ~pecilied by nn MQ1. query we encoullter an empty
six I d i ~ r crcacliing 1112 clld o f t l ~ crlucry pall), thcn the answcr is cnlpty and a
s(~1 bcfnre reaching til\:' end of the query path. th(;n the nnswcr is empty and a
prc-co~itlitionhas bccn vic)l,i~~d;
wc s i ~ t i ~ rc!port
ly
back lhc first crnpry sct ;]long
pre-condition has becn viol,iICd; we ~il11rly rep(lrt back the first empty set along
G

Berwick

72

the chain. sincc it is thc rcasnn for the emptiness of the qucry. For cxamplc,
the chain, sincc it is the !illQ.ll for the emptiness of the query. For example,
considcr Ihc qucry. "How many studcnts got A's in Co~nputcr~cicnccJOI?"
consider the qucry, "How many students got I\'s in Computer Science JOI?"
Assumc tlint this qucry has the following ilnplicational structure:
Assume that this query has the following implicational structure:
studcnts ---> sludcnts
---> course
students --- > students
._-) course
tak i~lgcourse
given
gctting A's
getting A's
tlk ing course
given
and thc corresponding database subsct stnlcture:
and the corresponding database subset stnlcture:
C o u r s eGiven
Course Given
Computer S c i e n c e 101
Computer
Science
Name Grade101
Name Grade
John
A
John Sandy
A
B

Sandy

Fine Arts
FineArts

'1'0 find thc studcnts who got A's i n Cotnputcr Scicncc 101. Kaplan's system
To find the students who got I\'s in Computer Science 101, Kaplan's system
builds a qucry that rurls down thc list of courses till it hits computcr scicncc 101,
b~i1ds a query that rlillS down the list of courses till it hits computer science WI,
tllcn extracts Ole "gradc" subficld. and finally, asscmb!cs into onc set all those
tllen extracts tile "grade" sub field. and finally, assembles into one set all those
narncs associated with a grade of A. Givcn this procedure. it should be apparent
names associated with a grade of 1\. Given this procedure, it should be apparent
that if the "Coursc Given" databasc object docsn't havc thc attribute value
that if the "Course Given" database object doesn't have the attribute value
"Computer Scicncc 10lW,the qucry procedure can immcdiatcly return an empty
"Computer Science 101", the query procedure can immediately return an empty
value. Sincc this was not the last stcp in thc query prtscdurc, wc simply report
value. Since this was not the last step in the query procedure, we simply report
this, by conjoining an cmpty sct answcr with the reason for the set's cmptincss:
this. by conjoining an empty set answer with the reason for the set's emptiness:
None, because thc course was not given.
None, because the course was not given.

So far then, we have sccn that the B(s are necessary conditions for A to be
So far then, we have seen that the Bi's arc necessary conditions for A to be
non-empty. Plainly they arc not sufficient conditions howcver, and this
non-empty. Plainly they arc not sufficient conditions however, and this
distinction is closely related to thc possibility of appropriatc "no" answers. To see
distinction is closely related to the possibility of appropriate "no" answers. To see
this. considcr thc cnsc where not-A (a "no" answer) can be a valid rcsponsc to a
this, consider the case where not-A (a "no" answer) can be a valid response to a
qucstion. By the above analysis, any of thc ni's bcing cmpty can make A empty.
question. By the above analysis, any of the Bi's being empty can make A empty.
So it needn't bc true that if A is empty, thcn a particular Bi is cmpty. (It is not
So it needn't be true that if A is empty, then a particular Hi is empty. (It is not
ncccssarily true that nor-Aanot-Hi.) 'lhis is the situation in which Kaplan dubs
necessarily true that not-I\~not-Bi') Ibis is the situation in which Kaplan dubs
Bi a prcsom~tion;Bi is simply a necessary condition for A. Now suppose that a
Hi a presumption; Dj is simply a necessary condition for A. Now supposc that a
"no" answer demands that Bi bc empty, i.c., that not-/\ *not-Bin But then we
"no" answer demands that Dj be empty, Le., that not-I\ ~not-Bi' But then we
havc that not-ni*not-A and not-h *not-Hi, LC., A iff Bi. Then whenevcr A is
have that not-Hj"::::.not-A and not-A =::::-not-B j, Le., A iff Bj Then whenevcr A is
true, Bi is true; when A is false, Ili is false. l h i s is the case in which Kaplan calls
true, Dj js true; when A is false, Bj is false. "Jbis is the case in which Kaplan calls

73

llia prcsu~oosition. For cxamplc, if h = "John takcs piano lcssons on Monday,

Hi a presupposition. For example, if It. = "John takes piano lessons on Monday.
'I'ucsday, Wcdncsday, 'Ihursday, Friday. Saturday, or Sunday", thcn not-A=
Tuesday. Wednesday, 'lllUrsday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday", then notA =
"John docsn't bkc piano Icssons". Lct B-- "John takcs daily piano Icssons".
"John doesn't take piano lessons". Let 13= "John takes daily piano lessons",
'Il~cnA is cquivalcnt to II: ll is a prcst~ppositionof A.
'l11en 1\ is equivlllentto II: n is a presupposition of A..
Why can Kaplan's systcln bc made ro work so wcll? I n hricf, it is bccausc the
Why can Kaplan's system be made to work so well? In brief, it is because the
databasc world providcs just thc right nnrrow kind of sc~nan~ical
r~nivcrsc-- one in
database world provides just the right narrow kind of seman tical universe -- one in
~ h i c hthc dccpcr problcms of intentionality do not arisc. For most purposes -which the deeper problems of intentionality do not arise. For most purposes ..
but not all -- thc mcaning oTa databasc qucry is just thc sct of objccts irnplicd by
but not all .. the meaning of a database query is just the set of objects implied by
lhc qucry. 'I'hus rcstrictcd. thcrc is 2 closc corrcspondcncc bctwccn databasc paths
the query. Thus restricted, there is a close correspondence between database paths
and tlic syntactic struc~orcsprrlvidcd h y pnrsc trccs of l<nglish scntcnccs. with the
and the syntactic structures provided by parse trees of English sentences, with the
cxact mapping rncdiatcd b y sprcific dictionary cntrics particular to cach database.
exact mapping mediated by specific dictionary entries parliculJr to each database.
l h t if mcaning is not rcslrictcd'to sc~sof objccts. or if thc goal of thc qucstioncr is
But if meaning is not restricted to sets of objects, or if the goal of the questioner is
not simply to ohtnin a lia of databasc objccts, thcn thc cntcrprisc bccorncs much
not simply to ohtain a list of database objects, then the enterprise becomes much
lcss straightforward. Supposc, as Kaplan notcs, that what Ihc uscr rcnlly would
less straightforward. Suppose, as Kaplan notes, that what the user really would
likc is somc intcntional dcscription of thc sct ofobjccts rcturncd by thc qucry -like is some intentional description of the set of objects returned by the query _.
c.g., thc qucstion, "Who profit sllares?" might bcst bc answcrcd by tllc intcntional
e.g., the question, "Who profit shares?" might best be answered by the intentional
phrasc, "'l'hc cxccutivc Vice-Prcsidcnts." As an cxa~nplcof h c same phcnomcnon
phrase, "The executive Vice-Presidents." As an example of Ule same phenomenon
011 thc qucstion cnd. co~~sidcr
anothcr onc of Kaplan's questions, "Which model
on the question end, consider another one of K<lplan's questions, "Which model
cars wcrc sold last year?" Prcsum;ibly. this qucstion calls for a list of mode! types
cars w~re sold last year?" Presumably, this question calls for a list of mode! types
rathcr than a list ofcach car (along uith its modcl tgpc) sold. Kaplan's systcrn has
rather than a list of each car (along with its rnodellype) sold. Kaplan's system has
a crude heuristic to tcll whcn such "abbrciiatory" phr,lscs might bc prcfcrablc to a
a crude heuristic to tell when such "abbre\ iatory" phrases might be preferable to a
list o f database objccts -- it can tirkc notc wllcn n list would bc ovcrly long.
list of database objects -- it can tlke note when a list would be overly long,
according to some nlctric of Icngth, and nttcmpt to rc-intcrprct tllc phtasc "which
according to some metric of length, and attempt to re-interpret tlle phrase "which
modcl cars" so as to obtain a shortcr list. I3ut to accomplisll this fcar in gcncral
model, cars" so 35 to obtain 3 shorter list. But to accomplish this feat in general
would sccm to rcquirc that thc systcrn havc sornc modcl or thc uscr's goals that
would seem to require that the system have some model of the user's goals that
gocs bcyond the dcsirc for lisls -- clsc, how could it know what thc uscr rcally
goes beyond the desire for lists _. else, how could it know what the user really
wants in thc way of a dcscription ralhcr than a list? Wc will scc in rhc ncxt section
wants in the way of a description rather tllan a list? We wi11 sec in the next section
lhat Allcn's systcrn is dcsigncd to accomplish part of this task, at least for
that Allen's system is designed to accomplish part of this task, at least for
wcll-rcstrictcd domains of objccts and attributes. Allcn's systcrn assumcs that the
well-restricted domains of objects and attributes. Allen's system assumes that the
uscr lias a sct of thrcc or morc gcncral goals, cach of which is composed
user has a set of three or more general goals, each of which is composed
(hierarchically) uf a wcll-organizcd sct of sub-goals; in Allcn's world, the
(hierarchically) of a well'organized set of sub'goals; in Allen's world, the
supcr-goals are thc evcryday activities of mccting or boarding trains in railway
super-go3ls are the everyday activities of meeting or boarding trains in railway
station. Givcn that thc systcrn "knows" his much about the stmcturc of these few
station. Given that the system "knows" this much about the structure of these few
human bchaviors, it turns out h a t it in ccrlain cases it can offcr uscful dcscriptions
human behaviors, it turns out that it in cerlain cases it can offer useful descriptions
rathcr rhan lists -- all with rcspcct to its storcd knowlcdgc, of coursc. It would be
rather than lists . all with respect to its stored knowledge, of course. It would be
an intcrcsting cxcrcisc to cmbcd this morc dctailcd models of qucstioncrs into
an interesting exercise to embed this more detailed models of questioners into
Kaplan's morc dctailcd world of objccts and their attributes.
Kaplan's morc detailed world of objects and their attributes.
ncsidcs this cxtcnsion to a more sophisticated modcl o f questioners, thcrc are
Besides this extension to a marc sophisticated model of questioners, therc are
several othcr linguistically-oricntcd modifications to Kaplan's approach that
seyeral other linguistically-oriented modifications to Kaplan's approach that

74

Rerwick

would fill certain gaps in his syntactic analysis of English. As mcntioncd, Knplan's
would fill certain gaps in his syntactic analysis of English. As mentioned, Kaplan's
syntactic analysis has no analoguc of a QR rulc. 'I'hcrcforc. it cannot capturc
syntactic analysis has no analogue of a OR rule. Therefore, it cannot capture
ambiguous quantifier scopings, nor dctcrminc whcn such altcrnativc scopings are
ambiguous quantifier scopings, nor determine when such alternative scopings are
pn~hibitcd. It would bc a simple matter to add sucll a rulc to thc MQI. parsing
prohibited. It would be a simplc matter to add such a rule to the MOl. parsing
system, tailorcd dircctly aftcr thc QIZ n ~ l cof modcrn gcncrativc hcurics. Sccond,
system, tailored directly afler the QR rule of modern generative theories. Second,
Kaplan makcs no usc of rhc co-indcxing work of Sidncr discussed abovc; lhcre is
Kaplan makes no use of the co-indexing work of Sidner discussed above; there is
no way for thc MQI. systcln to kccp track of thc introduction of discourse cntitics
no way for the MOL system to keep track of the introduction of discourse entities
and tl~circo-designators. Oncc again, this machincry could be liftcd whoIcsalc
and their co-designators. Once again, tllis machinery could be lifted wholesale
fro111Sidncr's work; one nccd only add a co-indexing notalion, and thc samc rulcs
fmm Sidner's work; one need only add a co-indexing notation, and the same rules
would carry ovcr Tor Lhc MQl. structurc. I n fact, i l wouId probably bc bcst to split
would carryover for tl1e MOL structure. In fact, it would probably be best to split
thc ho~nogenatcdMQI. lnnguagc back inlo thc two rcprcsc~llationsfrom which it
the hOlTIogenated MOl. language back into the two representations from which it
was distillcd -- surbcc syntax, and logical form. Finally, Sidncr's fixus rules, as
was distilled -. surface syntax. and logical form. Finally, $idner's focus rules, as
rc-cast in thc gi~isco f predication indicatc "what is bcing talked about" in a
re-cast in the guise of predication , indicate "what is being talked about" in a
discounc. hcncc, in a qucstion. I3y incorporaring thc f t ~ u salgorith~ninto the
discourse, hence, in a question. By incorporating the focus algorithm into the
MQL. stn~cturc via a rcprcscntation rcflccting a "x sat.P(x)" form -- Kaplan's
MQL structure via a representation reflecting a "x S.t. P(x)" form . Kaplan's
system could cxploit Sidncr's rulcs directly fur dctcrmining what thc topic of the
system could exploit Sidner's rulcs directly for determining what the topic of the
qucstion is,
question is.

--

1.4 Allcn: n~caningand plans

1.4 Allen: meaning and plans
The gap bctwccn litcral and intcndcd mcaning can bc quitc small -- an I F
The gap between literal and intended meaning can be quitc small _. an LF
cxprcssion can rnanagc to say prctty much what it mcans to say. Ksplan's
expression can managc to say prcll}' much what it mcans to say. Kaplan's
databnsc qucrics 311 wcar thcir quizzical cxprcssions on thcir slccvcs. Illere is only
database qucries all wear their quizzical exprcssions on their sleeves. Therc is only
nnc human intcntion in Knplan's world: to find out the cxtcnsions of ccrtain sets.
one human intention in Kaplan's world: to find out the extensions of certain sets.
Rut tllcrc may bc lhousands of objccts and propcrtics to find out about. In
Rut there may be thousands of objects and pruperties to find out about. In
contrast. AHcn assumes an impovcrishcd world of objccts and thcir propenics -- a
contrast, i\llen assumes an impoverished world of objects and t11cir properties " a
s~nallcrdalabasc of objccts and heir attributcs -- but a richcr univcrse of
smaller database of objects and thcir attributes -- but a richer universe of
intcntions. llis aim is to dcvclop a more gcneriil approach human linguistic
intentions. His aim is to develop a more general approach human linguistic
bcliavior by conjoining a Scarlc and Austin-typc thcory of spccch acts together
behavior by conjoining a Searle and i\ustin-type theory of speech acts together
with othcr kinds of purposive bchavior in a gcncral inodcl of planning bchavior.
with other kinds of purposive behavior in a general model of planning behavior.
Spccch act thcory providcs a frarncwork in which linguistic activity is
Spcech act thcory provides a framework in which linguistic activity is
intcrprctcd as just anothcr kind of action -- 1 say "pass the salt" as part of a plan to
interpreted as just another kind of action .- 1say "pass the salt" as part of a plan to
g c ~the s a l ~I3ut so rcgrdcd, a spccch act must bc planned, and thus becomes
get the salt. But so regarded, a speech act must be planned, and thus becomes
susccptiblc to analysis by a thcory of planning. Hcrc Allcn cxploits what is known
susceptible to analysis by a theory of planning. Here i\llcn exploits what is known
about planning as cxplorcd in thc A1 litcraturc. lhc gcncral notion is that in order
about planning as explored in the i\lliterature. The general notion is that in order
to infcr thc plan of a spcakcr, onc must first obscrvc somc cxtcrnal bchavior of the
to infcr the plan of a speakcr, one must first observe some extcrnal behavior of the
spcakcr -- in particular, thc speaker's uttcrancc. 171cn onc drivcs a infcrencc chain
speaker'- in particular, the speaker's uttcrance. 111en one drives a inference chain
forward from somc (small) nurnbcr of basic goals assumcd to bc mutually held
forward from some (small) numbcr of basic goals assumed to be mutually held
bctween spcakcr and hearcr. TOtakc the setting that Allcn uscs, in a train station,
between speakcr and hearer. To take the setting tllat Allen uses, in a train station.

75
thc stxion agent may assutne lhat pcoplc appronching him with questions only
the s[,.1tion agent may assume that people approaching him with questions only
want to find out ahout boarding trains or mccting arriving trains -- and hc may
want to find out about bOJrding trains or meeting arriving trains -- and he may
assulilc that thc pcoplc approaching him also know that. Il~us,agcnt and patrons
assume that the people approaching him also know that. lllUs, agent and patrons
sharc a sm;~ll~ ~ i ~ ~ of
n bmutual
cr
bclick; thcrc arc just two possiblc "top-lcvcl"
share a simil number of mutual beliefs; there arc just two possible "top-level"
c
goals. Fach of thcsc goals Icads to a characteristic planning scqucncc: if o ~ l wants
goals. r'.ach of these goals leads (() a characteristic planning sequence: if one wants
to board a train, thcn onc must buy a tirkct, find o ~ i that from gate and at what
to board a train, then one must buy a ticket, find out what from gate and at what
timc thc train Icnvcs. go to that gntc. and so forth. 'I'hc kcy point is that diffcrcnt
time the train leaves, go to that gate, and so forth. The key point is that different
goals can cxpantl into diffcrcnt planning scqucnccs, hcncc c~lcntuallytcrminatc as
goals can expand into difTerent plJnning sequences, hence eventually terminate as
diffcrcnt spccch acts. 'Ihus Ihc top-lcvcl plan of a qucstioncr could be idcntificd if
diffelent speech aelS. Thus the top-level plan of a questioner could be identified if
the spccch acts it Icads w match what thc hcarcr actually observes:
the speech acts it leads to match what the hearer actually observes:
GoaIs
Goals
1. b a r d train
1. Board train
G c t tickct
Get ticket
Spccch act
Find out about dcstination
Speech act
Find alit about destination
'Ihc train to
Find out gate
The train to
Find out gate
Windsor?
Find out dcparturc time
Windsor?
Find out departure time
2. Mcct train
2. Meet train
Find out gate
Find out gate
Find out arrival time
Find out arrival time

As is wcll known from the A1 literature, "forward chaining" infcrcncc

As is well known from the AI literature, "forward chaining" inference
proccdurcs -- likc h i s onc -- can bc computationally costly: thc number of
procedures -. like this one -- can be computationally costly: the number of
possible ways a goal could bc cxpandcd into subgoals c t ~ ~ bc
l d enormous. T o
possible ways a goal could be expanded into subgoals could be enormous. To
hclp alleviate this problem, Allcn's systcm drivcs an infcrcncc chain backwards
help alleviate this problem, Allen's system drives an inference chain backwards
from obscrved spccch act to goal at the same timc as all possiblc goals are
from observed speech act to goal at lhe same time as all possible goals are
cxpandcd forwards. h plan is said to bc idcntificd whcn forward and backwards
expanded forwards. A plan is said to be identified when forward and backwards
infcrcncc chains meet
inference chains meet
Given an infcrrcd, plan, Allcn's systcm tficn dcrcrmincs whcthcr thcre are any
Given an inferred, plan, Allen's system then determines whether there are any
obstaclcs in thc plan that might causc its failurc -- for cxamplc, thc plan might bc
obstacles iTl the plan that might cause its failure -- for example, the plan might be
to board a train, but thc pcrson involvcd might not know from whac gate the train
to board a train, but the person involved might not know from what gate the train
departs. Allcn's systcln detects UICSC brcaks in infcrcncc chains. thus dctcnnining
departs. Allen's system detects these breaks in inference chains. thus determining
what sort of information is to be supplicd to the qucstioncr: "Gatc 7 at 9 PM"
what sort ofinfonnation is to be supplied to the questioner: "Gate 7 at 9 PM"
Clearly h i s approach subsumcs Kaplan's. A qucstioncr's top-lcvcl goal in a
Clearly this approach subsumes Kaplan's. A questioner's top-level goal in a
databasc world is simply to find out information about somc sct. l'hc planning
database world is simply to find out information about some set. The planning
scqucncc in a databasc world is just a path through the databasc dcsigncd to
sequence in a database world is just a path through the database designed to
rctrievc thc dcsircd information -- a scqucncc of calls to somc qucry Function, as
retrieve the desired information -- a sequence of calls to some query function, as
we have sccn. An obstacfc i n a plan is an cmpry sct thal interrupts this query
we have seen. An obstacle in. a plan is an empty set that interrupts this query
chain. l'hus, Kaplan's syslcm is just Allcn's rcsuictcd to Lhc particular world of
chain, Thus, Kaplan's system is just Allen's restricted to the particular world of
databasc querics.
database queries.

Berwick

76

AHen's morc
more gcncral
general ;~ppro;lch
approach to
to intentional
intentional bchauior
behavior pcrmits
permits his
his systcrn
system to
to
Allcn's
make largcr
larger lcaps
leaps of
of infcrcncc
inference than Kaplan's. In particul;lr,
particular, it can leap at least
some of
of Uic
the infcrcnti;~l
inferential g;~ps
gaps corresponding to so-callcd
socallcd "indircct
"indirect spcech
speech acts" --sonic
of UIC
the spcakcr
speaker Uiat
that arc dircctly
directly rcflcctcd
renected iinn surface syntactic form.
fonn. An
intentions of
example is Ulc
the qucstio~l
question "Can you tcll
tell me what time Ulc
tJ1C train to Windax
Windsor leavcs?"
leaves?"
cxamplc
the spcakcr
speaker presumably illtcl~ds
intends by this st;itclncnt
statement is to find out whcn
when the
What UIC
leJves. hcncc
hence to get the station ;lgcnt
agent 10
to tell him dcpnrturc
departure time.
train to Windsor Icavcs.
Thus thc
the actllal
actual mcaning
meaning of
of this qucry
query is "'l'cll
"Tell me tllc
the dcp;lrturc
departure tirnc
time of
of thc
the train
'llius
cyen though thc
the Li
fonn
the
query is aa ycs-no
yes-no qucstion.
question. and thus
mn iof~ thc
f
qilcry
to Windsor", cvcn
be literally answcrcd
answered will1
with a simple "Yes."
could bc
reconstruct aa qucstioncr's
questioner's bclicfs
belicfs and intcntions
intentions from surface
This ability to rcconttruct
that do not explicitly
exrlidtly in2icatc
injicatc them
thelll is quitc
quite rcrnarkablc.
remarkable. It
h is purchased at
forms tllat
the pricc
price of
ofse\'erely
restricting thc
the planning
pbnning altcrnati\fcs
allernativcs that can bc
be considered. If
If
thc
sc\,crcly rcstrictillg
ll1eettrains,
slight, and a
one can only board or ~ncct
1r;lins. then the opportunity to go astray is slight
comhinatoric
combinatoric explosion ill
in infcrcncc
inference unlikely.
unlikely, It
h is not clear whether the same
marc realistic sctting where athere
dozens or
approach would work in a more
c r e were dolens
hundreds of ;~ltcrnatives.
alternatives.
Ilundrcds
'l'hcre
There arc two classic ways out of the dilemma of cxccssivc
excessive infcrcnce.
inference. One
r~ad to salvation
salvation iniglil
might be callcd
called dcus
deus cx
ex machina: invoke some computational
road
~n;lchincry
machinery that can carry out Uic
the dcsircd
desired infcrcncc
inference quickly.
quickly. Ilut
But for many A
AIl
researchers, the cscapc
escope has bccn
been to adopt the working strategy of "divide and
rcscarchcrs,
conquer" by simply assuming that knowledge ahout thousands of things can be
organized into more
morc modular units.
units. Now,
Now. olle
one can package either inference
infcrence about
plans and intentions,
intcntions, or inference
infcrence about properties, or both,
both. As for inference
about
abont intentions,
intcntions, it seems
sccms hnrdly
llardly likely
likely that every
cvcry time one hears. "Can you pass
the salt?" one runs through in toto a long choin
chain of deductions
dcductions that ends with the
conclusion that what was really meant was that someone
someone wants you to pass the salt
"Ille
obvious alternative is to squirrel away commonly occurring
(xcurring deductions
deductions as
'lhc obvious
lillie
triggcr on an observed
observed speech
speech acts directly.
dircctly. Of course, this
little "lemmas" that trigger
approach
research questions
questions ahout
about ti,e
the nature and organi7.ation
organization of
approach begs important research
these
for inference
infcrencc about properties, the
thc AI
Al literature of the past
these lemmas.
lemmas. As for
decade
dccadc hos
has heen
hccn replete
rcplctc with seveml
scvcral ottempts
attempts at quasi-naturalistic
quasi-naturalistic classifications
classifications
human intentions) into
into
knowlcdgc (including knowledge
knowlcdgc about humon
of human knowledge
orgonized
packets.
Perhaps
naturally
enough,
for
tile
most
part
ti,ese
schemes
organizcd
I'crhaps naturally
for thc
these Schemes
hinge upon carving
carving the
thc world up in a way that isis organized
organized around human
activities
activities with intuitively
intuitively discernible
discernible boundaries ---- taking
laking an airplane
airplane fligh~
flight,
ordering
ordcring tickets
tickcts in
in a train
train station,
slation, or
or ordering
ordcring hamburgers in
in restaurants.
reslaurants. Whether
these
proper joints, I leave
leave for
for the
the connoisseurs
connoisseurs
thcsc efforts
efforts have
have carved
carved Nature
Nature at
at her pruper
of fast-food
fast-food restaurants
restaurants to
to judge,
judge.

77

1.4.1 Allcn's
Allen's system: the details

systcm there arc,

arc. then, five steps to the analysis of a surface utterance:
In Allcn's
Allen IS system
'l'hc surface utterance
parscd and m;lppcd
m:~ppcd into a quasicasc
quasi-case frame
(1) The
llltcrancc ic
is parsed
surf;sc syntactic pt~rsc
rcprcscntation,
representation. that is, a surface
parse that annotates Noun I'hrascs
Phrases with
their thcmatic
thematic roles,
Agent, Instrument,
the like. ('Ibc
tlicir
rolcs, such as m,
ln~trumcnt.,-Location, and UIC
('lhe
syntactic pparse
a n c is assumed
assumcd lIseful
uscful only insofar
insafar as it aids in the rccovcry
recovery of proper
U~cmatic
rolcs.) For cX<lmplc,
examplc. a;i question
qucstion such as "When
"Whcn docs the train to Windsor
thematic roles.)
lcavc?"
mappcd into a;I thematic
tlicmatic structure with a role
rolc of 1)cstinatioq
leave?" is mapped
Destination filled by
(thc train 111
Windwr). "11131
'lhat tllc
I'lirasc to Windsor signals a
trainl (the
to Windsor).
the Prepositional Phrase
1)cstinntion
rolc is aa language-spccilic
filct that
th;~tmust be known by such a
Dcstinntion Ulc~nat~c
thematic role
languagc-spccillc fact
systcm. In facl.
fact, Allcn
cxistcncc of
ofparscr
that handles step (1);
(1):
syslem.
Allen simply assumes the existence
parser O,al
such a device
tailored aftcr
after UIC
O,e design
dcvicc might
miglil he
bc wilarcd
dcsign of [Marcus 1980].
19801.

ulterance is rccovcrcd.
recovered. By
meant simply
(2) The
'lhc surface
st~rfaccintention
intcntion of the uttcrancc
It). this is mcant
whcthcr
("l'cll me..."),
mc..."), a question
qucstion ("'When".),
("Whcn...), or the
whether the utterdnce
utterance is a command ("'Tell
all O,ese
revealed by
hy explicit syn(,1clic
Uicsc sentence
scntcncc types arc rcvcalcd
synklclic signals, this
like. Since ;dl
be done easily,
roles
can bc
easily. TogeO,er
'l'ogcllicr with
wit11 the O,emalic
thcn~;~tic
rolcs recovered
recovcrcd in step (I), a
(;::: what the
could want, givcn
given surface indications)
sct oof
s-f requests (=
thc speaker
spcakcr aiuld
possible set
constructcd. For example.
examplc. the uttcranl'C
uttcrancc "Docs
"1)ocs the train to
tt] Windsor leave
lcave at 4?"
4?"
is constructed.
Icads
to
the
systcm
BI
concludc
that
UIC
spci~kcr
has
madc
arcqucst
to
bc
leads
system to conclude
the speaker
made a request be informed
if
the departure time for
lrain is at 4.
fur the Windsor train
- thc
(3) The system
systcln starts
sorts expanding inferences
infcrcnccs forward from its two top level goals
(boarding and leaving
lca\.ing trains), along with a third, dummy, emply
clnpry goal. 'lhe fringe
of sub-goals currently expanded
cxpandcd from higher-level goals arc called the
exnectations. At the same
time, the system
cx~cctations.
wmc time.
systc~nstarts expanding from the initial
utterance backwards. So for instance, given the initial request
rcqucst that the speaker
(train], 4)).
systcm flcshcs
thc possible
wants to -f(dcpanurc-time
know if(depanure-lime (trainl.
4)), the syslem
neshes out the
the speaker
leave at
spei~kcrwants the train to leavc
a1 4; or the speaker
spcakcr doesn't
doesn't
goals that cilher
either thc
4: or the speaker
spcakcr simply wants to know when the train
want the train to lcavc
leave at 4;
leaves. The fringe
fringe of goals expanded
cxpandcd backwards in this manner arc
are dubbed the
judged to mesh
mcsh with an expectation
cxpcctation according to a
alternatives. An alternative is judged
set of weightcd
weighted crileria
criteria that arc simply a way of expressing
cxprcssing hthee likelihood of their
compatibility. For example,
top-level goal expands into subgoals whose
canpatibility.
examplc. if a top-lcvcl
necessary prccondidons
preconditions arc incompatible with thc
the prcconditions
preconditions of the alternative,
then
unlikely: similarly, if the expectations
being expanded forwards
thcn a mesh is unlikely:
cxpcctations bcing
contains descriplions
dcscriptions (like "boarding
"boarding a train") thaI
that is compalible
compatible with the
being cxpandcd
expanded backwards, thcn
then the two arc
alternative bcing
are more likely to mesh.

Berwick
Berwick

78
78

When tile
the score
score of
of some
some alternative-expectation
altcrnativccxpcctation combination
combination exceeds
exceeds tllat
that of
of the
the
When
dummy alternative
alternative by
by aa certain
certain amount,
amount, the
the pair
pair is
is accepted
accepted as
as the
the most
most likely
likely
dllmmy

plan the
the speaker
speoker had
had in
in mind.
mind.
plan

(4) Given
Given aa likely
likely plan
plan for
for tile
tile speaker
speaker (including
(including aa single
single "visible"
"visible" portion,
portion. the
the
(4)
observed speech
speech act).
act), the
the system
system traces
traces out
out tile
Ole steps
steps of
of the
the plan
plan to
to see
sec ifif there
there are
are
observed
any
gaps
in
preconditions
such
that
the
speaker
might
not
be
able
to
carry
out
the
any gaps in preconditions stIch that the speakermight not be able to carry out the
plan.
For
example.
the
plan
of
boarding
a
train
demands
Olat
ti,e
speaker
be
at
plan. For example. the plan of boarding a train demandstllat tile speakerbe at
the departure
departure gate,
g<ttc. implying
implying in
in turn
turn that
that the
the departure
departure gate
gate was
was known.
known. (Note
(Note
tllC
that
this
means
that
Allen's
system
must
have
a
set
of
rules
for
reasoning
about
tllat this means that Allcn 's system must have a set of rules for reasoningabout
actions,
e.g..
inference
rules
of
the
form,
"To
be
at
a
place
X
implies
that
one
actions. c.g., inference rules of the form. "To be at a place X implies that one
knows
the
volue
of
place
X,")
knows the value of place X.')
(5)
Assuming aa model
model of
of co-operative
co-operative behavior,
behavior, the
the system
system responds
respondsso
as to
to fill
fill in
in
(5) Assuming
so as
ti,e
gaps
in
the
speaker's
knowledge
that
it
has
concluded
are
necessary
to
fulfill
tile gaps in the speaker's knowledge that it has concluded are necessaryto fu]fill
the
plan. Here
Here itit can
plan itit has
has already
already inferred
inferred to
to construct
construct
the speaker's
speaker's p]an.
can exploit
exploit the
the plan
using tllC
O,e same
same thematic
thematic role
mechanism of
of Step
Step (1),
(I), but
but in
in reverse
reverse,.
aa response.
response, using
role mechanism
Note
that
the
system
says
nothing
ahout
how
this
linguistic
realization
would
Notc that tile system says nothing about how tl1is linguistic realization would
actually
be
carried
out.
McDonald's
system,
in
fact,
has
been
designed
to
handle
actually be carried out. McDonald's system, in fact, has been designedto handle
exactly
tile prob]cm
problem of
of mapping
mapping from
plan description
description to
to an
an actual
attual utterance
utterance,.
exactly tl1C
from aa plan
(Sec
4.)
(SeeChopter
Chapter 4.)
As
this procedure
not deal
deal with
with indirect
indirect speech
speech acts
acts,. Bcfore
Before
As outlined,
outlined, this
procedure docs
docs not
wckling
this
more
difficult
case
tilOugh,
it
might
be
best
to
illustrate
the
tickling this more difficult case tll0ugh, it might be best to i]]ustrate the Allen
A]]en
system
by comporing
would analyze
systemby
comparing the
the way
way itit and
and Kaplan's
Kaplan's database
dat1basesystem
systemwould
analyzethe
the
same
train to Windsor leave
sameutterance,
utterance. "Docs
" Docs tile train
leaveat 47"
4?"
In
intention:: aa Request
In Kaplan's
Kaplan's system,
system, there
tl1cre can
can be
be only
only onc
one surface
surface intention
Bcguest to
to
Inform
that Kaplan
Inform if
if P(x)
P(x) is
is true.
true. This
'This is
is an
an appropriate
appropriate choice
choice given
given ti,e
tile goals
goals that
Kaplan
had
had for
for his
his research,
research, namely,
namely, to
to develop
develop aa cooperative
cooperative database
databasesystem
systemthat
that was
was
also
transportable.
Kaplan's
system
assumes
that
there
is
only
one
goal
of
also transportable. Kaplan's system assumesthat there is on]y one goal of aa
database
databaseuser:
user: to
to know
know the
the value
va]ue of
of some
some database
databaseobject.
object. In
In addition
addition to
to this
this
immediate
immediate goal,
goal, Allen's
Allen's system
systemcontains
contains several
severalinference
inference rules
rules that
that immediately
immediately
conclude
conclude that
that if
if someone
someonewants
wants to
to Know
know the
the properties
properties of
of something,
something, then
then one
one
wants
one
of
the
possible
values
of
that
property
to
obtain;
further,
one
often
wants one of the possib]e values of tl1at property to obtain; further, one often
wants
wantsto
to know
know the
the value
value of
of an
an object
object in
in order
order to
to identify
identify itit in
in the
the world.
world. Thus
Thus
Allen's
AI]en'ssystem
systemconstruct,;;,
constructsfour
four surface
surfacealternatives
alternativeswhere
where Kaplan
Kaplan has
hasone.
one.
What
What about
about top-level
top-level expectations?
expectations? Here
Here too,
too, Kaplan
Kaplan has
hasbut
but one:
one: to
to find
find out
out
about
aboutthe
the properties
propertiesof
of some
somedata
database
baseobjcc~
object, X.
X . In
In contrast,
contrast, Allen
A]]cn has
hasthree:
three: the
the
board
boardtrain
train plan,
p]an, the
themeet
meettrain_plan,
train.plan, or
or the
the empty
emptyplan.
plan.

79

Inform if
Surfacc Inform if
Surface Inform if
Inform if
rcqucst (I)cparturc.timc (I)cparturc.timc
request (Departurc.timc (Dcpartu re. time
train-1 is 4)
train-l is 4)
train_l is 4)
train_l is 4)
Default
Knuw_value
Goals

Goals
Dcpsrturc.limce 1~cpnrturc.timc
DepJrtUfe.time. Departure.time
train-l
train-1
train_l
train_1
2 & 1:'l'hc following infcrcncc rulc expands (1).
2. &.l: The following inference rule expands (1).
lfspcnkcr wants to know some value,
Ifspeaker wants to know some value,
thcn spcaker wants either a
then speaker wants either a
positivc valuc (wants train to leave
positive value (wants train to leave
at 4) or a ncgativc value
at 4) or a negative value
(wants train not to lcave at 4)
(wants train not to leave at 4)
4. lnfcrcilcc rulc cxpands (I):
1. Inference rule expands (I):
If spcakcr wants to know somc value
Ifspeaker wants to know some value
of somc cntity, then spcakcr wants to
of some entity, then speaker wants to
identify the cntity
identify the entity
Kaolan
Allen
Kaplan
Allen

I'xpcctntion Know-value plan

1.Board main plan
Expectation Know_value plan
1. Board train plan
Goal

Goal

(Database objcct X) preconditions: Arl'(spcakcr, location, tirnc)

(Database object X) preconditions: AT(spcaker. location, time)
matching tcmplate:
matching template:
l>cpart.location(train,location)
DeparI.Iocation(train. location)
I)cpart.tirnc (train, time)
Depart.time (train, time)

-2. Mcct train plan

,2. Meet train plan

precondition: AT(speaker, location,time)
precondition: AT(speaker,loc3tion,time)
matching tcmplate:
matching template:
Arriva1.location (train, location)
Arrival.location (train. location)
Arrival.time (train, time)
Arrival.timc (train, time)

3. Null plan (empty)

.J. Null-plan (empty)
Figure 8 A comparison of the Kaptan and Allen systems.

Figure 8 A comparison of the Kaplan and Allen systems.

Berwick

80

Ncxt, thc spcakcr's plan must bc inferred. In Kaplan's systcm, thcrc is no

Next. the speakcr's plan must be infcrred. In Kaplan's systcm, thcre is no
nccd for any infcrcncc: L11c lop-lcvcl goal is to "know-valuc" and [hc spcakcr's
need for any infercncc: the top-level goal is to "know_value" and the spcaker's
surfacc intcntion is to "know-valuc" -- a match. In hltcn's rnorc complex world
surfacc intention is to "know_valuc" -- a match. In Allen's morc complex world
l find o ~ dcparturc
~ t
tiinc (triggcrcd
of intentions, onc must first scc that thc g c ~ to
of intentions, one mllst first see that the goal to find out departure time (triggered
by thc knowlcdgc that to Windsor signifies 3 thcmatic rolc of dcoarturc) ~ncshcs
by the knowledge that tll Windsor signifies a thematic role of departure) meshes
with thc gclal of boarding tfic train. It docs: Lhc board plan's structure includcs a
with tJle goal of boarding tJle train. It docs: the board plan's structure includes a
slot with thc dcparturc tirnc. but the mcct and null plans do not.
slot with the departure time, but the meet and null plans do not.
Nolc L11i1t tllc casc and simplicity of corrcct idcntification cn~ciallydcpcnds
Note tJlat the case and simplicity of corrcct idcntification crucially depends
upon thc dcnsity of thc spacc of ptrssiblc plilns. It is easy to i~naginccascs whcre
upon the density of the space of possible plans. It is easy to imagine cases where
finding thc corrcct match is not so simplc. For cxa~nplc,it is cntircly plausible
finding the correct match is not so simple. For eXiJmplc, it is entirely plausible
that onc would want t c ~mcct a dcnartinq train -- in ordcr to scc somconc off. I h i s
tJM one would want to meet a departing train -- in order to see someone off. This
altcrnatc mcct twin plan w o ~ ~ fhc
d it~distinguishablcto t l ~ ccurrcnt board train
alternate meet train plan would he indistinguishablc to the current board train
plan -- at lcast as wc havc dcscribcd boarding a train. Pcrllaps h i s is not a
plan -- at least as we have dcscribed boarding a train. Perhaps tl1is is not a
problcm, however. 'I'hc purposc of having iil~crnatcplans in thc first place is to
problem, however. The purposc of having alternate plans in the first place is to
distinguish among diffcrcnt i~ossiblccourscs of action. If thc plans for boarding a
distinguish among different possible courses of action. IftJle plans for boarding a
train and lnccting a train to scc somconc off look cxactly alike, U~cnthis is
train and meeting a train to see someonc o(f look exactly alike, tJlen tllis is
pcrfcctly acccp~iblcinsofar as thc actions fit systcln must takc arc thc same. (In
perfectly acceptable insofar as the actions the system must take arc the same. (In
this casc. sincc boarding a tri~incould rcquirc in addition that one havc a tickct, a
this case, since boarding a train could require in iJddition that one have a ticket, a
situation whcrc thc st,>tion agent also sclls tickcts coi~ldrcqi~irca modification in
situation where the swion agent also sells tickets could require a modification in
h c b o a r d train plan to this crcct. ?'hen thc hoard train and mcct departing train
the'board train plan to tJlis e(fect. Then we hoard train and meet departing train
plans would bc distinguishable. Allcn has specifically ri~lcdout this possibility
plans would be distinguishable. Allen has specifically ruled out tllis possibility -~rationagcnts do not sell tickcts in his univcrsc.) But as soon as the spacc of
station agents do not sell tickets in his universe.) But as soon as me space of
possible top-lcvcl goills is cxp~uldcd.'cvcn rnorc complicated cxnrnplcs can bc
possible top-level goals is expanded, 'cven more complicated examples can be
construclcd. For cxa~nplc,supposc fiat onc wants to delay d ~ 4c o'clock train -constructed. for example, suppose that one wants to delay tile 4 o'clock train -.
say by planting a bomb tilncd to go off as it rolls across a detonator. In this case,
say by planting a bomb timed to go off as it rolls across a detonator. In tllis case,
onc would want to havc thc train lcavc at 4 cvcn though thc ultimate top-lcvcl
one would want to have the train leavc at 4 evcn though the ultimate top-level
goal is plainly 'to nt,t have thc train Icavc. Thus in this siti~ation Allen's
goal is plainly to not have the train leave. Thus in tllis situation Allen's
"know-positivc" rule -- "know-if (X) 3 know-positivc(x) or know-negative (x)
"know_positive" rule -- "know_if (X) ~ knllw_positive(x) or know_negative (x)
-- could lcad to the contradiction of both wanting and not wanting the train to
-- could lead to the contradiction of both wanting and not wanting the train to
lcavc at 4. Examplcs such as h i s one show that, in gcncral, a systcm incorporating
leave at 4. Examples such as tJlis one show that, in general, a system incorporating
Allen's lhcory would have to incorporate a rnorc sophisticatcd logic of wants or
Allen's theory would have to incorporate a more sophisticated logic of wants or
betie fs.
beliefs.
Summarizing sc~far, in Kaplan's systcm thc stcp from parscd utterance to plan
Summarizing so far. in Kaplan's system the step from parsed utterance to plan
infcrcncc is immcdiale; in Allcn's, thcrc is a significant amount of interpolation
inference is immediate; in Allen's. there is a significant amount of interpolation
that is rcquircd:
that is required:

--

81

Obscrvcd
Observed

Request: lnfonn
I<cqucst:
I n A ~ r nif
dcparturc.timc
departure.
time

Request: Inform
Ilcqucst:
InA~nnif
departure.time
dcyarlure.time
Know_if
Know_value

Goal

Know_value
Know-valuc
departure
time
dcp~rturctimc

Know_reference (speaker,
lime)
Know-rcfcrcncc
(spcakcr, time)
whcrc
ti~nc:=dcp;~rtorc
where time:= departure
time of train
limc
vain
Huard train:
know-rcfcrcnce
Board
tmin: know_reference
(departure
time, gate)
(dcpc~rturcti~nc,
gatc)

1':i~llre
Summary uf
of Kaplan and Allen
Allcn example
cxamplc comparison.
compa~.ison.
Figur~ 9 Summary
spcnkcr's plan
pl;ln uther
utlicr Ill;~n
Notc til:lt
t11:lt Kaplan"s
K;lplan's SystClll
systcln has no
!no model
~nodclof thc
Note
the spcakcr'$
tlwn UIC
the
simple
the speaker
wants to
the v:lluc
value of
departure time.
si~tiplcone
onc that llic
spr;~kcrw;lt~ts
PI know UIC
ofdcp;lrturc
What ncxt'
K;lp1nn3ssystem,
sgslcrn, 111c
stnlctllrc (the p:~rsc)
n~;lppcdinto
nexO! In Kaplan's
the MQl.
MQL stnleture
parse) is mapped
:I database
dnt~bascquery
qilcry -- a sequence
scquc~lccof queries
qucrics O,at
Uiat aim to rind
lind out Ihc
11
the value of
dcparturc
Suppcsc tllat
!ll;lt the
t l ~ cdatahase
det~bascstructure is such that
th;lt ihc
lbllowing
d~parturc tilnc.
time.- Suppuse
the lbllowing
sitllation obtains:
obt;~ins:
sitllJtion
'l'oronto tnin
xhcddc
Toronto
train schedule
Arrivals
3 PM
3PM
I)cpart~~rcs
DcpartllfcS
1
PM
IPM
Windsor train schcdulc
schl..dulc
Arrivals
1AM
lAM

IPM

'I'hcn the
thc subset
subsct stnlet"'e
stnlcturc for tltc
qucry looks like
likc this:
Then
the query
tllis:

82

Berwick

Figure 10 Subscl strt~clur~c

for a databd~cqucry.
Figure 10 Subset SlrllctUl'c for a d~ltJbJsc query.
,

I h2rc ~ r ntr
c Wi~rdulrrtmin dcpllrtr~rcs. As usuol. K i ~ p l i ~systcnr
t ~ ' ~ reports back
Th..::rc arc no Windsor train dep;Jrtllrc:-. I\s usual, Kilp1<llI'S systcnl reports back
tllc Inrgcst ernply suhscl ill dris ellain as the rcasol: for lllc cmply sct qucry
the brgest empty subset in this chain ,1S the rCaSlJH
response:
response:

f~Jr

the empty set query

Vu, tllcrc 31.c 110 Willdsor trail1 dcparturcs.

No. there :Ire no Windsor traill departures.

Whar abtr:l hllcn'r. sys!cm? l ' h c analog,uc c ~ df ~ h.lQl.

c
qucry path for Allcn is
\vh;)! <lbm:l Al1~n's sys!cm? The analogue (If the r-,IQ1. query path for Allen is
a trx: thrilugh thc plan of 1)o:irding s train. 'l'l1,11plun incladcs n scglricnt wherc
a tr~r:~ through th\: plan of boarding a train. That plan ineltldes a segment where
thc ~pi'okcrrnusl h t l o ~ vwhcn Llic drp;lnl~rclirnc IS, and wlii~tIhc g;lic nurnbcr for
the ~pC'aker must 1now when the dc-partnre time is, ilnd what the gate number for
dcp:lrt~ucis -- n gap t i i ; ~ l nus st bc fillcd. t\llc.n's systcln ttltn attcmpts to hridgc
depannn.' is -- a .;tp thal Inllst be filled. Allen's s~6tem then attell1(1ts to hridge
irifi)rrnaliol\ t l ~ n tit has. Assuu~c-- as Allcn d{)cs -- that the
that gnp by s~~pillying
that gap l1Y slIpplying iU!()fInaliOJ} that it has, Assume -- as Allcn docs that the
systcm has ncccs!; 10 3 ti~blco f dcpal.rul.c ; I I I ~i\rri\:i~lkimcs For t n i ~ so
~ sh;rt it can
system has access LO ,\ t"hle of departure and .uTIvallime:, for trains so that it can
lind o t ~ ithc:;c vi~l!~c$
Tor itsclt Suppocc 11:1t it consults this tablc ;lad iin~lsUlat
lind tlllt Ihc:;c v,llllC~ for itself. SUPPll>C Ill:lt it consults rJlis table and iinds that
~hcrcarc no li'indsnr train dcpnrturcs. I1 ~ h c nconcludcs that this is n girp in the
there arc no \\'indsnr train departures. It lhell concludes Ulat this is a gnp in the
spcaktr's plan thdl cannot bc f~llcd,and rq)ot*tson l f ~unbridgcahlc
c
gap:
speaker's plan thaI cannot be Iilled, and r~pllrts on the unbridgeable gap:

No, thcrc arc no Windsor train dcp;~rturcs.

No. thcre arc no Windsor train departures.

In :,unr, wc see. h i l t K3pIan and Allcn's systc'111wi!l pcrforrv in bout thi! sunc
In ~;um, we ~e(' that Kilplan and Allen's system will pCrfl1fll1 in about the same
way ii1 rcsponsc lo tint;~l>a.sc-likc
"cmply" qtlcstions.
way iii response 10 dill;lbi\~c'like "cmpty" questions.
Of ~~)IIs:;c,
Allc~~'s
systc'm can do s o ~ ~ihirlgs
t c t l ~ a lKap:an's c:!ntlc;t, !)ccausc it
Of course, ,\Ileu's system can do SOl11 I: things IllJ! Kap:an's G!llllet, !)C'causc it
ha:; (I morc complctc 1!1c,cIcl of if~cs]?clkcr's pl:~n. Fol' cx3ii1plc.il call si~pplyt h e
ha:, a more COln;yklC modd of the spc:lker's pbn. For eXJnlplc, il can supply the
g;~Lcn~r~nbcl.
c~~c:i
iT ths usi!r did not c ~ ~ l i c i ddcn!i~nd
y
it -- 5i11ccit bo is 3
gate number e\\::1 if the user did not expliciLly demand it ~i nce it tuo is 3
~~~~~~~~~y prccc~nditic~li
hr tllc su:ccss of t f ~ cin t'crrcll spcakcr's plan.
llCccs~,lry preconditioIl fl;r the SllCecss of UlC in fcneu speaker's plan.
Jil a casc lili: "lloc\ tllc Wir~dsortr;~inIcavc at 4?",tlrc surr:icc fi.11-111 of Blc
Ja a case like "I)oe\ the Windsor train leave at 4?", the $urfacc furm of the
urtcrancc n~;tu:lics thi' ii:lc~ttionto find out \V:ILYI ! h trair,
~ IC,I\CY.
'I'his is n clircct
ultera:lec ll1;lU:llC~ tit;,:: iJ~'Clltioll to lind (lut Wl1l'1l the train kayes. This is a tlircet
spccc!~crcl. li' : ; L I T ~ ~ I U folm
C
dtrs not rfircclly r ~ * r l c cdl(!
t :;pcakc~-':, ifitctition, t1lc11
spcC'ch ,1Cl. Ii' ~;ur[lce form docs nol directly rl'ricct the :;pcJkcr'~; intention, then
c!nc II;IS ,\:I i[\a.i;rh!cljpcccli act. ?'hits, 10 crhilin thc "LI,L:c" inlent of a spcclkci, no
lme has <In 1Jt.h,'q spec'dl 'ICt. Thus, 10 oDllin the "lrue" inlC'nt of :l spc"kcr, no
nddi~iot::~!1nfi.1-cncc' is ncccss~ryin t l c;lx
~ c ~ af Ilirccf S[)CCC~I act: CIIC ~ C ' I ' S S I ~
,1uJith,1I::d inkrcnc.. . b necessary in tbe C<lse of a direct speech il\:t; the PCl'S011
n;car,s what hc litcrsll;; is s ~ t i n g ,fn col1tr;lst. i ~ ;!a
i it\dil.cct spcccl~iict, i s ~ c r a l
n;~'ans ",'hat he litcr,;lly is sJ}ing. In contrast, in ,!r! indirect specch 'A't, ',c\,efal

83
laycrs of infcrcncc might have to bc intcrposcd bcforc tl~e"tmc" rcqucst is
layers of inference might have to be interposed before the "true" request is
rccovcrcd:
recovered:

direct

indircct

surfacc
Ilocs the Windsor
Ilo you know whcn
surface
Docs the Windsor
Do you know when
form
train lcavc at 4?
the Windsor train leaves?
form
train leavc at 4?
the Windsor train leaves?
surface
Inform-if
Inform-if (Agcnt knows
surface
Inform_if
Inform_if (Agent knows
(Ilcparturc tirnc is 4) dcparturc tirnc)
rcqucst
request
(Departure time is 4) departure time)
'

I n fonn-if (Ilcparture
undcrlying lnfonn-if
underlying Infonn_if
Infonn_if(Departure
rcqucst
(Dcparturc tirnc is 4) timc is 4)
request
(Depalture timc is 4) time is 4)
Figurc I1 Comparison of direct and indircct rcqucsts.
Figure 11 Comparison of direct and indirect requests.
Oncc thc undcrlying rcqucst is rccovcrcd, the systcin can procccd as before.
Once the underlying request is recovered, the system can proceed as before,
but how can one gct from S U ~ ~ ~ Ircqucst
CC
to undcrlying rcqucst? Allcn's answer is
but how can one get from surface request to underlying request? i\llen's answer is
thnt rccovcring an indircct undcr1ying rcqucst involvcs rcconctructing a portion of
that recovering an indirect underlying request involves reconstructing a portion of
a spcikcr's bclicfs on the basis of obscrving an cxtcrnal uttcrancc. Hcncc,
a speaker's beliefs on the basis of observing an external utterance. Hence,
rccoucring an indircct spccch specch act is thc srlnlc sart of proccss as rccovcring a
recovering an indirect speech speech act is the same sort of process as recovering a
spcakcr's ultimatc plan -- only QIC infcrcncc chain ciin bc longer, hcncc more
speaker's ultimate plan -- only the inference chain can be longer, hence more
difici~ltand crror-pronc. Thc cxlra stcp is simply to takc thc literal mcaning of
difficult and error-prone. The extra step is simply to take the literal meaning of
thc observed uttcrancc. obtaining a surface spccch act as bcforc, and thcn cxpand
the observed utterance, obtaining a surface speech act as before, and then expand
this alternative backwards by a scrics of jnfcrcnce rutcs dcaling now with the
this alternative backwards by a series of inference rules dealing now with the
spcakcr's dcsircs with respect to what thc spcakcr and thc hcarcr (the station
speaker's desires with respect to what the speaker and the hearer (the station
agcnt) mutually bclicvc. In h i s casc, what they n~utua!lybelicvc includcs the
agent) mutually believe. In this case, what they mutually believe includes the
information that thc spcakcr wants thc agent lo tcll the spcakcr whcthcr the agcnt
information that the speaker wants the agent to tell the speaker whether the agent
knows whcn the Windsor train Icavcs. It also includcs Ihc fact that knowing when
knows when the Windsor train leaves. It also includes the fact that knowing when
thc train lcavcs is the sole relevant precondition for telling the spcakcr when the
the train leaves is the sole relevant precondition for telling the speaker whcn the
train leavcs, and furthcr that the & possiblc cffcct of thc agcnt's knowledge of
train leaves, and further that the only possible effect of the agent's knowledgc of
whcn the train lcavcs on the spcakcr is for fhc spcakcr to come to know when the
when the train leaves on the speaker is for the speaker to come to know when the
train Icaves -- this sincc both spcakcr and station agcnt alrcady mutually believe
train leaves -- this since both speaker and station agent already mutually bclicve
that thc sution agcnt knows when thc train lcavcs. 'Ihus the only possible plan
that the station agent knows when the train leaves. Thus the only possible plan
that is advanccd by asking the qucstion is a plan whcrc thc speaker finds out what
that is advanced by asking the question is a plan where the speaker finds out what
thc departure time of the train is -- hcncc thc inform-if undcrlying rcqucst.
the depanure time of the train is -- hence the infonn-if underlying request
If the context is constrained enough. thc computational problcms that could
If the context is constrained enough, the computational problems that could
arisc hcrc do not sccm to be iusurmountablc: if onc can only mect or board trains,
arise here do not seem to be insurmountable: if one can only meet or board trains,
thcn thc cxpression. "thc train to Windsor" uttcrcd without any surfacc indication
thl;n the expression, "the train to Windsor" uttered without any surface indication
of
intcnt (as a rcqucst, say) can still be analyzed. Howcvcr, this is simply because
of intent (as a request, say) can still be analyzed. However, this is simply because

Berwick

84

thcrc cannot bc many "dccp" intcntions. Indccd, given thc tightly circurnscribcd
there cannot be many "deep" intentions. Indeed, given the tightly circumscribed
train srarion world, a spcakcr would nccd but to appn~nchthc station agcnt and
train skltion world, a speaker would need but to approach the sLltion' agent and
say, Windsor". 'l'hc agcnl could thcn supply a rcsponsc that mct cithcr the
say, Windsor". The agent could then supply a response that met either the
dctnands of rnccting or hoarding a train: a gatc and a time. 'The powcr of Allcn's
demands of meeting or hoarding a train: a gate and a time. The power of Allen's
system thcn is that in a constricted domain onc can cncodc a sumcicnt set of
system then is that in a constricted domain one can encode a sufficient set of
axioms and infcrcncc n~lcsto deal with a cornplctc, but circurnscribcd, range of
axioms and inference niles to deal with a complete, but circumscribed, range of
human actions and intcntions. I'o cxtcnd this approach to thc world at large
human actions and intentions. To extend this approach to the world at large
would plainly rcquirc a way to rcstrict infcrcnce. Sincc pcoplc do solnchow
would plainly require a way to restrict inference. Since people do somehow
managc to gct around in thc world in gcncral -- or at lcast thcy sccrn to one is
manage to get around in the world in general .- or at least they seem to" one is
inc1uct;tbly Icd to the scarch for tliosc "natural" constraints on infcrcncc that
ineluctably led to the search for those "natural" constraints on inference that
pcoplc must prcsuinably usc. 13ut thcrcin lics thc story of thc Future of cognitive
people must presumably usc. But therein lies the story of the future of cognitive
scicncc, a story that must wait for another book to tell.
science, a story that must wait for another book to tell.

--

1.5 hlc1)onald: Saying \\'hat You hlcnn

1.5 1\1c]}onald: Saying "'hat You Mean
So far, we have discussed modcls that "listcn" to what is bcing said, but do not
So far, wc have discussed modcls that "listen" to what is being said, but do not
talk back. McDonald's model aims to plug this gap. In broad outline,
talk back. McDonald's model aims to plug this gap. In broad outlinc,
Mcllonald's model of spccch production is simple: It is a proccdurc that maps
McDonald's model of speech production is simple: It is a procedure that maps
cxprcssions in an internal languagc (generally assurncd to bc of a "conceptual"
expressions in an internal language (generally assumed to be of a "conceptual"
charactcr. perhaps a "languagc of thought") to those of an cxtcrnal language, a
character, perhaps a "language of thought") to those of an external language, a
sequcncc of phoncs or thcir written counterparts.
sequence of phones or their written counterparts.
Properly blcndcd, thcsc ingredients arc sufficient to mcct the bare
Properly blended, these ingredients are sufficient to meet the bare
rcqujrcmcnt of actually bcing ablc to producc output language from input
requirement of actually being able to produce output language from input
mcssagcs. Rut as we have sccn, if one is to take the compu~7tionalvicw of mind
messages. But as we have seen, if one is to take the computational view of mind
seriously, onc should strive for morc b a n this. The ultimate goal is a procedure
seriously, one should strivc for more than this. 'The ultimate goal is a procedure
whose cxtcrnal behavior is causally conilcctcd to its internal organjution in a
whose external behavior is causally connected to its internal organization in a
fashion that mirrors that of the human cognitive faculty in qucstion. This is a
fashion that mirrors that of the human cognitive faculty in question. This is a
demand that goes far beyond simple cxtcnsional mimicry; crudcly put, the
demand that goes far beyond simple extensional mimicry; crudely put., the
computational "guts" of modcl and pcrson arc to bc functionally cquivalcnt.
computational "guts" ofmodcl and person arc to be functional1y equivalent
Put another way, a theory of languagc gcncration that aims at an gxnlanation
Put another way, a theory of language generation that aims at an explanation
of how pcoplc producc language must ~ncctadditional demands of ugrilkg
of how people produce language must meet additional demands of cognitive
lidclity. Some of thesc additional fidelity conditions arc fairly obvious. For
fidelity. Some of these additional fidelity conditions arc fairly obvious. For
cxamplc, human spccch is typically rapid and flucnt without cxccssivc pauses; yet
example, human speech is typically rapid and fluent, without excessive pauses; yet
at thc same time fluent spccch is rife with certain charactcristic errors; we will
at the same time fluent speech is rife with certain characteristic errors; we will
investigate some of thcse below. Ihis blend of flucncy and crror is not surprising.
investigate some of these below. lois blend of fluency and error is not surprising.
Whcrevcr wc find a computational system working under scvcre rcsource
Wherever we find a computational system working under severe resource
constraints -- in this casc, the demand to producc continuous, flucnt spcech we
constraints -- in this case, the demand to produce continuous, fluent speech _. we
find cases whcre thcre has bccn an apparent sacrifice of pcrfcct corrcctncss for
tind cases where there has been an apparent sacrifice of perfect correctness for
speed. As with any complcx machincry, thcse "breakdown points" provide
speed. As with any complex machinery, these "breakdown points" provide

--

8S
intriguing cvidcncc for thc intcnlal constn~ctionof thc languagc production
intngumg evidence for the internal constnlction of the language production
mechanism itself.
mechanism itself.
McDonald's rcscarch into languagc gcncration lics squarcly within this
McOonald's research into language generation lies squarely within this
methodological approach. His basic goal is to dcvclup a working computer
methodological approach. His basic goal is to develop a working computer
program tliat can iictually producc orthographic output from an input mcssagc
program that can actually produce orthographic omput from an input message
language; onc can llicrcforc cval~latchis work with rcspcct to thc (wcak) milestone
language: one can Lllerefore evaluate his work with respect to the (weak) milestone
of Input/Output reproducibility. I-lc~wcvcr,not only is thc Mcllanald procedure
of Input/Output reproducibility. However. not only is the McDonald procedure
dcsigncd actually to output orthographic tcxt from tncssagc input it is dcsigncd to
designed actually to output orthographic text from message input, it is designed to
that
o ~ i t p ~tcxt
~ t o~iickly. 111 slioi-t. llic major cognitive fidclity rcqi~ircmc~~t
output text!ll!i1h. In short. the major cognitive fidelity requirement that
McI3onnld aims to ~ n c c is
t tl1;tt of flucncy, that is. thc ability to producc language
McDonald aims to mect is that of fluency. that is, the ability to produce language
at a boundcd ratc without arbitrary pauscs. 'I'his is a quintcssclitially
at a bounded rate without arbitrary pauses. This is a quintessentially
compuwtional dcmund, serving as a kind of "forcing function" to drivc thc dcsign
compuL1tional demand, serving as a kind of "forcing function" to drive the design
of thc gcncration prwcdurc. '1'0 mcct the flucncy rcquircmcnt, k1cf)onald
of the gcncration procedure. To mcet the fluency requirement, McDonald
advanccs a spccific sct oTconstraints on his input mcssagc languagc and mapping
advances a specific set of constraints on his input message bnguage and mapping
function. I'or instance. one of die mcssagc langilagc constraints lias to do with the
function. For instance, one oftlle message language constraints has to do with the
order in which rncssagc sub-clemcnts can appear in a conlpletc message: it is
order in which message sub-elements can appear in a complete message: it is
forbidden to allow a sub-clcmcnt that dcpcnds on somc highcr, morc "abstract"
forbidden to allow a sub-clement that depends on some higher. morc "abstract"
rncssagc clement to bc cxpandcd bcfi}rc that morc abstract clcmcnt. 7hcn too, the
meSSJge clement to be expanded before that more abstract clement. Then too, the
gcncrqrion proccdurc ilsclf is rcstrictcd to d o only a boundcd amount of "advance
gener~tion procedure itself is restricted to do only a bounded amount of "advance
planning" bcforc it must dccidc what to say at any givcn stcp. (Thcsc vague tcrms
planning" before it must decide what to say at any given step. (These vague terms
Iikc "boundcd" and "adiancc planning" will bc sharpcncd shortly.)
like "bounded" and "advance planning" will be sharpened shortly.)
'fogcthcr, Lhc constraints on rncssagc languagc and mapping atgorithm are
Together, the constraints on message language and mapping algorithm are
claimcd to bc suficicnt (not ncccssary) to obtain thc dcsircd result of flucnt
claimed to be sufficiellt (not necessary) to obtain the desired restlll of nuent
output. As in Lhc case of othcr systclns constraincd so as to opcratc with limited
output. As in the case of other systems constrained so as to operate with limited
rcsou;ccs, McDonald suggests that lhcy conspire so as to prcvcnt thc gcncration
resour~es, McDonald suggests that they conspire so as to prevent the generation
proccdurc from corrcctly handling certain input mcssagcs propcrly. Although he
procedure from correctly handling certain input messages properly. Although he
docs not providc a firll characterization of which sorts of constructions can or
docs not provide a full characterization of which sorts of constructions can or
cannot bc handled, it will b e shown below that a fonnal characterization of most if
cannot be handled. it will be shown below that a fonnal characteriz.ation of most if
not all of thc error-producing constructions can bc givcn. In a nutshell, the
not all of the error-producing constructions can be given. In a nutshell, the
flucncy constraint is subsumed by a formal property of grammars known as the
fluency constraint is subsumed by a formal property of grammars known as the
l.(k) condition [Lewis and Stcarns 19681. As we shall see, the LL(k)
LUll I.
condition [Lc\';is and Stearns 1968]. As we shall sec, the LL(k)
charactcrizalion providcs a uscful umbrclla framcwork in which lo unify the
characterization provides a useful umbrella framework in which to unify the
various constraints that McI3onald proposes. One such framework is sketched
various constraints tllat McDonald proposes. One such framework is sketched
below: it recasts Lbc gcncration procedure as transduction guidcd by an
below: it recasts thc generation procedure as transduction guided by an
undcrlying 1-L(k) grammar (and is conscqucntly a varicty of svntax-dirccted
underlying LL(k) grammar (and is consequently a variety of syntax-directed
translation, a formalism morc familiar from thc rcalln of compilcr design.) This
translation, a formalism more familiar from the realm of compiler design.) 'Ibis
rc-intcrprctation of thc McDonald modcl will allow us to invcstigate more
re-interpretation of the McDonald model will allow us to investigate more
carchlly thc claims of McI3onald's rcscarch, and considerably sharpcn the
carefully the claims of McDonald's research, and considerably sharpen the
statcmcnt of his constraints.
statement of his constraints.
Docs thc McDonald modcl mimic human specch production? Thcrc is some
Docs the McDonald model mimic human speech production? There is some

Rcrwick
Berwick

86

86

stlggcstivc cvidcncc tliat it docs. It turns out that thcrc arc systcmatically produccd
suggestive evidence that it docs. It turns out that there arc systematically produced
"crrors" in human spccch -- ungrammatical scntcnces that arc quitc common in
"errors" in human speech .- ungrammatical sentences that arc quite common in
the spokcn languagc -- that can bc clcgantly accounted for if onc adopts
the spoken language -- that can be elegantly accounted for if one adopts
Mcllonald's assumption of boundcd planning duri~lgspccch production. 'Thcsc
McDonald's assumption of bounded planning during speech production. These
ilrc ungrarnmi~ticalscntcnccs (as notcd by [Kroch 19811) with a)-callcd rcsum~tive
me ungrammatical sentences (as noted by [Krach 1981]) with so-called resumptive
pronouns:
pronouns:
'Ihc guy who I don't know whcthcr hc will cornc or not...
The guy who I don't know whether he wi1l come or not...
Such scntcnccs arc assumcd to havc a constirucnt analysis roughly like the
Such sentences arc assumed to have a constituent analysis roughly like the
following:
following:
[N;ll~c guy [S who I don't know [Swhclhcr
will cornc or
[NP'1l1e guy [s who I don't know [swhether he will come or
not...

not..

is c~nbeddcdtwo scntcntial phrases away from

'Ihat is. thc rcsurnptivc pronoun
That is, the resurnptive pronoun he is embedded two sentential phrases away from
thc head Noun h c g u y to which it rcfcrs. Such scntcnccs arc produccd apparently
the head Noun ~ gmto which it refers. Such sentences arc produced apparently
l~ccauscthc gcncration proccdurc cannot plan syntactic dctilil two scntcnccs ahead
because the generation procedure cannot plan syntactic detail two sentences ahead
and at thc same timc maintain the rcquircmcnt of continuous output: Lhc head
and at the same time maintain the requirement of continuous output: the head
Noun scglncnt
g u must
~
bc "said" bcforc thc intcrnill details of Ihc second
Noun segment the .ill. must be "said" before the internal details of the second
wh-phrase
arc
workcd
out
in
filll.
will bc dcscribcd in morc dctail bclow, the
- arc worked out in full. As willAs
wll-phrase
be described in more detail below. the
cffcct of such limited tooka11cad ]cads inevitably to ~111gr3mmatici1litics
in spccch
effect of such limited lookahcad leads inevitably to ungrammaticalities in speech
of thc kind notcd abovc.
of the kind noted above.
lntcrcstingly cnough. thcsc scntcnccs arc thc production analogues of the
Interestingly enough, these sentences arc the production analogues of the
wcll-known "gardcn path" scntcnccs, such as.
well-known "garden path" sentenccs, such as,
I h e horsc raccd past thc barn fcll.

&

The horsc raced past the barn fell.

[s [Np'l'hehorsc raccd past thc barn [v,fcll.
[s [NpThe horse Ie raced past the barn [vpfell.

whcre C = a clausc of a typc to bc dctcrmincd by the parse,

where C:=: a clause of a type to be dctcrmined by the parse,
e.g., S or VP.
e.g., S or VP.
Pcoplc cannot parsc thcsc sorts of scntcnccs correctly,' presumably bccause of
People cannot parse these sorts of sentences correctly.l presumably because of
a limitation o n thc ability to "plan" a parse morc than a fcw stcps ahcad into a
a limitation on the ability to "plan" a parse morc than a few steps ahead into a
scntcncc. I h i s intuition has bccn given a computational grounding in Marcus'
sentence. This intuition has becn given a computational grounding in Marcus'
[Marcus 19801modcl of scntcncc parsing, a modcl that also incorporatcs a notion
IMarcus 19801 model of sentence parsing, a model that also incorporates a notion
o f boundcd lookahcad drivcn by a "forcing function" of cficicnt opcration. As it
of bounded lookahcad driven by a "forcing function" of efficient operation. As it

1. Typically only when reading Lhcrn, however. In normal speech, intonational cfficcls a
I. Typically only when rCilding them, however. In normal speech, intonational effects seem to
eliminate most garden palhs by providing su ficient cucs lo d i r d G-IC lislencr's parse.
eliminate most garden paths by providing su ffieienl cues to direct the listener's parse.

m to

87
turns out, forward planning of parsing in Marcus' modcl is limitcd to a lookahcad
turns out, forward planning of parsing in Marcus' model is limited to a lookahead
of just onc scntcntial clausc -- just as in Lhc modcl for tlic production o f scntcnccs
of just one sentential clause -- just as in the model for the production of sentences
-- and it is this restriction that forccs thc ~nisanalysisof gardcn path scntcnccs. It is
-- and it is this restriction that forces the misanalysis of garden path sentences. It is
not too much of an cxaggcratioii to say that thc Mc1)c)nald gcncration procedure
not too much of an exaggeration to say that the McDonald generation procedure
is thc production dual oithc Marcus parser.
is the production dual of the Marcus parser.
1.5.1 l'hc h1cl)onald 111odc1
1.5.1 The McDonald model

Dcforc proceeding to a fonnal analysis of thc McDonald approach and the

13efore proceeding to a fonnal analysis of the McDonald approach and the
cognitivc bchavior that it prcdicts. Ict us quickly rcvicw its ccntral coinponcnts as
cognitive behavior that it predicts, let us quickly review its central components as
tliey fit into thc gcncral modcl of languagc production skctchcd above.
they fit into the general model of language production sketched above.
McDonald's rncssagc Innguacc, though ncvcr cxplicitly formulated, appears to
McDonald's message l:mguage, though never explicitly formulated, appears to
bc solnc variant of a standard quantificalional la~iguagc (capturing the
be some variant of a standard quantificational l<lnguage (capturing the
propositional contcnt of a mcssagc) along with (optional) scqucncing and
propositional content of a message) along with (optional) sequencing and
discourse information.
discourse information.
'I'hcrc arc two fcaturcs of thc tnessagc language that arc crucial to the exercise
There arc two features of the mes~ge language that arc crucial to the exercise
of dcvcloping a gcncration program. First of all. notc that an cxprcssion in the
of developing a generation program. First of all, note that an expression in the
mcsalgc langungc is tiicrarchically organi~cdits Mcllonald dcpicts it. Rrhaps
message language is hierarchically organized as McDonald depicts it. Perhaps
more importantly, thc hicrnrchical structurc cncodcd in tlic mcssagc language
more importantly, the hierarchical structure encoded in the message language
rcflccts to a considcrablc cxtcnt thc phrasc structure of thc output form. As we
reflects to a considerable extent the phrase structure of the output form. As we
shall scc, thc gcncration prtxcdurc rnakcs cn~cialusc of h c ncsting encoded by
shall sec, the generation procedure makes crucial usc of the nesting encoded by
thc parcnthcscs in ordcr to do its work.
the parentheses in order to do its work.
Secondly, thc input mcssngc languagc is
& I L~
disa~nbicruatcd:thc parcnthcses
Secondly, the input meSS<lge language is f!!ll:i. disambiguated: the parentheses
propcrty will also play a
dcscribc cxactly one such trcc stnlctul-c. 'Ihis u~~iqucllcss
describe exactly !!.ill: such tree structure. 'Illis uniqueness property will also playa
cn~cialrulc in tlic cfficicnt pn)ducrion ofoutput from a givcn mcssage.
cnlcial role in the efficient production of outplll from a given message.
h carcfiil specification of Chc C O I I I I C C ~ ~ Obctwccn
~
mcssngc and output
A careful specification of the connection between message and output
languagc is ccntral to Mcllonald's rcscarch program, bccausc thc structural
language is central to McDonald's research program, because the stnlctural
similarity bctwccn input and output languagc wcighs hcavily on the
similarity between input and output language weighs heavily on the
computational powcr rcquircd to pcrfonn tllc mapping from onc to thc other. For
computational power required to perfonn the mapping from one to the other. For
cxample, takc thc extrcmc casc whcrc Ihc mcssagc languagc and h e output
example, take the extreme case where the message language and the output
languagc arc onc and the sarnc -- that is, supposc that thc "languagc of thought"
language are one and the same -- that is, suppose that the "language of thought"
wcrc just English. l h c n the function rcquircd to takc mcssagc language to
were just English. 11len the function required to take message language to
"surfacc structurc" would just bc thc idcntity mapping -- a rathcr efficiently
"surface stnlcture" would just be the identity mapping -- a rather efficiently
computable function. In this case, thcrc would bc no surprise at all in thc claim
computable function. In this case, there would be no surprise at .111 in the claim

Ikrwick
Berwick

88

that thc tnapping prtrcdurc rnccts certain critcria orcfficicnt computability.'

that the mapping procedure meets certain criteria of efficient computability.1
is simply an orthograpl~icrcprescntation -- a
Mcl3onald's o u t ~ u tlana~~agc
McDonald's output language is simply an orthographic representation _. a
string of words. 'Ihus. thc output languagc docs
includc such fcnturcs of the
string of words. '111us, the output language docs not include such features of the
human spccch stream as intonational contours or rl~ythm. Sincc somc of thesc
human speech stream as inlOnational contours or rhythm. Since some of these
aspccls of spccch -- such as phrasing pauscs and the likc -- arc known to bc a
aspects of speech -- such as phrasing pauses and the like -- arc known to be a
significant par1 of spcccli output, it is importan1 to consider just what thcir
significant part of speech output. it is important to consider just what their
omissio~li~nplicsfor thc scopc of thc gcncration proccdurc. 1-ntcr in t h i s analysis
omission implies for the scope of the generation procedure. Later in this analysis
wc shall bricfly investigate how into~iationalcontour might play a role in a
we shall briefly investigate how intonational contour might playa role in a
languagc gcncration modcl.
language generation model.
'I'hc function Liking rncssngc strings to orthographic strings is described by
The function L1king message strings to orthographic strings is described by
Mcl3onald as a finitc slalc trsnsdt~ccrthat, tracing though the irlpitt mcssnge trce,
McDonald as a finite state transducer that, tracing though the input message tree,
outputs linguistic symbols (and sornctimcs new tree structurc) as it gocs -- thus
outputs linguistic symbols (and sometimes new tree structure) as it goes -- thus
producing the rcquircd output string. Wc might dcpict such a dcvicc as having a
producing the required output string. We might depict such a device as having a
simplc "rcad hcad" that travcrscs thc lncssage structure from Icft to right in a
simple "read head" that traverses the message structure from left to right in a
scrics of tnovcs, noting symbols as it gocs; access to a finitc tablc of infonnation
series of moves, noting symbols as it goes; access to a finite table of infonnation
th;it specifics its movcs and the symbols to output (indcxcd by input symbol and
that specifics its moves and the symbols to output (indexed by input symbol and
rnachinc statc); but no storage hpc on which to writc symbols for later rccall.
machine state); but no storage tape on which to write symbols for later recall.
Howevcr. this cliaracterization of Mcl)onald's gcncration prtrcdurc is not quite
However, this characterization of McDonald's generation procedure is not quite
accuratc, in Ihnt thc automaton actu;iIly travcrscs thc ~rccasst~iatcdwith the
ac.curate, in that t!1e automaton actually traverses the tree associated with the
mcssugc smicturc, aud thus does not cxactly follow II lcft-to-right traversal
message stmcture. and thus docs not exactly follow a lefttoright traversal
through thc mcssagc string. Actually. its travcrsal mirrors thc hierarchical
through the message string. Actually, its travcrsal mirrors thc hierarchical
structure of thc rrcc associated hith thc message.2
structure of thc tree associatcd with the mcssage. 2
As will be shown bclow, this dcvicc has marc powcr than a simplc finitc state
As will be shown below, this dcvice has more powcr than a simple finite state
machi~c;its travcrsal of thc trce it is building givcs it thc powcr of a pushdown
machil)c: its traversal of the tree it is building gives it tl1e power of a pushdown
stack, Howc~cr, it is still convcnicnr for expository purposcs to factor the
stack. Howcver. it is still convenient for expository purposes (() factor the
computational powcr of thc gcncration proccdurc into thc finitc tables of
computational power of the generation procedurc into the finite tables of
information the automaton acccsscs and tile trcc suucture ovcr which it movcs.
information the automaton acccsses and the trec structure ovcr which it moves.

1. Clcarly. h e McDonald procedure does not fall inlo this degcncrate category. The gcncration
I. Clearly.
lIle McDonald
docs notmapping,
fall intosince,
this degenerate
category.
generation
fcaturcThe
niusl
he added to the
procedure
cannol beprocedure
a simple idcnlity
~rivially.a tcnx
procedure cannot be a simple identity mapping. since. trivially, a tense feature musl be added to the
ourput string. Still. the point about lhe irliportancc or Ihe inpul languagc remains Lhc same: a precise
output string. Still. the point about the importance of the input language remains the same: a precise
charactcrizalion of Ihe input message languagc is a logical prcrcquisi~c to thc rormulat~onof the
characterization
ofprocedure.
the input mc,sage
is a logical prerequisite to the formulation of the
gcncralion
70~ h cxtent
c language
lhal Ihe mcssagc langungc remains unspecified, claims about the
generation
procedure. cificicncy
To the extent
that
the message
language
unspecified.
claims
about the
compulatjonal
of lhe
gcncralion
proccdurc
arc remains
corrcspondinglq
vague
and imprecise.
computational
efficiency
of
the
generation
procedure
are
correspondingly
vague
and
imprecise.
2. Morc prccisely. Lhe numbering traces out a win-calledIcfl-most dcrivation. Civcn a grammarG Lhal
2. Moregcncralcs
precisely,a the
numbering
out aof
so-called
left-most
derivalion. Given a grammar G that
language
I, a traces
dcrivation
a scntcncc
w or L is called Icfl-most ii, a1 cach step in the
generatesdcri\ation
a language
l~ a derivation of a sentence Ii' of L is called left-most if. at each step in the
of L,
Ihc lch-mosl non-terminal of h c grammar is cxpnndcd For cxamplc. considcr the
derhation
of L,grammar
lIle left-most
non-terminal
lIle NP-->JohnlMary,
grammar is expanded.
ror example,
consider
the of the
timplc
S-->NP
VI', VP--)VofNP.
V-->kissed
A lea-most
derivation
simple grammar S->NP VI', Vp>V NP. Np)JohnIMary, V--)kissed A left-most derivation of the
scnlcncc "John k i w d Mary" would be: S-->NI' VI'-->john V1'-->John V N1'-->John kisted NP-->
sentence "John kissed Mary" would be: S--)NI' VP--)John VI'--)John V NP..)John kissed NP")
John kissed Mary. Note Lhat this expansion ordcr is cxaclly that o f h c top-down, left-toright traversal
john kissed
Mary.byNote
that this automaton.
expansion order is exactly lhat of the lopdown. Icft-to-right traversal
spccificd
McDonald's
specified by McDonald's automaton.

89
'lhc tables
wblcs of infnnnation
information arc like
likc the
thc transition tables
whlcsofa
finitc automaton --- they
tlicy
"I11e
ofa finite
thc next
ncxt state
swtc of the
thc machine
machinc shall bc.
givcn its current
currcnt state
swte and the
dictatc what the
dictate
be, given
symbol attached
attachcd to the
thc node
nodc nfthe
of thc tree
trcc currently bcing
scanncd.
symbo!
being scanned.
In particular,
thc
gcncration
transducer
has
two
finitc
tablcs that
th;~tdetennine
dctcrminc its
particu!ar, the generation
finite tables
ncxt state and the
thc symbo!(s)
symbol(s) that it should output: a dictionary
dictio11;lryand a er;lmmar.
next
grammar.
'lhc dictionary
dictionary specifics
spccifics an initial mapping from
from the
thc non-linguistic
mcswge
The
non~lingllistic message
structoral linguistic counterpart.
counterpart. 'Ihat
'lhat is,
is. the dictionary
dictionary maps input
language to a structural1inguistic
lncssagcs ..
-- such as "(lady-macbeth
"(lady-niacbcth (persuade
(pcrsoadc (macbeth
(macbc~h(action)))(macbeth
(action))))(macbcth
messages
(murdcr(duncan)))" --- into
illto the
thc familiar
fmiliar structural constituents
constitucnts of linguistic
linguistic theory
(murder(duncan))"
-- clauses,
clauscs, subjects,
sul~jccts,and objects. By
Ily connecting
connccting propositions to
lo linguistic
linguistic objects,
objccts, it
-UI;I~ tells
tclls us
11s which tokens arc to serve
scrvc as the
Uic predicates
prcdicatcs in the
is the dictionary that
input message
mcssagc language,
languagc, and which
ullich as
3s arguments
argumcnts to
u1 the
thc predicates.
prcdicatcs. '111('
'lhc dictionary
UIC repository of information about what is called
callcd in linguistic
linguistic theory
thcory
is also the
grammatical relations
relations -gr;~mrn;ltical
-- for example,
example. the
Lhc information that. in English at least,
lcast, the
Agori
Lady-macbctli. and typically
typicitlly occupies
occupics a certain
ccrtain structural
Agent of ocrsu;lde
pcrsuJdc is Lady-macbeth,
position in a phrase
phrasc structure
structurc tree
trcc of the linguistic
linguistic output --- the
Ihc first Noun Phrase
undcr a Sentence node
nodc (or the
thc Subject, in familiar tenninology);
terminology); the dictionary
under
furthcr
spccifics
hl;sbcth
as
UIC
Q
&
of
thc
scntcncc,
first Noun Phrase
further specifics Macbcth
U,e Obicct
the sentence, the first
Prcdicatc or Verh
Vcrh Phrase.
Phrasc. In short, the
thc dictionary provides a
dominated by the Predicate
nay of associating gra~nmalical
objccts (constituent
(constitucnt structure
structurc trees)
trccs) with
consistent way
grammatical objects
objccls, mapping thematic
thcmatic roles
rolcs such as the
thc "doer" of an action (the
(the
the mc~raac
message objects.
Agcnt) or the
thc recipient
rccipicnt of an action (the
(thc Patient
I'aticnt or Goal) into
inu, positions in a phrase
Agent)
dctails ofthis
of'this process, and whatever
wh;itcvcr onc's particular
structurc tree.
trcc. Whatever the details
structure
tastcs
tastcs in grammatical
prammatical theory,
thcory, onc
one thing
U~ingis clear: a mapping from
from thematic
thcmatic roles
likc Agent
Agcnt or Patient)
Paticnt) to wh;:lt
whi~tarc called
callcd grammatical
grammatical relations (notions
(notions like
like
Objcct) is something
stimcthing that almost every
evcry current
currcnt linguistic
linguistic theory
thcory
likc Subject and Object)
advocates.
McDonald's
grammar has U,e
Mcllonald's gmmm
thc job carrying out such specifically linguistic
linguistic work
dclcting equivalent
cquivalcnt Noun Phrases
Phrascs in embedded
embcddcd constructions and actually
as deleting
modifying
ihc structure
structurc of the
thc constituent structure
structurc tree
Ucc to produce a grammatical
modifying the
string
Macbeth case,
string of orthographic tokens. For example,
cxamplc, in the &&&
case, the grammar
specifics
thc following
following series
scrics of a!terations:
alterations: (I)
(1) addition of a tense marker
specifics the
("Lady-macbeth
persuaded macbeth..:');
("lady-mclcbcth pcrsuadcd
macbcth..."); (2) deletion
dclction of identical Noun Phrases
(Equi-NP
persuade Macbeth [Macbeth
(Equi-NI' deletion)
dclction) ("[Lady-macbeth
("[lady-macbcth pcrsuade
[Macbcth murd.er
muraer
Duncan]]=<>"[Lady-macbelh
persuade [Macbeth
I)uncan]]="[Lady-macbcth pcrsuadc
[Macbcth murder
murdcr Duncan]]");
l)uncan]]"); and (3)
interpoiat!on
persuaded Macbeth
interpolation of function words such as ill (Lady-macbeth
(Indy-macbcth pcrsuadcd
murder
"Lady-macbeth pcrsuadcd
persuaded Macbeth to murder
I)uncan*"Lady-macbcth
murdcr Duncan"),
Iluncan"). "I11e
The
murdcr Duncan=<>
end product is a finished
persuaded Macbeth
finishcd sentence,
scntcnce, e,g.,
c.g., "Lady-macbeth
"Lady-macbcth pcrsuadcd
Macbcth to
murder Duncan",
Duncan". 'Illus
'Ihus the reconstruction of the surface
surface string
string from
from message is
broken down into several
several stages.

-.

Berwick

90

It isis important
decomposition of
of
important to point out that holis
i s modular dccomposition
representational
parcel of
of
rcprcscntalional levels
lc\cls from message
mcssagc to phonological form is part and parccl
modern
the work of Chr~msky
Chomsky [Chomsky 1955J;
1955);
modcrn generative
gcncrativc linguistic
linguistic theory,
thcory, e.g.,
c.g.. thc
[Chomsky
example, in thc
the rcccnt
recent Cholnsky
Chomsky
[Cllomsky 1965J;
19651; and many others.
uthcrs. So for cxamplc,
theory,
thematic and prcdici~tc
predicate argument
lcvcl of representation
rcprcscntadon at which thc~natic
thcory, a level
structllre
linguistic levcl
level hUlat
describes a
gcts mapped to a lingl~istic
a t dcscribcs
structure isis expressed
cxprcsscd first gets
constituent
then, via grammatical rulcs
rllles (including
constitocnt structllre
structurc tree
trcc CD-structure"),
("D-structure"), thcn,
"movement
structure ("s-structure"), and
"rnovcmcnt rules"),
rulcs"). to a level
lcvcl of annotated
annotatcd surface
surf:~ccstructurc
finally,
'Illis is indccd
indeed roughly
rollghly the
ule block
finally.to a phonolngical
phonological representation
rcprcscntatiol~("P!"'),
("PF"). 'lliis
diagram
ulis logical dccomposition
decomposition docs a
llQl
Mcl)onald's approach,
;ippronch. However,
Huwcvcr, this
diagram of McDonald's
specify a way of actually computing
phonological form,
fonn, given an input
c~~rnouting
the phonoLrgicsl
message;
mcssagc: this is
is the
thc job of the
thc gcncmtion
gcncralion model itself.
Furthcnnorc,
procedure docs not compute
I;urthcrmorc. McDonald's
Mcl)onnld's actual generation
gcncration praccdure
tf1CSC
Rather, the annotatcd
annotated constituent
acsc stages
su~gcsseparately,
scparatcly. one after
aRcr the
!he other. Rathcr,
stmcture
right, in ordcr
order that thc
the fringc
fringe clcmcnts
clements
stnlcturc tree
trcc isis bllilt
built up piecemeal,
piccc~ncal.left
Icft to right,
of the
tokens may bc
be output as ssoon
thc tree
trcc corresponding to actual
;~ctualorthographic tokcns
w n as
possible.
entire trcc
tree for .!YIill
llill, the
possible. Thus,
Ihus, instead of building the
thc cntirc
Who ~
kisscd 13il1,
generation
the fronted who portion. IThis
gct~cratiunprocedure
pr~rcdurcactually
actually first constructs
constructs only thc
his
incrcmcntal output
ourput pcnnits
pcrmits the gcncration
nodc-by-nodc incrementa]
nodc-bynodc
generation procedure to actually
thc tnken
tokcn "who" before
bcforc the
thc remainder
rcmaindcr ofthc
"say" the
of the tree is complctcly
completely built:'
built: 1

/s________
COIIP

I x , xx a person
+wh x.
person
+wh

output
output
string:
string:

I .

[
"who..
"who
...

12 Producing a ~-question,
Figure 12
ll'h-question,
Turning now from
from questions
qucstions of representation
rcprcscntation to questions of
Turning
of cognitive
fidelity, we find
find that McDonald aims to account for a number of
fidelity,
of the obvious
ofhuman speech:
characteristics ofhuman
characteristics

also permits
permits an efficient interleaving
intcrlolving of
olprwcssing:
i n g produced,
1.1. It11 also
processing: while
while the
the output
output lakens
lokens are
are kbeing
produced,
the system
syacm can
can be constructing
eonsvucting the
thc next
nexl portion ofthem.
the
of the tree.

91

(1) Human
fluman speech
spccch production is nllcnt
&:
(I)
fluent and rmlli/:

wholc clauses
clauses arc produccd
without excessively
cxccssivcly iong
long
whole
produced withuut
pauses; output procecds
proceeds at approximately
bounded
nppruximatcly a boundcd
paoscs:
rate.

(2)
production is typically error-free
(2) Human speech
spccch pmduction
wcll-fom~cdaccording to Ule
Ulc rules
rulcs of modem
and well-formed
generative
gencrativc grammars,
grammars, but
hut with consistent exceptions.
cxccptions.
(3)
produced sequentially
(3) Speech
Spcccl~ is produccd
scqucntially (an obvious
('lhis docs
ducs nut exelude
excludc the
thc ability
physical constraint). (This
rcstsrt the
tlic output of an entire
cntirc phrase a
to backup and restart
common occurrence
occurrcacc in everyday
cvcryday speech.)
spccch.)
(4)
planned over
(4) Speech
Spccch is D1:lnncd
ovcr representational
rcprcscntational units that
arc greater
grcatcr than one
onc word in length.
ate

'l11c evidence
cvidcncc for this last claim comes from
from well-estabiished
well-cstahlishcd psycholinguistic
'll,e
psycholinguistic
pointed out U,at
phenomena. For instance,
phcnomcna.
instance. [I.ashley
[I.ashlcy 1951J
19511 pointcd
that anticipatory errors
crron soch
such
as,
pick), Jim
nutnbcr one
onc draft &).
as. "'Il,e
"'llic Patriots'
I'atriots' nomber
nurnhcr one
onc draft o1illJ..k -- number
I'lurrkctt",
logically impossible
impossible unlcsc
spccch is planned over expanses
cxpanscs of
Plunkett", arc logically
unless speech
greater
~ord.
u r d .[Shattuck-Hufnagel
[Shatusk-Huf~iagcl1979]
19791 Similar arguments also
grcatcr than a single ~
n

suggest that speakers

spcakcrs must have
havc some
somc notion of how long a sentence
scntcnce must be
suggest
before they
thcy produce it, since declination in fundamental frequency
frequency (the drop in
hcforc
baseline
hascli~lcpitch of the
thc voice corresponding
corrcsponding to a decrease
dccrcasc in the volume
volumc of air in the
lungs). is adjosted
adjusted in order
ordcr to comport with longer
longcr sentences.
scntcnccs. [Cooper
[Coopcr and
lungs),
Sorenson
19771. Finally, there
therc is evidence
evidcncc for planning at a level
lcvcl Ulat
that corresponds
Sorcnson 1977].
propositiooal units
persuade
roughly to propositional
unils (whole clauses,
clauscs, soch
such as Lady-macbeth
1.adv-macbcth p,cm@&
-(I
clausc): Macbeth
Mz~cbcthmurder
murdcr Duncan
i)uncan (a
(a second
sccond clause)
clausc) (Ford
[l:ord and Holmes
Macbeth (I clause);
1978). Below
Iklow we
wc shall providc
cvidcncc (as McDonald
Mcl)onald suggests) that such
1978J.
provide evidence
bounded, in U,e
UIC sense
scnsc that the "window" over
ovcr which the
planning is strictly bounded.
gcncrator plans its bchavior
limitcd in scope
scopc to approximately
approxirnatcly one
onc additional
behavior is limited
generator
sentential
"S" node).
nodc). (This is the
thc production analogue of Marcus'
scntcntial unit (one
(one "S"
[hlarcus 1980]
19801 look-ahead
look-ahcad limitation on a model
modcl of human sentence
scntcnce processing.)
[Marcus
hlcllonald's major computational thesis has to do with the observed
obscrvcd efficiency
cficiency
McDonald's
thc constraints
constrainls that this places on his
of human language production and the
thc apparent speed
specd of fluent
flucnt language
generation proccdurc.
procedure. Contemplating the
output McDonald
be constructed in dh.
realtime, that
Mcllonald stipulates U,atthe
U~atthc output bc
chat is, at
operations are pcrrnittcd
bcfure the generation procedure !!!Jill
nW
most Ii machine operations
permitted before

92

take another stcp along the mcssagc trcc structurc and output a token.' This
take another step along the message tree structure and output a token.] This
computational coastraint, in turn. is uscd lo motivate a scrics of constraints on (i)
computational constraint, in turn, is used to motivate a series of constraints on (i)
thc input mcssagc languagc (the "well-fonncdncss cnnsrraint"); (ii) thc mapping
the input message language (the "well-formedness constraint"); (ii) the mapping
proccdurc (it is dclcrministic. in that at any decision point a uniquc choicc of next
procedure (it is deterministic, in that at any decision point a unique choice of next
movc can he madc: it uscs only lirnitcd look-ahcad to dctcrminc its next move):
move can he made: it uses only limited look-ahead to determine its next move);
and (iii) what thc p r t ~ c d u r ccan and cannot successfully produce (namcly, it can
and (iii) what the procedure can and cannot successfully produce (namely, it can
succcssfi~llyproducc wh;~tpcoplc d o and lnakcs thc samc mistakcs that ycople
successfully produce what people do and makes the same mistakes that people
do). '!'his argulncnt is clcarly run along thc samc lines as that of [Marcus 19801:
do). This argument is clearly run along the same lines as that of [Marcus 1980J:
first, to assumc d ~ a at suong cornputatinn;~l(alias cognitive) fidclity assumption
first, to assume that a strong compul<Jtional (alias cognitive) fidelity assumption
must bc met -- namcly, lhat normal flucnt languagc is prod~lccdin rcal timc
ID.1!it be met .. namely, that normal fluent language is produced in real time
without backup -- and sccond, to go on to dcducc what machinc propcrtics arc
without backup .. and second, to go on to deduce what machine properties arc
suficient to acl~icvcthis computational constraint, wliilc maintaining descriptive
sufficient to achieve this computational constraint, while maintaining descriptive
adequacy, all the whilc dcvcloping predictions about failure pattcrns of the
adequacy, all the while developing predictions about failure patterns of the
gcncrator that comport with human bchavior.
generator that comport with human behavior.
How can thcse claims of cflicicncy be cvaluatcd? The rcmaindcr of this
How can these claims of efficiency be evaluated? The remainder of this
scction sketchcs an initial attempt to formalize thc Mcllonald gcncration program
section sketches an initial attempt to formalile the McDonald generation program
as an cxamplc of a more thcorcrically familiar ~nodcl-- an 1-l,(k)-parscr driven
as an example of a more theoretically familiar model -- an LL(k)-parscr driven
transduction, a lop-down. dctciministic, prcdictive parscr h a t parscs thc input
transduction, a top-down, detelministic, predictive parser that parses the input
mcssagc string using a I o ~ k - i ~ l ~of~ akd lokcns and at at thc same timc
message string using a look-ahead of 1. tokens and at at the same time
incrcmcntally produces languagc output as dcsired.
incrementally produces language output as desired.
O f course, this approach is not claimed to bc thc final word about how to
Of course, this approach is not claimed to be tile final word abollt how to
hr~nallyrcconstitutc thc h4cllonald approach. What h claimed is that thc I,I.(k)
formally reconstitute the McDonald approach. What i1i claimed is that the LL(k)
formalization hclps to cxposc thc capnbilitics and limils of thc McDonald
formalization helps to expose the capabilities and limits of the McDonald
gcncration proccdurc and at the sarnc timc admirs a disciplined and rigorous
generation procedure and at the same time admits a disciplined and rigorous
evaluation of thc constraints that hc advances. Informal statements of the
evaluation of the constraints that he ad\'ances. Informal statements of the
sufficicncy of various constraints can bc rcplaccd by prccisc thcorcms. 1 h c I-l4k)
sufficiency of various constraints can be replaced by precise theorems. lllc LL(k)
modcl, it is claimcd, can capture all of the following propcrtics o f thc McDonald
model, it is claimed, can capture all of the following properties of the McDonald
model:
model:

I. Thcrc is a dighi dificully using this dclinition straighlforwardly, in that an outpul loken an be a

1. There is a slight difficulty using this definition straightforwardly, in that an output token can be a
phonctic null clemenr. i.e.,silence. This is neccsary for the gcncration of sentcnccs whcre constituents
phonetic null clement. i.e., silence. Th is is necessary for !he generation of sentences where con~tituenlS
havc been displaced kern their canonical poshions c.g.. so-caltcd "movcmcnl" casn, as Who did
have been displaced from !heir canonical positions - e.g., so'called "movement" cases, as ~ ill!!
Macbcrh kill?, which is prcrumcd to havc thc underlying form Wh-x. x a ncrsctn, Machcth killed I . A
Macbeth kill', which is presumed to have the underlying form Wh-x,! ~ person, Macbeth killed!. A
qucsrion h e n arises as lo whether silences "count" in the time it takcs la produce langua~coulpuL
question then arises as to whether silences "count" in !he lime it la~e.' LO produce language output
Clcarly Lhcy do somctinlcs: wc havc already noted that !here arc slight pauscs at major constituent
Clearly they do sometimes: we have already nOled that there arc slight pauses at major constituent
brcaks. I'lnitc phonclic adjuslmcnts will no1 ancd any claim of linear timc operalion unlcs$ here can
breaks. Finite phonetic adjustment~ will nol affect any claim of linear lime operation unless. !here can
be an arbitrary numbcr of "pauscs" that can pile up.
be an arbitrary number of "pauses" that can pile up.

--

93
Incrcmcntal nodc-by-nodc constitucnt
Incremental node-by-node constituent tree
constniction and output.
cons{n1ctioll and output.

tree

- l'hc rncssagc constraint. (If rncssagc clcrnent A

- The message constraint. (If message c1emcnl A
makcs refcrcncc to mcssagc clcmcnt Ti, tl~cn13 must be
makes reference to message clement n, then B must be
cxpandcd bcforc A.)
expanded before A.)
- A f i l l y disambiguatcd rncssagc language.
- A fully di~mbiguated meSS<lge language.

- Deterministic operation.
- Traversal ordcr of Uic constitucnt structure trce.
- Traversal order of tJle constituent structure tree.

- Eficicnt (linear) cxccution time,

- Efficient (linear) execution time.

noundcd lookahcad for planning.

Ilounded lookahead for planning.

- Corrcspondcnce bcrwecn violations of thc fluency

- Correspondence between violations of the fluency
rcquircmcnt in the modcl and (apparcntly) in human
requirement
spccch.in the model and (apparently) in human
speech.
'To chcck this claim in dctail it will first bc ncccssary to dcfinc a deterministic,
To check this claim in detail it will first be necessary to define a detenninistic,
prcdictivc, top-down parser.
predictive, top-down parser.
A top-down prcdictivc pancr with ol~tputand associated grammar G can be
A top-down predictive parser with output and associated grammar G can be
defined as consisting o f thc following components:' (1) a push-down stack; we
defined as consisting of the following components: I (1) a push-down ~; we
shall dcnotc the top-most clcmcnt of this stack by (2) a finitc parsing table (a
shall denote the top-most clement of this stack by I; (2) a finite parsing table (a
two-dimensional array indcxcd by pnssiblc tcrminal items and top-most stack
two-dimensional array indexed by possible terminal items and top-most stack
tokens); (3) an ourout string that is produccd as thc input string is analyzed; and
tokens); (3) an output string that is produced as the input string is analyzed; and
(4) a finitc control vroeram that, in conjunction with Ihc parsing table and input
(4) a finite control program that, in conjunction with the parsing table and input
symbols currcntly scanned,* dctcrmines what thc ncxt movc of thc parscr shall be.
symbols currently scanned, 2 determines what the next move of the parser shall be.
The action of thc parser at any givcn stcp is dctcrmincd by a transition function
The action of the parser at any given step is determined by a transition function
6('r,w), whcrc T = the symbol currcntly on thc top of thc push-down stack and
~(T,w), where T= the symbol currently on the top of the push-down stack and
-w ~ t h cinput symbol currcntly being scanncd. The parsing tablc entry may also
1!.'= the input symbol currently being scanned. The parsing table entry may also
provide an appropriate symbol to output as wcll. Thcrc arc three possible actions:
provide an appropriate symbol to output as well. There arc three possible actions:

I . Aclually, the parser described hcre can be conslruclcd only if h e grammar G has the property of
I. Actually.
parser
here C3 n will
be conslrucled
only if the grammar G has the property of
bcinpthe
wonk
I .I described
.lk). lhis propcny
he defined shonly.

being ~tron
property
will bea1defined
2. g!JJ..tl.
Only one111is
symbol
is scanncd
a lime inshonly.
lhc nelwork modcl prcscnted above. We shall scc how l h i s
2. Only may
one symbol
is scanned
at a lime oft
in thetokens.
network model presented above. We shall see how this
be cxlendcd
Lo a lookahead
may be extended to a lookahead of! tokens.

Berwick

94

(1) If t11c
the stack aand
empty (as notcd
noted by
by
n d input string arc clnpty

presence of
of some prc-dctcrmincd
prcdctcrmincd cnd of
of input
input
the prcscncc
marker as thc
the top symbol on thc
the srack).
stack). thcn
ti,en halt
bait aand
markcr
nd
announce successful termination of
of the
lhe parse.
parse.
announcc
(Acceptance is by clnpty
empty stack and inpul)
input)
(Acccptancc

the top-most tokcn

token _Ton
Ion thc
the sS1.1ck
same as
as
(2) If thc
t x k is the %me
the
current
input
token
Jr,
then
remove
I
from
the
thc currcnt
tokcn E, Ulcn rcmovc _T from the
stack and go rcad
read thc
the next input symbol; optionally.
optionally,
emit
cmit some
somc output
ourpot symbol.
(3) If ti,e
token _T
T on thc
the stack is aa
ihc top-most tokcn

nonterminal
then lookup the
tbe entry
nontcr~ninal sy"mbol,
sjlnbul, thcn
corresponding to indcx
index ('l'.w)
(T.w) in tlic
ti,e paning
parsing table. TThe
he
entry is either
(the string is not gcncratcd
generated by the
cithcr error
errur(thc
underlying grammar G).
G). in which c;ec
case the
lhc machine
halts
and
announces
rejection
of
the
string:
halls
rcjcction of thc string:' l oorr else aa
.itring
of
nontcmlinals
that corresponds to the
string
nontcmiin;~ls XYZ Ulnt
right-band
side
of
a
grammar
rule .I'=XY%
T= XY/, in which
right-hand sidc
case
the
symbols
are
placed
onto
ti10 stack with the
casc thc symhols arc placcd
dlc
left-most
nonterminal
top-most
on
the stack
st.1ck (is.,
(i.e.. the
Icft-most non~crmin;il
o n thc
topmost symbol on hIhee stack bccomcs
becomes X.
X, fi~llowed
fi,lIowed by
Y.
Z. corresponding to aa left-most
Y, followed
followcd by %.
expansion). Notc
Note that in this case wc
we have "predicted
"predicted"
expdllsion XYZ. Productions inay
the expansion
may also be of
of the
foml T=0.
T s 0 , in which case
casc the
thc top of stack symbol is
form
"erased."
"erased."
'lhc initial configuration
configuration of the machine
rnachinc is1s with its rcad
The
read hcad
head ssanning
scanning the
lcn-most symbol
sv~nbolof d,e
thc in
i npot
~ ustring
t
suck containing just
just S
left-most
and its Slack
S as the top-most
top-most
thc end-of-input symbol beneath:
beneath:
symbol with the
symbol

Or course,
course, one
onc may
may do
do more
more than
than simply
yrnply reject
rcjccl the
the input
inpul string:
1.1. Of
string: since
since an error is caurd
caused by Ule
the
railure Lo10 find
find aa predicted
prcdiclcd rule
rule of
of the
the form
f a n T==>
T a XXYZ,
Y Z , one
one at least
least knows
knows what
what kind of
failure
of phrase
phrase (left
hand side
side of
of aa rule)
mle) was
war being
bcine.
soueht
a1 lhe
the time
lime the
thc error occurred.
acurred. and
and which
which sub-pieces
sub-pieccr of Lhe
hand
the
.sought
. at
righl-hand side
side had
hadalready
been constructed.
wnslrucled. This
Ihis anticipatory
anlicipalory context
contexl may
may in fact
fact w
k b u l e ltoa an
righi-hand
already been
contribute
cxplanalionof
of planning
planning errors
errorsof
or the
the Plunkett--pick
PlunkelI-pick tYPe.
1 s .
explanation

95

input st'ring
input string
4
I
read head
read head

stack:
stack.:

output s t r i n g
output string

Ktop
o f stack

IT.ttO Pof stack

Control t a b l e
Control table

input symbol scanned

top
stack
symbol

I:igurc 13 A prcdictivc pnrscr.

Figure 13 1\ predictivc parser,
llow cx~ctlydocs thc h.lci)onald pr~scdurc sirnulaic thc Ixhavior of a
!low exactly docs the McJ)on<lld prncedurc simul<1tc the behavior of a
prcdicrivc parscr? A t first glancc. thcrc wo111dsccln lo hc iln imrncdiatc paradox,
predil.:tive parser? I\t first glance. there would seem 10 be an immediate paradox,
in that hZcllorrald i~sscrtsthat his machinc is a sirnplc finitc SLIIC nracliinc "ahlc to
in that McDonald asserts thilt his In<:chine is a simple finite stale machinc "able to
hind c;ntcxtu;il v,~riablcsbut littlc clsc." Ilut this paradox is morc appnrc1:t than
hind conH:xtual vdriab1cs but little else." But this paradox is more apparent than
rci~l.\lcl2onn!d's contrtrllcr & n fi~iitcslatc dcvicc. just as dlc conlrollcr (Ihc finitc
real. McDonald's controller b a finite sLate device. just as the controller (Ihe finite
control k~blcplus conlrutlcr) c ~ fa prcdictivc parscr i:;. ilo\vcvcr, both the
control table plus eontruller) uf a predictive parser i:;. However, both the
Mcllonald pmrcdurc n~ld prcdicrivc ],arscr opcrztc in cotlccrt with strck-likc
McDonald proccdure and a predictivc parser oper.:te in concert with stack-like
ill d ~ cnsc
c of rlrc Mcl)onald p r t ~ c d u r cand explicitly in
d:lta strttc~urc's.i~tiplici~lp
data structures. implicitly in lhe Cilse of the McDonald procedure and explicitly in
h c casc or ill1 I.L.(k) parscr. I.ct us cxamil~cw h y this is so in nlorc dchiI.
the case of an J.L(k) pJrscr. I.et liS examine why this is so in more detail.
stack of activation rccords -- a list of
AII I,1 (k) p;lrscr rnanipul;~tcsan
1\11 LJ (k) parser manipulates an Delieit stack of activation records .- a list of
noti-~crrr;in31nodcs. Stitck discipfitlc, plus the cnilmcrdtion nrdcr of a lcfl-most
lloll-lcrrninJI nodes. Stack discipline. plus the enllll1erJtion order of a left-most
derivation, dict:ttcs which nun-tcrn~in;~!
will ;lppcnr on thc top of thc stlick rExt.
derivation, dictates which nontcnnin;ll will appear on the top of the stad next,
and hcncc assist it1 rtlc control of Ihc parse. For cxa~nplc,Consider again the
and hence assist in the control of the parse. For example, consider again the
familiar left-most dcriv.31ion of hlachclli rn1111ltr13uncan:
farnili<1r lert-most derivation of M;lCbclll JnunJcr J)unc.ill1:

S*NP VI'=Macbcth
V I ' a klacbcth V NI'3Macbcth
S=> NP VP==> Macbeth VP= Macbeth V Nil=> Macbeth
murdcl*N P a M acbcrl~murdcr Duncan
murder NP=>Macbeth murder Duncan
Supposc that u ~ i cwrotc dcwll s t i ~ ~ p s h of
v ~thc
s stock as i r i~ppcarcdduring the
Suppose that one wrote (\(!wn snapshots of the wck as it appeared dllfing the
1,1.(1) parsc clfthis scntcncc. Onc would ul)scrvc thc following scqucncc ~I'stack
LL(l) parse or this sentence. One would observe tJ1e following sequence or stack
c:onfiguri~tions( # is tllc C I I of
~ srack symbol):
con fig.urations (# is the elld of stack symbol):

96

Berwick

Step# 1 2
Stack
Stack

Top->

I~II::I

l!Jl!J

~,'acbe th
VP
fI

m
p

#
#

"I

~ mu rda r IN PIIDun cani ~

NP
#

L!J

NP
#

fI

Figure 14 Slack COT, figurations Juring a left-most pmsc.

Nvtc U~alIhc top o f slack s);uihols in this scqtlcncc corrcsl>ond prcciscly to tllc
Nutc Ulat the top of ~1"l(;\;. sYlllhols in this sC'qllcnce correspond precis.::ly to the
ordcr in vihicl~ Mc1)onald's linitc SLILC controllcr visits thc nodcs of tllc
order in which McDlllWIJ's finite stILe controller visits the nodes of the
co~~stili~cnt
slructurc lrcc hilt it constructs fro111 UIC illput mcssagc:
constilllenl structure tree that it eonstruc~ [Will the input messagc:

~:s

\/\

VP

6---murder

Macbeth
Macbeth
MUrder

1~ 8

Duncan

Duncan

t-igurc IS l'mvcrsal scquct~ccof gctlcri~lio~l

controllcr.

Figure 15 TrJvers,ll sequence of generation controllcr,

'Ihc I,L(k) p:uscr uscs its stack sit~iplyto kccp ~rilckof which non-tcrtninnl

'111C LL(k.) parser lIses its stack ~il1lply [0 k.ecp Irad of which non-terminal
nodcs arc to bc visitcd ontl tllc ordcr in wllich they :~rcto bc visitcd. .
noues arc to be visited and the order in which they arc to be Visited.. But Jhis 1:i fl&

prccicclv ho\v L1cI I~~llnltl's

Iil~ircsr:ltc conrrolfcr ni;tkcs ~ I S C(if i ~ s~r;~\.crsal
of &
prc'i:iselv hoI\' H~J)[\1I.11d's linite ~atc controller makeli!!liQ illiJ.~ (rarersil1 of the
ctt~!stit~tcnt
strur1.u r.c tree !hhJ is l,&
That is, instcnd of' lnain6tining :in explicit
constituent strurlllrc ~ree !Ui!! i~ lllill1 That is, ins[c:lu of mainttining an explicit
str~clioI';~ctiv;~tio~~
rc~ords;IS ;LIIj111crn;llcomlro~rcntof ~ h pin'scr
c
itsclf. h.lcl)onald
stad;. or activatioll records as an in1ern;l1 component of the parser itself. McDonald
relics on a d i m sbt;t:!~~rc-- illc t1.c~-- ~ i i i t tis e~tcrnatto h c gencta;tticu~~~roccdurc.
relics on a data structure .- the tree -- that i~ e\ternal to (11e gencrati(ln proc~Llurc,
nlailltaincd by thc p:ctgr;un!r~iti$ I;~ngurigc in \tl;icl~his gcncration p r t ~ c d t ~ rise
maintained by the- pwgr;unming bnguage in which his generation procedure is
wrillcn. ~ ] O H ' ~ ' ~ C IIlulh
.,
1tl~t1li)d~
pcr~ol'1l1cxnctlv tlle s3111t c ~ ~ T I ~ > u ~ ~ ~ o
written. However, buth met1wds p~rrorm CXildlY. the same CfllllpuL'ltional
functioll: botl~i~itc~nitl
stick iuld cx~g:rnal tscc t1'1tn st:-ur[ilrc h;nc b c job of
function: both internal SLick and eX[I:rnal [rec data structure ha\c the job of
rct~il-uingihc cor~-cb~
r x s t non-tci-~tiin;~l
nodc tllitt ill ccln~ril~otc
to tlic* ncrt move
retnrning the c(lnret n~xt non-Lennin;,1 node thaI will C(1l1lribu[e to Ull' nC'll move
c
:IS;I function
oF~llcpnrscr. ITol;c ricic.s tlic 'uch;i\ ior ot'lllc srnck or t l ~ stlxctlire
ufthe pilrSCT. [r()n~ riews the Dcha\ior of the Slack t'f tree ~tructlOrC ;1$ a functinn
that takcs as input rllc culrcnt no~l-tc~'l~iitlal,
irlput l sylnbtjj, and (lixcd) finitc
that takes

JS

input the current non-lel1llina1, input s)'1Ob )1, and (liX<'d) finite

97

parsing
symbol. thcn
then stack
slJlck and
parsing lJIble,
tablc, and produces as output a new
ncw non-terminal symbol,
tree
structures
arc
extensiunally
equivaleot;
given
identical
inputs.
they
trcc structures arc cxtcnsiunally cquivalcnt;
inputs, thcy both
return the
thc same
ramc new
ncw non-terminal
non-tcrminal nodes
nodcs for further
h ~ n h ccomputation.
r
Since
determined by the top-of-stack
top-of-slJlck
Sincc an
an LL(I)
1.1.(1) parser's
pancr's move
n~oveis completely
complctcly dctcrmincd
symbol
and
input
symbol
scanned,
the
equivalence
between
left-most
symbol
symbol suanncd,
cquiv;~lcncc bctwccn Icft-most tree
traversal
top-down, Icft-most
left-most dcrivation
derivation
travcrwl symbols
symbols and top-of-stack
top-of-stack symbols in a top-down.
means
linite tablc
lJIble and using only
mcans that the
thc McDonald
Mcllonald controller when driven
drivcn by a linitc
one
be simulated by an
onc symbol
symbol of luokahead
lookahcad (the
(tlic input symbol scanned)
scanncd) can bc
LL(I)
I.I.(l) parser,
parscr, and conversely.!
conversely?
Let
of tlic
the clarification this
tllis formal
I r t us
us consider
considcr just one
onc simple example
exa~nplc of
approach
constraints. At first glance,
approach affords
affords before
bcforc reviewing
rcvicwing all of McDonald's
Mcllonald's constraints.
onc
the proper cxpansion
expansion of
of some
onc might think that in order
ordcr to determine
dctcrminc thc
nonterminal
expansion above --- one would
nontcrminal ---- say,
say, the VP in our familiar leftmost
lcftmost cxpansion
have
tl,e cntire
entire prefix w
~ to
kccp track of the
thc entire
entire string parsed
parscd so far (that is, thc
havc to
to keep
the
even, worse yct,
yet, the cntire
entire
left of the
the current
currcnt input symbol being scanned)
scanncd) or cvcn,
the left
parse
McDonald sharcs.
shares. He
parsc tree
trcc already
already built. In fact,
fact. this is a worry that Mcllonald
obscrvcs that tllis
this extended
cxtcndcd bookkeeping could lcad
observes
lead to compuDtional
compulJltional difficulties.
difficulties,
sincc tl,e
ihc sheer
shccr number
nu~nbcrof nodes
nodcs in the parsc
sioee
parse trce
tree to rlic
tl,e lcfi
left of
of some current
expansion
linear funclion
function of thc
the input suing
string
cxpansion point can clearly
clc;~rlybe
bc greater
grcatcr than
Ulan a lincar
2 Since
parscd so
so far
far.2
Sincc this eompulJltional
co~nputationalburden might intcrfcrc
parsed
interfere with the
tl,e aim of
of
flocncy. McDonald
Mcllonald proposes
proposcs a sollltion:
solution: the
thc cntirc
fluency,
entire discourse history (input
message scanned plus any relevant
rclcvant structure of thc
message
the trcc
tree built so far) $
.i> to be stored,
acccss list.
list so that items
itcms can hc
but in a random access
be rctricvcd
retrieved indcpcndcntly
independently of
of their
positioli in tl,e
rllc list.
list. In addition,
addition. McDonald
Mcllonald notes
notcs that
position
tllat in some cascs
cases information
bc "passed
"passcd along"
along" from
from node
nodc to node
nodc in the trcc
must be
tree in ordcr
order to aid with some
particular expansion
cxpansion decision
decision later on.
on. However,
Howcvcr, it is not clcar
particular
clear just
just what class of
of
c~nstmctionswould cause
causc such problems:
prohlcms: nor is it cvidcnt
constructions
evident what or how much
"passcd along".
information must be "passed
information
thc LL(k)
Il.(k) apparatus in haod,
hand. it is easy to make thcsc
With the
these intuitions precise.
Considcr first
first the
thc puzzle
puzzlc ofha,ing
of haiing to store all the words sccn
Consider
seen so far. This worry is
onc. but it has already
already been
bccn ruled
rulcd out by the l.l.(k)
a valid one,
LI.(k) constraint. If
If the
Ll..(k), then we havc
underlying grammar is LI..(k),
underlying
have already sccn
seen that one need not

More generally.
generally. aaprammar
is called
called strong!1J!l
slrona l . l i k ) ififlhc
1.1. More
rammar is
the oon-terminal
non-tcnninal symbol
symbol on the lop
top orthestack
of the stack
lhc next!
neil tokens
Lnkcni of
or the
l h c input uniquel}'
uniquely determine
dclcnine lhc
the
the next
nelt marc
move of lhc
the parser. Ihus,
lbus, ifif aa
grammar isis strong
Srong L1~k).
1.Iik). th{'n
lhen the simple
sinlplc parser
parscr designed
dcrigncd sketched
grammar
sketched above
abo'o'c can be
be slraightforvardly
straightforwardly
cxundcd to
lo accommooale
accommodnle k
k tokens
lokcns oflookahcad.
ollwkahead.
extended
In the
the worst
worst case,
cax, if
ii the
the length
lcnglh of
or the
lhc longest
lon~cslside
side of
or aa rewrite
2.2 In
re-write rule
rule is 1w,
so thal
that lhc
the "branching
"branching
cn interior
laaor" of the
the tree
uce isis ata1 most
most 1.!. there
there could
cauld be
bc IlCn
invnor nodes
factor"
nodes in
in LC
the derivation
derivation ucc
tree lor
for aa ming
string of
of
lcnglh D.n.
length
plus
plu~

Rcrwick
Berwick

98

rcmcmbcr all of the input sccn so far in ordcr to dctcrminc what to do ncxt. More
remember all of the input seen so far in order to determine what to do next. More
prcciscly, if a grammar is strong I.l.(k) thcn (currcnt non-terminal. lookahead)
precisely, if a grammar is strong LL(k) then (current non-tenminal, lookahead)
pairs uniqucly dctcrminc the ncxt movc of the automaton. In short, if the
pairs uniquely determine the next move of the automaton. In short, jf the
underlying grammar is I,l-(k), thcn Mc1)onald's worries arc groundless; there is
underlying grammar is LL(k), then McDonald's worries are groundless; there is
no nccd for a random acccss list of previous discoursc history in thisl case.'
no need for a random access list of previous discourse history in this case.
Morcovcr, thc constn~ctionof complcx catcgory sy~nbolsfor l.l.(k) grammars that
Moreover, the constnlction of complex category symbols for LI.(k) grammars that
are not strong providcs a crisp charactcrination of what Mctlonald mcans when he
are not strong provides a crisp characterization of what McDonald means when he
says that information must be "passcd along": it is exactly the complcx catcgory
says that information must be "passed along": it is exactly the complex category
symbols (rcflccting nun-tcnninal-follow sct combinations) that nccd to bc savcd
symbols (reflecting non-tenninal-follow set combinations) that need to be saved
on thc stack for latcr rcf~rcnce.~
on th e stac k for la ter re ference. 2
Let us now revicw the list of computational and cognitive claints that
Let us now review the list of comput.ltional and cognitive claims that
McDonald advances and scc how thc ].Ilk) propcny suhsumcs each of them.
McDonald advances and see how the 1.L(k) property subsumes each of them.
].inear rime production
Linear lime production
It is a thcorcm that I,I.(k) parsing (with output) exccutcs in time Iincarly
It is a theorem that LL(k) parsing (with output) executes in time linearly
proportional to d>clcngth of thc input (~ncssagc)3suing3

proportional to the length of the input (message) string.

Rounded lookohend a j ~ dTop-doivn expansion
Bounded lookahead alld Top-down expansion

A ncccssary condition for I,I.(k)-ncss is that top-down parsing can proceed using
A necessary condition for LJ.(k)-ness is that top-down parsing can proceed using
just boundcd forward lookahcad into thc input string. I:urthcrmore, by the
ju'st bounded forward look ahead into the input string. Furthermore, by the
propcrtics of Icft-most derivations, thc string of non-tenninnls to thc
of some
properties of left-most derivations, the string of non-tenninals to the r..i.!lt of some
symbol A that is duc Tor expansion is always morc "abstract" than thc material
symbol A that is due for expansion is always more "abstract" than the material
into which A will bc cxpandcd, in the scnsc that terminals will be dcrivcd from A
into which A will be expanded, in the sense that terminals will be derived from A
bcforc one evcr procccds to cxpand the non-terminals complctcly to the right of
before one ever proceeds to expand Lhe non-terminals completely to the right of
A.

A.

Non-ambiguity
Non-ambiguity
McDonald's input rncssclge language is fully disambigualcd: the bracketing
McDonald's input message languagc is fully disambiguatcd: the brackcting
structure indicates cxactly the scoping relations to bc obscrvcd. As a rcsult, there
structure indicatcs exactly the scoping relations to bc observed. I\s a result, there
is only onc derivation tree for an input mcssagc suing. This is also a necessary
is only one derivation tree for an input message string. This is also a necessary
condition for LUk)-ness.
condition for LL(k)-ness.
1. Except in the scnse that the parsing table providcs "random access" lo a finite list or lransilion
1. Except in the sense that the parsing table provides "random access" to a finite list of transition
tu les
rules. 2. If a grammar k U.4k) but not amng LL(k), then thc complen symbol approach constructs a new
2. If a grammar l~ U.~k) but not strong LL(k). then the compleK symbol approach constructs a new
finile parsing table such that (complcx symbol. lookahcad) pairs also uniqucly determine the moves of
finite parsing
table such that (complex symbol. lookahead) pairs also uniquely determine the moves of
thc parsing machine.
the parsing machine.
3. Reason: Sincc ihe grammar must be non-left recursive. any derivation A--> a must take only a
3. Reason; Since the grammar must be non-left recursive, any derivation A--) a must take only a
linmr number of stcps. ('Ibisrequires some proor.) Thcrcfore, for a valid string in Lhc language, here
linear numher of steps. ('Ibis requires some proof.) Therefore. for a valid ~tring in the language, there
can be at most a lincar number of steps before the stack is poppcd and an input symbol consumed;
can be at most a linear number of steps before the slack i~ popped and an input symbol consumed;
hence a number ofsteps linearly proporlional 10 the input string in all.
hence a number ofsteps linearly proportional 10 the input string in all.

99
,'Von-Iefl recursion
Non-feft recursion
If unaltcrcd, McIIonald's proccdurc must of ncccssity "pause" an arbitrarily long
If unaltered, McDonald's procedure must of necessity "pause" an arbitrarily long
timc bcfore producing output for such rnessiilgcs as,
time before producing output for such mcss..1gcs as,
(((Mort's father's) cousin's) brother)
(Mort's father's) cousin's) brother)
?his is bccausc if the linitc state controllcr must traversc the mcssagc structure
This is because if the finite state controller must traverse the message structure
from node to nodc, thcn given a mcssagc structure such as t l ~ conc above:
from node [Q node, then given a message structure such as the one above:

NP

~~
~sin's
NP
NP

~.

NP

\
Mort'sMort's
Figure 16 Le Tt-rccursivc message structure,
Figure 16 Left-recursive message structure,

an arbitrary number of nodcs must be uaverscd before the first output token,
an arbitrary number of nodes must be traversed before the first output token,
ever produced. violating fluency. But Icft-recursion also violates the
M.!m:.s, is everisproduced,
violating fluency. But left-recursion also violates the
I,L(k) condition. Hence, the LI-(k) condition subsumes thc left-recursion
LL(k) condition. Hence, the LL(k) condition subsumes the left-recursion
limitation.'
limitation. 1

m,

The L l ~ k ) p r o p e r and
! ~ ~ !he mcssage constraint
The LL(k) property and the message constraint
McDonald imposes the following constraint on thc input message in order to
McDonald imposes the following constraint on the input message in order to
guarantee that his production procedure mccts the requirement of fluency:
guarantee that his production procedure meets the requirement of fluency:

1. I f his is so. hen onc puzzle remains: just why are such constructions even producible in English?
1. If this
is so,have
thenbeen
one at
puzzle
just whyexplanations
are such constructions
producible
in English?
There
least remains:
several diflcrcnl
for his in heven
e linguistics
literature,
but all seem
There ha~e been atleasl several different ex planations for this in the linguistics literature, but all seem
to amount lo much h c mme thing: it is assumed that the mcwge input is somehow altered so that it is
to amount
to
much
the
same
thing:
it
is
assu
mcd
that
the
message
input
is
somehow
altered
so
that
it [Krauwer
is
nd lelt-recursive. ([Chasky 19651 and [Liherman 19671: [Chamsky and Ilalle 19681: mid
nol left-recursive.
([Chomsky 1%5) and [Liberman 1%7): (Chomsky and Halle 1968]: and [Krauwer
and des Tombes 13801) The proposals dilfcr only with regard Lo how e x a d y !he recursion is
and deseliminated
Tombes 1980]) "The prop=Js differ only with regard to how exactly the recursion is
eliminated.

Bcrwick
Berwick

100

100

'111~M c s a ~ ~Well-fo~m~ds
c
Con~tmint( W I T ) 'rhc ordcr in
J.1l Mcssag~
Wc1Jfn!llWdD.~ ~()nstr:U.u1 (WFC) The order in
which Incswgc
c1c11lcn1.swill t)c rcalizcd must bc such that any

which message c],;:llIcnlS will be realilcd must be such that any

rncsmsc clcnlcnt dlat will makc rcfcrcncc to othcr clc~ncntsin
mesS<lgc clement that will make reference to other clements in
its rcalizntion must io fist bc rcalizcd bcforc any of [hose
its realization must in fact be rcalized before any of those
clcmcnls.
clements.
[Mcllonald 198Oal
[McDonald 1980a]

As an cxainplc of this conslnint, [Mcllonald 19801 offcrs thc casc of a mcssag

As an example of this constraint. rMcDonald 1980] offers the case of a message
of an (arbitrarily) dccply
that viola~csthc W I T by calling for tllc topic~~liw~ion
Lhat violales the WFC by calling for the topicali7.ation of an (arbitrarily) deeply
clnbcddcd NP:
embedded NP:
input
input
mcssagc: (topicii1iz.c (was rcportcd(is Iikcly(~novc
...( thc Shah)))))
message: (topieali7.c (was rcported(is Iikcly(move...(the Shah)))))
dcsircd
desiredoutput: 'I'hc Shah was rcpiyrtcd lo be likcly to bc moved ...
output: The Shah was reported to be likely to be moved...
topicalize
was

reported

lrn"

the Shah

1-igurc 17 Input 1ncss;lg thal violatcs thc wcll-fortncdncsscondition.

Figure 17 Input message that violates the well-formed ness condition.
l'his mcssagc \iolatcs tlrc W I T bcc;~usctopicalir~tionrcquircs Ihnt the dccply
This mcssJgc violates the WFC because topicalil.1tion requires that the deeply
"thc S h ~ h "bc ~ x p ~ ~ n t bcforc
l c d it is "visiblc" to Ihe lrce
c~nbcddcdclc~r~cnt
~mbedd{'d clement "the Shall" be expanded before it is "visible" to tJ1C trec
travcrc~lproccdt~rc. Sincc this clclncnl may bc al.l)itrarily cmbcddctl, forward
traversal procl'dllrc. Since this element may be arbitr.uily cmbedded, forward
planning would havc to be arbitrarily dccp bcrorc rhc first output tokcns.
planning would have tLl be arbitrarily deep before the first output tokens, ~
Shall.
could cvcr be procluced.
Shah, could ever be produced.
I+~nnally,thc WI:C is casily subsumcd by tllc T.lik) condition. Considcr the
FOflmlly, the WFC is easily subsumed by the U~k) condition. Consider the
"Shah" ci~sc,oucc again and Ict 11s asntmc an undcrl!*ing phrase structure
"Shah" casc oncc ;'g.ain and let liS <lSSlimc an lInderlying phrase structure
something like Lhc fullowi~g:
something like tJl'.: following:

101

I'igurc 18 Synrnclic structure for "Shah" scntcncc.

Figure 18 Syntnctic structure for "Shah" sentence.

In thc untopicalizcd vcnion, tllc "Topic" nodc is cxpandcd as tllc cmpty

In the untopicalized version, the "Tupic" node is expanded as the empty
clcmcnt whcrcas in thc top~calizcdcasc it is cxpandcd as, c.g.. "Lhc Shah".
clement, whcrc;Js in the topicalized c<lse it is expanded as, e.g., "the Shah".
Ilowcvcr. the propcr cxpa:lsion dccision clcarly violi~lcsthc Lldk) condiiion. 'The
However. the proper expansion decision clearly vioJalrs the LL(k) condiiion. The
rcnson is simplc. In ordcr to cxp;~ndt l ~ c'l'opic nodc prol)crlg, Uic gcncrator nltlst
reason is simple. [n order to expand the Topic node properly. the generator must
havc ncccss to an NP arbitrarily far to thc rigllt o f its CLIrrcnt position.
have ,,~cess to an NP arbitrarily far to the right of its current position.
I'iololiotu ufrhr LUk) cut~ditiorlr:otllyarl wilir ubsrrvrd errors irt kutnarr language
Violations o/lhe LL(k) cundi/ion comporl wilh observed errors in humanlal1guage
getlcraiiot~
generation
h s wc havc sccn, Ihc kcy ct~ns~rai~its
of AlcDonald's tliat cnsorc rapid output and
A.s we have seen, \he key constraints of McDlloald's Ulat ensure rapid olltput and
licncc flucnr langu:igc gcncc~tionc;ln be sucoinc~lydcscribcd as consrcaints that
hence fiuenl language generation can be succinctly described ,IS constraints that
gu;u.antcc lhnt its underlying grariniar is I .l.(k). I lowcvcr, as wc also havc secn,
guarantee that its underlying grammar is Ll.(k). Ilowever, as we also have seen,
nor all .griimm;~ricalconstructions can I)c pnrscd dctcrministici~llytop-down via
nm all grammatical constructions can be pnrsed deterministic'llly top-down via
bou~idcdlookallci~d;for cx;rniplc. Icfi-rccursivc structurcs cannot bc so paiscd.
bounMJ lookahead: for example, left-recursive strueture~ cannot be so parsed.
'rhis connection h c t ~ c c nbounricd Ioc.lk-;tllcad and thc ilral?ilily to succcs~fully
This connection between bounded loohd1ead and the inability to sucecs~fully
analyzc certain constn~ctionsprnvidcs an oppnrrunity for cinpisical tcsring of the
analyze cena;n constmctions provides an opportunity for empirical testing of the
L.I(k) lnodcl of I;il~guagcgcncrdtion. If language gcncration docs makc use of
LI {k) model of t:lIguage genefJtion. If language generation docs make usc of
only boundcd forward pfanni~p,tlicn onc would cxpcct to find consistcnt friilurc
only bounded forward plannirg, then one would expect to find consistent failure
on ccrtain sorts of scntcnccs -- namely, cxactly thosc whcrc thc dccision to cxpand
on certain sorts of sentences -. namely, exactly those where the decision to expand
a p;lrticular nontcrn~ini~lcannot be madc corrcclly without a lookallcad that
a particular nontemlin,,1 cannot be made corrcctly without a lookahcad that
crcccd.; tliat u x d by ihc gcncration proccdurc. lividcilce ttf such failuscs would
exceed:; that llsed by the generation procedure. Evidence of such failures would
providc strong support for thc kind of modd that Mcl3nnnld psoposcs.
provide strong support for the kind ofmodclthat McDonilld proposes.
As it turns out, tllcrc signiticnr\t cvidcncc of rcgi~larerrors in cvcryday
As it turns out, there b. 5igniiicant evidence of regular errors in everyday
d
;IS obscr~cdby
spccch that arc cxplninablc if onc assumcs b o ~ ~ n d elookahcad.
sp~cch that arc explainable if onc assumes bounded IO(Jk"head, as obscr{l~d by
[Kn)cli 1981J. Krixli I I O ~ C Sthat pctlplc ortcn produce un$nmm;ltical cmtlcddcd
[Kroch 1981J. Kroch notes that people often produce ungrammatical embedded
scrilenccs with s o cnllcd rcsum~tivci)iz>nouns:
senlences with so called rcsumptiYe pronouns:

102

Berwick

The guy who they don't know whcther hc will come or not..
The guy who they don't know whether he will come or not..
In the examplc abovc, he is a rcsumptive pronoun, presumably co-designative
In the example above, he is a resumptive pronoun, presumably co-designative
with the my.
with~gyy.
Importantly, such sentcnces are gcncrally judged ill-fomcd, even immediately
Importantly. such sentences are generally judged ill'formed, even immediately
afterwards by the speakers who have produccd thcm; yet they arc widcsprcad in
afterwards by the speakers who have produced them; yet they arc widespread in
spccch. The reason for the ungrammaticality of such scntenccs has been generally
speech. The reason for the ungrammaticality of such sentences has been generally
attributed to a violation of an "island constraint" [Ross 19671: loosely spcaking,
attributed to a violation of an "island constraint" [Ross 1967]: loosely spealcing,
the
points to a pronoun that is "too far" away. Specifically, any binding
the &!!1
points to a pronoun that is "too far" away. Specifically, any binding
relationship bctwcen the ~ u and
v &crosses [wo wh-S boundaries:
relationship between the IDlY and he crosses ~ wh-S boundaries:
[NP thc guyis

who.....[S whcther he

[1\P the guy[s who[s whether he

Furthermore, thc sentcnce is pcrfcctly interpretable.

Furthermore, the sentence is perfectly interpretable.
It is casy to show how bounded lookahcad interacts with the rcquircment for
It is easy to show how bounded lookahead interacts with the requirement for
continuous language output to produce the dcsircd pattern of cases. Consider first
continuous language output to produce the desired pattern of cases. Consider first
how the McDonald procedure would plan a
rclativc clause, such as, & g l a ~
how the McDonald procedure would plan a ~ relative clause, such as, ~ &l.l1
who I know. At the input message level. McDonald exprcsscs such a phrase by
who 1 know. At the input message level, McDonald expresses such a phrase by
conjoining an abstract clcmcnc corresponding to the !~cadNoun in question, &
conjoining an 5!hilllli clement, corresponding to the head Noun in question, ~
~LJ. and a rcfincmcnt elcment. corresponding to some added (extcnsional) detail
@.y, and a refinement ekment, corresponding to some added (extensional) detail
about the abstract elcrncnt (e.g..l know the guy).' Thus, there is an assumed
abollt the abstract clement (e.g..l know the gyy).l Thus, there is an assumed
underlying semantic grounding for the message dcscription. As usual.
underlying semantic grounding for the message description.
As usual,
McDonald's dictionary maps this quasi-semantic lcvel of description to a linguistic
McDonald's dictionary maps this quasi-semantic level of description to a linguistic
lcvcl, assigning mcssagc clcments to parts of a constituent structure tree. In this
level, assigning message clements to parts of a constituent structure tree. In this
casc, the abstract element gcts attached to a fronted clause, soon to be realized as a
case, the abstract clement gets attached to a fronted clause, soon to be realized as a
head Noun, and the refinement element to some matrix phrase whose syntactic
head Noun, and the refinement clement to some matrix phrase whose syntactic
details have not yet been dctemined:
details havc not yet been detennined:

Clause

Oause

fronted phrase
matrix phrase
fronted phrase
matrix phrase
(the guy)

(I (know (the guy)))

Continuing, the gcneration procedure expands the fronted phrase into a full
Continuing, the generation procedure expands the fronted phrase into a full
orthographic reprcscntation, so as to maintain the requirement of producing
orthographic reprcsentation, so as to maintain the requirement of producing

1. Note that these items are unordered

1. Note that these items are unordered.

103

outpul as soon as possible. Note thitt one could no( wait to do this until tltc cntire
output as soon as possible. Note that onc could nol wait to do this until the entire
rndtrix phrasc wcrc rcalizcd in dctnil, sincc thc rilatrix phsasc ctuId be arbitrarily
matrix phrase were realiLCd in dct.1il, since the matrix phrase could be arbitrarily
long. 'I'llus thc m y is produced without h::ving dccidcd upon thc inlcrnal details
long. Thus the lillY is produced without having decidcd upon the internal details
of thc rnatrix phrase:
of the matrix phrase:
Oause

---.

rronicd pl~rasc
matrix phrase
~h
fronled
phrasercnlizcd)
matm p rasc
(~lrci~dy
( I (know (the guy)))
(ill ready r~i11izcd)
(l (know (the guy)

I 'n1c guy...
Outpni:

Output 11le guy...

Finally, thc ~ni~uix:

phnsc itsclf is cxpandcd. l'irst thc phrasc is markcd
Finally, the malrix phrase itself is expanded. First. the phrase is marked ~
(sincc i~ is koown to bc a m;~trixof somc frontcd clausc). With thc phrasc SO
(since it is Known to be a matrix of some fronted clause). Wilh the phrase so
Hitggcd, i1ss:ttnc LIUL the gcnc~~tion
prtxcdurc h;ls a mlc that outputs t l ~ ctoken
flagged, ass:nnc that the generation procedure has a rule that outputs the token
"w110" (as opposed to, c.s.. ''that'-); cxactly how rhis is donc is irrclcvant to present
"who" (as \)pposed to, e.g., "thaI"); exactly how this is done is irrelcvant to present
coaccnls. 'I'hc gcncation procctlurc musr now hand!c "I know tllc guy." Herc,
concerns. The genei';1tion proccdllfe must 110W handle "I know the guy." Here,
tlic Hll ilag plays a cnlcial rolc: it tclls tllc pnrcdurc that whcri thc NP "thc guy"
th~ .iill flag plays a cmcia! role: it tells tlle prucedllfe that when the NP "thc guy"
is finally analpzcd. it is to bc rcb;~lizcd
as a pl~onc~icnlly
null rlc~ncntralhcr than, as
is finally analyzed, it is to be re,ilized as a phonetically null e1emcnt rather than, as
v:~i~ld'tyl,ic:~lly
b t tllc c ~ c;st11;11
.
1cxic;il itcnls. (Othcrwisc, thc output would be
\'Mlld'typically be tl,e C,lse, actllallcxieal items. (Otherwise, the output would be
thc incerrcct form, "thc guy who 1 know the guy.")
the incerrect form, "the guy who I know the guy.")
Clausc

,'---.

Cl.. . usc

~matrix phnsc
~(+m

frol~lcdphnsc

fronted
phrase
(+(the guy)))
(alrc;~clyrc:ilizcd]
( I (know
(already realized)
(I (know (the guy)
Output: 'Ihc guy who 1 know
Output: The guy who I know....

....

I'he ~.csultingoutput is just as dcsircd.

The resulting oUlput is just as desired.
'I'hc cn~cialpoint to ol~ser,rc;ihout this cxalnplc is that thc syntactic details of
The crucial point to obser,c ahout this example is that the syntactic details of
phrascs arc workcd out ill advance only onc S at a timc; whcn Lhc initial head
phrases arc worked OLlt in advance only one S at a lime: when the initial head
fioiln "thc guy" is outpul, tl~csyntactic "guts" o t thc wh-cb~iacmi~trixhave not
NOlin "the guy" is output, tl,C syntactic "guts" of the wh"clausc matrix have not
bccn spccificd.
been specified.
Considcr then what liappcns when thc rcfining clausc contains a scntcntial
Consider then what happens when the rcfining clause contains a sentential
clausc of its own -- (ha1 is. wl~crl.it contains an clnhcddcd dcrncnt. as in, "I don't
C];IUS~ of its own " thal is. when it contains an embedded dement, as in, "I don't
know whcthcr tllc guy will conic". '[hc hcad No1111"Lhc guy" will bc output as
lnow whether Ule guy will COIllC". The head Noull "the guy" will be output as
bcforc without planning Ule dcbils of the syntactjc realization of thc message
before without pbnning tlle details of the syntactic realization of the message
clc~ncnttn conlc -- as it must. if wc are to assumc co~ltinuousoutput. 'Ihcn the
clement to come -. ,15 it must. if we arc to assume continuous OLltpUt. Then the
pr~cdu1.cco~nn~cnccs
to output d ~ ah-matrix
c
phrasc, just as hcfore (turning on
procedure commences to output the wh-matrix phrase, just as before (turning on
the wh-nullificition flag):
the wh-nullilicatinn nag):

]04

Berwick

matrix phrase

matrix phrase

t(the guyI (will come))

(the guy (will comc

' h c guy [who I don't know ...

The guy [who I don't

~now...

Ncxt, the embedded mcssagc clcrncnt (thc guv (will cornc)) is proccsscd.

Ncxt, the cmbedded message clement, lllli; gyy (will come)} is processed.
Supposc that this clcmcnt is also rcalizcd as a wh-phrase, and a choice of
Suppose that this element is also reali/.cd as a wh-phrasc, and a choice of
"whether" as the Icad-in wh-lexical item is scIcctcd:
"whether" as the lead-in wh-Jcxical itcm is selected:

The guy who I don't know whether

Thc guy who I don't know whether...

...

What is to happcn next? 'me wh-flag is still on, so the standard move would

What is to happcn next? 'The wh-tlag is still on, so the standard move would
bc to crasc the mcssagc clcmcnt "the guy", just as in a typical wh-phrase. But this
be to crase the message element "the guy", just as in a typical wh-phrase. But this
would bc an error:
would be an error:

??'he guy who I don't know whether will come....

rrIl1c guy who I don't know whether will come....

Note further that the iIl-cffcct of "erasing as usual" can be locally checked;

Note further that the ill-effect of "crasing as usual" can be locally checked;
only thc immcdiatcly surrounding context is required in order to tell that this
only the immediately surrounding context is required in order to tell that this
structure is hopclcssly bad1
Stl:ucture is hopelessly bad. 1
All secms lost. Supposc though, as Kroch suggests. that discourse NPs
All seems lost. Suppose though. as Krach suggests, that discourse NPs -pronouns or anaphoric NPs -- arc available to the generation procedure. Since the
pronouns or anaphoric NPs -- ill available to the generation procedure. Since the
discourse machinery is already known to operate across utterances, then insertion
discourse machinery is already known to operate across utterances, then insertion
of discoursc itcms is clcarly not subject to wh-island reslrictions. If so, then one
of discourse items is clearly not subject to wh-island restrictions. If so, then one
should be able to insert such an item, salvaging interpretability of the sentence at
should bc able to insert such an item, salvaging interpretability of the sentence at
the cost of a syntactic violation. 'I'his is exactly what onc finds:
the cost of a syntactic violation. This is exactly what one finds:

--

He's the guy who I don't know whcther & wiIl come....

Hc's the guy who I don't know whether ~ will come....

That thcsc inscrted items are indced discourse entities is substantiated by the

That these inserted items are indeed discourse entities is substantiated by the
fact that rcsumptive anaphoric NPs also occur in wh-island violation positions, as
fact that rcsumptive anaphoric NPs also occur in wh-island violation positions, as
Kroch points out:
Krach points out:

The men that we didn't evcn know why k ~ U Y Swere injail.

The men that we didn't even know why ~ &loW were in jail,

1. A sentence without a lexical Subject such as this one violatcs what [Chornsky 19811, [Kayne 19811,
1. A sentence
without a lexical Subject such as this one violates what [Chomsky 1981J. [Kayne 1981J,
and others
have dubbed the Empty Catcgory Principle (ECP): if a sentence has a non-lexical or
and others have dubbed the Empty Category Principle (Eep): if a sentence has a non-lexical or
"phonclicaliy "ernply" calcgories - such as in Who did you kiss [Npemply]? - thcn these calegories
"phonelically 'emply" calegories - such as in Who did you kiss [Npemptyj? - then these calegories
in a "local"domain. usually the nearest sentcntial clause. In the case at hand. an anpty
must be
must be 1lm!JJ.ll. in a "local" domain, usually the nearest sentential clause. In the case at hand, an empty
category in the position aRer "whether"could not be Iocally bound

category in the position arter "whether" could nOl be locally bound.

lOS
In sum, we concludc that a compu~~ionally
bounded macl~incof the sort
In sum, we conclude that a comput..'ltionally bounded machine of the sort
Mcllot~ald proposcs can actually prcdict ccmin aspects of human language
McDonald proposes can actually predict certain aspects of human language
processing -- thc bcst onc could hopc for from any thcory, compiiuiional or not.
processing -- the best one could hope for from any theory. comput..1tional or not.
I3y now I hopc that I havc convinccd you that it is prcciscly this cmphasis on
By now J hope that I have convinced you that it is precisely this emphasis on
prcxcss that givcs tllcsc thcorics thcir special personality and flair. Wcbbcr aims
process that gives these theories their special personality and flair. Webber aims
to tcll us how ro ;nan from a logical form rcprcscntation to discoursc entity
to tell us how to map from a logical form reprcscnt..'ltion to discourse entity
descriptions, Sidncr how focus mclvcs. Kaplnn and Allen ~nodclhow a hcarcr's
descriptions, Sidner how focus moves. Kaplan and Allen model how a hearer's
bclicfs about a spcakcr arc mnstn~ctcd,Mcllonald, how languagc is produced. In
beliefs about a speaker arc constmcted, McDonald. how language is produced. In
cvcry case the ftrus is on how somcthing gcts donc -- as bcfils Ll~c tcrm
every case the focus is on how something gets done _. as befits tlle term
rornnutational modcl. Having survcycd thc tcrritory and lcli bchind solne
cornput:ltional motlel. Having surveyed the territory and left behind some
tourguidc tips. 1 will lcavc it to thc rcadcr to judgc how wcll lhcy succccd in tllcir
tourguide tips, I will leave it to the reader to judge how well they succeed in their
rcspcctivc tl~coricsof how.
respective tlleories of how.

CHAPTER 2

From Natural
Natural Language
Recognizing Intentions From
Utterances
James Allen

2.1 Introduction
Intrnduetion

In order
we necd
some of
ordcr to design
dcsign good question
qucstion answering systems
systcms wc
nccd to build in so~nc
11f human
lil~manconversation.
ca~~vcrwtion.
shr~uldbc
tlic charactcrirtics
the
characteristics of
In p;lriicular.
panicular, thcy
they should
be able to
providc responses
rcsponscs that specify
spcciry more
n111rcinformation
infur~ilatianthan strictly required
rcquircd by the
provide
question.
however, pro\'idc
inform.1tion or provide
qucstion. They
Tlicy should
slioold nol,
no4 houcvcr,
provide ttoo~ much
o
inbrtnntion
providc
inf<~rn~;lti~~n
tthat
h t is of
no Lise
usc 1to11 ihc
qucry (ef.
(cf. [Gricc
[Gricc 1975]).
19751).
infoml<ltion
ufno
tl,C pcrson
person who rnadc
made thc
the query
consider thc
following exchange
cxchangc at
aL an information booth in a train
For cx;~mplc,
example. consider
the following
station.
station.

(1.1)
OJ)
(1.2)

patron: Whcn
Montrcal train leave?
lcavc?
When docs UIC
tl,e Montreal
clcrk: 3:15 at gate 7.
clerk:

the departure location was not explicitly rcqucstcd,

requested, the clerk
provided it
Although Lhc
clcrk providcd
in his answer.
ti,e cxamplcs
examples given
tllis papcr
paper arc takcn
taken from
answcr. (All lilt
givcrl in Ulis
ffom transcripts of
dialogues collected
collcctcd at the information
information booth in Union St;~tion,'Ton~nto
[Horrigan
dialogues
SUltion, Toronto [Horrigan
1977].)
19771.)
Othcr cxamplcs
Other
examples of this kind of hclpful
helpful bchavior.
behavior, howcvcr,
h0wever, do not involve
closed door in UIC
tl,e station
language. For example,
the patron approached
cxamplc, if thc
approachcd a closcd
carrying
carrying aa large bag of groceries
groccrics in each
cach ann, the clerk
clcrk might
n~ightvery well
wcll open the
door for him. This may occur
occurring between
cxcur without any communication
c~~mmunication
thc motL\'ation
motivation for the
thc clerk's
clcrk's behavior
bchavior in both these
Uiese
them. Wc
We claim that the
examples
is
the
same;
the
clerk
wants
to
assist
the
patron
in
furthering
his
goals.
Lo
thc
hisgoals.
cxamplcc thc samc: UIC clcrk
This papcr
paper concerns
modeling of such hclpful
helpful bchavior
behavior and,
particular,
'lhis
conccrns the
tlic mudcling
and. in particular.
it investigates
model can bc
be uscd
used to explain
invcstigatcs how such
sucl~a modcl
cxplain several
scvcral aspects
aspccts of linguistic
bchavior.
fullowing assumptions:
assumptions:
behavior. Wc
We makc
make tlic
the following
Pcople are
arc rational
rational agents
agcnts who are
arc capable of
People
fQIming
forming and executing
cxccuting plans to achieve their
goals

108

Allen

They are often.eapable

oftencapable of inferring the
the plans of
other agents
agenu from observing
obscrving that agent
agcnt perform
some action
l'hey
They are capable
capable of detecting obslacll!3
obsfacles in
another agent's p
plans.h

I r t us define
define&#&jobstacles to bc
situations which inhibit the
the goal achieving
achieving
Let
be situations
of an agenlln
agent. In lbis
lhis paper, all obstacles
obstacles wil\
will be in lbe
the fonn
form ofsubgoa1s
of subgoalsthat
procesc
process ofan
that
the agent cannot achieve without assistance.
anistanee.
lbe
7hc major claim
daim of lbis
this paper is lbat
that many instances
instances of helpful behavior arise
ariae
lbe
bbecause
u r the observing
ubserving agent recognizes
mognizes an obstacle in the other agent's plan.
plan, and
acts
particular, we are most interested
xts to remove lbe
the obstacle.
obslaclc. In panicular,
intcmtcd in the
the obstacles
obslsles
lbat
be removed
that can bc
remmcd by lbe
thc use
u r eflanguage.
ef language.
To model thiS.
behavior.
this we view lbe
the use
u r of language
language itself
iwlf a~
a goaloriented
goal-oriented bchavior.
Uueranccs are produced by actions lm!:l:!;h iKW
& lbat
that are executed
executcd in order to
to
Utterances
have some effcct
effect on lbe
the hearer.
hearer. 'Ibis
'lhis effcct typically involves
involves modifying the
hearer's
beliefs or gnals.
hearer's beliik
goah. A speech
spccch act,
xt, like any other action,
d o n , may be observed by
lbe
the hearer and may allow the hearer to
to infer
infer whatlbe
what the speaker's plan is. Often
0th a
sptcch
act
may
explicitly
describe
an
obstacle
(i.e"
a
subgoal)
to
lbe
hearer,
speah act
explicitly describe obwaclc (i.e.. subgoal) lo h e hearer. For
(1.1) conveys
conveys to
to lbe
the hearer
hcarer lbat
that the speaker
spcakcr needs to know the
example, utterance
uUerance (1.1)
dcpanure
uain. But there may be other obstacles
departure time of lbe
the vain.
obnaclcs in the plan that were
wm
Ihe speaker may also need to know the departure
deparmrc
not explicitly conveyed (e.g. the
location). Tbc helpful response
rnponsc will allempt
aUempt to
lo overcome
o v e r e m these
Ihese obstacles as well as
a6
the explicitly
expliitly mentioned
mentioned ones.
ones
lbe
explaining some aspects
a s p a s of helpful
Our viewpoint provides
provides the basis
basis for explaining
behavior in dialogue,
bchavior
dialogue. including:
including:

the generation
_
generation of responses
mpom that provide more
informatian than required
q u i d (as in the above
above
infonnation
example)
empk)
the generation
gcnemtion of respoD!ICS
rrsponss to sentence
mtmce
fragmenlS
Fragmenm
the analysis
speech
analysis of indirect
indimr q
x e h QC/3,
acts.

Let
propoeed
La us
US consider
oonsider each
a h of these
thcsc aspects
aspec$ in turn,
turn.and see
see how the model proposed
above applies
applia to each,
each.
It is fairly
fairly simple
simple to see how the model could
m l d explain the
the providing of more
information than explicitly
expliitly requested.
requested. In the train domain, the clerk ellpCCll
e m that

109

lhc patron
has goals such
such as boarding
niccting trains. II
A query
qucry (e.g.
(c.g. (1.1))
(1.1)) about
the
patron has
boarding or mecting
timc, as opposed
opposcd to one
onc about a train arrival. indicates that
diat it is
a train departure time.
likcly that
lhat the
lhc patron's plan
Uie train,
train. In
I n addition, assuming
assuming that the
likely
plan is to board
buard U,e
clcrk bclicvcs
lhal U,e
dic piitron
docs not already
alrcady know the
thc departure
dcparturc loeation,
location, he
clerk
believes that
patron dues
bclicvcs that
dint not knowing
knowing the
thc location
location is
is also
a l x ~an obstacle
obstaclc in
in the
thc plan. 'Inus
'lhus he
believes
gcncratcs a rcsponsc
rcsponsc that
tliitt overcomes
orcrcolncs both
ohstaclcs (i.e.
(i.c., (1.2)).
gcncrates
both obstacles
can explain
cxplain how sentence
scnlcncc fragments
fr;tgmcnts can be
bc understood
undcrsto~idwhen
whcn
s m c model
~nodclcan
This same
is sufficiently defined.
dcfincd. For instance.
insr;tncc. the following
killawing exchange
cxchange occurred
l~currcd
tllc context
conlcxt is
the
lllc train
trait1 smtion:
sotion:
at the

(2.1)
(2.2)

patron: The
'Ihc 3:15
3:lS train to Windsor?
Windsor?
clerk:
Gate 10
clcrk:
10

tlic query
qocry nor the
die meaning
meaning of
o f its words indicate
Ncitlicr the
thc syntactic
synt;~ctic form
k ~ r mof
o f the
Neither
what the
Uic response
rcsponsc should be.
bc. However,
Howcvcr, given
givcn our vic\,,'point
uic\+point above.
i~bovc. it is quite
concci\ablc
Illat the
tlic in
information
in the
Uic fragment
fraglncnt is
is sufficient
suflicicnt to allow C
U
I hearer to
concch
able that
formation in
t..he
infcr what the
tlic speaker's
spcakcr's plan is.
is. Hence
Hcncc he
hc can
can produce
produce a reasonable
rcasonablc response
rcsponse
infer
thc obstacles
obsu~clcsin
in the
thc plan
arc. In
I n U,e
Uie above
abovc example.
cxamplc. (2.1).
(2.1). is
b:lscd
based on what the
plan are.
si~fficicntto
111 identify
idcntify the
tlic speaker's
spcakcr's goal to
111 board
tllc 3:15
3:IS train to Windsor. An
si,fficient
board U,e
ohstaclc in
in U,is
Uiis pl;in
dcparturc location,
locati~m.hence
hcnce U,e
tlic response
rcsponsc (2.2).
(2.2).
obstacle
plan is knowing the departure
OUicr sentences
scntcnccs in
in the dialogues
dialagt~csarc not treated
trcatcd at face
facc value.
v;lluc. For instance,
instance.
Other
patron: Do
D o you know when
whcn the Windsor train
(3.1)
leaves?
leaves?

ycs/no question
qucstion about the
thc hearer's
hcarcr's knowledge.
knowlcdgc. However,
However, an
Syntactically, this is a yes/no
answer
be quite inappropriate.
answcr of
o f "yes"
"ycs" in
in U,e
thc given
givcn setting
sctting would bc
inappropri;~tc. In
I n other
surrciundings, however,
howcvcr, it could bc
intcndcd literally.
lilcrally. For instance,
insoncc, a parcnt
sccing
surroundings,
be intended
parent seeing
thc station
station and wanting to make
make sure
surc that everything
cvcrything is arranged
arranged
a child off at the
intending to receive
receive a yes/no
ycs/no answer.
answcr. Sentences
Scntcnccs such
such as this that
might say (3.1) intending
appcar to mean
mcan one
onc thing
Uiing yet arc treated
trcatcd as
;is though
ihougli they
tlicy mean
Incan something
solncthing else are
appear
tcrmcd indirect
indircct ~
sncccli i1illISearle
acts IScarle 1975].
19751. These
'llicsc forms can
can also bc
cxplaincd using
using
termed
be explained
tlic viewpoint <Ihove.
;~hovc. Simply st.:lted.
swtcd. the
thc solution lies
lics in
in the
tlic realization
rcali7.ation that the
the
spcakcl. knows
kttows that the
ihc hearer
licarcr will perform
pcrfi~rnisuch
such helpful
liclpfi~lbehavior,
bcliavior, and
and hence
hcnce may
speaker
samctliing intending
i~itcndingthat the
tlic hearer
hcarcr infer
infcr the
ihc indirect
indircct goal.
goal.
say something
I'liis papcr
dcssribcs L'lc
Lkc plan
infcrcncc and obstaele
obstaclc detection
dctcction proccsscs
This
paper describes
plan inference
proeesses and
shows how they
thcy can
can be applied
applicd to explain
cxplain helpful
hclpful responses
rcsponscs and the
o f sentence
scntcncc fragments.
fragments. The
'l'he model
modcl is then
thcn extended
cxtcndcd to provide a
understanding of
understanding
thcory of
o f indirect
indircct speech
spccch acts. Section
Scction 2 provides
ovcrvicw of
o f the
gcncral theory
general
provides an overview

Allen

110

cntirc approach, and thcn Scction 3 providcs details of thc plan infcrcncc and
entire approach, and then Section 3 provides details of the plan inference and
obstaclc dctcction proccsscs. Scction 4 applics lhcsc tcchniqircs to language
obstacle detection processes. Section 4 applies these techniques to language
analysis. It considers two cxamplcs of rcsponscs that providc Inore information
analysis. It considers two examples of responses that provide more information
than explicitly askcd for. Scction 5 re-cxamincs Ilic definition of spccch ac~5and
than explicitly asked for. Section 5 re-examines the definition of speech act~ and
introduces thc notion of shared knowlcdgc bctwccn thc spcakcr and the hcarer.
introduces the notion of shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer.
'I'hc plan infcrcncc rncch;inis~nis thcn cxtcndcd to handlc indirect spccch acts.
The plan inference mechanism is then extended to handle indirect speech acts.
Using thc cxtcndcd systcm, Scction 6 dcscribcs an analysis tcchniqnc for scntcnce
Using the extended system, Sectioll 6 describes an analysis technique for sentence
fragments.
fragments.
A syslcrn bascd on lhc work in this pnpcr has hccn i~nplcrncntcdand tcstcd in
A system based Oil the work in this pilper has been implemented and tested in
tlic train domain dcscril)cd ahtrrc [hllcn 19791. Whilc h c di;rlogucs in this domain
the train domain descrihed above [Allen 1979J. While the dialogues in this domain
arc somcwhat rcsrriclcd in subjcct matrcr, thcy providc a widc rangc of linguistic
arc somewhat restricted in subject maller, they provide a wide range 0f linguistic
bchavior thilt has not prcviously bccn cxplaincd.
behavior that has not previously been explained.

2.2 An O\cr\iea o f thc hlodcl

2.2 An O\cnie\\ orthe Model
I_ct us stan with an informal description of what wc think occurs whcn one agent
Let us start with an informal description of what we think occurs when one agent
A asks a qucstion of anothcr ngcnt 11 which Il thcn answcrs. h has sornc goal; s/he
A asks a question of another ilgent B which n then answers. i\ has some goal; s/he
construcrion) that involvcs asking II a qi~cslionwhose answer
crcatcs a plan (h
creates a plan (plan construction) that involves asking B a question whose answer
will providc solnc ink)rmaticrn nccdcd in order to achicve tlrc goal. A then
will provide some infiJrmation needed in order to achieve tlTe goal. A then
cxccutcs this plan, asking I3 thc qucstion, 1%inrcrprcts thc question, and attcrnprs
executes this plan, asking B the question. B interprets the question, and attempts
to infcr what A's goals could bc (plan infcrcncc). 'Ihc infcrrcd goals may include
to infer what A's goals could be (plan inference). 'Inc inferred goals may include
thc original goal that A is pursuing, as wcll as many subgoals. Somc of these may
the original goal that A is pursuing, as well as many subgoals. Some of these may
not bc achicvablc without 1Ys assistancc and so rcprescnt obstaclcs. k i n g helpful,
not bc achievable without Irs assistance and so represent obstacles. neing helpful,
I3 may plan to rcmovc somc of thc obstaclcs. I'his plan should include the
D may plan to remove some of the obstacles. This plan should include the
rcsponsc to A's original query.
response to A's original query.
'his scction outlincs thc mechanisms that arc nccdcd to specify h i s model a
'illis section outlines the mechanisms that are needed to specify this model a
bit more prcciscly, ' h c first part of it considcrs the issucs of rcprcscnting
bit more precisely. The first part of it considers the issues of representing
knowlcdgc about the world, goals, actions and spccch acts. The succccding
knowledge about the world, goals, actions and speech acts. The succeeding
scctions dcscribc thc plan construction, plan infcrcncc, and obstacle dctcction
sections describe the plan construction, plan inference, and obstacle detection
proccsscs, rcspcctivcly.
processes, respectively.

2.2.1 Act ioes, I'lans and Spccch Acts

2.2.1 Actions, I)lans and Speech Acts
Wc nced to be able to rcprcscnt our intuitive notions of plan, goal, and action and
We need to be able to represent our intuitive notions of plan, goal, and action and
rclatc rhcm to languagc. lhcsc problcms havc alrcady rcccivcd much attention,
relate them to language. These problems have already received much attention,
both as problcms in the philosophy of languagc and from the point of view of
both as problems in the philosophy of language and from the point of view of
artificial intclligcnce.
artificial intelligence.
Our formulation of actions and plans is taken from some cxisting work in
Our [onnulation of actions and plans is taken from some existing work in

III

problem solving [Ernst

Newell 1969;
problcm
[Ernst and Ncwcll
1969; Fikes
Fikcs and Nilsson 1971].
19711. In tbese
these
systems,
tnodclcd as a set
sct of propositions
pro~ositionsthat represent
rcprcscnt what is known
systcms, the
thc world is modeled
about l1S
swtic characteristics.
characteristics. This
l h i s world is changed
chilngcd by actions, which tan
Can be
its statlc
as parameterized
p;lramctcri7cd procedures.
proccdurcs. Actions
Actions arc described
dcscribcd by prccanditions,
vicwed <IS
viewed
nreconditions,
conditions th;Jl
tnu5t hold before
bcforc the
Ulc action can execute,
cxccutc, and by effects,
cfFccts, the
that must
changes
changcs that the
thc action
:iction will make
makc to the
ihc world. Given
Givcn an initial
initial world SlltC
stllc Wand
W and
a;I gQ,ilJ.
state G, a &
plan is a sequence
actions that
&II
scqucncc of
ofistions
h a t transfonns
transforms W into G.
[Austin 1962]
19621 suggested
suggcstcd that every utterance
ultcrancc is the
ihc result
rcsult of several
scvcral
Austin [Austin
actions
irHcrcstcd
speech nets
i~ctiansor speech
succch acts.
acts. We
WC,Ire
arc panicularly
p;~rtic~~l;irly
intcrcstcd in the
UIC class
cli~ssof
ofspccch
acts that
includes
includcs requesting,
rcqucsting, warning.
warning, asserting,
asscrting, informing,
infirr~ning,and promising.
promising. '1l1esc
'lhcsc speech
spccch
acts arc apprnprbte
appropriate only in certain
ccrtain circumstanc.cs.
circumstances. h'
I n pa'itk\.\\'\'i,
vdrticular. the'}
(hcy rna'}
may 'ic'qu\'ie
rcquire
the
UIC speaker
spcakcr and the
thc hearer
hcarcr to have
havc certain
ccrt;~inbelief"
hclicfs ;:l11d
and inteIHions.
intentions. For example.
cxamplc, to
sincerely
INFORM
you
that
I
am
tired.
I
must
believe
thaI
I
am
tired
si~lccrclyI N l l ) l < A /
I iim tircd.
bclicvc that I
tircd and II must
intcnd to get you
yo11 to
to believe
bclicvc that II am tired.
tircd. Both these
thcsc conditions
conditionsc;ln
bc modeled
modcled
intend
can be
as prcconditions
preconditions 011
on ti,e
UIC INFORM
INf.'OI<M act.
act. II
A simple
simplc version
vcrsion of tilis
illis act could have
llavc tbe
the
effect
that
you
now
believe
that
I
am
tired.
cffcct
bclicvc
I
tircd.

m,

Cohen
Cohcn IC,lhen
[Cohcn 1978]
19781 demonstrated
dcmonstratcd that speecb
spccch acts
acts sucb
such as requesting
rcqucsting and

informing can be modeled

modclcd successfully
succcsshtlly as
:IS actions
actions in a planning system.
systcm. He
Hc showed
infomling
how
planned in order
IIUW speech
spccch acts may be planncd
ordcr to acbieve
achicve .specific
.specific (typically
nun-linguistic)
goals.
nnn-linguistic)

llan Construction
2.2.2 Plan
statc, two major tasks need
nccd to be
bc done to produce
producc a plan to achieve
Given a goal state,
that goal.
tliat will accomplisb
accomplish tbe
the
goal. One is to find a sequence
scqucncc of actions ti,at

transformation from
from lhc
thc initial
initial world state to the
thc goal st.ate,
statc. The
'The other concerns
conccrns
transformation
specifying tbe
parameters of the actions in the
the bindings for
for the paramctcrs
thc constructed
constructcd plan.
A typical method
mcthod ofconstructing a plan is backwards
II
backwards chaining: given a goal G,
find an action II
preconditions
A that has G as one of its effects.
cffccts. Then
'l'hcn evaluate
cvaluate the
thc prcconditions
somc of tllcse
Ulcsc conditions
conditions arc not satisfied
satisficd in the
thc initial
initial state..
statc. they become
of A. If some
subgoals
subgoals and the plan construction
construction process
proccss repeats.
repcats.
IInother
Another dimension of plan construction involves
involvcs planning at different
diffcrcnt !levels
c&
of
abstraction
(sec
[Sacerdnti
1973]).
For
example.
in
a
domain
where
a
robot
bas
;~hstractit~n
(scc
[Saccrdoti
19731).
I.'
o
r
cxalnplc.
doni:iin
whcrc
has
routc tbrougb
through many rooms.
moms. the
thc plan would first
first bc
dcvclopcd in tenns
tcms of
to plan a route
be developed
"opcn door y."
y." Only after
aftcr sucb
such a plan was constructed
constructcd would
"go to room x" and "open
one consider planning actions sucb
such as "rotate n degrees,"
dcgrccs." "propel
"propcl forwards,"
forwards."
arm," etc.
ctc. To incorporate tbis.
this, many actions must havc
thc capability of
"twist ann,"
bave tbe
being "broken down" into sequences
bcing
scqucnccs of more
morc specific
specific aClions.
actions.
We arc, for tbe
the most part, interested
intcrestcd in reasoning
rcasoning about the planning behavior

112

Allen

of oihcr agcnts. In ordcr to facilitalc this rcasoning about thc planning proccss, we
of other agents. In order to facilit<lte this reasoning about the planning process, we
charactcrizc it as a scl of planning rulcs and a control stntcgy. Sincc this papcr is
characterize it as a set of planning rules and a control strategy. Since this paper is
mainly conccrncd with plan infcrcncc. wc will not consider control stratcgics for
mainly concerned with plan inference. we will not consider control strategies for
planning cxplicitly. Ilowcvcr, lnany of thc control issucs for plan infcrcncc are
planning explicitly, However. many of the control issues fbr plan inference are
dircctly applicable to pla~iningas wcll. 'l'hc crucial point hcrc is that these
directly applicable tv planning as well. The crucial point here is that these
planning rulcs will bc used to dcrivc a similar dcscriptioli of thc plan inference
planning rules will be used to derive a similar description of the plan inference
prtrcss in tlic ncxt section.
process in the next section.
'I'hc planning rulcs arc all of the form "If agcnt A wants to achievc X, thcn he
The planning rules arc all of the form "If agent A wants to achieve X, then he
rnay want to acllicve Y." A silnplc rule is:
may WJnt to achieve Y," A simple rule is:
(C.1) lj'oii agnrl ,vatits 10 nchievr a goal 1: arid ACT Ir
(C.l) Ifall agent wallis to achiel'e a goal alld ACT is
cur ncfiurr llint hcls I.' as at1 eflcrf. IIIEII [he agent
1111 actiull that has F as all effiet. ,hen the agent
ttiny w i l ~ ~IV/ rxccure AC'T (i.e.. achieve the
may wallt to execute ACT (i.e" achiel'e the
cxecrrtioir of ACT).
executioll of ACT).

1::

One othcr rule of intcrcst conccrns rcasoning about knowledge ncccssary to

One other rule of interest concerns reasoning about knowledge necessary to
CXCCU~C
an action.
execute an action.
(C.2) If an agerri ~ialrfs
lo achieve I' and dues trot know

(C.2) Ifan agel/I wanls to achieve l' al1d dues 110t know
whrthcr P is true. t/teit that agent niuy watu to
wh('/her P is Irue. then Ihal ageM may wallI to

nchicve "agrrrt kitoivs w-helher I' is Inre."

achiel'e "agml knows ....hether P is true."

'Ihcsc ideas will bc made rnorc precise in Scction 3.

These ideas will be made more precise in Section 3.

2.2.3 Plan Inference

Plan in fcrcncing concerns thc atlcmptcd (rc)constn~ctionof some othcr agcnt's

Plan inferencing concerns the attempted (re)constmction of some other agent's
plan bascd on actions that tli:~t agcnt was obscrvcd pcrfo~ming. 'Ihis process
plan based on actions that that agent was observed perfonning. This process
dcpcnds on both thc obscrvcr's knowlcdge of what constitutcs a rational plan and
depends on both the observer's knowledge of what constitutes a rational plan and
on his or her original bclicfs abwt what goals thc othcr agcnt is likely to have.
on his or her original beliefs abellt what goals the other agent is likely to have.
Possible candidates for thc othcr agcnt's plan can bc synthcsircd in two
Possible candidates for the other agent's plan can be synthesized in two
manncrs. Stiirting from thc cxpccrcd goals, thc nbscrvcr could silnulatc thc othcr
manners. Slarting from the expected goals, the observer could simulate the other
agcnt's planning proccsc, starching for a plan that includes thc obscrvcd action.
agent's rlanning process, searching for a plan that includes the observed action.
Obviously, most of thc tirnc such an approach is impractical. 'lhc altcrnarivc is to
Obviously, most of the time such an approach is impractical. The alternative is to
construct a plan from thc ol~scrvcdaction, by applying thc plan construction nrlcs
construct a plJIl from the observed action. by applying the plan construction rules
in rcvcrsc. 'lhc rnclhod wc proposc dcpcnds mainly on thc lattcr approach, but
in reverse. The method we propose depends mainly on the lauer approach, but
docs usc thc fi~rmcrwhcn circu~nstanccspcm~it.I'coplc probably usc much more
docs usc the former when circumstances pemlit People probably usc much more
spccializcd knowlcdgc to infcr thc plans of othcr agcnts. hercby bypassing many
specialized knowledge to infer the plans of other agents. thereby bypassing many
of thc infcrcnccs wc will suggcst hcrc. Our approach so far, howcver, has bccn to
of the inferences we will suggest here. Our approach so far. however, has been to
spccify a minimal sct of rcasoning tools that can account for thc bchavior
specify a minimal set of reasoning tools that can account for the behavior

113

obscrvcd. Givcn tl~csctools, wc Lhcn hope to prcciscly dcfiric and cxplain thc
observed. Given these tools, we tilen hope to precisely define and explain tile
morc complcx and spccializcd mechanisms by dcriving lhcm 6.om thc siinplc s c t
more complex and specialized mechanisms by deriving tilem from the simple set
As with CIic plan construction proccss, CIIC plan infcrcncc prc~cssis spccificd as
I\s with the plan construction process, the plan inference process is sped tied as
a sct of inrcrcncc rulcs and acontrol strategy, liulcs arc all of thc form "If agcnt S
a set of in fcrence rules and a control strategy. Rules arc all of the form "If agent S
bclicvcs agcnt A has a goal X, tlicn agcnt S may infcr that agcnt A has a goal Y."
believes agent A has a goal X, then agent S may in fef that agent 1\ has a goal Y."
Examplcs ofsuch rulcs, corresponding to tlic planning n ~ l c (C.l)
s
and (C.2) are:
Examples ofsuch rules, corresponding to the planning rules (C.l) and (C.2) are:
(11.1) If

S brliev~sA i ~ a ra goal elf ~xrcufitlgaclion

(D.1) If S beliel'es A has a goal of fXfCUtillg action

ACT, ortd ACT has a11 q " c l 1; tllnr S may
ACT, alld ACT has all effect E. then S may
beiic~ve/lrni A has a gorrl of uchievit~gE.

believf Ihm A has a goa! ofachieving E

(D.2) If S b e l i ~ v eA~ has a goo1 of knoivir~gi v / ] ~ ~ hae r

(D.2) If .')' believes A has a goal of knowing whether a
propnsi~io,~
I' is /rue. I ~ P I ,I'
I t ~ l i l ) ,believe [hat A
proposition l' is true. the/l S //lay believe thaI A
has a goal r,f'achievirlg 1'.
has a goal ofachiel'ing P.

Of coursc, givcn thc conditions in (11.2). S might altcrnatcly infcr chat A has a goal
Of collfse. given the conditions in (D.2). S might alternately infer that A has a goal
of'achicving nor 1': this is trcatcd as a scparatc rulc. Which of thcsc rulcs applics in
ofachie"ing not P; this is treated as a separate rule. Which of these rules applies in
:I givcn sctting is dctcm~incdby control hcuristics, as follows.
a given setting is detcnllined by control heuristics, as follows.
l'hc plan infcrcncc prtxrcss can bc vicwcd as a scarck throi~gha sct of partial
The plan inference process can be viewed as a searcr. through a set of partial
131~11
partial plan consists of two pans: one pan is constructed using the
plans. Each p,lftial plan consists of two parts: one part is constructed using the
11l;ln infcrcncc rulcs from tlic obscrvcd nction (and called an ;~l[crnativc),and the
plan inference rules from the observed :lction (and called an allernative). and the
~ cxpcctcd goal (and
other is conslructcd using thc plan construction rules o ; an
other is constructed using the plan construction rules Oil an expected goal (and
callcd an cx~cctation).Whcn mutually cxclusivc rulcs can bc applicd to one of
called an expecl<ltion). When mutually exclusive rules can be applied to onc of
thcsc partial plans, thc plan is copicd and onc rulc is applicd in cncl~copy. Each of
these partial plans, the plan is copied and onc rule is applied in each copy. Each of
Blcsc partial plans is rhcn ntcd as to how probablc it is to bc h c correct plan. ?he
these partial plans is then rated as to how probable it is to be the correct plan. The
highcst ratcd partial plan is always sclcctcd for furthcr cxpansion using the
highest rated partial plan is always selected for further expansion using the
infcrcncc rulcs. 'Ihis rating is dctcnnincd using a sct of hcuristics h a t fall into two
inference rules. This rating is detennined using a set of heuristics that fall into two
classcs: thosc that cvaluatc how well-fomcd thc plan is in thc givcn context and
classes: tilose that evaluate how well-fonned the plan is in the given context and
thosc that evaluate how well thc plan fits lllc expectations. An cxalnple of a
those tilat evaluate how well the plan fits the expectations. An example of a
hcuristic is:
heuristic is:

u.

(H 1)

(HI) Decrensc. lhe.ratitlg of a par~iulplan ifil contains

Decrease the.rating ofa partial plall ifit contains
a goal /ha1 is already true ilr [he prfscnl cotrlext.
a goal ,hat is already true ill the present cOlltext.

2.2.4 Obstacle I>etection

Wc claim that many hclpful rcsponscs arisc bccausc the hcarcr dctccts obstaclcs in
We claim tilat many helpful responses arise because the hearer detects obstacles in
thc spcakcr's plan. ? k c most obvious obstaclcs arc thosc that the spcakcr
the speaker's plan. The most obvious obstacles are those that tile speaker
spccifically brings attention to by his or hcr utlcrancc. 'I'hcsc cxnlicit obstaclcs are
specifically brings attention to by his or her utterance. These explicit obstacles are
indicated by subgoals that are an csscntial part of the chain o f infcrenccs that the
indicated by subgoals that arc an essential part of thc chain of inferences tilat the

Allen

114

hcarcr makcs whcn hc or shc infcrs thc spcakcr's plan. For example, to infer the
hearer makes when he or she infers the speaker's plan. For example, to infer the
plan of thc spcakcr from thc utterance
plan of the speaker from the utterance
Whcn docs thc Windsnr train leave?
(4.1) (4.1)When docs the Windsor train leave?
thc hcarer must infcr that rhc spcakcr has thc goal of knowing whcn thc train
the hearer must in fer that the speaker has the goal of knowing when the train
lcavcs. Sincc thc spcakcr docs not know tllis information, t h ~ sis an cxplicit
leaves. Since the speaker docs mIt know this information. thIs is an explicit
obstacle.
obstacle.
'Ihc hcarcr cannot. howcvcr. basc thc rcsponsc solcly on thcsc cxplicit
'111C hearer cannot. however. base the response solely on these explicit
obstaclcs. For instancc, if A. carrying an clnpty gas can. comcs up to S on thc
obstacles. for instance. if A. carrying an empty gas can. comes lip to S un the
strcct and asks
street and asks
Whcrc is tf~cncarcsr gas station?
(5.1) (5.1)Where is the nearest gas station?
and S answers
and S answers
(5.2)

(5.2)
On the next corncr
On the next comer

knowing full wcll that thc sution is closcd, Ihcn S has not bccn helpful. Rut S's
knowing full well that the station is closed, then S has not been helpful. flut S's
rcsponsc did addrcss ths explicitly mcntioncd obstaclc, namcly knowing whcrc the
response did address the explicitly mentioned obstacle, namely knowing where the
ncarcst gas station is. S may want tn notify A if thcrc arc othcr obstaclcs to A's
nearest gas station is, S may want to notify A if there arc other obstacles to I\'s
plan, cspccially oncs that A is not awarc or. 'Illis behavior is cxpcctcd: cvcn when
plan, especially ones that A is not aware of. '1l1is behavior is expected: even when
A and S arc strangers, if A bclicvcs that S kncw all along that tI~cgas station was
A and S arc strangers, if A believes that S knew all along that tl1C gas station was
closcd, thcn A has justification for bcing angry at S, for S has violatcd some basic
closed. then 1\ has justification for being angry at S. for S has violated some basic
assumptions about human cooperation.
assumptions about human cooperation.
In thc dialogues we haw studied. all obstacles arc caused by a lack of some
In the dialogues we have studied, all obstacles arc caused by a lack of some
infonnation required in ordcr to bc ablc to cxccutc thc plan. This is not the case
infonnation required in order to be able to cxecute the plan. This is not me case
in gcncral, as we saw in thc cxamplc whcrc thc clcrk opens thc door for thc patron
in general, as we saw in the example where the clerk opens the door for the patron
carrying the groccries. Ihcrc thc clcrk rcspondcd to an obstacle which arose from
carrying the groceries, There the clerk responded to an obstacle which arose from
tllc pawn's inability to open the door,
tlle patron's inability to open the door,
2.2.5 Hclatcd Work
2.2.5 Related Work
Although thcrc has bccn sornc prcvious work on recognizing plans and gcncrating
Although there has been some previous work on recognizing plans and generating
helpful rcsponscs, to our knowlcdgc, no onc elsc has attcmptcd to combinc the
helpful responses, to our knowledge, no one else has attempted to combine the
two tcchniqucs. [Ilrucc 19801 outlincs a gcncral modcl of story cornprchcnsion
two techniques. [Bruce 1980) outlines a general model of story comprehension
based on rccognizing thc intentions of thc characters in the story as wcll as the
based on recognizing the intentions of the characters in the story as well as the
intentions of thc author. Although a slightly diffcrcnt application, our work here
intentions of the author. I\lthough a slightly diITercnt application, our work here
agrccs with his vicw. Bruce does not, howcvcr, dcscribc any algorithm for actually
agrees with his view. Ilruce docs not, however, describe any algorithm for actually

115

recognizing
rccogniring the
thc intentions in his stories.
stories.
Schmidt et
19791 discuss a plan recognitIOn
rccognition algorithm where
ct al. [Schmidt
[Schmidt 1979]
thcir task is to discover what the agent is doing.
physical actions arc
are observed
obscrvcd and their
But
before committing
Ilut they allow an arbitrary number
numbcr of acts to be observed
obscrvcd bcforc
thcmsclvcs to a particular plan. This
Ihis technique
tcchniquc is appropriate for analyzing
analyzing
themselves
sequences
csscnti;~lthat we identify
identify at least
lcast
sequences of actions. In our work, however. it is essential
part of the
thc speaker's
spcakcr's plan from
from a single
singlc observed
obscrvcd action (i.e..
(i.c.. tl,e
thc initial utterance).
utrcrance).
'l1lUS.
thc dialogue continues.
continucs. t.hi~
this plan becomes
bccomcs further specified.
spccificd.
'll~us,as the
Wilensky's
Wilcnsky's system,
systcm. PAM
PAM [Wilensky
[~ilensky1978],
19781, analy,es
analyxs stories
storicS by constructing a
plan for the
thc participants
p;trticip;~ntsJnd
and then
thcn answers
;Inswcn questions
qucstions about
a b o ~ the
tlic
~ t story
story using the
pl;~n.However.
Howcvcr. it docs not aucmpt
nttclnpt to recognize
rcc~~gnizc
thc plan of the
thc agent
agcnt asking
asking the
plan.
the
questions
qt~cstionsor w
to do any plan
pl;tn based
b ~ s c dreasoning abollt
about lallgu<.Jgc.
language. PAM
I'AM answers
answers
thc fornl
Torn] of the
thc quest;un
qucstion asked
askcd (sec
(scc [I[I ehnert
chncrt 1977a]).
1977al).
qucstions solely
solcly on the
questions
Kaplan (this
(this volume)
volulnc) discusses
discusscs helpful
Ihclpfi~lresponses
rcspanscs to questions which arc
are based
on violated
viol;~tcdpresuppositions
prcsuppositiol~sconveyed
convcycd by the
thc question. 'Illis work fits
tits well
wcll with the
approach
i~ppro;~chdescribed
described here.
hcrc, as violated
violatcd presuppositions should introduce
\hat the system
systcm helieves
bclicvcs and what
wh;lt the system
systctn bclicvcs
discrcpancics bctwccn
discrepancies
between what
believes the
spcakcr bclicvcs.
'lhcse discrepancies
discrcpancics could U,en
then bc
rccognizcd as obstacles
obshclcs in the
speaker
believes. These
be recognized
speaker's
paper, by dealing
llcncc innuence
influcncc U,e
ihc response.
rcsponsc. Thus
'lhus our papcr,
dcaling with
spcakcr's plan, and hence
helpful
behavior in a more general
pro,ides a general
hclpfi~lbchavior
gcncral fonn,
fonn, prokidcs
gcncral framework in which it
is useful
uscful to view Kaplan's work,
work.

I'l;in Inference
Inference and Ohstacle
Ol~st;~clc
I~ctcction
2.3 Plan
J)etection
Some
be considered
pI,," inference
Somc representation
reprcscntation issues
issucs must bc
considcrcd before
bcforc the plan
infcrcnce process
can bc
be described
dctail. Section
Scction 2.3.1
2.3.1 discusses
discusscs the
thc representaUon
rcprcscntation of belief,
dcscribcd in detail.
knowledge
knowlcdgc and want,
want. and Section
Scction 2.3.2 considers
considcrs actions
actions and plans. The
description
of
plan
in
ference
is
Ulen
broken
into
three
parts:
we consider U,e
dcscription
infcrcllce il~cnbrokcn
thrcc
the plan
inference
infcrcnce rulcs
rules in Section
Scction 2.3.3,
2.3.3, the rating heuristics
hcuristics in Section
Scction 2.3.4,
2.3.4, and the
control of the
process in Section
thc proccss
Scction 2.3.5.
2.3.5.
The
'Ihc final
final section
scction considers
co~lsidcrshow obstacles
obshclcs arc detected
dctcctcd in the plans that are
inferred.
infcrrcd.

Allen

116

2.3.1 IlcIicL Knonlcdgc, and \\'ants

2.3.1 Belief, Knol\lcdgc, and Wants

1)cscrihing an adcquatc inodcl of bclicf would take an entire papcr by itself. We

Describing an adequate model of belief would take an entire paper by itself. We
can just outline a few of rhc important issucs hcrc. Our trcnrmcnt of hclicf is
can just outline a few of the important issues here. Our treatment of helief is
virti~ally identical to tllnt of Iilintikka 13631. 'Thc rcadcr intcrcstcd in the
virtually identical to that of [H intikka 1963). The reader interested in the
implcmcntation should scc [Cuhcn 19781.
implementation should sec [Cuhen 1978).
Formalizations of bclicf cxliibit ;I cn~cialpropcny: what orlc agcnt S bclicvcs
Furmalizations of belief exhibit a cnldal property: what one agent S believes
anothcr agcnt A bclicvcs has 110 logical rclation to what S hclicvcs. 'lhus, S may
another agent A believes has 110 logical relation to what S heTieves. Thus, S may
bclicbc A bclievcs tlic ~ o r l dis flat whilc personally bclicving that i t is round.
believe 1\ believes the world is f1at while personally believing that it is round.
Intuitively, thc bclier opcrator allows us to considcr actions and plans from
Intuitively, the belief operator allows us to consider actions and plans from
anothcr agent's point of Iicw. 'l'llis can bc appmximatcd by Ihc axiom schcma
another agent's point of vicw. This Glll be approximated by the axiom schema
(BELl EVE(A,P ~ Q) /\ BELl EYE(A,P :J BEI.lEVHI\,Q)

Ihus, onc may infcr that A infcrrcd solnc proposition Q if it is bclicvcd that A
Thus. one may infer that A inferred some proposition Q if it is believed that A
bclici-cs thal Lhcrc is sufticicnt c~idcncclo infcr Q. Wc also nccd an axiom that
believes that there is sufficient evidence 10 in fer Q. We also need an axiom that
slates that conjunction can "pass through" chc bclicf opcrator. 'I'hus, if S bclicvcs
states that conjunction can "pass through" the belief operator. Thus, if S believes
lliat A bclicvcs P is truc and h a t A bclicvcs Q is truc. thcn S also bclicvcs that A
that A believes P is true and that 1\ believes Q is true. then S also believes that A
hclicvcs P and Q arc truc, and visa vcrsa. Writtcn marc formally:
believes P and Q arc true, and visa versa. Written more formally:
DEUEVE(I\,P) /\ BELl EYF.(A,Q) == BELl EVE(A.P /\ Q)

A similar axiom is tlor valid for disjunction.

Asimilar axiom is /lot valid for disjunction.
Note that the upemtor IIEI.IEVF also has to bc indcxcd by thc tirnc when the
Note that the operator BELl EVE also has to be indexed by the time whcn the
bclicf was hcld. For the sakc of simplicity. however, we will ignore time
belief was held. For the sake of simplicity, howcver, we will ignore time
tllroughour this papcr.
throughout this paper.
Some formulas involving bclicfs occur commonly enough to warrant special
Some formulas involving beliefs occur commonly enough to warrant special
mention. In particular. thcrc are three constructs asstxiatcd with thc word
mention. In particular. there are three constructs associated with the word
"know" that arisc wry frcqucntly.
"know" that arise very frequently.
I'hc first involvcs rcprcscnting that an agent S belicvcs some A knows b a t P is
Thc first involves representing that an agent S believes some A knows that P is
true. 'Ihis not only conveys the fact that S bclievcs A bclicvcs P, but also that S
true. This not only conveys the fact that S belicves 1\ believes P, but also that S
bclicvcs P as well, i.e.,
believes P as well, Le.,
nEUEVE(S, P /\

BEIJEV~.:(I\.P))

As an abbreviation. wc dcfinc
I\s an abbreviation. we definc
A KNOW P = P A 13EIzIEVE(A,P).
A KNOW P = P /\ DELI EVf."',(A,P).

In other words, if BELII:VF!S, A KNOW P), then S bclicvcs that S and A agree
In other words, if IlEUEVF..(S, A KNOW P), then S believes that S and A agree

H7

that I' is true. Iliis, ofcuursc, has no implication as to whcthcr I' is "actually" truc.
thJt P is true. 111is, of course, has no implication as to whether P is "Jctually" true.
'Ihc ncxt structure involves uscs of "know" as in "John knows whcthcr P is
The next structure involves uses of "know" as in "John knows whether P is
truc." 'Ihis is Ihc typc of bclicf S would havc to havc if S bclicvcd that John was
true:' This is the type of belief S would have to have if S believed that John was
able to answer a qucstion such as "Is I' uuc?". It is rcprcscntcd as thc disjunction
able to answer a question slich as "Is P true?". It is represented as the disjunction
A KNOWIF P

= (P /\ BELl EVF{A,P

(....... p /\ BEUEVE(A.-.P

'Ihc final i~scof know is in thc scnsc dcmonstmtcd by thc scntcncc "John knows
The final use afknow is in the sense demonstrated by the sentence "John knows
whcrc the box is." 'I'llis cnsc js rcprcscntcd by quantifying over' thc Ill!l.lEVE
where the box is:' This case is represented by quantifying over the BEl.IEVE
opcrator:
operator:
to. KNOWREF D "" (3y)(D=y) /\ BEUEVE(A,D=y)

whcrc 1) is a description. In thc abovc cxemplc it would bc "thc x such h a t the

where J) is a description. In the above example it would be "the x such that the
location of thc box is x." I'or fi~rthc~'
dctails on thcsc rcprcscntatior~sof "know."
location of the box is x." For further details on these representations of "know."
scc [Allcn 19793.
sec [Allen 1979].
Goals and plans of agcnts arc indicated by using an opcratar WANT, i.e.,
Goals and plans of <1gems arc indicated by using an operateI' WANT, Le.,

wAN'I'(A,P) = A has a goal to achicvc P.

WANT(A,P) = A has a goal to achieve P.
Ily his. wc mcan that thc agcnt A actually intcnds to achicvc P,not simply that A
By this. we mean that the agent A actually intends to achieve P, not simply that A
would find P a dcsirahlc sti~tcof affairs. 'Thc conccpts of "wanting," "intcntion,"
would find P a desirable stilte of affairs. The concepts of "wanting," "intention,"
and "having a goal" arc cxtrcmcly hard to distinguish and analyzc. In this paper,
and "having a goal" arc extremely hard to distinguish and analyze. In this paper,
thc distinctions are ignorcd for the WANT operator is uscd to capturc all three
the distinctions arc ignored for the WANT operator is used to capture all three
sirnultancously. 'lhc propcrtics of thc WANT opcrator will bc specified only by
simultaneously. 'Ibe properties of the WANT operator will be specified only by
the planning and plan infcrcnce rules.
the planning and plan inference rules.

2.3.2 Actions and Plans

2.3.2 Actions and Plans
As with the opcrators in S'I'RI15 [Fikcs and Nilsson 19711. actions can bc groupcd
As with the operators in STRIPS (Fikes and Nilsson 197Jl, actions can be grouped
into farnilics rcprcscntcd by action schcmas. An action schcma consists of a name,
into families represented by action schemas. An action schema consists ofa name,
a sct of paramctcrs and (possibly null) scts of formulas in h c following classes:
a set of parameters and (possibly null) sets of formulas in the following classes:

Allen

118

- Precorrdilio,rs: Conditions h a t should bc me

- Preconditiuns: Conditions that should be true
if Lhc action's cxccution is to succccd.
if the action's execution is to succeed.
- Lffects: Conditions that should bccornc true

- Effects: Conditions that should become true

after tlic succc~sfi~l
cxco~lrionof the action.
after the successful execution of the action.

- llod~v:A spccification of Lhc action at a more

- /Jody: A spcei lication of the action at a marc
dctnilcd Icvcl. 'Ihis may specify a scqucncc of actions
detailed level. 'Illis may specify a sequence of actions
lo bc pcrfonncd, 01-may bc a sct of ncw goals h a t must
to be performed, or may be a set of new goals that must
bc achicvcd.
be achieved,

Iiich action dcfinitio~i rnay also spccify noalicnbilitv conditions on the

Each action definition may also specify applicabilitv conditions on the
pdramctcrs: conditions h a t must bc true for thc action to bc well dcfincd. Evcry
parameters: conditions that must be (flle for the action to be well defined. Every
action has ill Icast OIIC paramctcr. nanicly tlic
or instigator of h c action.
action has at le<lst one parameter. namely the agent or instigator of the action.
Notc that wc do no1 havc a sct of dclction conditions for our actions as found in
Note that we do not ha\"e a set of deletion conditions for OUT actions as found in
SI'R115. In our systcm. a proposition is dclctcd by asserting its negation.
STR IPS. In om system. a proposition is deleted by asserting its negation.
An action ins~inccis a p~.oposilionconstn~ctcdfroin an iiction schcma name
An action insLmce is a proposition constmctcd from an action schema name
with a sct of parnmctcr instintiations and a rimc spccification. 'Ihc proposition is
with a set of parameter inst:mtiations and a time specification. The proposition is
lruc only if thc dcscribcd action is (was or will bc) cxccuring at thc spccificd time.
true only if the described action is (was or will be) executing at the specified time.
For cxamplc,
For example,
ACT(S)<t> - a prcdicatc that is true only if the action A C T with
ACT(S){t) - a predicate that is true only if the action ACT with
agcnt S was/will bc cxccutcd at time t.
agent S was/will be executed at time t

Wc will say that an action is intentional if whenever the action was performed, the
We will say that an action is intentional if whenever the action was performed, the
agcnt wantcd it to occur at that timc. 'Ihus, if
is an intcntional act, 4 any
agent wanted it to occur at that time. Thus, if ACT is an intentional act, !l any
agcnr.,f any time, then
agenl, I any time. then

ACf(A)<t) ::> W ANT(A, ACT(A)<t.

Thus, in a loose scnsc, hcrc is a "precondition" on evcry intcntional action that

Thus, in a loose sense. there is a "precondition" on every intentional action that
thc agcnt must want to pcrform the action. We will somctimcs refer to this
the agent must want to perform the action. We will sometimes refer to this
condition as thc w:lnt prcconditiorl of thc act.
condition as the want precondition of the act.
In gcncral. thc timc spccification will bc omittcd. If an action is within the
In general. the time specification will be omitted. If an action is within the
immcdiatc scopc of thc Ilt:I,IF,VE opcrator. it is assumcd to havc a time
immediate scope of the BI:UEVE operator, it is assumed to have a lime
spccificrtlion in thc past. If it is within thc i~nmcdia~c
scopc of a WAN'I' opcrator.
specification in the past. If it is within the immediate scope of a WANT operator.
it is assulncd to have a timc spccification in ihc future.
it is assumed to have a time specification in the future.
Actions arc not only rcasoncd about, somctimcs lhcy are exccutcd. The
Actions arc not only reasoned about, sometimes they are executed. The
execution of an action is spccificd cither as prirnitivc or by its body. If thc body is
execution of an action is specified either as primitive or by its body. If the body is
a scqucncc of othcr actions, this scqucncc may bc recursively cxccutcd. If the
a sequence of other actions, this sequence may be recursively executed. If the
body is a set of new goals. plan construction must bc initiated on the goals and
body is a set of new goals. plan construction must be initiated on the goals and

ll9

thcn thc resultant plan cxccutcd.

then the resultant plan executed.
It will oftcn bc convenicnt to refer to an action and its associated
It will often be convenient to refer to an action and its associated
prcconditions, cFFccts and body as a singlc unit. Such action c l u s t c ~arc action
preconditions, effects and body as a single unit Such action clusters arc action
sclicmas with instlntiatcd pararnetcrs.
schemas with instantiated parameters.
A s~ccchact is an intcntional action that has as paralnctcrs a spcakcr (i.e., the
A speech lli:l is an intentional action that has as parameters a speaker (Le., the
agcnt), a Ilcarcr, and a propositional contcnt, and wl~osccxcculion Icads to the
agent), a hearer, and a propositional content, and whose execution leads to the
production of an uttcrancc. Its prcconditions and cffccts arc dcfincd in tcnns of
production of an ullerance. Its preconditions and effecL~ arc defined in tenns of
tlic bclicfs and wants of thc spcilker and hcarcr. For thc prcscnt, wc will assume
the beliefs and wants of the speaker and hearer. For the present, we will assume
that thc spccch act intcndcd by thc spcakcr can bc rcadily idcntificd from the
tll;]t the speech act intended by the speaker can be readily identified from the
syntactic form of Ulc uttcrancc. 'l'his assumption, whicll is obviously incorrcct, will
syntactic form of Ule utterance. This assumption, which is ohviollsly incorrect, will
bc rcmovcd in thc latcr scctioils of thc papcr conccming indirect spccch acts and
be removed in UlC later sections of the paper concerning indirect speech acts and
scnfcncc fragmcnts.
sentence fragments.
In its final Tor~n,a Dlar! is a linear scqucncc of action instances diat will map an
In its final form, a plan is a linear sequence of action instances th,j{ will map an
initial world sta~cinto a goal statc. I3ut as Saccrdoti [Saccl-doti 19751 points out,
initial world state into a goal slate. But as Sacerdoti [Sacerdoti 1975] points out,
plans cannot easily bc constructed in linear form. Hc uscs a rcprcscntation that
plans cannot easily be constructed in linear form. He uses a representation that
imposes only a pi~rtialordcring on the actions. whcrc thc ordcrings arc imposed
imposes only a partial ordering on the actions. where the orderings arc imposed
only whcn ncccssary. Wc ttsc a similar rcprcscntation.
only when necessary. We lise a similar representation.
A plan can bc rcprcscntcd as a dircctcd graph with propositions (goals and
1\ plan can be represented as a directed graph with propositions (goals and
actions) as nodcs and labclcd arcs indicating thcir intcrrclationsl~ips. lhcsc arcs
actions) as nodes and labeled arcs indicating their interrelationships. These arcs
impliciily spccify a partial ordcring on thc actions. I h c etlable arc links a
impliciily specify a pmtial ordering on the actions. lbe enable arc links a
proposition that is a precondition of an action to h a t action. [dkcwisc, an effect
proposition that is a precondition of an action to that action. Likewise, an effect
arc links an action to a proposition that is its cffcct 'lhc know arc links a
arc links an action to a proposition that is its effect The know arc links a
KNOWIF or KNOWREF proposition to a proposition in a plan whosc truth
KNOWIF or KNOWREr proposition to a proposition in a plan whose truth
valucs cannot bc dctcrmincd unlcss thc "know" proposition is true. For example,
values cannot be detennined unless the "know" proposition is true. For example,
thc planncr cannot achicvc the goal
the planner cannot achieve the goal
"planncr at thc location of n"
"planner at the location ofn"
unless

unlcss
"planner KNOWREF thc location of n."
"planner KNOWREF the location ofn."

'1.0 pcrmit plans to bc rcprcscntcd at varying lcvcls of dctail. a plan structure itsclf
To permit plans to be represented at varying levels of detail, a plan structure itself
can bc a nodc in a plan. 'l'hcsc "plan" nodcs rcprcscnt thc bodics of actions. ' h e
can be a node in a plan. These "plan" nodes represent the bodies of actions. The
bodv arc links an action to a plan nodc that contains its body.
body arc links an action to a plan node that contains its body.

Allen

120

2.3.3 'Thc I'tn Infcrcncc Rules

2.3.3 The Plan Inference Rules
Thc plan infcrcncc proccss starts with an incomplctc plan, usually containing a
The plan inference process starts with an incomplete plan, usually containing a
singlc obscrvcd action and an cxpcctcd goal and attcmpts to fill in thc plan. Thc
single observed action and an expected goal and attempts to fill in the plan. The
possiblc additions that can be made arc dcscribcd in his scction as a sct of
possible additions that can be made arc described in this section as a set of
plausihlc infcrcncc mlcs. 171cy are prcscntcd wilhout any consideration of
plausible inference rules. 111ey are presented without any consideration of
whcthcr thc infcrcncc is rcasonnblc.in a givcn sctting. for whcthcr or not il rule is
whether the inference is reasonable' in a given setting, fix whether or not a rule is
applicd dcpcnds on thc likclihood [hat the ncw plan specification it produccs is
applied depends on the likelihood that the new plan specification it produces is
thc actual plan. 'l'his is cvaluatcd using thc heuristics described in the ncxt section.
the actllal plan. This is evaluated using the heuristics described in the next section.
'nlc natation
'nlC notation
SUA W(X) :J i SBAW(Y)

indicates that if S bclicvcs A ha6 a goal of X, thcn S 1n;iy infcr that ,4 has a goal of
indicates that ifS belicvcs A has a goal of X, tllen S may infer that /\ has a goal of
Y. 'l'hc "i" in h e rulc indicates that it is a plan itlfcrcncc rulc, as apposcd to a plan
Y. The "i" in the rule indicates that it is a plan inference rule, as opposed to a plan
construction rulc, wllich will hc indicated by using a "c". Note that
construction rule, which will he indicated by using a "c". Note that
"SIlAW(X)"

is.simply an abbreviation for

is.simply an abbreviation for
"BEUEVE(S,BELJEVE(A,WANT(A,X)))."

Note that all goals are propositions. If the proposition is associatcd with an action,
Note that all goals arc propositions. If the proposition is associated with an action,
thcn we will describe having such a goal by saying that A wants thc action to
then we will describe having sllch a goal by saying that A wants the action to
occur. Othcrwisc. we will describc having a goal by saying that A wants to achieve
occur. Otherwisc, we will describe having a goal by S<lying that A wants to achieve
the ctindition signified by the proposition.
the c(jndition signified by the proposition.
Vie possible n~lcscan bc divided into three broad categories: those that
TIle possible niles can be divided into three broad categorles: those that
concern actions, those that concern knowlcdgc, and thosc that conccrti planning
concern actions, those that concern knowledge, and those that concern planning
by othcrs. A11 thcsc rulcs are summarized in 'Ihblcs 1 and 2 at thc end of this
by others. All these rules are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 at the end of this
scction.
section.

The Rules Concertling Aclions

The Rules Concerning Actions
'Thcsc ruIcs arisc from thc modcl of how plans arc constructed. 'Ihroughout this
These rules arise from the model of how plans are constructed. Throughout this
scction, S rcfcrs to t l ~ eagcnt that is inferring thc plan of another agcnt A.
section, S refers to tlle agent that is inferring lhe plan of another agent A.
Prcccol~difia~~Acfion Rule
Precundition- Action Rule
SIlAW(P)
SIlAW(Aff')
if P is a
SBAW(P) :J i SBAW(ACI)
if P is a
prccondition of action ACT.
precondition of action ACT.
Thus, if h has a goal of P, thcn A may want an
Thus, if 1\ has a goal of P, then A may want an

121
action ACT cnablcd by P to occur.
action ACr enabled by P to occur.
nod>-Actio~lRule
Rule
Sl3AW(R)
SnAW(ACT) -- if B is part of the
SBAWeB) =>j SBA W(ACT) .. if B is part of the
body of ACT.
body of ACT.
'I'hus. if A wants an action 11 to occur, that is
Thus. if A wants an action n to occur, that is
part of dlc cxccution of anothcr action ACT, A
part of tJle execution of another action ACr, A
may want AC1' to occur.
may want ACr to occur.

Bod>~Actioll

Acfiorr-1;ffect Rule
Action-FJJect Rule
SIlAW(hCI') xi S11AW(E) - if E is an cffcct of
SBA W(ACT) =>j SBAW(E) - if E is an effect of
ACF.
ACr.
Sinlply. this says that if A wants an action A C r
Simply, this says that if A wants an action Acr
to trcur, tllcri h ]nay want thc cffccts of ACT to
to occur, then A may want the effects of ACT to
bc achieved.
be achieved.

M.'orrr- Action Rule

Want- Ac/ion Rule
SDAW(WAN'r(n.AC'1-)) xi SIIAW(ACI') if n
SBA W(W ANT(n,ACT =>i SBAW(ACT} if n
is thc agcnt of thc intcntional action AC'r.
is the agent of the intentional action ACT.
'I'his rulc is bascd on thc want prccundition for
This rule is based on the want precondition for
intentional actions.
intentional actions.
Intuitivcly. this says that if A wants n to want to
Intuitively, this says that if A wants n to want to
do somc action AC'I', thcn h may want n'to do
do some action ACT, then A may want n to do
ACT.
ACT.

The Ruler Cotrccrning Knowledge

The Rules COllcerning Knowledge
I'hcsc infcrcncc rulcs indicatc how goals of acquiring knowledge relate to goals
These inference rules indicate how goals of acquiring knowledge relate to goals
and actions that usc that knowlcdgc. I'hc fint two rulcs rcflcct thc fact that if A
and actions that use that knowledge. The first two rules reflect the fact that if A
wants to know whctllcr a pn~positionP is m c , Ilicn it is possiblc that A wants to
wants to know whether a proposition P is true, then it is possible that A wants to
achicvc a goal that rcquircs P to bc truc (or rcquircs I' to bc falsc). 'hc third onc
achieve a goal that requires P to be true (or requires P to be false). The third one
indicntcs that A wants lo know whcthcr P is truc in ordcr to establish Lhc identity
indicates that A wants to know whether P is true in order to establish the identity
of onc of d ~ tcrms
c
in P. I:or cxi!mplc, onc might ask. "llocs thc RAP1110 lcave at
of one of the terms in P. For example, one might ask, "Docs the RAPIDO leave at
3?" in ordcr to cstal)lish a dcparturc timc of 3 o'clock.
3?" ill order to establish a departure time of 3 o'clock.
K~iowposi~ive
Rule
Know"'[Jositive Rule
SllAW(A KNOWIF P) IiSRAW(P)
SBAW(A KNOWIF P):J j SBAW(P)

Know-negative Rule
SBA W(A KNOWIF P) :J SBAW(-,P)
i

Allen

122
K i ~ o wvalue Rule
Know-value Rule
SljAW(A KNOWIF P(a)) 3i
SBA W(A KNOWIF Pta~ ::>i
SllAW(A KNOWREF the x : P(x)).
SBA W(I\. KNOWREF the x : P(x.

Of coursc, in any plan iiltcrnativc, at most one o f thc first two rulcs can bc
Of COlirse, in any plan alternative, at most one of the first two rules can be
corrcct. 7'hc decision as to which of thcse is corrcct, or that none OF bcsc is
correct The decision as to which of these is correct, or that none of these is
corrccl is rllc responsibility of thc hcuristic evaluation of thc plans produccd by
correct. is the responsibility of the heuristic evaluation of the plans produced by
applying thc rulcs.
applying the rules.
Onc spccial crtsc is of intcrcst hcrc. If A indicatcs that hc or shc has a goal
One special case is of interest here. I fA indicates that he or she has a goal
A KNOWn: P

and it is known bctwccn S and A that A alrcady knows whcthcr 1'. thcn lhc path
and it is known hetween S and I\. that A already knows whether P, then the path
h a t agrccs uith A'S knowlcdgc is bkcn. For cxamplc, if S is playing with a dime
that agrees with A's knowledge is taken. For example. if S is playing with a dime
in front o f A, and A asks
in front of A, and A asks
''110you havc 3 dime,"
"Do you have a dime,"

only thc know-positivc i~lfcrc~lcc

to thc goal "S havc a din~c"would bc produccd.
only the knowpositive inference to the goal "s have a dime" would be produced.
. l'hc finat infcrcncc rulc about knowlcdge conccrns goals. of finding the
. The final inference rule abollt knowledge concerns goals. of finding the
rcfcrcnts of descriptions. It suggcsts h a t such a goal indicatcs that A has another
referents of descriptions. It suggests that such a goal indicates that A has another
goal that involvcs thc rcfcrcnt.
goal that involves the referent.
Know-tern1 Rule
KnolV-tenn Rule
SRAW(A KNOWREF thc x:D(x)) Di
SBA W(A KNOWREF the x:D(x:J i
SRAW(P(thc x:D(x)))
SBAwhcrc
W(P(thc
x:D(x)
P(thc
x:ll(x)) is a goal or action involving
where thc
P(thcthex:D(x
is a goal
involving
dcscription
(or or
its action
referent).
the the description (or its referent).

nccause of thc vagueness in thc resulting goal, this rulc does not produce
Because of the vagueness in the resulting goal. this rule does not produce
reasonable plans unless a spccific goal or action of form P(I)) alrcady exists in the
reasonable plans unless a specific goal or action of form P(J) already exists in the
cxpcctations.
expectations.
The Rules runcerning I'lar~nitrgby Oihers
The Rules Concerning Planning by Ofhers
'I'hc plan construction proccss can bc dcscribcd in thc samc manncr as thc plan
The plan construction process can be described in the same manner as the plan
infcrcncc proccss; as a sst of rulcs that dcscribc possiblc constructions, and a set of
inference process; as a set of rules I.hal. describe possible constructions, and a set of
heuristics to evaluatc the resulting plans. 'Ihc plan construction rulcs arc simply
heuriSl.ics to evaluate the resulting plans. The plan construcl.ion rules arc simply
thc invcrscs of thc plan infcrcnce rutcs. Somc cxamplcs arc givcn bclow. X is the
the inverses of the plan inference rules. Some examples arc given below. X is the
name of thc agcnl doing thc plan construction, and "XW(Y)" is a n abbreviation
name of the agent doing the plan construction, and "XW(Y)" is an abbreviation
for "BELlEVE(X,WANT(X,Y))." For thcsc rules we usc thc notation "3; to
for "BELlEVE(X,WANT(X,Y." For these rules we use the notation "::le" to

123

indicate aaplan
ptan construction
construction rulc.
rule.
indicate
Action-Precondition Rule
Rule
Aclio~t-Frecondi/iun
XW(ACr) 3
:J,c XW(P) ifif P is aa precondition
precondition of
of
XW(ACl')
ACT,
ACT.

X wants to cxccutc
execute ACT, X.
X may want to cnsurc
ensure that
tilat its preconditions arc
are
IThus
l u s ifif X
true.
m
e.
Action-Body Rule
Action-Body

XW(ACr)
3,c XW(0)
the body of
XW(ACf):J
XW(B) if BB iiss piut
part of
oftbe
ACf,
Am.

Effect-Actioll Rule
Rulel?fic/-Acliorr
XW(E):J
/lCr.
XW(E)
3,c XW(ACT) ififE
E is an cffcct of ACT.

Of coursc.
course, if E can he achicvcd
achieved by many actions,
actions. cach
each onc
one of them could be
Of
introduced by Uiis
this rulc.
rule. As with plan infcrcncc,
inference. Ulc
the plans canstructcd
constructed using this
introduccd
rule would thcn
then havc
have to bc
be cvaluatcd
evaluated by a sct
set of cvrluatio~l
evaluation heuristics.
rulc
Kllow-Rule
XW(P):J c XW(X KNOWIF P)

Thus,
Thus, if X wants to achieve P but doesn't
docsn't know whether
whcthcr P is true,
tlue, X must find
find out
whctiler
P
is
true,
true.
whedicr
When
Whcn X constructs
construcls a plan involving
involving the cooperation
coopcration of another agent Y, X
may depend
dcpcnd on Y to do some
some plan construction
construction as well.
wcll. 'l11u5,
'lhus. X might get
gct Y to
perform
pcrfoml some action ACr
ACI' by getting
gctting Y to have the
thc goal of achieving
achieving Acrs
ACTS
effects.
For
example,
assume
that
X
wants
to
have
a
surprise
birthday
pany
for his
cxamplc, assume
X
surprise binhday
effccts.
roommate
roummatc Y and needs
nccds to get
gct Y out of the house,
house. X
X says
says
"We need
nccd some
some beer"
expecting
cxpccting Y to assume
assumc the
UICgoal
goal of getting
gctting beer,
bccr. and
and then
thcn construct a plan to
to get
some.
samc. This
'lhis involves
involvcs leaving
lcaving the
thc house,
housc, the
thc goal
goal X had all
all along,
along. Thus X has
reasoned
proccss. Crudely,
Crudcly, this new planning inference
inference rule
rcasoncd about Y's planning process,
can be
bc described
dcrribcd as
as
XW(WANT(Y,"leave
XW(WAN'I'(Y,"lcave house")):J
house")) 3c
XW(WANT(Y,"gct beer"
beer"))
c XW(WANT(Y,"get
since X believes

124

Allcn

WANrI'(Y,"gct bccr") 3cWANT(Y,"lcavc house")

WANT(Y," get beer") ::J c WANT(Y,"leavc housc")
Thus, if X wants Y tn want to do ACI', he may achicvc this by gctting Y to want to
Thus, if X wants Y to want to do ACT, he may achieve this by gctting Y to want to
achicvc E, whcrc Y's planning prtrcss will infcr ACT as a way of achicving E, In
achieve E, whcre Y's planning process will infer ACT as a way of achieving E. In
gcncral, wc havc thc sct of plan construction rules
general, we have the set of plan construction rules
Ncstrd- I'latinhg Rule
Nested-Planning Rule
x w ( w m r l . ( u , r ) )2, XW(WAN'~(Y,Q))
XW(WANT(Y,P::J c X\V(W ANT(Y,Q
if XIi(WAN'l'(Y,Q) 3, WAN'17(Y.P))
ifXIl(W ANT(Y,Q) ::I c WA NT(Y,P

l'his rulc schclnata is of interest when .it is assurncd that thcrc is no deceit
This rule schemata is of interest when it is assumed that thcre is no deceit
bctwccn the agcnts, and both rcalizc that thc planning by thc hcarcr was intcndcd.
betwcen the agents, and both reali1.C that the planning by the hearer was intended.
'Ihus, a king tnight say
Thus, a king might say'
"It's cold in here"
"It's cold in here"
to a scrvant, cxpccting the scrvant to plan to mskc thc room wa.rmcr.
to a servant, expecting the servant to plan to make the room warmer.

Action-Precondition X W(AC'f) 3, XW(P)

'Pa prcc!~ndition
Action-Precondition XWCACT)::Ic XW(P)
'P a preC(JI1dition
of ACT
of ACT

XW(AC?')3,XW(D)

Action-llody
Action-Body

XW(ACT)::Ie XW(Il)

Effect-Action
Effect-Action
Know-Rule
Know-Rule

uispartof
II is part of
body of ACT
body of ACT

XW(3) IcXW(AC1')
E an cffect
XW(3) ::Jc XW(ACT)
Ean effect
of ACT
of ACT

xw(p) 3,

XW(P) ::Jc
XW(X KNOWIF P)
XW(X KNOWIF P)

Ncstcd Planning
XW(WAN'T (Y,P)) 3, if X bclicvcs
Nested Planning
XW(W ANT (Y,P ::>c if X believes
WANrI'(Y,Q) 3,
XW(WAN'I'(Y,Q)
XW(WANT(Y,Q)
WANHY,Q) ::J c
WANrI'(Y,P)
WANT(Y,P)
'Ihblc 1 'I'hc plan construction rules.
Tablc 1The plan construction rules.
Ilut for thc scrvant to understand thc king's intcntion in thc above cxample, he
But for the servant to understand the king's intention in thc above example, he
must rccogniec that thc king's plan included planning by thc scrvant. Wc can
must recognize that the king's plan includcd planning by the servant. We can
charactcrizc infcrcnccs that construct thcsc ncw plans as k)Hows (rcvcrting back ta
characterize inferences that construct these new plans as follows (reverting back to

125

S as
as recognizer.
rccognizcr, I\.
A as
as the
thc observed
obscrvcd agent):
agcnt):
The
The Recogllizil1g
R ~ c o g ~ ~ i z iNested-Planning
Nesred-l'larrrrir~g
ng
Rule
Sill\.W(WI\.NT(S,P
SI%AW(WAN'f(S.I'))=:Ii
>i Sill\.W(WI\.NT(S,Q))
SHAW(WANT(S,Q))
if Sill\.
Tl(WI\. NT(S'p) >c
=:Ie WAWl'(S.Q))
WI\.NT(S,Q))
SI3AB(WAN'I'(S.P)

This
aI'SS wanting to achicvc
achieve P,
This rule can be
bc paraphrased
pamphrascd as follows:
k~llows:If I\.
A has a goal of
then
givel) that A
A bciic\,cs
believes SS
tlicn /\A may also
also have
h;lvc a goal of S wanting to achieve
achicvc Q. givcn
would
plan
to
achieve
Q
in
order
to
achieve
P.
uould
to achicvc
ordcr
One
agent A
/\ can gi.1
gel S
S to want some
Onc of the
thc mmlt
most common
comlnon ways in
it1 which
wllicli an agcnt
condition
then dcpcnd
depend on S's
5's
cundilion isis to
to get
gct SS to believe
bclic\.c A wants the
thc condition and thcn
cooperation.
the goal. 'This
This introduccs
introduces the
cooperation. "1l1U5.,
'l1111$ 1\
A is gelling
gctting S to
ti, decide
dccidc to accept
acccpt thc
last
last inference:
infcrcnce:

Decide rllference
Sill\. W(SIlI\. W(P)) =:Ii SJl;\W(WI\.NT(S,P))
Unfustunatcly. the
thc conditions
conditions onder
under which an agent
agcnt dccidcs
Unfortonately,
decides to acccpt
accept a goal are
cxtrclncly difJicutt
diflicult to describe.
dcscribc. In this paper,
papcr, we
wc L~kc
extremely
take the naivc
naive vicw
view that an agent
dccidc to
to adopt a goal unkss
unless he
he explicitly l?
is known
o t ttoo want t\>c
will dcc~dc
will
~n\)wn n
'11\)\.
\l.c conditions
tondit)Qns
implics.'lhiscundition
cnfurccd by the
thc fating
rating heuristics in the next scction.
itit implies.
'Ibis condition is enforced
section.

126

Allen
-

Precondition-Action
SBAW(P) IiSflAW(ACT)
Precondi tion-Action SIlAW(P) ::li SBA W(ACT)

P a precondition
P a precondition
of ACT
ofAef

Body-Action
Body-Action

SIlAW(D) 3iSDAW(ACT)
SBAW(ll) ::Ii SBAW(ACf)

I3 a part of
Il a part of
thc body of ACT
the body of ACT

Action-Effcct
Action-Effect

SBAW(ACl')
SI3AW(E)
SIlAW(ACI') ::lj SBA WeE)

1' is an cffcct
E is an effect
of
ACT
of ACT

Want-Action
Want-Action

SIMW(WANrF(n,ACT)) xi
SBAW(WANT(n,ACT Ji
SIMW(hCI')
SBAW(ACI')

Know-Positive
Know-Positive

n is the
n is the
agcnt of ACT
:lgent of ACl'

SUAW(A KNOWIF P)
SUAW(A KNOWIF P)
S13AW(P)
::Ii SBAW(P)

Know-Negative
SIjAW(A KNOWlF P)
Know-Negative
SBAW(A KNOWIF P)
SIIAW(not P)
::Ii SBA W(not P)
Know-Value
Know-Value

SlMW (A KNOWIF P(a)) Xi

SBAW (A KNOWIF P(a ::lj
S13AW (A KNOWREF the x :P(x)))
SBAW (A KNOWREF the x: p(x)))

Know-'rcnn
Know-Tenn

SBAW (A KNOWREF D)
SBAW (A KNOWREF D)
s n A w (P (D))
::li SBAW (P (D

Rccognition of
SnAW(WANT(S,P)) 3i
SBAW(W ANT(S.P:J j
Recognition of
Nesting I'lanning Rulc SIMW(WhNT(S.Q))
Nesting Planning Rule SBA W(WANT(S,Q

if SllAB(WANT(S,P)
if SllA new ANT(S,P)
3, WAN'r(S,Q)))
::Jc WANT(S,Q)

Dccide Inference
S13AW(SRAW(P))
Decide Inference
SBA W(SBAW(P::J j
SllAW(WANT(S,P))
SBAW(WANT(S.P
'i'ablc 2 Thc plan infcrcnce rules.
Table 2 The plan inference rules.

2.3.4 Rating IIcuristics

2.3.4 Ratin!: Heuristics
As mcntioncd abovc. plan infcrencing is accomplished by a scarch through a sct of
As mentioned above. plan inferencing is accomplished by a search through a set of
spccifications of p&&d p h s that consist of two parts. One part is constructed
specifications of lli!.I1iill. 1llims. that consist of two parts. One part is constructed
bottom-up using thc plan infcrcncc rulcs from thc obscrvcd action (and callcd the
bottom-up using the plan inference rules from the observed action (and called the
altcmativc), and the othcr is constructed top-down using thc plan construction
alternative), and the other is constructed top-down using the plan construction
rulcs from an expcctcd goal (and callcd the ex~cctation).(In the implementation,
rules from an expccted goal (and called the expcctation). (In the implementation,

127
partial plans may contain many cxpcctations sharing onc common alternative.)
partial plans may contain many expectations sharing one common alternative.)
F ~ c hpartial plan is assigncd a rating. which is dctcrmincd using hcuristics
Each partial plan is assigned a rating, which is determined using heuristics
dcscribcd in this section, that rcflccts how IikeIy it is to bc part of thc "correct"
described in this section, that renects how likely it is to be part of the "correct"
plan. 'fhcsc hcuristics arc based solcly on domain-indcpcndcnt rclations bctwccn
plan. These heuristics arc based solely on domain-independent relations between
actions. thcir bodics, prcconditions and cffccts. 'l'hc initial partial plans arc givcn a
actions. their bodies, preconditions and effects. The initial partial plans arc given a
rating of 1. 'lhc hcuristics arc cxprcsscd hcrc only in tcms of increasing and
rating of I. "111e heuristics arc expressed here only in terms of increasing and
dccrcasing thc ratings. 'lhc ~ t u i 1formulas
1
arc vcry simple and givcn in 'Table 3 at
decreasing lhe ratings. The actual formulas arc very simple and givcn in Table 3 at
Lhc cnd of thc sccrion. 'I'his is organi/.cd in this way lo cmphasizc thc fact that
the end of the section. This is organi/.ed in this way to emphasize the fact that
whilc raring changcs in thc indicalcd direction arc csscnrial to our modcl, wc fccl
while rating changes in the indicated direction arc essential to our model, we feel
drat some variation is possiblc in the actual figurcs.
that some variation is possible in the actual figures.
Finally, bcforc wc givc thc hcuristics, wc must rnakc thc distinction bctwccn
Finally, before we give the heuristics, we must make the distinction between
actions that arc cu1.rcn1Iy in C X C C U ~ I O I ~UIOSC
.
itwiiiling cxcci~Iion(pcndinp,), and
aClions that arc currently in execution, tllOse awaiting execution (pending), and
tjlosc that hate bccn cxccu~cd.In prlrlicular, thc obscr\.cd aclion is considcrcd to
tllllse that have been execuled. [n particular, the observed action is considered to
bc currcntly in cxccution. and any action which contains an action currcntly in
be currently in execution, and any action which contains an action currently in
cxccution in its body is also considcrcd to bc currcntly in cxccution.
execution in its body is also considered to be currently in execution.
ANiun Based Heuristics

Gcncrally, onc cxpccts agents to construct plans that thcy bclicvc thcy arc able to
Generally, one expects agents to construct plans that mey believe they arc able to
cxccutc: and thcy cxccutc lhcm only to achicvc goals that arc not prcscntly true.
execute: and mey execute mem only to achieve goals that arc not presently true.
?his givcs us two rules:
This gives us two rules:
011) Decrease the ruling of a parlial plait ifit confains
CHI) Decrease the rating oj a partial plall if it contains
on aclion whose precondirions arc false at the
an actioll whose preconditions are false at the
liltl~rhe aclion slarls execufing.
till1e the action starts executillg.

(H2) Decrease /he raritrg ofa parrial plan fi it co~itainsa

(H2) Decrease the rating oJa partial plan if it cOlltains a

pending or execuiit~gaciion whose egccts are rrue

pending or executing action whose effects are true

a / the iinre rhar rhe aclimtr contmences.
althe lime that the action commences.

Hcuristic HI implics that. if thc action is prcscr~tly in execution, then the

Heuristic HI implies that, if me action is presently in execution, men the
prcconditions should not havc bccn falsc when lhc action was initiated. It also
preconditions should not have been false when the action was initiated. It also
ilnplics that, if thc action is pcnding, thcn its prcconditions must bc achievcd
implies tllat, if the action is pending, then il~ preconditions must be achieved
within LIIC plan or must hc achicvahlc by a s i ~ n ~nlan.
l c As a first approximation to
within lhe plan or must be achievable by a simple plan. As a first approximation to
a silnplc plan, wc dcfilic it as a hyporhcsizcd plan consisting of a single action
a simple plan. we define it as a hypotllesized plan consisting of a single action
whosc prcconditions arc already true.
whose preconditions arc already true.

Allen

128

Expectation-Based Heuristics
111is
heuristic favors
Iliis hcuristic
favors those
thosc partial plans whose alternatives
altcrnativcs seem
sccrn most likely to
merge with thcir
their expectation.
expectation.
rncrgc

Increase the
par/ial plan if it;I contains
(H3)
(H3) Increase
rhr rating
rarbrg of
of a parrial
conlains
descriptions
drs~~ripriunsof
of objects
objerrs and relations
rrlalions i1l
in its
allrmotil'f
alrn-~rarisr thaI
rhar are unijiable
utliJiable wilh
with objects and
relalions
rclariorls ill
h its
irs expectation.
expeclarion.
The
unifiable is uscd
used here
the sense
the unification
algorithm
'lhc term
tcrm unili;~blc
hcrc in thc
scnsc of thc
unificatii~~i
algorithm found
found
rcrolutio~ithcorcrn
(scc [Nilsson
[Nilsson 1971]).
19711). Thus.
'lhus. ifan
if an alternative
altcrnativc involves
involves
in re'olution
theorem provers (sec
a train description,
train
description. those expectations
crpcctations that
Ui;~tinvolve
invulvc ao (compalihlc)
(o~rnp;~[ihlc)
[rain wilt
will be
hvorcd. Similarly,
Similarly. if an cxpcclation
cxpcchtion involves
involvcs a relation
rcl;~tionsuch as arrival time, its
favored.
alternative
jfitit also involves
altcrnative seems
scelns morc
rnorc favorable if
itivolvcs an etrrival
arrival time
timc relation.
relation.

Search Based Heuris~ics

Heuristics
Searell
The
remaining heuristics involve
partial plans should be
' b e rcrnaining
involvc evaluoting
cvalunting which parlial
considered
next
from
a
search
efficiency
point
of
view.
These
considcrcd
lhcsc measure
rncasure how
specific
relate to events
sp'ccitic the
thc plan fragment
lhgrncnt is hecoming.
bccorning. A
A couple
couplc of heuristics
heuristics rclatc
cvents that

produce important specializations

spccialiutions to the
thc plan, i.e.,
i.c., identifying
idcntifying referents
referents of
descriptions
thc speech
spcech act
descriptionsand identifying
identifying the
(H4)
Increase the
partial plar~
plun if/he
(H4) Increa~e
rlre rating
raling ola
of a porlial
i f i l ~ ereferent
referent
of
ils descriptions
descriptions is
is uniquely identified
idenrified
of one of
of its
Decrease the
description
Decrease
!he rating
rarirlg if
i/ itil contains
conlains a description
thaI
1101 appear to
possible rpferenl.
referent.
rhar does
doesnor
lo have a
apossible
(H5)
(HS) Tncrease
Increme the
lhe rating
raring 0/
of a partial plan if
if an
intersection
is
found
between
its
al/ernatiw!
inrersecrion fiund berwecrl
alrernarive and
ronrain the
/he same
sorile action or
expeclalion. ie.. they contain
expectalion.
goaL
goaL

The
'lhc final
final heuristic
hcuristic favors
favors alternatives
altcrnativcs that have
havc produced
produccd inferences
infercnccs that arc well
rated enough
bc applied.
ratcd
cnough to be
(H6)

Increase the
partial plan each time
Increase
rhe ralillg
rarirlg ofa
of a parrial
rime an
inference
i~ferencerule is applied

Finally, we end
cnd this section
scction with a few implemeotation
implcmcntatiun details. Each
Fach partial
Finally,
Heuristic H3 adds a fixed
plan has a ~ that is uscd
used to calculate its rating. Heuristic

129

factor of 5 for cach similarity found. (Thc actual valuc 5 has no effect on the
factor of 5 for each similarity found. (The actual value 5 has no effect on the
scarch except possibly for roundoff considcrations in thc rating calculation.) All
search except possibly for roundoff considerations in the rating calculation.) All
othcr hcuristics affect thc wcight by a rnultiplicativc constant.
other heuristics affect the weight by a multiplicative constant.
n l c tom1 wcight of all thc panial plans is uscd in calculating each plan's rating,
The total weight of all the partial plans is used in calculating each plan's rating.
Thc rating of a plan I' is simply the pcrccntagc ot'U~ctotal wcight rh;~tplan P has.
The rating of a plan P is simply the percentage of the total weight that plan P has.
'Ihc actual valucs of thc tnultiplicativc factors arc provided in 'Sable. 3.
The actual values of the multiplicative factors arc provided in Tabl~ 3.
-- -- .....
..- . . . -

Heuristic
Heuristic

HI

H1

H4
HS

H6

Preconditions false
Preconditions false
Effects true

H2

H4

l )cscriptioq
Ikscription

. .

Factor
Factor
.5

.5
.5

H4

liefcrcnt Idcntificd
Referent Identified

I.S

H4

Rcfercnt impossible
Referent impossible

.2

H5

In tcrscction found
Intersection found

I.S

H6

Inference Rulc applied

Inference Rule applied

1.25

1.5
.2

1.5
1.25

'TabIc 3 Thc multiplicativc factors for thc heuristics.

Table 31l1e multiplicative factors for the heuristics.

2.3.5 The Control of I'lan lnfcrencing

2.3.5 The Control of Illan Inferencing
As mcntioncd previously, partial plans arc modified and refined by a set of
As mentioned previously, partial plans are modified and refined by a set of
programs (tasks) that arc atrachcd to them. Whcn a task is uggcs~l.it is given a
programs (tasks) that are attached to them. When a task is slllzgcsted, it is given a
rating that is strongly dcpcndcnt on thc partial plan that ir is to manipulate and is
rating that is strongly dependent on the partial plan that it is to manipulate and is
placcd on a priority list according to this rating. l'hc top rated usk is always
placed on a priority list according to this rating. The top rated task is always
sclcctcd for cxccution and rcmoved from the list ?his scction dcscribcs the
selected for execution and removed from the list. This section describes the
various types of tasks.
various types of tasks.
It is important for scarch cfficicncy considcrations that Lhcrc be cxtcnsive
It IS important for search efficiency considerations that there be extensive
intcractions bclwecn thc cxpcctations and aItcrn;~rivcs. 'Ihc infonnation in an
interactions bel ween the expectations and alternatives. '111C infonnation in an
cxpcctation may spccify constraints on an altcrnativc that restrict what possible
expectation may specify constraints on an alternative that restrict what possible
infcrcnccs could be madc from it, and vicc versa. For instance, if both an
in ferences could be made from it, and vice versa. For instance. if both an
cxpcctation and an altcrnativc rcfcr to a train. thc trains arc assumed lo be
expectation and an alternative refer to a train, the trains are assumed to be
identical (unlcss thcy arc incompatible).
identical (unless they arc incompatible).
'I'hc initial set of partial plans consists of all pairings of an alternative
The initial set of partial plans consists of all pairings of an alternative

Allen

Allen

130

130

containing only thc obscrvcd action and one of the original cxpcctations. 'To allow
containing only the observed action and one of the original expectations. To allow
for thc possibility of an uttcrancc that docs not fit an cxpcctation, a partial plan is
for the possibility of an utterance that docs not fit an expectation, a partial plan is
also constructed with a null cxpcctation.
also constructed with a null expectation.
'Thc actual tiisks tliat pcrfonn thc plan infcrcncing can be dividcd into three
The aClUal tasks that perfonn the plan inferencing can be divided into three
classcs: those U~ntspccify thc structure of thc plans, thosc diat identify objccts on
classes: those U1at specify the structure of the plans, those that identify objects on
thc plans, and thosc that control thc scarch.
the plans, and those that control the search.

The l'lan ,Ypecil;~~'aliun

Tasks
The Plan SpecijicatiulJ Tasks
'Ihc plan spccification tasks ~ n a k cadditions to a plan hypothcsis according to the
The plan specific<ltion tasks make additions to a plan hypothesis according to the
infcrcncc rt~lcsdiscussed abovc. Altcrnativcs arc cxprmdcd using thc plan
inference rules discussed above. Alternatives arc expanded using the plan
infcrcncc rulcs and cxpcctations arc cxp;~ndcdi~singthc planning rulcs. Ilicre are
inference rules and expectations are expanded lIsing the planning rules. 111ere are
many occasions wlicn mutually cxclusivc rulcs can bc applicd. In such cases,
many occasions when mutually exclusive rules can be applied. In such cases,
copics of thc partial plan arc madc and onc rulc is applicd in cach, Whcn such a
copies of d1e partial plan arc made and one rule is applied in each. When such a
split occurs. thc rating of thc pnnial plan is dividcd bcrwccn its succcssors,
split occurs. the rating of the panial plan is divided between its successors.
,!r
and Exmtnd. Infer
f'laii specification is pcrfonncd by two tasks: &
Plan specification is perfonned by two tasks: Infer and Expand. Infer
cxa~nincsa plan and suggcsu possiblc infcrc~iccnllcs to apply. Expand actually
examines a plan and suggests possible inference niles to i1pply. Expand actually
applies rhcsc rulcs to modify thc partial plan. 'lhc prtmssing is dividcd to allow
applies these rules to modify the partial plan. '111e processing is divided to al!c>w
cxplicit control of the "fr~n-out"of thc scarch: whcn an Exnand is s u ~ c s t c dfrom
explicit control of Ule "fan>out" of the search: when an Expand is suggested from
an Infcr. its rating is dctcrmincd by thc rating or thc partial plan it concerns, plus
an Infer, its rating is determined by the mting of the partial plan it concerns, plus
an csti~natcof thc numbcr ofsplit$ i t will rnakc. I h c grcalcr the nutnbcr of splits,
an estimate of the number of spliL~ it will make. 1ne greater the number of splits.
thc lower thc rating (scc 'l'ablc 4). 'I'hc rclation bctwccn Lhcsc two is set so that the
the lower the rating (sec Tahle 4). The relation between these two is set so that ilie
copying (i.c.. thc splitting) will not bc done until the ncwly crcatcd partial plans
copying (i.e., the splitting) will not be done until the newly created partial plans
would bc suficicntly wcll-ratcd to produce tasks that arc competitive on the
would be sufficiently well-rated to produce tasks that arc competitive on ilie
agenda.
agenda.
The IdenliJy Task
The ldelltijy Task
'Ihc plan bcing infcrrcd will usually contain many dcscriptions of objccts whose
'Inc plan being inferred will usually contain many descriptions of objects whose
rcfcrcnts must bc identified. Sornc of tl~cscdcscriptions wcrc inuoduccd by the
referents must be identified. Some of these descriptions were introduced by ilie
uttcrancc ilsclf whilc othcrs arc introduccd by the infcrcnccs. As an cxample of
utterance itself while others are introduced by the inferences. As an example of
the laucr, in applying thc precondition-action rulc. thcrc may bc a paramctcr in an
the Iaucr. in applying the precondition-action rule. there may be a parameter in an
action definition h a t is not part of its prccondition. 'I'hus, this paramctcr will not
action definition dlat is not part of its precondition. Thus, this parameter will not
hc spccificd wl~cnLhc action is intnjduccd into thc plan. although thcrc may bc
be specified when the action is introduced into dle plan, although there may be
constri~inlson its rcfcrcnt irnp{iscd in thc i~ctiondefinition.
constraints on its referent imposed in the action definition.
Idikcwisc, cxisting dcscriptions may acquirc additional constr;~ints as the
Likewise. existing descriptions may acquire additional constraints as ilie
infcrcnccs arc ma&. An action introduccd into a hypothcsis may spccify
inferences are maJe. An action introduced into a hypothesis may specify
constraints on one of r i ~ cpararnctcrs in thc plan that unilicd with onc of its
constraints on onc of the parameters in ilie plan that unified with one of its
pararncters.
parameters.
'Ihus ncw dcscriptions may bc introduccd and old dcscriptions niay be further
'[nus new descriptions may be introduced and old descriptions may be further

D1

spccificd as thc infcrcnccs arc madc. F ~ c hti~ncsuch a changc occurs, an ldcntify

specified as the inferences arc made. 1--',.1ch time such a change occurs, an ~
task is si~gcstcdthat will attclnpt to find a rcfcrcnt.
task is suggested that will tlttempt to find a referent.
Nolc that sincc somc agcnt S is inferring another agcnt A's plan, all evaluation
Note that since Some agent S is inferring another agent A's plan, all evaluation
of dc~riptionsmust bc donc with rcspcct to what S bclicvcs A bclicvcs. In
of descriptions must be done with respect 0 what S believes A believes. In
gcncral, if S bclicvcs that thcrc is only onc object that A bclicvcs could fit the
general, if S believes that there is only one object that A believes could fit the
constraints, thcn it is thc rcfcrcnt. 'Ihis is in fact not a sufficient condition, but will
constraints, then it is the referent. This is in fact not a sumcient condition, but will
suit our pu~poscshcrc. {Pcrrault and Cohcn 19811 cxuminc rcfcrcncc problcms in
suit our purposes here. [perrault and Cohen 1981] examine reference problems in
detail.
detail.
Identification of rcfcrcnts may rcquirc thc usc of domain spccific infcrcnccs.
Identification of referents may require the use of domain specific inferences.
For cxamplc. in thc train dornaia. tiicrc is a nccd for an i~ifcrcnccrule that says.
For example, in the train domain, there is a need for an inference rule that says,
"If a train is dcscribcd ~ i r h o u ta tirnc spccification. thcn it is prt~bithlythe next
"I f a train is described wilhnut a time specification, then it is prubab1y the next
train that fits thc dcscriprion." Whclhcr such a heuristic could bc infcrrcd from
train that fits the description." Whether such a heuristic could be inferred from
thc gcncral strucrurc of plans. or whcthcr it is lruly domain specific, rcmains a
the general structure of plans. or whether it is truly domain specific, remains a
problcm. For cxamplc, if dic train domain wcrc cxtcndcd to also allow tclcphone
problem. For example. if the train domain were extended to also allow telephone
ci~llsfor informiition, this assu~nptionwould probably not bc valid.
calls for information. this assumption would probably not be valid.
The Scorch Corllrol Tasks
The Search Control Tasks

Most of thc control rncchanisms arc built into Lhc riiting schcmc and thc plan
Most of the control mechanisms arc built into the rating scheme and the plan
infcrcncing monitor. For instancc, cvcry tilnc an addition Is madc to an
infcrencing monitor. For instance, every time an addition Is made to an
altcrnativc, thc cxpcctations arc cxamincd for ncw sin~ilariticscauscd by the
alternative, the expectations arc examined for new similarities caused by the
addition. 'Ibis may causc a changc in thc ratings according to he
addition. This may cause a change in the ratings according to the
cxpcctation-bascd rating heuristics.
expectation-based rating heuristics.
Somc rncchanism must tcrminatc plan infcrcncing. 'lhis is donc by the task
Some mechanism must terminate plan infercncing. This is done by the task
Acccut. which is suggested by thc monitor whcncvcr an intcrscction of alternative
Accept, which is suggested by the monitor whenever an intersection of alternative
and an cxpcctation secms possiblc bccausc they contain unifiable specifications of
and an expectation seems possible because they contain unifiable specifications of
a stcp (i.e., an action or goal) in thc plan, or when thc plan with the null
a step (i.e., an action or goal) in the plan, or when the plan with the null
cxpcctation has twice as high a rating as any otllcr partial plan. Accc~tmust decide
expectation has twice as high a rating as any other partial plan. Accept must decide
whcthcr to tcrminatc thc plan infcrcncing or not. At prcscnt. thc tcrminalion
whether to terminate the plan inferencing or not. At present, the termination
condition is fairly simplc: if thc plan under consideration has a rating twice as high
condition is fairly simple: if the plan under consideration h<Js a rating twice as high
as any othcr partial plan. it is acccptcd. 'l'his is irnplc~nct~tcd
by suggesting a
as any other partial plan, it is accepted. This is implemented by suggesting a
will sit on thc pcnding list
dummy task at half the prcscnt [ask's rating. l'his ~ s k
dummy task at half the present (ask's rating. This task will sit Oil the pending list
until all bcttcr ratcd bsks havc cxccutcd. Whcn it comcs tu tllc top, if no other
until all better rated tasks have executed. When it comes tll the top, if no other
Acccnts havc bccn cxccutcd, the original altcrnativc is idcntificd as thc spcakcr's
Mcepts have been executed, the original alternative is identified as the speaker's
plan and plan infcrcncc stops. If another Accc~thas cxccutcd, thcre is an
plan and plan inference stops. If another Accept has executed, there is an
ambiguity, which can bc uscd to gcncratc cldrification subdialogues (scc [Allen
ambiguity, which can be used to generate clarification subdialogues (sec [Allen
and Pcrrault 19801).
and Perrault 1980)).

Allen

Allen

Task
Infer

132

Task

Katinx Formula
Rating Formula

Infer

.75 * R
.75 * R

Expand
Expand

.75 * K * f(n)
.75 * R * f(n)
whcrc Nn) = 1.25/n, whcrc n is thc numbcr of
where fln) = 1.25/n, where n is the number of
ncw pards1 plans to bc crcatcd by tllc Expand
new partial plans to be created by the Expand

Idcnlify

Accept

132

'I'ablc 4 'Ihc rating of tasks rcfativc lo ~ h ra~ing

c
(Li) of thcir partial plans.
Table 4 The rating oft<lsks relative to the rating (R) of their partial plans.

2.3.6 Obstacle Ilctection

Oncc S has infcrrcd thc spcakcis plan. thc ncxt step, in ordcr to bc helpful, is to
Once S has inferred the speaker's plan, the next step, in order to be helpful, is to
idcntify thc obstaclcs in bar plan. Most obs~aclcsthat wc arc conccmed about
identify the obstacles in tJlar plan. Most obstacles tilat we arc concerned about
involvc a lack of kno*lcdgc h a t is ncccssary in ordcr to cxccutc thc plan. For
involve a lack of kno....ledge lhat is necessary in order to execute the plan. For
cxamplc, if a proposition P is a goal in A's plan, and S bclicvcs that A docs not
example, if a proposition P is a goal in A's plan, and S believes that A docs not
know whcthcr I' holds. i.c., SB(h not KNOWIF P). thcn A KNOWIF P is an
know whether P holds, i.e., Sf3(A not KNOWn: P), lhen A KNOWIF P is an
obstaclc. Similarly, if thc plan involvcs a description, say "the x:lyx)," that S
obstacle. Similarly, if lhe plan involves a description, say "the x:D(x)," tilat S
belicvcs A docs not know the rcfcrcnt of, thcn "A KNOWIZEF thc x:D(x)" is an
believes A docs not know the referent of, tilen "A KNOWREF the x:D(x)" is an
obstaclc. Thcsc obstaclcs can be dcrivcd by applying the knowlcdgc-based plan
obstacle. These obstacles can be derived by applying the knowledge-based plan
constluction rulcs to each step in the plan. Ihis, of coursc, might not dctcct every
constIuction rules to each slep in tile plan. Tllis, of course, might not detect every
obstaclc in h c spcakcfs plan, since the cntirc plan of thc spcakcr may not be
obstacle in the speaker's plan, since tile entire plan of tile speaker may not be
infcrrcd. Only cnough of thc plan to link the obscrvcd uttcrancc to an expectation
inferred. Only enough oftlle plan to link the observed utterance to an expectation
is gcncrarcd by thc plan infcrcnce component.
is generated by the plan inference component
Givcn a sct of obsuclcs. Lhcrc are a few tcchniqucs uscful for dcciding which
Given a set of obstacles, L'lere arc a few techniques useful for deciding which
to address. For instancc, the obstaclcs can bc partially ordcrcd using thc ordcring
to address. For instance. the obstacles can be partially ordered using the ordering
constraints irnposcd by Ihc plan. In such cascs, any obstaclcs prior to a given
constraints imposed by the plan. In such cases. any obstacles prior to a given
obstaclc 0 must bc addrcsscd if 0 is to hc addrcsscd. For cxamplc, if A is
obstacle 0 must be addressed if 0 is to be addressed. For example, if A is
carrying grmcrics in his arms and nccds to pass through two doors, it docs no
carrying groceries in his arms and needs to pass through two doors, it docs no
good for S to opcn the scco~iddoor unlcss hc also opcns thc first.
good for S to open the second door unless he also opens the first
Anothcr cffcctivc filicr on thc obstacles involvcs considering which obstacles
Another effective fllter on the obstacles involves considering which obstacles
the hcarcr intcnded to communicarc. In particular, the goals that (S bclieves) A
the hearer intended to communicate. In particular, the goals that (5 believes) A
bclicves S can achicvc are most likcly to have bccn intcndcd by A. For example, in
believes 5 can achieve are most likely to have been intended by A. For example, in
the uain station scrting, thc clerk not only docs not sell tickcts, but he atso bclieves
the train station setting, the clerk not only docs not sell tickets, but he atso believes

133

As a consequence,
conscqucncc, although not having a tickct
that the patrons
palrons know this. lis
ticket may be
train, the clerk docs not expect thc
an obstacle in a plan to board a train.
the patron to ask
(bccausc he can't providc
him for a tickct
ticket (because
provide one).
The
believes that both S and II
'l'hc above
abovc arc useful
uscful strategies
stratcgics if S bclicvcs
A agree
agrcc on what
thc obstacles
obstaclcs in the plan afC.
arc. Huwcvcr,
disagrcc on some
somc issue,
issuc, special
special
the
However, if S and A
A disagree
obstacles
addrcsscd. For example,
cxamplc, if II
A thinks that state X
obstaclcs occur that must be addressed.
already
plao, but S bclicvcs
believes X docs not hold,
already holds and is depending
dcpcnding on X in his plan,
thea
mention this
tbis fact to II.
Otherwise, A's
II's plan will fail
thcn S is obliged
obligcd to mcntion
A. Othcrwisc,
fail and S will
bc considered
considcrcd as uncooperative.
unc~ropcrativc.In thc
rcvcrsc case,
case. if A
true.
be
the reverse
A thinks state X
X is not true,
tell A, for A may not execute
but S believes
hclicvcs it in fact already holds.
holds, tJ,en
then S shoold
should tcll
cxccute
wiil not succced,
his
(valid) plan bccausc
because hc
he thinks it will
his(v;~lid)
succecd.
,
There
class of obstacle
tJ,at is truly difficult
onc cl:lss
obstaclc that
dilficult to detect
dctcct but should
shouh be
'I'hcrc is one
considcrcd. IIf there
thcrc arc two goals
goal5 in a plan and one
onc is just a~ slep
stcp towards achieving
achicving
considered.
the
tJ,en Ulc
tJ,e hct~ristics
heuristics abovc
above will indicate
the first is the
indicatc that thc'first
thc only obstacle,
obstacle.
thc second,
sccond, tllcn
Huwever.
need to ever
Iiuwcvcr, in Some
solnc cases,
cascs, achieving
achicving the second
sccond eliminates
climinatcs the nccd
cvcr (E\'cn
(hen
achiccc thc
cxa~nplc.if A and S arc in a lockcd
temporarily) achieve
the lirst. Rlr
For example,
locked room and A
asks S wllere
key to the
tlle door is, S might dcducc
deduce the
whcrc tJ,e
UIC kcy
Ule following
filllowi~iggoals:

whcrc key
kcy is" in order
ordcr to "Gel
"Gct thc
open."
"A know where
the door open."
If S opens Ulc
U,e door himsclf,
himself, say by some
key, thcn
then
somc means
mcans other
othcr than using the kcy,
knowing thc
kcy's location becomes
bccomcs irrelevant.
irrelevant. Howcvcr,
dctccting
the goal of knowing
the key's
However. detecting
such situations is quitc
quite dilficult
difficult and beyond tJ,e
the prcscnt
present work, for it
thc scope of thc
may involvc
involve considering the
the future
thc speaker's
spcakcr's plan to an arbitrary distance
distance into Lhc
with no wcll'dclincd
welldefined tennination
tcnnination condition.
l'hc algorithm used in thc
system involves
involvcs tcsting
statcmcnt in the
Tbe
the system
testing every goal statement
preferences:
plan. Obstacles arc selected
sclcctcd using the
thc following
following prcfcrences:

I) those goals that S and II

A disagree
disagrcc about
1)
wbether they hold or not;
whcthcr
2)
tbose goals that arc explicitly
2) thosc
explicitly indicated as
obstacles
by the
utterance, i.c.,
Le.. the
inference path from
obstaclcs hy
thc uttcrancc,
thc infcrencc
the
thc surface
surfacc speech
spccch act to an expected
cxpcctcd goal
gual includes
ir~cludcsthe
obstacle;
obstacle;
3) thosc
tbose obstacles
that prohibit
prohihit the pcrk~rmancc
performance
~~bstaclcs
of thc
the actions
actions that arc partially enabled by the goals in
class
class 2);
2): and

Allen

l34

4) rhosc obstacles that are not "prcccdcd" by

4)
those
obstacles
that arc not "preceded" by
othcr
gods
in the plan.
other goals in thc plan.

lhc algorithm rcturns thc sct of obstaclcs in the highest prcfcrcncc class that is not

The algorithm returns the set of obstacles in the highest preference class that is not
crnpty.
empty.

2.4 Exs~nplcsof HclpTul Responses

2.4 EXlllnplcs of Helpful Responses
'Ihis scction provides two cxarnplcs of hclpful rcsponscs that can bc produccd
'l1lis section provides two examples of helpful responses that can be produced
using tllc plan infcrcncc and obsraclc detection proccsscs. 'I'l~c first shows a
using the plan in ference and obstacle detection proccsses. The tirst shows a
simplc response that providcs morc infonnntion than was explicitly rcqucstcd. it is
simple responsc that provides more information than was explicitly requested. It is
dcscribcd in some dct;~illo givc ;in idea of tllc octual plan infcrcncc rncchal~ismsin
described in some dctailw give an idea oftl1c actual plan inference mechanisms in
operation. ' 1 7 1 ~second cxaniplc considers a ycs/no question and shows why extra
operation. '1l1C second example considers a yes/no question and shows why extra
infonnation should bc provided if tl~canswcr is negative.
infonnation should be provided jf the answer is negative.
Ijcrore thc cxa~nplcsarc prcscntcd, the train domain ir spccificd (Scctiun 2.4.1)
Before t11e examples are presented. the train domain is specified (Section 2.4.1)
and definitions arc given for thc specch acts (Section 2.4.2).
and definitions arc given for thc spcech acts (Section 2.4.2).

2.4.1 The Train Domain

1'hc setting for the cxamplcs is thc train stition information booth, S is thc system
The setting for the examples is the train station information booth, S is thc systcm
playing thc role o f thc information clerk, and A is a patron at thc station. The
playing the role of !.he in formation clerk, and A is a patron at me station. The
non-linguistic actions rclcvant to thc sirnplc train domain are:
non-linguistic actions relevant to the simple train domain are:

nOARD(agcnt,train.slation)

applicability conditions: SOURCFitrain,station),

applicability
L)13conditions:
'Al<r.I.OC(tSOURCr-:(train,station),
rain,loc),I~~:PAR'l'.'fIMF~train,timc)
DEPART.I.oC(train,loc). DEPART.T1MF.(train,time)
precondition: Al'(agcnf loc, time)
prccond ition: AT(agent, loc, time)

cffcct: ON l3OARIl(agcnt,uain)
cffcct: ON BOA RD(agent,train)

135
MEI-Y(agcnt. train, station)
train, station)
applicability condirions: IlESl'(train,station),
applicability
conditions: DEST(train,station).
hl~1ZIVF,.I,OC(train,l~~),
hllRIVE.'I'lM Eitrain,time)
ARRIVE.LOC(train,loc), ARRIVE.TlM E(train,time)

MEl-~nagent,

prccondiric~n:Arr(agcnt, loc, time)

precondition: I\T(agent, loc, time)
effect: M lT(agcn m a i n )
effect: MET(agent,train)
S's expectations arc thc partially instantiated plans formcd from the following
S's expectations are the panial1y instantiated plans formed from the following
action instantiations with rhcir prccunditions and cffccs:
action instanti<ltions with their preconditions and efTects:
BOARD(A. <train>, TORONTO)
MEET(A. <train>. TOI~ONTO)

whcrc the anglc brackets (<...>) indicate unspccificd paramctcrs in the

where the angle brackets (C. indicate unspecified parameters in the
cxpcctalions. At the start of prtxcssing, lhcrc are thrcc partial plans cacll with a
expectalions. At the start of processing, there are three panial plans cilch with a
null altcr~~ativc
and each conuining one of thc 130ARl), MEI-Yl', or NULL
null alternative and each cOnlaining one of the BOARD, MEEr, or NULL
cxpcctations. 'I'hc first cxamplc shows tllat the numbcr of cxpcctations could be
expectations. The first example shows that the number of expectations could be
incrcascd without greatly affecting the combinatorics of the scarch.
increa~ed without greatly affecting the combinatorics of the search.

2.4.2 l'hc Spccch Act Definitions

2.4.2 The Speech Act Definitions
' h c speech act definitions provided hcrc are vcry superficial, A more adequate
The speech act definitions provided here are very superficial. A more adequate
account will be givcn in the discussion of indirect spccch .acts in Scction 5. The
account will be given in the discussion of indirect speech .acts in Section 5. The
lNFORM speech a c t which is typically rcalizcd as a dcclarativc sentcncc, is
INFORM speech act, which is typically realized as a declarative sentence. is
defined as follows:
defined as follows:
INFORM(spcaker, hearer, P)
INFORM(speaker. hearer, P)
precondition: speaker KNOW P
precondition: speaker KNOW P
etyect: hearer KNOW P
etfect: hearer KNOW P
For an agcnt h to sinccrcly inform an agent H that P is truc. h must bclicvc that P
For an agent A to sincerely infonn an agent H that P is true. A must believe that P
is truc [thc precondition). and he must intend to get 11 to know that P is true (the
is true (the precondition), and he must intend to get H to know that P is true (the
cffcct of a succcssful inform). Sincc INFOIIM is an intentional act, we also have
effect of a successful infonn). Since INFORM is an intentional act, we also have
the axiom
the axiom

Allen

136

INFORM(spcaker,hearer,P) :J
WANT(speaker,INFORM(speaker,hearer,P))

Notc that this action cannot succccd without thc cooperation of the hcarcr, for
Notc that this action cannot succeed without the cooperation of the hearer, for
only thc hcarcr can changc his own bclicfs.
only the hearer can change his own beliefs.
In many cascs. agcnts rcnson about inform acts to bc pcrfor~ncd(by others or
In many cases. agents reason about infonn acts to be performed (by others or
thcrnsclvcs) whcrc thc information for thc propositional contcnt is not known at
themselves) where the in fonnation for the propositional content is not known at
thc lime of planning. For cxamplc, A may plan for S to info~mA whcthcr P is
the time of planning. For example. A may plan for S to infolm A whether P is
truc: A cannot plan for S to pcrfonn INFOlIM(S.A,I') sincc this asstlmcs that P is
true: 1\ cannot plan for S to perfonn IN~ORM(S.I\Y) since this assllmes that P is
tnlc. 'l'hus we nccd t w o other "vicws" of thc INFORM act: INFORMIF and
trlle. Thus we need two other "views" of the INFORM act: INFORMIF and
1 NFOIIM 1ZF.F. (I-row now on. t l ~ c"want-precondition" axioms will bc omitted):
INFORM REF. (From now on, the "want-precondition" axioms will be omitted):

INFORM ll-lspcnkcr, hcarcr, P)

INFORMIF(spcakcr, hearer, P)
precondition: spcakcr KNOWIF P
precondition: speaker KNOWIF P
elTect: hcarer KNOWIF P
and

and
INFOIIM R F.F(spcakcr, hcarcr, dcscription)
INFORM REF(speaker, hearer, description)

prccondition: spcakcr KNOWREF description

precondition: speaker KNOWREF description
cffcct: hcarcr KNOWREF dcscription
effect: hearer KNOWREF description
Onc. firthcr spccch act that we nccd models. one agcnt requesting
One. furthcr speech act that we need models one agent requesting
another agcnt to do some action:
another agent to do some action:
REQUES'I@pcakcr, hearer, action)
REQUEST(speaker, hearer, action)
cffcct: hcarcr WANT (hcarcr DO action)
effect: hearer WANT (hearer 00 action)
'lhc following cxamplcs show typical realirations of thcse spccch acts in English.
The following examples show typical realizations of these speech acts in English.
"lhc train lcavcs at 3" intcndcd literally is an
"lhe train leaves
at tlliit
3" thc
intended
literally
IN1:OIZM
train lcavcs
at 3. is an
INFORM that the train leaves at 3.
"Opcn thc door" inlcndcd litcrally is a REQUEST that
"Open the door"
inlend~d literally is a REQUEST that
thc hcarcr
opcn the door.
the hearer open the door.

137

"Docs thc train lcavc at 3" intcndcd literally' is a

"Docs the train leave at 3" intended literally' is a
REQUESI' that thc hearer
inform
REQUEST
that Lhc
the speaker
hearerwhcthcr
infonn
(INFORMIF)
the train
(INFORMIF)
the speaker whether the train
lcavcs at 3.
leaves at 3.

For the time bcing, wc will assume that all spccch acts are rcali7.cd in thcir literal
For the time being, we will assume that all speech aCIS arc realized in their literal
fonn, and thus can bc easily idcntificd from thc input utterance.
fonn. and tims can be easily identified from the input utterance.

2...1.3 Examph.' I: PrOlitiing !\fore Information than nequcstcd

This is a vcry simplc cxan~plclo give an idca of tllc plan infcrcncc pnxcss in
1l1is is a very simple example to give an idea of the plan inference process in
operation. It has bccn inodificd from t l ~ cway tllc acti~alsystem runs so it can bc
operation. It has been modified from the way tile aCllIal system TUns so it can be
dcscribcd in rcnns of I l l c simplc vicw of partial plans as onc cxpccration and one
described in tenns of the simple view of partial plans as one expectation and one
alternative.
alternative.
1-ct rhc obscrvcd action be:
Let the observed action be:
REQUEST(A,S,INFORMREF(S.A,timcl))
where

whcre
TIMf--{timcl) 1\ DEPART.TIME(trainl,timel)
TRAIN(trainl) 1\ DEST(trainl,WINDSOR).

Such an action could bc constructed from an uttcrancc such as

Such an action could be constructed from an utterance such as
"Whcn does the vain to Windsor lcavc?"
"When docs the train lO Windsor leave?"
This action specifics an action clustcr consisting of a Rt;QUEST to
This action specifics an action cluster consisting of a REQUEST to
INFORMREF that is added to thc plan altcrnativc in each partial plan. The
INFORMREF that is added to the plan alternative in each partial plan. The
partial plans arc thcn cxamincd fir sirnilaritics. Within thc I3OARI) plan is the
partial plans arc then examined fix similarities. Within the BOI\ RD plan is the
definition of an insuncc of thc IIDARI) action. with its prccondirions and cffccts.
definition of an instance of the BOI\RD action, with its preconditions and effects.
Thcrcforc thc objccts A, thc train tu Windsor, and thc 13Ill'AICf.'I'IMI=. rclation
Therefore the objects A, the train to Windsor, and the DEPI\RT.TIME relation
arc folind in both h e altcrnativc and cxpcctation (adding a wcight of 20 to the
arc found in both the alternative and expectation (adding a weight of 20 to the
plan m makc a total of 25). 'Ihc train descriptions in Lhc altcrnativc and
plan to make a total of 25). The train descriptions in the alterl1<ltive and
cxpcctation arc mcrgcd to form a morc coinplc~cdcscriptio~l.LC., both thc source
expectation are merged to fimn a more complete descriptioll, i.e., both the source
('I'ORON'\'O) and d ~ cdcsrinadon (WINI>SOR) arc known. With thc MEET
(TORONTO) and tile destination (WINDSOR) are known. With the MEET
plan, only A is found to bc similar (giving it a total wcight of 10). 'Ihc train
plan, only A is found to be similar (giving it a total weight of 10). '{he train
dcscription in thc MEET plan is found to bc incompatible with thc train
description in the MEET plan is found to be incompatible with the train
dcscription in the altcrnativc. If thcrc wcrc other cxpcctations, thcy would be
description in the alternative. If there were other expectations, they would be

Allen

Allen

138

138

ralcd similarly, but most would probably have little in common with the
rated similarly, but most would probably have little in common with the
uttcrancc, and so would start o f f poorly ratcd. 'Jhc null cxpcctation plan surts
utterance, and so would start off poorly rated. The null expectation plan starts
with its tokcn wcight of 5.
with its token weight of S.
'I'hc initial ratings arc calculated as follows. Thcrc is a total weight of 40
The initial ratings arc calculated as follows. There is a total weight of 40
assigncd to thc Lhrcc partial plans. 'l'hc board plan, with a wcight of 25, rcccivcs a
assigned to the three partial plans. The board plan, with a weight of 25, receives a
rating of 62; the mcct plan, with 10, rcccivcs 24: and tllc null plan rcccivcs 12.
rating of 62; the meet plan, with 10, receives 24; and the null plan receives 12.
Aftcr this initial prtxcssing, thc partial plans arc as in Figures la and lb.
After this initial processing, the partial plans arc as in Figures la and lb.
'I'hc initial tasks suggcstcd are:
The initial tasks suggested are:
1) ldcntify rhc train in thc IIOARI) plan, ratcd 62.
I) Identify the train in the BOARD plan, rated 62.

2) Infcr from thc IIEQUESTact clustcr in thc IIOARD

2) Infer from the REQUEST act cluster in the BOARD
plan, rated 46
plan, rated 46
(i.c.. 75 x 62).
(Le., .15 x 62).
3) Idcntify thc trains in Blc MEI-T plan. rated 25.
3) Identify the trains in the MEET plan, rated 25.

4) Infcr from thc REQUESI' act clustcr in lhe MEET

4) Infer from the REQUEST act cluster in the MEET
plan. rated 19.
plan, rated 19.

5) Idcntify thc train in thc NU1,I. plan, rated 12.

5) Identify the train in the NULL plan, rated 12.
6) Infcr from thc REQUESI' act cluster in thc NULL
6) Infer from the REQUEST act cluster in the NULL
plan, rated 9.
plan, rated 9.
Idetzffiing the Truin in /he BOARD Plan
Identifying the Train in tile BOARD Plan

ldcntifying thc train in rhc 110AR13 plan succeeds, the assumption bcing made
Identifying the train in the BOARD plan succeeds, the assumption being made
that the ncxt train leaving is thc onc intended unlcss thc spcakcr says otherwise.
tl1at the next train leaving is me onc intended unless the speaker says otherwise.
I h u s train1 is idcntificd with an cntry in t t ~ cschcdulc, say EN'I'RY-TRAIN17.
Thus trainl is identified with an entry in the schedule, say ENTRYTRAIN17.
'['his providcs further cvidcncc [hat thc HOAR11 plan is the correct onc, increasing
This provides further evidence that the BOARD plan is the correct one, increasing
Ulc 110AR11 plan's rating to71 (wcight 37) at thc cxpcnsc of thc othkr partial plan
the BOA RD plan's rating to 71 (weight 37) at the expense of the other partial plan
ratings.
ratings.

139

'lllC

'Ihc IlOAlll) plan (ratcd 611):

BOARD clill:J. (rated 62):

Tile cxpcctation:

111C expectation:
~AkU(A,trainl.'l'ORON'rO)

I..

DOAkD(A,trainl.l'ORONTO)

cnabk

ble

AT(A,1ocI,timeI}
'Ibe alternative:

(I) REQUI~r(A,S.JNFORMREF(S,A.timcl):

I~

(2)S WANr lNFORMREF(S,A,timcl)

whcre
where
'I'RiZlN(tr;~inl)A SOU I~Cll(traiiiI,'~OKONNI'O)
A
TRAIN(trainl) /\l?l~Sl'(tr;li~il,WINI)SOK)
SOURCE(trainl,TORONTO) /\
I)J:ST(tmin[:(triiin
I,WINDSOR)
-- I )i~l'~~l<'l'.'I'l~.l
1,titncl)
-I)n''\RT.TiMI~lrainl,timcl)
-- l)lSIJA f~1'.L.OC(lrainI,loc~)
-- DEI'ART.LOC(lrainl,loc1)

--

E'igurc l a 'I'hc initiirl sct of pilrlii~lpliins (initial part).

Figure la The initial set of parLial plans (initial part).

TIl(' Illfer allJ Expalld Cycle

'Ihc&r t;ak 011 tl~cUOi\l<I) plan (oow 13tcd 53) is cxcctitcd. Inferring from (2)
'1l1C Infer task on the BOARD plan (now rOlLed 53) i~ exeClited. Infcrring from (2)
in thc I10ARI3 plan, tllc cffcct of tl~c1<11QUk:S;'l' finds only Ihc w;~ilt-actionrule
in the BOARD plan, the effc~l of thi: REQU EST finds only the wilnt"[Iction rule
i~pplicablc. i\n F x I~ l ~
s kis ~
suggcstcd (r;lrcd 53). which ilnmcdiatcly cxccutes,
applicable. An Exp;Jnd L;\sk is suggesled (raled 53). whichimm('diatcly executes,
sincc it is thc bcsr ratc11 task, adding tlic action
since it is the best raled task, adding the action
(3) INFOlu'1REF(S,I\,timel)

Addcd in thc rrctior~clustcr will1 (3) is its cffcct

Added in the <lclian cluster with (3) is iL" effect

(4) A KNOWREF timel

140

Allen

'lllc MI:ITI' ~ I a n(rated 25):

'111(' MI~Er rrbn (rated 25):

'I'hc cxpcctation:
The expectation:
MIiEl'(A.tnin2;TOHONTO)

MEHl'(A.train2.TORONTO)

1aub~

AT(A.Ioc2,time2)
'Ihc altcmtive:
The alternative:
(I) KlQUI:SI'(A,S,l NFOKMHEt:(S.A,limcJ)
(I) REQUPSI'(A.S,INFORMREF(S.A.lime3):

!-,

[cflmt

(2) S WANT IN1QRMRW:(S.A.tinlc3)

(2)5 WANT INFORMRfJ"(S.A.timc3)
where
-- TH,\ IN(lr"in"2) 1\ DEST(train2.TORONTO)
-. ARRIVE.Tli\lI:(tr:lin2,limcZ)
--I\RRIVE.1.0C'{train2.1nc2)
.- TRAIN{trainJ) /\ DEST(train3.W1NDSOR)
. DEPART.TI MF(trnin3,timc3)

'I'hc null tjlnn (cltcd 12) contains only thc altcrnstivc as dcscribcd abovc in the
The ill!!! plnn (rated 12) contains only the alternative as described above in the
MEt<I' plan,
MEET plan.

Figtlrc Ib 'llw ini~ialsct of pnrtir~lpliuls (concluded).

Figure 1b '1l1e initiul settlf p:lrtial plans (conduded),

and ;nlotllcr I f % task is suggcslcd fi.on~(4). Sincc an infcrcncc~hmhccn applied,

and another MIT lask is suggested from (4). Since an inference has heen applied,
the IiOARI) pl;:n's ri~tingis increased (heuristic 116) In 75 (\vcight 46). ' n ~ i slnfcr
the BOAR J) pl,m's rating is Increased (heuristic lIrl) 10 75 (weight 46). 'n1is Infer
itnd I<rlland cycle is cxccutud i)g;\iil. 'I'hc know-tcnn r111ctinds a link hctwccn (4)
and FXj1,IllQ cycle is executed again. The know-term rule finds a link between (4)
and thc I)l~l'Al~'l'.'I'IMF~rclatitm in the prccolldilion to tllc IlOARll iation
und the DEPA RT.TI ME rdatioll in the precondition to the BOA RD ilction
cxycctalian. 'Ihc ~llonitornoticcs tllis intcrscction l~ctwccntlic nltcruntiuc and the
expectation, '111e [llonitor notices this intersection between the altcrtlntive and the
cxpcclation (nntl bas)sw thc ratinz by heuristic 115, to Q?(wcight O?)), and suggcsls
expectation (nnd boosts the rating by heuristic IIS, to 82 (weight (9, and suggests
an Acccpt r;ak (r:~tcri82). '1'1ii1;task tcmiin;~tcsthc plan infcrcncc for thcrc arc no
an !\ccrpt ta~k (rated 82). Thi~; task tcm1inatcs the plan inference for there arc no
otlicr wcll-rated hypoU~cscs.'l'hcfinal plan is sllown in Figurc 2.
()th~r well-rated hypotheses. The final plan i~ shown in Figure 2,

141

nOARD(A,tminI.TORONTO)

1,n,h1,

AT(A,Ioc1,timel)

1know

KNOWlZ F.F(A.timc1)
KNO\VRF.F(A.limcl)

I1
eff"ct

c ffcct

INFOIZM I{l:t:(S,A,tirncl)

INFORM REF(S,A,timcl)

want-cnable
1wanl-enable
WA~~I'(S.INI:OI~~~IZI-:F(S.A,~~I~~~))

\V ANT(S.lNI ;ORMREF(S.A,timcI

f effeCI

cffcct

REQU ES' r(A,S,INFOR MREF<S.A.timel

where
-- FQ(traiIlI.ENTRY-TRAIN17)
_. [)I:I'A RT.Tl MF~trair.l.timcl)

_. DEPI\ RT.LOC(traitll ,loci)

Figurc 2 l'hc lin;il plan fragtncnt

Figure 2 The final plan fragment

---

S now pcrfi)mir i l ncxt

~ ~stcp to I~cll)A. namcly, fi~rd~ l i cobst;~clcsin h's plan
Snow pcrfonm the next stcp to help A. namely, lind the obswclcs in A's plan
and s~:lrct from thcln somc go;ll< to nchicvc. 0 n c ol)st;~clcis stc~igh~hrward.
A
and sdcrt from them wmc goals to ilehicvc. One obstacle is Slr;lightforward, A
h i ~ scxplicitty indic;r\cd thc goal of knowing the dcp;~rtrlrctinic of thc train.
has explicitly indicated the gO<1[ of knowing the dep;ll'tllre time of the train.
I lowcvcr. S cxn~ni~lcs
tllc ~ l ; ftlrll~cr
~n
and lillds ill1 inrl>liti~
ol)l;t;~clcthat A nccds
However, S examines the plan further and nnds an implicit obstacle that A needs
to kllow thc dcparturc locrl~ion. S acccpts 111csc gu.11~as his own nod pli~nsm
10 know the <.!cpanurc location. S accepts Illesc go.lls as his own ilnu plans to
ocliicvc cach goal siirlply wit11 an infonn. Whcn this plan is cxcc~~tcd,
o~rtputis
achieve each goal simply with ;1Il inform. When this plan is cxet:uted, output is
produccd that corresponds to Lhc IJnglish uttenlnccs:
produced that corresponds to the English utler<lnces:

"'l'hc train Icavcs 31 1600''

"The train leaves <It 1600"
"The min leaves from Gate 7"

An illtcl.csling p~~oblcln
rcrn~insas to how S coulti have p1;111ncdlo ;tchicuc
An intereslin3 probklll rcmJi ns as to how S ('(1uld have pJanncd 10 achieve
both goiils with a singfc r~ttcrdnccsuch as

bmh goals with a single IltlcrJlll:c such Zig

Allen

142
" 1600 at Gate 7"
"1600 at Gate 7"

How docs onc construct a plan to achicvc multiple goals simultancously? It may
How does one construct a plan to achieve multiple goals simultaneously? It may
bc possiblc that thc specifications would bc simply Scnl to a gcncration phase (sce
be possible that the specifications would be simply sent to a generation phase (see
Chaptcr 4 of this volumc) which could dctcct thc similaritics and collapsc thc two
Chapler 4 of this volume) which could detect the similarities and collapse the two
utteranccs into one.
ullerances into one.

2.4.4 Example II: AYes/No Qucstion Ansncrcd No

In this scction wc considcr nnswcring a qucstion such as "13ocs thc Windsor train
In this section we consider answering a question such as "Docs the Windsor train
lcavc at 4?". Assumc that this uttcrnncc idcnrifics thc action
leave al 41", Assume lh,lt this utterance identifies the action
REQUEST(A.S,INFORM IF(S,A,DEPART.TIMI:{train1 ,1600)
where
TR1\IN(train1) A CITY-REI.ATJON(trainl,Windsor)

CIIY-IZEI.A'rION is a paltcrn that will match thc prcdicatc names DEST and
CITYRELATION is a pattern that will match the predicate names DEST and
SOUI<CE. I h c infcrc~lccsfrom this action will cvcntually producc the goal (by
SOURCE. The inferences from this action will eventually produce the goal (by
applying thc action-cffcct mlc, thc want action rutc, and thcn the action-effect
applying the action-effect rule, the want action rule, and then the action-effect
rule).
rule).
h KNOWIF I.EAVE(trainl,1600).
1\ KNOWIF I.EAVJ--:(tra in 1,1600).

' 1 % ~possiblc knowledge-based rules suggcst goals for A such as

The possible knowledge-based rules suggest goals for /\ such as
"A wants thc train to lcavc at 4" [know-positive]
..1\ wants the train to leave at 4" [know-positive]
"A wants the train not to lcavc at 4" [know-negative]
..1\ wants the train not to Icave at 4" [know-negative]

"A wants to know what train lcavcs at 4" [know-value]

"/\ wants to know what train leaves at 4" [know-value]
"A wants to know when thc train Icavcs" [know-valuc]
"1\ wants to know when the train leaves" [know-value]

143
'Ihc first thrcc of thcsc possibititics do not lcad to rensonahlc plans (i.~.,they do
The Ill'st three of these possibilities do not lead to reasonahle plans (Le., they do
not allow infcrcnccs that Icad to a mcrgc with an cxpcclation). For cxamplc, none
not allow inferences that lead to a merge with an expectation). For example, none
of UIC cxpcctations involvcs a subgoal of knowing what train lcavcs at 4. l'hc latter
of the expect.ations involves a subgoal of knowing what train leaves at. 4. The latter
goal lcads to a rcasonablc plan directly: applying d ~ cknow-tcrrn rulc from it
goal leads to a reasonable plan directly: applying the know-term rule from it
prtduccs a conncction to thc tl~irdargumcnt of thc prccondition to tllc IlOARD
produces a connection t.o the t.hird argument of the precondition to the BOARD
action, nalncly
action, namely
AT(A,locl.timcl)
where

whcre
DEPA RT.I.OC(train UncI)
DEPARTTIMl-:(trainl,timel).

Possiblc obstaclcs in this plan arc found to bc thc cxplicilly mcntio~lcdgoal of

Possible obstacles in this plan arc found to be the explicitly mentioned goal of
krlowing whcthcr thc train Ica~csat 1600. pl11s the obstuclcs of knowing the
knowing whether the train lca\es at. 1600, plus the obstacles of knowing the
dcparturc limc and Itxation. Far thc sakc of clarity. Ict us assurnc that thc Itration
departure time and location. For the sake of clarity, let. us assume that the location
is alrcady known in this cxnrnplc. 'Il~cobstacles remaining arc
is already known in this example. '1l1e obstacles remaining are
KNOWIF (A,DEPART.Tl MF,(trainl, 1600
KNOWREF (A,timel)

whcre DEPAR'IS.'flMlXtrain1,timel).
where DEPART.TIME(trainl,timel).

If the answcr to the original qucry were "ycs," thcn both thcse goals would be
If the answer to the original query were "yes," then both these goals would be
accornplishcd by answering thc query as a ycs/no question. Rut if the answer is
accomplished by answering the query as a yes/no question. But if the answer is
"no," only the first obstaclc is achieved by tl~cycs/no answcr. The second
"no," only the first obstacle is achieved by t.he yes/no answer. The second
obstaclc accounts for thc cxtra information.
obstacle account.s for the extra information.
This example rcflccts a gcncral point. When a person asks about the mth of
This example renects a general point. When a person asks abollt the truth of
somc proposilion that happens to bc false, s/hc often is intcrcstcd in a rclatcd, m e
some proposition that happens to be false, s/he often is interested in a related, true
proposition. 'I'hc main problcm is dctcnnining how to modify thc original
proposit.ion. 'Inc main problem is det.ennining how to modify the original
proposition to makc it truc. Our fcding is that with rcspcct to a givcn sct ofgoals.
proposit.ion to make it true. Our feeling is that, wit.h respect. to a given set of goals,
Lhc objects refcrrcd to by Lhc tcrrns in a proposition can usually be ordcrcd by
the objects referred to by the t.erms in a proposition can usually be ordered by
somc criteria rcflccting thcir importancc in the plan. 'I'hc morc important the
some crit.eria reflecting their importance in the plan. 'Inc more important the
term, the less likely it is that it is what is wrong in thc proposition. We suggest that
term, the less likely it is that it is what is wrong in the proposit.ion. We suggest that
a major indicator of a lcrm's importancc is how high up in the hierarchy of
a major indieat.or of a term's importance is how high up in the hierarchy of
subgoals Lhe term is first introduced.
subgoals the term is first introduced.
In the exarnplc above, the train description was introduced in the top lcvcl
In the example above, the train description was introduced in the top level
goal of boarding the train. while the departure time was introduccd (in terms of
goal of boarding the train. while the departure time was introduced (in terms of

Allen

Allen

144

144

thc train) in thc subgoal created by thc precondition of thc boarding action. 'lhis
the train) in the subgoal created by the precondition of the boarding action. 'Ibis
approach sccrns to bc quitc gcncral, As an cxarnplc, considcr a co-operative
approach seems to be quite general. I\.s an example, consider a cooperative
rcsponsc citcd by Kaplan (Chapter 3 of this volurnc).
response cited by Kaplan (Chapter 3 of this volume).
( l a ) Is John a scnior?
(la) Is (Ib)
JohnNo,
a senior?
hc's a junior
(lb) No, he's ajunior
[t rnakcs littlc scnsc to considcr an answcr out of contcxt. For instance, if 1 am a
It makes little sense to consider an answer out of context. For instance, if I am a
profcssor nccding a scnior to do somc projcct for mc, a morc appropriatc rcsponse
professor needing a senior to do some project for me, a more appropriate response
to my qucry (la) would be
to my query (1a) would be

"No, but Sam is"

"No, but Sam is"
'I'his is bccausc my goaI of finding a scnior is a supcrgoal of thc goal of finding out
This is because my goal of finding a senior is a supergoal of the goal of finding out
thc rcsponse that i~ddrcsscsthc highcr lcvcl goal is more
John's status. '111~1s
John's status. 'llllls the response that addresses the higher level goal is more
appropriatc. If, on thc othcr hand, my goal wcrc to find out morc about John, then
appropriate. If, un the other hand. my goal were to find out more about John, then
knowing John's status would bc morc important than knowing who is a scnior.
knowing John's status would be more important lhan knowing who is a senior.
hcncc rcsponsc (lb) would bc appropriate.
hence response (lb) would be appropriate.

2.5 lndircct Spccch Acts

2.5 Indirect Speech Acts

Thc indircct spccch act probicm is bcst introduced by an example. Consider the
The indirect speech act problem is best introduced by an example. Consider the
plan that must bc infcrrcd in order to answcr (1)with (2):
plan that must be inferred in order to answer (1) with (2):
Do you know when the Windsor train leaves?
Yes, at 3: 15.
(2)
S:
(2) S:
Yes, at 3: 15.

A: you know when the Windsor train leaves?

(1) A: (1) Do

Thc goal inferred from thc literal intcrprctation is that

The goal in ferred from the literal interpretation is that

(3) A KNOWIF (S KNOWREF "dcpanure time").

(3) I\. KNOWIF (S KNOWREF "departure time").
Applying thc know-positivc rulc, wc obtain the goal
I\.pplying the knowpositive rule, we obtain the goal

(4) S KNOWliEF "departure time"

(4) S KNOWREF "departure time"
which enables P to pcrform the action (prccondition-action rule)
which enables P to perform the action (precondition-action rule)
( 5 ) INFORMREF(S,A,"dcparture time")
(5) INFORMREF(S,I\.,"deparlure time")

145

rule)
to achieve
acliicvc the goal (actioneffect
(action-cffcct rulc)
(6) A
A KNOWI<I'.P"dcparturc
KNOWREF "departure time"

(2) indicates that hc

S's rcsponsc
response (2)
he bclicvcd
believed that bod1
bOtll (3) and (6) were
obstacles Uiat
tl,at S could overcome,
ovcrcome.
uttered in a cootext
However. sentences
Howcvcr.
scntcnccs soeh
such as (I) are often
oftcn t~ttcrcd
contcxt where the literal
literal
instance. A miaht
might alrearly
knows the
goal is not an obstacle,
obstacle. For inswncc.
alrcndy know that S Lr~ows
ti,e same
departure
yet still utter
dcparturc time, yct
utlcr (I).
(I). In such cases,
cascs. A's goals arc Uic
samc as though he
had uttcrcd
thc
rcqitcst
uttered the request
(7) When
leave?
Whcn docs the Windsor train Icave?

tlcncc.
( I ) is ollen
oftcn rcfcrrcd
snccch act [Searle
[Scarlc 1975].
19751.
Hence. (I)
referred to ;IS
as an indircct
indirect speech
Al[hougli
mcchanis~nsalreody
;~lrcadydescribed
dcscribcd arc capi~blc
answering such
Although Uic
tl,e mechanisms
capable of answering
correctly. lhcy
following cases:
cascs:
indirccl acts correctly,
indirect
they cannot distinguish bctwcen
between thc
the two following
(a)
mercly expecting
cxpccting a yes/no
ycs/no answer.
answer, but S
(a) A soid
said (I) mcrcly
answtrcd with the extra
cxtra infi~r~nation
bc helpful;
helpful;
answucd
information in order to be
(b) ,\
A said (I)
(1) intending
intcnding that S deduce
dcducc his plan and reolize
realize that

A
dcparturc time.
/\ really wants to know thc
the departure

Theoretically, these arc vcry

very different:
yes/no question;
diffcrcnt: (a)
(a) describes
dcscribcs a ycs/no
qucstion; while
Ihcorctically,
request for thc
the deporture
time. Ilut
lIut UIC
tl,e distinction is
(b)
describes an (indirect)
(b) dcscribcs
(indirect) rcqucst
dcparturc timc.
rcasnns. For inswncc,
assume S
nblc to tcll
also important for practical reasons.
instance, assume
~ is not able
tell A the
departure
time for some
reason. With interpretation
somc rcason.
intcrprctation (a),
(a). S can simply answer
answcr the
dcparturc timc
reason for not
question.
whereas, with interpretation
qucstion, whcrcas,
intcrprctation (b),
(b). S is obliged to give a rcason
answering with the departure
dcpanure time.
we will rcformulatc
reformulate our speech
order to handle
In this section
section wc
spccch act definitions
dcfinitions io
in ordcr
linc with thc
cascs, as wcll
such cases,
well as to bring our work in line
the philosophical views. We
will introduce a new sct of surface
Iin~i~istic
acts that correspond
currcspond dircctly
surface linguistic
i!ill
directly to the
form of thc
the utterance. For example,
imperative mood sentence
cxamplc, an impcrativc
scntcncc will always
always be
(SUIII:ACIIl<I~QUESl') whether
whcthcr it is
an inslance
instance of a surface rcqucst
request act (SURFACE.REQUEST)
interpreted
Likewise. an indicative
indicative mood
intcrprctcd directly or not. I.ikcwisc,
mtxd sentence
sclitcncc will always
always be
an instancc
instance of the SURFACE.lNFORM
precisely
SURFACE.INt:OI<M act. These
'l'hcsc acts will be defined
dcfincd prcciscly
in Section
2.5.3.
Scction 2.5.3.
The speech
then he
the speaker and
'l'hc
spccch acts will thcn
bc defined
defincd solely by intentions of thc
illtrutionary
acts
in
[Austin
1962].'IAcse
acts
will usually be
will correspond to thc
the iIIocutionary
1962]. These
performed by cxccuting
executing some
pcrformcd
somc surface
surface act. An essential
csscntial condition for the
performance of an iIlocutionary
the speaker
pcrf~~rmancc
illocutionary act will be that thc
spcaker intended
intcndcd the hearer to

Allen

Allen

146

146

rccogni7.c that thc spcakcr intcndcd to pcrform that act, as in [SCarlc 19691.
recognize that tile speaker intended to perform that act, as in (Searle 1969].
'Ibis rccognition of intention condition can only bc accomplished by
'Ibis recognition of intention condition can only be accomplished by
introducing lhc notion of sharcd knowlcdgc, o r mutual bclicf. bctwccn Uie
introducing tile notion of shared knowledge, or mutual belief, between the
spcakcr and hcarcr. Mutiial bclicf is thc common sct of bclicfs bctwccn the
speaker and hearer. Mutual belief is the common set of beliefs between the
spcakcr and hcarcr h a t cach knows thc othcr knows. l'hus. cach agclit is aware of
speaker and hearer tilat e,lCh knows tile other knows. Thus. each agent is aware of
what infcrcnccs the othcr could lnakc using his common knowlcdgc. Since both
what inferences the other could make using this common knowledge. Since both
agcnts arc awarc of thc possiblc infcrcnccs that can be madc from an uttcrancc in
agents arc aware of the possible infercnces that can be made from an utterance in
a givcn contcxt, thc spcakcr should sclcct his uttcranccs so Ulat only Lhc dcsircd
a given context, the speaker should select his utterances so that only the desired
infcrcnccs arc madc. 'l'hc hcarcr, knowing this, may dccidc that Lhc spcaker
inferences arc made. The hearer, knowing this. may decide tilat the speaker
intcndcd him to makc tlrc i~ifcrcnccshc ~nadc. In fact, at prcscnt ;III infcrcnccs
intended him to make the inferences he made. In fact, at present, all inferences
made in lhis contcxt arc considcrcd to bc intcndcd by thc spcakcr. As a rcsult,
made in this context arc considered to be intended by the speaker. As a result,
some inconscqucntial conclusions may bc assigncd unwarmntcd signilicancc. This
some inconsequential conclusions may be assigned unwarranted significance. This
has not Icd to uouhlc in rhc cxarnplcs wc havc studied so far. To rcmovc this
has not led to trouble in tlle examples we have studied so far. To remove this
problcm will rcquirc considcrablc work on thc nature of intcntions.
problem will require considerable work on tile nature of intentions.
lictt~rningLO Ihc cxamplc ahovc, wc can now cxprcss lhc differcncc hctween
Returning Lo tlle example above, we can now express tlle difference hetwecn
the two intcrprcrations of "110you know whcn thc Windsor train Icavcs?" with the
the two interpretations of" Do you know when tllc Windsor train leaves?" with the
aid of thc following diagram (Figure 3):
aid oflhe following diagram (Figure 3):

147

A
W B ~ I S to
10
A wants

know the
lhe answer
know
Ie
YIN
la V
R I quesllon
qualh

(4)

(51
(5)

181
(5)

...

A
W B ~
A wants

~ S

\0 know the
loknowlne
departure
deparlure lime
lime

S's private
S'r
privale
beliefs
belieis about
about A

(al
(81

fb)
fb)

Mulually known
known
Mutually

belween S &
8A
between

SURFACE
SURFACE

YESlNO
YESINO

QUESTION
QUESTION

(4)
(4)

(5)
151

(6)
(8)

----------+
----------....

Awanls
A
wants

lo know lhe

10 know the
deparlure lime
departure
time

I:igurc J
3 The
'I'hc two itltcrprctJtions
it~lcrprctotionsof
Figure
"Jo
when (lie
Win&wr train
" ~ l uyou know !~IICII
lJlc Wiridzor
Uain kaves?"
Icavcs?"

Notcs: '111e
' l l l c hodi'Olllallincs
Ilo!-iro~ll;~ll i ~ l c sreprescllt
rc;)rcicnt phn
~I;III
inkrcncil~g,the
dic numbers
:lu:nhcrs referring
rcfcrrillg to
Notes:
illlcrcncing.
rhc sicps
i n the
tllc iniLi;tl
iniii;il di:c~lr.;ion
of illis cXilmp!c.
cx;irnplc. 'file
' l h c vcrrrc:ll
;Irron,s rrpr~~:cnt
rcprcucnt the
the
st('p~ in
tli~;ctls';;on oftlli.,;;
vCflical'lrrows
illrcrcncinp lIsing
using shared
dl;lrcd knowledge,
knu\?lcdpi., and Ilcncc
I~cnccdetermine
dctcrlninc me
ihc speech act
infcrcncing
in:crprctJtion.
i~~:c~rcratio~i.

I:II~
of
(~lld of

ligurc. there
thcrc arc
itrc ta,o
palhs from the
tllc sh;lrcd
s11;lrcd knowledge
knowlcdgc that A
askcd a
IInn this figure.
two paths
A Js1<cd
yes!no questioo
II want.s
ycs/llr~
qucslic~n(bolla",
boll on^ left
lcrt of
o f Figure
Mjillre 3),
3). to
ro S's
S's bbelief
c l i c f dwc
t l : ~ rA
w.?nr.s 10 know che
the
dqlarlurc timc
lrup right of
u f 1:iglirc
idc111ifii.d a:;
a:; p:ilhs
(a) and (b),
(17).
d"pnrlure
time (tup
FigLirc 3). Hot11
Both pdlhs,
paths, idcntirtcu
paths (a)
involve
the inference:;
throllgl, sleps
ril~1 (a),
tlses
involvc rlic
inl'crcncc:~ihrol~gli
slcps (4),
(4). (5). anu
and (0),
( 6 ) . IIlowever,
louevcr, in
i n pilili
(a). S uscs
his
private Knowledge
about
A and hence
ill((~ndcd only a yes/no
liis pri\;~!c
kn~~\v!cdgc
hoot ,t
Ilcncc bclic\cs thar i\
.A intcndcd
ycs/ilo
qucstilJll.
the same:
knowlcdf~c
1~~~1.t h(11),
(I)). S made
n1:tdc ilic
sarnc illrl'rcmTs
it~rcrcnrcsusing
usi~lgslwrcd
sl16rctl irt~~\vIcd::c
q ~ ~ c s ~IIninv path
and lirltcc
cc>~icludcdl!Jat
tint A
A ii1t:nilcii
S If}
LIJ rCf:llgni/.C'
~cccgni/.cgoal
g11;11 (b).
(IJ).
bcrwcc~lthc:il,
bctw('cil
them, dnd
h~I1CC concluded
ii1t~nd('d S
Thus,
rl;prc:\cnt~; t11c
the literal
intl~rprclat[on, :11111
the
'l'lius, poth
pat11 (a)
(3) represent:
1ilrr;ll int'~i-prel.~tion.
:111d path
path (1)
(I))represents
rcprcscnts Ule

148

Allen

indirect. Accausc of S's disposition towards hclpful hchavior, his rcsponsc may be
indirect. Ikcause of S's disposition towards helpful behavior, his response may be
the samc in both of dlcsc cascs. Howcvcr, as mcntioncd abovc, if S did know thc
the same in both of these cases. However, as mentioned above, if S did know the
dcparturc time but was not allowcd to tcll A, h c n S's response would bc different
departure time but was not allowed to tell A, then S's response would be different
in C ~ C I I of thc intcrprctations.
in each of the interpretations.
l'hcrc is a fundamental assumption that dctcrmincs which of thcsc paths
There is a fundamental assumption that determines which of these paths
will bc takcn as thc corrcct intcrprctation. 'Ihis is that
will he taken as the correct interpretation. This is that

(he hrurc~rrlill alwuj~sofrribu~ei~iterrrionlo the sj~cakerfi i~ is

if it is

the hearer. will always Gtrribure il/(ention to the spea/(er

corni.stet~t/o do so.
COIISiS!elltIO do so.

In othcr word$. Llic licarcr will continuc to usc shared knowlcdgc to make the
In other words, Ole hearer will continue to usc shared knowledge to make the
infcrcnccs for as long as possible.
inferences for as Ipng as possible.
All of thcsc issucs ail1 bc disci~sscd in dctail in tlic following sections. In
All of these issues will be discussed in detail in the following sections. In
partict~lar.Scction 1.5.1 introduces thc new spcccl~act dcfinitions and outlincs the
pitrticular. Section 2.5.1 introduces the new speech act definitions and outlines the
rolc of inutual bclicf: Scclion 2.5.2 dcfincs thc s11rfi1~~
linguistic acts; Scction 2.5.3
role of mutual belief: Section 2.5.2 defines the surface linguistic acts: Section 2.5.3
dcwribcs thc cxrcndcd plan i:ifcrcncc systc~nthat can ~ ~ the
s c ncw spccch act
describes the extended plan in ference system that can lise the new speech act
dcfinitions; Scction 2.5.4 prcscnts soinc examplcs: and Scction 2.5.5 discusscs
definitions; Section 2.5.4 presents some examples: and Section 2.5.5 discusses
sbmc remaining issucs.
some remaining issues.
2.5.1 Spccch Acts and hlutualI3elicf
2.5.1 Speech Acts and l\lutual Belief

It is important to thc following discussion that it is clcar at which level of

It is important to the following discussion that it is clear at which level of
abstraction wc arc attcrnpting to dcfinc actions such as 1NI:ORM and IIEQUFST.
abstraction we arc attempting to define actions such as INFORM and REQUl-::ST.
Thc descriptiorl wc want is onc whcrc the acts arc dcfincdby thc intcntions of the
The description we want is one where the acts arc defined by lhe intentions of the
spcakcr. l'hus, saying "Closc thc door," "Can you closc thc door," or "the door,"
speaker. Thus, saying "Close Ole door," "Can you close the door," or "the door,"
with the sanlc inlcntions should ;ill count as thc samc typc of action, i t . , a
with the same intentions should all count as lhc $arne type of action, i.e., a
ItEQUFSI'. 'Ihus, thcsc acts are not dcfincd in tcrrns of Ihc linguistic forms that
REQU ....::sT. Thus, these acts are not defined in terms of the linguistic forms that
arc uscd to attain thcrn. 'H1c actual pcrformancc of a spccch act consists of other
arc used to attain them. 'nle actual performance of a speech act consists of other
actions that are pcrformcd with thc corrcct hclicfs and intcntions. ' n u s we scc
actions that arc performed with the correct beliefs and intentions. Thus we sec
that spccch acts arc not aclions which arc siinply cxccutcd in plans, but arc
that speech acts arc not actions which are simply executed in plans, but arc
summaries of tl~c-bcljcfs ~ n dinrcnlions of tllc spcilkcr that allow an agcnt to
summaries of the: beliefs and intentions of Ule speaker that allow an agent to
dcscrihc thc spcakcr's actions as constituting thc spccch act. 'l'hc initial definition
describe the speaker's actions as constituting the speech act. The initial definition
of tllc INFOItM act in this papcr suggcsts two of rl~cscconditions. namcly that:
of the IN FOR Mact in this paper suggests two of these conditions, namely that:
c-

-- thc spcakcr must know that what he or she says is

the speaker must know lhat what he or she says is
uuc (thc precondition);
true (the precondition):

149

-- thc spcakcr must intend that i l ~ chcarcr knows'what

-- the speaker must intend that the hearer knows' what
hc or shc says is true (intending thc effcct).
he or she says is true (intending the effect).
Tllc wcakncsscs of Lhc prcscnt definition havc bccn wdl known to
111e weaknesses of the present definition have been well known to
pliilosophcrs for some tirnc. As mcnrioncd abovc. [Gricc 19751 suggcstcd that
philosophers for some time. As mentioned above. [Grice 1975] suggested that
communicativc acts rcqi~irclhat thc spcakcr intends thc hcarcr to rccognizc his
communicative acts require that tile speaker intends the hearer to recognize his
intcntion to achicvc thc cffccts of thc act.'l'o scc this. consider thc situation whcrc
intention to achieve the effects of the act. To see this. consider the situation where
S bclicvcs P is tnlc, and wants to get A to bclicvc P as wcll. S walks up to another
S believes P is true, and wants to gel A to believe P as well. S walks up to another
agent 11 and asks whcrc A is for sllc wants to tell A rhat P. Unbeknownst to S. A
agent B and asks wbere A is for she wants to tell A that P. Unbeknownst to S. A
01 csllcard thc qucstion to 13. 'Ihus, thc abovc two conditions hold, and S actually
overheard the question to B. Thus, the above two conditions hold, and S actually
acllicvcd hcr intc~idcdcffcct. Yct this docs not sccrn to bc a casc of S sincerely
achieved her intended effect. Yet this docs not seem to be a case of S sincerely
informing A that P.
infonning A tIlat P.
.'thus wc nccd to add a condition that h c spcakcr intcnds to achicvc the cffect
,Thus we need to add a condition that the speaker intends to achieve tile effect
by rncans of thc hcarcr recognizing the spcakcr's intcntion to achicvc thc cmcccct In
by means of tile hearer recognizing the speaker's intention to achieve the effect In
our notation, this is thc condition:
our notation, this is tile condition:
spcakcr WANT
WANT
speaker hcnrcr
IKLIBVE
hearer BELIEVE
spcakcr W A N T
speaker WANT
hcarcr KNOW prop.
hearer KNOW prop.
Wc arc now quite closc to the formulation of INFOKM by rjcarlc 19691, cxccpt
We arc now quite close to the fonnulation of INFORM by !Searle 1969), except
wc havc no conditions dcaling with KIIC production of the uttcrancc,
we have no conditions dealing with the production of tile utterance.
Unfortunately, [Strawson 19711 points out that a singlc lcvcl of rccognition of
Unfortunately, [Strawson 1971] points out that a single level of recognition of
intention is not suficicnt for a s~~cccssfulINFOlIM. [Schiffcr 19723 then
intention is not sufficient for a successful INFORM. [Schiffer 1972] tIlen
constructs a scrics of cxamplcs that show that no dcptll of recognition of inlcntion
constructs a series of examples tIlat show that no depth of recognition of intention
is sufficient. 1l.lcsc arguments could bc discarded as not very rclcvant to our
is sufficient. These arguments could be discarded as not very relevant to our
invcstigation, as thc countcr-cxamplcs are bizarre cnough so thal they should
investigation, as the counter-examples arc bizarre enough so that they should
ncvcr arise in normal conversations. Howcvcr, a solution closc to Schiffcr's is so
never arise in nonnal conversations. However. a solution close to Schiffer's is so
simplc b a t it will not hurt us to adopt it. Hc proposcs that thc spcakcr must intend
simple that it will not hurt us to adopt it. He proposes that the speaker must intend
that his intentions bccomc mutually bclicvcd bctwccn thc spcakcr and thc hearcr.
that his intentions becomc mutually belicved between the speaker and the hearer.
l h i s mcarls that both the spcakcr and hcarcr know what the spcakcr intcndcd, and
lhis means that both the speaker and hearer know what the speaker intended, and
each of thcm knows the othcr knows. etc. Wc can dcfinc a mutual bclicf o ~ c r a t o r
each of them knows the othcr knows, etc. We can define a mutual Q!.kf operator
as infinite conjunction as follows:
as infinite conjunction as follows:
MB(S.A,P) ::::; SIl(P) A
SBAB(P) A
SBABSB(P) A

[Cohcn 19781 dcscribcs a finitc rcprcscntation of mutual bclicf using rccursivc

[Cohen 1978] describes a finite representation of mutual belief using recursive

150

Al1en

bcl icf structures.

be1ief structures.
Now we can rcwritc the abovc condition as:
Now we can rewrite the above condition as:
spcakcr WANT
speaker WANT
M lyhcarcr, spcaker,
MB(hearcr, speaker,
spcakcr WANT
speaker hcarcr
WANTKNOW P)
hearer KNOW P)
'Ihis replaccs the prcvious condition, which now is thc first conjunct in tllc infinite
'Jllis replaces the previous condition, which now is the first conjunct in the infinite
expansion of MI].
expansion ofMB.
1'0 summarirc. whcncvcr an agcnt I{ concl~ldcsthc abovc thrcc conditions
To summarize, whenever an agent H concludes the above three conditions
ahout anothcr agcnt S. basing at least part of dic pn~ofon the actions I-1 observed
ahout another agent S. basing at least part of the proof on the actiuns H observed
S pcrform, thcn H hill concludc that S infonncd Iiim t h a ~P is true.
S perform, then H will conclude that S in formcd him that P is true.
We can now modify our dcfinition of INI'OIZM by introducing this third
We can now modify our definition of INFOR M by introducing this third
condition. 'l'o allow t l ~ cpossibility of hicnrchical plilnning. and to cmpllasizc that
condition. To allow the possibility of hierarchical planning, and to emphasize that
Llic rccognition of intcntion conditiun is Ihc mcans by which the cffcct of the
tJle recognition of intention conditiun is the means by which the effect of the
INFORM is acconiplishcd, Ihc rccognition of intcntion condition is cxprcsscd as
INfORM is accomplished, Ihe recognition of intention condition is expressed as
rhc body of thc INFORM act. 'l'hus wc have:
the body of the INFORM act. Thus we have:
INFORM(spcakcr, hcarcr, prop)
INFORM(speaker, hearer, prop)
prccondition: spcakcr KNOW prop
precondition: speaker KNOW prop
body: M ll(hcarcr, spcaker.
body: MB(hearer, speaker.
spcakcr WANT
speaker
WANT
hcarcr
KNOW prop)
hearer KNOW prop)
effect: hcarcr KNOW prop
effect: hearer KNOW prop
Similarly, ncw definitions can bc given for INFORMREF and INFORMIF by
Similarly, new definitions can be given for INFORM REF and INFORMIF by
adding the extra recognition of intention condition. The ncw dcfinition of
adding the extra recognition of intention condition. The new definition of
REQUEST is
REQUEST is
REQUES'T(spcakcr, hcarer, action)
REQUEST(speaker, hearer, action)
body: Mll(hcarcr, spcaker.
body: MB(hearer, speaker,
spcakcr WANT
speaker WANT
hcrrrcr DO action)
hearer DO action)

c ffcct: hcarcr WANT hcarcr DO action.

elTect: hearer WANT hearer DO action.
[Cohcn 1978) suggests a prccondition on REQUEST, namcly that the speaker
[Cohen 1978] suggests a precondition on REQUEST, namely that the speaker
bclicves the hearcr can d o the action. This is a reasonable prccondition, but is
believes the hearer can do the action. This is a reasonable precondition, but is

151

unnecessary in our fonnulatioll

process already cfectively
effectively
formulation as the plan recognition
rccognition proccss
enforces
consider plans involving
cnforccs the
the precondition
prccondition by the
thc rating heuristics, which considcr
requests
rcqucsts to
to do
do undonble
undoable actions
actions as unlikely,
unlikely.
We
However, we have
Wc now have
havc a better
bcttcr definition
dcfinition of when
whcn speech
spcech acts occur. Howcvcr,
divorced
the utterances. This gap is fillcd
filled in the
divorced these
thcsc definitions
definitions from
from the form
form of thc
next section,
where
a
new
set
of
actions
is
introduced
that
produce
actual
section, wlicrc
ncw sct
actions
utterances.
executing onc
one (or more)
morc) of
of
Specch acts
acts can then
Lhcn be
bc perfonned
pcrbrmcd by cxccuting
uttcranccs. Speech
these
Iineuistic
thcsc surface
surface linguistic.a&.tS:.

a.

2.5.2
2.5.2 Surface
Surhce Linguistic
1.inguistic Acts
We
reason about languagc
language itself.
itsclf. lhcse
These
thc actions
actions that
thnt allow us to rcason
Wc now turn to the
will
fonn of
of uttcranccs
utterances and the
will make
make the
thc connection
conncctil~nbetween
bctwccn the
rhc linguistic form
intentions
Obviously, thcrc
there arc many
intcntions of the
the speaker
spcakcr producing these
thcsc utterances.
uttcranccs. Obviously,
ways
perceived as bcing
being the
ways in
in which l1le
Uic fi.mn
fbnn of an utterance
uttcrancc influences what is pcrccivcd
speaker's
the most obvious in this
havc selected
sclccted only a few of UIC
spcakcr's intentions.
intcntions. We have
analysis. Surprisingly
Surprisingly enough,
cnough, the range
rangc of behavior
bchavior analyzablc
analysis.
analyzable with tlicm
them is quite
rich.
rich.
~l'hcreisis a basic
basic assumption
assumption underlying the
thc fi~llowing
There
following analysis: spcakcrs
speakers always
mcan what they
thcy literally say. and it is only by Uiis
mean
this litcral
literal mcaning
meaning that any indirect
meaning can he
bc inferred.
inferred. This
'l'his is the
thc position dcfcnded
meaning
defended by [Scarlc
[Searle 19751.
1975]. Given
d ~ i sassumption,
assumption. the
thc recognition
rccognition of the
thc literal mcaning
this
meaning providcs
provides us with aa set of
of
intcntions from
from which plan inferencing
infcrcncing rnny
may proceed.
intentions
proceed,
Thcsc initial
initial intentions
intcntions arc summari7.ed
summarized as surfacc
These
surface linguistic acts. 'There
There are
two of these
thcsc acts
acts of great
grcat relevance
rclcvance to our study which corrcspond
two
correspond to literal
litera!
INFORMS and
and REQUESTs,
I<F.UUk:S:.STs,and arc defined
dcfincd as follows:
INFORMs
follows:
SURFACE-INFORM(speaker,hearer,prop)
MB(hcsrcr, speaker,
cffcct: MR(hearer,
effect:
spcakcr WANT
speaker
hcarcr KNOW prop)
hearer

SURFACE-REQUES'!'(speaker,hearer,action)
cffcct: MB(hearer,
Mll(hcarcr, speaker,
spcakcr.
effect:
spcakcr WANT
speaker
UO action)
action)
hcarcr DO
hearer
Ihcsc actions
actions arc indicated
indicated by a number
numbcr of linguistic dcviccs,
These
devices, most
importantly the
thc mood
mwd of the
thc sentence and thc
importantly
the use
usc of ccmin
cenain "clue"
"clue" words.
words, For

Allen

152

instance, an impcrativc scntcnce indicatcs a SURFACE-IZEQUFSI', an indicative

instance, an imperative sentence indicates a SURFACE-REQUf--:ST, an indicative
mood scntcnce indicatcs a SURFACl:,-INFORM, and an intcrrogativc sentence
mood sentence indicates a SURFACE-INFORM, and an interrogative sentence
indicates a SUIZFACE-IiEQUt3T' to infonn (IN FORM IF or 1NI:OIiMIZEF) of
indicates a SURFACE-REQUEST to infonn (lNFORMIF or INFORMREF) of
thc answcr. Somc cxamplcs of cluc words arc "plcasc." which indicates a
the answer. Some examples of clue words are "please," which indicates a
SURFACEIZEQIIFSI', and words such as "whcn," "whcrc," ctc., which indicate
SURFACE-REQUEST, and words such as "when," "where:' etc., which indicate
a SUIIFACE-I21:.QUI~Sl'to inform ofa timc, location, ctc. .l'hc cluc words play an
a SURFACE-REQUEST to inform ofa time, location, etc. The clue words play an
cspccially important rolc in analyzing scntcncc fragments whcrc thc syntactic
especially important role in analyzing sentence fragments where the syntactic
mood is not dctcrmined. 'lhis is discussed in Scction 2.6.
mood is not determined. This is discussed in Section 2.6.
I'hc pl-oposi~ionalcontent is dcrivcd using syntactic and scmnntic mcthods
The wopositional content is derived using syntactic and semantic methods
which can be found in most nalt~rallanguagc undcrs!anding systcins. lac actual
which can be found in most natural language understanding systems. 111c actual
details of our algorithm arc not important fibr this papcr. Virt~iallyany natural
details of our algorithm arc not important for this paper. Virtually ,my natural
langoagc anirlysis tcchniquc could bc uscd, as long as it produccs a rcprcscntation
language analysis technique could be used, as long as it produces a representation
of the litcral mcaning of thc input (c.g. [Winograd 19721: [liicsbcck 19751: [Woods
of the literal meaning of the input (e.g. [Winograd 19721: [Riesbeck 19751: [Woods
19701).
1970]).
Notice that thc cffccts of the SURFACE-INFOIiM act match thc body of the
Notice that the effects of the SURFACE-INFORM act match the body of the
1NI:OllhI act. 'l'his indicatcs that an indicativc scntcnce is a common way of
INFORM act. This indicates that an indicative sentence is a common way of
performing an INFOIlM. 11 is imporrant. howcvcr, that it is not thc only way. 'This
performing an INFORM. It is important, however, that it is not the only way. 'This
samc relationship also holds bctwecn thc SURFACE-IiEQUI;SSr and the
same relationship also holds between the SURFACE REQUEST and the
1<13QUF,STacts.
R.EQUEST acts.
2.5.3 Extcndcd I'lan lnfcrcncing
2.5.3 Extended Plan Infercndng

With the ncw action definitions givcn in thc last two sections, it is not obvious that
With the new action definitions given in the last two sections, it is not obvious that
t l ~ cplan infcrcncc rules can still apply. However, with thc addition of onc new
the plan inference rules can still apply. However, with the addition of one new
infcrcnce rulc, and two new control heuristics, the rcst of thc plan inference
inference rule, and two new control heuristics, the rest of the plan inference
proccss can bc used as is.
process can be used as is.
Bcforc we introduce the ncw itcms, considcr what the cxtcndcd plan inference
Defore we introduce the new items, consider what the extended plan inference
process should look like. Thc spcaker speaks, thcrcby cxccuting a surface
process should look like. The speaker speaks, thereby executing a surface
linguistic act which is idcntifiablc from thc syntactic form of thc uttcrancc. Ihe
linguistic act which is identifiable from the syntactic form of the utterance. The
hcarcr bclicvcs the action was dclibcratc, so in fact the spcakcr intcnded to
hearer believes the action was deliberate, so in fact the speaker intended to
perform thc surfacc act, and thus intcndcd to achicvc its cffccts (action-cffcct
perform the surface act, and thus intended to achieve its effects (action-effect
infcrcnce). l'hus we have a bclief of the form
inference). Thus we have a beliefafthe fonn

153
hcarcr BEI.1 EVE
hearer BELIEVE
spcnkcr WANT
speaker WANT
M Mhcarcr, spcakel,
MIl(hearer,
speaker,
WANT X)
spcakcr
speaker WANT X)
where X depends on thc surfacc act. From this point, wc want thc hcarcr to bc
where X depends on the surface act. From this point, we want the hearer to be
ablc to perform plan infcrcnccs bascd on what hc bclicvcs is ~nirtuallybclicved.
able to perform plan inferences based on what he believes is mutually believed.
Wc can dcfinc this modc of reasoning in tcnns of the alrcady cxisting plan
We can define this mode of reasoning in tenns of the already existing plan
infercncc rulcs as follows:
inference rules as follows:
The Afurual Relief Rule
The Mutual ReliefRule

If

If

hcarcr I3EI,IEVE
hearer BELIEVE
spcakcr WANT
speaker WANT
M IYhcnrer,speaker,
MB(henrer,speaker,
WA Nl'(spcakcr,x))
WI\NT(speakcr,x
and

and

hearer BEI.IEVE
hearer BELIEVE
speakcr IIE1,IEVE
speaker BELIEVE
M ll(hcarer.spcaker,
MB(hearcr,speaker,
SIIAW(x) IiSBAW(y))
SBI\W(x) ::J i SOA W(y
then

hearer BELIEVE
hearer BELIEVE
spcakcr WANT
speaker WANT
M I3(hcarcr,spcaker.
MI3(hcarcr,speaker,
WANT(spcakcr,y))
WI\NT(speaker,y

In other words, if the hcarcr bclicvcs the speaker wants it to bc shared knowledge
In other words. if the hearer believes the speaker wants it to be shared knowledge
that the speaker intends X, and if the hcarcr bclicvcs the spcakcr bdicvcs it is
that the spenker intends X, and if the hearer believes the speaker believes it is
sharcd knowlcdgc that intending X infers intending Y, then thc hcarcr may
shared knowledge that intending X infers intending Y, then the hearer may
concludc the spcakcr wants it to bc sharcd knowlcdgc that thc spcakcr intends Y.
conclude the speaker want~ it to be shared knowledge that the speaker intends Y.
'Ihus thc hcarcr may infcr various further intcntions of the spcakcr using what
Thus the hearer may infer various further intentions of the speaker using what
hc thinks thc spcakcr bclicvcs is mutually bclicvcd bctwccn thcm. At some time
he thinks the speaker believes is mutually believed between them. At some time
(lo hc discusscd bclow), the hcarcr ceases to infer ncw intentions and idc~~tifies
a
(to be discussed below), the hearer ceases to infer new intentions and identifies a
spccch act via its body. 'lhc cffcct of the speech act pmduccs an intention that the
speech act via its body. The effect of the speech act produces an intention that the
hcarcr privatcly bclicves thc spcakcr has. From this, the hcarcr may infcr other
hearer privately believes the speaker has. From this, the hearer may infer other
intentions of the speakcr bascd on his private knowlcdgc of the speaker.
intentions of the speaker based on his private knowledge of the speaker.
Once this terminates, the plan can bc inspected for obstacles as usual.
Once this terminates, the plan can be inspected for obstacles as usual.

Allen

Allen

154

154

llowcvcr, thc hcarcr is obfigcd tu address thc obstaclcs that arc mutually bclicved
Howcver, thc hearer is obliged to address thc obstacles that are mutually believed
bctwccn thc spcakcr and hcarcr. l ' l ~ cobstaclcs hascd on Ihc. hcarcr's private
between the speaker and hearer. Thc or-stacles hascd on thc hearer's private
bclicfs may or may not bc rlddrcacd, dcpcnding on how hclpful thc hcarcr feels.
beliefs mayor may not bc addrcssed, depending on how helpful the hearer feels.
'I'he qucstion rcmains as to how long tlic hcarcr contiliucs using mutual
The question remains as to how long the hearer continues using mutual
bclicfs. Wc havc alrcady mcntioncd h a t iilfcrcncing within mutual bclicf will
beliefs. We have already mentioned lhat infcrencing within mutual belief will
continuc as long as possible, LC., that intcntion bill bc attributed if it can bc. ' h i s
continue as long as possible, i.e., that intention will be attributed if it can be. This
is capturcd by Lhc following raling hcuristics,
is captured by Ule following rating heuristics.
The Level ()flnfercncing Rules
1. Giam a cltoice bclwecn an itfererice rhar cut~!it~rres
1. Gillen a choice be/ween an inference that continues
usitlg nlulual b~lief:n t ~ dan itference rha~does
using mutual belief, and an inference Ihai does
11o1,fo\lor /hc one using rnurual belie$
1101,

fallor the one using mutual belief.

2. If tlrere are nlul~iplettlu,ual/y exclusive itferettces

2. If there arc multiple mutually exclusive inferences

possible fhnf cot~ritluero IISP u~urualbelief: [hen
possible thal continue to use mutual belief. then
fillor rhe irfiwtlces lhal cio riot u ~ nlutual
e
belieJ
fOl'or the inferences that do not use mutual belief.

The sccond rulc is important and is justified as follows: the infcrcnccs taken
The second rule is important and is justified as follows: the inferences tak.en
using mutual bclicf arc bkcn to havc bccn intcndcd by thc spcakcr. If, givcn the
u~ing mutual belief are taken to have been intended by the speaker. If, given the
mutual knowlcdgc, thcre arc multiple paths that thc hcarcr could takc, thcn the
mutual knowledge, there are multiple paths that the hearer could take, then the
hcarcr can no Iongcr attributc intcntion to thc spcakcr as hc has no rncans of
hearer can no longer attribute intention to the speaker as he has no means of
choosing which path thc spcakcr intcndcd. I h u s it is rhc spcakcr's duty to ensure
choosing which path the speaker intended. 111US it is the speak.er's duty to cnsure
that the infcrcnce path to his intcnded goal is casily found by the hearer;
that the inference path to his intended goal is easily found by the hearer;
othcrwisc the hearcr will simply takc thc literal, or some intermediate
otherwise the hearer will simply take the literal, or some intcnnediate
intcrprctation.
interpretation.
'Ihc above tnight sound quitc complicatcd to implcmcnt but, in fact, is not, if
'Ibe above might sound quite complicated to implement but, in fact. is not, if
one vicws t l ~ cplan infercnccs as bascd on tllc spcakcr's goals. In this schcme,
one views the plan inferences as based on Ule speaker's goals. In this scheme,
thcrc arc two parameters to lhc infcrcncc process; the context in which goals are
there are two parameters to the inference process; the context in which goals are
bcing inferred, and thc contcxt in wliich the infcrcnce rulcs arc bcing evaluated,
being inferred. and the context in which the inference rules are being evaluated.
'nus, for basic plan recognition, Lllc goal contcxt is what the system bclicvcs the
Thus, for basic plan recognition, the goal context is what the system believes the
spcakcr wants (i.c.. "SIMW(-)"), and the cvaluation contcxt is what the system
speaker wanL<; (Le., "SIlAW(-n, and the evaluation context is what the system
bclicvcs thc spcakcr bclicvcs hc., "Sl)Al)(-)"). In the cxtcndcd modc infcrcncing,
believes the speaker believes (i.e., "SBI\B(-)"). In the extended mode inferencing,
thc goal contcxt is what thc systcm bclicvcs thc spcakcr wants to bc mutually
the goal context is what the system believes the speaker wants to be mutually
bclicvcd that thc spcakcr wants (i.c.. "SIiAW(Mll(S.A.AW(-)))"), and h e
believed that the speaker wants (i.e., "SHI\ W(MB(S,A,AW(-)"), and the
cvaluation conlcxt is what thc systcrn bclicvcs thc spcakcr bclicvcs is n~utually
evaluation context is what the system believes the speaker believes is, mutually
bclicved (it., "SIIAIYMI%(S.A.-))"). Given Cohcn's rcprcscntation of bclicf and
believed (i.c., "SHI\B(MB(S,A,-)"). Given Cohen's representation of belicf and
mutual bclicf, thcsc contcxts arc casily constructcd and manipulated.
mutual belief, these contexts are easily constructed and manipulated.

155
2.5.4 Exa~nplesof lndircct Acts
2.5.4 Examples of Indirect Acts

"

In the following cxamplcs we will abbreviate "SRAW(MII(S.A.-))" as

In the following cxamples we will abbreviatc "SIlAW(MB(S,A,as
"SHARF,D(-)." In cach cxarnplc, thc corrcct infcrcncc path is shown and the
"SHARED()." In each example, the correct inference path is shown and the
major possiblc but not takcn paths arc discussed followil~gthc cxnmplc. For some
major possible but not taken paths are discussed following the example. For some
simplc (and classic) cxarnplcs. considcr S and A silting at a dinncr tablc eating,
simple (and classic) cxamples. consider S and A sitting at a dinncr table eating,
whcre the salt is closc to S. 'l'hc rclcvnnt actions we will nccd are
where the salt is close to S. The rc1evilnt actions we will need are
P1\ SS(age nt,beneficia ry.obj cet)
precondition: HA Vr:(agcnt,object)
effect:

cffcct: HAVE(bcncficiary,objcct)
HAVE(beneficiarY,object)

REACH(agcnt,object)

prccondilion: NEhR(agcntobjcc t)
precondition: NEAR{agent,objcct)
effect:

cffcct: HAVE(agcnt,objcct)
HAVE(agent.object)

Example I: "Pass !he Sail"

Example I: "Pass the Salt"
'lbc uttcrancc by A to S of "Pass thc salt" causcs thc following infcrcnces:
lbe utterance by A to S of "Pass the salt" causes the following inferences:
(1.1) S IIAW(SU RFACE-RFQUESI' (AS, Pass(S.A.Salt)))
(Ll) SBAW(SURFACEREQUEST (A,S, Pass(S.A,Salt)))
[from obscrvationj
(I .2) SHAIIElI(AW (Pass(S.A,Salt))) [from observation]
[action-cffcct]
(1.2) SHARED(AW
(Pass(SASalt)
(1.3) S13AW(l<cqucst
(A,S.WsdS,A.Salt))) [action-effect)
[body-action]
(1.3) SBA W(Rcquest (A,S,Pass(S.A.Salt)
[body-action]
Hcnce, this is interprctcd as a rcqucst to pass the salt. Note, according to the
Hence. this is interpreted as a request to pass the saIL Note. according to the
abbrcviation dcscribcd above, t l l ~ (1.2)
t
is actually thc formula
abbrcviation described above. that (1.2) is actually the fonnula

"SBAW(MI3(S.A,A W (Pass(S.A,Salt."

Allen

156

Example It: "Do You Have ihe SalP

Example II: "Do You Have rheSall!"

(2.1) SnAW(SU1IFACE-REQUEST (A,S,INFOKMIF

SilAW(SURFACE-REQUEST (A,S,INFORMIF
(S,A,l4ave(S,Sal t))))
(S,A,Have(S,Salt
(2.2) SHARF,I)(AW (INFORMIF(S,A.Havc(S,Salt))))
(2.2) SHARED(AW (!NFORMIF(S,A,Have(S,Salt))))
[action-effect]
[action-effect]
(2.3) SHAREI)(AW (A KNOWIF Havc(S,Salt)))
(2.3) SHARED(AW (A KNOWIF Have(S,Salt)
[~nutuallybclicvcd action-cffcct]
[mutually believed action-effect]
(2.4) SI.IARF:I)(AW (Havc(S,Salt)))
(2.4) SHARED(AW (Havc(S,Salt)))
[mutually bclicvcd know-positive]
[mutually believed know-positive]
(2.5) SHAIZEl)(AW (Pass(S.A.Salt)))
(2.5) SHARED(AW (Pass(S,A,Salt)))
[mutually bclieved prccondition action]
[mutually
believed precondition [body-action]
action]
(2.6) SIjA W(RIIQUES'1'
(A,S,Pass(S.A,Salt)))
(2.6) SBA W(REQUEST (A,S,Pass(S,A,Salt)
[body-action]

(2.1)

Ihis cxamplc involvcs plan inferences using mutual bclicf bctwccn stcps (2.2) and
This example involves plan inferences using mutual belief between steps (2.2) and
(2.5).
(2.5).
Thc litcral intcrprctation of this utlcrance would arise from identifying a
The literal interpretation of this utterance would arise from identifying a
spccch act from stcp (2.2). Thc lcvcl of infcrcncing heuristic favors Lhc indirect
speech act from step (2.2). The level of inferencing heuristic favors the indirect
interpretation, however. Notc that, cvcn without the lcvel of infcrcncing heuristic,
interpretation, however. Note that, even without the level of inferencing heuristic,
the litcral intcrprctation would bc disfavorcd, for it invoIvcs A asking a question
the literal interpretation would be disfavored, for it involves A asking a question
to which both S and A bclicvc A already knows thc answcr. Thc know-negative
to which both S and A believe A already knows the answer. The know-negative
inference is possiblc from step (2.3) (producing SflARF.D(AW(not
inference is possible from step (2.3) (producing SHARED(AW(not
tlavc(S,Salt)))). This path is disfavarcd sincc it is mutually bclicvcd that A knows
Have(S,Salt)))). This path is disfavored since it is mutually believed that A knows
that S has the salt Note that it is still possiblc to dcscribc this utterance as a
that S has the salt Note that it is still possible to describe this utterance as a
ycs/no question as well as a rcqucst to pass thc salt. The urterancc can in fact be
yes/no question as well as a request to pass the salt The utterance can in fact be
both spccch acts simultancously. In gcncral, however, thc indirect intcrprctation is
both speech acts simultaneously. In general, however, the indirect interpretation is
the more uscful description of h e spcakcfs intentions.
the more useful description of the speaker's intentions.
Anothcr example, "Arc you ncar thc salt?". can bc handled in a similar
Aoother example, "Arc you ncar the salt?", can be handled in a similar
manner. Using shared knowlcdge, S would infcr that being near the salt enables
manner. Using shared knowledge, S would infer that being ncar the salt enables
him to rcach it which causes him to have the salt, which is a prercquisitc to passing
him to rcach it which causcs him to have the salt, which is a prerequisite to passing
it, which is an expcctcd goal for A in this context.
it, which is an expectcd goal for A in this context.
Example 111: "I Warrt lo Have the Salt'
Example III: "I Want 10 Have the Salt'
Ihis cxamplc rcquircs S to recognize that A intcndcd him to plan bascd on a goal
1bi5 example requires S to recognize that A intended him to plan based on a goal
inferred from A's uttcrancc. l h u s Lhc example will usc thc ncstcd planning rule in
inferred from A's utterancc. 'Ibus the example will use the nested planning rule in
Section 3.3.
Section 3.3.
(3.1) SIlAW(SURFACE-INI'OIIM(A,S,AW (Havc(A,Salt))))
(3,2)SHAREIYAW(S KNOW(AW (Havc(A.Salt)))))
(3.2)SHARED(A W(S KNOW(AW (Have(A,Salt))))
Iaction-c ffcct]
(3.3) SHAREI)(AW(SW (Havc(A,Salt)))) Iaction-e[fect]
(3.3) SHARED(AW(SW (Havc(A,Salt))))
[mutually bclicvcd dccide in fcrencc]
[mutually believed decide inference]

(3.1) SIlAW(SURFACE-INFORM(A,S.AW (Have(A,Salt)))

157
(3.4) SI4AI<EI)(AW(SW (Pass(S,A,Salt))))
(3.4) SHARED(AW(SW (Pass(S,A,Salt
[mutualiy bclicvcd.ncstcd planning using cfkct-action rule]
[mutually believed,nested planning using effect-action rule]
(3.5) SHAI<EI)(AW (Pass(S.A,Salt))}
(3.5) SHARED(AW (Pass(S.i\.Salt}
[mutually bclicvcd want-action]
[mutually believed want-action]
(3.6) SIIAW~I~EQU13S'l'(A,S.Pass(SSA,Salt)))
(3.6) SBA W(REQUEST(A,S.Pass(S.i\.Salt)
[body-action]
[body-action]

In this cxamplc. S rccognizcs that A intcnds S to acccpt thc goal of A having the
In this example, S recognizes that /\ intends S to accept the goal of /\ having the
salt (infercncc from 3.2 to 3.3), and then A intends S to plan to achicvc thc goal by
salt (inference from 3.2 to 3.3), and then A intends S to plan to achieve the goal by
passing Lhc salt (3.41.
passing the salt (3.4).
Examplc 1V: 'I'wo Intc~prctationsof "Do You Know the Secrefl"
Example IV: Two Interpretations of "Do You Know the Secrefl"

'fo crnpliasizc thc distinction betwccn thc levcls of plan infcrcncing. Iet us
To emph:lsize the distinction between the levels of plan inferencing, let us
considcr two intcrprcta~ionsof l l ~ cqucstion "110 you know thc sccrct?'ln one. it
consider two interpretations of the question "1)0 you know the secret?" In one. it
is assumcd to bc intcndcd ;it facc valuc--1inwcvcr thc hcarcr recognizes a
is assumed to be intended at face value--howeveT the hearer recognizes a
rnutivating goal that thc spcakcr rcally wants to know &hcsccrct, but docs not want
motivating gaul thnt the speaker really wants to know the secret, but docs not want
to ask. In thc sccond, ~ h hcarcr
c
intcrprcts it as an indirect rcqucst that hc tell the
to ask. In the second, the hearer interprets it as an indirect request that he tell the
sccrct, As wc shall scc, both plans involvc the sanlc infcrcnccs, only thc Icvcl.at
secret. As we shall sec, both plans involve the s:lnle inferences, only the leveLat
which tl~cyarc madc differs. 'l'hus this example has the samc strucalrc as dcpicted
which they arc made differs. Thus this example has the same structure as depicted
in E'igurc 3 abovc. Iktails on rcprcscnting a concept such as "the sccrct" are
in Figure 3 above. Detuils on representing a concept such as "the secret" are
ignorcd as thcy are not rclcvant to thc example.
ignored as they are not relevant to the example.
The Literal Interprefation

The Literal Tnterprelation

(4.1) SBAW(SURFACE-I~F.QUF,Sl1(A,S,INF0RMIF.
(4.1) Slll\W(SURFACF.-REQUEST(/\,S,INfORMIF.
(S.A,S KNOWIZEF "thc sccrct")))
(S,I\,S
KNOWREF "the secret")))
(4.2)
SliAl<l~l~(AW(lNFORMlF
(4.2) SHARED(I\W(INFORMIF
(S.A.S KNOWltEF "thc sccrct")))
[action-effect]
KNOWREF "the secret")
[action-effect]
(S.I\.S
(4.3)
SIIAW(I<EQU~S'I'(A,S.INFOIiMIF
(4.3) SBAW(REQUEST(
/\,S.lNFORMIF
(S.A,S KNOWIZEF
"thc sccrct")))
[body-action]
(5.1\,5 KNOWREF "the secret")
[body-action]
(4.4) SIlAW(A KNOWIF (S KNOWREF "thc sccrcl"))
(4.4) SBA W(I\ KNOWn: (S KNOWREF "the secret"
[action-cffect]
[action-effect]
(4.5) SIIAW(S KNOWIZEF "the sccrct")
[know-positive]
(4.5) SBAW(S KNOWREF "the secret")
[know-positive]
(1.6) SI)AW(INI;ORMlZEF(S,A,"thc sccret"))
(4.6) SBAW(lNFORMREF(S,I\. "the secret" [precondition-action]
[precondition-action]
(4.7) SIIA W(A K NOWREF "thc sccret")
[action-cffcct]
(4.7) SBA W(/\ KNOWREF "the secret")
[action-effect]

158

Allen

The brdirec! Interprerurion

The Indirect Interpretation
7 h c first two stcps arc Lhe Same as in the abovc example.
The first two steps are the same as in the above example.
(5.1) Sl~hW(SURF~2CE-REQU~~S'I~(AhS,IN1~0I~MIF
(5.1) SBA W(SURFACE-REQUEST(A.S,INFORMIF
(S.A.S KN0WIlF.F "the sccrct")))
KNOWREF "the secret")))
(5.2)(S.A.5
Sll.AK~il)(AW(INFORMIF
(5.2) SHARED(A W(INFORMIF
(S,A.S KNOWIZI.~I:"the secret")))
(S,A.5
KNOWREF "the
secret")))
(5.3)
SllAliHl)(AW(A
KNOWIF
(5.3) SHARED(A W(A KNOWIF
(S,A.S KNOWIt1:I' "thc sccrct")))
(5,A.5 KNOWREF "the secret")
[~nutually bclicvcd action-cffcct]
[mutually believed action-effect]
(5.4) SllAl<F.l)(AW(S KNOWIlEF
"thc sccrct"))
(5.4) SHARFD(A W(S KNOWREF "the secret"
[mutually bclicvcd know-positive]
[mutuallyMl:I~(S,A."rhc
believed know-positive]
(5.5) Sl4hliF.l)(AW( INFORM
sccrct")))
(5.5) SHARED(A W( INFORM REF(S.A,"the secret")))
[rnutt~allybclicvcd prccondition-action]
(mutually believed precondition-action]
(5.6) SIIA W(I~I~QUI~S'I'(A,S,INFOI<MIZEiF
(5.6) SBh W(REQUEST(A,S,INFORMREF
(S,A,"tllc secret")))
(S,A."thc secret")))
[body-action]
(5.7) SlliZW(A KNOWREF "thc sccrct") [body-action]
(5.7) SBA W(A KNOWREF "the secret")
[action-effcct]
[action-effect]

Note that thc samc chain of infcrcnccs arc donc cxccpt for the context. Stcp (4.4)
Note that the same chain of inferences are done except for the context. Step (4.4)
cbrrcsponds to (5.3), (4.5) to (5.4), (4.6) to (5.5). In stcp (5.6) thc indircct rcqucst is
corresponds to (5.3), (4.5) to (5.4), (4.6) to (5.5). In step (5.6) the indirect request is
idcntificd, ~ h c r c a sthc litcral intcrprctation was idcntificd in (4.3). Stcps (4.7) and
identified. 'Nhereas the literal interpretation was identified in E4.3). Steps (4.7) and
(5.7) arc idcnlical. Hcncc S rcachcs thc slime conclusion in both cascs. However,
(5.7) (Ire identical. Hence S reaches the same conclusion in both cases. However,
if S couId not tcll A thc sccrct, in interprctation I hc could simply answcr "yes,"
if S could not tell A the secret, in interpretation I he could simply answer "yes,"
while in intcrprctation I I he would havc to supply an excuse for not complying
while in interpretation II he would have to supply an excuse for not complying
with A's rcquest.
with A's request.
Thcre arc a few factors that affcct which intcrprctation would be choscn by the
There arc a few factors that affecl which interpretation would be chosen by the
system. For instance, if S believes that A bclicvcs that S knows thc sccrct. thcn the
system. For instance, if S believes that A believes that S knows the secret, then the
lircral intcrprctation is unlikcly for it cnails that A has a goal (4.5) tllat A bdieves
literal interpretation is unlikely for it entails that A has a goal (4.5) that A believes
already holds (scc heuristic HZ). This fact would also favor the indircct
already holds (see heuristic H2). This fact would alsu favor the indirect
intcrprctation by eliminating an infcrcncc from step (5.3) to
interprctation by eliminating an inference from step (5.3) to

SHAREl)(AW(-S KNOWREF"the sccrct"))).

SHARED(AW(-'S KNOWREF "the secret"))).
I f on thc other hand. S bclicvcs that A docsn't know whcthcr S knows the sccrct,
Ifon the other hand, S believes that A docsn't know whether S knows the secret,
lhcn thc indircct intcrprctation is wcakcncd by thc uncertainty at stcp (5.3). and
then the indirect interpretation is weakened by the uncertainty at step (5.3), and
h c litcral intcrprctation is a rcasonablc plan. 'l'hus thc literal will tend to be
the literal interprctation is a reasonable plan. Thus the literal will tend to be
favored.
favored.

159

2.5.5 Using General Knowledge

far, thc
So far,
the plan infcrcncc
inference mlcs
rules havc
have solely concerned knowledge and action.
These have
raoge of uttcranccs
utterances in a fcw
few domains.
havc allowed us to explaio
explain a wide range
However,
infcrcncing about the speaker's
spcakcr's goals can, in principle, draw on any
However, the inferencing
fact that thc
hcarcr bclicvcs
thc speaker
spcaker used
uscd in constfllcting
constructing his plan. In
the hearer
believes the
general world knowlcdgc
knowledge is often dcpcndcd
depended upon in plans. For
particular, gcncral
instance,
A may
bclicvcs that condition X
X causes
causcs condition Y.
Y, if
if A
A wants Y, A
instancc, if A believes
attempt
to achieve X.
"Inus we havc
have new rules
dealing with causality:
attcmpt el
X.'lhus
mlcsdcaling
Carlsal Rules
Cansal
causes Y,
Ihe Jbllou~it~g
following inferences
IIf
f S beliel'fS
be1ie1,er thai
that A believes
bdieves X causes
Y, then
rherr rlre
irlfererlces are
possible:
possible:

snAWry)
SnAW(Y) :)i
3isnAW(X);
SIMW(X): and
SnAW(,X):)i SnAW('Y).
'l11cTe
'Ihcrc is also general
gcncral knowledge about the motivations of other
othcr agents.
agents. This
infcr new goals of agents.
agcnts. IInn particular,
knowlcdgc can be uscd
knowledge
used to infer
particular. if an agent
bclicvcd
X holds,
believed condition X
holds. and that condition X
X is undesirable, then the agent
notX, Thus wc
havc a corresponding
corrcsponding plan infcrcncc
may start to w.mt
want notX.
m:lY
we have
inference stating that
if an agent
agcnt to be aware of some
solnc undesirable
undcsirablc condition, then
agcnt wants another agent
the agent probably wants thc
the agent
agcnt to eliminate that condition. IThis
h i s is
summarized as:

UndeSirability
Undesirability Condition
SIlAW(Sn(X)):)i
s n A w ( s n ( x ) ) >i SnAW(SW(,X))
snnw(sw(7x))
where.S
where
S' belieles
beliel'es A
A beliel'es
beliel'es X is undesirable.
These
plans, and,
'Ihcsc new rules dramatically increase
increasc the search space
spacc of possible plans,
an4
as yet, have not been
bccn implemented
implcmcntcd in a general
gcncral manner. However, from a
theoretical
view, they allow onc
investigate the adequacy
dicorctical point of view.
one to invcstigatc
adcquacy of the
proposed tha)ry
theory of speech
them, a wide rangc
range of complex
proposcd
spccch aCts.
acts. Using thcm,
complcx language
usc
In particular,
particular. consider the classic
use can be
bc explained. In
classic example
(1)
(1) "It's cold in here"
issued
the king is cold
issucd by a king (I\)
(A) to his servant
scrvant (S). From (I),
(1). S may infer
infcr that thc
and, since bcing
being cold is undcsirable,
undesirable, tliat
tl,at thc
the king docs
be cold. Since,
does not want to bc
Since.

Allen

160

in this sctting, thc coldncss is bcing causcd by an open window, the scrvant may
in this selting. the coldness is being caused by an open window, the servant may
close the window. If thc king intcndcd this Iinc of infcrcnce to occur, and intended
close the window. If the king intended this linc ofinfercnce to occur, and intcnded
thc scrvant to rccognizc this intention, uttcrancc (1) counts as a rcqucst to close
the scrvant to recognize this intention. utterance (1) counts as a request to close
thc window. 'I'hus, assuming thc following gcncral world knowledge:
the window. Thus. assuming the following general world knowledge:
( I ) Cold(room) A 1N(agcntroom) 3 Cold(agent) .
,
(2) Undcsirablc (Cold(agcnt))
(2) Undesirable
(Cold(agent
(3) Opcn(window)
A Part-Of(window,room) 3 Cold(room)
(3) Opcn(window) 1\ Part-Oflwindow,room)::J Cold(room)

(I) Cold(room) 1\ IN(agent.room):::> Cold(agent) .

?kc plan can bc sunimarized as:

The plan can be summarized as:
(6.1) S13AW(SURf2ACE-INFORM(A,S.Cold(Rooml)))
(6.1) SBJ\W(SURFJ\CE-INFORM
(!\.S,Cold(Rooml)
(6.2) SI IAIZ F.l)(A W ( S KNOW
Cold(l<oom1))) lacdon-effect]
(6.2) SIIJ\R
ED(J\ W(S KNOW
1) [action-effect]
(6.3) SI1,2liF.I>(AW
(S K Cold(Room
N O W Cold(A1))
(6.3) SIL\REIJ(J\W (S KNOW Cold(!\}
[mu1ually bclicvcd Causal lnfercncc]
[mutually
belicved Causal Inference]
(6.4) SI IARED(AW(SW
(notCold(A))))
(6.4) SIIJ\RED(J\W(SW (notCold(A))
[mutually bclicvcd undesirability condition]
[mutually believed
undesirability condition]
(notOpcn(Window))))
(6.5) S i i h I< F.i)(AW(SW
(6.5) Slft\ REIJ(
AW(SW
lnotOpen(Window
(mutually bclicvcd. planning by S with Causal Infcrcnce]
[mutually
believed, planning
by S with Causal Inference]
Sf lAIZI<I>(AW(SW
(Closc(S.Window))))
(6.6)
(6.6) SH!\RI-:I)(A W(SW
(Close(S,Window))))
Irnr~[unlly
bclicbcd, planning by S with cffcccct-action]
believed,
planning hy S with effect-action]
(6.7)Imutually
SfiA R F.I)(AW
(Closc(S.Window)))
(6.7) SH!\REIJ(AW (Close(S,Window)
[tni~ruallybclicvcd, want-action]
believed, want-action]
(6.8) SIlAW(REQUES1' [mutually
(A.S,Closc(S,Window)))
[body-action]
(6.8) SBAW(REQUEST (A,S,Close(S,Window))) [body-action]

2.5.6 Discussion

2.5.6 Discussion

Thc above thcory of spccch acts is intcrcsting in that it m a t s the direct and
The above theory of speech acts is interesting in that it treats the direct and
indircct forms unifornily and allows an utterancc to bc morc than onc speech act
indirect forms unifomlly and allows an ulterance to be more than one speech act
simultaneously. In addition. thc rangc of indircct spccch acts accounted for is
simultaneously. In addition. the range of indirect speech acts accounted for is
considcrahly grcatcr than with nlhcr approachcs. such as [Gordon and lakoff
considerably greater than with other approaches, such as [Gordon and Lakoff
19751 and [Orawn 1980)). In cases whcrc this work and h e othcrs overlap, this
1975] and [Bmwn 1980]). In cases where this work and the others overlap, this
approach is Inore sclcctivc as it heavily uscs thc context in which thc utterance is
approach is more selective as it heavily uses the context in which the ulteranee is
spoken, and dc-cmphasizcs Lhc actual form of rhc uttcrancc. 'lhis, of course, is not
spoken, and dc-emphasizes the actual form of the utterance. 'lhis, of course, is not
donc without somc loss. 1:or instance, thc currcnt thcory cannot distinguish the
done without some loss. For instance, the current theory cannot distinguish the
sub~lcdiffcrcnccs bctwccn
SubLIc differences between
"Can you opcn thc door?" and
"Can you open the door?" and
"Arc you ablc to opcn thc door?".
"Arc you able to open the door?".

161

former sentence
sentence appears
appcars much more
morc likely to be a request to open the
The fonner
door than the latter.
lattcr. Disregarding
Ilisrcgarding such subtleties,
subtlcties, a large range
rangc of indirect
indircct uses can
be explained.
cxplaincd. For example,
examplc. in thc
smtion domain,
domain, the following
following forms
forms have
the train sk1tion
bccn rccognircd
intcrprctations:
been
recognized in their indircct
indirect interpretations:

"I want to know whcn

thc Windsor train leaves?"
"I
when the
"(
tell me when ..:'
..."
"I want you to tcll
"Can you tell
when ..."
tcll me whcn
..."

..."

"Do you know whcn

when ..,"

"Will you tell

tcll me
mc when .....
..."

;~ddition,more
morc unusual analyses
annlyscs of sentences
scntcnccs have bccn
1%
In addition,
been analyzed by hand. For
instance, thc
hcrc cxplain
instance,
the mechanisms here
explain how Uic
the sentence

"John told me to ask you to lcave"

leave"
can beintcrpmed
be interpreted as
(1) a simple assertion
asscnion of a fact that John did the action
(1)

reported;
reported:

(2)
(2) an inform that John wants you to leave;
lcave: and
(3) a rcqucst
request that you lcavc
leave (giving
request).
(giving a reason for the request).
[Allcn 1979]
19791and [Perrault
[Pcrrault and Allcn
19801).
This analysis
analysis can bc
be found in [Allen
Allen 1980]).

2.6 Analyzing Senlenee

Fragments
Scnlcncc Fragments
As we have seen,
knowledge is necessary to generate
sccn, plan knowlcdgc
gcncratc appropriate responses
even
The mood of a sentence,
cvcn to syntactically
syntaclically complete
cornplctc sentences.
scntcnccs. 'I'hc
scntcncc, given
givcn by the
subject,
verb, is critical
identification. With
subject, aUXiliaries,
auxiliaries, and main vcrb.
crilical to speech
spcmh act idcntification.
scntcncc fragments
fragments such as "the
"thc Momreal
Montreal train."
cvcn thc
m a ~ dof the
thc sentence
scntcncc
sentence
train," even
the mood
may not bc
be known, thus making cvcn
even thc
the surface
surfacc speech
spccch act identification
difficult. Howcvcr,
infcrcncc prwcss
dcscribcd so far is already powcrful
difficulL
However, thc
the plan inference
process described
powerful
handlc many ambiguities
ambiguities of
ofthis
enough to handle
this type.
Even in sentence
sentence fragments,
fragments, there
thcrc remain
rcmain syntactic
syntactic clues lo
to the surface speech

Allen

Allen

162

162

act. Words such as "when", "what", "which", etc., signal a SURFACE-REQUEST

act. Words such as "when", "what", "which", etc., signal a SURFACE-REQUEST
to INFORMIZEF. Thc usc of the word "plcase" in a scntcnce marks it as a
to INFORMREF. The use of the word "please" in a sentence marks it as a
rcqucst. Thus, an uttcrancc such as "the door, please" could not be interpreted as
request. Thus, an utterance such as "the door, please" could not be interpreted as
an inform. Of course, thcre will oftcn be cases whcrc a mood ambiguity cannot be
an inform. Of course, there will often be cases where a mood ambiguity cannot be
rcsolvcd at the syntactic Icvcl, and in these cases, the altcrnativcs will be
resolved at the syntactic level, and in Lhese cases, the alLernatives will be
cnumcratcd and each case will bccome a plan altcrnative. Since the number of
enumerated and each case will become a plan alternative. Since the number of
surface spccch acts is stnall, this approach is rcasonable.
surface speech acts is small, Lhis approach is reasonable.
'I'hc less cxplicit thc utterance, thc morc important thc cxpcctations become,
The less explicit the utterance, the more important the expectations become.
for thcy provide the missing dcuils of thc spcakcr's actions and plans. l'ypically, a
for they provide the missing details afthe speaker's actions and plans. Typically, a
spcakcr has a spccific spccch act and propositional content that hc wants to convey
speaker has a specific speech act and propositional content that he wants to convey
to ttlc hcarcr. In addition, thc speaker may have some idca of what tllc hearer
to the hearer. In addition. the speaker may have some idea of what the hearer
expects him to say. Any fragment that singlcs out thc correct expectation from the
expects him to say. Any fragment that singles out the correct expectation from the
rcst is acccplablc to co~nmunicatcthc spcccl~act and proposition. I'hc fragment
rest is acceptable to communicllte the speech act and proposition. The fragment
must also distinguish wha: l~articularsubgoals in thc cxpcctation arc being
must also distinguish what particular subgoals in the expectation arc being
pursued. In rcstricti\lc domains, such as the train station, idcniifying the
pursued. In restrictive domains, such as the train station, identifying the
fundamental goal (i.c. boarding, mccting) is sufficient to identify thc subgoals
fundamental goal (i.e. boarding, meeting) is sufficient to idenlify the subgoals
desircd. In such settings, vcry bricf fragments can bc uscd succcssfully, For
desired. In such settings. very brief fragments can be used successfully. For
example,
example,

"Thc train to Windsor?"

"The train to Windsor?"
succcssfilly idcntifics thc fundamental goal of boarding the train. Of the possible
successfully identifies the fundamental goal of boarding the train. Of the possible
subgoals that arc involved in this plan, only knowing thc departure time and
subgoals Lhat arc involved in this plan, only knowing the departure time and
location are rclcvant (Expcctcd), for this is what the information agcnt bclicves
location arc relevant (Expected), for this is what the infonnation agent believes
that the patron bclicves he can hclp achicvc. O h c r subgotds rcquircd in order to
that the patron believes he can help achieve. Other subgonls required in order to
boardthc train such as having a tickct, arc not relevant hecausc (thc information
board the train such as having a ticket, arc not relevant because (the infonnation
agent bclicvcs) thc patron believes the information agcnt docs not handle tickets.
agent believes) the patron believes the information agent docs not handle tickets.

2.6.1 An Example of a Scntcncc Fragment

2.6.1 An Example of a Sentence Fragment
As usual, thc setting is the train station. A is a patron and S is the information
As usual, the setting is the train station, A is a patron and S is the information
agcnt.
agent.
A: Ihc train to Windsor ?
A: The train to Windsor?

The syntactic analysis suggests two interpretations:

The syntactic analysis suggests two interpretations:

163
(5.1) SURFACE,liF.QUES'I'(A,S,INF;ORMREF(S,A,x)
(5.1) SURFACE.REQUEST(A,S,INFORMREF(S,A,x)
whcrc PliOPElilY(train1.x) A TO-PROPER'I'Y(train1, Windsor)
where PROPERTY(trainl,x) A TO-PROPERTY(trainl. Windsor)

(5.2) SURFACE.REQUEST(A,S,INFORMIF

(5.2) SURFACE.REQUEST(A,S,INFORMIF
(S,A,Pl<OPII'SYinvolving lminl))

(S,A,PROPERTY
involving train I
whcrc '1'0-I'liOI'ER'I'Y(train1,Windsor)
where '1'0- PROPFR'I'Y(train I,Windsor)

The usc of '1'0-I'ROl'F,R'IY hcrc is an attctnpt to cncodc some syntactic

The use of TOPROPERTY here is an attempt to encode some syntactic
knowlcdgc into thc scrnantic rcprcscntation; it stands for an arbitrary property
knowledge into the semantic representation: it stands for an arbitrary property
(involving a train and a city in this case) that is rcalirtble at thc syntactic level
(involving a train and a city in this case) that is realizable at the syntactic level
using thc prcposition "to". 'Ihc problcrn wc arc avoiding hcrc is h a t tlic actual
using the preposition "to". 'Ibe problem we arc avoiding here is that the actual
rclation rcferrcd to llcrc can only bc obtained from thc cxpcctations, which arc not
relation referred to here can only be obtained from the expectations, which are not
considcrcd until thc scntcncc is p;~rscdand the "literal" rncanillg constructed. It is
considered until the sentence is parsed and the "literal" meaning constructed. It is
nor a si~nplcinattcr to changc this though. for arbitrarily many infcrcnccs may
not a simple matter to change this though. for arbitrarily many inferences may
haw to bc tnadc from thc lilcral rncaning bchrc thc correct rclation can bc
have to be made from the literal meaning before the correct relation can be
idcntificd. Wc havc rcsortcd to encoding such syntactic rcstriclions in special
identi fied. We have resorted to encoding such syntnctic restrictions in special
patterns that match thc appropriate rclation names.
pJtterns that match the appropriate rclation names.
'I'his cxamplc will consider only thc first intcrprctation. Dctails on how the
This example will consider only the first interpretation. Details on how the
sccond is climinatcd can bc found in [Allcn 1979): l'hc dcscribcd trairr is
second is eliminated can be found in [Allen 1979)." The described trairr is
incompatible with thc M E W cxpcctation, lcaving only the tlOAKI1 expectation
incompatible with the MHT expectation, leaving only the BOARD expectation
as thc rcasonablc intcrprctation. 'I'hc infcrcnces rnadc from intcrprctation (5.1)
as the reasonable interpretation. The inferences made from interpretation (5.1)
lcad to the goal:
lead to the goal:
A KNOWREF x
A KNOWREFx

whcrc PKOPERTY(train1,x)
where PROPERTY(trainl,x)
'I'o identify thc actt~alprcdicatc indicatcd by thc prcdicatc pattern PROPERTY,
To identify the actual predicate indicated by the predicate pattern I'ROPERTY,
thc 1%0A12Dcxpcctarion is inspcctcd for matches.
the BOA R0 expectation is inspected for matches.
Thcre arc two relevant properrics of uains, thc IIEPAR'T.1'IME and the
There arc two relevant properlies of trains, the DEPART.TIME and the
I)EPAR'l'.LOC. Assuming that S bclicvcs that A knows ncither of the values for
DEPART.LOC. Assuming that S believes that A knows neither of the values for
thcsc rclations, both can bc considcrcd obstacles and bc used to form a rcsponse
these rclations, both can be considered obstacles and be used to fonn a response
corrcsponding to
corresponding to
"It lcavcs at 3:15 from gate 7."
"It leaves at 3:15 from gate 7."

In another setting, S's rcspansc to thc sarnc fragmcnt might bc quite diffcrcnt.
In another setting. S's response to the same fragment might be quite different.
If thc train station had only nnc platform, hc would only rcspond with the
If the train station had only one platfonn. hc would only respond with the
dcparturc timc bccausc hc would bclicvc that A knows thc location already. To be
departure time because he would believe that A knows the location already. To be
complcdy diffcrcnt, if S wcrc thc tickct agcnt hc would intcrprct rhc fragmcnt as
completely different, if S were the ticket agent he would interpret the fragment as
a rcqucst for a tickct (sincc this is what S cxpccts, i.c. what S bclievcs that A
a request for a ticket (since this is what S expects, I.e. what S believes that A

Allen

164

bclievcs S is ablc to do), and might rcply

believes S is able to do). and might reply
"$10.50 please"
"$10.50 please"

Ihis approacli covcrs a quitc diffcrcnt rangc of scntcncc fragmcnls than any
This approach covers a quite different range of sentence fragments than any
othcr mcthod dcscribcd in thc litcraturc. 'I'hc most common mctliod, which could
other method described in the literature. The most common method, which could
bc callcd thc "scmantic appmacl~." accepts frag~ncntsin thc form of fill1 syntactic
be called the "semantic approach," accept~ fragments in the form of full syntactic
units, such as noun phriacs, and uscs thc fragrncnts to build a partial "scrnantic"
units. such as noun phrases, and uses the fragments to build a pilrtial "semantic"
rcprcscntation that is then tnatclicd into thc rcprcscntation of thc prcvious
representation that is then matched into the representation of the previous
uttcrancc [Cirosz 19771; Ilturton 19761; [Hcndrix 19771. If this m;itch is successful,
utterance [Grosz 1977]: [Burton 1976]: [Hendrix 1977]. If this match is successful,
h e rcprcscntation of thc utlcrancc is constructcd our of thc prcvious utterance's
the representation of the utterance is constructed out of the previous utterance's
structure with tlic newly spccificd parts replacing thc parts di,rt tllcy matched.
structure with the newly specified parts replacing the parts that they matched.
'Ihis mctl~odis lirnitcd tu thusc frag~ncntsLhat dcpcnd on thc structure of the
'Ibis method is limited to those fragments that depend on the structure of the
prcvious uttcrancc for tlicir intcrprctation. As shown in thc train dialogues, there
previous utterance for their interpretation. As shown in the train dialogues, there
are many fragmcnts uscd whcrc this is not thc case.
are many fragments used where this is not the case.
Our approach is suitcd for cascs whcrc thc mcrc mcntion of a conccpt or
Our approach is suited for cases where the mere mention of a concept or
phrasc is suggcstivc cnough to convcy a tllought/wish. 'Ihcsc inshnccs typically
phrase is suggestive enough to convey a thought/wish. 'Ibese instances typically
I~avclittle syntactic rcl~ltionto prcv~ousuttcnnccs, and in fact can wcur when
have little syntactic relation to previous utterances, and in fact can occur when
thcre is no prcvious uttcrancc. I n many ways. the matching tccllniqiics arc similar
there is no previous utterance. I n many ways. the matching techniques arc similar
t i thc "scmantic approach," but thc goats arc very diffcrcnt. "lhc goal of thc
to the "semantic il pp roach," but the goals are very different. 'Tne goal of the
semantic approach is to find a aructural similarity with thc prcvious uttcrance.
semantic approach is to find a structuntl similarity with the previous utterance.
I h c goal of this work is to identify thc plan and goals of the spcakcr. A
lbe goal of this work is to idelltify the plan and goals of the speaker. A
syntactically complctc irttcrancc is ncvcr considcrcd or constn~ctcdfor it has no
syntactically complete utterance is never considered or constnlcted for it has no
cffcct on thc understanding of h e uttcrance.
effect on the understanding of the utterance.
2.7 Conclusions
2.7 Conclusions

We have argucd that a plan-bascd model of thc language comprchcnsion process

We have argued that a plan-based model of the language comprehension process
can explain a wide rangc of linguistic behavior that has bccn problematic to
can explain a wide range of linguistic behavior that has been problematic to
previous approachcs. In particular, wc havc addrcsscd thc problems of:
previous approaches. In particular, we have addressed the problems of:

- gcncrating rcsponscs that convcy more

generaling
thatrequested;
convey more
information
thanresponses
was explicitly
information than was explicitly requesled;
- gencrating rcsponscs based on indirect
generating ofresponses
based on indirect
intcrprctations
thc utterances;
interpretations of the ulterances;

165

generating appropriate rcsponscs to

generating
appropriate
responsesfragment;
to
uttcranccs
that co~lsist
solcly of a scntcncc
utterances that consist solely of a sentence fragment;
Thc common thrcad Lhrough thc solu~ionsto thcsc problcms is thc ability of
The common thread through the solutions to these problems is thc ability of
dlc hcarcr to infcr thc spcakcr's plans and to thcn dctcct obsracles in thcsc plans.
the hearer to infer the speaKcr's plans and to then detect obstacles in these plans.
We havc explicitly indicated thc rolc that contcxt plays in language
We have explicitly indicatcd the role that context plays in language
undcrstanding: o11ly thosc plans h a t arc rcasonablc in the currcnt contcxt (as
understanding: only those plans that are reasonable in the current context (as
dctcnnincd by tlic rating hcuristics) arc potential analyscs of thc intention of the
detennined by the rating heuristics) are potential analyses of the intention of the
spcakcr. A largc part of Ulc contcxt is thc hcal.cr3smodcl of thc spcakcr's bclicfs
speaKer. A large part of Ule context is the hearer's model of the speaKer's beliefs
and goals. If thc contcxt is suficicntlp rcstricti~eto uniquely dctcrminc the
and goals. If the context is sufficiently restrictive to uniquely determine the
spcakcr's plan, thcn appropriate rcsponscs can bc gcncrated for a widc rangc of
speaker's plan, then appropriate responses can be generated for a wide range of
uttcranccs oficn coosidcrcd pl-oblcmatic.
utterances often considered problematic.
'Ilic irnplcn~cntalionbascd on this thcory has supported tllc claim h a t such
'lllC implementation based on this theory has supported the claim that such
work can \cad to morc hclpful. yct still practical, natural languagc ilndcrstanding
work can lead to more helpful, yet still practical, nalurallanguage understanding
systcms. Our currcnt spccificiltion of thc actual plan inference process, howcver, is
systems. Our current specification of tile actual plan inference process, however. is
not dcrailcd cnougll to allow it to pcrform in morc colnplcx domains than the
not detailed enough to allow it to perform in more complex domains than the
train station. Considcrablc work needs to bc done to spccify morc control
train station. Considerable work needs to be done to specify more control
hcuristics, largc domitins probably rcquirc thc intrtrductkm of domain specific
heuristics. Large dom~lins probably require the introduction of domain specific
infcrcnce rulcs. In this pilpcr, we havc begun to Iay thc groundwork by specifying
inference rules. In this paper, we have begun to Jay Ule groundwork by specifying
characteristics that sny plan infcrcncc rncchanism would nced in any domain.
characteristics that any plan inference mechanism would need in any domain.
In largcr domains tlicrc will bc a largcr sct of expcctarions. as wcll as more
In larger domains there will be a larger set of expectations, as well as more
colnplcx dialogues. I n some ways, I h c growth of expectations may nor seriously
complex dialogues. In some ways, the growth of expectations may not seriously
affcct thc system. 'lhis dcpends on the obscrvation tliat at the bcginning of a
afTect the system. This depends on the observation that at the beginning of a
dialogue, pcoplc arc oftcn quitc specific about their goals. In other words, they
dialogue, people are often quite specific about their goals. In other words, they
explicitly jdcntify an cxpcctation. I f this goal is a task-oricntcd goal, thcn [Grosz
explicitly identify an expectation. If this goal is a task-oriented goal, then [Grosz
19771 has shown that much of thc remaining dialoguc will follow thc structure of
1977} has shown that much of the remaining dialogue will follow the structure of
thc plan to achieve that goal. Illis, hnwcvcr, will nor hclp in dialogues whcrc the
the plan to achieve that goaL 11lis, however, will nOt help in dialogues where the
topic may shiR considcrably. Possibly work along the lincs of Sidncr (Chapter 5 of
topic may shift considerably. Possibly work along the lines of Sidner (Chapter 5 of
this volumc) and [ICcichrnan 19781 can bc uscd in ctlnjunction with a plan-based
this volume) and [Reichman 1978] can be used in conjunction with a plan-based
model of the spcakcr's intcntions to providc a full analysis of thesc dialogues.
model of tile speaker's intentions to provide a full analysis of these dialogues.
Pcrhaps the most difficuit remaining problcms lic in the specification of the
Perhaps the most difficult remaining problems lie in the specification of the
relalion bctwccn thc syntactic processing and the rest of thc system. We saw in
relation between the syntactic processing and the rest of the system. We saw in
thc section on scntcncc fragments a casc whcrc thc syntactic information
the section un sentence fragments a case where the syntactic infonnation
concerning thc preposition "to" could not bc uscd until thc advanced stagcs of the
concerning the preposition "to" could not be used until the advanced stages of the
plan infcrencc proccss. 'I'hus thc parscr may not bc ablc to complcte its job until
plan inference process. Thus the parser may not be able to complete its job until
the plan infcrcncc proccss has bccn running. Howcvcr, thc plan infcrcncc process
the plan inference process has been running. However, the plan inference process
depends on thc output of thc parscr in ardcr to bcgin inferring thc speaker's
depends on the output of the parser in order to begin inferring the speaker's
intention.
intention.
Onc final conccm is with thc hndamcnlrtl tools of our approach: our logics of
One final concern is with the fundamental tools of our approach: our logics of
belicf, want and action are only minimally adcquate. This has becn acceptable so
belief, want and action are only minimally adequate. This has been acceptable so

166

Allen
1

\
far, for our cmphasis has bcen on demonstrating thc uscfulncss
of such notions in
far, for our emphasis has been on demonstrating the usefulness of such notions in
a model of language. Now that wc havc a bertcr idea of how thcsc tools can be
a model of language. Now that we have a better idea of how these tools can be
used, it is time to rcturn to them and attempt a bcttcr formulation.
used, it is time to rcturn to thcm and attempt a bcttcr formulation.

Acknowlcdgments

Ihis paper is the result of multiplc papcrs and drafts writtcn over thc last two
This paper is the result of multiple papers and drafts written ovcr the last two
years. It rcprescrits my final attempt to clean up and prcscnt thc work from my
years. It represents my final altcmpt to clean up and present the work from my
thcsis. Much of thc original work was donc in conjunction with Ray Pcrrault and
thesis. Much of the original work was done in conjunction with Ray Perrault and
Philip Cohcn whilc at tl~cU ~ i ~ c r s iof
t y 'Toronto. 'l'hcy also havc providcd helpful
Philip Cohen white at the University of Toronto. They also have provided helpful
commctlls on many drafts in the last fcw years. I would also like to thank Jcrry
comments on many drafts in the last few years. I would also like to thank Jerry
Kaplan, 1'3avid McDonald, Candy Sidncr. and I3onnic Wcbbcr for their detailed
Kaplan, David McDonald. Candy Sidncr, and Bonnie Webbcr for their detailed
reading and comlncnting on thc final draft. All thcsc people have greatly
reading and commenting on the final draft. All these people havc greatly
irnprovcd Lhc quality of this dwurnent.
improvcd the quality of this document

CHAPTER 3
Cooperative Responses From a Portable Natural
Language Database Query System

S. Jerrold Kaplan

J.l Introduction
3.1

cssential aspect
aspcct of
of human conversation. Speakers cooperate for
Coopcration is an essential
Cooperation
variety of
of purposes: to perform tasks, solve problems, communicate needed
a varicty
ctc. Indeed, for a convcrsation
conversation to occur at all implies some minimal
information, etc.
of cooperation. One way in which human convcrsants
conversants cooperate is by
level of
observing
postulates, etc.,
observing a variety of rules, conventions,
conventions, postulates,
etc., that allow the
communication of
intentions and beliefs in addition to the literal meaning of their
ofintentions
promot~s smooth and effective communication. Consequently,
utterances. This promotcs
syntax and semantics
semantics alone are not adequate to characterize a cooperative
knowledge of the conventions of use
usc and expectations of a native
conversation:
conversation: a knowlcdgc
speaker is required. The
falls under the rubric
I h c study of these conversational
conversational effects falls
of
nra9:rnarjcs: those aspects oflinguistic
ofpraematics:
of linguistic communication that arise from the fact of
utterance or the context or
of use.
Considering non-human conversational
(NL)
conversational partners, Natural Language (NL)
nata
Dam Base (DB)
(DD) query systems
systems sometimes
sometimes engage
engage in behavior that would be
regarded
pamer. Although this
regarded as uncooperative or inappropriate in a human partner.
behavior is sometimes
sometimes due to a lack of world knowledge,
knowledge, much of it can be
attributed to a failure
failure to deal in a systematic
systematic way with pragmatic issues.
issues. Consider
the following
following exchange
exchange with a hypothetical NL DB query system:
User:
Which students
students got a grade
grade of Fin
F in CS105
CS105 in
User: Which
Spring 19807
1980?
System:
System: Nil. [the
[Lhc empty set]
set]
User:
CSlO5 in Spring
Spring 19807
19801
anyone fail
fail CS105
User: Did anyone
System:
System: No.
User:
How many
many people passed
passed CS105
CSlOS in Spring
Spring 19807
1980?
User: How
System:
System: Zero.
Zero.
User:
Was CSI05
CSlO5 given
given in
in Spring
Spring 19807
1980?
Uscr: Was
System:
Systcm: No.
No.

Kaplan
Kaplan

168

168

A cooperativc systcm should bc ablc to dctcct that the initial qucry in the
A cooperative system should be able to detect that the initial query in the
dialog incorrectly prcsumcd that CSlO5 was offcrcd in Spring 1980. and respond
dialog incorrectly presumed that CSI05 was offered in Spring 1980, and respond
appropriately. ?his ability is csscntial to a NL systcm that will function in a
appropriately. This ability is essential to a NL system that will function in a
practical cnvjronmcnt, bccause thc fact that NI. is uscd in thc intcraction will
practical environment, because the fact that Nt is llsed in the interaction wilt
imply to the uscrs Lhat thc nonnal coopcrativc convcntions follawcd in a human
imply to the users that the nonnal cooperative conventions followed in a human
dialog will bc obscrvcd by thc machinc. While each rcsponsc in thc dialog is a
dialog will be observed by the machine. While each response in the dialog is a
corrcct, dircct answcr to thc corresponding qucstion, the overall cffcct is
correct, direct answer to the corresponding question, the overall effect is
uncoopcrativc - thc system appears to "stoncwa~l".~
uncooperative - the system appears to "stonewall".1
A similar conversation with a coopcrative human rcspondcnt might have gone
A similar conversation with a cooperative human respondent might have gone
as follows:
as follows:

Q:

R:

studcnrs got a gradc of F in CSlD5 in

Q:Which Which
studentsl98O?
got a grade of Fin CSI0S in
Spring
Spring 1980?

K:

CS105 was not given in Spring 1980.

CS105 was not given in Spring 1980.

A coopcrative human spcakcr can infcr from the (pragmatic) fact that the question
A cooperative human speaker can infer from the (pragmatic) fact that the question
was poscd (and an assumption h a t the qucstioncr believes the qucstion to be
was posed (and an assumption mat the questioner believes the question to be
appropriate in the context) that the qucstioncr docs not know that CS105 was not
appropriate in the context) that the questioner docs not know that CSI05 was not
given in Spring 1980, and so s/he informs the qucstioncr accordingly rather than
given in Spring 1980, and so s/he infonns the questioner accordingly rather than
answering the qucstion directly. Noticc that thc appropriate response h not a
answering the question directly. Notice that the appropriate response is not a
direct answer to thc question at all, but rather is an indircct response correcting
direct answer to the question at all, but rather is an indirect response correcting
the questioner's rnisimpression about the domain of discourse.
the questioner's misimpression about the domain of discourse.
NL DB qucry systems that arc capable only of dircct answers to questions will
NL DB query systems that arc capable only of direct answers to questions will
necessarily give inappropriate or meaningless responses in this and similar
necessarily give inappropriate or meaningless responses in this and similar
contexts. Surprisingly, the conditions under which such indirect responses are
contexts. Surprisingly, the conditions under which such indirect responses are
considcred inorc appropriate than dircct answers can bc formally defincd, and a
considered more appropriate than direct answers can be formally defined, and a
limitcd but non-trivial class of appropriate indircct responscs can be incorporated
limited but nowtrivial class of appropriale indirect responses can be incorporated
into a computational question answering system using only a lexicon and h e DB
into a computational question answering system using only a lexicon and the DB
itself as sourccs of domain specific knowledge. This is possible in pan because
itself as sources of domain specific knowledge. This is possible in part because
speakers naturally encode directly in the lexical and syntactic structure of their
speak.ers naturally encode directly in the lexical and syntactic structure of their
uttcrances a great dcaI of information about their intentions and beliefs beyond
utterances a great deal of information about their Intentions and beliefs beyond
thc literal content of their utteranc~s.~
the literal content of their utterances.2

1. Stoncwalling is a term used for unux)pcrative (and oken misleading) yet technically mrreet

1. Stonewalling
term used 11for
(and often
misleading)
yet technically
correct
responsesistoa quc<tions.
waruncooperative
popularized during
the Senate
Watergate
IIcarings to
describe the
It was
popularized
during the
Watergate
to describe
the Senator
responsesbehavior
to quc.~tions.
of scveral
While
llouse witnesses
F:orSenate
an example.
see Hearings
the interchange
between
of several
!louse on
witnes!iCs
anYork
example.
the interchange between Senator
behaviorErvin
and I I.While
R. I laldcman
P.586 ofFor
[New
Timessee
19731.
on P.586
of [New
York
Times 19731_
Ervin and2.I1.R.
Haldeman
No daim
is made
hcrc that
all such
inrormation
is encoded in this way, but nlher that substantive
2. No claim
is made here
such information
is encoded in this way. but rather that substantive
conversational
cumthat
are all
recoverable
at this level.
conversational cues are recoverable at this level.

169
This chaptcr explorcs scvcral aspccts of thc pragmatics of coopcrative ql~cstion
This chaptcr cxplorcs scveral aspccts of the pragmatics of cooperative question
answcring, in thc computational contcxt of a NI- DB qucry system. It is drawn
answering, in the computational context of a NL OIl query system. It is drawn
from research originally reported in [Kaplan 19791. l'hc major conuib;ltion of this
from research originally reported in [Kaplan 1979]. The major contribJtion of this
work is to dcmonstratc that:
work is to demonstrate that:
1) Coopcrativc direct and indirect rcsponscs to a habitable class
1) Cooperative
direct and
indirect responses
a habitable
of NI, qucstions
conccrncd
with data to
retricval
can bcclass
produced
ofNL questions
concerned
with
data
retrieval
can
be
produced
in a practical fashion riom a reasonably portablc
NL Dl3 qucry
in a practical
system.fashion from a reasonably portable NL DB query
system.
2) The domain spccific knowlcdge nccdcd to interpret and
2) Therespond
domaincoopcrativcly
specific knowledge
to N1,
interpret
and can be
to a classneeded
of simple
qucstions
respondderived
cooperatively
to
a
class
of
simple
NL
questions
can
be
if
from thc information alrcady present in a DB systcm,
derivedaugmcntcd
from the information
already
present
in a DB
if used
by a suitably
encodcd
lexicon.
'[besystem,
infcrcnccs
augmented
by a suitably
encoded
lexicon. can
'[bebe
inferences
to produce
coopcrative
responscs
drivcn byused
the form
to produce
cooperative
responses
can
be
driven
by qucstion.
the fonn This
chosen by the user to cxpress his or her
chosen decomposition
by the user of
to knowlcdge
express hisresults
or her
in aquestion.
portable (toThis
new DBs)
decomposition
of knowledge results in a portable (to new DBs)
qucry system.
query system.

3) Maintaining the lexical and syntactic integrity of the original

3) Maintaining
lexical and thc
syntactic
integrity ofprocess
the original
qucstion thethroughout
inrcrpretarion
provides a
the interpretation
process
provides in
a terms
question
throughout
means
for explaining
failures, errors,
and responscs
means that
for explaining
failures,
errors.
and
responses
in
tenns
the user is likely to understand. The usc of an intcrmcdiate
user is likely tothat
understand.
use of
an intenncdiatc
that thereprcscntation
captures The
relevant
linguistic
considerations
representation
capturesarbitrary
relevant organizational
linguistic considerations
without that
reflecting
derails of the
withoutunderlying
reOectingDI3arbitrary
is central organizational
to this approach.details of the
underlying DB is central to this approach.
To undcmore these points, a NL DB query systcm, CO-OP,has been
To underscore these points, a NL DB query system, CO-OP, has been
developed. The design, behavior, and experience gained from its impkmentation
developed. The design, behavior, and experience gained from its implementation
will be described. CO-OP is designed to provide scvcral types of dircct and
will be described. CO-OP is designed to provide several types of direct and
indirect responses to questions that request the retricval of data alrcadv Drrsent in
indirect responses to questions that request the retrieval cl data already ~ in
the DB svs[cm. It will not effmtively respond to qucstions about dab; for
the DB system. It will l1Q1 effectively respond to questions about Qilla; for
example questions that require substantial inferences, calculations, comparisons,
cxample questions that require substantial inferences, calculations. comparisons,
or uansfonnatinns of the data (such as "When can the JFK aircraft canier
or transfonnations of the data (such as "When can the JFK aircraft carrier
rendezvous with the dcstroycr Lexington?')), or qucry thc structure of the data
rendczvous with the destroyer Lexington?"), or query the structure of the data
(such as "Can a user have more than one account on the same projojecl?')).
(such as "Can a user have more than one account on the same project?").
Thc basic design of CO-OPis to rcgard each part of a qucstion as making
The basic design of CO-OP is to regard each part of a question as making
reference to some aspect of the DB. The meaning of these references are cncoded
reference to some aspect of the DB. The meaning of these references are encoded
at the lexical level by associating a non-procedural program schcmata (in a simple
at the lexical Ievet by associating a non-procedural program schemata (in a simple
formalism) with the entrics for individual words in the lexicon. Through a series of
formalism) with the entries for individual words in the lexicon. Through a series of
translations, using knowlcdge of the domain inferred from the DB schema, the NL
translations, using knowledge of the domain inferred from the DB schema. the NL
question is transformed into a suitable DB qucry by combining the program
question is transformed into a suitable DB query by combining the program
schemata associated with the words uscd in thc qucstion, At all stages in this
schemata associated with the words used in the question. At all stages in this

--

Kaplan
Kaplan

170

170

process, it is possiblc to map failures, crmrs, and uncxpcctcd intcrmcdiatc results

process, it is possible to map failures, errors, and unexpected intermediate results
back into Lhc particular words or phrases of the original question, providing a
back into the particular words or phrases of the original question, providing a
basis for uscr comprchcnsiblc explanations, and indirect rcsponscs. Facilities for
basis for user comprehensible explanations, and indirect responses. Facilities for
negation, disjunction, conjunction, and limitcd quantification arc provided. The
negation, disjunction, conjunction, and limited quantification arc provided. The
systcln is intcrfaccd to a commercially available CODASYL
system is interfaced to a commercially available CODASYL
IIR systcm (the SEED sysrctn [Gcrritscn 19781). In thc current implcrncntation,
DB system (the SEED system [Gerritsen ]978]). ]n the current implementation,
the syntactic covcragc is rathcr limitcd. Only WH-questions (qucstions beginning
the syntactic coverage is rather limited. Only WH-questions (questions beginning
with words such as what, which, who. ctc,) can be proccsscd. Thc program does
with words such as what, which, who, etc.) can be processed. The program docs
not handlc cllipsis or anaphoric rcfcrcnccs. An annotated sample of qucstions and
not handle ellipsis or anaphoric references. An annotated sample of questions and
responscs produccd by CO-OP is prcscntcd in scction 4. The rcsults of
responses produced by CO-OP is presented in section 4. The results of
transporting thc systcm to anothcr lII3 is rcproduccd in section 5,
transporting the system to another DB is reproduced in section 5.
Projecting thc more gcncral problem of coopcration in unrestricted discourse
Projecting the more general problem of cooperation in unrestricted discourse
onto the domain of a limitcd Dl3 qucry systcm provides a method of both
onto the domain of a limited DB query system provides a method of both
sharpening certain linguistic intuitions and reducing the problcm to a tractable
sharpening certain linguistic intuitions and reducing tile problem to a tractable
form without triviali~ingthe problem or rcndering thc solutions ad hoc. The
fonn without trivializing the: problem or rendering the solutions ad hoc. The
mechanisms described hcrc, while motivated by h e domain, providc an approach
mechanisms described here, while motivated by the domain, provide an approach
t h a ~could be applicable in some form to a significantly widcr class of NL
thal could be applicable in some form to a significantly wider class of NL
processing problems. On the practical sidc. the N1, DD qucry domain provides a
processing problems. On the practical side, the NL DB query domain provides a
focus for the devclopmcnt and evaluation of engineering tcchniques for the
focus for lie development and evaluation of engineering techniques for tile
processing of NL. I h e implerncntation of a qucry systcm serves as a testbed for
processing of NL. lbe implementation of a query system serves as a testbed for
ncw stmtegics and programming concepts.
new strategies and programming concepts.
This papcr will focus primarily on motivating point 1 above. Points 2 and 3
This paper will focus primarily on motivating point 1 above. Points 2 and 3
arc concerned mainly with the implcmentation constraints imposed by practical
arc concerned mainly with the implementation constraints imposed by practical
NL systems, and are dealt with in greater depth in IKaplan 19791.
NL systems, and are dealt with in greater depth in [Kaplan 1979].

3.2 Computational pragmatics

3.2 Computational pragmatics

Casual users of NL computer systems are typically inexpert not only with regard
Casual users of NL computer systems are typically inexpert not only with regard
to thc technical details of the underlying programs, but often with regard to the
to tile technical details of the underlying programs, but often with regard to the
structure and/or content of the domain of discourse. Consequently, NL systems
structure and/or content of tile domain of discourse. Consequently, NL systems
must be dcsigned to rcspond appropriately when they can dctcct a misconception
must be designed to respond appropriately when tIley can detect a misconception
on the part of the uscr. Scvcral conventions exist in cooperative conversation that
on the part of tile user. Several conventions exist in cooperative conversation that
allow speakers to encodc their intentions and beliefs about the domain into their
allow speakers to encode their intentions and beliefs about the domain into tIleir
utterances. Qucstions 1A-IC below illustrate the encoding of goals and intentions
utterances. Questions 1A-IC below illustrate the encoding of goals and intentions
by the different responses that they will reasonably admit.
by the different responses that they will reasonably admit.
1A: Did John borrow my coffee cup?
IA: Did
cup? my coffcc cup?
1B;John
Wasborrow
it Johnmy
thatcoffee
borrowcd
Ill; Was
Johnitthat
IC:it Was
my borrowed
coffcc cupmy
h acoffee
t Johncup?
borrowed?
IC: Was it my coffee cup that John borrowed?

171
I D: No, it was Bill.
lD: No,
was Dill.
I E:it No,
it was your sugar.
]E: No, it was your sugar.
Supcrficially, all three questions appcar to convey thc same request for
Superficially, all three questions appear to convey the same request for
information. A closcr cxarnination revcals that although l D and 1E are both
infonnation. A closer examination reveals that although ID and IE are both
appropriate rcsponscs to 112, 113 favors 1D while 1C favors 1E. 113 indicates hat
appropriate responses to lA, lB favors 10 while Ie favors IE. 113 indicates that
the questioner is intercstcd in who borrowed the coffee cup, while 1C indicates
the questioner is interested in who borrowed the coffee cup, while Ie indicates
that thc qucstioncr is intcrcstcd in what John borr0wed.l
that the questioner is interested in what John borrowed.1
The form of the qucsiions (how information is requested) conveys useFu1
The fonn of the questions (how information is rcquested) conveys useful
information. as well as contcnt (what information is bcing requested). Such
infonnation. as wcll as content (what information is being requested). Such
pragmatic cues can bc rccovcred during thc parsing and translation process to
pragmatic cues can be rccovered during the parsing and translation process to
significantly enhance thc pcrformancc of a NL systcm.
significantly enhance the performance of a NL system.
While a thcory of syntax and semantics may bc sufficient for the analysis of
While a theory of syntax and semantics may be sufficient for the analysis of
sentences in the abstract, the role of scntenccs in discourse (where they are
sentences in the abstract, the role of scntences in discourse (where they are
realized as utterances) requires furrhcr knowledge. ( ' h e study of speech acts in
realized as uttcrances) rcquires furthcr knowledge. (The study of speech acts in
Philosophy of Ianguagc deals with h i s distinction. For instance, scc IScarle 19693
Philosophy of Language deals with this distinction. For instance, see [Searle 1969}
and [Cole and Morgan 19751.) To appropriately process NL utterances it is
and [Cole and Morgan 1975].) To appropriately process NL utterances it is
necessary to consider what Austin called thcir pcrlocutionary force [Austin 19621,
necessary to consider what Austin called their perlocutionary force [Austin 1962],
or the effect on the hearcr of an ut~erance.~
or the effect on the hearer of an utterance. 2
Though this tcrm is often used to refer to thc emotional reactions of the
Though this tenn is often used to refer to the emotional reactions of the
hearer, it could be construed to include the inferences drawn by the hearer
hearer, it could be construed to include the inferences drawn by the hearer
beyond the literal propositional content of thc utterance, particularly regarding
beyond the literal propositional content of the utterance, particularly regarding
the state of mind of the speaker. Producing cooperative rcsponscs from a NL
the state of mind of the speaker. Producing cooperative responses from a NL
query systcm requires at least a partial thcory of language use. Aspects of such a
query system requires at least a partial theory of language use. Aspects of such a
thcory will be presented here: specifically, the gencration of indirect responses to
theory will be presented here: specifically, the generation of indirect responses to
"loadcd" questions. The study of Ianguagc use in a scning where computational
"loaded" questions. The study of language use in a setting where computational
effcctivcness is important could be called com~utationalragm ma tic^.
effectiveness is important could be called computational pragmatics,
NL questions allow (in fact, often require) a cooperative respondent to address
NL questions allow (in facl, often require) a cooperative respondent to address
a questioner's intentions and beliefs beyond a literal, direct response. To be
a questioner's intentions and beliefs beyond a literal, direct response. To be
effective, NL computer systems must do the same. One problem, then, is to
effective, NL computer systems must do the same, One problem, then, is to
1. Sentences 1B and 1C are it-clefts. They are used in discourse to focus certain aspeas of fie domain
1. Sentences
IB and Ie are it-clefts. They are used in discourse to focus certain aspects of the domain
via fronting.
via fronting.
2 Austin's concept of perlocutionary force deals with the intentional or unintentional effects of an
2 Austin's
concept
deals with theofintentional
unintentional
effects
of an from
utterance
onof
theperlocutionary
hearer, that is.force
the conscquences
hearing anorurterance.
This is
distinguished
utteranceh on
the hearer,
thaI
is, locutionary
the wnscquences
of hearing
anofutterance.
This is distinguished
e rorce
of saying
(the
force) and
the force
doing somchinp
in saying (thefrom
illoculionary
the forceCorcc).
of saying
locutionary
force of doing
something
in saying
(the iIloculionary
For(the
cxample,
in the force)
mntexland
of athe
submerged
submarine
attempting
to evade
an encmy destroyer
force). For
in thea woteH
ofa submerged
submarine
attempting
to evade
enemy
by example,
being sileng
crew member
might yell
"If we don't
gel out
of herean we'll
alldestroyer
be killcd!" This
by beingexclamalion
silent, a crew
might
yell with
"If we
get outforce.
of here
all be killed!"
maymember
break the
silence
iu don't
locutinnary
issuewe'll
a warning
with iu This
illoculionary
ex clamalion
the silence
force,
issue a warning
its illoculionary
force.may
andbreak
frigh~en
the restwith
of ~itsh clocutionary
ercw with iu
pcrloculionary
force.with
Thesc
concepts correspond
force, and
frighten
rest the
of the
crew of
with
perlocutionary
force. These onconcepts
correspond
roughly
lo h the
e event.
intention
theits
speaker,
and the cansequences
the hearer,
mpcdvely.
roughly to the event, the intention of the speaker. and the consequences on the hearer. respectively.

Kaplan
Kaplan

172

172

provide practical computational tools which will dctcrminc both when an indircc~
provide practical computational tools which will detennine both when an indirec~
rcsponsc is rcquircd, and what that rcsponsc should be, without rcquiring that
response is required, and what that response should be, without requiring that
significant amounts of domain dcpendcnt world knowlcdgc be cncodcd in special
significant amounts of domain dependent world knowledge be encoded in special
formalisms. This work will takc thc position that distinguishing l a n ~ u mdriven
fonnalisms. This work will take the position that distinguishing langu;Jgc driven
infcrcnccs from domain drivcn infcrcnccs providcs a framework for a solution to
inferences from dom<lin driven inferences provides a framework for a solution to
this problcm in the TI13 qucry domain.'
this problem in the DB query domain. 1
3.2.1 What is a loadcd question?

3.2.1 What is a loaded question?

A loadcd qucstion is onc that indicatcs that the qucstioncr prcsumcs something to
A loaded question is one that indicates that the questioner presumes something to
bc true about Ihc domain of discoursc that is actually false. Question 2A presumes
be true about the domain of discourse that is actually false. Question 2A presumes
213. A coopcrativc speaker must find 2 B assumable (i-e. not bclicve it to be
false2
2B. A cooperativc speaker must find 213 assumable (i.e. not believe it to be false 2
in ordcr to appropriatcly utter 212 in a cooperative conversation, intcnd it litcrally.
in ordcr to appropriately uttcr 2A in a cooperative conversation, intend it literally,
and expect a correct, direct response.
and expect a correct, direct response.
2A: What day docs John go to his weekly piano lesson?

2A: What day docs John go to his weekly piano lesson?

2B: John takes weekly piano lessons.

2B: John takes weekly piano lessons.
2C: Tucsday.
2C: Tuesday.
Similarly, 3A prcsumcs 33:
Similarly, 3A presumes 3B:

3A: How many Bloody Marys did Bill down at the banquet?
3A: How
Marys did Dill down at the banquet?
3B: many
Hard Bloody
liquor was
available at the banquet
3B: Hard
3C: liquor
Zero. was available at the banquet
3C: Zero.

If the questioner bclicvcd 38 to be falsc, therc would be no point in asking 3A

If the questioner believed 3B to be false, there would be no point in asking 3A s/he would already know that the correct answer had to be "Zero." (3C),
s/he would already know that the correct answer had to be "Zero." (3C).
Therefore s/hc must find 3B assumable to appropriately pose the question.
Therefore slhe must find 3B assumable to appropriately pose the question.
Both cxamplcs 2 and 3 can be explaincd by a convention of conversational
Both examples 2 and 3 can be explained by a convention of conversational
cooperation, proposed here:
cooperation, proposed here:
h questioner should leave a respondent a choicc of direct answers,

A questioner should leave a respondent a choice of direct answers.

That is, from the questioner's viewpoint upon asking a question, more than one
That is, from the questioner's viewpoint upon asking a question, more than one
dircct answer must be possible.
direct answer must be possible.

1. 11 will not bc argued that this distinction is fundamental or even very clear cut, hut rather that it is a
1. It willfruitful
not be argued that this distinction is fundamental or even very clear cut, but rather that it is a
way of viewing this problem.
fruitful way
of viewing
problem.
2. Scc
[Prince this
19781
for a di.wussion of thc dirrercnl uses of "assumed" and "mumable" knowlcdgc.
2. Sec [Prince 197111 ror a discussion of the different uses of "assumed" and "assumable" knowledge.

173

It follows, thcn, that if a qucstion prcsupposcs somcthing about thc domain of

It follows, then, that if a question presupposes something about the domain of
discourse, as 2A does, [hat a qucstioncr cannot fcIicitously ultcr the qucstion and
discourse, as 2A docs, that a questioner cannot felicitously utter the question and
bclicvc thc prcsupposition to be falsc. 'Illis is a rcsult of thc fact that cach dircct
believe the presupposition to be false. 'nlis is a result of the fact that each direct
answcr to a qucstion cntails thc qt~cstion'sprcsuppositions. (More formally, if
answer to a question entails the question's presuppositions. (More fonnally, if
qucstion Q prcsupposcs proposition P, thcn the proposirional content of cach
question Q presupposes proposition P, then the propositional content of each
question-direct answcr pair (Q, hi) cntails P, as dcvclopcd in [Hull 19741.)'
question-direct answer pair (Q, Ai) entails P, as developed in [Hull 1974].)1
Thcrcforc, if a qucstioncr bclicvcs a prcsupposition to be false, s/he lcavcs no
Therefore, if a questioner believes a presupposition to be false, s/he leaves no
options for a corrcct, dircct rcsponsc - violating the convention. Conversely. a
options for a correct, direct response - violating the convention. Conversely, a
rcspondcnt can infer in a coopcrative conversation from the pragmatic fact that a
respondent can in fer in a cooperative conversation from the pragmatic fact that a
qucsdon has bccn asked. that thc qucstioncr finds its prcsuppositions assumable.
question has been asked. that the questioner finds its presuppositions assumable.
(In thc terms of [Kccnan 19711, the logical prcsupposition is pragmatically
(In the terms of [Keenan 1971]. the logical presupposition is pragmatically
prcsupposcd.) A substantial literature exists on the study of prcsupposition in NL,
presupposed.) A substantial literature exists on the study of presupposition in NL,
and no survey will be attcmptcd hcre. A rcprescntative example of a linguistic
and no survey will be attempted here. A representative example of a linguistic
approach can be found in [Karttuncn 19771; scc [Joshi and Wcjschcdcl1977] for a
approach can be found in [Karltunen 19771; sec [Joshi and Weischedel 1977] for a
more computational approach.
more computational approach.
Surprisingly, a tnorc general scmantic relationship than prcsupposition exists
Surprisingly. a more general semantic relationship than presupposition exists
that still allows a rcspondcnt to infcr a qucstioncr's belicfs. Consider the situation
that still allows a respondent to infer a questioner's beliefs. Consider the situation
where a proposition is cntailed by all but one of a question's dircct answers. (Such
where a proposition is entailed by all but one of a question's direct answers. (Such
a proposition will be called a prcsumvtion of the question.) By a similar
a proposition will be called a presumption of the question.) Dy a similar
argument, it follows that if a qucstioncr bclicvcs that proposition to be false, s h e
argument, it follows that if a questioner believes that proposition to be false, slhe
can infcr thc dircct, corrcct answcr to the qucstion - it is thc answer that does not
can infer the direct. correct answer to the question it is the answer that docs not
entail the proposition. Once again, to ask such a qucstion leavcs the rcspondent
entail the proposition. Once again, to ask such a question leaves the respondent
no choicc of (potentially) correct answers, violating thc conversational convention.
no choice of (potentially) correct answers, violating the conversational convention.
More importantly, upon bcing asked such a question, the rcspondent can infer
More importantly, upon being asked such a question, the respondent can infer
what thc qucstioncr presumes about the context.
what the questioner presumes about the context.
Question 3A above prcsumcs 3B. but does not prcsuppose it: 3B is not entailed
Question 3A above presumes 3D, but docs not presuppose it: 3B is not entailed
by the dircct answcr 3C. Nonetheless, a questioner mud find 3B assumable to
by the direct answer 3C. Nonetheless, a questioner must find 3B assumable to
felicitously ask 3A in a coopcrativc conversation to do otherwise would violate
felicitously ask 3A in a cooperative conversation to do otherwise would violate
the coopcrativc convcntion. Similarly, 4B below is a presumption but not a
the cooperative convention. Similarly, 4D below is a presumption but not a
presupposition of4A (it is not entailed by 4C).
presupposition of4A (it is not entailed by 4C).

4A: Did Sandy pass the Bar exam?

4A: Did Sandy pass the Bar exam?
1. This entailment condition is a necessary but not suficient condition for presupposition. The
1. This concept
entailment
condition is a normally
necessaryincludcs
but nota sufficient
for presupposition.
The (in this
of presupposilion
condition condition
that the negation
of a proposition
concept case.
of presupposition
normally
includes expressed
a condition
the negation answer
of a proposition
(inalso
thisentail its
\he negation of
h e proposition
by that
a question-diren
pair) should
case. Ihe presuppositions.
negation of Ihe proposition
expressed
by of
a question-direct
answer
pair) should
also entailcansidcred
its
Consequently.
Ihc truth
a presupposition
oT a qualion
is normally
a
presuppositions.
Consequently.
the to
truth
of a presupposition
of aa question
is normally
considered
a
prerequisite
lor an answer
be either
true or false (for
more dctailcd
discussion
see IKccnan
and
prerequisite
an answer
be eitherof true
or false of
(for
a mOTe detailed
[Keenan
and because
I lullfor
19731).
Ihcse tosubtletics
ihc concept
presupposition
are discussion
irrelevant tosecthis
discussion,
Ilull 1973]).
subtleties
of the cnncept
of presupposition
areuncooperative.
irrelevant to this discussion, because
ialsc lllese
responses
to questions
arc considered
a-priorilo be
false responses to questions arc considered a-priori La be uncooperative.

Kaplan
Kaplan

174

40: Sandy took Ihe I3ar exam.

43: Sandy took the Bar exam.
4C: No.
4C: No.

If a qucstioncr bclicvcs in thc falsehood of a presupposition of a qucstion, the

If a questioner believes in the falsehood of a presupposition of a question, the
question is inappropriate bccausc s/he must bclicvc that no dircct answer can be
question is inappropriate because s/he must believe that no direct answer can be
correct; similarly. if a qucstioner bclicves in the falsehood of a prcsurnption, the
correct; similarly, if a questioner believes in the falsehood of a presumption, the
qucstion is inapproprirlte because the qucstioncr must know the answer to the
question is inappropriate because the questioner must know the answer to the
qucstion - it is the dircct answcr that docs not entail the prcsurnption. In shorl rhe
question it is the direct answer that docs not entail the presumption. /11 short. the
a question i~filicitousbecause i/ leaves no options
failure of Q presupposi~iorrre~~ders
failure ofa presupposition rellders a question infelicitous because it/eaves no options
for a direct response; [he failure of a presumnp/io~lrerrders a question itlfelicitous
for a direct respollSe; the failure of a presumption renders a question infelicitous
because 11 lea~yesaar mos! olle optionfor a dincl response. (Note that the definition
because itleOl'es at most Olle option for a direct response. (Note that the definition
of presumption subsumcs thc dcfinition of presupposition in this context.)
of presumption subsumes the definition of presupposition in this context.)

3.2.2 Corrcctivc indirect responses

3.2.2 Corrective indirect responses
In a cooperative conversation, if a respondent detects that a questioner incorrectly
In a cooperative conversation, if a respondent detects that a questioner incorrectly
presumcs something about the domain of discourse, s h e is required to correct
presumes something about the domain of discourse, s/he is required to correct
that misimprcssion. A failure to do so will implicitly confirm the questioner's false
that misimpression. A failure to do so will implicitly confirm the questioner's false
prcsumption. Consequently, it is not always the case that a correct, direct answer
presumption. Consequently, it is not always the case that a correct, direct answer
is thc most coopcrativc rcsponse. When an incorrect prcsumption is detected, it is
is the most cooperative response. When an incorrect presumption is detected. it is
more cooperative to correct the prcsurnption than to give a dircct response. Such a
more cooperative to correct the presumption than to give a direct response. Such a
rcsponse can be called a Corrective lndircct Res~onse. For example, imagine
response can be called a Corrective ~ Response. For example. imagine
question 5A uttcrcd in a cooperative conversation when the respondent knows
question 5A uttered in a cooperative conversation when the respondent knows
that no dcpartments sell knives.
that no departments sell knives.
5A: Which departments that sell knives also sell blade
5A: Which departments that sell knives also sell blade
sharpeners?
sharpeners?
5B: None.
5B: None.
5C: No dcpartments sell knives.
5C: No departments sell knives.

Although 5B is a direct, correct response in this context, it is less cooperative than

Although 5B is a direct, correct response in this context, it is less cooperative than
5C. This effect is cxplaincd by the fact that 5A presumes that some departments
5C. This effect is explained by the fact that SA presumes that some departments
sell knives. To be cooperative, the respondent should correct the questioner's
sell knives. To be cooperative. the respondent should correct the questioner's
misimpression with an indirect response, informing !he qucstioner that no
misimpression with an indirect response, informing the questioner that no
departments sell knives (5C). (The direct, corrcct response 5B will reinforce the
departments sell knives (5q. (The direct, correct response 5B will reinforce the
qucstioncr's mistaken presumption in a cooperative conversation through its
questioner's mistaken presumption in a cooperative conversation through its
failure to state otherwise; 5B also appears to violates Gricc's Conversational
failure to state otherwise; 5B also appears to violates Grice's Conversational

115

Maxim of Quantity
Quantity [Gricc
[Gricc 1975])1
19751)~
A failure
responses is inappropriate in aa
failure to produce corrective
corrcctive indirect responscs
cooperative
cooperative conversation.
conversation.
3.2.3
3.2.3 Relcyance
Relevance to database
datnhase queries
queries
Many
capable of
of
NL query systems
systems stonewall,
stonewall, in part because they arc not capablc
Many NL
producing corrective
indirect
responses.
To
some
degree,
this
inability
results
responses.
corrective
from
language. NL qucstions
questions admit
from a yiew
view ofNL
of NL as
as a very high leyd
level fonnal
formal query language.
a wider range
do, and provide cues for sclccting
selecting
than fonnal
formal queries do,
range of responses
responscs tl,an
among
these
responses
that
are
generally
absent
from
fonnal
query
languages
among
generally
formal
[Kaplan
19781. The appropriateness of indirect responses is an important
[Kaplan 1978].
difference
system rhar
that
difference between NL questions and fonnal
formal language queries. AA NL sysretn
isis only
meaningless responses lo
to
only capable ofdirect
of direcl respomes
respurnes will necessarily produce meonit~gless
failed
failed presumprions.
presumptions. Unfortunately, the
foiled presuppositions.
presupposirions, and stonewall
slor~ewallon foiled
UUs are sut1lciently
sut?icienty complex that the uscr
domain of most realistic
realistic 1J1ls
domain
user of a NL query
facility
facility (most likely
likely a naive user)
uscr) will make incorrect presumptions in his or her
queries.
queries.
While
of interest from a
While the definition
definition of presumption given above may be of
linguistic standpoint, it leaves much to be desired for a computational theory.
linguistic
theory.
Although it provides
provides a descriptive
descriptive modd
model of certain aspects of
Although
of conversational
behavior, it does
docs not provide an adequate basis for computing the presumptions
behavior,
presumptions of
of
Ily limiting the domain of
reasonable way. By
aagiven
given question in a reasonable
of application to the
area of data retrieval,
retrieval, where typical
typical questions
qucstions are purely extensional, the linguistic
area
suucture of questions
questions encodes
encodes considerable infonnation
information about the questioner's
structure
questioner's
lhis structure can be exploited to compute a significant class
presumptions. This
presumptions.
dass of
of
responses. A
A technique
presumptions and provide appropriate corrective indirect responses.
for computing such
such responses in cases
cases where questions can be assumcd
for
assumed to be
thrust
of
this
work.
purely
extensional
is
the
main
purely extensional is

Specifically. "Make your contribution

cantribution as
a informative
inlornative as
a is required (lor
u r p m oflhe
1.1. Specifically.
(for blhee ppurposes
or the cumnl
current

clchange)."
exchange)."

Kaplan
Kaplan

176

3.2.4 1,angungc drivcn and dornain drivcn infcrcncc

3.2.4 Language driH~n and domain drhen inference

A long standing obscrvation in A1 rcscarcl~is that knowlcdgc about thc world is

1\ long standing observation in A] research is that knowledge about the world is

rcquircd in ordcr to understand NL.' Conscqucntly, a great deal of study has
required in order to understand NL I Consequently, a great deal of study has

gonc into dctcrmining just what typc of knowledge is required, and how that
gone into detennining just what type of knowledge is required, and how that
knowlcdgc is to be rcprcscntcd, organized. acccssed, and uscd. Onc practical
knowledge is to be represented, organized, accessed, and used. One practical
problcm with evaluating systcrns that use a spccializcd knowlcdgc rcprcsentation
problem with evaluating systems that use a specialized knowledge representation
is that it is somctimcs difficult to dctcrmine if a particular failure is due to an
is that it is sometimes difficult to detennine if a particular failure is due to an
inadcquacy in thc formalism or simply an insufficient base of knowledge.
inadequacy in the fonnalism or simply an insufficient base of knowledge.
(Systcms that clcariy spccify semantics and infcrcncc rules, such as PIiLIQAl
(Systems that clearly specify semantics and inference rules, such as PHLIQAl
[Ijronncnbcrg rt.
19801. do not encounter this problcm.) In addition, the
[Bronnenberg ct. & 1980], do not encounter this problem.) ]n addition, the
collection and cncoding of thc appropriate knowlcdgc can be a painstaking and
collection and encoding of the appropriate knowledge can be a painstaking and
timc consuming task. Many NI, sysrclns that could be said to use spccialized
time consuming task. Many NL systems that could be said to usc specialized
knowlcdgc rcprcscntations (such as [Lchnert 19771 or Allcn's work described in
knowledge representations (such as [Lehnert 1977] or Allen's work described in
Chapter 2 of this volume) sharc a common approach: thcy dccompose the input
Chapter 2 of this volume) share a common approach: they decompose the input
into a suitable "scrnantic" rcprcsentation, and rely on various dcduction and/or
into a suitable "semantic" representation, and rely on various deduction andlor
reasoning mechanisms to provide thc intclligcnce rcquircd to draw the necessary
reasoning mechanisms to provide the intelligence required to draw the necessary
inferences. Infercnccs made in this way can be called domain2 drivcn inference,
inferences. Inferences made in this way can be called domain 2 driven inferences.
itself.
bccause thcy arc motivated by the domain3
because they arc motivated by the domain 3 itself.
While domain drivcn inferences are surcly essential to an understanding of NL
. While domain driven inferences are surely essential to an understanding ofNL
(and will bc a rcquircd part of any comprchensivc cognitive modcl of human
(and will be a required part of any comprehensive cognitive model of human
intelligence), the lexical and syntactic forms chosen by a speaker directly encode a
intelligence), the lexical and syntactic forms chosen by a speaker directly encode a
grcat deal of information that might otherwise bc derived from domain
great deal of infonnation that might otherwise be derived from domain
knowlcdge. Many of the variations and options available to a speaker in phrasing
knowledge, Many of the variations and options available to a speaker in phrasing
his or hcr utterances, while leaving the literal meaning unchanged, convey
his or her utterances, while leaving the literal meaning unchanged, convey
secondary information about the speakers beliefs and domain. This additional
secondary infonnation about the speakers beliefs and domain, This additional
information can drive the infercncing proccdures to detcct a speaker's
information can drive the inferencing procedures to detect a speaker's
misconceptions and other conversational characteristics (such as focus, as in
misconceptions and other conversational characteristics (such as focus, as in
example 1 above), without the nccd for domain drivcn inference. Inferences
example 1 above), without the need for domain driven inference. Inferences
driven from the particular phrasing of inputs can be called lanpuagg driven
driven from the particular phrasing of inputs can be called language driven
infercnceg.
inferences.
Language driven inferences have several useful properties in a computational
Language driven inferences have several useful properties in a computational
1. For example, to understand the statement "I bought a briercase yesterday, and today the handle
1. For example,
statement
"I boughtJrpically
a briefcase
broke o f f "toitunderstand
is necessarythe
to know
that briefcases
haveyesterday,
handles. and today the handle
broke off."
it
is
necessary
to
know
lhat
briefcases
~ have handles.
2. "Domain" hcre is mean1 10 include gencral world knowledge, knowlcdge about the specific
2. "Domain" here is meant 10 include general world knowledge, knowledge about the specific
contcxl. and inferential rules of a general and/or spccilic nature about h a t knowledge.
context, and
inferential
rules of
a general arc
and/or
~1Jecific nature about that knowledge.
3. Of
course. lhcsc
infcrcnccs
actually
made on the basis o f dcwrintions of the domain (the
3. Of course.
these
inferences
are
actually
made
the basis
ofWhai
descriptions
of the domain
(the
internal meaning rcprmntation) and not theondomain
i~wlC
is to be cvaluared
in such
systems is
internal thc
meaning
representation)
and not the
domain iL\Clf.
is to be evaluated in such systems is
sulicicncy
of that dcscriplion
in representing
h e What
domain.
the su mricncy of lhat description in represcnting the domain.

177

framework. First, being bascd on gcncral knowlcdgc about thc language, they do
framework. First, being based on general knowledge about the language, they do
not rcqiiire an infirsion of knowlcdgc to operatc in differing domains. As a result
not require an infusion of knowledge to operate in differing domains. As a result
thcy tend to bc transportable to ncw domains (ncw 1)13s, in thc casc of NL DB
they tend to be transportable to new domains (new DBs, in the case of NL DB
q~icry systcms). Sccond, thcy do not appcar to he as subject to runaway
query systems). Second, they do not appear to be as subject to runaway
infcrcncing [Roscnschcin 19761, i.e. the infcrcncing is drivcn (and hence
inferencing [Rosenschein 1976], i.e. the inferencing is driven (and hence
controlled) by thc phrasing of thc input Third, thcy can often achicvc rcsults
controlled) by the phrasing of the input TIlird, they can often achieve results
approximating that of domain d r i ~ c ninfcrencc tcchniqucs with substantially less
approximating that of domain driven inference techniques with substantially less
computationa1machinery and execution time.
computational machinery and execution time.
As a simplc cxarnplc, consider the casc of factivc vcrbs. I h c sentcncc "John
As a simple example, consider the case of factive verbs. The sentence "John
doesn't know that the ncatlcs brokc up." carries the infcrcncc that the Bcatles
doesn't know that the Beatles broke up." carries the inference that the Ikatles
broke up. Trcatcd as a domain drivcn infcrencc, this rcsult might typically be
broke up. Treated as a domain driven inference, this result might typically be
achicved as follows, Thc scntcnce could be parscd into a rcprcscntation indicating
achieved as follows. The sentence could be parsed into a representation indicating
John's lack of knowlcdgc of thc Ilcatles' breakup. Either immcdiatcly or at some
John's lack of knowledge of the Bealles' breakup. Either immediately or at some
suitable later time, a procedure might be invoked that cncodcs the knowledge
suitable later time, a procedure might be invoked that encodes the knowledge
"For someone to not know something, that something has to be thc case." The
"For someone to not know something, that something has to be the case." The
inferential procedures can thcn update the knowledge base accordingly. As a
inferenlial procedures can then update the knowledge base accordingly. As a
language drivcn infcrencc. this infcrcnce can be rcgarded as a lexical property, i.e.
language driven inference, this inference can be regarded as a lexical property, i.e.
that factive vcrbs presuppose their complements, and the complement
that factive verbs presuppose their complements, and the complement
immediately asserted, namely, that the Bcatles broke up (as in [Wcischedcl 19751).
immediately asserted, namely, that the Beatles broke up (as in [Weischedc11975]}.
(Notc 'that this process cannot be reasonably said to "understand" the utterance.
(Note 'that this process cannot be reasonably said to "understand" the utterance,
but achieves the same results.) Effcctivcly, certain infcrence rules have been
but achieves the same results.) Effectively, certain inference rules have been
encodcd directly into the lexical and syntactic structure of the language encoded directly into the lexical and syntactic structure of the language facilitating the drawing of the inference without resorting to general reasoning
facilitating the drawing of the inference without resorting to general reasoning
processes.
processes.
The CO-OP system, described below, dcrnonstrates that a language driven
The CO-OP system, described below, demonstrates that a language driven
inference approach to computational systems can to a considerable extent produce
inference approach to computational systems can to a considerable extent produce
appropriate NL behavior in practical domains without the ovcrhead of a dctailed
appropriate NL behavior in practical domains without the overhead of a detailed
and comprchensivc world modcl, other than a standard DB. By limiting the
and comprehensive world model, other than a standard DB. By limiting the
domain of discourse to DI3 queries, the lexical and syntactic structure of the
domain of discourse to DB queries, the lexical and syntactic structure of the
questions encodcs sufficient information about the user's bclicfs that 2 ~ienificant
questions encodes sufficient information about the user's beliefs that ~ significant
class ofprcsum~tionscan be corn~utedon a ~ u r c l vlan~uaggdrivcnb a a .
class of presumptions can ~ compu ted Qll !! ll!!.IDY language Qrllim~.

3.3 CO-OP: a cooperative query system

3.3 CO-OP: a cooperative query system

This section will summarize the dcsign of the CO-OP NL DD query system.
This section will summariz.e the design of the CO-OP NL DB query system.
CO-OP is intcndcd to providc cooperative rcsponscs to simple questions
CO-OP is intended to provide cooperative responses to simple questions
requesting data retricval. It operates with a typical COIIASYL DB. In addition to
requesting data retrieval. It operates witl1 a typical CODASYL DR In addition to
dircct answers, CO-OP is capable of producing a varicty of indirect responses,
direct answers, CO-OP is capable of producing a variety of indirect responses,
including corrective indircct rcsponscs. 'Ihe dcsign of the system is bascd on two
including cOffective indirect responses. The design of the system is based on two

Kaplan
Kaplan

178

h y porhcscs:
hypotheses:

1) To a largc cxtcnt, language drivcn infercnccs arc suficient

1) To a large extent, language driven inferences are sufficient
to drive proccdurcs that dctcct thc nccd for an indircct
to drive
procedures
thatan detect
the need
rcsponsc
and sclcct
appropriate
one. for an indirect
response and select an appropriate one.
2) The domain specific knowledge rcquircd to proccss a
significant class of NI, Dl3 qucrics is alrcady prcscnt in
classways
of in
NLDl1DB
queries
is already
present
in
significant
systems,
if that
information
is augmented
standard
standard
ways
in
DB systems, if that information is augmented
by a suitably cncodcd Icxicon.
by a suitably encoded lexicon.
2) The domain specific knowledge required to process a

Conscqucntly, the infcrcncing rncchanisms rcquircd to produce the cooperative

Consequently, the inferencing mechanisms required to produce the cooperative
rcsponscs are domain tnnsmrcnt, in thc scnsc that tficy will produce appropriate
responses are domain transparent, in the sense that they will produce appropriate
bchavior without modification from any suitable Dn. I'ransporting CO-OPto a
behavior without modification from any suitable DB. Transporting CO-OP to a
new DB mainly rcquircs thc rccoding of thc lexicon. Thc results oftransporting
new Oil mainly requires the recoding of the lexicon. The results of transporting
the system to a new IN3 is prcsented is section 5.
the system to a new DB is presented is section 5.
Central to providing cooperative rcsponscs in a domain transparent fashion is
Central to providing cooperative responses in a domain transparent fashion is
thc design of an intcrmediatc rcprcscntation for NL queries that captures usehl
the design of an intermediate representation for NL queries that captures useful
linguistic characteristics without assuming a particular structuring of the
linguistic characteristics without assuming a particular structuring of the
underlying DB. The representation adopted in CO-OP (called the Mcta O u c q
underlying DB. The representation adopted in CO-OP (called the Meta Qym
Lanczuanc, or MQL) filcilitatcs language driven infercnccs and provides a basis for
Language, or MQL) facilitates language driven inferences and provides a basis for
composing useful direct and indirect rcsponscs. Inputs arc parscd directly into the
composing useful direct and indirect responses. Inputs are parsed directly into the
MQL, relying on thc DB schcma as a source of world knowledge. ' h e infcrencing
MQL, relying on the DB schema as a source of world knowledge. The inferencing
required to produce cooperative responses is accomplished mainly by
required to produce cooperative responses is accomplished mainly by
manipulating the MQL. Paraphrases and indirect rcsponscs are generated directly
manipulating the MQL. Paraphrases and indirect responses are generated directly
from it, and direct responscs are organized in accordance with its structure. This
from it. and direct responses are organized in accordance with its structure. This
scction will focus on the MQL representation, and its role in the production of
section will focus on the MQL representation, and itS role in the production of
indirect rcsponses.
indirect responses.

3.3.1 The Meta Query Language

3.3.1 The Meta Query Language
A significant class of DB queries can be viewed as requesting the selection of a
A significant class of DB queries can be viewed as requesting the selection of a
subsct (the response sct) from a presented set of entities (this analysis folIows
subset (the response set) from a presented set of entities (this analysis follows
[Belnap and Steel 19761). Normally. the prcscntcd sct is put through a scries of
[Belnap and Steel 1976]). Normally. the presented set is put through a series of
restrictions, each of which produccs a subset. until the response set is found. This
restrictions, each of which produces a subset, until the response set is found. This
view is captured and cxtendcd in the proccdurcs that manipulate the MQL.
view is captured and extended in the procedures that manipulate the MQL.
The MQL is a graph structure, where the nodes rcprcsent
(in the
The MQL is a graph structure. where the nodes represent ~ (in the
malficmatical, not thc CODASYL scnsc [CODASYL 19711) "presented" by the
mathematical. not the CODASYL sense [CODASYL 1971]) "presented" by the
user, and thc edges reprcscnt binarv relations dcfincd on those scts, derived from
user, and the edges represent binary relations defined on those sets, derived from
the lcxical and syntactic structure of the input query. Conceptually, the direct
the lexical and syntactic structure of the input query. Conceptually, the direct

179
response to a query is an N-placc relation rcalizcd by obtaining the refcrcnt ofthe
response to a query is an N-place relation realized by obtaining the referent of the
scts in the DR, and composing thcm according to the binary relations. Each
sets in the DB, and composing them according to the binary relations. Each
composition will have thc cffcct of selecting a subset of the current scts. The
composition will have the effect of selecting a subset of the current sets. The
subsets will contain the elements that survive (participate) in the relation.
subsets will contain the clements that survive (participate) in the relation.
(Actually, the responses are rcalizcd in a rnucn inore efficient fashion - this is
(Actually, the responses arc realized in a muen more efficient fashion . this is
simply a convenient view.)
simply a convenient view.)
As an examplc, consider thc query "Which students got Fs in Linguistics
As an example, consider the query "Which students got Fs in Linguistics
courses?" as diagrammed in Figure I.
courses?" as diagrammed in Figure 1.

(=y-=y")
STUDENTS

COURSES

Figure 1MQL representation of: Which students got Fs in linguistics courses?"

Figure 1 MQL representation of: Which students got Fs in linguistics courses?"
This query would be parsed as presenting 4 sets: "students", "Fs".
This query would be parsed as presenting 4 sets: "students". "Fs".
"Linguistics", and "courses". (Ihe sets "Linguistics" and "Fs" may appear
"Linguistics". and "courses". (The sets "Linguistics" and "Fs" may appear
countcrintuitive, but should be viewed as singleton cntitics assumed by the user to
counterintuitive, but should be viewed as singleton entities assumed by the user to
exist somewhere in the DB.) The direct answer to the query would bc a 4 place
exist somewhere in the DB.) The direct answer to the query would be a 4 place
relation consisting of a column of students, grades (all Fs), departments (a11
relation consisting of a column of students. grades (all Fs), departments (all
Linguistics), and courses. For convenience, the columns containing singleton sets
Linguistics), and courses. For convenience, the columns containing singleton sets
(gradcs and departments) would be removcd, and the remaining list of students
(grades and departments) would be removed, and the remaining list of students
and associated courses presented to h e user.
and associated courses presented to the user.
Exccuting the query (to compute its direct answer) consists of passing the
Executing the query (to compute its direct answer) consists of passing the
MQL representation of the query to an intcrprctive component that produces a
MQL representation of the query to an interpretive component that produces a
query suitabIc for execution on a CODASYL DD. The specific knowledge
query suitable for execution on a CODASYL On. The specific knowledge
rcquircd to perform this translation is encoded in the lexicon, (by associating it
required to perform this translation is encoded in the lexicon, (by associating it
with thc cntrics for the words that label thc nodes and cdgcs of the MQL), or is
with the entries for the words that label the nodes and edges of the MQL), or is
infcrrcd from the DB schema.
inferred from the DB schema.

180

Kaplan

The
'lhc MQL,
MQI., by elcoding
encoding snme
some of the syntactic
syntactic relationships present in the NL
query,
query, can hardly be said to capture the meaning of the question: it is merely aa
convenient
characteristics of
of the
convcnicot representation
rcprescntation formalizing
formalizing certain linguistic cl~aracteristics
query.
representation to generate inferences
' h e procedures
procedures that manipulate this reprcscntation
query. The
arc
these syntactic
are based on observations
observations of a general nature regarding thcse
relationshipS.
relationships. Consequently.
Conscqucntly, these
thcse inferences arc language driven inferences.
While
has its advantages
advantages and disadvantages,
disadvantages,
While the MQL,
MQL.. as implemented
implemcntcd in CO-OP 1x1s
it has
be present in any representation used for
has several
several characteristics
characteristicsthat ought to bc
similar
similar purposes.
First,
reflects closely
closely the surface
surface structure of the input (indeed, it is little
First, it reflects
more than a modilied
facilitates the capturing of
of surface
modified parse Iree),
tree), and so facilitates
syntactic
syntactic fcatures.
features. For example.
example, the representation
rcprescntation of corresponding passives and
actives
organi7..ation of
of the
actives isis not the same. "Ibis
'This has an important bearing the organiration
responses.
responses.
Second,
Second, it provides a level of dcscription
description useful for providing explanations that
a user
of an MQL
ccrtain to understand. This occurs mainly because each part of
uscr isis certain
expression isis labeled with a lexical item or phrase that the user just
just used (with
minor exceptions),
exceptions). Failures at lower levels of the system can always be localized
minor
to
subser of the MQL, and the offending subset can be
to the
the proccssing
processing of some
some subset
explained to the user in his or her own tenns,
terms.
Third,
Third, the MQL representation
reprcscntation of a query is invariant under differing
organirations of the underlying
underlying DB. Many of the organizational
organizations
organizational options available
DD designer
designer have no bearing on
nn either the range of
to a DB
of questions that can be
appropriately
posed
to
the
DB
or
on
the
content
of
the
responses
appropriately
of
responses they affcct
affect only
efficiency of retrieval.
retrieval. Consequendy,
Consequently, the options chosen by the DD
the efficiency
013 designer
ought to be transparent to the user. In CO-OP, the organization
organization of
of the response is
function solely of the MQL, and so is not affected by variations in the
a function
organization of the DB.
organization
structure is roughly proportional to the
Fourth, the complexity of the MQL slrUcture
complexity of the input This occurs mainly because the MQL corresponds closely
complexity
e10sely
to the
the surface
surface syntactic
syntactic slrUcture,
structure.
to

3.3.2 Computing
Computing corrective
corrective indirect responses
3.3.2
The crucial
crucial observation required to produce a reasonable set of
The
of corrcctive
corrective indirect
MOI,
ouery
presumes
non-emutincss
responses
is
that
the
responses is "that
MQL S!!.[Y
the non-emptiness of
of its connected
suhera~hs.Each connected subgraph corresponds to a presumption the user has
subgraphs.
discourse. If thc
made about the domain of discourse,
the uscr
user believed any connected subgraph
to represent
represent an empty
empty response,
response, slhe
s/he would also have to believe that the answer to

181

the entire qucry was cmpty. Hence s/hc would know a priori the answer to the
the entire query was empty. Hence slhe would know a priori the answer to the
qucstian, violating the convcntion that a qi~cstioncrshould leave a rcspondcnt a
question, violating thc convention that a qucstioner should leavc a respondent a
choice of dircct rcsponscs. The user must thercforc find the non-emptiness of each
choice of direct responses. The user must therefore find the non-emptiness of each
connccted subgraph assumable, i.e. not believe it to be crnpty. Consequently,
connected subgraph assumable, i.e. not believe it to be empty. Consequently,
should the initial query return a null rcsponsc, the control structure can chcck the
should the initial query return a null response, the control structure can check the
user's presumptions by passing cach conncctcd subgraph to the interpretive
user's presumptions by passing each connected subgraph to the interpretive
component to check its non-cmptincss. Noticc that cach conncctcd subgraph itself
component to check its non-emptiness. Notice that each connected subgraph itself
constitutes a wcll formed qucry. Should a presumption prove false, an
constitutes a well formed query. Should a presumption prove false, an
appropriate indircct response can be gencratcd, rather than a mcaninglcss or
appropriate indirect response can be generated, rather than a meaningless or
misleading direct rcsponse of "None."
misleading direct response of "None."
For example, in thc qucry of Figure 1, the connectcd subgraphs and their
For example, in the query of Figure I, the connected subgraphs and their
corrcsponding corrcctive indirect rcsponscs arc (the numbers represent the sets
corresponding corrective indirect responses are (the numbers represent the sets
the subgraphs consist of):
the subgraphs consist of):
1)
2)
3)
4)
1,2)
2,3)
3,4)
1,2,3)
2,3,4)

"I don't know of any students."

1) "I don't
any of
students."
" I know
don't of
know
any Fs."
2) "( don't
know
of
any
Fs."any courses."
"I don't know of
3) "( don't know of any courses."

"I don't know of any Linguistics."

4) "( don't
know of any Linguistics."

don't know of any students that got Fs."

1.2)"( don't" I know
any of
students
got Fs."
" I don't of
know
any Fsthat
in courses."
2.3)"~I don't
know
of
any
Fs
in
courses."
" I don't know of any Linguistics courses."
3.4)"~I don't
any of
Linguistics
courses."
" I know
don't of
know
any students
that got Fs in courses."
1,2,3)
,. ( don't" I know
any of
students
got Fs in courses."
don't of
know
any Fsthat
in linguistics courses."
2,3.4)
"~I don't know of any Fs in linguistics courses."

Suppose that there are no linguistics courses in the DB. Rather than presenting
Suppose that there are no linguistics courses in the DB. Rather than presenting
the direcf correct answer of "None.", thc control structure will pass each
the direct, correct answer of "None.", the control structure will pass each
connected subgraph in turn to be executed against the DB. It will discover that no
connected subgraph in turn to be executed against the DB. It will discover that no
linguistics courses exist in the DB, and so will respond with "I don't know of any
linguistics courses exist in the DB, and so will respond with "I don't know of any
linguistics courses." This corrcctive indirect rcsponse (and all responscs generated
linguistics courses." This corrective indirect response (and all responses generated
through this method) will enmil the direct answer, since they will entail the
through this method) will entail the direct answer, since they will entail the
emptiness of the direct rcsponse set
emptiness of the direct response set
Several aspects of this procedure are worthy of note. First, although the
Several aspects of this procedure are worthy of note. First, although the
selection of the response is depcndcnt on knowlcdgc of the domain (as encoded in
selection afthe response is dependent on knowledge of the domain (as encoded in
the DB system not as separate theorems, structures, or programs), &
the DB system not as separate theorems, structures, or programs), ~
computation af & prcsum~tion~ totallv indc~endenlgf domain Soecific
computation Qf lM presumptions is 1Q1ill1y independent ill QQm.ain ~
knowledee. Because these inferences arc driven by the MQL, the procedures that
knowledge. Because these inferences are driven by the MQL. the procedures that
determine the presumptions (by computing subgraphs) require no knowledge of
determine the presumptions (by computing subgraphs) require no knowledge of
the domain. Consequently, producing corrective indirect responscs from another
the domain. Consequently, producing corrective indirect responses from another
DB, or even another DB system, rcquircs no changes to the inferencing
DB, or even another DB system, requires no changes to the inferencing
procedures. Secondly, the mechanism for selecting the indirect response is
procedures. Secondly, the mechanism for selecting the indirect response is
identical to thc procedure for executing a qucry. No additional ~om~utational
identical to the procedure for executing a query. li2 additional computational

Kaplan

182

machincry need be
he invoked
invokcd ill
ln select ~
the appropriate
a~nronriatcindirect response.
resoonsc. Thirdly.
Thirdly,
machinery
co~nputational overhead involved in checking and correcting the users
the computational
prcsumptions is not incurred unless it has been determined
dctcrmincd that an indirect
presumptions
rcquircd. Should the query succeed
succccd initially, no ~enaltv
in
rcsponse may be required.
response
penalty ill
execution
oaid for the ability
abilitv 1Q
lo produce
~roduccthe indirect responses.
rcsoonscs. ]n
In
cxccutian time will be paid
increase in space overhead is a small control program to
addition, the only increase
produce the connected subgraphs. The linguistic
linguistic generation of the iodirect
indirect
rcsponse is essential1y
essentially free -- it is a small additiun
addition to the paraphrase component
response
already used in error detection.
thc most appropriate set of
The MQL also provides a means of selecting the
corrective responses when more than one is applicable. The presumptions of a
corrective
qucstion can be partially ordered according
according to an entailment relationship: the
question
failure of some presumptions
prcsumptions entail the failure
failure of others. For example.
example, if there are
failure
courses, which in turn entails
cntails that there are no
courses, then there are no Fs in courses,
no courses,
prcsumptions of a
Linguistics courses,
courses, etc. It is often the case that several presumptions
Fs in Linguistics
simultaneously, in part because of this partial ordering.
ordcring. In such
question fail simultaneously,
cases,
~ of
least li!i!ing
failh a
cases, the most appropriate response is to correct the kill
presumptions in this ordering.!
ordering?
among the
MQI, this ordering manifests itself as a subgraph relation amoog
. In the MQL,
chccking the
subgraphs of the MQL: some subgraphs are subgraphs of others. By checking
non-emptiness of the subgraphs in a suitable order, the most appropriate response
formulated. Thus,
Thus, in the example, it is possible for the system to produce a
can be formulated.
response
Linguistics
rcsponse such as "1 don't know of any Fs, and I don't know of any Linguistics
courses.", without producing the additional irrelevant facts
mere are no Fs in
facts that there
etc.
courses, no students got Fs, ete.
responses, produced in this fashion,
fashion, are language driven
Corrective indirect responses,
inferences,
infcrences, because they are derived directly from the structure
suucture of the query as
represented by the MQL. If the query were phrased differently, a different set of
presumptions would be computed.
computed. (This is not a drawback,
drawback, as it might seem at
first -- it insures that the response
will
be
in
terms
that
the user
rcsponse
uscr understands, since
the terms used in the explanation are those presented in the original query.) For
these reasons,
possible by a careful choice of
responses, made possiblc
reasons, corrective
corrective indirect responses,
representations and associated algorithms.
algorithms, are produced in a domain transparent
fashion with minimal system overhead using knowledge
knowledge already available in the

DB.

1. This is more an empirical

empirical observation
obscmalion than
Lhan a provable fact
facL This set
x t of failed presumptions
presumplions provides
provides
!he most
mosl perspicuous
perspicuous way of communicating the nature of the problem to the questioner,
questioner. following the
the
[ ~ n c 1975].
19751.
e
Maxims of [Grice

183

It is important to note that the success of this technique is strongly dcpcndcnt

on thc cxtcnsional nature of most Dl3 queries. Thc mcrhod assumes that each
on the extcnsional nature of most DB qucries. The method assumes that each
sub-part of the original qucry is making rcfcrencc to some (possibly c~npty)
sub-part of the original qucry is making reference to some (possibly empty)
idcntifiablc scr of itcms in the database. Similarly. it aaumcs that h c mcaning of
identifiable set of items in the database. Similarly, it assumes that the meaning of
h e entirc qucry is a well defined (through composition of relations) combination
the entire query is a well defined (through composition of relations) combination
of thcsc refcrcnccs. In areas of application where non-cxtcnsional N1, expressions
of these references. In areas of application where non-extcnsional NL expressions
are common, diffcrcnt computational tcchniqucs for producing corrective indirect
arc common, differcnt computational techniques for producing corrective indirect
rcsponscs would be rcquircd.
responses would be required.
In addition to facilitating corrective indircct rcsponscs, thc MQL provides a
In addition to facilitating corrective indirect responses, the MQL provides a
convenient rcprcscntation for producing othcr typcs of cooperative responses.
convenient representation for producing other types of cooperative responses.
It is important to note that the success of this technique is strongly dependent

3.3.3 Focus and suggestive indircct responses

3.3.3 Focus and suggestive indirect responses
In NL contexts whcre conversational initiative can bc sharcd, it is appropriate for
In NL contexts where conversational initiative can be shared, it is appropriate for
a respondent to suggest relevant information that is likely to be requested in a
a respondent to suggest relevant information that is likely to be requested in a
follow-up question. Consider the following exchange:
follow-up question. Consider the following exchange:
1Q: Is thcrc a mailbox on this block?
lQ: Is there a mailbox on this block?
1R: No, but thcrc's onc down thc street.
lR: No, but thcrc's onc down thc street

Rcsponses such as this that anticipate a questioner's needs can be called

Responses such as this that anticipate a questioner's needs can be called
Suacstivc Indirect R e s ~ o n s ebecause
~,
they elaborate on the literal response by
Suggestive Indirect Responses, because they elaborate on the literal response by
suggesting some (hopefully relevant) additional information. The key observation
suggesting some (hopefully relevant) additional information. The key observation
for computing suggestive indirect responses is that the response is usually an
for computing suggestive indirect responses is that the response is usually an
answer to a slightly modified question. Specifically, the original question is
answer to a slightly modified question. Specifically, the original question is
modified by varying or eliminating its focus. Roughly speaking, focus is that
modified by varying or eliminating its focus. Roughly speaking, focus is that
aspect of the question that is most likely to shift in a follow-up question.1 In
aspect of the question that is most likely to shift in a follow-up question. l In
dialog 2 below, the focus is the particular location of available seats, while in
dialog 2 below, the focus is the particular location of available seats, while in
dialog 3 it is the departure times of the trains.
dialog 3 it is the departure times of the trains.

1. This characterization of focus is a (perhaps oversimplified) projection of the marc complex

1. This characlcriZ3tion of focus is a (perhaps oversimplified) projeclion of the more complex
linguistic wnccpt onto h c DB re~rievatdomain. For a treatment of this iswe in more richly structured
linguistic(but
concept
ontoreslricted)
the DB retrieval
domain.
For a19771
trC<ltmenl
of this issue
ail1 quite
domains
see [Grou
and [Irhncn
19771.in more richly structured
(but still quite restricted) domains see [Grosz 1977] and [Lehnen 1977].

184

Kaplan

2Q: Arc there any scats

seats available
available in the orchestra for tonight's
Rolling
concert?
Ilolling Stones' concert?
R: No.
Q: Are there any in the balcony?
balcony?
R: Yes.
3Q:
N.Y. this evening?
3Q: How many more trains leave for N.Y.
R: Zero.
Q: How many trains leave for N.Y. tomorrow morning?
morning?
R: 3.
suggestive indirect responses
qucstions could be:
Corresponding suggestive
responses to these questions
4Q: Are
Arc there any scats
44:
seas available
availablc in the
thc orchestra for tonight's
Rolling Stones' concert?
4R: No, but there are some in the balcony.

5Q:
trains leave for N.Y. this evening?
50: How many more uains
evening?
5R:
None. but there are 33 tomorrow morning.
SR: None,
In a computational
computational setting,
setting. some means of detecting the need for a suggestive
suggestive
focus of the current question is required.
indirect response and determining the focus
In human dialog,
dialog, there appears to be a conversational convention that
qucstions to avoid negative or trivial responses. A
speakers should phrase their questions
speakers
trivial response is one that denotes an empty set ("None."),
uivial
("None."), or the result of a
simple
simple predicate, such as COUNT, on an empty set ("Zero.").
("Zero."). By adopting this as
a principle of cooperation in discourse, it is possible for speakers
speakers to communicate
their expectations
expectations along with their questions.
questions. If a respondent is asked a question to
trivial, s/he is justified in assuming
which the response is negative or trivial.
assuming that some
(perhaps rather weak) expectation the speaker had has been violated
violated, and that the
conversation has temporarily
temporarily reached a dead end. It is then appropriate to
produce a suggestive
suggestive indirect response. llbat
h a t many questions carry
cany this expectation
can be illustrated by observing
obsening that a response of "Your assumption
assumption is correct"
correct." is
not a meaningless retort to the following:
Sunday, isn't it?
6: The A&P is open on Sunday,
7: The A&P isn't open on Sunday, is it?
senior?
8: Is John a senior?
9: Is John an underclassman?
underclassman?
A
effect occurs with questions other than yes/no questions.
questions Question
A related effect
10 carries
taken by students that live in
carries an expectation
expectation that some Friday classes
classes are takcn

185
the main quad dormitory - the answer "Nonc." indicates a violation of this
the main quad donnitory - the answer "None." indicates a violation of this
expectation. Similarly, 13 cxpccts that some il-52s have Ioggcd over 1000 hours
expectation. Similarly, 11 expects that some 8-52s have logged over 1000 hours
downtime an answer of "Zcro." indicates a violation.
downtime' an answer of "Zero." indicates a violation.

10: Which Friday classes are takcn by students that live in the
10: Whichmain
Friday
classes
arc taken by students that live in the
quad
dormitory?
main quad donnitory?
11: How many B-52s have logged ovcr 1000 hours downtime?
11: How many B-52s have logged over 1000 hours downtime?
These negative and trivial rcsponscs admit suggcstivc indircct rcsponses. For
These negative and trivial responses admit suggestive indirect responses. For
example, 8 might bc iollowcd with "No, he's a junior."; 10 with "Nonc, but here
example, 8 might be followed with "No, he's a junior."; 10 with "None, but here
arc thc classcs taken by students that live in any dormitory..."; and 11with "Zcro,
are the classes taken by students that live in any donnitory ..."; and 11 with "Zero,
but thcre arc 25 B-52s that have Ioggcd over 900 hours downtime." The
but there arc 25 8-52s that have logged over 900 hours downtime." The
appropriatcness of the various rcsponses dcpcnds on the dctcrmination of the
appropriateness of the various responses depends on the detennination of the
focus of the questions. It should be notcd that it is (perhaps equally) oRen
focus of the questions. It should be noted that it is (perhaps equally) often
appropriate to elaborate on questions with positive responses. In addition, it is
appropriate to elaborate on questions with positive responses. In addition, it is
occasionally ttuc that an elaboration aftcr a negative response appears to be
occasionally true that an elaboration after a negative response appears to be
superfluous, for example in "Have any B-52s logged ovcr 3000 hours downtime?".
superfluous, for example in "Have any B-S2s logged over 1000 hours downtime?".
What is of interest herc is that thc negative responses can serve as a conversational
What is of interest here is that the negative responses can serve as a conversational
cue for suggestive indirect responses.
cue for suggestive indirect responses.
Conscqucntly, the CO-OPcontrol structure attempts to produce a suggestive
Consequently, the CO-OP control structure attempts to produce a suggestive
indircct response when the dircct answcr to a question is negative or trivial. Once
indirect response when the direct answer to a question is negative or trivial. Once
a qucstion has been parsed into the MQL,
a question has been parsed into the MQL,
1) it is uanslatcd to a formal query that will produce a direct
1) it is translated to a fonnal query that will produce a direct
response, and an attempt is made to execute this against the
response, and an attempt is made to execute this against the
DB;
DB:
2) should thc result be an empty set (a null answer), the
2) should the result be an empty set (a null answer), the
prcsumptions of the qucstion are chccked in the hope of
presumptions
ofa the
question
are checked
the hope above:
of
producing
corrective
indirect
response,in
as described
producing a corrective indirect response, as described above;

3) should no computable presumptions fail, a suggestive

3) should no computable presumptions fail, a suggestive
indirect rcsponse is attcmprcd. 'This is done by eliminating one
indirectofresponse
is altemplcd. This is done by eliminating one
the sets in the MQL (the sct designated as the focus during
of the sets in the MQL (the set designated as the focus during
thc parsing phasc) and cxccuting this modified query.
the parsing phase) and executing this modified query.
This rnodificd qucry will correspond to a question in which Ule focus has been
This modified query will correspond to a question in which the focus has been
changcd, i.e. a likcly follow-up qucstion,
changed, Le. a likely follow-up question.
The succcss of this type of rcsponse is heavily dcpcndent on the corrcct
The success of this type of response is heavily dependent on the correct

Kaplan

186

dctcrmination
focus. Unfi~rtunatcly,
difficult and subde
subdc problem.
determination of thc
the focus.
Unfortunately, this is a difficult
question can be regarded as a special
To some
somc degree,
dcgrce, determining d1e
thc focus
focus of a qucstion
case of plan rccogllition.
qucstioncr will
recognition. An understanding of the intentions of a qucstioner
very effective
lead to a vcry
cffcctive strategy
stratcgy for
for determining
dctcrmining focus. (In
(In a sense, a complete
complete
enough undcrstanding
understanding would allow a respondent to ignore a questioner's
questioners
utteranccs
information is rarcly
utterances altogether!) Such information
rarely available to DD
Dil query systems,
available to CO-OP.
CO-OP. Since
Sincc CO-OP does
docs not maintain an
and quite simply is not available
cxplicit user model,
modcl, some
solnc simpler cues
cucs wcrc
focus dctcnnination.
dctcrmination.
explicit
were sought for focus
An alternative
altcrnativc method
mcthod of finding focus is to examine
cxaminc a sequence
scqucnce of questions,
qucstions,
when possiblc.
possible, to explicitly
wllcn
cvplicitly determine
dctcrminc what the likely
likcly focus
fwus is by finding what has
shiftcd and what has remained constant in the immediately
imlnediatcly prcccding
This
shifted
preceding dialog. Thi!
mcthod
locatc the focus
focus of thc
dialogs 2 and
method could correctly locate
the questions prcscntcd
presented in dialogs
above. A simplification of this approach is to compare the MQL rcprescntation
3 above.
representation
qucstion with that of thc
focus can then be
of the cunent
current qoestion
the previous one. The focus
diffcr bctwcen
qucstions.
sclccted from the prcscnrcd
selected
presented sets that differ
between the two questions.
lcavc a number of choices
choices for the focus,
focus, the
Should this tcchnique
technique still leave
resolved further
problem can be rcsolvcd
furthcr through some
somc syntactic
syntactic cues.
cucs. Questions are often
) the focus
unmarked cases
presented as "new" information.
information,
phrased so that (in unmarkcd
cases'l )the
focus is prcscntcd
and consequently
conscqucntly appears late in the question,
qucstion, as far as possiblc
(syntactically)
possible
from
the subject
fr"m thc
subject (This assumes
assumes that there is a tendency for new infonmation
information in
qucstions to be placed toward the end of a sentence).
sentence). For example,
example, the foci in
questions
dialogs
qucstions. (For a system that uses this
dialogs I1 and 3 both occur at the end of the questions.
observation to produce suggestive
suggcstivc indirect
indircct responses, though they do not use this
tenminology, see [Steedman
terminology,
[Steedman and Johnson-Laird 1976].)
19761.) In the MQL, this distance
distance
through the syntactic
syntactic parse tree tcnds
asgraphical
distance from
tends to manifest itself as
graphical distance
the presented set corresponding to the subject noun phrase. This occurs
occurs because
relationship betwecn
between the structure
of the close relationship
suucturc of an MQL expression
cxpression and the
syntactic structure of a parse tree. Relations in thc
the MQL tend to map one-to-one
one-to-one
phrases and elauses
A simple graph search algorithm can
with phrascs
clauscs in the question.
qucstion. A
truee focus.
therefore be used to locate or chose among likely candidates for the m
focus.
results; it
An error in the selection of the focus
focus docs not produce disastrous
disastrous results:
may, however,
however, be an inconvenience
inconvenience for a user to be confronted with unwanted or
irrelevant information.
information.
Experience with the CO-OP implementation has uncovered a more serious
serious
problem with generating
generating suggestive
suggestive indirect
indircct responses. Once dle
the focus
focus has been
chosen, it is important to vary it in a meaningful way. Generating a more general

1. Cases
C a m not overridden by
bv contcx
contextual
1.
tuaI considerations.

187

question by simply eliminating the

uninteresting and
thc focus
focus can result
rcsult in unintcrcsting
excessively
"I don't know of any programmers in
cxccssivcly lengthy responses
rcsponscs (such
(such as "1
division 3, but you might be
bc interested in any programmers in any divisions..:').
divisions...").
Ideally.
be made,
made. as in
Ideally, an intelligent
intelligent selection
sclcction of an alternative focus
focus should bc
example
been changed
example 3 above.
above, where "this evening" has becn
changcd to "tomorrow morning".
Often there
be varied. Currently.
thcrc arc
are many dimensions along which tl,e
the focus
focus can bc
Currently,
CO-OP
simply
eliminates
the
focus
and
responds
to
the
resulting
query.
CO-OP
focus
rcsponds
qucry. Though
the system's
theoretical interest,
intcrcst, a morc sophisticated
systcm's bcha\lior
behavior may be of thcorctical
approach would be required
rcquircd for suggestive
suggestive indirect
indircct responses to be of value in a
practical NL OIl
DB query system.
system.
In contrast to this approach.
Allcn (described
(dcscribcd elsewhere in this
approach, the work of Allen
volume)
volumc) is in principle
principle capable of producing more
morc appropriate and sophisticated
suggestive
suggcstivc indirect
indircct responses.
responscs. Ily
By maintaining an explicit model of the beliefs
bclicfs and
goals
of
the
speaker
(as
wen
as
explicit
knowledge
about
the
domain)
in a form
goals
speaker (as well explicit knowlcdge
that facilitates
reasoning. responses attuned to the particular setting.
facilitates formal
formal reasoning,
setting,
speakers.
spcakcrs, and context
contcxt can be generated.
gcncratcd. 'Ibis
This more
morc intelligent
intelligcnr behavior is obtained
at the cost of additional
additional inferencing
infcrcncing and the encoding of domain-specific
domain-specific and
situation-specific
situation-spccificknowledge.
knowlcdge.
Thc.sc
These factors
factors would tend to limit the transportability (to
(to new situations and
domains)
domains) of a NL OIl
DB query
qucry system,
system, and so arc not very practical given current
implementation techniques,
techniques. though Allen's work is of obvious theoretical
importance.
CO-OPS cooperative
importance. Ily
By contrast, the limited class
class of responses
responses in CO-OP's
repertoire are achieved
more surface linguistic
achieved on a morc
linguistic basis -- without a special
encoding
encoding of domain knowledge
knowlcdge -- and so were more appropriate for the goals of
this work.
indircct responses
3.3.4 Vagueness and supportive indirect

A common problem in NL query systems

systems is the production of unacceptably terse
answers.
answers. Consider a response
response of 12R to 12Q,
124, and 13R to
In 13Q.
134.

12Q: What grades did students get in CSEllO?

12Q:
12R:
12R: A,Il,Il,A,C....
A,B,B,A,C,...
13Q:
134: What are the phone numbers of managers in
Marketing?
,
Marketing?
13R:
13R: 293-4958,584-7945;293-7754...
293-4958.584-794s,r293-7754...
Obviously,
Obviously, both the grades and hthee phone numbers are likely to be useless

Kaplan
Kaplan

188

188

without thc associated names. The deeper problem hcrc is that NL qucstions
without the associated names. The deeper problem here is that NL questions
often do not explicitly indicate what infonnation should bc incorporated into the
often do not explicitly indicate what infonnation should be incorporated into the
response; the language is dcsigncd to share this burdcn with the rcspondent.
response; the language is designed to share this burden with the respondent.
These qucstions rcquirc Sun~ortivcIndirect Resnonscs - rcsponscs that provide
These questions require Supportive Indirect Responses - responses that provide
the supporting information ncccssary to intcrprct the answer. (Both REL
the supporting infonnation necessary to interpret the answer. (Both REL
phompson &. al. 19691 and LUNAR [Woods al. 19723 can provide limited
[Thompson et. ill., 1969J and LUNAR [Woods et. al. 1972] can provide limited
rcsponscs of this type.)
responses of this type.)
To insure that the appropriate supporting information is prcscnt, the query
To insure that the appropriate supporting information is present, the query
systcm could dump the cntire contents of the Dl1 in rcsponsc to any question,
system could dump the entire contents of the DB in response to any question,
sincc this would bc likcly to contain all information relcvant to the questioner's
since this would be likely to contain all infonnation relevant to the questioner's
nccds. Obviously, this would bc a less than optimal approach. The problem thcn is
needs. Obviollsly, this would be a less than optimal approach. The problem then is
to make an intclligcnt scltction of relevant information from the DB.
to make an intelligent selection of relevant infonnation from the DB.
Convcnicntly. the phrasing of the question provides excelIcnt guidance in this
Conveniently. the phrasing of the question provides excellent guidance in this
sclcction. Qucstioncrs tcnd to explicitly mention in their qucstions those aspects
selection. Questioners tend to explicitly mention in their questions those aspects
of the domain h a t arc relevant to their nccds. Convcmly, they tcnd to be vague
of the domain that are relevant to their needs. Conversely, they tend to be vague
with respect to irrelevant aspects of the domain. Vagueness is the dclction of
with respect to irrelevant aspects of the domain. Vagueness is the deletion of
information that may be relevant (but not essential given the context) to the
information that may be relevant (but not essential given the context) to the
sclect~onof a rcsponse.l
selection of a response. l
Consider the diffcrence between questions 14 and 15.
Consider the difference between questions 14 and 15.
14: Which students passed CS105?
14: Which students passed CSlOS?
15: Which students got a passing grade in CS105?
15: Which students got a passing grade in CS105?

While both questions appear to make the same request, 15 mentions grades
While both questions appear to make the same request, 15 mentions grades
while 14 does not, ('mat is, 14 is vague with respect to grades.) As a result, it is
while 14 does not. (Il1at is, 14 is vague with respect to grades.) As a result, it is
more appropriate to include thc grades along with the students in a response to 15
more appropriate to include the grades along with the students in a response to 15
than to 14. The use of vagueness serves as a cue indicating which aspects of the
than to 14. The use of vagueness serves as a cue indicating which aspects of the
domain are relevant to the user's needs, and hence may be appropriately
domain are relevant to the user's needs, and hence may be appropriately
incorporated into a response in the absence of other contextual cues to the
incorporated into a response in the absence of other contextual cues to the
contrary.
contrary.
This function of vagueness is used in forming the responses produced by
This function of vagueness is used in fonning the responses produced by
CO-OP.The systcm assumes that if a user explicitly mentioned some aspect of the
CO-OP. The system assumes that if a user explicitly mentioned some aspect of the
domain in his or her question, h e n that aspect may appear in the response.
domain in his or her question, then that aspect may appear in the response.

1. Vagueness should be distinguished from ambiguity, where multiple interpretations can be assigned
1. Vagueness
be distinguished
from
ambiguity,
where multipleis interprelations
can be assigned
to theshould
samc question.
As wilh
locus.
this characterization
a broad simplilication
of more subtle
to the same
question.
As with As
focus.
this characterization
a broad
simplification
subtleof other
linguistic
phenomena
defined
here. vaguenessiscovers
ellipsis.
hedging, of
andmore
a variety
linguisticphenomena
phenomenaallAs
defined
here. invagueness
covers
ellipsis.
hedging.
other
of which
rcducc
his domain
lo a lack
of dctail
usefuland
Tor a~ lvariety
c c t i n gaofresponse.
phenomena - all of which reduce in this domain to a lack of delail useful ror selecting a response.

189
(Convcrscly, aspects not rncntioncd do not appear.) This is achieved by observing
(Conversely, aspects not mentioned do not appear.) This is achieved by observing
that each aspcct mentioned will rcsult in a corresponding presented set in the
that each aspect mentioned will result in a corresponding presented set in the
MQL. 'lhc strategy is thcn simply to provide information on each presented set
MQL. The strategy is then simply to provide information on each presented set
that is not a singleton. 'ihus 14 above would produce a rcsponse containing only
that is not a singleton. 'Ibus 14 above would produce a response containing only
studcnts (CS105 is a singleton). while 15 would produce a table of student - grade
students (CS105 is a singleton). while 15 would produce a table of student - grade
pairs. Similarly, a qucstion such as "What arc the phone numbers of managers in
pairs. Similarly, a question such as "What arc the phone numbers of managers in
the marketing division?" would produce a response of not just phone numbers,
the marketing division?" would produce a response of not just phone numbers.
but also thc corresponding manager's names (assuming tllat this information is
but also the corresponding manager's names (assuming that this information is
avaiIable in the DB).
available in the DB).
Each lcxical itcm that may define a set has in the CO-OP lexicon an associated
Each lexical item that may define a set has in the CO-OP lexicon an associated
list of fields that arc to be printcd to designate the individuals in the set. Thus,
list of fields that arc to be printed to designate the individuals in the set Thus,
"students" above might result in the printing of both their names and social
"students" above might result in the printing of both their names and social
security numbers - but only if students were mentioned in the question.
security numbers - but only if students were mentioned in the question.
Since the selection of relevant infonnation to be incorporated into a
Since the selection of relevant infonnation to be incorporated into a
supportive response is determined by the phrasing of thc question, the technique
supportive response is determined by the phrasing of the question, the technique
is a language driven inference. The system is able to exploit the user's linguistic
is a language driven inference. The system is able to exploit the user's linguistic
competence to drive its inferencing procedures.
competence to drive its inferencing procedures.
3.4 CO-OPsample queries

3.4 CO-OP sample queries

CO-OP was implemented on a DEC KL-10 under TOPS-10 at the Wharton

co-OP was implemented on a DEC KL-IO under TOPS-IO at the Wharton
Computational Facility in RUTGERS-UCI-LISP and FORTRAN. The domain
Computational Facility in RUTGERS-UCI-L1SP and FORTRAN. The domain
for these examples is a DB from the National Center for Atmospheric Research
for these examples is a DB from the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. One of the functions of NCAR is to provide
(NCAR) in Boulder. Colorado. One of the functions of NCAR is to provide
computational resources to rcsearchen across the country working on government
computational resources to researchers across the country working on government
grants, mainly in meteorology. The DB uacks the use of these resources. It
grants, mainly in meteorology. The DB trads the use of these resources. It
contains information on users, programmers (users that work for thc computing
contains information on users, programmers (users that work for the computing
facility), divisions (which are organized further into supcrdivisions), accounts,
facility), divisions (which are organized further into superdivisions), accounts,
projects, sponsors, and project advisors, to name a few. To understand the
projects, sponsors, and project advisors. to name a few. To understand the
rcsponscs, it is important to note that uscrs can be in many divisions, and work on
responses, it is important to note that users can be in many divisions, and work on
many projects, but the projects are not considered to be in particular divisions.
many projects, but the projects are not considered to be in particular divisions.
Thc
projects, however, are organized into areas of interest, according to a set of
The projects, however, are organized into areas of interest, according to a set of
area codes.
area codes.
An annotated sample of questions and answers illustrating the salient features
An annotated sample of questions and answers illustrating the salient features
of thc current implementation follows. In addition to demonstrating the types of
of the current implementation follows. In addition to demonstrating the types of
cooperative responses discussed above, thc examples cover other functional
cooperative responses discussed above, the examples cover other functional
capabilities of the system such as limited quantification, issues of portability and
capabilities of the system such as limited quantification. issues of portability and
domain transparency, graceful error recovery, and strategies for dealing with
domain transparency, graceful error recovery, and strategies for dealing with
implausible semantic interpretations. Though thesc features arc required for a
implausible semantic interpretations. Though these features are required for a

Kaplan
Kaplan

190

190

realistic NL system, they are of lcsscr thcorctical intcrcst and are not dcscribcd in
realistic NL system, they are oflesser theoretical interest and are not described in
detail in the text. (An extcndcd discussion can bc found in [Kaplan 19791.)
detail in the text. (An extended discussion can be found in [Kaplan 1979J.)
the examples,
havc altered
becn alrcrcd
the intcrcst
of privacy.
In theInexamples,
names namcs
have been
in the ininterest
of privacy.
"Q" "Q"
(bclow) stands for question, "P" for paraphrase, and "R" For response. (Thc
(below) stands for question, "P" for paraphrase, and "ROO for response. (Th!
paraphrases are prcscntcd to the user for approval prior to exccution of the
paraphrases are presented to the user for approval prior to execution of the
query.) Commentary is in square brackets ([ I). (Some irrclevant paraphrascs and
query.) Commentary is in square brackets ([
(Some irrelevant paraphrases and
rcsponscs arc dcletcd in the interest of brcvity.)
responses are deleted in the interest of brevity.)

n.

Q : advises
Who advises
projectsin
area 36?
Q: Who
projects
in area 36?
P: Assuming
that thcre are projects that are in arca R36,
P: Assuming that there are projects that are in area # 36.
who advises those projects?
who advises those projects?
r h e system incorporates a powerful paraphrascr,l that pcrforms two types of
[The system incorporates a powerful paraphraser, 1 that performs two types of
disambiguation: lexical - it will explain its chosen intcrpretation for vague or
disambiguation: lexical - it will explain its chosen interpretation for vague or
ambiguous terms; and syntactic - it explains thc clausal dcpcndcncics dctcrmined
ambiguous terms; and syntactic - it explains the clausal dependencies determined
by the parser. It is also uscd for indirect responses, as illustrated below. This
by the parser. It is also used for indirect responses, as illustrated below. This
component has access solely to the MQL (parser output), and so requires no
component has access solely to the MQL (parser output), and so requires no
modification on new domains.]
modification on new domains.]

R: I don't know of any area #36.

R: I don't know of any area # 36.
m i s is an example of a corrective indirect rcsponse. Rather than giving a
[This is an ex:ample of a corrective indirect response. Rather than giving a
rnislcading dircct answer of "No one.", the system produces the appropriate
misleading direct answer of "No one.", the system produces the appropriate
indirect response, using the tcchniqucs dcxribcd above. Note that the system
indirect response, using the techniques described above. Note that the system
carehlly hedges its rcsponse with respect to its statc of knowledge, ralher than
carefully hedges its response with respect to its state of knowledge, rather than
assuming either a closed or open world DB [Reiter 19781.~
assuming either a closed or open world DB [Reiter 1978].2
Q: WhichprogramrnersfrornrheASDgrouparein

Q: Which programmers
from the ASD group are in
superdivision 5000?
superdivision 5OO0?

m e programmers are organized into groups, identified by group IDS.]

[The programmers are organized into groups, identified by group IDs.]
P: (I am assuming that "ASD" is a GROUP ID.)
P: (I am Which
assuming
that "ASD"are
is in
a GROUP
10.) #SW?
programmers
supcrdivision
Which programmers are in supcrdivision # 5000?
1. Dcsigned and irnplcmented mainly by Kathy McKeown WcKeown 19791.
1. Designed
implemented
1979]. the tmlh of its negation. For
2. A and
closed
world DB mainly
is one by
in Kathy
which McKeown
h e absence(McKeown
of a fact implies
2. A closed warl d DB is one in which the absence of a fact implies the IJUth of its negation. For
example, if a DR d m not conlain information that John Smith is a manager. then it can be assumed
example.that
if aJohn
DB docs
information
thatthe
John
Smith
is a manager.
thenInitan
can be assumed
SmithnotisconLain
not a manager,
undcr
closcd
world
asumption.
world DR, this
thaI John Smith is nol a manager. under the dosed world a.~sumplion. In an Ql2ill world DB, this
awmption does not hold - if John Smith is not listed in the phone book, it cannot be inferred hat he
a.o;sumption does not hold - if John Smith is nOI listed in the phone book, it cannot be inferred lhal he
doesn't have a phone number.
doesn't have a phone number.

191

Look
Lnok for programmers that are from
from ASD group.
[This
Khis paraphrase illustrates
illusUatcs both types of disambiguation, although the lexical
disambiguation is probably unnecessary
unnecessary in this example.]
example.]
R: I don't know of
any ASD group. I don't know of any
ofany
programmers that are in supcrdivision
5000.
superdivision ##5000.
[TIlis
miis corrective indirect response has two components. Rather than simply
correcting all subgraphs of the MQL that denote empty referents in the OIl,
DB, the
system
system explains only the
thc appropriate ones.
ones. For example,
example, since there is no ASD
group,
group, it is obvious that there are no programmers in the ASO
ASD group. This
parsimony, a reflection of Grice's
"Maxim
of
Quantity"
[Grice
19751,
19751,is achieved
Grice's
by noting that the presumptions (subgraphs) of the MQL arc
are partially ordered
according
according to a "subgraph" rclation,
relation, i.e. some subgraphs are subgraphs of others.
The emptiness of a lesser subgraph in the ordering
ordcring will necessarily en!;lit
entail the
emptiness of all greater
grcalcr subgraphs. CO-OP
CO-OP cumputes
cumputcs and corrccLs
currccc. only the
Lhe least
failing
failing subgraphs in this ordering.
ordcring. Note that this technique is entirely domain
transparent: no additional domain driven inference is required.)
required.]
Q:
projects in oceanography does Nasa Headquarrers
Headquarters
Which projecls
Q: Which
sponsor?
P: (J
( I am
am assuming that "Nasa Headquarters" is a SPONSOR
NAME.)
(I am assuming that "oceanography" is a AREA OF
INTEREST,)
INTEREST.)
-- -~
-.
Which projects
p;ojects does Nasa Headquarters sponsor?
Look for projects that are in oceanography.

ah

[Note that "Nasa Headquarters"

[Note
Headquarters" and "oceanography" appear only as values in the
Dil
DB - nnot
o t as explicit entries in the lexicon. A set of heuristics are used to infer the
appropriate fields
DB in which these unknown terms arc
are likely to occur
fields in the OIl
[Kaplan, Mays, and Joshi 1979].
19791. This allows
allows the lexicon to remain current even
[Kaplan,
DB may be subject to updates. (This problem is handled as a special
though the OIl
case of word sense disambiguation.)]
disambiguation.)]

R:
projects in oceanography that Nasa
R: I don't know ofany projccts
But you mIght
be interested in
Headquarters sponsors.
sponson.llut
m~ght~bcinterested
sponsors...
any projects that Nasa Headquarters sponsors...

Kaplan
Kaplan

192

(PROJECT/ACCT #)
(PROJECT TITLE)
(PROJECT/ACcr #)
(PROJECf TITLE)
35071040
35071040
35071048
35071048

NON-EQUILIB. OF ELECTRONS IN SOL

NON-EQUILIB. OF ELECTRONS IN SOL
OUTER ATMOSPIIERES O F DWARF STARS
OUTER ATMOSPHERES OFDWARF$TARS

p i s is an example of a suggcstive indirect response. After discovering an empty

[This is an example of a suggestive indirect response. After discovering an empty
referent in the DB for the entire query, the system attcmpts to find a corrective
referent in the DB for the entire query, the system attempts to find a corrective
rcsponse. Since this query is wet1 formed with respcct to the DB (i.e. no
response. Since this query is well formed with respect to the DB (Le. no
presumptions fail), it attempts to locate a focus in the query which it can eliminate
presumptions fail), it attempts to locate a focus in the query which it can eliminate
to produce a hopchlly relevant and hclpful rcsponse. On a syntactic basis,
to produce a hopefully rclevant and helpful response. On a syntactic basis,
"occanography" is designated as the focus, and a ncw query is formed for the
"oceanography" is designated as the focus, and a new query is formed for the
indirect response by eliminating this from the query. Specifically, this focus is a
indirect response by eliminating this from the query. Specifically, this focus is a
modifying clause syntactically "furthest" from the subject (Nasa Headquarters).
modifying clause syntactically "furthest" from the subject (Nasa Headquarters).
Illis new query is then exccuted and displayed.]
This new query is then executed and displayed.]

Q:

projects advised by Thomas Wirth does Nasa

Q: Which
Which
projects advised
by Thomas
Wirth does Nasa
Coddard
Space Cenler
sponsor?
Goddard Space Center sponsor?

m i s question receives a direct response, and is designed to set up a context for

[This question receives a direct response, and is designed to set up a context for
the following question.]
the following question.]
Q : Which projects sponsored by NSFdoes Thomas IVirth
Q: Which projects sponsored by NSF does Thomas Wirth
advise?
advise?
R: I don't know ofany projects t h a t were sponsored by NSF

R: I don'tthat
know
ofanyWirth
projects
tllat were
sponsored
by interested
NSF
Thomas
advises.
13ut you
might be
iliat Thomas
Wirth
advises.
Hut
you
might
be
interested
in any projects that Thomas Wirth advises, namely:
in any projects that Thomas Wirth advises, namely:

(F'ROJECT/ACCT #) (PROJECT TITLE)

(pROJECT/ACCf #) (PROJECfTITLE)
35081027
35081027

(ADVISOR TITLE]

(ADVISOR TITLE)

SATELLT-SLAR ABSORBTN PROFESSOR...

SATELLT-SLAR ABSORBTN PROFESSOR...

m i s suggcstive rcsponse was generated by designating the sponsor as the focus

[This suggestive response was generated by designating the sponsor as the focus
of the original query. Here the focus was determined contextually, by comparing
of the original query. Here the focus was determined contextually, by comparing
the current query with the previous one to see what has changed. Syntactic cues,
the current query with the previous one to see what has changed. Syntactic cues,
such as in the previous example, are used only when no contextual cue can be
such as in the previous example, are used only when no contextual cue can be
derived from the previous query.]
derived from me previous query.]
Q: Who sponsors projects nor in oceanography?
Q: Who sponsors projects not in oceanography?

193
R: FAII-URE.
R: FAILURE.
Sorry, but I didn't understand you fullySorry, but I didn't understand you fullyI havc a vcry limitcd knowlcdge of English.
I have a very limited knowledge of English.
My bcst gucss as to what you meant is:
My bestWho
guesssponsors
as to what
you meant is:
projects?
Who sponsors projects?
Could you please rcphrase your qucstion and uy again...
Could you please rephrase your question and try again..
m i s is an example of failure in thc systcm. In principle, Ihc only kind of
[This is an example of failure in the system. In principle, the only kind of
failure is parse failure - thc intcrprctive componcnts can proccss any legal output
failure is parse failure - the interpretive components can process any legal output
of thc parscr. (In addition, the parscr will reach an interprctadon of any
of the parser. ([n addition, the parser will reach an interpretation of any
syntactically valid input, regardless of . its semantic wcll-fomcdness.)
syntactically valid input, regardless of its semantic wcll-formcdness.)
Conscqucntly, the only type of failure diagnostics that are required arc in the
Consequently, the only type of failure diagnostics that are required are in the
parsc. During thc parsc, a currcnt hypothcsis regarding thc input is maintained at
parse. During the parse, a current hypothesis regarding the input is maintained at
all times. In the cvcnt of a parsc failurc, thc bcst gucss (largest hypothesis)
all times. In the event of a parse failure, the best guess (largest hypothesis)
cncountcrcd is displayed for the user. in the hope that this will aid the user in
encountered is displayed for the user, in the hope that this will aid the user in
localizing thc nature of the problem. This approach, to try to explain what went
localizing the nature of the problem. This approach, to try to explain what went
right with the parse ratllcr than what went wrong. is rnotivatcd by h e fact that the
right with the parse rather than what went wrong, is motivated by the fact that the
point at which tllc error actually occurred is oftcn considerably bcfore the point at
point at which the error actually occurred is often considerably before the point at
which the error is detectcd - English is more than locally ambiguous. Any attempt
which the error is detected - English is more than locally ambiguous. Any attempt
to diagnose the error at Ihc point of failure is more likely to mystify the user than
to diagnose the error at the point of failure is more likely to mystify the user than
to help him or her re-phrase the qucstion. In this case, the system is unable to
to help him or her re-phrase the question. In this case, the system is unable to
process a negation preceding a prcpositional phrase.]
process a negation preceding a prepositional phrase.]
Q: doesn
Who'Idoesn
'f sponsorprojecu in the oceanography area?
Q: Who
sponsor projecls in Ihe oceanography area?
[Herc the user has re-phrased the question.]
[Here the user has re-phrased the question.]
P: (1 am assuming that "occanography" is an AREA OF
P: (I am assuming that "oceanography" is an AREA OF
INTEIlEST.) Assuming that therc arc projects that are in the
INTEREST.)
Assuming
aresponsor
projectsthose
that projects?
are in the
oceanography
area,that
whothere
doesn't
oceanography area, who doesn't sponsor those projects?

R:
(SPONSOR NAME)
(SPONSOR NAME)

CTR NATL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIEN

CfR NATL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIEN
ERDA/WASHINGIDN
ERDA/WASHINGTON
NASA/MARSHALL SPACE FLT.CNTR
NASA/MARSHALL SPACE FLT. CNTR
OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCHIARL.
OFFICE OF NA VAL RESEARCH/ARL.
U.S.NUCLEAR REGUI-ATORY COM.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM.

Kaplan
Kaplan

194

194

r h i s example illustrates two points. Firsf that the system can process
[This example illustrates two points. First, that the system can process
negation. 'This is handlcd by the quantification routines, csscntially by counting
negation. This is handled by the quantification routines, essentially by counting
the numbcr of projects in oceanography sponsored by each sponsor and selccting
the number of projects in oceanography sponsored by each sponsor and selecting
those that sponsor exactly zero. This is a special case of quantification. Second,
those that sponsor exactly zero. This is a special case of quantification. Second,
the system must decide in such cases just what the sct "Who" should appropriately
the system must decide in such cases just what the set "Who" should appropriately
refer to. If it took the set of all people in the Dl3 (i.e. users, advisors,
refer to. If it took the set of all people in the DB (Le. users, advisors,
programmers, sponsors, ctc.) the responsc would include a great deal of
programmers, sponsors, etc.) the response would include a great deal of
extraneous information. CO-OP sclccts as the rcfercnt those individuals that
extraneous information. CO-OP selects as the referent those individuals that
could reasonably participate in the unncgated relationship. The resolution of
could reasonably participate in the unnegated relationship. The resolution of
vague referring expressions is made solely on the basis of rhe lexicon and DB
vague referring expressions is made solely on the basis of the lexicon and DB
schema.]
schema.]
Q : Which programmers are in division 41 1I and 4361?
Q: Which programmers are in division 4/// and 436/?

u h c scoping of conjunction is a subtle problem that must be handlcd in any

[The scoping of conjunction is a subtle problem that must be handled in any
serious NL query systcm. Here the parser is faced with essentially three
serious NL query system. Here the parser is faced with essentially three
syntactically valid scopes: conjoining the numbcrs, the divisions (division 4111
syntactically valid scopes: conjoining the numbers, the divisions (division 4111
and division 4361), or conjoining the programmers (programmers in division 4111
and division 4361), or conjoining the programmers (programmers in division 4111
and programmers in division 4361). ?he system chooses the narrowest scoping
and programmers in division 4361). The system chooses the narrowest scoping
that could rcsult in a non-empty response set based on an inspection of the DB
that could result in a non-empty response set based on an inspection of the DB
schema. The basic structure of the CODASYL formalism is the fhnctional
schema. The basic structure of the CODASYL formalism is the functional
relationship (in-or-above in the DB schema diagram), in this case revealing that
relationship (in-or-above in the DB schema diagram), in this case revealing that
divisions can have only one number. On this basis, the narrowest scope is ruled
divisions can have only one number. On this basis, the narrowest scope is ruled
out. However, the schema does admit the possibility of programmers being in two
out. However, the schema does admit the possibility of programmers being in two
divisions (a many-to-many relationship), and so this interpretation is chosen. The
divisions (a manytomany relationship), and so this interpretation is chosen. The
paraphrase makes this choice clear to the user.]
paraphrase makes this choice clear to the user.]

P: Which programmers are in division #4361 and division

P: Which
programmers are in division #4361 and division
#4111?
#41111
[By contrast, the following question is given a wide scope interpretation,
[By contrast, the following question is given a wide scope interpretation,
although it is syntactically identical. Areas, like divisions, can have only one
although it is syntactically identical. Areas, like divisions, can have only one
number,
but in this case, projects can be in only one area.]
number, but in this case, projects can be in only one area.]

Q: Which
projects
are in6 area
6 and 27?
Q: Which
projects
are in area
and 27?

P:simplify
To simplify matters, I'm going to split your question into
P: Toseveral
matters,
I'm going
split your
parts.
I understand
yourtoqucsdon
to question
mean: into
several parts. I understand your question to mean:
Which projects arc in area #27? Which projects are in area
Which projects arc in area #217 Which projects are in area
# 6?
#67

195

the system
system interprets
interprets wide
wide scoped
seoped
[Mainly for its own convenience, the
conjunctions as presenting multiple questions. Notice
Notice that
that the
the effect
cfTect of
of the
the "and"
"and"
ratller like that of
of an "or".
"or". The system then
then answers
answers each
each question
question
in this case is rather
in turn.]

Q: Which
Which users work on projects
projects in area
area 33 that
that are
are in
in division
division
Q:
200?
P: Assuming that there arc projccts
projects that are in area #3,
# 3, which
which
users work on thoseprojects?
those projects? Look for users that arc in division
#200.
#200.
[Relative
difficult
[Relative clause
clause and prepositional phrase attachment is another difficult
of semantic tests in the parsing process. Once
Once again,
again,
problem that involves the use
usc of
sufficient information for disambiguation. Syntactically,
the DB schema provides suficient
"that are in division 2200"
modifies users
users or
or
it is unclear whether the relative clause "that
0 0 modifies
projects.
projccts. The system decides
decides that users is the most likely referent, by scoring the
of the
potential referents
referents on three dimensions.
dimensions. The first is the semantic relatedness of
of
the
resulting
MQL
relation,
in
this
case
(users,
divisions)
and
subject
and
object
subject
(projt;cts.
relatedness is measured by the distance through
through
(projects. divisions).
divisions). The semantic relatedness
the
the schema between the records
records denoting those items. In the schema,
DlST(PROJT,DIVIS) = 4 (recall that projects
D1ST(USER,DIVIS)
DIST(USEI1,DIVIS) = 2, while DISr(PROIT,DIVIS)
arc
are not organized into divisions). Second,
Second, the distance back in the question from
the
the clause
clause to
to the
the potential referent is measured, on the assumption that the
modifier isis most likely to
to be ncar
near its
its referent. Third, a prediction is made on the
modifier
basis of
of the
the information
information content of the lexical items designating
designating the relation (in
basis
this case,
case, the
the word "in" contains little predictive value, and does
afTect the
this
docs not affect
decision). This
This isis done
done by associating with each prepoiition
preposition and verb in the
decision).
lexicon aa (possibly
(possibly empty) list of probable subjects
subjects and objects.
objects. For example, a
lexicon
verb
like
"sponsor"
in
this
domain
predicts
a
sponsor
as
a
subject and a project as
verb like
an
an object.]
object.]

Q:
phone numbers?
Q: What
What are the
the advisor's
advisor'sphone

R:
(ADVISOR NAME)
NAME)
(ADVISOR
MOYER, ROSCOE
ROSCOE
MOYER,
OIIRIEN, JOANNE
JOANNE
OBRIEN,
ORSLAG, VANCE
VANCE
ORSZAG.

(ADVISOR TITLE) (ADVISOR PHONE #)

(ADVISOR
PROFESSOR
PROFESSOR
PROFESSOR
PROFESSOR
PROFESSOR
PROFESSOR

312-753-2184
312-753-2184
713-845-0365
713-845-0365
804-924-8675...
804-924-8675...

Kaplan
Kaplan

196

196

[his is an example of a rcsponsc containing supportive indirect componcnts.

rThis is an example of a response containing supportive indirect components.
Although thc question literally asks only for phone numbers, the rcsponse
Although the question literally asks only for phone numbers, the response
includes thc additional relevant information of thc advisor's names and titles, as
includes the additional relcvant information of the advisor's names and titles, as
discusscd in section 3.4. 'The basic strategy hcrc is to incorporate into the response
discussed in section 3.4. 'The basic strategy here is to incorporatc into the response
information on each class of itcms cxplicitly mentioned in the question that is not
infonnation on each class of items explicitly mentioncd in the question that is not
rcsuicled to a singleton.]
restricted to a singleton.]
Q: Whar are rhe groups?
Q: What are the groups?
[The prograrnmcrs work in programming groups. Unfortunately, the DB
[The programmers work in programming groups. Unfortunately, the DB
dcsigncr never considcrcd tile possibility of a user querying the Dl3 with respect to
designer never considered tl1e possibility of a user querying the DO with respect to
the groups directly, and so simply made group a field of the programmer record.
the groups directly, and so simply made group a field of the programmer record.
In keeping with a design goal of making the responses invariant under differing
In keeping with a design goal of making the responses invariant under differing
Dn organizations, CO-OP performs an inversion on the "group" field to present
DB organizations, CO-OF performs an inversion on the "group" field to present
the response in the form in which the data was requested. The response,
the response in the form in which the data was requested. The response,
therefore, is purely a function of the input and the contents of the DB, not the DB
therefore. is purely a function of the input and the contents of the DB. not the DB
organization.]
organization.]

R:
(GROUP ID)

(GROUP ID)

AQM

AQM
HA0
HAG
SYS
SYS

UL

UL

Q: Whichprogrammers work in groups?

Q: Which programmers work in groups?

R:
(USER #) (PERSON NAME)
(GROUP ID)
(USER #) (PERSON NAME)
(GROUPID)
8002

TAKAMINE, GARY UL

GARY UL
8002 8056 TAKAMINE,
AITKEN,
JOYCE

HA0

AITKEN, JOYCE
8056
HAO
8061
VALEN'T. JO
AQM
8061
VALENT.JO
AQM
8063
WALSH,MARIE
HA0
MARIE
HAO
8063 8067 WALSH,
WOIIKING, MARIE SYS
WORKING, MARIE SYS
8067

[This qucstion illustrates how the system organizes the responses according to
[This question illustrates how the system organizes the responses according to
the way the information is prcscnted by the question. This can bc contrasted with
the way the information is presented by the question. This can be contrasted with

197
the following question, which rcqucsts the samc information in a different form.]
the following question, which requests the same information in a different fonn.]

Q: Which
groups do prograttzmers work in?
Q: Which
groups do programmers work in?

R:
(GROUP ID) (USER #) (PERSON NAME)
(GROUP ID) (USER #) (PERSON NAME)
AQM AQM
HA0
HAO

SYS
UL

SYS
UL

8061
8056
8063
8067
8002

8061
8056
8063
8067
8002

VALENT, JO
VALENT,JO
AITKEN, JOYCE
AITKEN, JOYCE
WALSH, MARIE
WALSH, MARIE
WORKING, MARIE
WORKING, MARIE
TAKAMINE, GARY
TAKAMINE, GARY

Q: Who sponsors Inore than 3 projecrs?

Q: Who sponsors more than 3 projects?
P: Who sponsors 4 or more projects?
P: Who sponsors 4 or more projects?

R:
(SPONSOR NAME)
(SPONSOR NAME)
NASA GODDhRD SPACE CENTER
NASA GODDARD SPACE CENTER
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
[Quantification in CO-OP is done by a counting mechanism. While the
[Quantification in CO-OP is done by a counting mechanism. While the
handling of quantification in this system js a very partial solution to a difficult
handling of quantification in this system is a very partial solution to a difficult
problem, it is sufficient for handling simple existcntials, universals, negations, and
problem, it is sufficient for handling simple existcntials. universals, negations, and
counts. Scoping of nested quantifiers is simply taken left to right in the question.]
counts. Scoping of nested quantifiers is simply taken left to right in the question.]
Q: Which users work on everyprojecl in area 55?
Q: Which users work on every project in area 55?

P: Assuming that there is at least one project that is in area

P: Assuming
thatusers
therework
is aton
least
oncsuch
project
that is in area
#55, which
every
project?
#55, which users work on every such project?

Kaplan

Kaplan

198

R:
(USER)

(USER)

(PERSON NAME)

(PERSON NAME)

8000
PENNEYS, JEANNE
8000
PENNEYS, JEANNE
8002
TAKAMINE, GARY
8002
TAKAMINE, GARY
8067
WOIZKING, MARIE
8067
WORKING, MARIE

[Universal quantification (all, every, etc.) rcquircs executing more than one
[Universal quantification (all, every, etc.) requires executing morc than one
qucry against the DR. First, a query is executed to determine the size of the
query against the DR first, a query is executed to determine the size of the
universally quantified sct (in this case, the number of projects in area of interest
universally quantified set (in this case, the number of projects in area of interest
55). ?his value is substituted into a sccond qucry to produce thc appropriate
55). This value is substituted into a second query to produce the appropriate
response. Note that the paraphrase in the above example reflects the fact that in
response. Note that the paraphrase in the above example reflects the fact that in
English, universally quantified expressions are normally assumed to be
English, universally quantified expressions are normally assumed to be
non-empty.]
non-empty.]
programmers work in division 3513 or project
Q: Which
Q: Which
programmers work in division 3513 or project
436 10008?
43610008?

R:
(USER #) (PERSON NAME)
(DVSN NAME) (PROJECT TITLE)
(USER #) (PERSON NAME)
(DVSN NAME) (PROJECT TITLE)
8005
TAKAMINE, JOYCE ***'*
PRO DVLPMNT
T AKAMINE, JOYCE **.**
8005
PRO DVLPMNT
U.OF HAWAII
*****
8061
VALENT, 10
VALENT,JO
8061
U.OFHAWAII *****
8068
WONG. THOMAS
*****
PRO DVLPMNT...
*****
WONG, THOMAS
PRO DVLPMNT...
8068

[Disjunction is handled quite differently than conjunction. The resulting

[Disjunction is handled quite differently than conjunction. The resulting
repon is normalized to a tabular form with asterisks substituted for missing
report is normalized to a tabular form with asterisks substituted for missing
values.]
values.]
Q: What are the specialties of [he H A 0 group?
Q: What are the specialties ofthe HAD group?
[This question, while quite natural for English speakers to interpret, contains a

[This question, while quite natural for English speakers to interpret. contains a
form of indircct reference. " H A 0 group" hcre does not actually refer to the
form of indirect reference. "HAO group" here does not actually refer to the
group itself, but rather to its members. If the system were very literal minded, it
group itself, but rather to its members. If the system were very literal minded, it
would find this question semantically ill-formed. since groups don't have
would find this question semantically ill-formed, since groups don't have
specialties. However, because the qucstion has been poscd, CO-OPassumes chat
specialties. However, bccause the qucstion has becn posed, CO-OP assumes that
the user must have mcant something, no matter how poorly expressed. This
the user must have meant something, no matter how poorly expressed. This
pragmatic effect is rcflcctcd in the system's ability to reach a most reasonable
pragmatic effect is reflected in the system's ability to reach a most reasonable
interpretation of virtually any syntactically valid input, regardless of its literal
interpretation of virtually any syntactically valid input, rcgardless of its literal

199

implausibility.
implausibility. In this
this case CO-OP
CO-OP discovers
discovers that the simplest path in the schema

from
from specialties
spccialtics to groups is through the programmers, and so it responds as
follows.]
follows.]

R:
(PERSON NAME) (SPECIALTIES)
AITKEN,
AITKEN. JOYCE LINEAR ALGEBRA
ENDS",
WALSH,
WALSII, MARIE GRAPHICS,
GRAPHICS. FRONT ENDS...
[perhaps
mis phenomenon is the system's
system's
perhaps a more interesting example of this
response
response to the
the following.]
following.]

Q:
Q: What
What is knowledge?
P: Display knowledge.

R:

(USER #) (PERSON NAME)

TAKAMINE GARY
8002
8002
TAKAMINE,GARY
8056
8056
AITKEN, JOYCE
VALENT. JO
8061
8061
VALENT,JO

(SPECIALTIES)
PLlB
PLIB MAINTENANCE
LINEAR AI-GEBRA
ALGEBRA
LIBRARY MAINTENANCE
...
MAINTENANCE...

3.5 Portability
Portability
3.5
Much work in AI
A1 has focused
focused on methods for organizing and representing large
Much
amounts of world knowledge.
knowledge. Motivating this research is an assumption that the
amounts
more knowledge
knowledge that can be incorporated into a system,
more
system, the more intelligent it.
its
behavior will
will be. While
While this assertion is almost certainly valid, it is equally
behavior
interesting to
to explore the question of how little
littleknowledge
,knowledge may be necessary to
to
interesting
particular tasks,
tasks, and how that knowledge may be partitioned
perform panicular
partitioned into
"general" and
and "specific"
"specific" components.
components.
"general"
reason, a design
design limitation was placed on CO-OP that all domain
For this reason,
spccific knOWledge
knowledge be encoded at the lexicalleve!.
lexical level. Only the information coded in
specific
the lexicon
lexicon Or
or already
already available
available in
in the
the DB
system could
DB system
could be
be used
used as
as sources
sources of
of
the
knowledge
about
the
domain.
All
other
aspects
of
the
system,
including
the
knowledge about the domain. All other aspects of the system, including the
generation of
of cooperative
cooperative responses,
responses, had
had to be totally free of
of any DB
DB specific
generation
knowledge. (That
(That is,
is, the
the programs
programs had
had to
to be
be completely
~ompletely domain
domain transoarcnt)
tronsoarent)
knowledge.
Though this
this limited
limited the
the type
type of
of questions
questions that
that could
could be
be handled
handltd to
to simple
simple
Though

200

Kaplan

extensional requests for

for the
thc retrieval
retrieval of existing data,
data, it provided
providcd a means of
extensional
from the domain specific
specific
general knowledge required for this
this task from
separating the general
knowledge, and fur
fur discovering
discovering what,
what, if any,
any, additional knowledge
knowledge sources
sources were
were
knowledge,
required.
limitation was
was that the system
system could be transported to
A by-product of this limitation
This portability provided
providcd a
changing the DB and lexicon. This
new domains simply by changing
rigorous tcst
test of the programs.
programs. To verify
verify the claims
claims of domain
domain transparency and
rigorous
DR to the ONRODA DB,
DB,a
portability. CO-OP
CO-OP was
was moved from
from the NCAR DB
portability,
aircrat submarines,
submarines, etc., created as
collection of military information on ships, aircraft,
pan of the Operational Decision Aids Program of the Office
Office of Naval Research
Research at
part
1
University of Pennsylvania.
~enns~lvania.'
the University
The move was quite successful: the CO-OP programs continued to produce
cooperative responses
responses without modification.
modification. This section reports
repons on the results.
results.

3.5.1 Domain specific

specific structures
structures
3.5.1
Several data structures required recoding to affect the changeover. They are as
follows:

1)1M
The kAi=.
lexicon. Some of the domain specific
specific words available
available to
1)
explicitly in the lexicon,
lexicon, along with
the users must be encoded explicitly
DB.
their definitions in terms of the DB.

2) The DR
DB schema. This has to be put in a special
special form to
facilitate
This task can be performed
facilitate path finding.

automatically if
if the schema is a tree structure (i.e.
(i.e. if
if no
a~~tornatically
ambiguous paths exist), and so a program could be written that
inputs a standard CODASYL Data Definition Language and
Outputs the needed structure. In the case of a graph structured
outputs
preferred paths is required.
schema,
schema, a selection of
ofpreferred

3) The DB itself.
itself, Obviously,
Obvio~sly. the new DB must be supplied.
4) lli
The item urint
names. A
special list (ITEMPRNAME in the
print l!J!lJlli.
Aspecial

program) associating
associating a print name with each field in the DB is
required for labeling the output and providing lexical
disambiguation in the paraphrase.

1I.. Under mncract

contract NW014-75C-0440
NOOO14-75-C'0440 with Lthee assistance olCTEC.
of crEe. Inc., of McLean.
Mclean, Va
Va

201

5) The Dl3 name and oassword. These are ncedcd to open the
5) The DR name and password. These are needed to open the
DB,

DB,

3.5.2 Effort required and extent of new domain

3.5.2 Effort required and extent or new domain
Since the translation of the Dl3 schcma couId be done automatically (it was not in
Since the translation afthe DR schema could be done automatically (it was not in
this instance), with the exccp~ionof resolving ambiguous paths, tllc time required
this instance), with the exception of resolving ambiguous paths, the time required
to encode it by hand is not particularly relevant here?
to encode it by hand is not particularly relevant here.l
Similarly, no significant effort was expended to acquire the DB,or supply the
Similarly, no significant effort was expended to acquire the DB. or supply the
DB name and password. Thc rcmaining time was occupied by the preparation,
DB name and password. The remaining time was occupied by the preparation,
keypunching and vtritication of the lexicon and list of print namcs: this required
keypunching and verification of the lexicon and list of print names: this required
about 5 hours. Scvcral caveats should be observed in extrapolating this
about 5 hours. Several caveats should be observed in extrapolating this
expcricnce, however.
experience, however.
Only a subset of the ONRODA DB was used. A sclcction of 18 records and 22
Only a subset of the ONRODA DB was used. A selection of 18 records and 22
sets was made, containing a total of about 58 fields. The basic lexicon contained
sets was made, containing a total of about 58 fields. The basic lexicon contained
about 110 entries. not including morphological variants or nouns and numbers
about no entries. not including morphological variants or nouns and numbers
occurring only as DB values. Estimating the true extcnt of the lcxicon is difficult
occurring only as DB values. Estimating the true extent of the lexicon is difficult
because of the system's ability to handle unknown terms. However, given the
because of the system's ability to handle unknown terms. However, given the
current contents of the DB as a starting point, the system has an effective relevant
current contents of the DB as a starting point, the system has an effective relevant
vocabulary of about 750-1000 words. This proved more than adequate to
vocabulary of about 750-1000 words. This proved morc than adequate to
formulate a wide variety of non-trivial qucries.
fonnulate a wide variety of non-trivial queries.

3.5.3 Results and examples

3.5.3 Results and examples
Immediately upon compIetion of the ONRODA lexicon, the system was able to
Immediately upon completion of the ONRODA lexicon, the system was able to
produce the same types of responses to the same classes of questions as with the
produce the same types of responses to the same classes of questions as with the
NCAK DB. No hrther tuning or modification of the programs of any kind was
NCAR DB. No further tuning or modification of the programs of any kind was
required. In fact, the ONRODA DB proved to be a richer domain Lhan the
required. In fact, the ONRODA DB proved to be a richer domain than the
NCAR DR, and consequently provided a wider range of interesting questions
NCAR DB, and consequently provided a wider range of interesting questions
with which to test the system. (As a result, several new bugs were discovered in
with which to test the system. (As a result, several new bugs were discovered in
addition to those alrcady revealed by the NCAR DB.) However, the bulk of these
addition to those already revealed by the NCAR DB.) However, the bulk of these
additional problems could be easily corrected (but wcrc not), and none of them
additional problems could be easily corrected (but were not), and none of them
seriously affectcd the pcrformance of the system, as illustrated below. Response
seriously affected the performance of the system, as illustrated below. Response
timcs wcrc comparable to those obscrvcd with the NCAR DB.
times were comparable to those observed with the NCAR DB.
1. By hand it took about 5 hours.
1. Dy hand, it took about 5 hours.

Kaplan

202

Kaplan

202

Thc ONIIOIIA DB was operational under h c SEED CODASYL D B systeli,

The ONRODA DIl was operational under the SEED CODASYL DB systelt!
on a DEC KL-10. I t consists of records on ships, aircraft, submarines, guns,
on a DEC KL-IO. It consists of records on ships, aircraft, submarines, guns,
torpcdocs, radar, and bombs, with a significant variety of data on cach, The sets
torpedoes, radar, and bombs, with a significant variety of data on each. The sets
gcncrally indicate wllich and how many of thc latter four exist on the first three.
generally indicate which and how many of the latter four exist on the first three.
Thc data has bccn falsified, and so docs not accurately rcflcct the rcal world. No
The data has been falsified, and so docs not accurately reflect the real world. No
modifications of any kind were madc to either the DR, DB schema, or the DB
modifications of any kind were made to either the DB, DB schema, or the DB
system.
system.
An annotatcd sample of qucstions and responses is listed bclow, As before,
An annotated sample of questions and responses is listed below. As before,
"Q" means qucstion, "P"mcans paraphrase. "R" mcans response, and comments
"Q" means question, "P" means paraphrase, "R" means response, and comments
are cncloscd in squarc brackcts ([ I). (Irrelevant paraphrases and responses are
are enclosed in square brackets ([ D. (Irrelevant paraphrases and responses are
dclctcd for brevity.) 7'hc programs that produccd this output arc the same ones
deletcd for brcvity.) The programs that produced this output are the same ones
that produccd the transcript in scction 4: absolutely no changes were made.
that produced the transcript in section 4: absolutely no changes were made.
Q : IVhar is the ilraxi~numceiling of aircraj? lhat carry AlK-84
Q: What
is the maximum ceiling of aircraft that carry MK-84
bombs?
bombs?
R:

(ARCRFT NAME)

(ARCIIFT MAX CEIL (FT))

(ARCRrl MAX CEIL (FT))

(ARCRFf NAME)

41500
44000
50000
58000

A-7
A-6
AV8A
F5

mis query gives a flavor of the type of data in the ONRODA DB. Notice that
[This query gives a flavor of the type of data in the ONRODA DB. Notice that
the system has produccd the information for cach aircraft - it is currently
the system has produced the information for each aircraft - it is currently
incapable of sclecting only the greatest of these.]
incapable of selecting only the greatest of these.)
Q: What is thefire rare of the M-61?
Q: What is the fire rate ofthe M-6J?
P: (I am assuming that "M-61"is a GUN NAME.) Display
P: (I the
am fire
assuming
"M-61" is a GUN NAME.) Display
rate of that
the M-61.
the fire rate of the M-61.
R: (GUNFIRE RATEj

R: (GUNFIRERATE)

3000

[M-61 appcars only as a value in Ule DB system. CO-OP has to infcr which field it
[M-61 appears only as a value in the DB system. CO-OP has to infer which field it
is likely to occur in. Hcrc it has correctly idcntificd it as a gun name. Tke same
is likely to occur in. Here it has correctly identified it as a gun name. The same
domain transparent procedures that rcsolvcd these references in the NCAR DB
domain transparent procedures that resolved these references in the NGAR DB
apply cqualIy well here.]
apply equally wcll here.)

203

Q:
slrut cume
curve radar that carry
At-6l guns?
Q: Which
Which ships have srmt
cary A!-61
["Strut
YStrut curve" is a type of radar.]

P: (l
(I am assuming that "strut curve" is a RADAR NAME.)
(I am assuming
assuming that "M-61" is a GUN NAME.) Which ships
have strut
suut curve radar? Look for ships that carry M-61
M-6i guns.
[fhis
detennine whether the relative
phis question is syntactically
syntactically ambiguous. To determine
clause "that carry M-61
M-61 guns" modifies "ships" or "radar" it is necessary to make a
semantic judgment. The system correctly chooses "ships",
"ships", as the paraphrase
semantic
indicates.)
indicates.]
Q:
ships?
Q: Which
Whichguns are on aircraft
aircraJi and
andships?

[This
F i s is a case of simple conjunction. Note the organization
organization of the answer.]

R:
(GUN NAME) (SHIP NAME) (ARCRFf
NAME)
(ARCRFTNAME)

MK
12
MKl2
NR-30

TARAWA
DODRY
OSA

A-4
SU-7B
SU-7B...
SU-7B..,

Q:
subs with
don't cany
carry MK-44 torpedoes?
Q: Which
Which mbs
with radar
radardon't
torpedoes?

R: 11 don't
don't know of any subs with radar. I don't
don't know of
of any
subs that carry MK-44 torpedoes.
[1bis
p i s is an example of a corrective response. Notice that the latter correction
entails
all Isubs don't carry MK-44 torpedoes.
torpedoes. Here the negated presumption
entails that &
does not entail an empty set, but rather the entire set, indicating that the
restriction was irrelevant)
irrelevant.]
Q:
Q: What
What is
is the deteclion
detection range ofships
of ships with torpedoes?
lorpedoes?

Kaplan

204

R:
(RADAR RANGE) (SHIP
(SHIPNAME) (fRPDONAME)
(TRF'DO NAME)

100NMI
lOONMI
140NMI
140 NM1
200 NMI
200NMI

AGERHOLM MK-.46
MK-46
FISKE
MK-46
MK-.46
MK-46
COCHRANE MK-.46
GRIDLEY
GRIDLEY
MK-48

mi

supportive indirect components.

eomponeats. In addition t
[This response contains supportive
too the
detection
range. which wa3
was the
requested, it supplies the
detection range,
lhe only infonnation
information IiteraIIy
l i t d y nquesicd,
ship name and torpedo names as wen.]
wen.)
Q:
Which aircraft
aircraJ7 that carry MK-46 torpedoes
loyedoes have refuel
Q: Which
capability?
R: I don't know of any aircraft
MK -46 torpedoes
aircrafl that carry MK-46
that have refuel capability.
capability. But you might be interested in any
aircraft that carry any torpedoes that have refuel capability...
capability...
.(ARCRFf
(ARCRFT NAME)
CH53D
P-3
S3

[Here,
[Here, the system produces a suggestive indirect response. It has designated hthee
torpedo type as the most likely focus.
focus, and consequentiy
consequently an<wers
answers the more general
question, as indicated.]
Q:
Q: What are the classes o[ships?
of ships?

R:
(SHIP CLASS)

(SHIP NAME)

HLUEBIRD
BLUEBIRD
KNOX

VIREO
WWNES
DOWNES
TRUElT
TRUETI
STEPANNY

SKORY

[This
p i s question requires the system to perform an inversion on the ship e1ass
class field

205

to present the data in a form consistent with thc request. Although the user has
to present the data in a form consistent with the request. Although the user has
presented the classes as entities, thcy are reprcscntcd in the DB as attributes of the
presented the classes as entities, they are representcd in the DB as attributes of the
ships. Responses in CO-OP are a Function of the phrasing of the query and the
ships. Responses in CO-OP are a function of the phrasing of the query and the
information in the DB, but not thc particular organization for the data chosen by
information in the DB, but not the particular organization for the data chosen by
the DB designer.]
the DB dcsigner.]

Q: Whoi is thefire rate of ships wirh SPS-40 radar?

Q: What is the fire rate ofships with SPS-40 radar?

R:
(GUN FIRE RATE)

(GUN FIRE RATE)

(SH tP NAME)
(SHIP NAME)
GARCIA
GARCIA
OWENS
OWENS
HIGBEE
HIGBEE
TARAWA ...
TARAWA...

18
40

v o interpret this question, it is necessary for me system to recognize that an

[1'0 interpret this question, it is necessary for the system to recognize that an
indirect rcfcrence has been madc. In the DB, ships don't have fire rates; guns do.
indirect reference has been made. In the DB, ships don't have fire rates; guns do.
Itarher than reject the question as semantically ill-formed, CO-OP concIudcs that
Rather than reject the question as semantically ill-formed, CO-OP concludes that
the user is probably referring to the fire rate of the guns on the ships, and
the user is probably referring to the fire rate of the guns on the ships, and
responds accordingly. The response could be improved by including the gun
responds accordingly. The response could be improved by including the gun
names. A minor change to the lexicon would achieve this.]
names. A minor change to the lexicon would achieve this.]

3.6 Conclusion
3.6 Conclusion
In practical environments, the acceptance of NL DB qucry systems will be
In practical environments, the acceptance of NL DB query systems will be
decided in part by the degree to which thcy adopt the pragmatic discourse
decided in part by the degree to which they adopt the pragmatic discourse
conventions normally observed by human speakers. In human conversation, a
conventions normally observed by human speakers. In human conversation, a
variety of conventions, postuIates, rules, etc, facilitate smooth and effective
variety of conventions, postulates, rules, etc. facilitate smooth and effective
communication. The use of NL by a query system will imply to the users that
communication. The use of NL by a query system will imply to the users that
these conversational principles will be observed. Pragmatic conversational effects,
these conversational principles will be observed. Pragmatic conversational effects,
particularly those that relate to cooperation, will be essential to the behavioral
particularly those that relate to cooperation, will be essential to the behavioral
repertoire of successful NL systems.
repertoire of successful NL systems.
However. it is not the case that those effects are desirable for all users that wish
However, it is not the case that those effects are desirable for all users that wish
to query a DB. For some users. NL is not an appropriate means for interacting
to query a DB. For some users, NL is not an appropriate means for interacting
with a DB system. Some thoughts on tIlc types of users most likely to benefit by
with a DB system. Some thoughts on the types of users most likely to benefit by
NL query systems are included here.
NL query systems are included here.
YSerS
hi&-1evcI nr
If a user is unclear about what
&:
llim. Yiith high-level m: ~ ~: If a user is unclear about what

Kaplan
Kaplan

206

206

information s/hc wants or is unsure of what information is prcscnt in the DB, thc
information s/he wants or is unsure of what information is present in the DB. the
ability of NL to express vague qucstions and the appropriatencss of indirect
ability of NL to express vague questions and the appropriateness of indirect
responscs to NI, qucstions can ajd the uscr in locating rclcvant information. NL is
responses to NL questions can aid the user in locating relevant information. NL is
an appropriate vehicle for browsing through a DB, By contrast, users with specific
an appropriate vehicle for browsing through a DB. By contrast, users with specific
or detailed nceds may find NI, too imprccise for expressing their queries: various
or detailed needs may find NL too imprecise for expressing their queries: various
ambiguities, such as the interpretation of ncstcd quantifiers, may hinder rather
ambiguities, such as the interpretation of nested quantifiers, may hinder rather
than hclp in communicating with a Dl3 systcm. If a particular form and content is
than help in communicating with a DB system. If a particular form and content is
desired for the responses, a formal qucry language may be more cffcctive.
desired for the responses, a formal query language may be more effective.
Occasional or casi~alusers: For these users, the invcstmcnt of time and effort
Occasional or casual users: For these users, the investment of time and effort
to learn a formal query language may excecd the potential value of the
to learn a formal query language may exceed the potential value of the
information rctricvcd. For the user with a single question. the Fact that thc syntax
information retrieved. For the user with a single question, the fact that the syntax
and scmantics of NI. are alrcady known may be a major advantage to its use.
and semantics of NL arc already known may be a major advantage to its use.
Frcquent users, however, may be bctter off with a tcrse, spccial-purpose language:
Frequent users, however, may be better off with a terse, special-purpose language:
unrestricted NL may be too verbose and unstnicturcd for thcir needs. ?'he
unrestricted NL may be too verbose and unstmctured for their needs. The
relative cost of bccoming familiar with a particular query languagc falls off rapidly
relative cost of becoming familiar with a particular query language falls off rapidly
as frequency of use increases.
as frequency of use increases.
Naive users: Naive users arc unfamiliar with thc details of the DB structure,
Naive users: Naive users arc unfamiliar with the details of the DB structure,
and have no dcsire to lcarn how the information in the DB is organized in order to
and have no desire to learn how the information in the DB is organized in order to
appropriately phrase their qucrics. Whilc most formal query languages require
appropriately phrase their queries. While most formal query languages require
some knowledge of how the DD is normalized. NI, questions do not. NL provides
some knowledge of how the DB is normalized. NL questions do not. NL provides
a measure of data indcpcndcnce that most formal qucry languages lack,
a measure of data independence that most formal query languages lack,
facilitating access to data by naive users. On the other hand, users knowledgeable
facilitating access to data by naive users. On the other hand users knowledgeable
in the structuring of a DB may find this indcpcndence a hindrance - they cannot
in the structuring of a DB may find this independence a hindrance - they cannot
help but conceive their queries with rcspect to thcir undcrstanding of the details of
help but conceive their queries with respect to their understanding of the details of
the DB. The additional effort required to inap their vicw of the data onto a NL
the DB. The additional effort required to map their view of the data onto a NL
question, and hope that the systcm performs thc inverse mapping properly, may
question, and hope that the system performs the inverse mapping properly, may
simply bc an annoyance.
simply be an annoyance.
In summary, a NL DB query system is likely to be of most use to users who
In summary, a NL DB query system is likely to be of most use to users who
conceive of the system as an expert in its own structure and content, and are
conceive of the system as an expert in its own structure and content, and are
willing to share the task of formulating qucries and selecting the form and content
willing to share the task of formulating queries and selecting the fonn and content
of the responscs with the system itself. Uscrs who regard the system as a tool, and
of the responses with the system itself. Users who regard the system as a tool, and
wish to exert maximum control over its operation, are likely to find a NL DB
wish to exert maximum control over its operation, are likely to find a NL DB
query system of limited value,
query system of limited value.
This work has examined the feasibility of providing cooperative responses
This work has examined the feasibility of providing cooperative responses
from a portable NL DB query systcm. Beginning with a study of some of the more
from a portable NL DB query system. Deginning with a study of some of the more
obvious pragmatic aspects of cooperation in human discourse, a few principles
obvious pragmatic aspects of cooperation in human discourse. a few principles
have bccn projected onto the DB query domain, where computational approaches
have been projected onto the DB query domain, where computational approaches
have been explored. To assess thc effectiveness of the tcchniques developed, a NL
have been explored. To assess the effectiveness of the techniques developed., a NL
DB qucry systcm, CO-OP, has bccn implcmentcd and the results described. While
DB query system, CO-OP, has been implemented and the results described. While
it leaves open many questions, the design of CO-OPsuggests scvcral concepts of
it leaves open many questions, the design of CO-OP suggests several concepts of

207
potential linguistic and computational interest:
potential linguistic and computational interest:

1) The communicativc effect (perlocutionary force) of questions includes

1) The communicative effect (perlocutionary force) of questions includes
considerable information as lo the intentions and beliefs of the questioner. A
considerable information as to the intentions and beliefs of the questioner. A
significant class of propositions that a questioner must find assumablc in order to
significant class of propositions that a questioner must find assumable in order to
appropriately pose a question and intend it literally are derivable from the
appropriately pose a question and intend it literally arc derivable from the
pragmatic fact that the question was askcd, and a conversational convention that
pragmatic fact that the question was asked, and a conversational convention that
the questioner not know the answcr to the question. These propositions, called
the questioner not know the answer to the question. These propositions, called
presumotions. subsume the morc widely studied class of logical presuppositions,
presumptions. subsume the more widely studied class of logical presuppositions,
and are ccntral to thc production ofcoopcrative responses.
and are centrallO the production ofcooperative responses.
2) A variety of presumptions are encoded by human spcakers directly in the
2) A variety of presumptions arc encoded by human speakers directly in the
lexical and syntactic structure of thcir questions, and can be recovered in a
lexical and syntactic structure of their questions, and can be recovered in a
computationally efficient fashion via lanatlanc drivcn inferencg techniques.
computationally efficient fashion via language driven inference techniques.

3) I3y making the assumption that all aspccts of a question are making reference to
3) By making the assumption that all aspects of a question are making reference to
something in the DB. various types of indirect responses, most notably corrective
something in the DB, various types of indirect responses, most notably corrective
indircct rcsDonscs, can be produced in a domain transparent fashion from a NL
indirect responses, can be produced in a domain transparent fashion from a NL
DB query system.
DB query system.
4) Maintaining the lexical and syntactic integrity of the original question
4) Maintaining the lexical and syntactic integrity of the original question
throughout the interpretation process provides a means for explaining failures,
throughout the interpretation process provides a means for explaining failures,
errors, and responses in terms that the user is likely to understand. The use of an
errors, and responses in terms that the user is likely to understand. The use of an
intermediate rc~rcscntation that canturcs relevant linguistic consideration$
intermediate representation that captures relevant linguistic considerations
without rcflcctine arbitrarv organizational details &f & undcrlving nB is central
reflecting arbitrary organizational ~ ill ~ underlying 12!J. is central
to this approach. Given such a representation, the organization of data in the
to this approach. Given such a representation, the organization of data in the
responses can and should be independcnt of the organization of data in the DB.
responses can and should be independent of the organization of data in the DB.

m.mu

5 ) The domain spccific knowledge required to answer simple NL questions

5) The domain specific knowledge required to answer simple NL questions
requesting only retrieval of existing information from a DB can be effectively
requesting only retrieval of existing information from a DB can be effectively
decom~oscd fie lcxical level, if it is augmented by the knowledge already
decomposed to ~ lexical level, if it is augmented by the knowledge already
present in the DB system,
present in the DB system.

6) As experience with CO-OPindicates, relegating all domain spccific knowledge

6) As experience with CO-OP indicates, relegating all domain specific knowledge
to the lexicon and Dl3 system provides a high degree of portability to new DB
to the lexicon and DB system provides a high degree of portability to new DB
domains.
domains.

Kaplan

208

3.7 Acknowledgements
Achnoslcdgcmcnts
3.7

lhis work was

was partially supported by NSF grant MCS 7619466
76-19466 and
and ARPA
This
contract MDA 903-77-C-0322.
903-77-C-0322.
cuntract

CHAPTER
CHAPTER
4 4
Natural
Language
Generation
a Computational
Natural
Language
Generation
as aas
Computational
an
Introduction
Problem:
Problem: an Introduction

David
D. McDonald
David
D. McDonald

4.1. l ntrodurtion
4.1. Intraduction

Itcscarch into thc prtrcss of goal-dircctcd nat~lral languagc gcncralion by

Research into the process of goal-directed natural language generation by
computers is in its infancy. Until rcccn~lythcrc hrls bccn no priigmutic prcssure to
computers is in its infancy. Until recently there has been no pragmatic pressure to
go bcyond thc simplcst ad-hrx gcncration facililics bccausc thc conl~nunications
go beyond the simplest ad-hoc generation facilities because the communications
nccds of thc programs that would usc thc filcilitics has not rcquired it. 'Ihcorctical
needs of the programs that would usc the facilities has not required it. Theoretical
accounts of gcncration havc laggcd accordingly since sup11istic;ltcd thcvrics of
accounts of generation have lagged accordingly since sophisticated theories of
languagc i ~ s ccannot bc dcvclopcd apart from cquully a)pl~isticatcdmodcls of
langu:lge usc cannot be developed apart from equally sophisticated models of
language uscrs. N o w howcvcr, the cldvcnt of cxpcrt programs in mcdicine,
language user~, Now however, the advent of expert programs in medicine,
conl~nand-and-contrul, computcr-iiidcd-i~~struction. and similar languageconlI~and-and-control.
computer-aided-instruction, and similar languageintcnsi\c ficlds has madc dccp rhcorics of lnnguagc gcncration a ncccssjty if these
intensive fields has made deep theories of language generation a necessity if these
programs arc ro havc ;In adcquatc ability to explain their conclusions and
programs arc lO have an adequate ability to explain their conclusions and
reasoning in a continually changing task cnvironmcnt.
reasoning in a continually changing task environment.
I h c mcagcr amount of computational rcscarch on languagc gcncration to date
lbe meager amount of computational research on language generation to date
rcquircs us to hcgin with simple qilcstions with thc goal of dcvcloping a general
requires us to begin with simple questions with the goal of developing a general
organizing thcory. Without answers to thc most basic qucstio~lsabout thc process,
organizing theory. Without answers to the most basic questions about the process,
analyses of spccific phcnomcna of thc son that thc othcr papers of this volume
analyses of specific phenomena of the sort that the other papers of this volume
addrcss in thc contcxt of languagc understanding cannot yet bc profitably
address in the context of language understanding cannot yet be profitably
addressed in gcncration: rather we must first dctcrminc: What docs language
addressed in generation: rather we must first determine: What docs language
gcncration start with? What kinds of decisions arc made and how arc they
generation start with? What kinds of decisions arc made and how arc they
contrr)llcd? What sorts of i~tcrmcdiatcrcprcscntations arc nccdcd? Modern
controlled? What sorts of iptermediate representations arc needed? Modem
thcorics of linguistic compctcncc, thoirgh cast in a "gcncrativc" framework, are
theories of linguistic competence. though cast in a "generative" framework, are
not suircd to the job of goal-dircctcd gcncration bccausc thcir formal structure
not suited to the job of goal-directed generation because their formal slructure
docs not p c m i t thcm to addrcss thc ccntral problcrn, i.c. how specific utteratlees
docs not permit them to address the central problem, i.e. how specific utterances
arisejotn specific cor~zmut~icalive
goals in a specific discourse conlext.
ariSf from specific communicative goals in a specific discourse context.
'Illis papcr is cxtractcd from a much largcr work, [Mcllonald 19801, which
111is paper is extracted from a much larger work, [McDonald 1980]. which
claboratcs and argucs for my computational thcory of natural language
elaborates and argues for my computational theory of natural language
gcncration. Sincc thcrc is rclativcly little expcricncc with natural language
generation. Since there is relatively IiWe experience with natural language
gcncration in thc litcrature, wc will bcgin w i ~ han cxposition of somc of thc results
generation in the literature, we will begin with an exposition of some of the results
that have bccn achieved using this thcory with scvcral artificial speakers,
that have been achieved using this theory with several artificial speakers,

McDonald

210

elaborating the linguistic and rhctorical problcins that havc bccn dcalt with. I h i s
elaborating the linguistic and rhetorical problems that have been dealt with. This
discussion will givc thc rcadcr an idca of thc kinds of problcms that this rcscnrch
discussion will give the reader an idea of the kinds of problems that this research
has conccntratcd on antf whcrc thc focus of thc t h a ~ r ylics. Following that wc will
has concentrated on and where the focus of the theory lies. Following that we will
considcr what it rnciins lo llavc a computational inodcl of gcncration and skctch
consider what it means to have a computational model of generation and sketch
thc li~nitatiorlsthat havc bccn ilnposcd on it. 'I'hc main points of the modcl will
the limitations that have been imposed on it. The main points of the model will
thcn bc prcscntcd, including a walk-through of one of thc cxamplc outputs.
then be presented, induding a walk-through of one of the example outputs.
Finally lhc modcl will hc c{)nrraslcd briefly with carlicr gcncration tcchniqucs and
Finally the model will he contrasted briefly with earlier generation techniques and
thc utility of thc prcscnt conlputcr program discussed.
the utility of the presentLOmputer program discussed.
4.2. Itcsults for 'l'cst Spcakers
4.2. Results for Test Speakers

It is a lruis~n in artifici~l i~~tclligcncc

rcsc;~rch that one cannot sttidy thinking

It is a truism in artificial intclligence research that one cannot study thinking

cxccpt by studying thinking ubuu! something in particular. This is truc in the
except by studying think ing abuu! something in particular. 'Ill is is true in the
study of Ii~ngu:rpcgc~icration:thrrc is no such thing as gcncration in thc abstract;

study of language generation: there is no such thing as generation in the abstract;

onc must study thc gcncration of specific. \rcll-dc\~clopcd;~rtificialspeakcrs
one must study the generiltion of specific. Vlelhlc\eloped artificial speakers
pcrronning in spccitic disco~~rsccontexts. l'hc most flucnt goal-dircctcd
perf'lmning in speei fie discollfse contexts. The most fluent goal-directed
gcncrritors of thc past Ilavc all bccn bascd on a conccptually wcll-dcvclopcd
generators of the past have all been based on a conceptually well-developed
"spcakcr" progriim, c.g. thc tic-tac-toc modcl of [Ilavcy 19741 or the
"speaker" program, e.g. the tic-tac-toe model of [Davey 1974] or the
psychoanalytic patic~itof [Clippingcr 19781. sincc it is only whcn UIC conccptual
psychoanalytic patient of {Clippinger 1978]. since it is only when the conceptual
bisis Tor thc dccision-making is wcll-grou~tdcdh a t stylistic linguistic dccisions can
basis for the decision-making is well-grounded that stylistic linguistic decisions can
bc rni~dcon a sound basis.
he made on a sound basis.
'I'hc prcscnt rcscarch takcs ulis onc stcp fi~rthcrby generalizing Lhc "linguistic
The present research takes Ulis one step further by generalizing the "linguistic
componcnt" of thc gcncrator to dcal with morc than onc conccptual input
component" of the generator to deal with more than one conceptual input
rcprcscntation. 'lhc question of "what d o you sti~rtfrom" in gcncration has
representation. The question of "what do you stmt from" in generation has
always bccn a vcxing one: Wl~cnstudying language undcrslanding, thc input
always been a vexing one: When studying language understanding, the input
rcprcscntation to thc proccss (i.c. F.nglis11 text) is agrccd upon by cvcryone and its
representation to the process (i.e. English text) is agreed upon by everyone and its
dctails a n bc spccificd to whatcvcr dcgrcc one likcs. 'l'hc psycholinguistically
details can be specified to whatever degree one likes. The psycholinguistically
correct sourcc for languagc gcncration on Lhc nrhcr hand is utterly unknown and
correct source for language generation on the mher hand is utterly unknown and
likcly to remain so fur somc timc: furthcrmorc any variation in thc dctails of the
likely to remain so for some time: furthermore any variation in the details of the
input rcprcscntation will havc collsidcrablc rcpcrcussions within thc gcncration
input representation will have cOllsiderable repercussions within the generation
prtccss (cf. [Mcllonald 19801 chaptcr four). Faccd with this situation, I have (1)
process (cf. [McDonald 1980J chapter four). Faced with this situation, J have (1)
dclibcratcly scparatcd Ihc conccptual and tlic linguistic phascs of decision-making
deliberately separated the cOllceptual and the linguistic phases of decision-making
in gcacration into two rnodulcs conncctcd by an cxplicit intcrfacc, thcrcby making
in generation into two modules connected by an explicit interface. thereby making
thc dcpcndcncics bctwccn them clcar; and (2) tcstcd thc linguistic module with six
the dependencies between them clear; and (2) tested the linguistic module with six
diffcrcnt conccptual modulcs ("spcakcrs"), four complctcd, two in progress,
different conceptual modules ("speakers"), four completed. two in progress,
employing fivc diffcrcnt stylcs of conccptual rcprcscntation.
employing five ditTerent styles of conceptual representation.
l<cscarch on a scparablc linguistic componcnt within thc gcncration proccss is
Research on a separable linguistic component within the generation process is
bascd on the hypolhcsis that linguistic dccisions and rcprcscntations within the
based on the hypothesis that linguistic decisions and representations within the
proccss can bc lcgitimatcly and profitably distinguished from conccptual oncs. For
process can be legitimately and profitably distinguished from conceptual ones. For
this scparation to bc scnsiblc. it must be the casc (1) that thc interactions between
this separation to be sensible, it must be the case (1) that the interactions between

211
Ihc "linguistic conipi~ncnt"a i d the rcsr or tllc prtIccss can bc spccificd prcciscly,
the "Jinglli~tic component" and the rest of the process can be specified precisely,
and (2) h a t Ihc cx tc:il of thcir shclrcd ;~ssunlptionsabout rcprcscntalio~rsand
lmd (2) that the cxtC:lt of Ulcir shJred assumptions abollt representatioJls and
contingncics is snl;lll (otllcrivisc tlic linguistic componcnt \r.ould Invc to bc
conting.encies is SllWll (otherwise the linguistic component would ha\'c to be
1,lrgcly ril\vrittcn for c,?cli ncw spcrlker).
hlrgely rewritten for e;lcl1 new speaker).
'I'lic rcI;~tionsliipbctwccli lhc lil~gl~istic
componcnt and lhc largcr systcrn is
The rebtionshifl between lhe lingubtic component and the larger system is
skctdlcd in figurc 1.
sketched in figure 1.

I----------

EXl3ERT
PROGRAM
CENERA'IYIR
EXPERT
PROGRAM
GENJ<:RATOR
Spcukcr

Dictionary '

1,inpyistic

UoltUistk
Con~poncnt

Speaker

Component

1:igul-c I A Ccatsc Vicw of Lllc 'Folal Systcm

Figure] /\ Ct'<lrse Vicw of tJ1C Total System

'Illc c.q?rr/progri:rrl i~ \\hiit lit1111;111IISCTS rci111y l t i i ~ l ktlicy i~rc(;~lkingwith; thc

'111e ('xl'cr/ program is I,hat human users n:,ll1y think they arc talking with: the
gcncrator is jltst p x t of'n "n;!lur;~llanjir~;lpciotct'f;~cc". 'l'llc cxpcrt is ~ I - I I U I ~ ~ CinC I
generator is just r,m of a "nalu rallJngll;lre illtcrf'lec". The expert is grounded in
;I ~ ~ I . : ~ c I I ~L ;' LI II -I I C C ~ I~lot!lcrirl
I ~ ~ ~ ~ silc1.1;IS i~irc'rn;iI111cJi;in~OF ] I U ~ I . O I ~ I I geology.
I~~
It
a pJrtiCllbr c('nccp/IMI Jpl!toill su<:h CIS intern,1! IllcdicilW or JJL:troJ~LJIl1 reology. It
is cxpcctcd to h.tvc no li1:guistic kno~lctlgcof its on.11; insicad. ;ttly (L~nlain.
is expected to hJY(' no lil:gllistk kno'tl kdge or its 0\\'11; insteJd. any ,kJlll:lin'
dcpu~rtlc~ltk l ~ o ~ l c d g;c~ b o t ~tiow
t
10 ~ I I S H ' C( ~I I I C S ~ ~ wll;lt
O I ~ S iiiii)r~~iatitln
,
to
dependent kllll\\;lcd~e ,lbllllt l1llw tll answer qucstions, what inllll"lllation tu
iticlrldc. what to Icavc ou! as o b ~ u i ~ rkoo\r~lc.dgc
s.
: ~ l ) o t l ! Iiow to givc c x y l a ~ ~ a ~ i o a s
include, what to leave out JS obvious. kIlowkdg(: about how to give eXpbl1iltiollS
at tlic :~pprop~-i;rtc
Icicl orabwr:~t~io~l.
or o t r ~ ~ i p ; ~ ~tliscoulsc
~ ; ~ b l c al>ililics is locatcd
at Ule ;lppropriate ]eH'1 of abstraction, or cOlnp;lrablc disClJun;c ahilities is located
ill a xpiokcr c.r~~t;/)urictlf
hliicli 1!1:iy c r III;I> 11ot bc :I ~)l~ysic~lly
intlcpcndcnl p:~rtc ~ f
in <J s/u'akcr Cli/!iPO/IClII l'ihich mayor Imy l10t be a physically independent part of
tlic cxpcrt prclgrarn. l'lic :;l)citkcr ~l!,scrnblcsu lrlc.noSc>fur' input to the ling~ri:;tic
the cXlwrt program, TIl.. . :;pcaker a~selllbks a lIIes.loge for input to the linguistic
colnpt)ll~.ilt, clcscribirit: 1111: l:tralt; it wishor ttl ;~cllicvcrrilh its ut1cr:lncC using
componcnt, dc~rfibillg Ihe gO,I!:; it wishes to achieve with its utterance using
~vli;~tcvcr
rc'prcscnlii~ic~n
is c o ~ ~ v c ~ ~
toi itc ~ikiiil
i t L!~c C X ~ C I - L progr:on. Mcss;rp.x arc
whatever rcprcscnt,ltil,ni, convenient to it ;['Hl uw cxpert pnlgram. Messages arc
dcct~ilcifby ;I ~ f i c ~ r i u tco~~ipilcd
l ~ l ~ ~ ~ ::l~cciaIly fbr ~.iicl~
new rcprcscnlnliou; the
decoded by a die(iull,lIy ClHllpilcd ::peciaIlY liJf cach new reprcsentation; the
dictio~i,~~.y
is a l ~ c r ctllc k ~ ~ o w l ~ol tl '~\ i~' I i~1;11~r1.;11
;~
I:IIISII;I~C ~III.;ISCS COLII~I L?c uscd
dictiollM)' is wll.. . fc rhe knowledge or what n,llurCiI bngu,lgc phrases wl1ld be used
fS
IIICSF~I~C
isSst{)l.cd.
to rcalj/.c IIIC C ~ l l l l [ ~ O l l C l l oI'tI1c
to reillit."" the components 01" the l1lessages is stored.
tlxlt is spccializcd to lhc cxpcrt
-1'112 l:r*frcruror-co1!si4s oC a tlii~~io~~clty
Th..:: gl'IINUlor COllsbts of a dit"/icJIIlll)' thilt is spcciJlil.ed to the expert
prop-arn's :;l)c;~kcr,;111il UIL' "lil~gt~islic
t.ol~~pi!l~c~~t":
111~
spr~kcrdrcidi~ll:n ~ ~ g l ~ l y
program's ~;pcakcr, ane! U1C "linguistic t.:OllIPI'llC.'llt": the sp~akcr deciding roughly
iL
"how to say it" ar,d
"\hll~tto ~ a y "~ I I I J ti^ lill!:~~idic c o ~ n p ~ ~ i c tdcciditig
"what to say" anJ the linglti,tic compunel1t deciding "how to say it" and
orchcst~..~iiltglllc acr11.11~)r.oti\~c~ia~l.
A tlisli~lctitrt~
likc tliis is coJnn.rofl lo ncnrly
orchestr;llillf, the aWI;I] prod\l!.:tinn. 1\ distinction like this is common to ne,nly
cucrq gc~lcriltor[hat Il;~sI)cctl dcuclopctl. (Scc Fol csalr~plc,[Sim~nonsatid Slocum
every generator th,u h"s beCll devcloped. (Sec: for eXJlllpk, [Silmnon~ JIHJ Slocum
1972; ColJul;nl 13?4 ; 1)'ivcy 1874; hloorc 1351]. but rolnpnrc [Sl~;~pilo
197SI.1
1972; Goldman 1974 ; nll'cy 1974; t\loorc J981). but cump.lrc [Slt;lpiro 1975].)
For cxisli!lg capcri ~ys~crtis.
tlic ncliio~l01' :I scp;ir'ni)lc "~pcakcscornp~inc~~t"
is
For C'xisting C"xpert ~yslcl1ls. the notion I)]" ;l separable "spcnkcr wmpOlll:llt" is
onl!. ;I convcnicut fiction. 111cLl~owl~:tl;?c
of' illc spci~kcr1t;iving been i!i(:orpomtcd
only a conveniellt fiction, the kllowkd~e of the sp(',lkef hewing been i!lc:nrpofJtcu
ad hue into the expert IJrllIKr; l1e\-2rlhckss. if f'Liture experts an: to have the
fluclIL:y and ',('r~,,(i1ity they v,ill require, then this ~;pc(ial kind of conceptLlJl

McDonald

212

knowlcdgc 1113t
Uiat II :~Im
!m attributing herc
"spcakcr" will havc
bc incorporated
knowledge
here to a "speaker"
have to be
in a theoretically
thcorctically sound way. In any event,
cvcnt. it will bc
convcnicnt to think in terms
be convenient
thc speaker
spcakcr as thc
systcm tllat
Uiat ninkcs
dccisions about
of the
the part of thc
the cxpcrt
expert system
makes all thc
the decisions
what to say. providing the input to the
ihc linguislic
component.
linguistic
4.2.1.
4.2.1. The I)ilferr.nt
Different Input llcpresentations
Ilepresentations

In this section we will go briclly

tlir~~ugli
thc
input rcprcscntalions
briefly through
the six inpot
represcntations that have
thcn
look
at
a
sa~nplc
of
thc
rcsulls
havc been
bccn achieved,
achicvcd.
bccn
cxplorcd
and
been explored
then
sample the results that have
gcncratcd tcxn
discussing thc
linguistic phenomena
plicnomcna
giving cxnmplcs
cX<lmplcs of generated
texts and disclIssing
the linguistic
involvcd in their construction.
construction.
involved
I h c speakers/expert-programs
spcakcrs/cxpcrt-progrt~mshavc
The
have bccn
been by ncccssity
necessity artificial and minimal:
'llic burden of this
rcsci~rchwas intended
intcndcd u~
linguistic problems of
of
The
tbis research
to bc
be on tlic
ti,e linguistic
gcncr;lli!~nrather than tlic
cxpcrt programs
progr;lms in existence
cristcnce
gcncraliun
the conccptu;~l
conceptual oncs.
ones. and thc
the expert
at [he
the timc
rcscarcli was begun
hcgun wcrc
sufticicntly sophisticated
s~~phistici~tcd
to motivate
nl
time this research
werc not sufficiently
the lingllistically
lillg~~istically
i~~tcrcstilig
c~~nstructions
callld not be
bc used.
interesting constructions
of English and dius
lhus could
(I<clc\,antEnglish
1:nglish constructions
constructions include: embedded
cmhcddcd clauses.
clauscs. ellipsis.
cllipsis, pronominal
(RelcvJnt
and
subscqucnt reference.
rcfcrcncc. arbitrarily
arbitrarily embedded
cnihcddcd wh-moucnicnt,
<.ll1d non-pr~~no~ni~ial
non~pronomillal subsequent
wh-movcmenl
and
focus and given/new.)
givcn/ncw.) Consequently
Conscqucntly cach speaker
spcakcr
Jnd thcmntic
thematic relations
relations such as focus
lhad
i d to bc
scratch. and was clabol'<llcd
claboi.atcd only as far as
nccdcd to
be built from scratch,
ali was needed
molivatc the
tlic English it was intended
intcndcd to illustrate.
illustr.~tc. In the
thc completed
colnplctcd speakers.
spcakcrs. not
motivate
morc than thc
cxamplcs shown was erer
crcr actually dcvclopcd.
much more
the examples
dc\'clopcd. Iblow
Below is a
ipcakcr prt~grams
uscd according
according to thc
summary of the speaker
programs used
the typc
type of conceptual
rcprcscntation
thcg employed;
c~nploycd;a dctailcd
first two will follow.
representation they
detailed description of the first
I'rcdiratcCalculus
Well-k)nncd
formulas in tllC
Uic prcdicatc
calculus, in
Predicate Calculus
WelHormed formulas
predicate calculus.
isulation and in natural deduction proofs,
proofs. wcrc
were supplied
directly as tlic
ti,e linguistic
isolation
supplicd dircclly
linguistic
cumponcnt"s
\I(x) man(x)
man(x):::>
cumponcnt's iinput.
n p u ~e.g.
c.g. from V(x)
3 morlaHx)
mortal(x) the
thc component
produced:
"1111 111cn
Ihis domain presented
prcscntcd an opportunity to study
produced: "All
men ore
are nlorrol".
mortal". This
thc
dccoding of message-level
mcssagc-lcvcl convcntions
sucli as expressing
cxprcssing quantifiers
quantificn as
the decoding
conventions such
detenniners
predicates as class
well as discourse cpherency
dctcnnincrs or type
typc prcdicatcs
class nouns, as wcll
cphcrcncy and
the symbolic analysis
possible rcali~ations.
realizations.
thc
analysis of
ofpossiblc
Assertions in ~
pI.AN~lmstyle
n~tahascs
A description
Assertions
' ~ . ~ ~ s l i l l - s1)~ta-hases
tylc
A
description of a semantic
wmantic net was
supplied
relational assertions
supplicd to the generator
gcncratur as a set
sct of simple
simplc rclational
asscni(~nsabout the nets
component parts.
parts. One
multi-paragraph lcxt
text. one
Onc net corresponded
alrrcspondcd a multi-paragraph
onc paragraph
provided an
nodc, ordered
ordcrcd according
according to a3 depth-first
dcplh-lirst scan. "Ibis
This domain providcd
per node,
opportunity to
tn produce Iargc
large tcxts
texts without developing
elaborate expert
dcvcloping an claboratc
expen
program,
and
provided
a
study
of
stylistic
variation.
tlhe
usc
of
the
tlhematic
program,
providcd
stylistic variation, thc use
thc thcmatic
relations focus
given/new. and of thc
the usc
use of ellipsis
rclations
focus and givcn/new,
ellipsis and indefinite anaphora
amphora

213

inctuding Ihc automatic collapsing ofconjoincd prcdicatcs a t thc mcssagc-lcvel.

induding the automatic collapsing of conjoined predicates at the message-level.
'Ihc 13nguagc o l f ~ , ,dcvclopcd by William Martin [Hawkinson 19751, is a
The 1Jngllage OWL, developed by William Martin [Hawkinson 1975], is a
compositional rcprcscntation specifically dcsigncd ilS thc targct output formalism
compositional representation specifically designed as the target output formalism
of a natural languagc undcrstanding systctn (and thcrcforc able to rcprcscnt
of a natural language understanding system (and therefore able to represent
naturally thc kinds of undcrspccification, ambiguity, quan~ification,ctc. found in
naturally the kinds of underspecil1cation, ambiguity, quantification, etc. found in
natural languages). 'l'hc work o n this domain was donc by a beginning MII'
natural languages). The work 011 this domain was done by a beginning MIT
graduatc studcnt, Kcn Ch~irch.part-ti~ncduring thc fall of 1978. 'Ille inputs to
graduate student, Ken Church. part-time during the fall of 1978. "111e inputs to
rhc program wcrc Iitcrsl prtwcdurcs takcn from I)t(;, the digitalis thcrapy advisor
the program were literal procedures taken from I>IG. the digitalis therapy advisor
dc~clopcd originally by Silvcrtltan [Silvcrman 19751 and rcirnplcmcntcd for
dc\clopcd originally by Silverman ISilvennan 1975] and reimplcmented for
cxplnnntion5 I)y Swartoul using ow. ISwartout 19811. 71'l~crcsulting tcxts from
explanations by Swartout using: OWL ISwartout 1981). The resulting texts from
Church's work (whicli will not hc shown) wcrc con~p:~rablc
to. though not quite as
Church's wurk (which will not he shown) were comparable to, tJlOugh not quite as
stnooth as, thc tcxts originally obtaincd by Swartout. Church's work
smooth as. the texts originally obtained by Swartout. Church's work
~
n;~mclythat bccausc its onc-pass
dcmonstratcd what Iiad 1)~cnS I I S P C C ~ Ccarlicr.
demonstrated what had been suspected earlier, namely that because its one-pass
cotitrol structure is biascd to cxpcct rhclorically prc-plnnncd illput. this linguistic
control structure is biased to expect rhetorically pre-planned input, this linguistic
ccanpancnt is not n good placc to sugc largc-scale rcanalyzcs of a domain's
component is not a good place to swgc hlrge-scalc reanalyzes of a domain's
conceptual structure.
conceptual structure.
OWL

I
FHI., "Framc-oricntcd. licprrscntation 1.aqguagc" was dcvclopcd by
FRI.. "Frame-oriented. Reprrscntation I.al}gllage" was developed by
Goldsicin and Robcrls [Cioldstcin and liobcrts 19741 as an cxpcrimcntal
Goldstein and Roberts [Goldstein and Roberts 1974] as an experimental
implcmcntation of "framc" idcss of Minsky [Minsky 19741. It was ilscd by
implcmrntation of "frame" ideas of Minsky 1M insky 1974]. It was used by
Winston as thc rcprcscntation for his program for ~nakitlg and cvaluating
Winston as the representation for his program for making and evaluating
analogies [Winston 19801. A dictionary was co~npilcdfor Winston's database on
analogies [Winston 1980]. /\ dictionary was compiled filr Winston's database on
thc play "Macbcth", from which texts wcrc dircctly produccd describing the
the play "Macbeth", from which texts were directly produced describing the
actors and major sccncs, Winston imposcd a rigid "casc-framc" discipline on the
actors and major scenes. Winston imposed a rigid "caseframe" discipline on the
ficlds of his ICIII. fraincs, making Lhcm vcry casy to translate into Ilnglish. ?his
fields of his FlU, frames, making them very easy to translate into English. This
madc i~ possiblc to conccntratc instcad on thc cohcrcncy of thc tcxt (as in the
made it possible to concentrate instead on the coherency of the text (as in the
sctnantic nct domain), and lo dcvclop a battery of gcncral linguistic
semantic net domain), and to deyelop a battery of general linguistic
transformations to dcal with propositional attitudes, subordinate clauscs, scntcncetransformations to deal with propositional attitudes, subordinate clauses, sentencelcvcl adjunction, and thctnatic firus, and to study explicitly planncd cataphor and
level adjunction, 4lnd thematic focus, and to study explicitly planned cataphor and
subordination (as in "B~cuuscI.adj1 hlacbelh penuallrd hit,! lo do it, Afacberh
subordination (as in "Becausc rad)' Macbeth persuaded him to do it, Macbeth
~lrurdrrcdDuncan '7).
murdered Duncan. ').
FRL

K~,-ONI; is a highly structured scmanlic nct formalism undcr

Kr,-ONE is a highly structured semantic net fonnalism under
dcvclop~ncnl at I11iN fl3rashmdn 1978: Woods 19791. 'I'hc work on this
development at BBN [Brachman 1978: Woods 1979). The work on this
rcprcscntation is still vcry much underway and has hccn initially rcportcd in
representation is still very much underway and has been initially reported in
[McI)onald 19801. In thcir primary gcncration application KIPONEncts arc uscd
[McDonald 1980). In their primary generation application KL'ONE nets arc used
as the knowlcdgc basc of a tic-lac-toc program, modclcd aftcr Ihc work of
as the knowledge base of a tic-Lac-toe program, modeled aftcr the work of
Anthony 1)avcy [llavcy 19741, that givcs flucnt commcntarics of gamcs of tic-tacAnthony Davey [Davey 1974], that gives fluent commentaries of games oftic-tac
toc that it has cithcr playcd or rcad. It providcs an opportunity to cxpcrimcnt with
toe that it has either played or read. It provides an opportunity to experiment with
I
KI.ONE

McDonald

2]4

discourse-lcvcl platlning, and to sttldy how rlictorical intctitions can control

discourse-level planning, and to study how rhetorical intentions can control
dcscriptiuns (e.g. whcthcr to say "!Ire corrler opposite rl~eu~rcyou jusr took" or just
descriptions (e.g. whether to say "the corller opposite (he 011(' you juS! !ook" or just
"a canter"), h sccond prcjccl using thc KI,.OVI: rcprcscntation Ilia thc task of
"a curlier"). A second project using the KLO\E reprcsentation has the task of
producing parilgraph-lcngth English dcscriprions of natural sccncs starting from
producing parilgraph-Iength English descriptions of natural scenes starting from
Lllc ouq)ut of an h.1. sccnc-understanding systcm. 'l'his work ftruscs on thc
the output of an A.!. scene-understanding system. This work focuses on the
prohlcm or high-lc~clplanning of paragraph Icnglh tcxt, particularly how tlic
problem of high-Ielel planning of paragraph length (ex(, particularly how the
choicc of sp;~tiaIdcscriplion may bc const~.airrcdby gram~nalicalcontcxt.
choice of sp,ltia! description may be cOJlstrained by grammatical context.
Ncxt wc will look at solnc cxaniplc input and outj)ut from LIlc first two test
Next we will look at some example input and outpu( from the !irst (wo (es(
domains and considcr thc linguistic pn)hlcms that had to bc fi~ccdin ordcr to
domains and consider the linguistic problems that had to be faced in order to
producc tllcrn. Afrcr this scction, wc will discuss thc principles bchind thc
produce them. Aftcr this section, we will discuss the principles behind the
Iingtlistic colnponcnt and follow ~hroughan cxamplc in dctail.
linguistic component and follow through an example in detail.
4.2.2. 'I'hc 1,OGIC Ilolj~ain
4.2.2. The LOGIC Domain
In any st~rdy of 1;inguagc gcncration, it is important that the mcssagc-lcvel
In any study of language generation, It IS Important that the message-level
rcprcscntation H ith which tllc prtrcss st;trls bc crcdiblc. It would bc qucstionable,
representation with which the process starts he credible. It would be questionable,
for cxitmplc, whctlicr a program that s~lrtcdfrom a diclionary of frrtgmcnts of
for examplc, whether a progrnm that started from a dictionary of fragments of
E~iglisllscnrcnccs could bc said to havc solvcd any significi~nt.problcms. 'The
Eriglish sentences could be said to have solved any significant problems. 'Ille
prcdicatc calculus. on t l ~ colhcr hand. is a vcry crcdiblc mcssigc rcprcscnt;!tion: it
predicate calculus. on the other hand. is a very credihle message representation: it
is an acccptcd, comfortable "intcrnnl rcprcscntation" for thc programs of a large
is an accepted, comfortable "internal representation" for the programs of a large
part of tllc artilicictl intclligcncc community; it has a univcrsally agrccd upon
part of the artilicial intelligence community; it has a universally agreed upon
intcrprctation; and it is suficicndy unlikc natural language in form h a t
interpretation; and it is sufficiently unlike natural language in form that
demonstrations of thc "valuc addcd" of thc linguistic cornponcnt are rcadity
demonstrations of the "value added" of the linguistic component arc readily
available.
available.
'The logic durnaitz consists of a rcprcscntation fur wcll-formcd formulas in
The logic domain consists of a representation for well-formed fonnulas in
predicate logic, routines for translating formuIas typcd by a uscr into this
predicate logic, roUlines for translating formulas typed by a user into this
rcprcscnution and storing thcm. and a dictionary with fixcd cntrics for thc logical
representation and storing them, and a dictionary with fixed entries for the logical
conncctivcs and infcrcncc rulcs and a sct of convcntions for ncw cntrics that the
connectives and inference rules and a set of conventions for new entries that the
uscr may writc for particular prcdicatcs, constants, and typcd variables. There is
user may write for particular predicates. constant,>, and typed variables. There is
no spcakcr or cxpcrt progrim per se, all of thc intcrprctation of convcntions and
no speaker or expert program per se, all of the interpretation of conventions and
application of discoursc heuristics that a "spcakcr" would d o bcing cmbcddcd
application of discourse heuristics that a "speaker" would do being embedded
dircctly in thc cntrics orthc dictionary.
directly in the entries llfthe dictionary.
'I'hc original work with thc logic domain consistcd simply of prcscnting Lhc
The original work with the logic domain consisted simply of presenting the
program with a singlc wcli-fumcd formula ("wff') and having it produce an
program with a single well-formed formula ("wff') and having it produce an
English rcndcring. For cxample
English rendering. For example
V(block)V(su rface)
space-for{surface, block) -

(table(su rface) V cleartop(su rface

215
was rcndcrcd as:
was rendered as:
"There is space 011 a surjbcefir a block ifafrd ortly $!hat surfoce is the
"There is space 011 a surface fur a block if and ollly if that surface is the
/able or if hns a clerrr lop:"
table or it has a clear top;"
Iliffcrcnt conventional intcrprctations of formulas wcrc cxpcrimcntcd with,
Different conventional interpretations of formulas were experimented with,
originally undcr cxplicit control of thc dcsigncr and latcr undcr program control
originally under explicit control of the designer and later under program control
i~singboth lookahciid at tllc linguistic decisions and simple tcsts of thc logical
using both lookahead at tile linguistic decisions and simple tests of the logical
stnrctilrc of the cxprcssions to dctcnninc whcthcr an intcrprctation would go
stmctllre of the expressions to detennine whether an interpretiltion would go
through. 'fhc same formula, say: "V(x) man(x) 3 rnortal(x)", can be
through, The same fOnTIlIla, say: "V(x) man(x):J morlal(x)", can be
undcrstood conventionally and rcndcrcd as: "All tr~o~
ow ~r~c~rtal",
or undcrstood
under~to()d conventionally and rendered as: "Allll1clI are /Ilortal", or understood
literally and rcndcrcd as: "l:or a11y ~ h i n g fthnt
,
rhir~gis a ntutl, /lrell ii is ~~ror~al".
literally and rendered as: "For any thillg. if that thillg is a mall. then it is mortal".
It docs n o t takc long, howcvcr, to cxhaust thc linguistic insights to bc gaincd
It docs not take long, however, to exhaust the lingui~tic insights to be gained
from looking at single fi)rn~ulasin isolation. A prcdicatc calculus formula is
from looking at single fomlUlas in isolation. /\ predicate calculus formula is
undcrdctcr~nincdwith rcspcct ro thc morc sopliisticatcd fomis of rcfcrcncc and
underdetermined with respect ro the more sophisticated f0I111S of reference and
qiianlificarion supported by nal~irallangilagcs, and iu conncctivcs and prcdicatcs
quantification supported by natural languages, and its connectives and predicates
can usually bc givcn many cqiialiy plausible rcndcrings. Whcn formulas appear in
can usually be given many equally plausible renderings, When fannulas appear in
isolation, thcrc is no molivation for using onc rcndcring or onc intcrprctation of a
isolation. there is no motivation for using one rendering or one interpretation of a
qiiantificr ovcr anothcr.
quantifier over another.
Onc way to providc thc nccdcd motivation is to look at formulas in thc context
One way to provide the needed motivation is to look at fonnulas in the context
of a proof. Figurc 2 shows a nati~ri~l
dcd~lctionproof followcd by thc tcxt that the
of a proof. Figure 2 shows a natural deduction proof followed by the text that the
logic domain's dictionary sclcctcd for it. ('Tllc first linc is a statcmcnt of the
logic domain's dictionary selected for it. enle first line is a statement of the
"barber paradox" crciitcd by Ijcrtrand Russcll as a popular rcndcring of thc sct of
"barber paradox" created by Bertrand Russell as a popular rendering of the set of
all scts paradox.)
all sets paradox.)
'Ihc lincs of thc proof arc passcd to Ihc program in scqucnce; the English text
The lincs of the proof arc passed to the program in sequence: the English text
sclcctcd for carlicr Iincs providcs a discoursc context to narrow the choices
selected for earlier lines provides a discourse context to narrow the choices
availablc to later oncs, directly controlling subscqucnt rcfcrcnccs to constants,
availa~le to later ones, directly controlling subsequent references to constants,
wriablcs intcrprctcd as gcncric rcfcrcnccs. and prcdicarcs and fonnulas used as
variables interpreted as generic references. and predicates and fannulas used as
descriptions. Furthcr motivation for text choice is provided by the labels that are
descriptions. Further motivation for tcxt choice is provided by the labels that arc
attachcd to certain lincs to rcflcct 'their rolc in thc structure of thc proof (c.g. "the
attached to certain lines to reflect their role in the structure of the proof(e.g. "the
assu~nption"or "a cot~~rrrdictir~n").
and by tIic logical infcrcnce rulcs that derived
assumption" or "a contradictio/l"). and by the logical inference rules that derived
thc lincs: a largc part of thc rcndcring of Lhc proof must hc an explanation. guided
the lines: a large part of the rendering of the proof must be an explanation. guided
by the infcrcnce rulcs, of how cach linc follows from thc carlicr ones.
by the inference rules, of how each line follows from the earlier ones.

McDonald

216

linel: prcmise
lincl:
premise
line2:
linc2:

3x (barber(x)
/\ Vy(shaves(x,y) ...
(barbedx) A
++ ""shaves(y,y)))
ishaves(y,y)))
existential
cxistcnti;il insUlntiation
instantiation (1)
barber(g) /\
A Vy(shaves(g,y) ... ""shaves(y,y))
-rshaves(y,y))

linc3: tautology
tnutology (2)
(2)

Vy shaves(g,y)'"
shaves(g,y) ++ ""shaves(y,y)
~shaves(y,y)

linc4: universal
uniucrsal instantiation (3)
line4:

shaves(g,g) ...
++ ""shaves(g,g)
-shaves(g,g)

lineS:
linc5: tautulogy
lautol(~gy(4)
(4)
linc6:
linch:

shaves(g,g) A
/\ ""shaves(g,g)
-shaves(g,g)
conoitiol1alizJtion
conditionali7,~tion(5,])
(5.1)

(barbedx) A
Vy(shaves(x,y)
-shaves(y,y)))
3x (barber(x)
/\ Vy(shaves(x,y)'"
""shaves(y,y)))
:J
3 (shaves(g,g)
(shaves(g,g) /\
A ""shaves(g,g))
-shaves(g,g))
line7:
(6)
linc7: reductio-ad-absurdum
rcducti~~-;~d-aI~surdu~n
(6)
...,3x
/\ Vy(shaves(x,y)
-3x (barber(x)
(barbedx) A
Vy(shaves(x,y) ... ""shaves(y,y)))
~shaves(y,y)))

Assume 111a/
w11o sllai>es
who
Ihal [here
Ihere is so111e
some barber who
shaves everyone who
doesn'l
shave himself
(and no one else). Call him
l ~ i t nGiuseppe.
Giuseppe
doesn'r sl~ave
l~iriiself(atid
NOH:
II>~O
doesti I' shave himself
hintself would
~vouldbe shoved
Noll', anyone who
doesn'l
shaved by
Giuseppe.
Giuseppz This
This would
u,ould include
irlclude Giuseppe
Giuscppr himself
I~ittnclf: 71101
7har is,
is he
11~ou1d
shol'c
i~itnsclf;if Gnd
and only if he did nol
not shave himself
hitnself;
would
shave himself
which
Ihallhe
conrradic/ion. This
This means
rneans /ha/
/he assumplionleads
assurnprion leads
~ 1 1 i cish a conlradiclion.
/o a conlradiclion.
conrradicrion. Therefore,
Tllerefore, ifir is false,
10
false. rl~ere
Ihere is no such
barber.
Figure 2 'Ibe
'lhc Barber
13arbcr Proof
Proof
lbc
I h c proofs that were
wcrc used
uscd in the logic domain were
wcrc selected
sclcctcd from a set of
uscd by Daniel
1)anicl Cbester
Chcstcr IChester
[Chcstcr 1976J
1976) in virtually the same
proofs that
thal had bccn
been used
task. The
'lhc choice
choicc was made
madc deliberately
dclibcratcly to permit
pcrinit a direct
dircct comparison of the
output of the
thc two systems on
011 the
thc same material-something that is rare in studies
languagc generation,
gcncration. Chester's
Chcstcr's version of the
thc "barber
"barbcr pr~xlf'
follows:'1
of language
pnx,r' is as fullows:

Suppuse
Ihal rhere
Ihere is ssome
Ihal /or
for eVeI)'
perSU/l rtre
Ihe barber
Suppose rhar
~ ~ barber
borbcr
r ~ c such rhar
ever). l~crsu!~
shalJes the
person iff
the person does nol
!-e/
stra~~es
rhc pcrso~r
ifjrhepcrso~r
!lor slim'!'
slra~vhimself.
hit~~sel/:
I.cr /IA denote
derrore such aa
borbrr. Now he ~hai,cs
lri~~rselfrjjhe
!lot shave himself,
hiuself: rhcrefire
barber.
shaves himself
iff he dues /lol
Iherefure a
co17rradiciio1ifjulluws.
u l l o ~ ~ Therefore
Therefire
~s
ifthere
/Ira1for
contradie/iull
if
there is sorne
sume barber such that
for every

1.
1. My
M y source for
lor Chesler's
Chnlcr's results
rcsulls is a personal
pcmonal communication
omrnunicalion with him in Novcmber
November of
or 1975;
1975: the
Ule
ellon on thc
Ihc logic
logic domain
darnam was completed
camplclcd inin Deccmber
kcrnber of ]977.
1977.
major cffort

217
person tile barber shaves the persotr 1 f f fhe person does rlor shave hitg~self
person the barber sho\'es the person iff the person does /101 sha\'e himself
rhar a co~ltradicliottfi~llowr Thus there is no barber such ~ h afor
l every
then a CO/llradiclio/l jiJllows. Thus there is I/O barher such Ihal for el'try
perTon /he bnrbcr shares rltel~erw~t
[ff the per so^? does tto! S ~ C I V himsrlj:
P
person Ihe barber shQl,('s the person iff the persu/l dol's 110/ shave himself
Chccrcr's program bclungs to thc "dircct translalion" school of ~latirral
Chester's program belongs to the "direct translation" school of natural
languagc gcncration systcrns (scc [Mann ct al. to appear]). It produced the
language gcncration systems (sec [Mann et a1. to appear)). It produced the
paragraph abovc by rccursivcly replacing thc formulas of thc proof with English
paragraph above by recursively replacing the formulas (If the proof with English
rcxt (aftcr editing it for production), cntircly on thc basis of I(~wlpropertics of the
text (after editing it for production), entirely on the basis of local properties of the
forn~ulas.'I'hc lack of culltcxtual input to tlic program's rcirli/ation decisions is
formulas. The lack of contextual input to the program's reali/.ation decisions is
rcflcctcd in its minimal trcatlncnt of subscqi~cntrcfcrcncc and thc occasional
renected in its minimal treatment of subsequent reference and Ule occasional
abruptness of transition fro111liiic to Iinc.
abruptness of transition from line to line.

At his point. I u ill usc tllc cxaniplc of thc barbcr proof to point out sornc of
t\t this point, I will use the example of the barber proof to point out some of
thc accomplishrncnts that arc c~nbodicdin Ihc current \crsiun of my gcncration

the accomplishments that arc embodied in the CUTTent \ersiOIl of my generation

program.
program.

'I'hc :rLility to go bcyolld lllc litcral col~tcnl 1 1 c program proccsscs a proof by

The :lhility to go beyond the literal content
111e program processes a proof by
realizing its fori~iulasand subfolmulns onc at a tinic in rop down ordcr (i.c. the
realizing its forniulas and subfOlmulas one at a time in top down order (i.e. the
construction axioms of thc ~)rcdicntccalculus arc Followed). 'I'l~cformulas arc not
construction axioms of the predicate calculus arc fol1owe.1). The formulas arc not
translated rncchanically, but rather at cach s~cpalong Lhc way. a contcnt-sensitive
transl~ted mechanically, but rather at each slep along the way, a context-sensitive
dccisicln is madc as to how (or ~ , I i e ~ h cthc
r ) major logical conncctikc (or inference
decision is made: as til how (or whether) the major lngical connectiye: (or inference
rulc) is to bc rcslizcd. and which (if any) uf Ihc subclcn~cntsof the formula are to
rule) is to be rcnlizcd. and which (if any) of the sube1cments of the formula are to
bc involvcd in that rcali~ation. 1,inc Llircc of the proof, fur cxamplc, has no
be: involved in that reali/.ation. Line three of the proof, for example, has no
corresponding scntcnce in the tcxt bccause wc can assurnc that such a stcp in the
corresponding sentence in the text because we can assume: that such a step in the
p r a ~ fwould bc madc automatically by thc audicncc. Clhis is an implicit.
proof would be made automatically by the audience. (This is an implicit,
convcntional assumption: thcrc is no simulation modcl of the user.) 1,ine four, on
conventional assumption: there is no simulation model of the user.) Line four, on
thc othcr hand, has bccn expanded into thrcc sentcnces bccausc thc logical
the other hand. has been expanded into three sentences because the logical
substitution of a second instancc of thc satnc conaant is assumcd to be liable to
substitution of a sccond instance of the same constant is assumed to be liable to
confuse the audience. l'hc three sentcncc subargument is constructed by putting a
confuse the audience. 'Ibe three sentence subargument is constructed by putting a
spccial rhetorical twist an the formula of linc thrcc (to dcfinc thc set), adding a
special rhetorical twist on the formula of line three (to define the set), adding a
new formula bascd on tlie variablc being substituted (scntcncc four), and
new formula based on the variable being substituted (sentence four), and
concluding with &tic formula from line four.
concluding with the formula from line four.
'Ihc logical conj~~nction
in linc onc is intcrprctcd as a convcntional way of
'Ibe logical conjunction in line one is interpreted as a conventional way of
dcfining thc typc of the variablc "x". Similarly Lhc two quantifiers in that line arc
defining the type of the variable "x". Similarly the two quantifiers in that hne arc
rcalizcd in rhc dctcrmincrs of thcir variablcs ("sorne barber'', "everyone")rathcr
realized in the determiners of their variables ("some barber", "everyone') rather
than as 'yoor" phrases.
than as 'Jor" phrases.

McDonald

218

Suhscqucnt rcfcrcncc
K n o ~ i n gwhcn not to ilsc a pronoun is vcry important
SUhSNjUent reference
Knowing when nol to use a pronoun is very important
in thc production of undcrstandablc tcxts. 'I'hus whilc t l ~ cbarbcr is idcntificd and
in the production of understandable texts. Thus while the barber is identified and
givcn a namc in first two scntcnccs, I-IC is not pronominali~cdin thc third and
given a name in first two sentences, he is not pronominalized in the third and
fourth bccausc those scntcnccs arc part of a ncw ncw discoursc structurc (the
fourth because those sentences arc part of a new new discourse structure (the
"sub;irgumcnt" cu~nposcdto casc Lhc transition to linc 4) whcrc thc discoursc
"subargument" composed to case the transition to line 4) where the discourse
ftxus is on the ~inivcrsillyquantificd variablc "y" rathcr than on thc barber
focus is on the universally quantified variable "y" rather than on the barber
"Giuscl~pe".Whcn thc f t ~ u shifts
s
to him in scntcncc five as a rcsult of the use o f
"Giuseppe". When the focus shifts io him in sentence five as a result of the usc of
thc intensifying rcflcxivc ("Giusepp~llimsey), hc can thcn h c pronomiiializcd in
the intensifying reflexive ("Giuseppr himsell'), he can then he pronominalized in
LIIC fuur instances in scntcnce six. (N.b. tllc nairlc "Giusq~e" was pickcd
the four instances in sentence six. (N.b. the name "Giuseppe" was picked
arbitrarily.)
arbitrarily.)
Descriptions may bc "pronominalized" as wcll as rcfcrcnccs. A t thc cnd of
Descriptions may be "pronominalized" as well as references. At the end of
scntcncc one, thc original dcscription of "y" (i.e. "everjwt~ewlho doem'f shave
sentence one, the original deSl:ription of "y" (i.e. "everyone who doesn't shave
h i t ~ ~ s eis~ 'rccapi~i~latcd
)
in the dcscription of thc complcmcnt sct as: '510one
himself') is recapillilated in the description of the complement set as: "flO one
ebe". 'I'hcn in tlic final scntcncc, thc original cuinplcx description of tllc barbcr is
ehe". '111en in the final sentence, the original complex description of the barber is
rcduccd to just thc adjcclivc "such':
reduced to just the adjective "such",
Functional lahcls
hat
'I'hc prclnisc fi~nctionsin thc pmof as "UI! assu~~~ption"
Functionallahcls
The premise functions in the proof as "all assumption" that
is to bc shown to be fdsc bccnusc it lcads to a contradiction. Sincc this role is
is to be shown to be false because it leads to a contradiction. Since this role is
known to thc audicncc (we bcgnn by saying ",lssutr~e tho/... (3, wc can use h e
k~own to the audience (we began by saying "Assume thai... .' ), we can usc the
IahcI l a ~ c r(scntcncc scvcn) as a succinct rcfcrcncc to the cntirc first linc. 'The
label later (sentence seven) as a succinct reference to the entire first line. The
logical schcma " A A - A " is 5imilarly lahclcd as "0 co~~tmdicrioi~".
Part of the
logicul schema" A 1\ -'A" is ~imilarly labeled as "0 cOlllradictiun". Part of the
concept of a labcl is the ability to include a literal rcndcring of thc labeled
concept of a label is the ability to inclUde a literal rendering of the labeled
cxprcssion as an appositive (final scntcncc). In thc logic domain's dictionary.
expression as an appositive (final sel1lence). In the logic domain's dictionary,
ap1:ositivcs arc triggcrcd if thc last literal rendering was not in the samc paragraph
appositives arc triggered if the last literal rendering was not in the same paragraph
or, as in this casc, if thc line is the conclusion of an argument.
or, as in this case, if the line is the conclusion of an argument.
Contcxt scnsitivc rcalizatiuns
Part of the linguistic conrcxt that is produced to
Context sensitive realizations
Part of the linguistic context that is produced to
guidc later dccisions is a rhetorical dcscription of thc discoursc structure. The
guide later decisions is a rhetorical description of the discourse structure. The
diffcrcnt terms of dlis structure will guidc dccisions at syntactic and morphological
different terms of this structure will guide decisions at syntactic and morphological
Icbcls: in sentcnccs one and three a contraction is uscd ("duc.m'l shavc13while the
levels: in sentences one and three a contraction is used ("duesl!'t shave') while the
same logical structurc in (he firnial contcxt created by thc conclwsiar~scntcnce of
same logical structure in the fUl11wl context created by the cunclusion sentence of
thc subargumcnt is not contracted Uorttlal bcing an cxpcrimcntal rhetorical
the subargument is not contracted (formal being an experimental rhetorical
fcaturc in thc grammar). Similarly thc conncctivc
is spclled out in a formal
feature in the grammar). Similarly U1C connective ++ is spelled out in a fannal
contcxt (sentcncc fivc), but in an unmnrkcd, inf(rrna1 contcxt il is understood as a
context (sentence five), but in an unmarked, informal context, it is understood as a
restriction on a variable and cxprcsscd as a rclativc clausc. In another case, the
restriction on a variable and expressed as a relative clause. In another case, the
samc quantificd variable ("y") is rcaliscd in thc unrnarkcd contcxt of scntencc one
same quantified variable ("y") is realized in the unmarked context of Sentence one
as "everyone", but whcn markcd in scntcncc thrcc as idcntifying a sct it is rcalized
as "everyone", but when marked in sentence three as identifying a set it is realized
as "anyone".
as "anyone",
Part of the discoursc context is the distance bctwccn phrascs. When a
Part of the discourse context is the distance between phrases. When a
contradiction is dcduccd from the immediately previous linc, as in lirie fivc, the
contradiction is deduced from the immediately previous line. as in line five. the

219

identification of
possible by
o f that deduction is given
giwn in
in the most
no st direct
dircct way possible
adjoining aa relative
rclativc clause
clausc to the
thc last
l;~stsentence;
scntcncc: when
whcn the
thc dependency
dcpclidcncy line is
is much
much
adjoining
carlicr (as in
i n line
linc six).
six). the
thc formula
fi~nnulafrom
frum the
thc line
linc is
is repeated
rcpcatcd and
i ~ n dthe
thc phrase "leads
earlier
(0"
lo" is used.
uscd.

aroid ~lmhiguity
lnll~igu~ty In
j\lte~nptsto amid
Attrmpts
" as a
inrcrprctation of
o f "....
"cr"
I n sentence
scntcncc one.
onc. the
thc imerpretation
rcs~rictionon
011 a
3 variable's
variilblc's range
rilngc must
inust include
includc some
samc phrase
phrasc to indicate
indicatc that the
restriction
entire
been specified
pan of
rangc has
has bccn
spccificd and
and not just aa pan
o f it.
it. Consequently
Conscqocntly the
thc "iff"iffcntirc range
entry"
alld
(comp!('n!rnt or
(An
cntry" is
i s designed
dcsigncd to S<ly
wy "(r('~1rkli{ln>
"(rr*~rir~ion>
a~rd<cotr~nlcn~cn~
or frs1ridiod)".
rr>~rir~ion>".
(An equivalent
cquivalcnt
technique
bccn to replace
rcplacc the
thc word "evCf"yone"
"rec~'orre"with
wilh "all
''all and only
ortly
tccliniqoc would ha\'e
h a ~ cbeen
(hose
who...
the
I ~ O S P me/l
IJICI
u'110r... ".) Because
IIcca~~ic
thc presentation
prcscntiltion of
o f this
tliis combined
colnbincd restriction
rcstriction should
be
donc carefully,
c;lrcfully. a
;I spccialmonitllring
spcci;~linnnik~ringmutine
routine is
is activated
activ;~tcdin
in <In
an attempt
attclnpt to avoid
bc done
intnlducing scope
scopc ambiguities
itmhiguitics in
in the
dic cDnjunction.
co~~junction.
thc basisof
thc point where
introducing
On the
basis of the
the
tlic conjunction
conjunction is
is JUJchcd
auachcd (i.e
(i.c... as the
thc direct
dircct object
objcct of
o f "some
"xorrle barber who shaves
X").
tlic projected
projccrcd contents
contcnts uf
i ~the
thr
f second
sccond arm
arm of
o f the
thc conjunction (3
(a noun
noun phrase).
X'). the
and
arm has ended
cndcd with a direct
dircct object,
objcct. thc
dic monitor decides
decides
and the
thc filct
litct that
tlii~tthe
thc first ann
that
possible tbat
be misinterpreted
conjoining with the
tli;~tit is
is possiblc
that tl,e
the second
sccond ann
ann will hc
misi~itcrprctcdas
ashlnjoining
imnicdiarc, lower
loucr direct
dircct object
objcct rather
ralhcr than with the
thc intended
intcnded one. It
I t causes
causes
morc immediate,
bc added
addcd around the
Uic second
sccond arm as one
u ~ i cway available
avail;~blcto it in
in
thc pJ:enLheses
parcnthcscs to be
the
tl1is
h i s case
caic to try and
and forestall
forcaall misinterpretation.
misintcrprctation.
4.2.3. !'I.ANNER-st)'le Assertions

'llic source
sourcc data structure
stmctl~rcin
in this domain was a KI:OSE
nctwork reimplemented
rcim]~lcmcntedas
'Ille
KL'O~E network
a set
sct of
o f binary relations
rclationt expressed
cxprcsscd as PLAI'\:'iER-style
Pl.kNYI:R-style assertions. A
A KLONE
KITONE net
consists
consists of
o f a set of
o f named
ni~mcdobjects
ol~jccoof
o f various
vilrious types
typcs (only
(only "concept" and
and "role"
"role" will
be shown
bere). linked together
he
shown hcrc),
togcthcr by the
thc relations:
relations: "subconcept".
"subconcept", "has-role",
"has-role",
"valuc-rcstricdon", and
and others
othcrs not shown. This
I h i s domain took the
thc network as input
"value-restriction".
an English
E~iglishdescription of
o f its literal
litcral contents;
contcnts; that is.
is, rather than
and produccd
and
produced an
intcrprct the
thc net
nct as a representation
rcprcscntation of
ofcertain
facts (c.g,
(e.g. "every
"evcrj phrase
head
interpret
certain facts
phrase has a head,
rr~odificr, and
arid an
arr interpretation...
ir~rerprerorior~
... ").
'), it is
is interpreted
intcrprctcd at its
irs literal
litcral level
level as a
a modifier,
o f KI
l(l..ONI;
objccts (e.g.
(c.g. "The roncrl~r
iflrhe lIel,
!re/, ilir has a
collection of
..O:"E objects
foncepl r,hrare
"hrase is the
Ihe /up
Iup oflhe
head
Ihal... ').
head role
rule fhar...').
Figure
paragraphs of
constructed for one
Figure 3 shows
sliows the
thc first paragraphs
o f the
thc text'
tcxt'conitruc~cd
onc of
o f the
dcvclop~ncntnetworks
nctworks in
in usc
llolt Beranek
llcranck and
and Ncw~nan
("IlI1N") during
Newman Inc. ("BIlN")
development
use at Bolt
thc spring of
o f 1979. (It represents
rcprcscnts aa first pass
an English
English
pass at aa conceptualization of an
tl,e
grammar.) The
I h c text
tcxt was created
crcatcd by scanning
scanning tbe
the net
nct depth-first
dcpth-first following its
grammaL)
dcvoting one
onc paragraph
cach concept.
conccpt. Each
12~cliparagraph
links,
ks. devoting
paragraph to each
paragrapb
"subconcept" lin
mentions
below) three
mcntions (or assumes-sec
assumcs-scc bclow)
thrcc facts
facts about about its concept:
conccpt: (1)
(1) the
name
namc of
o f the
thc concept(s)
conccpt(s) it
i t is
is aa sobconcept
subconcept of, (2)
( 2 ) the names
namcs of
o f its "roles"
"roles" and
and the

McDonald

220

~--~Vall/c'
Hcstriction
Valoc-llcslriclion

D:;;=-+-J-C:OI~CEPT:::>

--

1'/IJ.{fse
lis irller?,
inlem role rt~us!
I11USI he
be a
I'lilrisc is Ihe
/he lOP
lop of
of Ihe
/ / I ( ! IIfl.
11e1. 1:s

r o t w , and
niid ils a~dflu
role alid
~ l i iils
d/ sl!!:!Id
! ~ ! ~role
f ! nlris/
'2.!/{'{'/'I,
l110rJiflcr role
rolc
l11usl hc
be s*.rhrases.
S I I ~ L . ~ > I I C C arc
arrpj;,
~ / S PI!. !lJ!, mljUIICI..iJWWdIIISf.
I11s
Is subt'OlIccpls
a ! j ~.O~l&ck!w.
.
~and
n 1\'d(11'~11.o d .
~ c j f i0
..i/lli'.1l.
,
il!/c1'~.
110sIhe
/he IOles:
roles: L~Q.bJ..
1'/2
ilUfllJ. atidcoj&.
and l!1!.Q./U. &&/nus!
dj musl
-I'fi lias
bc a D./2,
~ 2 pm!
~, ma(jI 1!Lf,'!,
~3 ll!.lJ:.!J!
h u an dtai;!~.
be
l'f1ll.!Q!l. atr(l&
alll! ilJ1Q1J.i. ira E.
I!./!.. &k
Eo. is ~bet l0~liceI'I
c o ~.Ii care
arc
c ~ ~&
/s
(
~
~
~
L I V~
kciua
~ I I~
L i!J!, ,arid
III
oljl(;[$lWl!./!..
iJm~Ll'kl.I'/!'
1ili:.a
!(III
a/l d

nl:o~~~sriI~icc/~!n..
al10ul
.III bicc I{) p.
-O ~ I ! Ihas
! a m:l2i
&~i mle
,ole II'hich
which n111s1
I11USI he
be, a IIUI>~O~JB
humanp. a11dc7
and a
-O/j'crSOIl!'!l
~JLJ
mle
~v/~i,ic/t
IIINSI
br
O
I
I
~
1lHf2 role which 11111.11 be Oll g[.
I I J . Y I ~ ~ J IIobj
1~01v
~ ( ~ role
C I ~musl
111113/
' S be a 21.z~
p['I'clJrole aall
11
!lIslIbh'ill1!.s
3@IT.1llJ!, i1.7
ils &
ii!,
n
~
i
d
ils
role
a
&jsl.
in. (l11r1 il1l!f1. role sub}rr.1
-

...

ljl'urthcr pa(at!r~~rhs
pnrs;r:phs for
Tor the
...!lfurlh,or

rcsi
olpp3 rubmt~replsjj
n.:~1 ofpp's
subrnuccj)ts]]

&j
ciiio/I~er;ub"O/l[('pl
sub~.o~~cc.pt
(.f&r&~ ...
!J.I'
. isi.s anolher
ofi!lJJ.illf...

...

l[l;~nhvrpJr3gmrh~
p~ia;mphs f(lf
ior tlll'
tlic rest
rcsl llf
<,Ipli:3ar.'s
... [[fmtlwr
r,llr:Jsc's i~~hconccpls
slIbconcepts and
aud lhc
the ~~bronccpts
subconcCI)ls of
or
C;ldl

o( those in

wmll
1:igorc 3
3
Figure

l>crl.ibing J.a Scm;totic

Dcscribing
SCl1lantic Net

"vnlu<"'rcstricli<Hi';;" they tift' ~ubjeci tH, Jnd (J} the

f,-ICI tll;!t cadl p;1rar.r.lph wi!! present

if ;lny_ Cille

of its owu suhconccpts

new concept is ttlkcl1 to be

IKI1DCS
i:J.

221

already
the information that, e.g.,
alrcady known to the
thc audience,
audicncc, and as a consequence,
conscqucncc. thc
"phrase
is
a
COI/CCPI"
is
omitted
as
already
given.)
'>phrase
cu~rccp/"is
alrcady givcn.)

Var)
The
l'hc few
fcw paragraphs shown in the figure are
Var)ing
ing the
the paragraph
paragrap11structure
sufficient
the dictionary for this domain
suflicicnt to illustrate
illusuatc tlle
thc stylistic
stylistic heuristics that fhc
incorporates.
speaker as such:
such; its
incorporates. (Like
(I.ikc the
fhc logic
logic domain. this domain had no spcakcr
messages
directly
nets
coherent subnctworks.)
sUbnetworks.) In
mcssagcs were
wcrc comprised
cl~~npriscd
dircctly lif
i ~ KI,()I\'I:
KI;ONI;
f
ncls or cohcrcnt
each
the concept's rolcs
roles and thcir
their
tach of the
fhc first
first three
thrcc paragraph'i.
paragraphs, the
thc presentation
prcscntdtian of Uic
value-restrictiuns
done hy varying thc
the rhctorical
rhetorical
valuc-rcstricticlnsis
is given
gi\cn in a different
diffcrc~ltstyle.
stylc. It is donc
p:.lttcrn
roles thc
the conccpt
concept has. In fhc
the
tlic description
dcscription according
according to the
thc number of r(llcs
patlcrn of tile
first
the stylc
style choscn
chosen puls
puts cach
each role in aa
first paragraph,
paragraph. "phrilsc"
"phrasc" has three
thrcc roles
mlcs and thc
separate
The
second paragraph's
scp;lratc sentence:
scntcncc: "(role)
"<ro$> must
IIIUSI be (\alu('"rrslrirlion)".
< ~ ~ ~ ~ C . I C S I ~ ~ C I ~ O I'Ihc
I > " . sccond
concept
the use of
of a suni~narizing
summarizing scntcncc
scntence to
conccpt has
h;a more
morc than I..hrcc
Uircc roles,
rolcs, le<Jding
lcading to rhc
identify
their valuc-restrictions.
value-restrictions. 'fhc
The third
identify them
thcm as
as its
its roles
rolcs before giving fhcir
paragraph,
wilh
un thc
the "has-role" rclation.
relation,
p;~r;~graph.
will] only 1wo
two roles, uses scntences
scntcnccs based on
with
relative clause.
value-restriction embcdded
c~nbcddcdas a rclative
with each
each valuo-restriction
O~~~itting"given"i~~lor~~iation
Omitting
"ginn" information
Notc that thc
the sccond,
second, ihird.
"third, and fourth
p;lr;~graphsdo
do not start
sfart with a sentencc
scntcncc about what tlicir
paragraphs
their conccpt
concept is a subconcept
of.
text alrcady
already (in fhc
the last
of. This
'l'iiis isis bocause
bccausc that infonnation
information appears
appcars in the tcxt
sentence
dictionary cntry
entry that would make
prc\,ious paragraph)
pc~rapraph)and the dictionary
scntcncc of each previous
~ h cdecision
dccisim ttl
tu include
includc thilt
that information
infclrrnation decides
dccidcs that
thc
thilt it will bc
be still rcrnc~nbercd
remembered
and thus
thus would be redundant
rcdundant if included. Similarly in the sccond
and
second paragraph
whcrc there
thcrc isis a summary
summary sentence
scntcncc listing roles
rolcs of fhc
where
the conccpt
concept fie's,
llQ.'S, thc
the "has.roleW
"hasrole"
facts have
havc been
bccn left
lcft off
offof
tlic later
Iatcr sentences
sentcnccs since to leavc
facts
of the
leave lhcm
them in would have led
to an
an unacceptably redundant
rcdundant text.
to

hrying descriptions
descriptions with
aith context
'nie noun phrases constructcd
Var}"ing
'n1e
constructed to describe
along the
thc same
same lines
lincs as paragraphs, i.c.
rolcs vary
vary along
roles
i.e. fhcy
they includc
include facts or leave them
dcpcnding on what facts
facts have
havc already
alrci~dyappeared
appearcd in thcir
out depending
their paragraph and what
rcniain
to
bc
givcn.
'Thus
we
go
from
using
just
a
namc
remain to be given. Thus
just name to introduce aa role
(paragraph three)
thrcc) to giving
giving the
thc concept
conccpt that owns iit,l its name, and thc
(paragraph
the fact that it is
"rule" (in paragraph four).
four).
a "role"
'lhroughout the
thc example
cxample tcxt, grarnniatically-driven
Usingellipsis
Using
ellipsis
'Ibroughout
grammatically-driven cllipsis
ellipsis is
applicd to
to reduce
rcducc redundant
rcdundant verbs (paragraph two). and to mcrgc
applied
merge rclations
relations with
common arguments
arguments (paragraph one).
onc). These
'lhesc are
arc gcncral
common
general purpose transformations.
transfonnations,
syntactic and lexical propenies
properties of
triggcrcd by the syntactic
triggered
of the teats,
texts, indcpcndcntly
independently of
of the
contcnt of the reiations
relations involved.
content

McDunald
Mcl
) onald

222
222

4.3.
Computalional1\1odcl
4.3. A Comput
.ttionalModel
The
ability to
to speak
is as
natural to
to us
us as
as the
the ability
to see
'I'he abi1ity
speakis
as natural
abi1ity to
seeor
or to
to usc
use our
our hands
hands
to grasp
arc fast
fast,, we
grasp objects.
objects. We
We are
we arc
are accurate,
accurate, and
and we
we are
are unaware
unaware of
of the
the
how we
we do
it. 1 As
I\s easy
easy as
us to
mechanics of
mechanics
of how
do it.1
as it
it is
is for
for us
to speak,
speak, we
we k.now
know from
from
linguistic
ethnomethodological analysis
that the
linguistic and
and etIlnomethodo1ogica1
ana1ysisthat
the process
processis
is complex.
comp1ex. Even
Even if
if
we 1cave
leave aside
the question
of how
how we
we
asidetI1C
question of
we arrive
arrive at
at the
tI1CthoughLs
thoughts behind
behind our
our words
wordsand
and
look
just at
the "linguistic"
part of
1()ok just
at tI1C
" 1inguislic" part
of the
the process-selecting
pr(JCess
- se1ectingwords
wordsand
and constnlctions,
c()nstructions,
applying
grammatic;ll
rules.
and
producing
the
words
in
sequence-it
is clear
applying grammatic.a1rules, and producing tIle words in scquencc- it is
clear that
that
very
sophisticated
IlI1cs
me
being
followed.
Somehow
we
select
very sophisticated ru1cs are being fol1owed. Somehow we select one
one
lexical/syntactic
the many
many possible
possible alternatives,
1exical
/ syntactic comhination
comhinati()n from
from tllC
alternatives, managing
managing to
to
attend
simultaneously
to
the
potentials
of
the
different
constructions.
our
multiple
attend simu1tancous1y
to tI1Cpotentials ()f tI1Cdifferent constructions, our multiple
goals.
the cOllstmints
arbitrarily imposed
imposed by
goa1s
. and
and the
constraints arbitrari1y
by our
our grammar.
grammar. We
We follow
follow
conventions
utility only t()
to our audiences
conventionsof
of direct uti1ity
audiencesand
and actively
activc1ymainlllin
maintain elaborate
e1aborate
coherency
relations across
large stretches
cohcrcncy rclations
acrosslargc
strctchcsof
of discourse.
discourse.
Our
ability
ll1
do
all
this
with
such
facility
Our ability to do all tIlis with such facility needs
needsto
to he
bc explained.
explained. For
For this,
this, aa
sllltic
the rules
rules being
being f()llowcd
followed will not he
he sufficient:
static description
description of
of tI1C
sufficient: we
we must
must
explain what
what itit is
is about
way these
these rules
rules are
manipulated that
that
explain
ahout the
tI1Cway
arc reprcseltled
representedand
and manipulated
insures
that
Ule
process
of
language
productio))
is
tractable
and
gives
the
process
insurcs tI1atthe pr()Ccssof languageprodllction is tractlble and givcs tI1Cprocess
the charactcr
char<lcter that
that itit has.
has. In
In short,
we must
must develop
tile
short, we
develop aa compul<,tional
compuUttional model:
model: aa
simulacrum
processing steps
viewed
simulacrum whose
whosc processing
steps and
and representational
reprcscntational devices
devices when
when viewed
from tI1C
the intended
intended lcvcl
level of
of abstraction
those
from
abstraction we
we take
take to
to be
be isomorphic
isomorphic with
with those
operating
in
the
human
mind.
operating in tI1ehuman mind.
It is
is important
important to
to appreciate
that by
by "computational
we do
not simply
It
appreciatetI1at
"computational model",
model" , we
do not
simply
mean aa program
program whose
whose input/
input/output
bchavior matches
mean
output behavior
matches ~at
~ at of
of people
people (though
(though
that in
in itself
itself would
would be
be a
a considerable
considerable accomplishment
accomplishment).) . The
tI1at
The internal
internal structure
structure of
of
the
program-the
reasons
Il"lIl'
its
input/output
bchavior
is
what
it
is-is
critical
tI1Cprogram- the reasons" 'h}' its input/ output behavior is what it is- is critical to
to
its value
valuc as
as a
a model.
model. This
to the
for "strong"
its
'Ibis is
is comparable
comparable to
the requirement
reqllirement for
"strong" rather
rather
than "weak"
equivalence in
in constructing
constructing aa grammar
than
" wcak" equivalence
grammar for
for aa natural
natural language.
language. If
If the
the
is
to
be
truly
successful
(and
ultimately
to
be
a
source
of
testable
model
model is to be truly successful (and ultimately to be a source of testable
predictions). its
its behavior
behavior must
must follow
follow inescapably
rather than
predictions),
inescapablyfrom
from its
its structure
structure rather
than
from stipulated
rules:: itit will
will stand
as
of
because
any
from
stipulated
rules
stand
as an
an explanalion
explanation
of tile
t11e behavior
behavior
because
any
with comparable
C<lmp<Jrablc slruclUre
would be
be incapable
of
otherwise.
dcvice with
device
structure
would
incapable
of behaving
behaving
otherwise
. If
If
I. The
Thc nomlal
nOl111al speaking.
ralc for
ror I:nglish
I'nlish isis approximately
s}lIahles per
per second
words per
1.
...-peakingrale
approximalelyrour
four syllables
secondor
or 160
] 60 words
per
Book or
Records sreed
ror reading
readinll I:nglish
English bis400
words per
rer minute
minute.)
minute.. (I
tThe
Guincss-'i llook
minule
.heGuincs
of Rccords
speedI'Ccnrd
recordfor
400words
.) A
A
by IAibov
l.abov [I(I "bov
shown
study
studyby
Aibov196o]
1966
] ha~
has~
hownthai
that75%
75'foor
of everyday
everydayspcech
speechisis grammmical
grammaticalby
by any
anycrilerion.
criterion.
II' general
g.cneral rules
rules for
figure rises
If
for ellipsis
ellipsisand
and sclr-editing
self-editing are
are added.
added. Ihis
this figure
ri~es 10
to 90%
90% for
for non-academic
non-academic
elrerience.. IntrosrCClive
srcakcrs talking
talking about
about everyday
speakers
everydayexperience
Intro~-peclivereports
reportsor
of production
productionarrear
appear\0
to go
go no
no
deepcr than
than mentally
mentally "hearinj('
We appear
have no
deeper
"hearing" full
full rhrascs
phrases(or
(or alternative
alternativewords)
words) al
at aa lime.
time. We
appearto
lo have
no
conscious access
10
any of
or the
the actual
aClual a'i.>;cmbly
processes
such
the sequencing
of
conscious
access
lo any
a'iSCmbly
processes
suchas
asthe
sequencing
of the
the words
wordsor
or their
their
morphological specialization.
morphological
specialization
.

223

one can thcn indcpcndcnlly show that thc human language fiiclilty is structured in
one can then independently show that the human language facLilty is structured in
thc sarnc way as thc modcl (pcrhaps by comparing thc kinds of errors that Lhc two
the same way as the model (perhaps by comparing the kinds of errors that the two
systcrns rnakc), thcn onc will havc explained why pcoplc havc thc modcled
systems make), then olle will have explained why people have the modeled
bchavior. Conscqucntly, if our lnodcl is to bc compclling, we must limit its
hehavior. Consequently, if our model is to be compelling, we must limit its
computational powcr very carefully. A cornpu~ationalrnodc! that pcrmittcd the
computational power very carefully. to. compulJtional model that permitted the
usc of arbitrary proccdurcs (c.g. a'l'ul-ing rnachinc) would not bc intcrcsting as the
use of arbitrary procedures (e.g. a Turing machine) would not be interesting as the
basis of a tllcory bccausc all that it woi~ld cxplain would be that languagc
hasis of a theory hecause all that it would explain would be that language
production was ~ [ l t n p ~ ~ t a bsomctliing
lc:
wc alrcady bclicvc. Wc must look instcad
production was computable: something we already believe. We must look instead
for the wcakcst modcl Illat can d o tlic work: n modcl from whosc computational
for the weakest model that can do the work: a model from whose computational
propcrtics thc charactcrisrics of ht~manIangtiagc production wolrld inexorably
properties the characteristics of human language production would inexorably
foltow. I3y doing his, by rcslricting thc kinds of bchavior that our 1nodcI is
follow, By doing this, by restricting the kinds of behavior that our model is
capablc of, wc can cxtract non-trivial predictions from it and rnakc it subject to
capable of, we can extract non-trivial predictions from it and make it suhject to
empirical tests.'
em pirical tests. 1
4.3.1.

4.3.1. C'l~anlcterisingthc I'roblc~n

Charart~riling

the I)roblem

c
solving uhcn wc talk? "'l'alking" is
What conipurationi~lproblcrn is ~ h mind
What compU'lational problem is the mind solving when we t..lk? "Talking" is
of course a loose tcnn i~scdlo covcr miiny kinds of actiritics, cacll likcly to have its
of course a loose tenn used to cover many kinds of activities. each likely to have its
own rcquircn~cnlsin prtccssing timc. ncccssary mcmory, possibilities for editing.
own requirements in processing time. necessary memory, possibilities for editing,
or coi~scious involvcn~cnt. Wc know intuitively that thcrc is an cnormous
or co'nscious involl'ement. We know intuitively that there is an enormous
differcncc in bchavior bctwccn, say. writing a carcful cssay and holding a f u n y
difference in behavior between, say. writing a careful essay and holding a fuzzy
conversation over brcakfslst; so much so h a t thcrc is little rcason to bclicvc a
conversation over breakfast; so much so that there is little reason to believe a
privri that thcy posc idcritical problcms to thc human spcaker. In thc prcscnt
priori that they pose identical problems to the human speaker. In the present
rcscarch, I havc ficuscd on itj~nlcdia~c
speech, spoken (or writtcn) without
research, I have focused on immediate speech, spoken (or written) without
rchcarsal and with only a rough conscious knowlcdgc of what will bc said next.
rehearsal and with only a rough conscious knowledge of what will be said next.
'Il~crcis introspcctivc cvidcncc to suggcst that this modc of spccch is primary
cnlerc is introspective evidence to suggest that this mode of speech is primary
sincc cvcn in dclibcratc writing whcrc thcrc is amplc opportunity for editing and
since even in deliberate writing where there is ample opportunity for editing and
planning, it is thc common cxpcricncc that phrases and cvcn multiplc scnlcnces
planning, it is the common experience that phrases and e\'cn mul~iple sentences
"spring to mind" as immcdiatc pcrccpts without any conscious cffort having been
"spring to mind" as immediate percepts without any conscious effort having been
madc to fonn thcm from thcir constitucnt parts.
made to fonn thcm from their constituent parts.
Givcn this restriction on tllc modc of spccch to bc considcrcd, I take thc core
Given this restriction on the mode of speech to be considered, I take the core
of the "problem" for thc mind to bc thc re-cxprcssion of a dcli~nitcd,dclibcratcly
of thc "problem" for the mind to be the re-expression of a delimited, deliberately
sclcctcd "packcr" of information (including rcfcrcnccs, propositions, dcscriptions,
selected "packet" of information (induding references, proposilions, descriptions,
and probably spccitic rhclorical instructions) from its original form in the mind's
and probably speci fie rhetorical instructions) from its original form in the mind's
1. Ncithcr of which 1 inlcnd to do in this paper. As will bc clear. Lhc modcl alrcady mccls a number
1. Neither
of which Ipsychological
intend to do crileria
in this paper.
will be clear,
!he model
mcets
number
of "obv~ous"
such a\As
scqucnlial
produclion
and alrcady
indclibilily
(scca also
[Ucbnald
of "ohvious"
psychological
criteria such
a, sequential
production
and
indelihility
also (McDonald
19801).
11s lirsl non-obvious
applicalion
is cxpcc~cd
to bc in
a thcory
of Lhc(sec
mcchanisms
bchind certain
19HO]l. lis
lirst non-obvious
applicalion
is expected
to he cxchanp
in a theorycrrors
of theand
mechanisms
bchind
rertain19801 for
naturalty
occurring "spcch
crrors",
paflicularlp
blends. (Sw
[Garrc~t
naturallyanoccurring
errors",
parlicularly exchange
errors
and blends.
(Garrell 19&Oj for
ex~cnsive"speech
descrip~ion
01speech-errors.)
Ihis work,
however,
is still inIScc
progress
an extensive description of speech-errors.) lbis work, however, is still in progress.

McDonald

224

internal rcprcscntation
representation into a constrained.
intcrnal
constraincd. fixed-format
fixed-format language (e.g.
(c.g. English)
accurding
mapping.
according to a fixed.
fixcd, context-free,
contcxt-frcc, cunventional
convcnti~rnalmapping.
4.3.2, Lanpuapc
Language Generation
nedsionmaking
4.3.2.
Ccncr~tionas 1)ccision-mnking
What arc to bc
Uic primitive operations
operations of tlic
modcl-at what "grain size"
be the
the model-at
the gcncration
generation proccss?
process? Following
Followiog thc
the lead
will it characterile
charactcrilc thc
lcad of systemic
systemic
grammarians
lialliday [Halliday
19661 and Winograd [Winograd
19721, 1I
grammarians such as Halliday
IHalliday 1966)
IWinograd 1972].
vicw
uutpt~tofdle
of Ulc pr(rcss-the
view thc
the output
process-the natural languagc
language tcxt-;IS
text-as thc
the rcsult
result of
nfaa series
of decisions,
dccisions, the
thc set
sct of
~ r fpossible consistent decisions
dccisions hcing
dctcrmincd by the
being determined
langui~gc's
grammar. The
'lhc most rclcvant
aspccts of a generator
gcncrator will thcn
langUilgc's grammar.
relevant aspects
then be how it
gocs
goes about making those dccisions.
decisions. which is what thc
the thcory
theory is to dctcnninc. In
p;~rticular:
(I) wli;~t
dccisions arc to be
bc made,
madc. what prompts them
thcm and
particular: (1)
what kinds of decisions
what is the
thc nature of Uicir
(rt~tput:(2)
( 2 ) what
dccisions
tllCir output;
whal kinds of ink~rmation
information thc
the decisions
informatil~nwill vary in its accessibility
acccssihility and fonn
form according
according
rcquirc
require and how that information
process; (3)
~ hat dependencies
there arc bctwccn
between decisions
Uic slate
statc of the proccss:
(3) uliat
dcpcndcncics thcrc
decisions and
to d,e
they influence
innucncc the overall
made
ovcrall control stmcture
structure (c.g.
(c.g. arc decisions
dccisions madc
how thcy
n~ndctcnninistically
ordcrcd?): (4)
(1) to what extent
cxtcnt the
nondetenninistieally or arc tlicy
they ncccssarily
necessarily ordered?);
rcsulw
dccisions and the foreknowledge
firrcknowlcdge of planncd
dccisions are a
resullS of prcvious
previous decisions
planned decisions
represented
part of d,e
UIC generator's
gcncrator's state,
state, i.e.
i.c. is this kiod
kind of iofOlmation
infolrnation explicitly
cxplicitly rcprcscntcd
and accessible
currcnt decision-makers?
decision-makcn?
acccssiblc to currenl

4.3.3.
4.3.3. Rcstrictions
Restrictions on tl~c
the hlodcl
Model

Given
problem of translating
packet of expressinns/instructions
translating a packct
cxprcssions/instructions into a
Givcn d,e
tl~cproblcm
highly constrained,
arnstraincd, fixed
fixcd format language
language given a context-free
contcxt-free mapping (i.e.
(it. the
arc many known ways we could usc
use to solve it:
translation dictionary),
dictionary), there <Irc
uptimizcrs that worked
workcd on whole
Approaches liavc
have ranged from nondctcrministic
nondeterministic optimizers
paragraph-siled tcxts
texts at once
paragraph-sizcd
oncc (Moore
[Moorc 1981).
19811. to programs that have attempted to
model strcamof-consciousncss
were liahlc
liahle to intcrn~pt
intcrnlpt thcmsclvcs
themselves with new
modcl
strcam-of-c(rn~-iousncssand wcrc
phrase [Clippinger
cvery phrasc
[Clippingcr 1978).
19781. All approaches
approachcs have in
plans or constraints at every
commoo
the
notion
that
the
input
packet
or
"message"
will
be
thc
packct "mcssagc"
bc decomposed
dccomposcd into
common thc
looked up in thc
the dictionary
its component
componcnt clements;
clcmcnts: that the clements
clctncnts will be
bc lookcd
dictionary and
contcxt-scnsitivc decision
dccision made
madc as to how they
Uicy can bc
rcali~cdin the
UIC mget
a context-sensitive
be realized
target
language; and that these
the constraints of thc
the grammar
languagc;
thcsc realizations.
rcalintions. subject
subjcct to thc
message. arc
are picccd
pieced togcthcr
together into Uic
dlC uttcrancc.
utterance. The
and the overall goals
goals of the mcssagc,
nearly every
utterance to
approaches
approachcs ddiffer
i f i r in ncarly
cvcry other
othcr aspect,
aspect, e.g.
c.g. how large
largc an uttcrancc
eoostruct
once. how to control
the process and ordcr
order thc
the decisions,
dccisions, or how to
construct at oncc.
control thc
represent the grammar and implement
rcprcscnt
implcmcnt its constraints.
constraints.
In the interests
candidates. and becausc
because I bclicve
believe that
interests of narrowing the field
ficld of candidatcs,

225
thc resulting modcl is both Inarc perspicuous to the cnginccr and more interesting
the resulting model is both more perspicuous to the engineer and more interesting
to the psychologist, thc following additional computational li~nitationshave bcen
to the psychologist, the following additional computational limitations have been
stipulalcd in my thcory.
stipulated in my theory.
On-lint Operation
Thc input message is vicwcd by thc linguistic component
On'line Operation
The input mes.<;age is viewed by the linguistic component
as a strcnln of clcmcnts, thc spccific ordcr and chunking of the "mcssagc
as a stream of clements. the specific order and chunldng of the "message
clcrncns" bcing dictalcd by thc dictionary cntries dcsigncd for that particular
clements" being dictated by the dictionary entries designed for that particular
domain. 'I'hc co~nponcntinay bc conceptually (though not literally) dccomposcd
domain. The component may be conceptually (though not literally) decomposed
cers
tngcthcr. thc first taking thc nrxt clcmcnt of the
into /H-O t r a ~ ~ ~ d t ~ cascadcd
into IH'O transducers cascaded together. the first taking the n-ext clement of the
mcssagc strcam and converting it into a surfiicc structurc phrasc atcachcd to the
message stream and converting it into a surface structure phrase attached to the
trcc at thc point whcrc thc mcssagc clcmcnt was, and thc sccond thcn trakersing
tree at the point where the message element was. and the second then tra\ersing
that phrase and producing thc text from it (scc sccrion 4.1 bclow). '[he two
that phrase and producing the text from it (see section 4.1 below), The two
transducers arc constr;iincd to opcratc "on-linc", that is, thc output from thc first
transducers arc constrained to operate "on-line". that is, the Olllput from the first
transduccr must bc co~npletelyconsumcd by thc sccc~ndbcforc tllc first transduccr
transducer must be completely consumed by the second before the first transducer
movcs on thc ncxt mcssagc clcmcnt at the samc levcl.
moves on the next message clement at the same level.

lntlelihility
'lhc decisions of the first, "rcalizing" transduccr arc exhaustively
Indelibility
'Ihe decisions of the first, "realizing" transducer are exhaustively
rcprcsc~ltedin t l ~ csurfi~ccstnlcturc phrascs that it products. 'l'hc ;stions of the
represented in the surface structure phrases that it produces. 'lhe actions of the
second, "trcc-walking" transduccr arc thcn co~nplctclydictatcd by the structurc
second, "tree-walking" transducer are then completely dictated by the structure
and arinotation of thosc phrascs. Slrt$lr.e lrnrcrure is indelible. i.e. once a phrase
and al)notation of those phrases. .",'lIIface slruclure is indelible. Le. once a phrase
has bccn constnlctcd i~ndincorporated into thc ongoing surfacc structure trcc, it
has been constructed Olnd incorporated into the ongoing surface structure tree, it
can not bc rcmovcd o r cditcd (though it may bc augmcntcd). As a conscqilcnce of
can not be removed or edited (though it may be augmented), As a consequence of
indelibility and thc fiict that thc surfacc structilrc is organized as a strict trce
indelibility and the fact that the surface structure is organized as a strict tree
without loops. thc p r o m s will not bdckup-it is iinpossihlc to rctravcrsc carlier
without loops. the process will not bdtkup-it is impossihle to retraverse earlier
scctions of thc trcc oncc Ihc rcalizing transduccr has past through thcm. (Ihis
sections of the tree once the realizing transducer has past through them. (lbis
samc stipulation has bccn applied to thc recognition of phrascs by a parser
same stipulation has been applied to the recognition of phrases by a parser
[Marcus 19801 with intriguing results,)
[Marcus 1980] with intriguing results.)

Decisions may only makc rcfcrcnce to contcxtual information that is

1,ocality
Locality
Decisions may only make reference to contextual information that is
local to lhcm at rhc position within lhc trcc whcrc they occur. 'Ihcrc is no
local to them at the position within the tree where they occur. 'Iberc is no
mechanism availablc in the modcl that would allow a dccision to scan t i ~ ctrcc for
mechanism available in the model that would allow a decision to scan the tree for
information; all potentially rclcvant infimnation must be cxprcssly recognized as
information; all potentially relevant information must be expressly recognized as
s~.rchand spccific provisions msdc in tlie grammar to makc i~ availablc to dccisionsuch and specific provisions made in the grammar to make it available to decisionmakers vid locally dcfincd and t~pdatcdvariiiblcs. 'I'hc crrcct of this stipulation is
makers via locally defined and updated vari<lbles. The effect of this stipulation is
to rcstrict thc inforrndtion availsblc for a dccision to n o marc Lhan would be
to restrict the in formation available for a decision to no more than would be
availablc to a parscr using an I,l.(O) grammar.
available to a parser using an L1.(O) grammar.

McDonald

226

Rcal-time
?hc ovcriill pl-t~cssmust pcrforn~its computations in qrtusi-real
Real-time
The ovef;lll process must perform its computations in quasi-real
titue: that is. thc numbcr of opcrntions that takc placc bctwccn thc consumption of
ti/llC': that is, the number of operations that take place between the consumption of
any onc mcsslgc clc~ncnrin thc stream and thc ncxt 01-bc~wccnLhc output of two
anyone message elemelll in the stream and the next or between the Olltput of two
succcssivc words must bc no grciitcr than sornc fixcd maxi~nuttiunrclarcd to the
successive words must be no greater than some fixcd maximum unrelated to the
si7.c of thc input or output strcams. 'Ihis is a slrongcr ti~ncbound that rhc usual
size of the input or Olltput streams. This is a stronger time bound that the usual
onc of lincar timc. ;~ndrcflccrs thc intuition tliat thc prtxcss always procccds at a
one of linear time. and reflects the intuition that the process always proceeds at a
constant rate.
constant rate.

4.4. 'I'l~cRcletionsl~ipIlclsccn thc Spcakcr and thc I.inguistics Component

4.4. The Relationship Between the Speaker ~lnd the Linguistics Component
4.4,l. 'hlcssagrs'
4.4.1, 'Messages'
If thc linkistic componcnt was uscd with only onc spcakcr/cxpcrt program, thcn
If the linguistic component was used with only one speaker/expert program, then
thcrc w o ~ ~ lbc
d no nccd for an clnbor;~tc intcrfacc bclwccn thc two: all of the
there would he no need for an elaborate interface between the two: all of the
spc;tkcr's convcntions and thc linguistic co~nponcnt's convcntions could be
speaker's conventions and the linguistic component's conventions could be
irltcgratcd and the responsibility Tor obcying thcm distributcd cvcnly in a scamlcss
integrated and the responsibility for obeying them distributed evenly in a seamless
nlcrgcr of thc ~ w odccision-tnakcrs, Explicit lncssagcs (and thus convcntions for
merger of the two decision-makers. Explicit messages (and thus conventions for
rcprcscnting mcssagcs) would bc nccdcd only whcn it was llcccssary to rcprcscnt
representing messages) would he needed only when it was necessary to represent
gmls thi~trcfcrrcd ro thc mcssilgc itsclf (such as "don't bc long-windcd" or "don't
goals that referred to the message itsclf(such as "don't he long-winded" or "don't
usc technical vocabulary"). Ijut of coursc thc oppositc is true: thcrc arc many
usc technical vocabulary"). But of course the opposite is twe: there arc many
qualilativcly difircnt cxpcrt prognms to bc linkcd with a common gcncrator;
qualitatively diflhent expert progr:lms to be linked with a common generator;
conscqucntly, dic linguistic componcnt is a distinct modulc cotnputationally as
consequently, the linguistic component is a distinct module computationally as
wclt as conccptui~lly. and a uniform intcrfacc is rcqi~ircd to smooth over the
well as conceptually, and a unifonn interface is required to smooth over the
diffcrcnccs bctwccn domains.
differences betwcen domains.
Functionally, thc linguistic componcnt lics on Bic path bctwccn the speaker
Functionally, the linguistic component lies on the path between the speaker
and its audicncc. 'Thc spcakcr dccidcs what it wants to say. constructs a
and its audience. The speaker decides what it wants to say, constructs a
rcprcscntation of its goals and rcfcrcnccs-a messageand passcs it to the
representation of its goals and references-a message-and passes it to the
linguistic componcnt. l'his transfer of an cxplicit cxprcssion is rcquircd simply
linguistic component. This transfer of an explicit expression is required simply
bccausc thc linguistic componcnt is no1 tclcpathic: it docs not automatically know
because the linguistic component is not telepathic: it docs not automatically know
what a spcakcr will want to say. nor. sincc it works with many spcakcrs, can it CVEn
what a speaker will want to say, nor, since it works with many speakers. can it even
have npriorr assumptiolls about thc kind of things that arc going to be said or how
have a priOrI assumptions about the kind of things Ulat arc going to be said or how
thcy will bc rcprcscntcd internally in rhc spcakcr/cxpcrt program. Ihcsc must
Uley will be represented internally in the speaker/expert program. These must
instcad bc spcllcd out (1) in thc diciiotran which holds Llic infortnation on how to
instead be spelled out (1) in the dictionary, which holds the information on how to
intcrprct thc cxpcrt's rcprcscntatjon c!cmcnt by clcmcnt lo dctcrnlinc its linguistic
interpret the expert's representation clement by clement 10 determine its linguistic
corrcspondcnccs and rclcvant substructurc, and (2) in a sct of itlrerface funclions,
correspondences and relevant substructure, and (2) in a set of interface functions,
which know (a) how to link up an individual clcmcnt of a rncssage to the
which know (a) how to link up an individual clement of a message to the
appropriate dictionary cntry, and (b) how to answcr certain idiosyncratic linguistic
appropriate dictionary entry, and (b) how to answer certain idiosyncratic linguistic
questions for the mcssagc clcmcnls such as rhcir "pcrson and numbcr" or whcther
questions for the message clements such as their "person and number" or whether
thcy act as rcfcrcnccs or dcscriplions.
they act as references or descriptions.

227

Dot11 thc dictionary and thc intcrfacc hnctions must be specifically dcsigncd
Both the dictionary and the interface functions must be specifically designed
for cach ncw spcakcr/cxpcrt program; [hcy arc thc repository of all the
for each new speaker/expert program; they arc the repository of all the
information I-cquircd to adapt dlc linguistic cornponcnt to such ncw domains.
in formation required to adapt th{; linguistic component to such new domains,
Givcn this niodularity, cspccially thc htnctional intcrfacc, wc can bc flcxiblc about
Given this modularity, especially the functional interface, we can be nexible about
thc clioicc of foi.m;rl rcprcscntntion for a mcssagc; we can usc whatever
the choice of formal representation for a message; we can usc whatever
rcprcsc~ltation is convcnicnt for Lhc spci~kcr's planning, typically the
representation is convenient for the speaker's planning, typically the
rcprcscntation uscd in LIic cxpcrt program (c.p. iis dcscribcd in section 1.1).
representation used in the expert program (e.g. as described in section I.l).
'I'hcrc is no prcsu~nptionthat rncssagcs should rcsult in tcxls of ally fixcd size.
There is no presumption that messages should result in texts of any fixed size.
With dic p r c s c ~ rcst
~ t spcakcrs, singlc mcssagcs havc produccd rcxts ranging from
With the presei1t test speakers, single messages have prodlll.:ed textS ranging from
singlc cxcli~niationsto n~ulti-paragraphdiscourscs. Ncithcr d o incssagcs havc to
single exchllllations to multi-paragraph discourses. Neither do messages have to
bc cqiialcd with turns in a conversation siiicc tllc liilguistic state of t l ~ ccornponcnt
be equated with turns in a conversation since the linguistic state of the component
is prcscrvcd bctwccn i~ctivationsand (I tcxt ciln bc "pickcd up ~ ~ l i citr cIcR off'.
is preserved between activations and a text can be "picked up where it left off',
Stri~cturnlly.mcsmgcs ha\c fi~tlcninto two broad classcs. 'Ihc simplcst just
Structurally, messages have fallen into two broad classes. The simplest just
consist uf'prc-cxisting cxprcssions wkcn dircctly from thc cxycrt's data b;ac. (All
cnnsist of pre-existing expressions taken directly from the expert's data base. (All
of thc ct)mplctcd tcst spcakcrs fcll into h i s class.) 'I'lic data basc cxprcssions
of the completed test speakers fell into this class.) The data base expressions
hcco~nc"instructions for w11at 10 say" ~ l ~ r o t ~(hc
g l ii n t c r ~ ~ ~ ' ~ t ;pmvidcd
~ t i o n by their
become "instructions for what 1O say" through the interpretation provided by their
dictionary cntrics, a i d tllc rcsult is a fairly litcral rcndcring of thc cxprcssion, the
dictionary entries, and the result is a fairly literal rendcring of the expression, the
structilrc of thc output tcxt following tllc co~npositionalstntcturc of thc input
structure of the Olltput text following tile compositional structure of tile input
cxprcssion. 1.-igurc 4 bcluw shows an cxi~mpkcxprcssion from Winston's data
exprc~sion. Figure 4 beluw shows an example expression from Winston's data
hasc of Shakcspcariiln ],lays (givc~iin 1;kI.) followcd by tllc tcxt that Ihc linguistic
base of Shakespearian pl<JYs (given in FRI.) followed by Ule text that the linguistic
program gcncratcs for it using tllc dictionary fi)r h a t domain.
program generates for it using tile dictionary for that domain.
In a simplc "dircct translation" mcssagc such as this. Ihc linguistic component
[n a simple "direct translation" message such as this, tile linguistic component
has somc ability to simplify and smooth Lhc tcxt by following dchult nhcs keyed
has some ability to simplify and smooth the text by following dcfhult rules keyed
by rhc Iucal linguistic structurc as thc tcxt is built; howcvcr, all of the choiccs of
by the local linguistic structure as the text is built; however, all of the choices of
ordcring and lcvcl of' dctajl arc fixcd by thc intcrnal structurc of thc data base
ordering and level of detail arc fixed by the internal structure of the data base
cxprcssion. Sincc rhc structurc of thc d a b basc is dctcrmincd by whatcver is
expression. Since the structure of the data base is detcnnined by whatever is
convcnicnt for the cxpcrt's intcl-nal co~nputationsrathcr than by considerations of
convenient for the expert's internal computations rather Ulan by considerations of
tcxt planning. mcssagcs of this sort arc ncccssarily Iirnircd in Ihc applicability.
text planning, messages of this sort arc necessarily limited in the applicability,
(Scc [Swartout 19811 for an extcnsivc discussion of this problcrn.)
(Sec [Swartout 1981] for an extensive discussion ofthis problem.)

228

McDlInald

(ma ( a k o (story))
(rna (aka (story
(part (macbeth)
(part (macbeth)
( l a d y - m a c beth)
(lady-mac
beth)
(duncan)
(duncan)
(macduff))
(macduff))(heath-scene)
(subpart
(su bpa rt (heath-scene)
(mu r d e r - s c e n e )
(mu rderscene)
(battle-scene)))
(battle-scene)))

"'Macbclh' is a slory. I t has four charactcrs: Macbcth, Lady Mncbcth.

'''Macbeth' is a story. It has four characters: Macbeth, Lady Macbeth,
and thrcc sccncs: thc hcath sccnc. h c murder
I>uncan. and Macl)~~ff,
Duncan, and MacDufT. and three scenes: the heath scene, the murder
sccnc, and thc 1);lttIc sccnc."
scene, and the battle scene."
1:igurc 4 A Simplc Mcssagc and Its Output
Figure 4 A Simple Message and Its Output
I h c sccond class of mcssagcs arc thosc that arc dclibcratdy planncd by the
The second class of messages arc those that arc deliberately planned by the
spcakcr and involve rcl;ltinns nmollg the cxpcrt's cxprcssions that arc spccific.to
speaker and in volve relations among the ex pen's expressions that arc specific.to
tliat spccch cvont 2nd may involvc spccial rhctorical relations (instructions to the
Lfut speech event ilnd may involve special rhetorical relations (instructions to the
li~?guisliccomponcnt) that have no counterpart cl~cwhcrcin the cxpcrt. 'lhe
linguistic component) that have no counterpart elsewhere in the expert. The
formal structure of thcsc lncssagcs will again be whatevcr is convenient
formal structure of these messages will again be whatever is convenient
compu~rion;~lly
rr~rthc dcsiglicr of thc spcakcr componcnt. typically an cxtcnsion
computationally for the designer of the speaker component, typically an extension
or the rcprcscntation alrcady in usc in thc cxpcrt, with the intcrfacc hnctions
of the representation already in usc in the expert, with the interface functions
adaptcd to match. Figurc 5 shows a handcr;iftcd cxarnplc of a planncd mcssage in
adapted to match. Figure 5 shows a handcrafted example of a planned message in
Winston's domain. 'I'hc dc~clopmcnt of planning programs that can take
Winston's domain. The development of planning programs that can talee
advantagc of tfic abstract planning vocabulary diat a linguistic componcnt such as
advantage of the abstract planning vocabulary that a linguistic component such as
this onc can support (e.g. instructions likc "focus", "scqucnce", or "constrast";
this aile call support (e.g. instructions like "focus", "sequence", or "constrast";
notc for cxarnplc that thc scntcncc structurc of thc output text was dctcnnined
note fbr example that the sentence structure of the output text was determined
dynan~icallyby tlic linguistic componcnt rather than givcn in thc message) is &he
dynamical1y by the linguistic component rather than given in the message) is the
subjcct of on-going rcscarch by thc author and others, cspccially [Cohcn 1978;
SUbject of on-going research by the author and others, espccial1y [Cohen 1978;
McKcown 19801. Expcrimcntal mcssagcs such as thc one in Figurc 5 arc aimcd at
McKeown 1980J. Experimental messages such as the one in Figure 5 ar~ aimed at
dctcrmining what dcgrcc of rhctorical abstraction is plausible and how much
determining what degree of rhetorical abstraction is plausible and how much
forcknowlcdgc of llic linguistic propcrtics of cxpcn's cxprcssions is rcquircd in
forclcnowledge of the linguistic properties of experrs expressions is required in
planning at this lcvcl. 'Ihat 3 planner can in fact bc dcsigncd at this lcvcl of
planning at this level. That a planner can in fact be designed at this level of
modularity that will producc indclibly rcalijl~blcmcssagcs is a hypothesis that
modularity that will produce indelibly realil.able messages is a hypothesis that
undcrjdcs most o f the work on this linguistics componcnt
underidcs most of the work on this linguistics component.

229

(message1
(message1
(sequence
(sequence
(rnacbeth (murder (duncan))) :*5nurderma"
(mac beth (m u rde r (duncan))) ;"mlmfe,.ma"
(rnacbeth (become (king))) :",no-becomeking"
(mac beth (become (king))) ;"ma-become-king"
(lady-macbeth
(lady-macbeth
(persuade (mac beth (action murder-ma)))) ;"pemadrma"
(pe(lady-macbeth
rsuade (m ac beth
mu rde rma)))
;"penuadc-ma"
(hq(action
(ambitious))))
:"ombi~iovslm"
(lady-mac
beth
(hq
(am
bitious))))
;
"ambiliou:rlm "
(time-f rame (before-time-of-speech))
(time-f(focus
rame (befo
re-time-ofspeee h))
(macbeth))
(focu s(ancillary-facts
(macbeth))
(anc i lIaryfacts
((murder-ma (motive (ma-become-king)))
((mu rde
r-ma (motive (purpose
(rna. become-king)))
(cause (murder-ma)))))))
(persuade-ma
(persuadema (purpose (cause (murder-rna))))))

"Macbcth murdcrcd Ilnncan in ordcr to bccomc king. lie was

"Macbeth murdered Duncan in order to become king. He was
pcrsuadcd to du it by I .ady Macbcth who was ambitious."
persuaded to do it by I.ady Macbeth who was ambitious."
Figi~rc5 A Ylanncd Mcssage
Figure 5 A Planned Message
In summary, what mattcrs ahout a lncssagc is not thc notation that is uscd but
[n summary, what matters ahout a message is not the notation that is used but
what it specifics and what it Icavcs to dcfault. 'I'hc strtlcrurc of thc mcssagc (as
what It specifics and what it lcmes to default. The structure of the message (as
intcrprctcd by thc dictionary) dircctly dcrermincs thc ordcr in which the
interpreted by the dictionary) directly detennines the order in which the
linguistics cornponcnt will brcak it down and rcalizc its clcmcnts; in simple
linguistics component will break it down and realize its clements; in simple
spcaking situations, litcral cxprcssions from thc cxpcrt's data base may bc the best
speaking situations, literal expre~si()ns from the expert's data base may be the best
mcssagcs-implicitly wrapped in Ihc dircctivc "dcscribc these objccts and
messages-implicitly wrapped in the directive "describe these objects and
rcbtions"; howcvcr. as thc situations bccomc morc complcx and lcss prcdictable,
relations"; however, as the situations become more complex and less predictable,
a full-scale, rhetorically knowlcdgcablc planncr will bc nccdcd to compose
a full-scale, rhetorically knowledgeable planner will be needed to compose
mcssagcs as thc spcakcr's goals and discoursc context dc~nand.
messages as the speaker's goals and discourse context demand.
4.4.2. Run-time Relationships

From rhc point of vicw of the spcaker/cxpcrt program, thc linguistics cornponcnt
From the point of view of the speaker/expert program, the linguistics component
is a subrou~ine. a subprr~cssthat thc spcakcr explicitly aclivatcs to rccr1iz.e an
is a subroutine, a subprocess that the speaker explicitly activates to realil.e an
individual rncssagc. I t is only activatablc by Ihc spczrkcr, i.e. it has no indcpcndcnt
individual message. It is only aClivatable by U1C speaker, i.c. it has no independent
cxistcncc as a parallcl prtrcss (though thc history of thc discoursc is conliguous
existence as a parallel process (though the history of the discourse is contiguous
across activations), and oncc activatcd runs to complclion indcpcndcntly of thc
across activations), and once activated runs to completion independently of the
rcst of thc systcm. 16 iiltcrnal state is a black-box, not dcsigncd to bc monitored,
rest of the system. ItS internal state is a black-box, not designed to be monitored,
intcrruptcd, or cditcd (thuugh it could bc "shut-off' and complctcly rcstancd).
interrupted, or edited (thuugh it could be "shut-off' and completely restarted).

McDonald

230

I Speaker-Export-program I
A

fif'F

c{b

;a "message"

**c?

B*' 7 E*'?

..

1 me
Time--

" "

***rcalized

.,.

1
It

If

\ff
It

"

Linguistic
Li nguistic
component
component

...

I1

Audience
Audience

~ realizedtirit yct rcalixcd

.. not yet rca I'lr.e d

Figure 6 A Sketch of the Rlln-timc Rc1mionships

l l ~ o u g indcpcndcl~tlp
l~
ct~l~tr.trllcd,
thc lin~uislic ctunponcnc is not cut o f f from
"1llOugh independcntly confrollcd, Ihe Ijn~l1isl ic component is not cut otT from
Ihc spcakcr wllilc it is ]>i~occssiug.I'i2ui.r: G sllo\vs dingr;~mmatic:~llyhow ttle
the ~peakcr whilc it is proCC~Sil1g. Figui\~ 6 shows diagr;nnmarically how the
comporicnt may ;it HII); poi111 ilsk tlic S P C ; I ~ C L .qucs[i(~~ls
;1110111 ;I specific 1ncss;Ige
component may at any point ask the speaker questions ;lbollt it specific message
1i11guislic;lliy(for
clclncrit in ordcr to dcrcrrnir~ch c t s tliiit arc o n l y i;i~poi,t:~~~t
clement in order to dc[crrnillC filcts thdt an~ only important linguistically (for
cxn~ilj>lc"pcrson" and "nu~nbcr") or 10 cipply tlo:r~:~i~l-h;l:;cd
tcsts to some
example "person" and "number") or to ~lppJy dOiTwin-ba:;ed tests to some
clcmcnt, in crfcct cxrcr:iling dlc nlcssngc. 111Lhc figi11.c.Lllc nicss;;:gcis rcduccd to
c!cmen!, in effect extcnding tile lTlesr,age. In 111C figure. the mesS<lgc is reduced to
its csscntials: 2 conipositc rul;~~ir~ii
orcr ol>jc.c~ssclcclcd tly (lie spcakcr/cxpcrt
its essentials: a composite rc1aLtllll over objcClS ~clCClCd by thc speaker/expert
progt.;tol (LC. A ( R(C,D), E, F)). Wc $cc it bl.okcn dosivnwitliil~dtc linguistic
program (i.e. A( O(C,O), E, F. We sec it brdCll (11)\\'n within the linguistic
compojrcnt Idycr by !nycr s ~ ~ r ~ ~i ni tg h
thc riwl rcliitlo11 A, B and E havc bucn
component layer by laycr sl.:.11"ling \\ lth the mot re!<tLJon A, Band E have been
rcfcr'rcd back to thc spc;~kcrfor fu:if~or clal~orntiori.wllilc T: i~iidtllco 0 wcre
n:fc!Teu back to the spcakCT for funhcf elaboration, while r- aill! 111CIl 0 were
rralii.cd dircclly in I.'riglish (indic;:tcd as It..." 111 lllc f7g1il.c).'l'lic spcakcr is
realized directly in Ellgli~h (inl!ical('d ;IS "... " ill the fig1:!"c). The >jwakcr is
ncccssiblc co!~tinuo~~sly,
but tlic tirrii~~g
nnil tlic co~nl~ulatiutial
co~ltcstin wl~ichit
a("ce~;sihle continuously, but I.he timing and the complll,ltioJ1:l1 context ill which it
is actually colu;~~ltcrl
arc dict:ltc11 cntircly I)y tlio lingl~istic: co~i~j~tincnt.
is actually con:;ultcd arc dictated entirely by the lingui,( Ie component.
l ' l ~ c spcnkcr has ~ i ocoiitrol o\cr Llic dclions of lllc li~~guistic
cr~lnponent
The Spl\lkcr has no control o\er the ;lCtions of the lingnistlc COll 1PQllcnt
t l ~ cspci~kcrconlinucs Lo bc aclivc
bcyond s~rpplyj~ig
it will: mcsu;l9cs; ivlic~hc~.
beYllnd slirplying it wi1l1 mcs~gcs; whether the spt'(lkcr continues to be aClive

231
wl~ilcthc componcnt is opcrating is not important to thc theory. Whcthcr it
while the component is operating is not important to the theory. Whether it
should have thc ability lo interrupt Lhc linguistic componcnt and rcstart it.
should have the ability to interrupt the linguistic component and restart it.
pcrliaps in rcaction to what it hc,~rswhilc "listcning" to Ihc ctrmponcnt's output, is
perhaps in reaction to what it heilrs while "listening" to the component's output, is
a qucstion wc will lcavc opcn. 'I'hcrc arc somc cvcnrt~alitics(such as structural
it question we will leave open. There are some evenlllalities (such as structural
:tmhigiiitics) that arc difficult to fi~rcsccwhcn rcidizing a nlcssilgc via a linguistic
ambiguities) that arc difficult to foresee when realizing a message via a linguistic
colnponcnt of this dcsign. and thcrc arc also potcntinl divisiotis ofcfiwt within thc
component of lIlis design. and there arc also potential divisions of e!Tort within the
spcakcr's ptanni~igprtccss wliicli [night bcncfit from a "fccdhack" dcsign of this
speaker's planning process ",hich might benefit from a "feedback" design of this
sort. Ilcforc dcvclopi~lgs~lcha dcsign. howcwr. it is critical to have a clcar
sort. Before developing such a design. however. it is critical to have a clear
understanding of thc kinds of linguistic information that arc n3turiilly available at
understanding of thi.:' kinds of linguistic information that arc nMurally aVJilable at
difrcrc~itstagcs in !hc prnd~~ction
prtxcss ;und of how thcy rclutc 10 thc vtxiibulary
di !Terent stages in the prodllction process and of how they relate to the vocabulary
c ~ fthc spcilkcr's pl;~nningprtrc~:ss-onc of'thc primc conccnis of m y rcscarch.
(If the speaker's planning process-one of the prime concerns of my research.
(Clippingcr i113d Ilrown [Clippingcr 1975, 1978 ; I<.Iir.own 19731 dcvclopcd a
(Clippinger and Brown [Clippinger 1975. 1978 ; R.Brown 1973] developed a
~ n t ~ dof
c l tlic production of psychodnalytic disct~ul'scthiit madc critical use of such
model (If the production of psychoanalytic discourse that made critical usc of such
ii fccdback dcsign, with ~ h cresult that it was ablc l o producc very natural
a feedhack design. with the result that it was able to produce very natural
hesitations and rcstarts in its monologue.)
hesitations and restarts in its monologue.)
4.5. 'I'hc Inlcrnal Struclurc of l l ~ e1,inguistic Con~ponent
4.5. The Internal Structure of the Linguistic Component
4.5.1. 'h casc;~dcof t\ro transducers
4.5.1. ',\ cascade of lI\O tr:lI1sduccrs
As a n automaton, tllc linguistic colnponcnt is bcst dcscribcd as ~ w ocascaded
As an automaton. the linguistic component is best described as two cascaded
of a sit~glr,dnra-dir~credcor~lroller.
rmt~scfucersfolded logelher utlder (he can~?iatid
transducers folded together under the command ofa singlr, data-directed CUI/troller.
'Illc first transduccr goes from the mcssige lo a surface structure Icvcl linguistic
'Ille first transducer goes from the message to a surface structure level linguistic
rcprcscntation of thc uttcrancc to bc produced-the "working" data structure of
representation of lIle utterance to be produced-the "working" data structure of
the linguistic cornponcnt-and
thc sccond gacs from Ihc surfacc structure
the linguistic component-and the sccond goes from the surface structure
praduccd by thc first to I'nglish tcxt. (Scc thc skclch in figure 7.)
produced by the first to English text. (See the sketch in figure 7.)
The "decisions", whosc dispositions are so important to this theory, arc made
The "decisions". whose dispositions are so important to lIlis theory, are made
allnost cxclusi~clyby thc first transduccr; thcy arc the dccisions that realize the
almost exclusively by the first transducer; lIley are the decisions that realize the
individual clcments of thc mcssagc thrc~ughthe sclcction of particular surface
individual clements of the message through the selection of particular surface
suucture phrascs (or rcfinc cxisting ones). l'hc sccand transduccr in cffcct
stl11cture phrases (or refine existing ones). The second transducer in effect
"cxccutcs" thc dccisions of thc first by intcrprcting thc surfacc structure as a
"executes" the decisions of the first by interpreting lIle surface structure as a
program of linguistic actions: printing words, annotating Ihc grammatical context,
program of linguistic actions: printing words, annotating the grammatical context,
recording thc history o f thc prwcss, and propagating gri~mmaticalconstraints.
recording the history of the process, and propagating grammatical constraints.
'I'hc bulk of my thcary of languagc production is contained in the
The bulk of my lIlcory of language production is contained in lIle
characteristics of Lhc surfikcc stnicturc rcprcscntation and the transducer that
characteristics of lIle surface structure representation and the transducer that
produccs utterances from it. l'hc transduccr from h e mcssagc to surface
produces utterances from it. The transducer from the message to surface
structurc~onccptually an cxtcnsion of thc spcakcr-will be less rigorously
structure---eonceptually an extension of the speaker-will be less rigorously
dcvclopcd: it is dcfincd chicfly by its rclalionship to thc first transducer-the
developed: it is defined chiefly by its relationship to the first transducer-the
canlroller-which gatcs its activities and imposcs filtcrs and constraints on its
controller-which gates its activities and imposes filters and constraints on its

McDonald

232

dccisions. h con~plctcclcfi~litionof thc lirst transd~rccrhas bcc11 dcvclopcd for

decisions. A complete definition of the first transducer has berll developed for
tisc iil tlic colnpil!cr r;.cl:r;iln aricl is discussed i n dctail in [Mclluniild 19801,
lise hi tile computer program and is discussed in detail in [McDonald 1980],
tLowcvcr,only ccrtail~of its d c ~ ~ iarc
l s cri~ical; ~ n drllc od~crsarc expcrlcd to bc
however, only certain of its dcwils me critical ,md the others arc expected to be
rcli~rcdand modificd JS Urc prrlgrani is 11sccIrvilll rcal spmkcr-Icvcl planners.
refillcd ilnd modified JS UK' program is IIsed with real speaker-level planners.

I Mcss:lgc
1. Mcss:lge
to
to

Dictionary

SurL~ce

Surface
Slruclurc
Struclure

_.

*6&+Fe-.

2. Surface
2. Surface
Str3ct11rc
Structure
to
to
're u t

Ted

.... --*---

......... .

Figure 7

1'WI) Transdw;crs

As input:; to llir ~mnsdilccrs.botll tllc mcssagc and rhc surhcc strucrorc arc
As inpllt~; to the transducers. both tJlC message and (he sur/ace strw.;tufe arc
Lrc:~tcd;IS 0)~11ly
ordcscd scqucll:ial strc:rrtls of d:~ta:tc~kcnsfrom thc s ~ r c a ~ arc
ns

trealeLl as tlllally lJI"ckred sequential stre;UtI$ of data: tnkells from the streams arc
prtrcsscd ut:c at a tinic, and arc proccsscd only o n ~ (i.~'.
c 1111' sIrc;llrts IICVCI- rcvcrsc
processed one at a time, and arc processed only ollce (Le. the streams never reverse
or loop). 'l'hc t v ~ ostrciIIlls ilrc prwcsscd "on-line", whidl nlcans that UIC nrctput
or !clOp). The two streams arc pr(}i;cs~cd '"oIl-line", which OlC,1I1S tll,!l the output
From tllc fil.!,t t~.:?~isduccr
Tor onc tokcn is cotr~plctclycotrsunlcd by tlic sccond
from the Iir~;t tr;lllsducer for onc token is completely cOllsumed by the sccond
~ransduc.crbclbrc lllc first niovcs on to its ~lcxttt~kcn. '!'llc t~.ansdr~ccn
pur sc arc
lr,l11sducer bel{)fi: the first movcs on to its next tnkcn. The transducers Jlfr se arc
only i~~tcrprel[~r.r.
'Thcy hnvc (11sitbility to rollow rhcir input strcams and to bind
only ill/C/pre/ers. They have the ability to follow their input streams and II) bind
certain prcdcfincd variables b ~ r tli~tlcclsc; tlicir u.ansJ~rcigpuwcrs dcl'ivc from
cert<lin prcdefincd varbb1c:s but liltle chI..': their transducing powers derive from
t w o bodics of pcrlrlnnctit infonn:i[ion, tiit "tlicrii)~i:iry" and thc "gramtti;~r", to
two bodks of pCrlT1iln~nt information, the "dklinl1ary" and the "grammar", to
which tllc tra~lsduccrswill di~patchi~ccordingto w l ~ i tthcy l i n d in thcir inpiit
which the Irall~,dllC'Cfs will di5patch Jccording to what they find in their input
wilh potential
strcanls. 'llic ciictionary :iss~riatcsclc~ticnufrorn t!ic ir~css;~jic
Slrl..'al1l~. The dicli<)lImy associates clelllenls from Ille IIlCSS;lgC with potential
rcaliying pllrasts, using a lingt~isric voc:ti)~llal-ydclinttl by Lllc grilmlnx; tllc
realizing phras~s, using a lingUistic vocabulary defined by the grammar; the
granlalar intcrprcls lllis vncabul;~~.y
ar~dcnforccs llic ct~nstrni~it.;
and conventional
gfal11111ar intcrprets this vocabulary ;lIld cnfnn:cs thc constrail1t:, and cnllvclHional
dcr~il5it specifics. 'I'llc prtzcdurcs and scllcln;~inin da:i;c tuo "librar-ics" do all of
dctJils it spccifics. The procedures <lno SChCItHla in these two "libraries" do all of

233
thc rcal work of the lingt~isticcomponcnt; thc transduccrs arc rcsponsiblc for
the real work of the lingui~tic component; the transducers arc responsible for
controlling whcn thc libraries are used and for maintaining Illc linguistic context
controlling when the libraries arc used and for maintaining the linguistic context
to which they rcfcr. ('Ihc dictionary and grammar consist of a largc numbcr of
to which they refer. ('Ille dictionary and grammar consist of a large number of
small proccdurcs that arc associatcd with individual tokcns that can appcar in the
small procedures that arc associated with individual tokens that can appear in the
data slrcarns (specific mcssagc clcmcnts, narncs of grammatical catcgorics, crc.).
data streams (specific message clements, names of grammatical categories, etc.).
Whcn a transduccr sccs onc of ~ C S Ctokcns, it "disparchcs to" thc associatcd
When a transducer sees one of these tokens, it "dispatches to" tlle associated
prt~cdurc(LC.calls it as a subroutinc) and waits until that prc~cdurchi~sfinished
procedure (i.e. calls it as a subroutine) and waits until that procedure has finished
its exccution hcforc going on to the ncxt tokcn.)
its execution before going on to the next token.)
'Ihc spccial propcrty of thir cascndc is that thc two transduccrs havc bccn
The special propeny of this cascade is that the two transducers have been
folded inm a singlc prtrcss: thc traversal of thc surfacc structurc. 'I'his prcccdurc
folded into a single process: the traversal of the surface structure. This procedure
can bc summarized as follows: 'l'hc mcss;~gcstarts out as thc solc constitucnt of the
can be summarized as follows: The message starts out as the sole constituent of the
root node of the surfacc structurc trcc: thc first transduccr thcn dccidcs which
root node of the surface structure tree; the first transducer tllen decides which
E~lglish phrasc shouId rcali~cirs dominant clcmcnt and Ihat phrasc, which
English phrase should rcalife its dominant clement and that phrase. which
incorporates at its fringc thc ncxt lcvcl of mcssagc subclcmcnts, replaces the
incorporates at its fringe tlle next level of message subelcments, replaces the
mcssag in that constitucnt position. A trce-travcrsal controllcr ([tic sccond
message in that constituent pOSition. A tree-traversal controller (the second
transduccr) now ti~kcschargc of thc prrxcss and procccds to travcrsc this newly
transducer) now takes charge of the process and proceeds to traverse this newly
constn~ctcdsurfacc struct~~rc
("(he ~ t r P 'fbllowing
)
its normttl top-down. Icft-toconstructed surface structure (" (he Iree") following its normal top-down, left-toright ordcr. As thc controllcr passcs ovcr it. thc lingt~isticannotation on thc trce
right order. As the controller passes over it, the linguistic annotation on the tree
triggcrs dispatches to thc prtrcdurally rcprcscntcd grammar and to thc dictionary
triggers dispatches to the procedurally represented grammar and to the dictionary
for thc realization of thc embcddcd mcss;lgc clcmcnts. ('lhc dictionary thus
for the realization of the embedded message clements. Cll1e dictionary thus
constitutcs thc rca1 contcnt of thc first transduccr.) J f a fringc constitucnt is a
constitutes the real content of the first transducer.) If a fringe constituent is a
word, it is printcd out as part of thc tcxt; if it is a mcsngc clcmcnl, it is rcalizcd,
word, it is printed out as part of the text; if it is a message clement, it is realized,
rcplaccd in thc trcc by thc new phrasc, and thc ncw phrasc thcn travcrscd as an
replaced in the tree by the new phrase. and the new phrase then traversed as an
cxtcnsion of thc surface structure.
extension of the surface structure.
I h c two transduccn can bc rcliably fo!dcd togcthcr bccausc of a wcll-fomcdThe two transducers can be reliably folded together because of a welHonnedncss condition I havc imposcd on thc suucturc of mcssagcs, thc "conslroinrness condition I have imposed on the structure of messages, the "conslrailllprecedes" stipulation, which dictatcs that the cnumcration ordcr of a mcssagcthe
precedes" stipulation, which dictates that the enumeration order of a message-the
position of mcssagc clcmcnts within thc input stream-must bc such that any
position of message clements within the input stream-must be such that any
message clcmcnt that makes rcfcrcncc to othcr clcrncnts in thc mcssagc must be
message clement that makes reference to other clements in the message must be
rcalizcd bcforc any of thosc clcrncnts are.
realized before any of those clements are.
'I'his condition is rcquircd bccausc of the stipulation that thc gcncration
This condition is required because of tlle stipulation that the generation
prmcss must bc i~ldelibk(cf. scction 2.3). 'l'hc lhcory insurcs indclihility by
process must be indelible (cf. section 2.3). The theory insures indelibility by
designing thc trcc-walking controllcr so that it is unablc to rctracc any part of the
designing the tree-walking controller so that it is unable to retrace any part of the
surfacc structurc trcc aftcr it has passcd thn~ughit oncc. Whcn couplcd with the
surface structure tree afLer it has passed through it once. When coupled with the
locality stipulation, this mcans that thc first transduccr is prohibited from
locality sLipulation. this means that the first transducer is prohibited from
arbitrarily scanning the mcssagc in search of potentially rclcvnnt subclcmcnts that
arbitrarily scanning the message in search of potentially relevant subelemcnts that
dcnotc constraints but must "wait" until thosc clcmcnts arc rcachcd in their
denote constraints but must "wait" until those clements arc reached in their
normal ordcr in Lhc mcssagc strcarn. Conscqucntly if a mcssagc includcs elements
nonna! order in the message stream. Consequently if a message includes clements
that should bc intcrprctcd as constraints on thc rcalimtion of othcr clcmcnts (for
that should be interpreted as constraints on the realization of other clements (for
exarnplc thcy might specify discourse focus or pick out attributes that are to be
example they might specify discourse focus or pick out attributes that are to be

McDonald

234

specially
be dealt
spccinlly contrasted),
contrastcd), then
thcn those
thosc constraining elements
clcmcnts should
slioold bc
dcalt with first
first so
dlat
be noted
that their implications can bc
notcd and incorporated into d,e
Ulc context
contcxt of the
thc later
decisions.
process had not bccn
been stipulated
to bc
be indelible,
dccisions. If d,e
Uic precess
stip~~latcd
indcliblc, d,en
chcn we
wc might
imagine
i~nagincordering
ordcring constraints haphal.ardly
hapIia?.ardly within the
thc mcsSt'lgc
mcsslgc and editing affected
affcctcd
parts of the
thc output text by backing up the
thc generator
gcncrator and restarting once a
cnnsrraint was noticed.
noticcd. Allowing even
cvcn buundcd
howcvcr (as for example
cxamplc
constraint
bounded backup however
tlic equivalent
cql~ivalcntof a well-fonned
wcll-fc~r~ncd
wot~ldremove
rcmovc the
thc prlrcss
with the
substring tahlc) would
process
thc "on-line" stipul<:llion
stipulation impossible
~ron1the
Uic rcalm
rcal~nof real-time
rc;~l-timeand would make the
from
to maintain.
maintain, not to mcntil)1l
mcntion requiring
rccluiring a considerably
considcrnbly increased
incrrascd incmory in order
ordcr to
ltl
rct;~in
all
potentially
rct~pcn;lhlc
st;~tcs
of
thc
prrrccss.
'lhc
"constrain-prcccdcs"
rcwin
reopen able St<ltcs
the process. '1l1C "constrain-precedes"
tlic stipulations
stipulation? of
o r section
scction 2.3 arc thus effectively
cffcctivcly working
condition and the
hypoUlcscs that
illat claim
cl;~imthat
tlli~tthe
thc appropriate
appn~pri;ltcprwssing
tradc-off within gcneration
gcncration
hypotheses
processing tradeoff
to supply heii\'i1y
lica\.ily planncd
canccptual messages
mcssagcs to
10 a relatively
rclativcly unsophisticated
is lO
planned conceptual
clcari linguistic
li~~guistic
gcncrator. rather
r;lthcr t!liill
than the
tlic other
othcr way round.
but quick and clean
generator.

llcprerenling linguistic
liog~~islir
context -- the tree
trce
4.5.2. Ucprcscnling
contcxt
In order
ordcr to understand
undcrsti~ndthe
dlc two transducers we
wc must
nus st understand
i~ndcrstandthe
Uic data structure
Ulat
hinds
them
together:
the
surface
struclUre
representation
that binds Uic~ntogcthcr: Illc surfacc structure rcplcscntation of tllC
Ulc uttcrance
uttcrancc
undcr
construction known for
and its
un~crconstructi~n
fur short as the
/he tree.
rrcc. Wc
We first dcscribe
dcscrihc its fonnat
fonnatand
relationship
to the
rcl;~tionsliil~
Uic grammar and the
Uic dictionary.
dictionary. We
Wc thcn
then movc
mauc on to a sketch
skctch of
of
thc
Uic controllcr.
contrullcr, showing how it travcrscs the
thc tree
trcc and how the trec
trcc is used
uscd to
indicate
proper routines
indicntc thc
Uic prupcr
routincs ttl
to dispatch to within thc
t l ~ cgrammar and dictionary.
Figure
Figurc 8 is a diagrmn
diagram illustrating
ilh~stratingthe
thc representation
rcprcscntaticin used
uscd for
fur the tree.
trcc. (It is not
a snapshot of the
itsclf: we will not sec
scc one
onc of those
Lhosc until the
thc main example.)
cxample.)
Uic tree
trcc itself;
Two
arc indicated: constifuent
co~isrifuoi/sfruc/Ure:
srrucrurr: dcfining positions
'I'wo kinds of structures aTC
within the
thc trec.
trcc, how they
thcy arc connected
conncctcd and how the
thc controller
contrullcr is to
Lo traverse
travcrsc them;
thcm;
and ggrammatical
properties those
r a ~ ~ z r ~ ~ alabels:
~ i c a ldefining
dcfining the
thc propcrtics
thosc positions arc intended
intcndcd to
have.

235

Grall111l111ica] IAlbels

COIlS/iluent slntclure
"nodt"

"cat('~,Jry"

------claus.

~
"slot"

f subject 1 [predicate ~

~
"slotname"
"slotname"~

A
~
vp

...;'lonlcnls..
the predicate
?"~tlcnls" of
o/rl!eprcdicarc

[ obiectl ]J
[[verb
verb ]J [objectt
shm'es

~"Cl1nl('nls"

vfrhe w!rb

I-'igurc
Ccnsiti~tcntSlnlclurc:
Smlcture: Positions
Figure 8 I<cprcscnti~lg
Representing Cctlsitutcnt
Positions and
nnd labcls
Labels

'l'lic
constiluc~~r
d r i ~ ~ t uiswindicated
i ~ ~ d i c i i t cgri~[iliic:~lly
d
bbyy tllc
The constituent
structure
graphic:llly
the pattcrn
pattern of trapc~oids
trapezoids
ill dlc
i d the
Uic brackcts
;~ndI)l-ckcts:
tr;~l~c/.,:ids iIHh:,HC
i111l/ci1[~1
tlic
"nodes" in
and
brackets: Uic
the lrapczdds
the "nudes"
tJ1C UCC.
tree. m
<Ind
br<Jckcls
indic~llc llw
pO'iitiol1s of
possible constilllcnts
within
the
nodes ,lIld
referred 10
10
illdicnlc
LIic 1io~iili01is
of possililc
i o l l ~ l i l i l c 1 1~
1 i~t l l i tllc
n nodcs
i111darc rclicrrcd
as
Th~ ;Klllal
the slots'
is "slots"
"sl<~ts"oorr "constituent
" c o ~ ~ s l i t i ~ cSIlI1S".
sl~nts".
nt
'l'lii.
.1ct11aIconstituents
c ~ n s t i t l 1 ~ 1lthemselves
h1c1~~n s c l ~ carc
s Ilic
"cantc~lts": for
lilr ccxampk
r : r ~ i ~ p lthc
s node
aoilc labeled
I:rbclcd "vp"
"vp" is tllc
"prcdic;itc constituent"
cunstitucnt"
"contcllts":
the
the "predicate
(abbrc\i;ltcd "lprcdic;lIc]")
"lprcdic;irc]") of
ol' the
tllc "dmsc
"cl.lllsc ncldc".
Ilcsidcs ,\;lnodc,
cu~ilcnlsof
of a
(abbreviated
node". Besides
node, tllc
the contents
slot tn:ly
may bc
be an word.
\\-ord. or ;
aI 1l1
.'~sag(' c1emcnt.,
they llJay
A. sllhtrcc
mcrs:lgc
~ICIIICIIL or
o r Ulcy
III;I~
bc empty.
cnil~ty. A
slllitrcc from
lirorn
g i \ - c 11adc
~ ~ 10
li-iogc ortllc
ofUic Lrcc
(Sincc the
Llic trcc
a;Igiven
node
to thc
the fringe
tree will bc
be rcfcrrcd
referred ~II
to ;ls
as ao phrirsr.
phrase. (Since
tree
ala,lys ggrowing
r i ~ w i o gthl?~u:Ii
action of
u f tJle
dlc first tln~~sduccr
is ahvays
throup.h thc
Lhe acti(lll
transducer rcpl:~cilig
replacing ~iicss:~gc
message
c l c ~ ~ ~ c\\,it11
n t s phra:cs.
Lllc rioti(~n
"fi'i~~gc"of
ol' tlic
trcc is a dynamic
dy~l;lmic one,
onc,
cletllents
with
phr'hes. the
notion ooff tllc
the "fringe"
the Iree
cClIlstalllly
<.'IS the
process
prm.:eeds.) GraJl1l1l;ltical
tlic ggeneration
c ~ i c r i ~ t i oproccss
n
proceeds.)
t i r a n r ~ ~ ~ ; ~ tlabels
1;1bcIs
icol
constantly changing
cli;~oping 3s
cilhcr label
l:~I)cl ~i<xlcs,
in w
l l i c l ~case
cnsc tllcy
rclicrrcd to SIas
: '\:.ltt'gorics"
"catc!:oricsU and
either
nodes, in
which
they may bc
be rclCrrcd
C
I ttrapezoid;
r : ~ ~ ~ ~ ' %or
u i clsc
d: ~
l i c yIahel
l i ~ h ccon,;titucnt
co11:;tituc11t
l
prinrcd
printed just abovc U
the
else
Lhey
slots, in \\rl~ich
which case
they arc called
inside Uic
tJle br:skcts.
bwckcts. A
node or
c i ~ l l c d"slt>t"n;IOles"
"sli~t-r~;mmcs"and lprinted
~ r i l i l c dinsidc
A nodc
o r slot may
Ulcy
Iiavc
I
l;~bcl.
haveCIIIIImore
than onc label.
Thi~; constituent
reprcs~:nlatit)n is diffcrclit
different from
most oll1ers
frvrn lnost
othcrs in
in the
'I'hi.:
a ~ o s t i t t ~ slrtlcturc
su-ucrurc
c~~t
rcplrs::~ilaLit~n
li~~guistic
lilctaturc
~ c c a ~ it~ scxlilici~ly
c
ldbcls tllc
collstitt~cntprisitir~os
linguistic
Iiter,1ture tbccallsc
explicitly
labels
the constituent
pllsitions rathcr
rather than
d,'Jining LIICIII
them in
terms of
relalive pusiriol~
position or
IlOdcs. ('lllis
n;uning
just dcfinit~g
i n tcrms
uf tJ1C
dic rcl:llirc
iil'llodcs.
('Illis explicit
cx~ilicittl;lming
of
grammar" [pcrlmutter
11rCOllstilucnts
a ) r l s t ~ t ~ ~ cis~ lalso
;ilso
t s done
dunc iinn so"called
s ~ ~ c a l l c"rcl:ttioual
"rcI;tti~i~~:~I
d
~,~;IIIIIII;~?
[I'c~lmuttcr and
I'ost:d 10
l o ;Jppear]
nl;pc:~r] <.lIIU
e ~ l dVwas
S
I;:
used ill
ill some
solnc early pllr;lsc
strilcturc systems. sec
scc [postal
[I'ostnl
Post:il
lIscd
phrase struclure
1963].)
"~lIhjcc[" cti~~stitr~cn!.
constitl!ent. for
alternatively bc
be defined
asd
19631.) The
'l'lic "w!jcc["
fur example,
cxamplc, could ;~lrcro;~tivcly
~ i c l i ~ i c;a
tJIC n
nOlln
phra:,c node directly under a clause
(:annot
Uic
i r m pllr;~:~c
cl:lasc !lude.
IIIIJ~. Slot'nalncs
Slot-~i;~~ncs
c a ~ i ~ i obe
r
disp?~iscd\\it11
Ihc prcscot
tlicnry. howcvcr.
uscd lo
Lo cmry
carry Ulc
disp('nscd
with in the
present thcllry.
how('ver, I)CC;IIISC
bCCiluse llicy
rJley arc lIsed
the
gr<lllllll;lIic.l1
p!'oprrlks ol"thc
posilions lllcy
they 1.1l
bhd
AttClJlpling to u.
use
gr.11nmi1lic31 p!'i~llcrtics
11litlic constituent
cu~~stilucnt
paai!io~is
1c1. ~\ttc~i~ptin::
;e

McDonald

236

:i rclativc position ~chcinchcrc would Ic;~dcithcr to combi~~i~torially

iiicrcnsing
a relative position scheme here would lead either to comhinatorially increasing
dccoding con~;)utationsas tlic trcc grcw in dcpth or tn an undilc multiplication of
decoding computations <IS the tree grew in depth or to ;]n undue ffiuILiplication of
category nillncs; conscqucntly, in diis thcory thc usc of explicit slotnaincs lcads to
category names; conscquently, in this Ulcory the U$e of explicit slotnalllcs leads to
s 1norc na1ur;ll trcnuncnl ofgr'11nnli~ticii1
fi~nctions.
a more naturaltrcaunent ofgrammatical functions.
'l'hc conslilucnt structurc is only rcnlly uscd by thc controller. It dcfincs tile
The constituent structure is only really used by the controlkr. It defines the
patll it will titkc through thc trcc: a sunilnrd, dcpth-first scarch pnucrn its shown
path it will take through the tree: a standard, depUl-first seardl p<lucrn as shown
in figurc 9.
in figure 9.

Figure C) Controller Path Through Complckd Constituent Stmcture

'l'hc ~ I T I I ) O I o. ~f [Iris
~ ~ Ipat11
C C is ill tllc scqilcncc of gratnni;~ricrllInbcls that it dcfincs
Th 7 importance of this path is ill the sequence of gwmmaticallabcls that it defines
;ind in d ~ c~rnlclits
c
of tlic slolr at tllc trcc's fringc. I:;IcII 1;tbcl is nsstriatcd iu thc
;l1ld in Ihe contents of U'IC slot" at Ul(.' tree's fringe. F':leh lahel is i1ss11ciated in the
grainniar with a hct of j ~ ~ ~ ~ d citllcr
l l t ~of'
c its
~ .t)wn or prtxcdurcs of othcr labels
gr,llnmar with a set of procedures. either of its own or procedures of other labels
l h ~ arc
t contingc~iton it: tlicsc' proccdurcs ;trc lcfcrrcd w as grtntlt~lnrrnliliiles.
that arc contingent on it: these procedures arc H:ferred III as grammar-routilles.
'I'llc slorn;unc "wl>jcct", rt~rvx:~~nplc.has gri1111111arroutincs of its O*II (i.c.
The slomallle "subject", for cX:J1nple, has grammar routines of its own (i.e,
triggcl-cd I)y thc conu?~llcrwlwn tllc ~sul~jccc]
is rcacilccf. scc bclow) that handle
triggered lly the colllrollcr when Ule lsubjet.:!j i~ rt'aehed, see helow) that handle
oI's~~l)jcct
;11rd ~ 1 . in
b qucstir.)ns i111dthc insc~tivnuf
such tlli~igs;IS LIIC i~r~ctsioll
such thi ngs as l.he inversion of subje!.:t and vcrb in questions and the lnscltion of
~ h cfunction word "ii" in cxlr:~lroscJclauscs such as
c.u.xy rc, br corl/irst.d by uull
l.he function word "i," in cXlraposcJ clauses such as "irs cosy 10 be coli/used by all
rile r~rtirirrolug~~".
'I'llc collsti~ucntI~bclcd"sul~jcct"is lookcii For spccifically by
fhe Irm rinolog.l' ". The COllstilllcnt IJbekd "subject" is looked for specifically by
Ihc ~r:~~iin~ar-roi~tinc
bat pcrforn~ssul~jcct-vct'b;Igrcctncnt in tc~rscdcl;~uscs.and
the grallllllJr-routine that perfurms subject-verb agreement in tensed clauses, and
b y Uic n~orphologyroutine wllcn it nccds to tlc~a'n~it~c
whcdliura pronoun should
by the morphology l"l1utinc when it needs to determine wht,tlwr n pronoun should
bc in thc non~in;~tivc
case.
be in the nOlllinalive case,
4.5.3. '!lIe Coutroller
'Ilw algoritlrm Tor tllc ctrntrolicr is thc llcart of this Ulcory of gc~~craliun:
it is the
algnriUml for the controller is the heart of this U1cory of generation: it is the
sccu~ttlLr.nnsd~iccr,iulnpr~ctin: thc trcc position by posiliot~nnrl dlcrcby dicctling
$eculLd transducer, inlcrprctin~ the tree positiun hy position and thereby dictating
tllc ordcr of cvellts witllin tllc prtrcss, tllc co~~lcstuat
in61nnntion i~vailahlcto
tllC order ofcvcnls within the process, tile COlll!:xttlal infinmJtion available to
roulincs in the tlictionary or gr:rnfnar (LC. ivlrat parts of lhc WCC ~licyc:lil ac'ct~s),
routines in the dictil1l1ary or gr;l1l1lnar (i.e. ",hm parts of th~ trce they call access),
;tnd llic potcnli.11 scupc' of thc decisions ~ n i ~ d11yc tflo~csottti~~cs.
'I'hc algorith~n
,lI1d the potential ~;ClJpC of the deci~ions In<1dc by UJOSC routines. The algorithm
i t v l f is quilt simple sincc all ihc ctin~ntllcrtnust do is tmvcrsc Uic trcc and
il"c1f is quite simple si IKe all the contwllcr must do is tnl\ersc Ole tree and
iliaj):ltch ro I i l ~ ~ . ~roi~tincs
i ~ y acccrding to the hbcls on Lhc positians and the
dIspatch to lihrary routines accl'rding to tile lahels on the positil'I1S ;md the
'11l\~

237

contcntsof
diagra~nmcdin figures
figurcs 10,
10. 11,
11. and 12.
contents
of thc
the slots. It is diogrammed
The
enough,
'lhc import of the
thc algorithm lies
lics not
I N I ~in its flowchart
flowchart which is simple
simplc cnough.
but in thc
imposcs implicitly on
an the designer
dcsigncr of thc
the coastraints
constraints it imposes
the grammar and
dictionary.
Noo acriorz
actioJl can
it
tali be taken
rakerr by the
rlr? linguistic
lir~guisliccomponent
r o ~ ~ r / ~ o n ounless
uriless
rl
il is
dictionary. N
~peciflcal/y selected by
controller
SIIPCI~CUIIJ
bj this
/his cOfllro/ler
m ~ ~ r r u l l eal
a!r the time
rir~rcand place that
rhar the
rhe co~rrroller
dictates.
Thus all actions arc
diclares 'Thus
tire local to the controller's
contr~~llcr's
position and subject
suljcct to
contextual cunrr~~l.
control. No pan
part of the
tree is '\:isible"
the grammar or di<.:tionary
thc trcc
"bisiblc" to thc
dictionary
b r those
thosc parts spccificalJy
spccific;~lly pickcd
c~~ntrollcr'spointcrs
cxccpt for
except
picked out by the controller's
pointers and
prcarrangcd
granimar routincs
abovc and bchind
by Uic
the grammar
routines above
behind lllc
the
prearranged pointers p(lsiti<~ncd
positioned 11y
hicrarcliic;~lc<mstfllctions
constr~~ctions
cmbcddcd
co~itrollcr'sposition: this nicans
contn)lkr's
means tli;~t
that hierarchical
such as embedded
clauses
with lcft
left 10
dependencies such as
pronominalization or
clauscs or
11r rules witli
111 right dcpcndcncics
;IS pr~moniinali~.ation
cllipsis can bc
opp~)sitcdcpcndcncies
ellipsis
be trcatcd
treated naturally whilc
whik plicnomc~ia
phenomena with opposite
dependencies
must bc
be explicitly planncd
planned for
they will bc
be misscd.
missed. Similarly, since
a single
E I or
~ thcy
sincc only asinglc
the trcc
tree is seen
with thc
the multi-position
mulli-posillon buffcrs
buffers of
position in
i n thc
sccn at a time
timc (in conrrast
contrast \$,it11
la~~guagc
parsing systems
sy9tcms such as [Marcus
[Marcus 1980)),
19801). phcnomcna
natural language
phenomena that can
dislributcd vicw or
(ria
structure--such
sccn by prlrcsscs
only hc
be seen
processes uilh
v. ilh a distributed
a constirucnt
constituent structure-such
as structural ambiguities-cannot
be easily
t1iis system
ambiguilics-cannot bc
casily appreciated
apprcciatcd by lliis
systcm and will
typically go uncorrcctcd.
controllcr is thus
ilius tlic
c~nbodimcntof thc
uncorrected. This controller
the embodiment
the hypothesis
th,Jl (~nly
hierarchical and sequential
be appreciated
thal
1,nly hicrarchic;d
seql~cnti;tl dependencies
dcpc~ldcncicscan bc
:~pprcciarcdduring
immediate
being eithef
immcdiatc speech:
spccch: aU
all others bcing
ciUicr expressly
cxprcssly anticipated and planned fOf
for
ahead
time or lcft
left to a ppost
monitof to detect
compensate for later.
alicad of timc
~ ~ shoc
r monitor
dctcct and conipcnsatc

p:!sscd to thc
the linguistic
component, it
Initialization
lnitinliration
When a new message
mcssagc is pnsscd
linguistic component.
bccomcs
contcnts of the constant slot "root-constituent",
"root-constituent". If at that time the
becomes h
thee contents
component has finished
processing any earlier
messages then it will havc
have returned
Anishcd pr,xcssing
carlicr mcssagcs
tl,at position at thc
the top of the tree
trcc and the messages
mcssagc's processing will start
to tllat
immcdiatcly: alternatively
altcrnativcly should an earlier
carlicr mcssagc
immediately;
message still be in progrcss
progress it will
\lim not
be disrupted
to the ncw
new one until
uotilthe
one is finished
bc
disruplcd and nothing will hoppen
liappcn lo
the old onc
and thc
ule controller
controllcr completed
complctcd its (raversal
traversal back to tl,e
UIC root. lhe
I h c initial
initial state of the
controllcr is shown in Figure 10.
controller

McDonald

238

MUMBLE ( m e s s a g e )
MUMBLE (message)
nrgumcnt: a rncssagc
argument:
messagcnone
rcturna valuc:
return value: none
'Ihc initial trce:
'Ihe initial trec:

root-node

root-node

[root-constituent]

[ root-constituent]

START

Initialil.c the environment:

current-grammatical-filters < = 'empty
cu rrent-grammatical-filters
<= 'empty
< = 'empty
discourse-history
discourse-history
<= 'empty
< = 'undefined
<all grammatical-variables)
<all grammatical-variables) < = 'undefined

1niriali-r.cController Variables:
Initialize COlllroller Variables:
c u rrent-node < = 'root-node
current-node
cu rrent-slot<= 'root-node
< = 'root-constituent
cu rrent-slot
c u r r e n t - c o n<t=e n'root-constituent
t s < = (Make-elmt-instance m e s s a g e )
cu rrent-contents

<=
A

(Make-elmtinstance message)

AStart thc
Start UIC Controller at
Controller at

"Dispatch on currcnt-contents"

"Dispatch on current-contents"

Figure 10 'Ihc Controltcr: Initialization

Figure 10 '[be Controller: Initialization

l h c controllcr decomposes
'I'hc Iilock-lcvcl Organimtion of l'hc ContralIer
The B1ock-Ie\'el Organil.ation of The Controller
lhe controller decomposes
in ro thrce rccu rsivc p r t ~ e d urcs namcd process nod^, I'r(~ccss-slot,and Dispa!ch.
into Lhree recursive procedures named Process-node, Process-slot, and Dispatch,
whosc dcfinitions arc givcn in thc ncxt two figures. 'Ihcy arc brcadcd in that
whose definitions arc given in the next two ligures. 'Jlley are threaded in that
ssmc ordcr: IJroccss-nodeciills Proccss-slot on cach o f its ilnmcdiatc constituents,
same order: Process-node calls Process-slot on each of its immediate constituents,
and
Process-slot in turn caHs 1)isp;ltch o n thc contcnt of UIC slot prcscntly being
and Process-slot in turn calls Dispatch on the content of the slot presently being
proccsscd, 'lhc rccursivc structure of the trcc is matchcd in the controller
processed. 'Ihe recursive structure of the tree is matched in the controller
algorithm by Ihc rccursivc call to Prtrcss-nodc from within Ilispatch.
algorithm by the recursive cal1to Process-node from within Dispatch.
'I'hc algorithm differs from thc standard rccursivc dcsccnt algorithm far
The algorithm differs from the standard recursive descent algorithm for
travcrsing a trce only in its "rcalizc and rcplacc" stcp within Dispatch: This step
traversing a tree only in its "realize and replace" stcp within Dispatch: This step

239
has thc cffcct of dynamically cxtcnding thc trcc cvcn whilc thc controller is
has the effect of dynamically extending the tree even while the controller is
travcrsi~lgit. 'Ihc cxtcnsion stops whcn a plirasc is sclcctcd that hi~sno further
traversing it. The extension stops when a phrase is selected that has no further
mcssagc clcrncnrs cnlbcddcd at irs fringc. 'I'hc dynamic cxtcnsion of lhc trcc as is
message clements emhedded at irs fringe. The dyn,nnic extension of the tree as is
thc kcy to thc progressive ~ P ~ I I F I ~ I Etcchniqllc
III
that char;ictcri7cs this theory: the
the key to the progrrssive rejillrment technique that characterizes this theory: the
cnlbcddcd mcssagc clcmcnts in cffcct constitute "dclaycd dccisions" that arc not
embedded message clements in effect constitute "delayed decisions" that arc not
takcn up until all of b c prior dccisions that might cffccr Illcin have bccn made
taken up until <111 of the prior decisions that might effect them have been made
and thcir constraints cstahlisl~cd(jll such dcpcndcncics hcing. by hypotlicsis.
and their cunstraints established (all such dependencies being. by hypothesis.
associated with pcaitions in tllc st~rfiiccsrnicri~rcahovc iiad bchind tllc cmhcddcd
associated with positions in the surface stl1lcture above and behind the embedded
clcmcrrt). 'I'his rcchniq~lcis akin to Lhc tcchniquc 0frjEln)~rjbittclitrg that is uscd in
clement), This technique is akin to the technique of deloyed binding that is used in
thc prt~cssingof somc progr,lnlrning Ianguagcs.
the processing of somc programming languages.

McDonald

240

Dispatch (current-contents)

Dispatch (Cli rrenlcontents)

arg.i~mcnltypc: citl~cr'c~npty. a W O ~ ~ - ~ I I S ~ ; I I ~ CaCnodc,
.
or an d i n t - i ~ ~ s ~ a n c c
argumenl
type:
either
rctirrn
valuc:
nonc'cmpty, a word-insL:lIlce, a node, or an ehnt-instancc
return value: none

Ilcpcnding orr Llic lypc of Current-contents do:

Depending on the type of eu rrentcontents do:
'cmpty

'empty

ICEI'URN
RETURN

a WORII-INS'I'ANCI!
a WORD-INSTANCE
(Morpholog y-routine current-contents)
(Mo rpholog
y. rout ine eu r rent-contents)
:ntod!ry Ilrc wktrC'r p!inl 11;uiic ;ISnccdcd i u ~ d"say" it
:mncti ry

I wnTC'. prinl1L;unc as needed

111(:

iUld

"say" il

RETURN

a NO1113

aNODE

(Proci?ss-node current-corrtcnts)
(Procoss-node e u rrent-contcnts)

SIIIII'UICr\i

l~ETURN

an M.M'I-INS'l'hN(:li

an ELMT-lNSTANCE
cvrroni-contents < = (Realize current-contents)
c;u rrenl-con tents <= (nealizc eu rrent-contents)

~
Aflcr-,4S~cr-l!~:1li~;~lion
Hcalizalion

(Foreach feature of current-slot

(Foreach feature
do ( e v aof
l l rcurrent-slot
a : ~ (get-grammar-routine
do (ev nlll<lto (!Jet -grammnr routine
'after-realization feature)))
,afln,- rc31ization featu re)

(Dispatch current-t;ontents)
(Dispatch current- (;ontonts)

~ RIA'UKN

RElUHN
ERROR

Figurc 11 'Ihc Controllcl.: 1)ispatching un thc Conlc~~tsof

n Slot
Figure 11 The ContmIlcr: Disp;Jtching on the Conlents of a Slot

241

Gating the
tlac First Transducer
Tnnqduccr
The
l h c first transducer is taken
takcn up cxclustvcly
cxclusivcly in the
di5p;rtch to the
thc function named "rc1Jlil.c".
"rcalilc". This
'l'his function contains
col~tainsthe procedures
dispatch
rcali~ati(mdecisions:
dccisions: Le.
i.c. criteria for
and heuristics that arc common to all realization
altcrnatc subsequent
subscqucnt reference
rcfcrcncc fnmls
fi~rn~s
'bone" or "such",
'kuch",
pronominalization. alternate
pronominalization,
such as "one"
for WH-mavement;
WH-movcmcnt: if nane
none of these
thcse apply, it dispatches to the
and "gap-creation" for
message
tncrsagc clement's
clcmcnCs dictionary
diction:lry entry
cntry and the
thc standard entry
cntry interpreter
intcrprctcr sketched
skctchcd
latcr in the
thc papcr
complctc specification
specification of tl,e
thc re"lization
realization prwcss,
sce
later
paper (for a complete
process, see
19801).
[Mcl)~nilld1980]).
[McDonald
Ebcry message
mcsstlgc element
clcmcnt tllat
d u t is embedded
c~nbcddcdin the
thc tree
trcc must eventoally
cvcntually ppass
as
Every
throogh
this step
stcp of the
thc controller,
controllcr. and tl,en
thcn and only then
lhcn will its English
through tllis
rcturn from
from the
thc function
fi~nctionRealize,
llcalixc, the
thc selected
sclcctcd node,
dccidcd on. On return
realization bc
be decided
thc tree
trcc in place
placc of the
thc original clement,
clc~ncnt,at which
word, or subclcmcnt is knit into U1C
point the
thc controller
controllcr loops
loops around
an~undand repeats
rcpcats the
thc dispatch
dispatch on the
thc new
ncw contents
contcnts of
Ihc slot.
the
.4 Last-stage,
last-stage, Marphalagicall'roeess
hlorpl~ologirall'roccss
A
When an English word is found as the
contcnts of a slot,
slm it is passed
p~sscdto a procedure
prcedurc named
namcd the
thc Alorpholugy
ruu~brefor
fur
contents
Morphology mUline
an) required
rcquircd specialization
spccialiration and from
from there
thcrc to the
thc output stream.
strc;lm. The
l h c Morphology
Morphology
any
routinc docs not have
havc much work to do in English: it is responsible
rcsponsiblc for the case of
routine
pruno~ins,for plural forms. verb
vcrb conjugation, contractions,
contractiuns. and the possessive. It
pronouns.
b:ascs its
ils decisions
decisions on properties
propertics it associates
associatcs with the
thc slot-na1nes
slat-names of the slot that
bases
(c.g. "subject"
"subject" is understood
undcrstood as forcing
forcing the nominative case) and
contains the word (e.g.
inhcritcd attachments
attachmcnts to the constituent structure marking such "cxtra"extraon inherited
information as tense.
tcnsc, aspect.
aspccL and negation. It is the routine within
constituent" infonnation
thc clearest representation
rcprcsentation of the notion "next word",
word, and as a
gcncrator with the
the generator
rcsponsiblc for grammatical
gra~nmaticalplicnomcna
dcpcndcnt on successive linear
result is responsible
phenomena dependent
vcrbal auxiliary,
auxiliary.
position such as the verbal

McDonald

242

Process-node (cu rrcnt-node)

Process-node (cu rrcnt.node)

nrgutncnl: 3 node
argumcnt:
node none
rcturn11 value:
rNurn valuc: none

E~llcr-node:
Enter'nude:
( ~ o r c a c hfealure

of current-node
(Forcilch do
feature
of current-node
(evaluate
(get-gramma r-routine 'cnter-node feat11re)))
do (evaluate (gotg r<lmrna r routine 'cnte r-nodc featu re)))

I
i

(Foreach slot in (constituents current-node)

(Forcach do
sial(process-slot
in (constituents
currenlnode)
slot))
do (p rocess-slot slol})

I~!:ivc-node:

I.~~:l\'('node:

(Foreac h fealtl re of cu rrenl-node

(Forench feature of currentnode
do (euulualc (yet-gr~nimar-routine'leave-node feature)))
do (ev ulua te (901-9 riimmnr- routine 'leave-node fealu re)))

\
) I:lT!'IJ!<N

HE'!'URN

Process-slot (current-slot)
Process-slot (ell rronl-slol)
iiI'gtlIl~~f~t:
it S I O ~

argullIcnr:
a slot
rc1lll.n
valuc:
relurn value:

nOllC

I~OIIC

current-contents < = (contents current.slot)

<= {contenls ell rrenH:;lot}

eu rrontcontents

I:ntcr-s!ot:
Enter-slot:
(Foresch fealure of currctll-slot

{Forcach feature of current-slot

do (cvaluatc! (yet-grammar-routine 'entcr-slot feature)))
do (ev<Jluato (get-gr<lmmarroutino 'enter-slot fcatll re)))

(Dispatch current-contents)
(Disp .. tch current-contents)

Ix~~Yc-s~o~:

LcaH~'slot:
(Forcach foalure of current-slot
(Forc<lch foal u re of cu rrent-slot
do (evsluatc. (gel-grornn~ar-routine'leave-slot ieaturc)))
do (ev<Jluate (got-g r<::mnl <1 r- routine 'Ieaveslot feature)))

5
) 1II:l'UI:N

RETURN
Fipurc I?. 'I'lrc Controller: I'roccscmiiig
Ncdcs a;ld Slots
Figure 12 Tlh' ((mtrol1cr: ProCCS',illg Nodes ilnd Slots

243
Assoc.iatinp Gron~n:~r-roulincs
l\'ith Conslitucnt Struclurc 1,abcls
Thc
two
Associating Grammar-roulincs With Constituent Structure Labels
The
two
prtlccdurcs Process-node and Proccss-slot arc tllc primary placc wllcrc rhc library
procedures Process-l1(lde and Process-slot arc the primary place wherc the library
of activc prtccdurcs that consr.iiutcs tlic activc aspcct of dic grammar is uscd.
of active procedures that tons!itutcs the active aspect of thc grammar is used.
'Ihcsc proccdurcs arc rcfcrrcd to as gra~n~~iar-roulif~cs
and arc asstriatcd with
These procedures arc referred to as grall1l11G1~ruuti/lcs and are associated with
spccific grammatical labcls (also rcfcrrcd to as frorures). Grammar-routincs arc
specific grammatical labels (also referred to as f('atures). Grammar-routines are
fiirthcr spccificd by thc point in tlic controller's nlgoritli~nwhcrc thcy arc to bc
further specified by the point in the controller's algorithm where they arc to be
cxccutcd. markcd in thc flowcharts in bold rppc. Lhcrc arc fivc gcncric cvcnts in
executed. marked in the nllwcharts in bold type. Ulere are fhe gcneric cvcnts in
tllc trnvcrsiil of a trcc hll of thc irtivc pi~risof t l ~ gcncra~or's
c
I'nglicll grammar arc
the traversal of a tree All of the aClive parts of the gencrator's English grammar arc
asariatcd wit11 tlic I,~l~cls
attachcd to thc nodcs and slots of tlic surf;lcc slrirctnre.
associated with tJ1C lahels attached to the nodcs and slots of tlie surface structure.
'I'hcsc points correspond to firc gc~icric"c~cnts" in Lhc travcssal of tlic trce:
These points correspund to five generic "evcnts" in the traversal of the tree:
cntcri~igor lcaving ij nodc. cntcring or Icaiing a slot, and just aficr a rncssage
cntcring or leaving a node. entering or leaving il slot. and just after a message
clcmcnr 11as hccn rcalizcd I)ut bcfore ~ h crc;~li~ing
plirasc liiis bccn knit illto h e
clement has been realized but before the realizing phrase has been knit into the
trcc. As indicated in figlrrc 12, wl~cnonc c~fthcsc even& is rcnchcd. cach of the
trec. /\s indicated in figure 12, when one of these events is reached. each of the
lal)cls ascrsiatcd with thc currc~itnodc or slot is clicckcd fur a grammar-routine o f
lahels associated with the currelit node or slot is checked for a grammar-routine of
tli;~tcvc~lrtypc. whicli if found is immcdiatcly cxccutcd.
that cyellttype. which iffound is immediately executed.
Gralnmar-routincs rnay pcrli~nnany of ~ I i cfi~llowingactions:
Grammar-mutines may perflJlln any ofU)e following actions:

( I ) Add firnctioii words dircctly into thc output Lcxt stream;

(1) Add functioll words directly into the output text stream;

(2) Sct or rcscl rcfcrcncc pointers ("gramn~arvariablcs") 10 irnrncdiatcly

(2) Set or reset reference pointers ("grammar variables") to immediately
acccssiblc pirrts of thc 11-cc for ttrc maintainancc of grammatical
accessible parts of the tree for tile maintainance of grammatical
contcxl (scc hclow);
context (see below);
(3) Mnkc spccificslly constrained "cdits" to tlic constituent structure thcy
(3) Make specifically constrained "edits" to the constituent structure they
immcdiatcly dominatc so as to implcmcnt locally triggered
immediately dominate so as to implement locally triggered
phcnomcna such as hcavy phrasc shill or colljunclion reduction;
phenomena such as heavy phrase shift or conjunction reduction;
(4) Makc local "grammatical dccisions" that arc not rcquircd by the
(4) Make local "grammatienl decisions" that arc not required by the
spcakcr's mcssagc bur arc ncccssary grammatically such a s the
speaker's message but arc necessary grammatically such as the
sclcction of complcmcntizcrs.
selection of cnmplcmcntizcrs.

'l'hc rulcs of grammar cmbcddcd within the grammar

'I'he currcnt conlcxt
The current conlext
The rules of grammar embedded within the grammar
routincs arc couchcd in e vocabulary tliat is always inlcrprctcd with rcspcct to thc
rOll tines arc couched in a vocabulary that is nlways interpreted with respect to the
currcnt position of thc conirollcr in thc trcc. 'Ihis posi~ionis dcfincd in tcms of
current position of Ihe controller in the tree. This position is defined in terms of
tllc valucs of thrcc variablcs: wrrr~rr-node.currc~~~-slot,
and currerrl-co~rtents,
Ule values of three var~ables: curr('n/-node. current-s!ot. and curr('flt-contents,
which arc sct and rcscl ils t t ~ ccontrt~llcrmovcs. Grarn~naticallyimportant facts
which arc set and reset as the COil troller moves. Grammatically important facts
about thc tree--thc vocabulary of thc grammar rulcs-arc rcprcscntcd in terms of
about the tree-the vocabulary of the grammar rules-arc represented in tcrms of
a sct of variahlcs that arc bound locally in thc trcc but have thcir values sct and
a set of variablcs that arc bound locally in the tree but have their values set and
rcsct by of spccific grammar-routines. I h c thrcc variablcs abovc arc rcfcrrcd to as
reset by of specific grammar-routines. The tllree variables above are referred to as
corrrrullrr-vuriubles. atid a sccond, opcn-endcd sct arc tcrmcd gratw)~~ar~~ariables,
cOlr/ruflcl~variables, and a second, open-ended set arc termed grammar-variables.
In addition to thcsc variablcs. thc controllcr maintains a discourse hisrory,
In addition to these variables. the controller maintains a discourse history,
consisting of rccords of all important cvcnts that havc occurrcd, including the
consisting of records of all important events that have occurred, including the

McDonald

244

rcalization of evcry rncssagc clctncnt instance, evcry sclcctcd choicc, and cvery
realization of every message element instance, every selected choice, and every
dccision brought about by lhc grammar.
decision brought about by the grammar.
In sirmmary, thc currcnt contcxt of thc linguistic componcnt can be vicwcd as
In summ<lry, the current context of the linguistic component can be viewed as
a four dirncnsional array consisting of (1) the namc o f thc contmllcr cvcnt or
a four dimensional array consisting of (I) the name of the controller event or
subroutine prcscntly bcing cxccutcd, (2) thc valucs of thc thrcc controllcrsubroutine presently being executed, (2) the values of the three con trollervariables. (3) thc valucs of thc grnmn1;lr-variahlcs, and (4) thc rccords of the
variables, (3) the values of the grmnmar-variablcs, and (4) the records of the
discourse history, l'his rcprcscntntion of thc context will bc uscd in thc diagrams
discourse history. This representation of the context will be used in the diagrams
of thc main cxamplc.
of the main example.
4.6. An Example

t
on thc appar~itusof thc
This cxamplc should scrvc two purposes: first. to p ~ l flcsh
This example should serve two purposes: first, to put nesh on the apparatus of the
linguistic componcnt just discussed by showing how it acts as a systcm; and
linguistic component just discussed by showing how it acts as a system; and
sccond, to illustrate sornc of thc sorts of linguistic analysis that onc is lcad to as a
second, to illustrate some of the sorts of linguistic analysis that one is lead to as a
scicnlis working in tcrllis of this thcory of langi~agcgcncration. From thc point
scientist working in terms of this theory of limguage generation. From the point
of vicw of convcntioni~l,cotnpctcncc-bascd lingi~isricssolnc of thc analyscs that
of view of conventional, competence-based linguistics some of the analyses that
will bc skctchcdmay sccni ~tnusualor cvcn bizurc; this is pcrhrlps to be cxpectcd
will be sketched may seem unusual or even bizzare; this is perhaps to be expected
si~lccthc nccd to srnootllly intcri~ctwith an indcpcndcnt, non-linguistically based
since the need to smuothly interar:t with an independent, non-linguistically based
proccss (the spcakcr/cxpcr( program) has i~nposcdits own mark on thc analyscs
process (the speaker/experl program) has imposed its own mark on the analyses
cvcrywhcrc from thc timing of dccisions to thc dcciils of thc surface constitucnt
everywhere from the timing of decisions to the deuiils of the surface constituent
structure.
structure.
'Ihis cxamplc is drawn from thc logic domain dcscribcd in scctian 1.2, Wc will
This example is drawn from the logic domain described in section 1.2, We will
look at thc gcncration of thc last part of thc "barbcr proof': initially in
look at the generation of the last part of the "barber proof'; initially in
considcrablc dctail in ordcr to dcrnonstratc how thc cuntrollcr interacts with the
considerable detail in order to demonstrate how the cuntroller interacts with the
sclcctcd surfacc structurc. and thcn at a coarser lcvcl of dctail so as to conccntrate
selected surface structure, and then at a coarser level of detail so as to concentrate
on thc analyscs and thc motivcs behind thcm. ' h c cxamplc will actually bc only
on the analyses and the motives behind them. The example will actually be only
thc last two lincs of thc proof, but wc will put thosc lincs in contcxt first by
the last two lines of the proof, but we will put those lines in context first by
sketching the evcnts up to that point.
sketching the events up to that point.
Gcncration in thc logic domain is an cxamplc of "dircct translation". There is
Generation in the logic domain is an example of "direct translation". There is
no planning componcnt; instcad, mcssagcs are constili~tcd dircctly from the
no planning component; instead, messages are constituted directly from the
regular data structures of the domain, thc lines of thc prwf. This is the
regular data structures of the domain, the lines of the proof. This is the
characlcristic pattern of dircct translation systems (for cxamplc Iswanout 1977;
characteristic pattern of direct translation systems (for example {Swartout 1977;
Shorlliffc 19761). and it thc sourcc of thcir convcnicncc-sidc-stcpping an
Shortliffe 1976]), and it the source of their convenience-side-stepping an
elaborate planncr by taking advantage of thc organization alrcady in thc domain's
elaborate planner by taking <ldvantage of the organization already in the domain's
native data StNCtUrCS, as well as of thcir limitations-thcy lock thc gcncrator into a
native data structures, as well as of their limitations-they lock the generator into a
single lcvcl of abstraction and invariably lcavc many conceptual conncctions
single level of abstraction and invariably leave many conceptual connections
implicit. 13y translating first into a linguistic rcprcscnlation and thcn applying
implicit. By translating first into a linguistic representation and then applying
general grammatical rulcs and usagc heuristics, wc arc ablc to gcncrate a
general grammatical rules and usage heuristics, we arc able to generate a
smoothcr, more natural tcxt than carlicr gcncrators that translatcd dircctly into
smoother, more natural text than earlier generators that translated directly into
word strings: howcvcr, the overall form and contcnt of thc tcxt rcmain in the mold
word strings; however, the overall form and content of the text remain in the mold

245

set by tlrc input proof. It is safc to say that thc dircct translation tccl~niqueis
set by the input proof. It is safe to say that the direct translation technique is
pushcd hcrc to Lhc lilr~itsof its flucncy: filrthcr inipmvcolcnt~will only comc with
pushed here to the limits of its fluency: further improvements will only come with
thc .iddition of a planner with a knowlcdgc-basc ~Trhctoricalhcuristics.
the addition of a pbnner with a knowledge- basc of rhetorical heuristics.
'l'hc "~ncss;~gc"h a t startcd tlic gcnclitlor off wia lhc scvcll lincs of thc proof in
The "messagc" that started thc generator off was the seven lines of the proof in
scqucncc. Figure 13 is a snnpsllot of thc trcc just aftzr h i s mcssugc was rcccivcd
sequcnce. Figure 13 is a Sna[1ShOl of the tree just afl~r this messilge was received
and distributed i i i ~ orhc slois of a silnplc pnragmph; notc that Llic ordcr of thc
and distributed imo the slols of a simple paragraph; note til at tile order of the
lincs has bccrl yrcnrvcd in thc Icrt-lo-right scquc~iccof lhc slots. 'Ilic formulas
lines has been preserved in the lcn-to-right sequence of tile slots, '111C fOlmulas
l~avcbccn abhrcvialcd to just lllc namcs of rhcir lincs.
have been abbreviated to just the names ofthcir lines.

lincl: prcrtlise
premise
3 x (barber(x) A Vy(shaves(x,y)
ishaves(y,y)))
3x (barber(x) A Vy(shaves(x,y) ++ ""shaves(y,y)))
linc2: cxihtcnlii~linstantiation (1)
linc-2: existenti;ll inswntiatian (1)
barber(g1 A Vy(shaves(g,y) +) yshaves(y,y))
b.. rber(g) 1\ Vy(shaves(g,y) +- ""shaves(y,y
linc3: t;~otology(2)
lind: tautology (2)
V y shoves(g,y) +-, ~ s h a v e s ( y , y )
Vy shnvcs(g,y) ++ -'shaves(y,y)
lincil: u:~i\~crs~I
itls~antialion(3)
Iine4: univmal instantiation (3)
shaves(g,gl ++ ~ s h a v e s ( g , g )
linct:

shaves{g,g) <1-0' ""shaves(g,g)

tautology (4)
shavcs(g,y) A -shaves(g,g)
shaves{g,g) /\ ""shaves(g,g)
IincB: conditio~ializatiun(5.1)
Iine6: eonditinn;llizalion (5,1)
3x ( b a r b e r ( x ) A Y y(shaves(x,y) c* -shaves[y,y)))
3x (barber(ll) /\ 'iy(shaves(x,Y) ++ ""shaves(y,y)
- Ishilves(y,g) A -ishaves(g,g))
- (shaves{y,g) /\ -'shaves{g,g
linc7: r ~ d ~ ~ t i ~ - i ~ d - i( ~6 )l ) ~ r d t ~ ~ n
line7: nx!tletio-<Id-absun.JlIlTI (6)
7 3 x (barbedx) A Vy(shavcs(x,y) c* -shaves(y,y)))
...,3>: (barbedx) /\ 'Iy(shaves{x,Y) +-+ -'shaves(y,y))}

lineS:

linc5: t;~utulogy(4)

Becomes:

Fjgur~

1:jgure 13 h l c s s i ~ catld lni tin1 Snapshot

13 l\1CSS<lgC and Initi"l Snapshot

'lhc lixcd travcrsnl paltcrn of tllc contrullcr dictates dlnl thc text v;ill be
'111e fixed traversal pattern of the controller dil.:lates tllat the text will be
produccd incrcmcnt3lly fi)Itowing thc scqucncc of thc lincs. This guaranteed
produced incremenlJlly follO\~ing tlw sequence of the lines. This guaranteed
convcn!ioi\al scqucncc providcs
b,isis for a clironologicnl d~scolrrsccontext:
conventional seqllcnc~ provides the rasis for a chronolugical dIscourse context:
Ihc text for rhc iirst litic will havc 1)ccn sclcctcd a:?d pn~ducedbcfort. that of the
The telt for the firsl line will have heen selected a~~d produced befi.lfc that of t.he
sccond linc is bcgu!i, the sccond bcftnt thc tllii-d, and so on. On this b:~sis, a
5ccond line is bcgu!l, the second before the third, and so on. On ulis basis. a
modcl of w h ~ It ~ listcncr
C
will havc 11cardc3n be jnfcrrcd, and, couplcd wiUl a
model of what the listeller will have hCJrd can be interred. and, coupled witll a
(vcty simplc) made1 of what inf~rinccsIhc listcncr will makc or. can bc lcnd
(very simple) model of what infcr-enccs the listener will make or can be lead

McDonald

246

through, will givc us solnc justification for extcnding the contcxt-frce

through, will give us some justification for extending the context-free
inlcrprctation of thc lints of the proof to an infcrprctntion in tcrrns of thc rolcs the
interpretation of the lines of the proof to an interpretation in terms of the roles the
lirlcs play in a convcntionill pruof tcchniquc. .l'lius whilc lhcrc arc scvcn lincs in
lines play in a conventional proof technique. Thus while there arc seven lines in
the proof and scvcn scntcnccs in the tcxt, thcre is by nu mcans a onc-to-one
the proof and seven sentences in the text, there is by no means a one-to-one
mapping: 'l'hc first linc of'tlic prc~of,thc prcmisc, is rciidcrcd as an imperative to
mnpping: The first line of the proof, the premise, is rendered as an imperative to
thc lis~cncr,sctting thc fonn of thc argumcnt as a proof by conlradiction. 'I'he
the listener, selling the form of the argument as a proof by contf<Jdiction, The
sccond Iinc instantiates thc v;irisblc. 1,ogically its formula is a rcstatcmcnt of thc
second line instantiates the variable. Logically its formula is a restatement of the
body of thc cxistcntial f o r r i ~ ~ fioln
l a Iinc onc with a constant si~bsti~utcd
for the
body of the existenti<ll formula from line one with a constant substituted for the
body. I t is rcalizcd in tlic tcxt howcvcr only in tcrlns of its n)lc.in thc proof, "Call
body, It is reali/cd in the text ho~ever only in terms of its role'in the proof, "Calf
hi,,! Gius~ppc".tllc f ~ r m u l itsclf
i ~ ]king apprcciatcd as redundant.
him Giuseppe", the formula itsclfbcing <.lpprcciated as redundant.

Assur~~e
rho1 ~herc
is sot~~cr
rtlho slmvcs everyone who
Assume
thal there
is some
barberbnrbcr
who shaves
everyone who
doc
st^
'1 .~i~rrr,r
h
irnsc~(otid
,lo otrc clsc). Cull lrirli Girtseppe.
docsll'l
shmc
himsclf(and
110 one elsc). Calf him'Giuseppe.
it: arljlot~r
tdlo (IOL~SII
'I s h n l ~
hi/nsclf~tn~tld
bc sl~nvcdby
Now, No
011)'011(' who docsl1'l shave himsclfwould be shaved by
Giuseppe.
771is~vo~rlri
irlcl~rde
Giuscppc
IlitllseCJ:
Thai
Giuseppe.
nlis
would
inelude
Giuseppe
himself
is,
he is, he
\r~ould
si~nvc
hirnseIJ:
qutld
oriljl iflre
did
notThai
sllar>e
hirnseK
wouldwhich
shaveishimself,
ifand onlyThis
if hetncatu
did nOIrhar
shave
himself,
a contrudicrion.
ilieass~rrnp/ion
leads
whichtoisaacotrirudictiot~.
cOIl/radie/ioll. Tlzcrefore,
This mcansi! lhat
Ihe
assumplion
leads
isJulsc, rttere is no such
/0 a cOlllradiction. Therefore. if isfalse. there is /10 such
. barber.
. barber.
I'igurc 14 The '13arbcr' Proof
Figure 14 The 'Barber' Proof
'Ihc third Iinc docs not appcar in thc tcxt per re at all since it is an obvious
The third line docs not appear in the text per se at all since it is an obvious
conclusion from what was known so far. 'I'hc fourth linc, on the othcr hnnd, has
conclusion from what was known so far. The fourth line. on the other hand, has
hccn expanded into a thrce scnlcncc "mini-argument" hccnusc of its importance
been expanded into a three sentence "mini-argument" because of its importance
to the proof and bccausc its logic may not bc obvious. 'Ibc fifth line, the
to the proof and because its logic may not be obvious. '1l1e fifth line. the
dcrivntion of thc contradictic.rr~. is intcrprctcd for its co~~vcntional
role, i.e.
derivation of the contradiction, is interpreted for its conventional role, Le.
announcing thc derivation of the contradiction. In the tcxt it is adjoined to the
announcing the derivation of the contradiction. In the text it is adjoined to the
prcvious scntcncc as a rclativc clausc-a kind of "rcnaming" spccch-act.
previous sentence as a relative clause-a kind of "renaming" speech-act.
We scc thc changes that rhcsc realization dccisions havc madc in Lhe trce in
We sec the changes that these reali/ation decisions have made in the tree in
figure 15. Only thc top nodcs of thc scntcnccs arc shown. 'Ihc controllcr is now
figure 15. Only the top nodes of the sentences arc shown. The controller is now
positioned at slot "dtl". and thc two firlal lincs of thc proof rcmain. In looking at
positioned at slot "do". and the two final lines of the proof remain. In looking at
Lhc gcncratinn ofthosc lincs, wc will hc hcgin with vcry cursory descriptions ofthe
Ule generation of those lines, we will be begin with very cursory descriptions of the
first fcw lincs to establish thc hasic pattcrn, thcn movc to vcry dcuilcd snapshots
first few lines to establish the hasic p~ltern, then move to very detailed snapshots
of thc controllcr and thc trcc fur scvcral dccisions that involve straight-forward
of the controller and the tree for several decisions that involve straight-forward
analyscs, and thcn back away from the dctail during the last line to highlight the
analyses, and then back away from the detail during the last line to highlight the
spccial kind of reasoning that gcncration can cntail. For fi~rthcrcxamplcs and a
special kind of reasoning that generation can entail. For further examples and a
thorough discussion of thc analyscs. scc [McDonald 19801.
thorough discussion of the analyses. see [McDonald 1980].

247

cbuw clause nil discourse ndjoined.relative linr6 lire7

clalJ81El clause Ilil discourse odioinedrelative lin~6 lillc7

(dl)

tdll
[d2]

':--.
id21
[d3)

id31

clause clarlse clausa

"psi/ionoJlhe cotlrroller"
"positioll ofthe COli/roller"

clause clause clause

Fil;lIre 15 The Tree after Line 5

4.6.1.

HCl'IJrshc J)l'SCClIt

'111rough the Forlllula

o f lincb: hcgitis witti thc rclntion bctwccn llic i~ifcrcnce

'Illc logical dccolnpositic~~~
'Ille logical decomposition of IiIlc6 heg.in~ with the re1::ltion between the inference
and Elic forniulit it dcrivcs (i~bbrcvialcd"fortnula89 ri~lc"cc~~idi~ionalitn~io~i"
rule "condilionalil.;Hion" and the fOllllllla it derives l.abbr~vialed "formula89 co1ijl0l"): ttiils thc gcncr;ltor rnust do ttic snmc. 'Ihc dic1io1l:a.y entry for
cOlljlOI"l: thus the gellcralOr must do the same. The dictionary entry for
nus st sclcct a plirasc 1ti;it will convcy Iiow thc funnula is rclatcd
cttnditio~b;!li/.atio~l
cnnditilHdil.<ltion must !>elcct .. phrase that will convey how the formula is related
to ~ h crcst ol' tlic proof bcforc it, anti tlicl~tlic forn~ulawill bc rcalizcd in Lhc
to (he rest of tile proof before it. <"Ind then the fornlula will be realized in the
contcxt'of thrrt pl~msc. Ily rlcfnulr, wc I1:ivc tllc inl'crcncc rulc rcalizcd as a
cnntC'xt" of thai phrase. By default, we h:lve the in Icrcilce rule realized as a
hrictging phr;isc stiiting thc cr)n~~cction,
"rlrix ~ ~ t c ~I n~ I~~wI I . . , 'wliicli
:
ctt~bcdsIhc
bridging phrase ~tating the conneclion, "tlris J!1l'aI1S l/iill... ", whieh embeds the
fonnt~la3s a con~plcmcnt.'I'lic knowlcdgc-b:ac of'11icdonirrin would IIOL ~notivafe
formula as a complement. The knowledge-base of Ihe domain woukl not mOlivate
anylhing Inorc clnbor:~tc witl11)111
nl~pcal10 a ~.icllly;ulnor:~tcd,srlf-conscious
Clnylhing more c1nhorate withollt appeal 10 a richly annotated. self-conscious
'I'hc COIILIOIICI~ [ I . ~ V C ~ S C11iis
S
fixed
Lhcorc~n-pl.o\cr,alrd o11c w;~s1101 ;~~;lil;~blc.
lhcon:lt1~prO\ er, and onc was nol available. The controller traver~cs Ihis fixed
pIir;lsc "s:~yilig" t l sl~hjcct
~
and vcrh. 'l'hc co~nplcr~lc~~lizcr
"f11i11" is produccd by
phrase "saying" the suhjecl and HTb. The complcmcJlli/.cr "Ihal" is produccd by
a gmnt~n;ir-t.oulincassoci;~tcdwilt1 t l ~ clnhcl "co!nplc~~ici~t"
ralhcr tti:ltl from its
a gramm:lr-l'lllltine associated with the label "co!npIClIlClIt" ralher lhan from its
ow11slot in thc tree bccar~scof a tlcsig~lhyj~otlicsisthat says Lhal slats sliould bc
own sl(1t in the tree bec<luse of a design hypolhesis tlWl says lhal sluts should be
rcscrvctl b r itcrns dcri\.cd dircctly frotn 111c ~ncssagc;fi~~rction
wortls arc by
reserved fl)r items derived directly from (he message; fUllction words arc by
hypotllcsis a part ol'thc linguistic buck.gn)\~~ui
just likc Il~ct ~ n ~ ~ o t aon~ lllc
i c ~trcc.
r~
hypothesis a pnrt of tJ1C linguistic background just like tlH:' allllotation on the tree.
'I'lic tltxt stcp in thc dcscc111is rhc nrajor co~~ncctivc
of Ihc ronnula, thc
Thc lIexl step in the tlCSCCllt is Ole n1ajllr connective of Ihe fannula, the
i~iiplicittio~~.
I~lil~lica~io~ls
can t;ikc lnatly fot'~usin Englisl~,hut Lhc most dircct is
impliciltion. ImplicaLions can take many forms in English. hut the most direct is
tllc s111)jcoi-pscdicntcrcl;~tions c l ~ ~ t clicrc.
d l ' l ~ cvcrb "lro~dslo" is spccific to this
the slIhjecl-predic::te relation sck-eled here. The vC'rb "l('ods 10" is specific to this
usc of thc contn~diotion. 'Ihc s~i;~pshot
in Fgurc 16 sliows dlc tree
conccl~tio~ral
conventional use of lh,~ contradil:tion. The snapshot in Figure 16 shows the tree
ti-tnn [d6] rlown ;I[ tllc prrint i~ficrthc clnusc rcali~.ingthe i~nplic;~tion
h;ls bccn put
from [df,) down ,11 tJlC pl1int after the clanse realizing the implicatinn has been put
in plilcc. 'I'hc four ~ ; I I . L $r)l'tf~c
controflcr's st:~tcarc givcr~cxl~licitly.
in pl,lCC. The four p;jrL~ of the controller's stile arc given explicilly.

McDonald

248

I.
process slale:
I.Controllcr
Controller pnrccss
slalc: "Dispatch"
"Disj~orch"
3. (;r;~t~~tadr
\'ari:~l~!es (Oll/Y
(ortly 3 orc
,O~WC)
.l
GnllHm~r Y:.uialJ!cs
arc SIshown)
ClirrCl1t~sCllfel1Ce
ct,rrcnl-sctllerlce

IdS]

?currcll[c1ause

clause

~~~~~~~subjrcl
currelltsubjec/~

[subjE'ct] predicate

Variables
2. COlltroller
C'o~~trollcr
\'ari;tblcs

............. this"~

.~~~~jj;pi~~r:===

currenl- rude
currellt/lude

lVE!rb)
[verb] [complement]
[con>plement]-current-SIOI furrent-slol

memr

))is('oursc histor!
history
4. I)incoarsc
i(il11plic:llil'nltl![...],linc6[...},
lilinlll[..], Ii6[..
ror~jllll[
..I. ......)
ronjllll[...],

clause

~flirretll-C01l1enIS

C'--<

[sul~jcrt[[predicate)
[predicntcl
[suhjertl

far1,ta1~89
10",,,,1,69

Said so far: .....

':.. This
T t ~ i means
. s ~ ~ r wthar//"
that//"
ss

[verb]
[verb] [to-objj
[lo-obi]
lead
/nod conj101
conjlOl

Figure 16
l?igvrc
16 Snopshot
Sngpshot ol'the
oI't11c Cuntrol1cl"s
Contiollcr's Stilte
State

4.6.2, SlcPll;ngllle ('nnlroller Thro"~h the Tree

\Vith U
th~
st,lte.
lllC Ilcxt
the posiriuti
position uorr lthe
:\:itli
CI contlOlh.,r
c t ~ ~ i t in
~
i n ~its~ "Dbpatch"
"llispatcl~"
ll~r
st.11~.Cic
licnt Skp
sku11 (H,lil
lictiil tlic
hc
sni.lpshol
the earlier
nowch~lrtS). '1l11C
rccllrsivc caU
ca!l ltno lProc(,ss'nod~
' r t ~ c s s n o d c(r"fer
(rcicr 1to11 Uic
ciirlicr no\+,ch;~rts).
bc
sn,~y!JloL is an recursive
controller v;lii;~blc
variable "current-node"
reil')SigJ:l.~d to lhc
the !lew
node 13bclcd
bbc1cd "clause",
controlkr
"c11rrc111-tilrlc"is rcnaig~:cll
11cwnodc
"cliiusc",
we ('xr:cutc
Wilh
and wc
cnr:cotc allY
ally gr;l1l1mar-routine$
g r : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ n r - r;lssodlled
;~ss~ri;itcd
~ ~ u t i l i c will1
s
kL1::cc label
lal?cl "l'1JlISC"
"clause" and lhe
Ihe
There ilrc
arc ;rrc!.ci~tl)
i''Jrc~,ciltly two oflhcsc:
o f Ulcsc: one
rinc for assigning
cCOlllf(\llcr-c\'cllt
u n ~ t ' ~ d l c r - c v"cntcrnodc",
"cnlcr-nodc".
c~~t
'1'llcl.c
the ClinenlSClHencc,
whil.:h
long~r 'lpplics,
tJwt rccursi\,cly
rCiOlIl'sivcly rc:tssigns
reassigns
tlic
CII~ICII~-S~I!~CIICL'. w
l l i ~ l nno
l o longs
npplics. and one
onc Ula:
Uic
gr:~nitil;~r-vnriabIc"cIIITe-Ill-c1ause",
"c~~rrcti~clousc".
which docs. From Ilcrc
conlrollcr
the grammar-v<lriablc
here thc
the controller
llliJvCS to II'IGccsssl(lt.
"current-slot"
the lirst
the cl.auscs
' ! ~ r c s s s l ~ ~fI:assigning
rcilssi:ning
L
"currclil-slot" to ll:c
liint or
ui' thc
clonse's
niorcs
constilt;Cnt slolS,
the "subject",
slots. Ihc
"subjcct", and "currcntcol1tel1ts"
"currcnt-conrciits" to formuta89.
liir1nula89. One
co~istill;ct~l
~Ipplics licrc
here to assign
grammar varijblc
vari;ib1c "currt:nt-subjcct"
to
grammar-routine :~pplics
gramn~iir-ioutinc
a!;sign the
Uic grammilr
"currznt-suhjccth W
the current-contents,
rrCU1SlVC ellvironments
such
danse
tlic
current-catitcnts. (Working
(\Vorking in
i n rccu~sivc
c~iviro~ltncnts
s ~ ~ c:a~,
I!; l i this clause
requires c.lfe
the ltiming
J5signlllcnls. By
the
thce
icrlr~ircs
c.lrc in
it1 ihc
i r n i ~ ~of
opf assignt~len~s.
I l y "dcbying"
" d c l ~ y i l ~ gd!c
" updating of
of h
pointer to thc
the subject
until nun.
now, wc
we haye
retained acro.s
tu Ule
tile Ilighcr
Jlig,hcr suhject
pointelsubjcct unlil
11aic retnincd
;icccss Lu
si~hjcct
where it war
W3') 11eC'(krl,
j4licrc
ncedcd, c.g..
c.g.. for [P(lt\:lUhll
~ o t c l ~ ~applications
i ~i ;! ~ l~ l i c i l t i oor
ot/i s'cquiv,licnt-np-dcletion
~ ~ ] ~ i v ~ t I c ~ ~ t - ~ i or
opr- d c l ~ t i o ~ i
C!i:US!~.)
cconjunction-reduction
o t i j u ~ ! c t i o n - r c d i ~LI;alll:~
~ l11:i: ~ ~lc\d
Ic\c.l
~ ~ "rlhc
o r i h c c!.:usc.)
ffl'm
Proccss-:;!I)t. !!le
the ('"U!Jlrol1cr
[)i~p.Jtch and
the "msg-elmt"
Fri>m l'rlrcc!;s-slot.
:u!~~rollcrcalls
c:lllr [>izp.ltcll
ilnd selects
sc:ccls ihc
"lnsg-clrnt"
casCo "he
J{c~\lil.c wiil
will iicw
now CO;I:IO~
eOiltloJ ltile
rl~,llizing 1)lrnsc
pllraSl: for
casc.
.fhc function
!i~l!ction l<e:!li~c
l ~ c";Clcctitl!l
l c c l i i ~of
ol f~i.iii i\:;~liring

249
formula89 which will thcn bccomc thc current-contcnu and 'thc cuntrollcr will
formula89 which will then become the current-contenL~ and the controller will
loop tllrough Dispatch again. 'Ihc rcaliration of fortnula89 involvcs apprcciating
loop through Dispatch again. 'Ihe realil.ation of formula89 involves appreciating
its rcdcsc~.iptionas an objcct with a special role in thc proof, i.c, "rlre assur~~ption".
its redescription as an object with a special role in the proof, i.e. "the assumption".
Its dictionary cntry is considerably more involvcd than avcragc; conscqucntly
Its dictionary entry is considerably more involved than average; consequently
mthcr than ltiok at thc intcrprctation of that cntry, wc will digrcss hcrc to consider
rather than look at the interpretation of that entry, we will digress here to consider
a morc "normal" cntry and how it fits into Rcillizc. 'Ihe rcdcscription tcchniquc
a more "normal" entry and how it fits into Realize. The redescription technique
itsclf will be dcscribcd latcr.
itself will be described later.
4.6.3. 'I'hc Rcali/arion I'roccss
4.6.3. The Ucalization Process
Figure 17 is a high-lcvcl flowchart of the function licalizc: It dividcs into two
Figure] 7 is a high-level flowchart of the function Realize: It divides into two
paths dcpcnding 011 whclher this is thc first instiincc of thc mcssagc clcmcnt to
paths depending on whether this is the first instance of the message clement to
appcar in [tic trec, in which casc wc go dircctly to its dictionary cntry, or whether
appear in the tree, in which case we go directly to its dictionary entry, or whether
this is a subscqucnt rcfcrcncc (as with formulit89). in which casc we apply various
this is a subsequent reference (as with formula89). in which case we apply various
hcuristics to dctcrminc if it should bc rcalizcd as a pronoun or somc other form of
heuristics to determine if it should be re;llized as a pronoun or some other form of
"subscqucnt rcfcrcncc". (Surnmirrizing iln cntirc firmula with t l x phrase "rhe
"subsequent reference", (Summarizing an entire formula with the phrase "the
assun~plion"is a form of subscqucnt rcfcrcnce.) ,
assumption" is a form of subsequent reference.)
Every cntry has a "lnatrix" decision. thc one that dctcrmincs what catcgory of
Every entry has a "matrix" decision, the one that determines what category of
phrasc will bc uscd, c.g. noun ptirasc or clausc, and may have an arbitrary number
phrase will be used. e.g. noun phrase or clause, and may have an arbitrary number
of othcr "refining" dccisions that can add additional fcaturcs to tfic phrasc or add
of other "refining" decisions tllat can add additional features to tl1e phrase or add
optional constituents.
optional constituents.
A dictionary cntry consists of a sct of possiblc "choices" and a sct of "dccision1\ dictionary entry consists ofa set of possible "choices" and a set of "decisionrulcs" to pick bctwccn thcm: A choice is a symbolic specification of phrases,
rules" to pick between them: A choice is a symbolic specification of phrases,
words, or subelemcnts of the elcmcnt being rcalizcd; A decision-mle has two
words, or subelcments of me clement being realized; A decision-rule has two
parts: onc, a list of prcdicatcs that may cxaminc bolh thc linguistic context and the
parts: one, a list of predicates that may examine both the linguistic context and the
contcxt of the speaker, and two. the choice that should bc sclccted if those
context of the speaker. and two, the choice tllat should be selected if those
prcdicatcs arc true. %hc bulk of thc realization process consists of interpreting the
predicates arc true. 'nle bulk of the realization process consists of interpreting the
decision-rules to sclcct a choice, thcn possibly going through Further sets of
decision-rules to select a choice, men possibly going through further sets of
decision-rules lo sce if h e grammatical or rhetorical contcxt dictates that the
decision-rules to see if the grammatical or rhetorical context dictates that the
choicc should bc transformed. Extcnsions to the trce occur whcn the sclccted
choice should be transformed. Extensions to the tree occur when the selected
choicc specifics a phrase.
choice specifics a phrase.

McDonald

250

MScrELMT
MAIN
STREAM

>-

SUBSEQUENT
S U B S E ~
REFERENCE
REFERENCE

no

seec
subseq

_no

ref. strategy

apply-transformotlona

....

'-------- ;

---------'

MSG.. F.LMT:~' REALIZATION

Figure 17
17 flowchart of
thc rrcali7.
c a l i.a~tion
~ ~ tprocedure
ion
ortlle
The \,ocabulary
vocabulary of thc
the specification comes
the .permanent
comcs from thc
,pcnnancnt knowledge
base in the grammar, part of
the legitimate
o f which is a listing of all of Ule
lcgiti~natecategories in
Lhe
language and for each
legitimate sequences
ofslolnamcs
the languagc
cacli category,
catcgory, of the
tllc Icgitimatc
scqucnccs of
slomamcs that it
can dominate.
dominatc. These
'l'hcse listings arc organized in terms of "constituent schcrnas'.
schcmas".
("Schemas"
they will
will be uscd
used as tcmplates
templates for the construction of
scnsc that thcy
("Schcmas" in the sense
"instances"
configurations in the trcc.)
tree.) Every choice has (at
"instances" of those category
catcgory configi~rations
least)
three parts:
pans: (1) a;I "phrase-schema" that defines
tree of
constitucnt-schcmas
Ici~st)thrcc
dcfincs a trcc
ofconstituent-scllcm~
possibly augmented
by
additional
labels
and
by
specific
words
from the English
augmcntcd
labcls
spccific
vocabulary;
parameters Uiat
tl,at will bc
be uscd
used to pick out
\ocabulary: (2) a list of formal
fnrmal paramctcn
subeJcments
being rcalizcd;
realized; and (3) a mapping from
clcmcnt bcing
subclcmcnts of the message element
parameters to slots
tbe fringe nfthe
paramctcrs
s111tsat the
of thc specified
spccificd phrase.
Figure 18
the entry,
the
Figurc
18 lists thc
cntry, choice, and grammar that are
arc required
rcquircd to realize (he
logical predicate shaves.

251

Message ElelllC/rt

shafCS(X,Y)

Dictiuriary Ellt!y (define-entry shavcs-entry (shaver shavee)

Dictionary Entry (define-entry shaves-entry (shaver shavee)

(matrix
default (clause-direct.objsct shaver "shave" shavee)))
dEofaull (clause-direc!-objec! shaver ",ha"e" shavee)))

(matrix

the C71oice

the Choice

(define.clioice clause direct.object

(define-choice clause direct-object
paramcle~s(subj verb object)
paramctels (subj verb object)
phrase (basic-clause 0
phrase (basic-clause 0
predicate (vpobjl 0 ))
predicate (vpobj 1 0
map ((subj (subject))
map subj . (subject
b e r h . (predicate verb))
(',erb _ (predicate vel b))
(object (predicate objectf))) )
(object (pl~icate objecl1))) )

Co~rslilriall(define-schema basic.clause
(define-schema basic-clause
scherrras
categories [clause)
schemas
categories (clause)

Com/ill/CIl/-

(def ine-schc!ma up-objl

(define-sch(!ma vp-obj1
categories (vp)
categories (vp)
slots (subject predicate))
slols (verb object!))
slots (subject predicate
slots (verb objecl1

IVJJiClll'IWfJUCE;

A
clause

~
[ subject ] ~
[ predicate ]
[ subjer:t]

I
x [ predic:lte
vp

~
[ verb ] [ object1 1
[ verb I [objecH]
shave
Y
shave
\'

b'igurc IS F.ntry, Clioicc, 2nd grmnmar f o r tllc I-elation 'shaucs'

Figul'e 13 Entry, Choice, and gr;mlillaf fot UIC relation 'shaves'
'HIC clictionary entry rhnvi~sctrirj~
will bc i h c onc to pcrli)nn tlic rc;~liznlion. It
'!lIe dictionary entry \1/!11't'S~fII"J' will h<: thc onc to pcrlimll the realization. It
dscom~~uscs
t h c origioal nicsagc c i c m c l ~ ri l l t o two s [ ~ b ( ! l ~ l n c ~ t~l ltcs .v;)ri;lblcs X
d.:'c0Il1POSC5 the (lriginal IllcsSJge elemcnt into two slibelcmcnts. the variables X
id Y pltts tI1c 1~c1.b'~dlrni:cf',
alld Oinds thc111to tllrcc Ioi.;ll v3fiill)Ics for casc o f
,lnd Y pIllS the verb "shave", :lIld binds tll<.'m to three IDcal variables fill' casc of
iuanipul;~ritrn. S1i:tvcs-cnrl'y bas c!nly onc c h i ~ i c c . ~ l i i c hit Ir;ls marked as its
manipulation, Shaves-entry has only one choice, which it has mdrked as its
tlc~fi~ult.As i t inclo<lcs no decision-rules, this dcf;~:llt chuicc ail1 alw;iys I)c bkcn.
dl.'faull. As it includes no decision-rules, this defaall choice will always he taken.
' I b c choice, clttusc-i/~r.~~c*~-ol!ic.c~
(n;~rncd for tflc k irki uf iorlr;li~uc~itSI~LIC~II~C it
The choice, cfau.w.'-dire(/-oNccf (named for tile kind uf constituent structure it
builds), is givcti in :lit f i ~ ~jusl
i ~ 1)clotv
c
tlic ctilry. It uscs two constituent schcma,
builds), is givcn in thc figure jusl helow the cnlry. It uses two constitucnt schema,
titsic-rh~lr~tl
aalid i~/~-ol:jl,
to d c l i n c ;I t\\.t)-It\-cl ~)hrasc-sclrcin;~
(shown illstalltintcd
ba,~ic-clulr.se and ",'-o!y"l. to dc'fine a (\\"I)-levcl phr;1sc-scIH:m:1 (shown instantiated
ill t l l c b o t t o m o f tlrc figurc) W!II.)~C nor/! coi~stiluci~i
h:ti I j r c n i i l l c d in b l r t othcr
<It the hottom of Ill(: figure) whose vab constilllellL h:ls Ixen tilled in but other
co:ls~i!ucn~s
l t r t \acrnr iir :ttitictl>ali m i orbr:i~:gfilled by ~;lcss;gc c l c ~ n c ~sclcctcd
~ls
constiWl'nls len \,lC,ll1[ ii' :lllticip:lLi,'ll ofbeillg filled by message demcnts selectcd
by tllc clllr ics ~ll::t sclcct c l , ~ t ~ i - c - d i r c ~ t - o t ~Ilccausc
j i ' ~ ~ ~ , tflis ~:l~oic.c
hill i r ~ c r i t a b f y
by the ('1II1ies tlwt select cl,llI,c-dircct-ohjcCl, Because this I:lwkc \\ ill illc\ilahly
be u s t t l :villi nmny tiiiTcrcr~tcl~trics,its l l ~ ; ~ l ~ l ) i it.n g~ i \ c in
~ ltcrrns of irs own
be used with m:my diffcn.:nt ('Iltdes, its 1ll<IJJping i~ r,ivcn in (erms of irs own
f'ol.~n;~lIurJlncLcrs (LC. atiq. wib. and ul?jccr).w l ~ i c l larc t l ~ c nb o u n d to ilic v:.lucs
!ormall'ar,llneLcrs (i.e, .sub). verb. and uNcef). which arc then bound to the values

252

McDonald

of
when tl,e
taken. To
o f tl,e
the local
loc;tl variables of
o f the
ihc entry wlicn
t l ~ cchoice is tiri.cn.
T o produce new
constitllcnt
phrase'schema must
mllst bc
be ills~lntiated
constitacnt structllre
structure from the choice.
cboicc, its phrase-schc~na
insuntiatcd and
tlw
mapping
applied
to
fiJI
its
leaves
with
the
message
clements
Ihc mapping
ti11
lcavcs
thc nlessagc clc~ncntsthe entry has
sclected.
sclcctcd.
4.6.4. Contilluing
through the tree
4.6.4,
Continuing tltrot~gh
Once
tl,e pllrasc
phrase for formula89
been instantiated
tl,e tree.
Oncc Ule
ft1rnlul;lS9 has becn
instantiated and knit into
i n t o thc
trcc, the

controller
Process-node and bcgins
begins to trJVCrsc
controllcr SIas
; bclorc
hcforc rccurses
rccurscs on
o n I'roccsc-node
travcrsc the
dlc new
ncw noun
phras('. Nothing
Nothing ncw
new happens
phrase. so we
pItras1'.
Il;~ppcnswithin Llle
Lhc phrasc.
wc will move
lnovc on
o n to
t o the
d ~ cnext
snapshot,
moved
down
snapsllot, taken
takcn after the
lltc controller
controllcr has
11;s finished
finisl~cdwith the subject
subjcct and
a t ~ movcd
d
and through
tl,e
slot
"to-obj"
to
li1e
ohjcc!
constituent.
throllgli dle
"ttl-obj" tu Ihc ohjcct cc~nstitt~cnt.
I.
CoJltrolh~r
stare:
I.C
b ~ ~ t r n l lIlro('('ss
procrw
rr
slarc: "Dispatch"
"l)ispa!ch"
3. Gr:UlllII;n
I;r:~ttt~t~;tr\'miablcs
\':tri~hles (01/1)'
(O,,/J ('urrefl1-srnte17Ce,
currerrr-rmnnce.
currcTitsubj(xt.
currcar-.~ul!iccr.(Jlld
orld C/JrrCII('c!aIJse
C U N P I I I - C ~ O !or('
or?
, ~ ~shown)
IIZOW~)

~CI~currelll-sWlena
~CI/-SEI~ICP

[dB]
[dB]

clause
clause

[subject]
[sul~icctl[pre<1icnle]
[pr&icnle]
rlti.f
,/,is

vp

~
[verb] [complement]

4.
[verb] [complement]
ml'an
claus~
ml'nn
clause
CLirf(;1I1~cllluse---16;;;n:::;::;r.;:~
curr{'f11~~'Ubjecl
c u r r ~ ~ ~ l - s i ~ b j e ~ l l~uhjcl'11 Iprl'llicalc
~
np
vp
formulaR9
~ ~
~ {verbnto:db:]

I ~ P 05SlImptiOl/
n.xx,~.~~li,~!i
lcfin
Ihe
/mli

Said so fur:

UisroUlliC' history
1)irroilrrc
Itistory
(forulUla:l9[
(B,ntnul;JY[ ...].
. I , implkalionI1l1[...],
intplirrlionlll2[ ..&
Iim'II[...],
li#!cb[ ...I, fonjIUI[...],
co~~jllll[
...I....)
...)

2. ('onlrolll'r
C'oatrollrr Variahles
\'ari;~It!es

CUtT:,'//{-l1ode

currellt-slot

o,l~illll
C~lrrrlll-~ul1lcllls
l'oujllll_
t'ilrrCJI/-eVlllcnls

''This 11IC<lIIS lhm theaSSU1II1'Iioll/cac!s 10//"

Figure] 9 Sn,lpshot "ftl'r producing the verb

Noticc
111at we
wc havc
repl;scJ ihc
vcrh "'jtll
with its third
tltir(1 pcno!l
siltp.ul;~rfonn
Notice that
have not rcplaccJ
the verb
pcr..,on singular
cvctl dlaugll
tli:~tis the
t l ~ cform
fortn 111;
oppc.~rs in the
tllc output
oull>t!t ~trean1.
strcarn. fly
By design.
design, we
even
tllOUgh thal
thaLt apPcilrs
ltovc dcci(lcd
t11at Ulc
lcvcl of
ol'rvprr~cnt:~tion
c ~ l ~ i b i t cin
i nd Uw
UC
I lrcc
s l l ~ i l ~bc
l d the
!l<lVC
d~cidC'd that
tlle kvd
n'presC'!ll;\tion exhibited
trcc should
be
kvd nneeded
n:r~rC'm:e it;
\\"(: y.,iI1
lcvcl
c c d d by !he
!he library
li11r;try routines
nrt~tittcs!Jut
th.11 irfsrcncc
it: \tc
will Hot
ttot gr;]tuitollsly
gl'at~iil(lurly
"ttixJxc" its cOlltents
co!ttcnts or add
ad,! lahd'i
Iitbcls if
i f tth('y
l l f y ;ire
i i i ~ t $ktot do further
fi!rtlicr work
\iilrh in
i n Ule
the
"update"
~m' not p
g(lilli~
gr;irllnl;tr.
'lltc
c~,rrccl
1narpholo!:i1:.11
i
h
u
n
(11'
Uic
vcrh
w;ls
nccdccl
CIIIIY
for
the
grammar. The correll l11orpholo!,.iC<ll thnn or tJ1C vcrb W<'IS needed llnly

253
output text and so was not constructcd until thc morphology routine was passed
output text and so was not constructed until the morphology routine was passed
tllc word on its way to the tcxt strcarn. latcr grammatical rcfercnccs to thc vcrb
the word on its way to the text stream. Later grammatical references to the verb
arc going to be conccrncd with its gri~mmaticalproperties ralhcr Ih$n its
are going to be concerned with its grammatical properties rather than its
morphological oncs (for examplc whcthcr it can takc cotnplcmcnts, and if so
morphological ones (for example whether it can take complements, and if so
whcthcr thcy ihrc subject or objcct controlled) and thcse propertics arc by
whether they are subject or object controlled) and these properties arc by
convention ;esociatcd aith the roor fvtm of thc vcrb which is dlc onc in place in
convention associated with the roOl form of the verb which is the one in place in
thc vcrb slot. 'l'hc prcpasition "lo" kas introduccd by a grammar-routinc attnchcd
the verb slot. The preposition "to" was introduced by a gwmmar-routine attached
to thc labcl "to-obj" rather than having its own slot for thc a m c rcason: wc cxpixt
to the label "ta-obj" rather than having its own slot for the same reason: we expect
no othcr part of thc gcncratur, dicliunnry or grammar. to iiccd to know about h e
no other part of the generator, dictiunary or grammar. to need to know abollt the
prcscricc of that prcposition so wc makc our cxpcctation concrctc by having the
presence of that preposition so we make our expectation cnncrete by having the
prcposition complctclg "invi~iblc" within a grammar routinc rathcr rhan
preposition completely "invisible" within a grammar routine rather than
occupying a slot whcrc it could bc noticed.
occupying a slot where it could be noticed.
Hrdcscriptionaccordi~~gtofunc~ion 'l'hc last significant opcration bcfore
Redescription according to function
The last significant operation before
moving on to line7 is Ihc rcalization of conjlol, thc formula shaves(g,g) A
moving on to Iine7 is the realization of conjlOl, the formula shaves(g,g) /\
ishaves(g,g). as h c 131gli511phrasc ''0C O I I I ~ ( I ~ ~'Ihis
L ' /is~of
O~
coursc
I " . not a
-'shaves(g,g). as the English phrase "a cOIJlradic'ioll ". 'Illis is of course not a
fircral rcndcring of thc forniuln: that would havc bccn "He shaves hhbuevarrd he
literal rendering of the fomlllb: that would have been "lie shavcs himself alld he
docsn't shalle hitrrself'. Instcad it is a rcndcring of the cor~~~entiot~al
role h a t the
docsII" shal'e himself', Instead it is a rendering of the cul1l'enliollal role that the
fotmula playcd in thc proof at that point, i.c, an indication that a contradiction
fotmula played in the proof at that point. Le. an indication that a contradiction
had bcin dcrivcd. 'Ihis ability to rcalizc cxprcssions in terms of thcir functional
had been derived. '111is ability to realize expressions in terms of their functional
rcdcscriptions was also uscd in the rcalization of formula89 as "rhe assurt~piion"at
redescriptions was also used in the realization of formula89 as "the assumption" at
Ll~cbcginning of Lhc sentence.
the beginning of the sentence,
Rcdcscription is a way of seeing the same conccpt or opcration at multiple
Redescription is a way of seeing the same concept or operation at multiple
Ic\.cls simultaneously dcpending on one's intent, and has become an important
leYels simultaneously depending on one's intent, and has become an important
part of thc reprcscntatiunal "rcpenoire" of modern cxpcrt systems, whcre it is
part of the representational "repertoire" of modern expert systems, where it is
uscd in plan recognition and in dcfining lcvcls of abstraction (scc particulaly
used in plan recognition and in defining levels of abstraction (sec particularly
[Mark 19811). Intuitivcly, rcdcscriprion is associated with particular turns of
[Mark 1981}), Intuitively. red~scrip[ian is associated with particular turns of
phrasc in English such as appositivcs (as in the last scntcncc of this cxamplc) or
phrase in English such as appositives (as in the las[ sentence of this. example) or
some noun-noun combinations (c.g. "the role
conscqucntly, it is uscful to
some noun-noun combinations (e,g, "'he role pobi'): consequently, it is useful to
nl;rkc spccific arrangements for it within thc linguistics cornponcnt.
make specific arrangements for it within the linguistics component.
Ordinarily, rcdcscription would bc an opcration at a conccptual lcvel rather
Ordinarily, redescription would be an operation at a conceptual level rather
than a linguislic onc, and wc would cxpcct it to be explicitly indicated in the
than a linguistic one, and we would expect it to be explicitly indicated in the
mcssagc; however, since the prcscnt rnicrospcakcr has no real conccptual
message; however, since the present microspeakcr has no real conceptual
knowlcdgc of logic and starts with olily thc barc formulas of the proof, we must
knowledge of logic and starts with only the bare formulas of the proof. we must
coinpcnsatc by performing thc rcdcscription locally within thc dictionary. Ihe
compensate by performing the redescription locally within the dictionary. lbe
rclcvant par& of the dictionary arc thc entries for thc infcrcncc rulcs, thcsc being
relevant parts of the dictionary are the entries for the inference rules, these being
whcrc thc rnicrospcakcr's tacit knowlcdgc about thc structure of proofs resides.
where the microspeaker's tacit knowledge about the structure of proofs resides.
The rcdcscriptions of the individual formulas arc deduccd as thc entrics are
The redescriptions of the individual formulas are deduced as the entries are
intcrprcrcd and stored wihin thc linguistics cornponcnt on a spccial association
interpreted and stored within the linguistics component on a special association
list: the cntry for a Prcrnisc, for cxamplc, notcs that the formula on its line serves
list: the entry for a Premise, for example, notes that the formula on its tine serves

w'):

254

McDonald

thc function of bcing

thc entry
cnuy for t~utologics
the
being the assumption of thc
tl,e proof: and the
~llitologies
clearing-liousc for all entire
cntirc set
sct of logical nianipulatio~ls)
(which is actually a clearing-house
manipulations) notcs
notes
that
any
dcrivcd
linc
of
thc
form
A
A
A
is
scrving
to
mark
thc
dcrivation
of a
thal
derived line the
A 1\ -'A serving
the derivation ofa
contradicdon at ha!
contradiction
that point in tllc
the proof.
Thc access
acccss function
filnction that associates
asaxi;ltct fonnulas
fcinulas with their
thcir cntrics
The
entries includes a
spccial check
clicck for
fur redescription,;
rcdcscriptiunp and passes
passcs every
cvcry rcdescribed
rcdcscribcd formula to a
special
common mela-(,f!If)'
between other
relo lo-orrry for
for its
it5 realization.
rc;~li/.ation. (A
( A meta-entry
mcta-cntry chooses
clinc~scsbctwccn
othcr
cntrics r;:Jthcr
raUicr than
tli;ln between
bctwccn English C<lllstructions.)
c~i~ictructions.)
l'his entry
cntry knows how to usc
use
entries
This
thc special
spcci;il redescription
rcde\cription plirase.;.
li;~saccess
acccss boll1
rcndcrings and
the
phrases. and has
both ttr
to rlic
the littral
litera] renderings
fi~~ictionnl-lcvcl
rcndcrings. which it combines
c ~ ~ m h i naccording
;~ccording
cs
thc context
contcxt (sec
(scc
to thc
the fUllctional-level
renderings.
to !.he
ahnjunction with the realization
rcalilation of ncg103).
ncgl03).
discussion bclow
below in conjunction

4.6.5.

Ilcl"yin~

Decisions

One
direct-transl'ltion tccliniquc
tcchnique is that while the
Onc pproblem
r l ~ b l c ~tl1at
th;~t
n can arise with the
tlic dircct-transl;~tion
tlic data
d,~tauscd
(hcrc the
thc prcdic;~tc
fihr~nalstructure
s u u c t u ~ cof the
formal
Llsed in a mcssagc
mcssage (here
predicate calculus) may be
crinvcnicot within the
ihc dom,lin,
d o ~ n ; ~ i nit ,can be
bc at odds kith
convcnicnt
convenient
..dIh wliat
what would bc
be convenient
fur thc
gcacrator. Ncg;1tionl03,
thc I;~st
proof: is aJ case
c;~scin point.
for
the generator.
Negationl03, the
last line 11f
of thc
the proof;
-'3x (barber(x) 1\ Vy(shaves(x,y)'" -'shaves(y,y)))

1.inguisticnlly. hthec principle contribution to the

thc content of any text
tcxt crcatcd
I-inguistically,
created from
nceationl03
comc from tlic
"shavcs" relations.
rcl;~tions.yct
arc the most deeply
negation
103 will come
the "shaves"
yet thcsc
these me
embedded
U,e formula.
we follow dic
the formula's
cmbcddcd in Uic
formula. If
If wc
for~nula'snatural decomposition
dccornposition
contcnt
ordcr, fI\'e
fivc logical opcrators
order,
operators will lhavc
have to bc
be passcd
passed thnrugli
through hcforc
before thcsc
these content
relations
the indelibility
the
rclntions arc reached.
rc;~chcd. Given
Givcn thc
i~idclibilitystipulation,
stipl~li~tion.
h c realization decisions
dccisions
opcralors mllst
must hc
thc way down" as it wcrc,
for tliosc
those operators
be made "on the
were, but how can this
be
those decisions
donc if thosc
dccisions arc contingent on linguistic details
dctails of how the content
bc done
rclations can be
bc realized-details
rc;~li~.cd-dctails that will not be
bc detcnllined
dctcnnincd until those relations
rclations
relations
controllcr.
arc actually rcnclicd
reached by thc
the controller.
This
problem is solved
U,e affected
We postponc
postpone them
stllvcd by delaying
dclaying Ulc
affcctcd decisions.
dccisions. Wc
'l'his problc~n
tlntil
the infor~iiation
informatiun on which
depend has bccn
been determined,
implementing
until thc
wliich they
tlicy dcpcnd
dctcr~nincd,iniplcmcnting
dccisions that
d e ~can
t be made
madc independently
indcpcndcntly and attaching
;~tt;~ching
only thosc
those decisions
annotations to
tlic trcc
rcmi~iningdecisions
dccisi<~ns
arc
pcnding. Consider
Considcr the
the
tree indicating that thc
the remaining
<Ire still pending.
rcali~ationdecisions
dccisions in line?:
linc7: The
'l'hc infcrcncc
I-ulc.reducthrad-absurdum,
reduc/iuad-absurdurn, is
first two realization
inference rule,
realized
previous condilionali7.ation
rule by picking a bridging adverb
rcali~.cdlike
likc the
tlic prcvi~ius
conditionalitation rulc
advcrb that
will convey
U,e linc
line is the
convcy the
thc facl
fact hthat
a t Uic
h c conclusion
conclusi~n(e.g.
(c.g. "therefore')
"/here/urc") and then
embedding
the linc's
line's fonnula
However. because
cn~lrcddingtlic
fihmula in that linguistic context.
contcxt. tlowcvcr.
bccausc this is a
formula will be a
proof
proof by contradiction, wc
we know by convention
cnnvention Uiut
U,at this
tllis final fonnula
copy of thc
the prcmisc
premise but with opposite polarity. Wc
We should somehow
somchow emphasize

25~

this polarity in the text, but from this valitagc point in the prdccss wc d o not yet
lhis polarity in the text. but from this vantage point in the process we do not yet
know what linguistic mechanism should bc used (e.g. an explicit "do" or an
know what linguistic mechanism should be used (e.g. an explicit "do" or an
emphatic "not"). Wc must tllus dclay thc dccision until wc know more, which
emphatic "not"). We must thus delay the decision until we know more. which
means h a t wc add an annotation to tlic formula wc cmbcd, cxpccting the
means that we add an annotation to the fonnula we embed. expecting the
annotation to bc recognized by later routines h a t will bc activc whcn the nccded
annotation to be recognized by later routines that will be active when the needed
information is known.
information is known.
As it happens, thc dictionary entry of the very next opcmtor in h e
As it happens. the dictionary entry of the very next operntor in the
decomposition, thc negation, has an altcr~~alivc
among its chbiccs that we have
decomposition, the negation, has an alternative among its choices that we have
dctclmincd in dcsigni~igthc grammar will scr-ye to cmph;airzc ncgativc polarity,
detellllincd in designing the grammar will serve to emphasil.e negative polarity,
LC. '?l,crdS. or llw nrga:alion> is Jrlsr". 'I'hc ncgation clmy is allowcd to sclcct this
Le. "<hndy or Illr m'l:alion) is !iI/Sf''', The negation entry is allowed to select this
choicc i f thc body of thc ncgstio~~.
tlic prcmisc lint fi~nnula89.call bc cvprcssed as
choice if the hody of the negatio!l. the premise line fonnula89. can be e~pressed as
s sitnplc noun phragc (no~ni~ializcd
clauscs arc disi~llowcd):that is the case here.
a simple noun phrase (nlJlninalized clauses are disallowed); that is the case here.
sincc forrnul;189 was just rcfcrrcd to in thc last scutcnce as "rhc assu))~l)lion"
and
since formula89 waS just referred to in the last sentence as "lhe assumpliull" and
that nominal form will carry ovcr. If only a clau~illrcaliz;rtion had bccu possible,
that nominal form will carry ovcr. If only a clausal renlization had becn possible.
then thc ncgation dccision would hahe bccn dclaycd as well.
then the negalion decision would ha\e been delayed as well.

McDonald
McDonald

256

256

[d7]

A
clause

~
[themalic-ndvsrb] [head]
[thematic-adverb) [head]
tl~crdore
therefore
n~I:I0l.....,

rnlphasize-polarily "ncg~live"
I~ll1ph~silt'Jlolaril)'
"n~J:alive"

Becomes:
Becomes:
{d7)
clause

[thematic-adverb) head)

clause

~
(head] [appositive]
[head)

clause

[appositive]
cIause\"cgl03,

nrg 1OJ

use-literal-form

~
luse-literal-form
[subject] [predicate]
[subject) (predicate)

rormul~"9

~
[verb] [pred.adj]
[verb] (prlld -adj]

"rn'u'"9

be

folst

Said so far: ",.. ThercJ~re//"

Said so
far: ..... TherejiJre//"
(dt?fine-entry negation-entry (neg)
(define-entry negation-entry (neg)
var~ahles((hwjy (body neg)))
variables ((budy (body neg}))
(matrix
(matrix
((cqual (gtq.annotation neg crnl~liasizc-polarity)'nagalive) ;dc~.isio~-rulc
equal (gt'tannotation neg clflllllasi;:e-polarily) 'negalive} ;J,'dsio~'IU/c
(will-be body 'np)
(will-be body 'np)
(X-is.lnlne body)) :~,hoicclo st~/tact
(X-islfll~e body) :l'hoice (0 sfft'cl
((will be body 'np) ;it. do lr whcneverpossible b~causeit's morejluenr
will-be body'np) ;Le. do jf whr~evrr possible because it's more fluent
(X-is.fillse body))
(X-isfalse body)
default (Mark-X-negative Dotly)))
default (Mark-X-negative body)))

Figure 20 Delayed Decisions

1:xprcssions likc "TIIP~ . S S ~ ~ I > I ~ IisI OJ11.rc''
)I
l c n d dicmsclvcs to oppositivc
Expressions like "The assrmrptioll is /o/se" lend themselyC's to apposlllVC
pl~rascsl l ~ n tcxp:~ndo n what was summ:il.izrd in d ~ sc i ~ t ~ j c c t'I'his
,
is ;I 61ct oftllc
phrases that cxp:md 011 what was summ:lrilcd in the subject. This is a fact of the
g:,anlrnnr tll;rt c;bn be i!nplcnlcntcd in a gcllcmtor in t c n l i s of a tr;lt~sfi)i.n~ntion
that
grammar th:lt can be ilnplemcntcd in a generator in ternlS of a transformntion that
wc ;~ssoci;\tc with this cxprcssiun. 'I'hc t l a n s f o r n ~ ~ l i oacL5
n
indcpcndcntly ollcc
we associate with this expression. The tranSfOl"nlJtioll aet'; indcpcnd..:ntly once
triggcl-rd by ~ h cutic o f thc rxprcssio~land exru~~incs
Ihc silbjcct to src if iin
trir,gcred by the U~iC of tJ1C expression and examines Ule subject to see if an
al~l!i)sitivc wt!uld bc appix1j)riatc. 'Jhc 11~11risticL I S C ~I~cI-c
is a wry simplc and
Jppo~iti\'e would be 1ppropriatc. The hClITistic used here is a very simple and
a~.tritnr-yOIIC: rcdc~c~.iptions
SLIC~Ias "UII o ~ s ~ r ~ t t p ~ ur
i o ~"u
l ' 'corrlroifi'i~~itl~''
will
arbitr.1ry one: redcscriJ.ltion~ such as "0/1 asSliIllptioll" or "(1 COI1{f(!(/ictt't'II" will

257
draw appositives if thcir long forms havc not bccn mcnlioncd within three
draw apposItives if their long forms have not been mentioned within three
scntcnccs. 'Ihc samc hcuristic applics to pronaminslization decisions and is
sentences. '1l1e same heuristic applies to pronominJlization decisions and is
intcndcd to rcflcct whcn a rcfcrcncc has fadcd in memory-rcscarch on discourse
intended to reflect when a reference has faded in memory-research on discourse
structure should lcad to a morc principled critcrion, Thc fact that t l ~ cappositive
structure should lead to a more principled criterion. The fact that the appositive
has bccn planned at the lcvcl of thc clausc inhibits it from appcaring redundantly
has been planned at the level of the clause inhibits it from appearing redundantly
with the noun phrasc: h a t is, thc local dccision that would how produccd "The
with the noun phrase; that is, the local decision that would have produced "The
a.~su~t~ptiot~
rho1 !here is IIU such barb~ris fnlsc rhcre is no such h r b e r " is tiltercd
assumption 'hat there is I/O such barber is false, there is no such barber" is filtered
out by thc prcscncc of tllc highcr appositive in thc tree.
out by the presence of the higher nppositive in the tree.
4.6.6. Inttri~ctiosHufrvccn Ilccisions
4.6.6, Interaction IJctwccn Decisions

l'ravcrsing the trcc bcloa thc cliiusc that rcali~cdthe first instancc of ncgationl03

Traversing the tree below the clause that realized the lirst instance of negation103
is a sitnplc mattcr. ?'he cmbcddcd for~nu!a in rhc subjcct is pronorninalizcd
is a simple matter. The embedd~d formula in the subject is pronominali7.ed
and h e fact that both installccs wcrc in
bccausc of its proxitnity to its last it~s~;incc
because of its proximity to its last instance and the fact that both instances were in
subjjcct position (in cfl'cct a "poor man's" rulc oidiscoursc ftcus). 'Illc pronoun,
subject position (in efl'eet a "pom man's" rule of discourse foclIs). '1l1e pronoun,
vcrb, and adjcctivc are thcn passed 10 thc output strcam ;a thc controllcr moves
verb, and adjective are then passed to the output stream as the controller moves
Lhrough thcir constilucnt positions.
through their constituent positions.
At thc position of thc i~pposititc.Llle ncgation cntry this titnc passes its
At the position of the appositive, the negation entry this time passes ;ts
dccision down to 3 latcr pnrcss sincc its body has been specially annotated
decision down to a later process since its body has been specially annotated
bccausc of its app[)sitiilcfunction so as to block thc rcdcscriplion of fi~mula89as a
because of its applJsitive function ~o as to block thc rcdescriplion of furmula89 as a
noun phrasc. We go thcn l o thc ncxt Icvcl of ncg103, thc cxistcntial quantifier.
noun phrase. We go then 10 the next Ievcl of ncg103, the existential quantifier,
whcrc wc havc two choiccs: cithcr to pass thc rcaliation of tllc quantifier down to
wherc we have t\Yo choices: either to pass the realihltion of the quantifier down to
appcar as thc dclcmincr in Lhc realization of thc variablc (as in "S'un~eorreshaves
appear as the determiner in the realization of the variablc (as in "Sumeone shaves
i
hi111se!f') or to i ~ s cthc spccial cxistcntial construction
everyorle who d o ~ s'r~slra~~c
everyone who dorsl/'t shave himself) or to use the special existcntial construction
"There is". As onc [night imagine, this dccision is dcsigncd to be sensitive to the
"There is". As one might imagine, this dccision is designed to be sensitive to the
pcnding dccision on thc ncgation. and we sclcct the spccial construction since the
pending decision on the negation, and we select the special construction since the
ncgation would prccmpt the dctcrmincr and makc thc olhcr alternative
ncgation would preempt the determiner and make the other alternative
ineffective.
ineffective.
In English, clauses with the cxistcntial ''there" arc grammatically unusual
In English, clauses with the existential "there" arc grammatically unusual
because thc verb agrccs in numhcr with thc objcct rather than the subjcct. 'Ihis is
because the verb agrces in numher with the object rather than the subject. This is
handlcd hcrc via the samc mcchanisrn as prcscntly used in transfomiational
handfed here vb the same mechanism as presently used in transfornlational
grammars: l h c word "~hcre"is taken to bc a lexically fillcd "tncc" pointing to the
grammars: The word "thrre"is taken to be a lcxically filled "trace" pointing to the
logical subjcct of thc clausc. such that whcn thc grammar routinc that i~nplcmcnts
logical subject of the clause, such that when the grammar routine that implements
"subjwt-vcrb" agrccmcnt rcfcn to thc variable "current-subject" it is passed
"subject-verb" agrecment refers to the variable "current-subject" it is passed
transparently to thc objcct instcad. Cl'hc rcfcrcncc is not actually to the
transparently to the object instead. (The reference is not actually to the
"object"-it cantlot bc. sincc thc position of thc objcct has no1 yet bccn reached
"object"-it cannot be. since the position of the object has nOl yet been reached
by the controllcr and lhus ia contcnts cannot bc known. lnstcad thc trace points to
by the controller and thus iLS contents cannot be known. Instead the trace points to
Lhc mcssagc clcmcnt that would havc bccn thc subjcct if "ihcre" hsd not been
the message clement that would have been the subjcct if "there" had not been
uscd, and Lhc transformation that introduced the word "111ere" rcdircctcd that
used, and the transfonnatilJn that introduccd the word "t!lere" redirected that
clcmcnt lo Lhc objcct position.)
clement to the object position.)

258

McDonald

4.6.7. lle~liling
Iloles
Ile~liringMessage
Mcss:~gcElements
Elc~rcntsin (erms
tcrnls of their Roles
The
constituent of
of the "rhere"
"there" clause is yet
'lhc conjllnction
conjunction thJt
that is now tlle
thc object
objcct cunstitucnt
another
conventional
expression
within
lhe
proof.
anothcr convcnlional cxprcssion
lhc
barber(x) 1\ 'o'y(shaves(x,y)'" -'shaves(y,y)

'Il,e
011 the
~le variable X, which,
which. in other
'llic predication
predicatio~l"barber(x)"
"b;lrbcr(x)" is a;I restriction on
logical
other placcs
places in thc
the crprcssion.
expression. l'hc
The
logical notations,
nutations. would have
Ih:lvc appeared
appcarcd in otlicr
actual
the universally qoanlificd
quantified Rlr~nula.
formula. If
If we
actual "content"
"content" or
of the
tlic conjunct is just thc
\l.l1C'
W nol\1ing
we wuuld
would bc
be forccd
forced to rcalizc
realize it litcrally,
literally,
kncw
n~rlliingelse
clsc about
bout this conjunction,
coajunclion, wc
as
Gild
shaves rsegrj!le
fl'er)'one who doer117
dOCSI/'! skal'e
shGl'e hi~nself'.
himself'.
as in
in "Someone
" S ~ ~ I P is
~ IaoI barber
P
and he sha~ws
However,
of ihc
the conjunction apparcnt
apparent to
Howcvcr. if we m,lkc
makc the
Uic conventional
convcntionnl structure of
the
much inorc
more fll~cnt.
fluent. I3y
By labcling
labeling the
thc linguistic
linguistic component,
componcnt, we can be
hc inuch
predication dS
a
"description"
and
lhe
fonnula
as
a
"proposition".
bolh
as
"dcscription"
thc formula
"proplsition". both
predictahle
lake advantage of
of a gcncral
general purpose
vnrinblc X. we
wc can take
prcdictahlc on the variable
dictionary entry fi}r
for that
ilia1 combination.
u~mbination.
dictionary
As shown
shown in figure
figl~lr21. a description
dcscription and a proposition can bc
As
be conihincd
combined in
sc\'crat
(i.e. which of
of llic
the two clcrncnts
e1cm~t\ts is
~~ murc
mm~
sc\cral ways
ways according
according to
tu what is needed
nccdcd (i.c.
important.
etc.).
case sincc
since hcconjunction
the conjunction
imporwnt. which order
ordcr is more important,
i ~ n p o r t l ~ctc.).
~ t , In this casc
isis acting
where the two are
arc sct
set iIIp
modifiers in a
acting as
as an object.
c~bjcct.the
thc combination whcrc
~ pas modilicrs
phrasc denoting
dcnoting the
thc \ariable
tariablc is thc
noun phrase
the most appropriatc,
appropriate. and that
~lat is the phrase
rcplnccsconj88
is built and reploces
mnj88 in the tree.
that is

259

Combinations
Combinationsof a description and a proposition
predicated of the same object.
proposition[objec!

ldescription

Someone who is a barber shaves l'l'cryone

descriptionlobjec!

II'ho

doesn't shove himself

proposition

SOTT,c(,ne who Jhaves every"one who docsn"/ shave himself is a ba,bf,.

lnp
I,, object )

l1

tnOdifier
tnodifier
Ilfoposition
proposition
A barl't'r
doesn'f dove
5hal'e ltimsel/
himself
&ll.?r WilD
wlio slimes
1180t,es I'VefJ'Onc
e18ewneWilD
WIJO
do~sn',

Figure 21

This panicular
particular conjunction
conjunction has of course
coursc nppcarcd bcforc
This
before in the first line of
of
thc pHlof.
proof. We
WCarc
arc therefore
ihcrcforc dealing
dcilling with a subsequent
subscqucnt rcfcrcncc
the
reference ;lad
aod the
!he heuristics
that section
scction of the Realize
llcaliic function
function apply.
apply. llccousc
in !hat
Because of
of thc
!he distance of
of the
original
from
the
present
position.
the
conjunction
-should
not
be
original instance
inslltncc from thc prcscnt position. dic
shoold
pronominalized.
subsequent reference
prunominalizcd. however
howcvcr there
thcrc arc ofcoursc "intermediate"
"intcrmcdiatc" subscque~~t
stralcgics. One of these.
thcsc. particularly
parriculnrly appropriate to tllc
strategies.
the sl!lc
stylI:' of
of a mathematical
"such": this
this word can "pronominalized"
"pronomin;tlired" rhc
proof, isis the word "such";
proof,
tl'e modifying phrases
the reference,
rcfcrcncc, leaving its head and detenniner.
determiner.
of the

4.7. Contributions
Contributions ;md
and Limitations
1.imitations
4.7.
4.7.1. Specific
Specific Contributions
Contributions ofTbis
oll'his Research
4.7.1.
nlc computer
computcr program developed
dcvclnpcd in thjs
this rcscarch
lllC
research (src
(sec [Mrl)onald
fMd)onald 19811)
1981]) is
is the
linguistically competent
colnpctcnt natural
~~ntural
languagc production program that hhasa been
most linguistically
language
rcportcd
to
date.
'l'his
is
due
primarily
u1 thc
to
the advanccs
advances in
in thc
the computational
reported
date. This
19801 which havc
thcory of production
production reported
rcportcd here
hcrc and in IMcl)on;~ld
theory
IMcDonald 1980)
have simplified
Ihc process
proccss of representing
rcprcscnting linguistic rules
mlcs and usagc-heuristics.
the
usage-beuristics. In particular:

(1) 'Ibis
l h i s isis the
thc first theory to be specifically
spccilically designed for usc with source
(1)
1
that
use
different
reprcscniational
programs
programs that usc different representational systems.
systems.l

McDonald
McDonald

260

260

(2) 'Ihis is the first thcory to bc groundcd on psycholinguistically

plausible hypothcscs cmbodicd in a processor of limitcd
plausible hypotheses embodied in a processor of limited
cornputatiorial powcr; rclcvant hypothcscs includc: h c lcft to right
computational
power;
hypotheses
include:linguistically
the lell to right
of tcxL2
rnotivatcd
rcfincmcnt
andrelevant
production
refinement and production of text,2 linguistically motivated
limitations on thc cxamin:tblc buffcr, indcliblc dccisions. and a
limitations on the examinable buffer, indelible decisions, and a
st~uctural distinction in thc trcamcnt o f function words versus
stJuctural distinction in the treatment of function words versus
contcnt words.
content words.
(3) I'roduction is drivcn dircctly by thc mcssngc to bc cxprcsscd. not by
(3) Productlon is driven directly by the message to be expressed, not by
Ihc hicrarcliical structure of thc grammar. 'Illis is morc cflicicnt, and
the hierarchical structure of the grammar. '1l1is is more efficient, and
tbc conccptunlizatio~lof mcssugcs as dcscriptions of goals to
fi~ciliti~tcs
!;lcili!<ltes the conceptualiwtioll of messuges as descriptions of goals to
bc achicvcd by thc tcxt.
be achieved by the texL
(4) 'Ihc linguistic stnlcturc of thc tcxt bcing pn~duccd is cxplicitly
(4) 'Ihe linguistic stnlcturc of the text being produced is explicitly
r ~ ~ r c s c n t c dGra~t~marical
.~
rules can bc implcmcntcd directly as
rcpresented. 3 Grammatical rules can be implemented directly as
manipulations of linguistic dcscriptions, thclrby gaining gcncrality
manipulations of linguistic descriptions, thereby gaining generality
and perspicuity. Ilctails of thc structurc of pr-oduccd and planned
and perspicuity. Details of the structure of produced and planned
tcxt may bc refcrrnccd dircctly and uscd as thc basis of usage
text may be referenced directly and used as the basis of usage
dccisions.
decisions.
(5) l b c possiblc rcsli7.ations of cach clcrncnt of a mcssagc arc cxplicitly
(5) The possible realil.ntions of each clement of a message arc cxplicitly
rcprcscntcd and arc available for inspection or spccial-casc
represented and arc available for inspection or special-case
manipulation.
manipulation.
(2) This is the first theory to he grounded on psycholinguistically

4.7.2. Rcl~tionto previous (1.1.work on n a t u r ~language

l
gcncration
4.7.2. Hcl:ltioJl 10 prc\ious A.I. work on natural language generation
Virtually all o f thc carlicr work on languagc gcncration by pcople in A.I.
Virtually all of the earlier work on language gcneration by people in A.I.
including that of this author and moa of that donc by psychologists shares a
including that of fiis author and most of that done by psychologists shares a
common vicw of the proccss: an cxpcrt-program/spcakcr with no linguistic
common view of thc process: an expert-program/speaker with no linguistic
knowlcdgc or motivations hcgins thc proccss by deciding-in its own tcrms-what
knowledge or motivations begins the process by deciding-in its own tcnns-what
will bc talkcd about. 'Ihc diffcrcnccs hctwccn the various proposals concern the
will be talked about. The differences between the various proposals concern the
kind of dcvicc that is to takc such a "mcssagc" and ro prclducc a natural language
kind of device that is to take such a "message" and to produce a natural language
tcxt from it through application of gramrnntical knowlcdgc (cncodcd in some
text from it through application of grammatical knowledge (encoded in some
form) and thc usc of almc kind af "dictionary" to interpret thc speaker's mcssage.
fonn) and the usc of some kind of "dictionary" to interpret the speaker's message.
1. 'Ihe AlN-bascd gcncralor originally dcvclopcd by Simmons and Slochum [Simmons and Stocum
1. The ATN-ba~ed
gencrator
originally
developed
by Simmons
andbccn
Siochum
Slocumprograms:
19721 and lalcr
adolxcd
by Cioldman
[Goldman
19741 has
uscd [Simmons
wilh manyand
dilTcrcnl
1972J andIRci\heck
laler adnplcd
Goldman
bcenMcchan
used wilh
many
dirrerenl
L974: by
Ichnca
1977[Goldman
: Yale A.I. 19741
Groulihas1976:
19761:
howcvcr.
all programs:
~Tlhcsccmployed
IRci~hcckthe
L974:
1976;dcpcndc~lcy
Mcchan 1976]:
however,
.umcl.ehncrt
r c p r c s1977
c n ~ ~: ~Yale
~syslcm:
o rAI.
~ a l Group
conccl>lual
[Schank
19761.all of these employed
the ,o;amc 2.
reprcscnlaliollal
syslcm:
conceptual
1976].
Cicra1.d Kcmpcn
[Kcmpcn
19771dcpendcllcy
wrilcs Lhal [Schank
produclion
should bc incrcmcn~atand IcR lo nghC
2. Gerard
Kempenhis[Kempen
writes thaiinproduClion
be incremental
left realizing
10 right, clauses
hitwcver,
program 1977]
ar dcwribcd
[Kcmpcn should
and Ilncnkamp
19801and
while
however,scqucntially,
his program
as described
in [Kcmpen
and lIocnkamp
rcfincs
thc constitucnls
of cach clause
in parallel. 1980] while realizing clauses
sequentially,
relines
each clause in parallel,
3. 'lhis
wa5thc
INCconstituenLs
alanor thc of
Gcrman-lo-linglih
translalion program orGrcichcn Brown [Brown 19721.
1 This was
abotnre
of the
German-[o-English
programDavcy
of Gretchen
and true
locally
in the
sys(cmic&rammartranslation
uscd by Anthony
[DaveyBrown
19741. [Brown 1972].
and locally true in the systemic grammar used by Anthony Davey [Davey 1974].

261
'Two othcr pcrspcctivcs have been takcn (scc [Mann ct al. to appcar]): one
Two other perspectives have been taken (see [Mann et al. to appear)): one
school can bc tcrmed gra~?tt~~arcon/rollcd
lincariza!iott a 4 ~rurr.slurion[Simmons
school can be termed grammar-controlled lineariza/ioll alld translalioll [Simmons
and Slocum 1972; Goldman 1974; Shapiro 19751; anothcr, largcr though less
and Slocum 1972; Goldman 1974; Shapiro 1975): another, larger though less
linguistically sophisticated school can bc tcrrncd production direclly porn program
linguistically sophisticated school can be termed produc/ion directly from program
dala [Swartout 1977; Chester 19761. Cl'wo othcr important systcms, [Clippinger
data [Swartout 1977: Chester 1976]. (lwo other important systems, [Clippinger
19781 and (13avcy 19741, fall into ncid~crof thcsc catcgorics as thcy both cmptoy
1978] and [Davey 1974), fall into neither of these categories as they both employ
cxtcnsivc grammars and vcst control with nun-grammatical proccsscs;
extensive grammars and vest ,control with non-grammatical processes;
unfortuna~cly.ncithcr has becn furthcr dcuclopcd.)
unforlunatcly. neither has been further developed.)
vcsts total control of me p r t ~ c s sin a topdown
'Ihc gmn~r~~~rco~irn~llrdl~dschool
The granll11ar-colltml!ed school vests total control of the process in a topdown
gcncrativc grammar. typically givcn as an augmcntcd triinsition nct ("A'~'N"). This
generative grammar, typically given as an augmented transition net ("UN"). This
grammar hypothcsizcs a way in which thc mcssage might bc rcalizcd, and then
grammar hypothesizes a way in which the message might be realized, and then
tcsts thc mcssagc to scc if that way is fcasiblc. It constnlcLs h c hypothcsizcd text
tests the message to see if that way is feasible. It constrllcl~ the hypothesized text
if thc tcst succccds; othcrwisc it backs up and considers thc ncxt grainmatically
if the test succeeds: otherwise it backs up and considers the next grammatically
possiblc realization. 'I'cxts arc pn~duccdas a sidc-cffcct of trnvcrsing thc ATN.
possible realization. Texts arc produced as a side-effect of traversing the ATN.
Comnarcd with using h e mcssagc decomposition itsclf to controt tllc prtxcss, this
Compared with using the message decomposition itself to control the process. this
tcchniq~~c
is incfficicnt at best, and at worst, allows thc possibility of producing
technique is inefficient ;]t best, and ;]t worst, allows the possibility of producing
totally confused tcxt should lhc .&I'N cvcr backup ovcr an arc-path that produced
totally confused lext should the ATN ever backup over an arc-path th<lt produced
words ( i t . it would start rcpcaiing itsclf without rcgard forcontcxt). Historically it
words (i.e. it would start repeating itselfwithout regard for context). Historically it
is the case that nonc of thcsc systcms has cvcr had occasion lo backup: we
is the. case that none of these systems has ever had occasion to backup: we
conjcc.lurc that the rcason for this is that thc spacc of possible mcssage
conjecturc that the reason for this is that the space of possible message
configurations dcalt with by thcsc systcrns is rclativcly small, making it possible to
configurations dealt with by these systems is relativcly small, making it possible to
dircctly cncodc thc spacc on thc arcs of rhc A'I'N grammar as tcsts for all of the
directly encode the space on the arcs of the ATN grammar as tests for all of the
possiblc contingencies. Wc predict that whcn thc contingcncics bccome too
possihle contingencies. We predict that when the contingencies become too
diverse to anticipate when thc grammar is written, that grammar-controlled
diverse to anticipate when the grammar is written, that grammar-controlled
systcms will metamorphose into a more mcssagc-controlled style.
systems will mctamorphose into a more message-controlled style.
I h c direcr production school is much closcr to thc philosophy underlying the
lbe direct production school is much closer to the philosophy underlying the
present work. 'Ihcir approach is to start with a data structure from the expert
present work. 'lbcir approach is to start with a data structure from the expert
program (thcir "mcssagc") and to evaluate it with a special "text gcncration"
program (thcir "message") and to evaluate it with a special "text generation"
evaluator just as in othcr circumstances thcy might evaluate it with, e.g., the
evaluator just as in other circumstances they might evaluate it with, e.g., the
)
in ordcr to cxccutc some function. 'Ihe structure of the
normal 1 ~ 1 ~ 1evaluator
normal uSP evaluator in order to execute some function. The slructure of the
rnessagc govcrns what gcncration proccsscs are run and in what sequence
message governs what generation processes are run and in what sequence
(invariably a strict depth-first scqucncc, translating arguments bcfore functions
(invariably a strict depth-first sequence. translating arguments before functions
and using thc intcrnal I,lSlpstack to rccord what to do ncxt and what to do with
and using the internal LISP stack to record what to do next and what to do with
"subtcxts" as thcy arc constructed). Thc "gcncration functions" for individual
"subtexts" as they are constructed). The "generation functions" for individual
kinds of program objccts asscrnblc tcx& by cmbcdding the tcxts produccd for
kinds of program objects assemble textS by embedding the texts produced for
their argurncnt objccts within a matrix tcxt; cnnccptually, gcncration firnctions
their argument objects within a matrix text; conceptually, generation functions
play cxactly the sarnc rolc as dictionary cntrics in thc modcl prcontcd hcrc. We
play exactly the same role as dictionary entries in the model presented here. We
suggest that thc difficulties thcsc systcrns facc-almosl complctc ignorance of
suggest that the difficulties these systems face-almost complete ignorance of
grammar, and an inability to produce tcxt that is not absolutcly isomorphic in
grammar, and an inability to produce text that is not absolutely isomorphic in
structurc to its mcssagc-could bc ovcrcomc if they were to adopt an
structure to its messagc-could be overcome if they were to adopt an

McDonald
McDonald

262

262

intcrmcdiate, linguis~ical~mofivared reprcscntation. Such a linguistically

intermediate, linguisTically motivated representation. Such a linguistically
rnotivatcd reprcscntation would, suitably intcrprctcd, scrve as a ready description
motivated representation would. suitably interpreted, serve as a ready description
of context and a mechanism for the automatic (LC.not cxpressly rcqucstcd in the
of context and a mechanism for the automatic (i.e. not expressly requested in the
rncssagc) application of general rulcs. a policy which, not coincidentally, is the
message) application of general rules. a policy which, not coincidentally, is the
ccntral theme of thc present theory.
central theme of the present theory.

4.7.3. U'htn is this linguistic componc~~t

appropriate?
4.7.3. Whrn is this linguistic component appropriate?
Thc utility of an indcpcndc~itlinguistic cornponcnt is that it can be incorporated
111e utility of an independent linguistic component is that it can be incorporated
wholc into a new system, rclicving its uscrs of thc nccd to dcvclop their own
whole into a new system, relieving its users of the need to develop their own
version of this lcvcl of tllc gcncralion proccss. ?his utility is not without its price
version of this level of the generation process. This utility is not without its price
howcvcr, sincc preparing an intcrfacc bctwccn a ncw cxpcrt program and this
however, since preparing an interface between a new expert program and this
cornponcnt is not a trivial undertaking: crcating an adcquatc dictionary will
component is not a trivial undertaking: creating an adequate dictionary will
rcqiiirc thc new user lo pn)vidc cxplicit rcprcscntations for rcldtions that arc often
require the new user to provide explicit representations for relations that arc often
lcft implicit in cxpcrt programs; and thought must bc givcn to thc lncchanics of
len implicit in expert programs; and thought must be given to the mechanics of
mcssagc construction and to the pr;rtical cxigcticics of dealing with another
message construction and lO the practical exigencies of dealing with another
indcpcndcnt computcr program. If all that a pcrson wanted to do was to take
independent computer program. If all that a person wanted to do was to take
alrcady highly sugared cxprcssions dircctly from his or hcr program's data
already highly sugared expressions directly from his or her program's data
structurcs and producc "linearizations" of thcm, then it is qucstionablc whether
structures and produce "linearizations" of them, then it is questionable whether
they should go lo thc cffort of using this component sincc thc alrcady cslablished
they should go 10 the effort of using this component since the already established
"direct-translation" technology should be able to do tlic job with considerably less
"directtranslation" technology should be able to do the job with considerably less
ovcrhcad.
overhead.
From an cnginccring paint of vicw thc strcngth of this component is its ability
From an engineering point of view the strength of this component is its ability
to combine disparate internal data structurcs o n the basis of their linguistic
to combine disparate internal data structures on the basis of their linguistic
dcscriplions 10 producc cohcsivc, contcxt-scnsitivc rcxts. If, LO choosc an extreme
descriptions to produce cohesive, context-sensitive texts. If, 10 choose an extreme
cxamplc. all of the rcrnarks that an cxpcrt program wcrc cvcr going to have to
example. all of the remarks that an expert program were ever going to have to
makc could be anticipated at thc time thc program was writtcn, then this
make could be anticipated at the time the program was written, then this
cornponcnt would bc cntircly sllpcrfluous sincc thc tcxts could bc included at the
component would be entirely superfluous since the texts could be included at the
timc thc program was writtcn. If on the othcr hand thc expert program is
time the program was written. If on the other hand the expert program is
continually cntcring into ncw discourse situations, learning about ncw objects and
continually entering into new discourse situations, learning about new objects and
rclations, and forccd to dynamically configure its remarks to thc audience and
relations, and forced to dynamically configure its remarks to the Judience and
situation, then using this cornponcnt (or something likc it) is a necessity.
situation, then using this component (or something like it) is a necessity.
'1.0 hc specific, a program that nccds to producc tcxts with any of the following
To he specific, a program that needs to produce texts with any of the following
characteristics slinuld bcncfit by using this linguistic colnponcnt for its generation.
characteristics should benefit hy lIsing this linguistic component for its generation.
'Ihcsc linguistic propcrtics of a text arc controlled by a cnmplcx sct of rules of
lbese linguistic properties of a text arc controlled by a complex set of rules of
little intcrcst to thc nonlinguist, yet arc crucial i f the tcxls arc to be natural
little interest to the nonlinguist, yet arc crucial if the texts are to be natural
English. With lhcsc rulcs incorporated oncc and for all into a shareable
English. With these rules incorporated once and for all into a shareable
cornponcnt, the systcm dcsigncr is frecd to move on to othcr problems.
component, the system designer is freed to move on to other problems.

263

Embedded clauscs: Any inrcrnal rclation that is uscd as part of a

Embedded clauses: Any inrernal relation that is used as part of a
dcscription or is modificd by or is an argument to anclthcr rclation,
description or is modified by or is an argument to another relation,
for cxamplc thc propositional arguments of modal prcdicatcs such as
for example the propositional arguments of modal predicates such as
"bclievc" or "possiblc". will appcar as somc form of cmbcddcd clause
"believe" or "possible". will appear as some form of embedded clause
whcn rcndcrcd in English. 'I'hc grammar of thcsc constructions
when rendered in English. The grammar of these constructions
involvcs conlplcx syntactic rules to coordinatc ndjustmcnts to thc text
involves complex syntactic rules to coordinate adjustments to the text
of thc rcli~tionand to Ihc matrix tcxt it is cmbcddcd in.
of the relation and to the matrix text it is embedded in.
Cohcrcncc relations in nlulti-stntcncc tcxts: 'I'cxt that is part of a largcr
Cohercnce relalions in mull i-sentence tcxts: Text that is part of a larger
discourse must obey certain linguistic conventions' that havc no
discourse must obey certain linguistic conventions that have no
coulltcrparts in Ihc purely conccptual strilcturc of thc i~iformation
counterparts in the purely conceptual structure of the information
bcing con~cycd,c.g. the usc of pronouns or dchlitc noun phrases for
being conveyed. e.g, the use of pronouns or definite noun phrases for
subscqucnt rcfcrenccs to thc sarnc ol)jccts, Lhc cllil~sisof prcdictable
subsequent references to the same objects, the ellipsis of predictable
phrascs, scgmcntalion intc~ scntcnccs and paragraphs, the
phrases, segmentation into sentences and paragraphs, the
subordina~ionor f ~ ~ u s i nofgi~idividualitcms. or thc dclibcratc usc of
subordination or focusing of individual items. or the deliberate usc of
explicit relational connectives and ordering to prcscnt complex
explicit relational connectives and ordering to present complex
relations scqucntially.
relations sequentially.
Uontcxt scnsiii\c rc;~lizi~tions:
Within a progriim it is oftcn possiblc (even
Contcxt sensi1 he rcalil.<ltions: Within a program it is often possible (even
dcsirablc) to bc vaguc about whcthcr an cxprcssion dcnotcs an objcct,
desirable) to be vague about whethcr an expression denotes an object,
. a rclutic~n,or il prcdicstc. 'Ihc corresponding lingt~isticchoice (e.g.
a relation, or a predicate, 'Ihe corresponding linguistic choice (e.g.
noun phrnsc, clausc, or vcrb phrasc) thcn dcpcnds on how the
noun phrase. clause, or verb phrase) then depends on how the
cxprcssion is bcing uscd in a givcn instance, as dctcrmincd by its
expression is being used in a given instance, as determined by its
contcxt in the mcssagc or by thc linguistic contcxt into which it is
context in the message or by the linguistic context into which it is
introduccd. 'I'hc choicc of realization must bc postponcd until the
introduced. The choice of realization must be postponed until the
contcxt is clcar.
context is clear.
1)cscribing ohjccts from t k i r properties: W11en a program is continually
Describing ohjects from their properties: When a pnTgram is continuaIly
crcating o r bcing told about new objccts, prc-storcd tcxts for object
creating or being told about new objects, pre-stored texts for object
dcscriptions must bc abandoned in frivor of algorithms that will
descriptions must be abandoned in favor of algorithms that will
connruct dcscriptions from propcrtics. For gcncrat algorithms,
construct descriptions from properties. For general algorithms,
linguistic descriptions of t t ~ cpropcrtics arc rcquircd to insure that
linguistic descriptions of the properties arc required to insure that
only grammatical phrascs arc built. Planning is rcquircd lo judge
only grammatical phrases are built. Planning is required to judge
how thorough a dcscription must bc, and thc nature of the
how thorough a description must be, and the nature of the
description sclcctcd will cffcct how it can bc rcalizcd linguistically.
description selected will effect how it can be rcalized linguisticaIly.
For cxamplc dcciding bctwccn the two tcxts: "(I put at1 X 014 rhe
For example deciding between the two texts: "(I put an X 011) the
adjacenf corrler" versus "...rhe corner adjac~ni10 rhe one you just
adjacent comer" versus "... the corner adjacent to the one you just
look", the choicc bctwccn using chc prcnominal adjcctivc versus
took", the choice between using the prenominal adjective versus
using thc postnominal adjcctivc phrasc dcpcnds on the prior choice
using the postnominal adjective phrase depends on the prior choice
of how much dchil of thc position must bc givcn for the audience to
of how much detail of the position must be given for the audience to
recognize i t
recognize it

McDonald

264

4.7.4. What
\\'bat This
'll~isModel
hlodel Cannot Do
Efficicncy
thcrc arc certain
ccrtain kinds of
of potentially
potcntially
1:fficicncy has its
its pricc.
price. Ilccaosc
I3ecausc of its dcsign.
dcsign, thcre
useful
lbis
th3t this linguistic
linguistic component is intrinsically incapable of. Ihis
useful operations that
isis not L1ken
of
Llkcn as
as a failing,
failing, but as the necessary result of a deliberate distribution of
laSks
according
to
the
components
that
arc
architecturally
most
suited
to
wsks according to
components
are architecturally
perfonning
tl13t ihc
tl,e bulk of
of what
pcrf(~nningthem;
them: tl,at
Lhat is,
is. I claim (but will not justify here) U~at
this
this linguistic
linguistic component cannot do can be done better by other the components
that it will interact with. Specifically:
('[ratile
situations:: 'lhis
'lllis linguistic
nords to new situations:
Creative expression-fitting
expression-fitting old words
component
mean. Hy
By inverting its
conip~incntdocs not know what words mcan.
dictionary
circumstances a word could be
dictionary it could compute in what circumswnccs
used,
owo for interpreting these
tl,ese
uscd. but it has no means of its own
"circumstances"
if it is able to
"circu~nstanccs"and
2nd generalizing
gcnerali~.ingthem. (How could it if
be used
A
uscd with expert programs with different conceptualizations?) A
dictionary
dictionary entry selects
selects words reflexively according to its
precomputed
usc any sort of
of
prcct~mfiutedpossibilities:
possibilities: in particular, it docs not use
pnttcrn-matching on "semantic features", b~)th
pattern-matching
both because of
of the
cxpcnsc and because
bccause features
computational expense
features that capture useful
gcncralizations are
arc unlikely to be refined enough to
generalizations
to pickout
pickollt specific
words.
words.

hlonitoring itselF:
itself: It is generally easier to anticipate and forestall
Monitoring
forestall problems
planning than to monitor for them and thcn
by planning
then have to edit an
7his linguistic
linguistic component capitalizes on this rule
ongoing procedure. This
ongoing
from its process architecture the expensivestate
of thumb by omitting from
expensive state
history that would make editing through backup possible. The kinds
history
of unwanted effects
effects that are
arc difficult to avoid through
tllfOUgh planning
planning
(bccause they would require essentially full simulation) are
(because
coincidental stroctural
stn~cturalor lexical
lexical ambiguities: these
tl,ese rcquire
require a multimulti
coincidental
burner to detect (the
(the sort which is natural to
to parsers) and
constituent buffer
arc thus better noticed by "listening to oneself' and interrupting the
are
generator with new instructions when needed, rather thcn
then burdening
process with aalargc
that process
large buffer which will otherwise
otherwise go unused.
Recognizing when a message will un~voidahly
e ~ d to awkward or
una,oidahly llead
Reeogniling
ungra~nmaticaltext:
tcxt: Again,
Again, given the present dcsign
ungrammatical
design this possibility
cannot be foreseen
foreseen at the linguistic-level
linguistic-lcvcl without a complete
simulation (i.e. rehearsing to oneself). Either the speaker's messagemessage'
building heuristics
heuristics will be such that these problems just
just will not occur
(this isis almost
almost inevitable
inevitable when messages are planned and motivated
(this
detail in accordance
accordance with the "constraint-precedes" stipulation), or,
in detail

265
by planning the mcssage in t c m s of rhetorical predicates such as
by planning the meS!;<lge in terms of rhetorical predicates such as
"rnodifics" or "focus". potentially awkward pl~rasings will be
"modifies" or "focus", potentially awkward phrasings will be
forcsccn at the linguistic lcvcl and planned around by general rules.
foreseen at the linguistic level and planned around by general rules.
Ilcxsoning shout trade-oms caused Iry lirnitcd cxprcssihility: It car1 happen
I~casoning ahout tradc'orrs caused by limitcd cxprcssihility: It can happen
that thc inability to simultaneously cxprcss, say, both modality and
that the inability to simultaneously express, say, both modality and
subordillation will not bccomc apparcnt until thc realization of the
subordination will not become apparent until the realiz~tion of the
mcssagc is alrcady begun. 1'0 bc ablc to rcasscss thc rclative
mesS<lge is already begun. To be able to reassess the relative
importancc of thc mcssagc cIcrncnL! that promptcd thosc choices, this
importance of the message c!emenL<; that prompted those choices, this
linguistic componcnl would (1) nccd a common vocabulary with the
linguistic component would (1) need a common vocabulary with the
spcakcr in which to cxprcss the problcm (since what should bc done
speaker in which to express the problem (since what should be done
is ultimately thc spc;ikcr's decision). and (2) nccd to be aware of the
is ultimately the speaker's decision), and (2) need to be aware of the
porcntial prohlcm early cnough to be ablc to plan altcrnativcs.
potential prohlem early enough to be able to plan alternatives.
Without such a vocabulary, thc cotnponcnt must rely on the tacit
Without such a vocabulary, the component must rely on the tacit
spccificalion of rclati~c-inlportanccprovided in 11ic ordcring of the
specification of rcl<lthe-importance provided in the ordering of the
mess~gcrind thc spcakcr must be prcparcd for its lncssagcs to
message and the speaker must be prepared for its messages to
somctimcs not be rcalizcd camplctcly.
sometimes not he realized completely.
I'lanning by hack~vnrdschaining frooi desired linguistic cflccts: Onc cannot
Planning by backwards chaining from desired linguistic eff~cts: One cannot
give a spccific grammatical rclation as a high-lcvcl goal in a message
give a specific grammatical relation as a high'kvel goal in a message
and cxpcct this linguistic componcnt to pcrfonn thc mcans-ends
.and expect this linguistic component to perfonn the means-ends
analysis rcqi~ircdto bring it about: c.g. onc cannot give it instructions
analysis required to hring it about: e,g. one cannot give it instructions
such as: "thc subject of what 1 say ncxt should bc thc same as the
such as: "the subject of what I say next should be the same as the
dircct object that 1 just said". Such reasoning can rcquirc exponcntial
direct object that I just said", Such reasoning can require exponential
timc to carry out and a high processing ovcrhcad. I'hc cffccls of such
time to carry out and a high processing overhead. The effects of such
inslructions can somctimcs bc achicvcd "off-line" howcver, by having
instructions can sometimes be achieved "off-line" however, by having
the designer prccornputc the decision-spacc that the dclibcration
the designer precompute the decision-space that the deliberation
would cntail and thcn incorporate it into the cornponcnt's library as
would entail and then incorporate it into the component's library as
what would in effcct bc an cxtcnsion of thc rulcs of thc grammar.
what would in effect be an extension of the rules of the grammar.
('hc abovc instruction, for examplc, is roughly cquivalcnt to the
(The above instruction, for example, is roughly equivalent to the
existing f i ~ u heuristic.)
s
existing focus heuristic.)

CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 5
Focusing
Focusing in
in the Comprehension of Definite
Anaphora
Candace
Candace L.
L. Sidner

5.1 III(rol!ul'tiun: Inll'rprt.'lation

or I>dinitc Anaphom

In
. . TiIlCIl discourse,
people
to "point
"point hack" in the
I n spoken
spokcn and
illid .uri1tc11
di%~~(~rsc.
p c ~ p l clise
ISC certain
ccrtiti~iwords (11
to
the
people.
places,
objects.
times.
c\'ClHs
and
ideas mcntioncd
mentioned
discourse
context
disc[~~~rsc
contcxt 111 tlic pcoplc. placcs, ol~jjccts.
c\c~its idcas
there.
bad
callt'J .*I-ananhorJ, and I
lw
will
refer
pointing
hack device
dcbicc is c;lllcd
i l l rcfcr
tlicrc. The
'I'llc usc
t~scof
o r such
s ~ ~ cai~l pointing
i
to
in p,lrlicular,
pdrticular, dcfinitc
definite ;~n;lnhora
anaphora
111 'Words
wolds or phrases
plir;~ccsused
uscd in
in (hi)
lhi, way
w;~y as
as-: anarhors: in
include the
thc personal
pcr%~n;ilpronouns.
pronc,uns, ccrLain
ccrlai~luses
uscs of dcfinitc
itll:ludc
definite mlllti
noun phrascs,
phrases, and noun
ll1is
rC'sc~rchcrs havc
have dcfincd
drOned atJ1cc
phrases
phrascs containing
cunt;~i~iing
riris and
and thal.
rhnr. Tr~lditi{)]la1Jy,
'l'r;iditi~rn;~lly, rcscarchcrs
problem
as one
determining the a~itcccdcnt
antecedent ooff an
problcn~of Jll;:lpllor
a ~ ~ a l i l comprehension
a~mprclicnsion
~or
onc of dctcrniini~ig
an;~ph(iricexpressioll,
cxprcssion, that
tli:~tis,
is. determining
dctcr~niningto wliicli
which word or phrasc
phrase ;In
an anaphoric
anaphoric
ill
both artificiel
artificial intclligcncc
intelligence and
expression
cxprcs,ioil refers
rckrs or "points".
"points". Recent
I < c c c ~studies
snidich
~l
it1 botll
linguistics have
Iiatc demonstrated
dcmrlnstratcd the
thc need
nccd for
Lir a thcory
theory Rlr
for i~ndphor
anJphor co~nprchcnsion
comprehension
linguistics
accounts
fur the
tlic role
rolc of
o f syntactic and
and semantic
sclnantic cffccls,
~ l i i c laccounts
l
which
for
effects, as wcll
well as
JS infcrcntial
inferential
knowlcdsc in
in explaining
cxpl;~ininghow anaphors
an:~phorsarc undcrst(r~d.
understood. IInn !his
this cliaptcr
chapter a new
knowledge
thcory. based
bascd on
i1n the
thc concept
a~nccptof
o f focusil1g
firusing in
in thc
thenry,
the disc~lursc.
discourse, will be intruduccd
introduced to
cxplain the
Uic interpretation
intcrprctation of
o f definite
dcfinitc anaphors.
explJin
rhcory can
ciln be
bc given,
given. and before
bcforc even
cvcn thc
Ilcrorc aa theory
Before
the difticultics
difficulties in inlcrprcting
interpreting
anaphors can
can be
bc discussed,
dicct~sscd.we
wc must
must first rc-considcr
re~consider what an antcccdcnt
antecedent is. 'l'he
The
anaphors
tr;~ditiun;~ldefinition
dcfinilion encounters
cncountcrs difficulty
difticulty right from thc
the start:
start; iitt is founded on
traditional
the notion
notion that one
onc word
word in
i n an sentence
scntcncc refers
rcfcrs or points back to anotlicr
another word in the
the
( u m c or ,lIlother)
anothcr) sentence.
scntcncc. But
Hut words don't
don'l rcfcr
refer h:sk
back to othcr
other \yards
words [Morgan
(same
19781: people
pcoplc usc
i15cwords 10
111 refer
rcfcr to
10 objects.
objccts. In
In particular
1978):
particubr pcclplc
people usc anaphors to
rcrcr to
lo ohjects
ol~jccts.'hich
which have
i~il\'calready
:~lrcady been
bccn mentioned
mcntioncd in a discoursc.
fefer
discourse. Sincc
Since an
;~n;tplioric rhra~c
p1ir;lsc docs
(11,~snot
no1 refer
rcrcr to .10
;In ;jlltccedent,
antcccdc~it.one miglll
might want lo
10 claim th;it
that
anaphoric
tlic
i~ntcccdc~~t
i<lI1d
~ n dthe tln<lphor
;~napliorco-refef
co-rcfcr to some
somc ~
~
l
~
j
c
'I'his
c
t
.
definition
lboth
x ~ t lthe
i <lntC'ccJcl1t
object. This definition is
adcq~~atc
scntcllcc (I)
(I i below,
bclow.
adequate
for senteoce
( I ) II tllink
h i n k green
grccn ill2J2!>
;innlcs laste
tastc best
bcsl 'md
and [he)'
rhry makc
(I)
make thc
the bcst
best cooking
applcs too.
apples
not for
for discourse
discoursc 1)1,
111, wbere
whcrc there
thcrc is no antcccdcnt
though not
though
antecedent word in thc
the discourse
discourse
which co-rcfers
co-rcfcn with
with tlle
Uic pronoun
pronoun the)'.
rhey.
wbich

268

Sidner

131-1 My ncigllbor has a inonstcr tiarlcv 1200.

Dl-I My neighbor has.l! monster Harley 1200,
2 'l'hcv arc rcelly huge but gas-cfficicnt bikcs.
2 They arc really huge but gas-efficient bikes.
As nn altcrnativc to viewing antcccdcncc as co-rcfcrcncc, onc might proposc
As an allernalive to viewing antecedence as co-reference, one might propose
that anrcccdcncc is a kind of coanitivc pointing, thc kind of pointing that causes
that antccedence is a kind of cognitive pointing. the kind of pointing that causes
rl~r-)tand xreetl appis lo point to thc samc class of objccts in unc's mind (in somc
the)' and grec/I applcs to pointLO the same class of objects in one's mind (in some
iitlk~~owr~
way). 'i'his proposal is prohlcmatic for samc rcason that co-rcfcrcncc is:
unknown way). This proposal is problematic for same reason that co-reference is:
pcoplc irsc annphori~whcn thcrc is no othcr noun plirasc iri thc discoursc which
people use anaphora when there is no other noun phrase in the discourse which
points to thc right mcntal object. In Ill. rhey rcfcrs to hikcs which iirc I4arlcy
points to the right mental object. In 1)1. thcy refers to hikes which arc Harley
1200s as it group, whilc thc spcakcr's usc of thc ncrun phrasc a tjiorrstrr Harlej)
12005 as a group, while the speaker's use of the noun phrase a monslcr Harfey
1200 only scrics to nicntion s o n ~ cp;~rticulartli~rlcy1200. Tlwy scctns to bc ablc
/2110 only serves to mention sOllie particular Harley 1200. The)' seems to be able
to rcfcr to tlirrlcy 1200s as a group whcn used with ~ h cprcviouslp ~ncntioncd
to refer to Harley 12005 as a group when lIsed with the previously mentioned
phrasc a ttwnsier 1lnrie.s 1200 without thc two phrascs cithcr cn-rcfcrring or
phrase a lllOlJs/er Ilarfe)' J20{) without the two phrases either co-referring or
ctl-pointing.
co-pointing.
If an annphor docs not rcfcr to an antcccdcnt phrasc. and if it nccd not always
If an an<lphor docs not refer to an antecedent phr<lse. and if it need not always
is not
co-rcfcr with its appitrcnr antcccdcnt (as in 111). Ihcn anaphor i~~lcrprctation
co-refer with its apparellt <lntecedent (<IS in DI), thell anaphnr interpretation is not
s ~ ~ n p finding
ly
thc anlcccdcnt. Ncvcrthclcss thc conccpt of i~ntcccdcncc;IS a kind
simply finding the antecedent. Nevertheless the concept of antecedence as a kind
of pointing back docs sccln to capturc somc aspect of tllc cotnprchcnsion of
of pointing back docs seem to capture some aspect of the comprehension of
an;~phom.for whcn ccrtain antcccdcnt words are missing from a discoursc, pcoplc
anaphora, for when certain antecedent words arc missing from a discourse. people
oftcn hi1 to ~rndcrstai)dwhat is bcing said.
often fail to understand what is being said.
I.ct us dcfinc thc PI-oblcmof intcrprcling and understanding ail annphor in the
Let us define the problem of interpreting and understanding all an<lphDr in the
following way. 'I'hc phrasc c~pplesin (I). whcn synractically and semantically
following w<ly. The phrase apples in (1). when synlactical1y and semantically
intcrprctcd, will bc said to s~ccifva cognitivc clcmcnt in thc hcarcr's mind. In the
interpreted, wi)] be said to specify a cognitive clement in the hearer's mind. In the
computational modcl of t h a ~proccss, this cIcmcnt is a database itcm. which might
computational model of thaI process, this clement is a database item. which might
bc rcprcscntcd by the schc~nabclow:
be represented by the schema below:
Phrase76:
Phrase76:
string: "grccn apples"
string: "green apples"
contcxt: spcakcrl think * tastcs bcst
context speakerI think tastes best
specifics: Apples2
specifics: Applcs2
Apples2:
Applcs2:
supcr-concept: applcs
super-concept: apples
color: grccn
color: green
uscd-for: cooking
used-for: cooking

'I'hc spcakcr uscs thc ioG~rmationin a cognitivc rcprcscntation likc Applcs2

The speaker uses the information in a cognitive representation like Apples2
abovc to choosc thc phrasc grcm apples in ( 1 ) . 'I'hc hcarcr thcn uscs thc phrasc
above to choose the phrase green apples in (1). The hearer then uses the phrase
green apples ppls thc syntactic and scrnantic intcrprctalion of rcst of thc scnlcncc
green appfes plus the syntactic and semantic interpretation of rest of the sentence
to locatc a similar cognitivc clcrncnt in his own mind; it may bc slightly diffcrcnt
to locate a similar cognitive clement in his own mind: it may be slightly dilTerent
bccausc Lhc hcarcr may not associate usc in cooking with grccn applcs. A
because the hearer may not associate use in cooking with green apples. A
cognitivc elcment, such as Apples2, is callcd the specrficarion of green apples.
cognitive element, such as Apples2, is called the specification of green apples.

269
'hcsc clcmcnts, prcscnt in thc mcrnorics of spcakcr and hcarcr, arc of course
'rllese clement", present in the memories of speaker and hearer, arc of course
rclatcd to othcrcognitivc clcmcnt$ in thcir mcmorics.
related to other cognitive element" in their memories,
What is Uic rclation of spccifications to thc rciil world? Onc might likc to
What is the relation of specifications to the real world? One might like to
claim that a rcfcrcncc rclation cxisls bctwccn spccificd cognitivc clcmcnts and
claim that a reference relation exists between specified cognitive clements and
objccts in rhc world, but sincc rcfcrring is what pcoplc do with words, h i s relation
objects in the world, but since referring is what people do with words, U1is relation
is problematic for cognititc clcmcnts. Instcad, spccifications will bc said ro
is problematic for cognithe clements. Instead, specifications will be said to
rccrcscnt the objccts rcfcrrcd lo, that is, tllcy bcar a wcll-structured
represent the objects referred to, that is, Uley bear a well-structured
cur~rcspondcnccto ohjccls in thc world. Applcs2. tlic spccification of gree~rapples,
correspondence to onjects in the world. I\pples2, the specificmion of green apples,
rcprcscnts thc ohjccts that arc grccn applcs. For phrascs such as ,Yat'nrrraC'laus,
represents the ohjects that arc green apples. For phrases such as Sallfa Claus.
whcrc thcrc is no rcal world objcct to rcprcscnt, a spccification rcprcscnts thc
where there is no real world object to represent, a specification represents the
propcrtics tlon~iallyasstriatcd with this imaginary pcrson.
properties normally associated with this imnginary person.
'I'llc phrasc 1hrj8 in ( I ) also specifics a cogni~ivcclcmcnt, namcly thc samc onc
The phrase fhey in (l) also specifics ,I cognitive clement, nnmely Ule same one
that grcrt, c~pplesdocs. Sincc thc two bcar thc salnc rclittion to thc rcprcscntation
that gr('en apples d(les. Since the two bear the same rc!ation to the representation
Applcs2. thcy will be said [o tso-~prc'fi~
that tncmory clcmcnt or altcrnativcly, h a t
I\pples2, they will be said III co-specifY lIlat memory clement. or alternatively, that
o f intcrprctation of
Ihc intcrprct;~tionof gr('eu npplr.~in (1) is'hc c ~ - s p ~ c f i e rthc
the interpretation of green apples in (1) is" lI1e cu-sprcijier of the interpretation of
rhcj: Co-spccifici~tion. ttnlikc co-rcfcrcncc. allows onc to construct abstract
fh(')'. Co-specification, unlike co-reference, allows one to construct abstract
rcprcscntalions and dcfinc relationships bctwccn thcm which can bc studicd in a
representations and define relationships between them which can be studied in a
computationnl framework. With co-rcfcrcncc no such use is possible. since the
computational framework. With co-reference no such usc is possible, since the
object .rcl'crrcd to exists in thc world and is not available for examination by
ohject ,referred to exists in the world and is not available for examination by
computational processes.
computational processes.
Evcn if a noun phrasc and a pronoun do not co-spcrify, thc spccification of a
Even if a noun phrase and a pronoun do not co-sperify, the specification of a
noim phr'asc may bc uscd to gcncratc Lhc spccification of a pronoun. For
noun phrase may be used to generate the specification of a pronoun. For
cxamplc, in 111 rkry docs not co-spccify with h c apparcnt antcccdcnt phrase a
example. in [)] they does not co-specify with tile apparent antecedent phrase a
nlotis~erIlarlcy 1200. ticrc h c anaphor f h c rcrcrs
~
to thc class of Harlcy 1200s of
mOils/a Harley /200. Here tile anaphor they refers to the class of Harley 12005 of
which thc apparcnt anteccdcnt (the neighbor's monstcr Harlcy 1200) is an
which the apparent antecedent (the neighhor's monster Harley 1200) is an
instance. 'Thus anaphor intcrprctation is not simply a mattcr of finding the
instance. Thus anaphor interpretation is not simply a matter of finding the
corresponding cognitivc clcrncnt which scrvcs as thc spccification of thc anaphor:
corresponding cognitive clement which serves as Ule specification of U1e anaphor;
somc additional proccss must gcncratc a spccification for Lhc anaphor from the
some additional process must generate a specification for the anaphor from the
rclatcd phrasc a tnonsfcr Harley 1200.
related phrase a mOllster Harley 1100.
'rhc conccpts of spccification and co-specification capturc thc "pointing back"
The concepts of specification and co-specification capture the "pointing back"
quality of antcccdcncc, and also pcnnit us to formulate an cxplani~tionof anaphor
quality of antccedence, and also pennitlls to formulate an explanati(ln of anaphor
intcrprctation which avoids thc pitfalls of thc conccpt of antcccdcncc. Anaphar
interpretation which avoids the pitfalls of the concept of anteccdence. Anaphor
intcrprctation can bc studicd as a computational prtrccss that i~scsLhc already
interpretation can be studied as a wmputational process that uses tile already
cxistirlg spccification of a noun phrasc to find thc spccification for an anaphor.
existing specification of a noun phrase to find the specification for an anaphor.
'lhc prtrcss uscs a rcprcscntation of lllc discourse prcccding thc anaphor which
"111e process uses a representation of the discourse preceding the anaphor which
cncodcs thc syntactic and scmantic rclationsllips in cach scntcncc as wcll as
encodes the syntactic and semantic relationships in each sentence as well as

Sidner

270

co-specification relationships bctwccn pl~rascs.l

co-specification relationships between phrases.}

'I'licsc definitions in thcmsclvcs do ~ i o tconstitute a thcory of anaphor
These definitions in themselves do not constitute a theory of anaphor
intcrprctntion. 'I'hcy do, houcvcr, lniikc possiblc a succinct strltcmcnt of the
interpretation. They do, however, make possible a succinct statement of the
problcm: how docs one dclcnninc thc spccification of a anaphor? Also since we
problem: how docs one delennine the specification of a anaphor? Also since we
suspcct that tlic spccification c ~ an
f apparent antcccdcnt plirasc plays wmc rdc in
suspect that the specificmion (If an apparent antecedent phrase plays some role in
clioosing an nnaphor's sl~ccification,wc ning ask. just what is his rolc? Wc hope
choosing an anaphor's specific,ltion, we m;ly ;lsk, just what is this role? We hope
for a dircct answcr to tticsc questions, but I~cfin-conc can hc givcn, Ict 11sconsidcr
for a direct answer to these questions, but before one can be given, Ictus consider
how a thcorg of intcrprcl;~~ion
o~tghtto address thcsc qiicstions. A bricf look at
hOw a theory of interpretation ought to address these questions. A brief look at
thc dillic~~ltics
o f finding co-spccificrs will suggcst which issucs our tl~coryshould
the dilliculties of finding co'specifiers will suggest which issues our theory should
covcr.
cover.
13ctcrmining llic co-spccilicr of an anaphor is difficult bccausc tlicrc arc a
Determining the co-specifier of an anaphor is difficult because there arc a
mullitudc ol'possihlc co-spccificrs a givcn discoorsc. and tlicrc is 110 siniple way
mu1lillide ofpossihle co-specifiers ill a given discourse, and there is no simple way
to clloosc tlic C(II.TCC~
one. Ycr h u ~ n a nhcarcrs and rc;~tlcrsgcncrally do rccovcr
to choose the correct one. Yet human hearers and readers generally do recover
thc cc~~.rcct
co-specifying phrinc intcndcd by thc spcakcr. Iluman rcildcrs and
the correct cll-specifying phrase intended by the speaker. Iluman readers and
hcarcrs also fail to rccovcr thc co-specifying pl~r:~scin ccrtain situi~titins; this
hearers <l1so fail to recmer the co-specifying phrase in certain situations; this
bcliavior is just as valuahlc an cll)scr~a~io~i
as gi~rdcnpath phcnomcna for thcorics
behavior is just as ,'alllahle an observation as garden path phenomena for theories
must prcdict Lhc paltcni o f thc hcarcr's and
of parsing. A thcury ot'intcrprc~~tion
of parsing. 1\ theory of interpretation must predict the pattern of the hearer's and
rcudcr's corrcct and incorvcct choiccs, as wcll ;is failurcs ro undcrstond, by a
reader"s corn:ct and incorrect choices, as well as failures 10 understand, by a
rulc-govcrncd iiccounl. In addition, a taxonomy o f rlic cases in which
rulc-glJ\'Crned account.
In addition, a taxonomy of the cases in which
spccific;~tionsarc usctl to gcncralc othcr spccificalions lnilsl bc givcn, as wcll as a
specifications are used to generate other specifications must be given, as well as a
mcicns of predicting tllcir dislribution: Wcbbcr [Cliaptcr 6 of this volumc]
means of predicting their distribution: Webber (Chapter 6 of this volume]
providcs additional trcatlncnt of sonic aspccts of thcsc phcnomcna.
provides additional treatment of some aspects of these phenomena.

5.1.1 ncscarch on Anaphora

licforc exploring tllc usc of spccification and co-specification for anaphor

Before exploring tile usc of specification and co-specification for anaphor
intcrprctn~ion, wc must considcr orhcr aspccts of human communication and
interpretation, we must consider other aspects of human communication and
knowlcdgc which bcnr o n anaphor intcrprctation; two significant cliaraclcristics
knowledge which bear 011 anaphor interpretation: two significant characteristics
arc thc context of discussion a t ~ dh c infcrc~iccspcoplc make.
arc the cuntext of discussion and the inferences people make.
Pcoplc ilsc thc context su~roulldingan an;~plnorin undcrstanding it. If a
People usc the context surroullding an anaphor in understanding it. If a
tlicory of' ani~phorintcrprctation is to capturc ~tndcrst.lnding. it musl iricludc a
theory of anaphor interpretation is to capture underst,lnding, it must include a
~nc~uns
of' cllcoding disco~~rsc
contcxt and wtiatcvcr stlucturc it Iias: the contcxt
means of ellCllding dlscOllrse context and whatever structure it has: the context
I . In ~ h rcsl
c c~flhisch:~plcr. I will \pc:~k of a firasc to-xpccirying (or spccilying)wilh anolhcr phraw.
I. In the restorthisch!lpLer. I will speak or a phrase co-specirying (or spedfying) with another phrao;c,
u*hcti what I rcally nlcall is lha1 ihc rclalion is bclwccn rcprcwntations or phraws [ha1 have bccn
\I.'hen whal I really meall is that the rcJalion is beL ween representations of phrases LhaL have been
in~crprclcdby sonic paning proccs, which indicalcs thc scnlcncc syniac1ic rclalions. and by a scmantic
inLerpreLed
by some parsing
procc..,s,
indicales
the scntence
relations.
inlcq~rcLalion
proccs,
whtch which
conipulcs
xnlanric
rclatitrnssyntactic
among words
or ~and
h scnlcncc
cby a semantic
l h c kind of
inlerpreLalion procC"s, which computes semantic relalions among words or the scntence 'lhe kind of
prtlccscs I cnvision arc nlhcr likc running "in rcvcrsc" Lhe rcaliralion proccdurc that McDonald
processes I envision arc rnther like running "in reversc" thc realization procedure that McDonald
dcscribcs in this volumc.
describes in this volume,

271

must bc
be distilled into
preserves its
richness wilhout
wiU10ut adding
inlo a form
fr~rrii that prcscrvcs
i t richncss
ovcrwhcl~ningcomplexity to thc
intcrprclation prwcss.
In addition,
i~dditios.researchers
rcscarchcrs
overwhelming
the interpretation
process. In
havc discovered
disctrvcrcd !liar
an;~pliorinterpretation
intcrprct;~tion involves
involvcs making
milking inferences,
infcrcnccs, sotne
of
have
that anaphor
some of
be complex.
complcx. each
cach of
o f which rnllst
choscn from a large base
of
which
which can he
must bc
be chusen
hase of
knowledge about objects.
people and
and things. '111e
practical deployment
knowlcdgc
ohjccts, pcoplc
'llic pr;~ctic;~l
dcploymcnt of
of
itlfcrcoti;~Icapal~ilitics
rcquircs control:
conlrol: knowing what
infcr whcn,
inferential
capabilities for any task requires
y,hat in
tn infer
when,
and knowing
knowing nlicn
Sincc thc
gcncrl~lcmuml
c~r~ilrtrl
problc~n is poorly
and
\o\'hcn to stop. Since
the general
problem
undcrst~rad,solutions
solu~itr~~s
Ito
O the
llic more
morc spccilic
pnrblcm of
o f controlling
a ~ n t n ~ l l i ninference
itikrcnce
g
understood,
specific problem
in
i~n:~phor
i~itsrprct;~tion
most he
hc provided
prtrvidcd by a theory
tlicory of an:~plior
intcrplrtatil~n.
anaphor
interpretation must
ana ph or interpretation.
I;
ncll as syntax and
and semantics
scm;~nlicson
un anaphor
a~i;~pIior
'lhc role
rolc of context
contcxt and
and infcrcncc.
The
inference. $as
",,'ell
l)ricl'I<~ok
a t these
tlrcsc explorations
inlcrprcl;~ti~ln
lhavc becll
bccn explored
cxpl,rrcd extensively.
cxtcnsi\.cly. A
interpretation
have
1\ brief
look at
will indicatc
indicate the ncccssily
necessity of
Research on anaphora
o f a new
~ncwapproach.
apprt~;sh. Ilescarch
anaphlrra falls into
four
catcgories:
kror broad catcgorics:
General
filr finding
licuristics Brr
finding antecedents
a~itcccdcnts
Gcncral heuristics
([Winograd
([Wi~ingrad1972])
19721)
Syntaclic and
and scmn~~ric
constraints on anaphora
anaphora
Syntactic
sema1ltic constraints
19631. [Woods
[Woodsct
19721.
([Kalr and Fodor 1963].
([Katz
et al. 1972].
[Chomsky
ICIilrmsky 1976J.
19761. [l.asnik
[I.assik 1976].
19761,
[Reinhart
[Ikinhart 1976].
19761. [Walker
[Walkcr 1976]),
19761).
o f infcrcncc
antcccdcnts
Use
Use of
inference to find antecedents
([Clr;~rniak1972].
19721, [Rieger
[Ricger 1974].
19741.
([Charniak
[Hobbs 1976])
19761)

in a discourse contcxt
context
Analysis of objects
objccts in
([Grt~sz
19771, [Lockman
[l.trkman 1978].
19781.
<{Gros7.1977].
[Ilcichman 1978].
19781, [Webber
[Wcbbcr 1978a].
1978al.
[Reichman
[Hobbs 1979])
19791)
rcvicw each
cach approach. IIw
i l l point out thc
o f each
each
Rather than
than review
will
the contributions of
catcgory
catcgory to a theory
thcory of
o f anaphor
anapllor interpretation.
intcrprctation.
Gcncral lhcurislics, as a means
incans of
o f choosing
ch(xrsing antecedents,
antcccdcnts, prcdict
rcliably in
General
heuristics,
predict reliably
in a
nunihcr of
o f typical examples.
cx;~mplcs. Howcvcr,
simplc characterization
cli;~ractcriz;~lionfits the
large number
However, no simple
wide variety
where lhcy
they fail
widc
varicty of cases
cascs whcrc
fail (see
(scc [Winograd
1Winograd 1972]
19721 and
and (Hobbs
[llobbs 1977]);
19771):
furtticnnorc, the
Ulc licurislic
i~ppmacliis not Lharrclically
grounded ami
and cannol
cannnt offer
offcr
furthennore.
heuristic approm;h
Lhcoretically grounded
approach to Uic
a unificd
unified approach
u1e phenomena.
phenomena.
Semantic
based on thc
the Katz-Fodor
Scmantic selectional
sclcctional restrictions,
restrictions. based
Katr-Fodor theory
thcory of
o f semantic
scmantic
rnarkcrs, and used
uscd by many computational linguists,
linguists, can
can reduce
reduce the
thc space
spacc of
of
markers,
climinatc all possibilities,
possible
antcccdcnts, but thcy
possible antecedents.
tl,ey cannot bc
be uscd
used to eliminate
possibilities. as the

Sidner

272

cxamplc below illuaratcs:

example below illustrates:
(2)'I'ilk~thc mild mck off your fact Noticc how soft feels.
(2) Tilke the mud pack offyollf face Notice how soft i! feels.
Syntactic restrictions. statcd in logical form ([Chomsky 19761) and in constituent
Syntactic restrictions. stated in logical form ([Chomsky 1976)) and in constituent
struc1u1.c ([I.asnik 19761 ;uld [Rcinhart 1976]), stipulalc cooditioi~sin which a
structure ([I.asnik 1976) and [Reinhart 1976, stipulate conditions in which a
1)ronoun and a noun phrasc must hnvc disjoint rcfcrcnccs.
pronoun and a noun phr<lse must have disjoint references.
(3) * Ncar I),in. hc viw a snakc.
(3) * Ncar Dan. he saw a snake.
(4) * 'l'hc man whosc house hc'buught wcnt gold digging in Alaska.
(4) * The man whose house hc'bought went gold digging in Alaska.
'Ihcsc TLIICS. howcvcr, d o not stipulate tllc intcrprcti~tionof an anaphor; in a
'Illese rules. however, do not stipulate the interpretation of an Jnaphor; in a
gcticri~l tlicory they act as liltcrs on thc class of possiblc co-spccificrs.
general theory they act as filters on the class of possible co-specifiers.
1ur~hc1.rnot.c.thcsc rulcs arc not yct tlicorctically complctc ils linguists arc still
FUrLhermore, these rules arc not yet theoretically complete as linguists arc still
sl~~dyiilg
tllc disjoint rcfcrcncc conditions on rcflcxivc anaphora.
studying the disjoint reference conditions on reflexive anaphora.
Work by artifici;il intclligcncc rcscarchcrs on irifcrcncc has Icd to rncthods for
Work by artificial intelligence researchers on inference has led to methods for
forward and hitck wi~rdcliaining of illfcrcnccs to "bilid" tllc annphor, rcprcscntcd
forward and backw;lrd chaining. of inferences to "bind" the anaphor, represented
;is a frcc vari,tblc, uith somc piccc of knowlcdgc; will1 this approach thc anapllor's
as a free variable, with sOlTle piece of knowledge: with this approach the anaphor's
intcrprctation was whatcvcr vnluc hccanic bound to thc frcc variable. 'This
interpretation was whatever value became bound to the free variable. This
irppronch r c ~ c i ~ l cthat
d infcrcnccs about world knowlcdgc arc aftcn nccded to
approach ren:-aled that in ferences abollt world knowledge arc often needed to
intcrprct l~naphors. llowc\.cr. thc rncthods tricd failed to control thc infcrcnce
interpret anaphors. lIowever. the methods tried failed to control the inference
prrrcss a~fficicntly. Charniak, attempting to resolve this problcm. proposcd
process su fficiently. Charniak, auempting to resolve this problem. proposed
demons that would "wakc up" in tllc appropriate situation .(that is, proccsscs
de~nons that would "wake up" in the appropriate situation (that is, processes
which could noticc ~hcmsclvcswhcn thcy wcrc to bcgin processing), nut a large
which could notice themselves when they were to begin processing). nut a large
cache of dcmons w(1111dhc rcquircd. and no assurance could hc givcn that dcmons
cache of demons would be required. and no assurance could be given that demons
would cxist in cvcry situation. Most significantly. his proposal said nothing about
would exist in every situation. Most significantly. his proposal said nothing about
thc situation whcrc two or morc dcmons might apply (who gcts control? how are
the situ<ltioll where two or more demons might <lpply (who gets control? how are
tllc decisions made?). I-inally all of lhc infcrcnce bnscd approachcs to pronoun
the decisions made?). Finally all of the inference based approaches to pronoun
intcrprctation fail to offcr any thcnrctical approach bccausc [Ilcy rcly on a simple
interpretation fail to offer any theoretical approach because they rely on a simple
~ncchanism,(sirnplc variablc binding bctwccn pronoun and some othcr phrase)
mechanism, (simple variable binding between pronoun and some other phrase)
which docs not apply in many uscs of anaphora. such as Dl.
which docs not apply in many uses of anaphora. such as D1.
1)iscoursc a ~ ~ r o a c h to
c s anaphora havc includcd a tcchnique similar to the
Discourse approaches to anaphora have included a technique similar to the
infcrcncc mcthod; onc idcntitied scntcncc pairs and cxamincd them for the
inference method: one identified sentence pairs and examined them for the
cohcrcncc relations of similarity, contrast, parallel structure; thc pronouns were
coherence relations of similarity, contrast. parallel structure: the pronouns were
intcrprctcd by variablc binding bctwccn itcms of thc sentcncc pairs ([lfobbs
interpreted by variable binding between items of the sentence pairs ([Hobbs
19791). A diffcrcnt approach, uscd by Wcbbcr (scc Chaptcr 6 of this volume, or
1979. A different approach, used by Webber (see Chapter 6 of this volume, or
[Wcbbcr 11178al) rclics on idcntifying rcprcscntational constraints which will
[Webber 1978a)) relics on identifying representational constraints which will
rcstrict what discoursc phrascs and asstriatcd discoursc cnlitics may bc uscd in
restrict what discourse phrases and associated discourse entities may be used in
cohcrent discoursc. Shc prcscnls a form of rcstrictcd quantification which
coherent discourse. She presents a form of restricted quantification which
provides such constraints. I will considcr thc rolc of Wcbbcr's formalism in
provides such constraints. I will consider the role of Webber's formalism in
focusing latcr in this chapter.
focusing later in this chapter.
Grosi! [ G r o a 1977, 1978, 19811 dcfrncd a focus space as that subset of the
GroS7. [Grosz 1977. 1978, 1981) defined a focus space as that subset of the
spcakcr's total knowlcdgc which is relevant to a discourse scgmcnt. Elements in
speaker's total knowledge which is relevant to a discourse segment. Elements in
the space arc highlighted via focusing, a proccss which rcflccts what a speaker says
the space arc highlighted via focusing, a process which reflects what a speaker says

273
and thc naturc of thc knowlcdgc in thc SJ);ICC. Scvcral such spnccs, dubbcd "focus
and the nature of the knowledge in the space. Several stich spaces, dubbed "focus
spaccs." may bc rclcvaiit at a time atthough only onc is ccnlcrcd on for prtxcssing
spaces," may be relevant at a time although only one is centered on for processing
at any givcn timc. Grosz prcscntcd a proccdt~rcfor intcrprcting nun-pronominal
at any given time. Grosz, presented a procedure for interpreting non-pronominal
noun phrascs using thc fixusing and firus spacc notions. Rcichman [licichman
noun phrases using the focusing and focus space notions. Reichman [Reichman
19781 has cxpalidcd this pari~digm by dcscribing "context spaccs" which arc
1978] has expanded this paradigm by describing "context spaces" which arc
dclincatcd by thcir topics. Within a contcxl spacc. cnrirics rcccivc various focus
delineated by their topics. Within a context space. entities receive various focus
Icvcls: only pllrascs Lhat arc in high f t ~ u may
s bc pro11ominali;rcd. licichman's
levels: only phrases that arc in high focus may be pronominalized. Reichman's
work Icavcs open irnportant quc$tions: what is Lhc recognition proccdurc for
work lCJ"es open important quc~tions: what is the recognition procedure for
dclcr~nininga context space, Ilow docs onc idcntify its topic.'and how docs thc
delermini ng a context space, how docs one identify its topic: and how docs the
hcarcr dctcnninc thc inrcrl)~.ctationof a an:tphor. hilt is, lltrw docs n hcarcr dccidc
hearer detellnine the inlerpretation of a anaphor. that is, how does a hearer decide
which highly fi~uscdplirascs act ;IS thc co-spccificr of :I anaphor?
which highly focused phrases act as the co-specifier of a anaphor?
'1'0 sunllni~ri~c,
cilrrcnt rcscarch on ani~phor intcrprclation suggcsu h a t
To sUlllmaril.e, current research on anaphor interpretation suggests that
co~ttrolof' inferring and const~.ainrson rcpr-cscntation of discoursc arc ncccssary
control of inferring and constraints on representation of discourse arc necessary
nspccts of a thcory of anaphor intcrprctation. Gros~'approach indici~tcsthat onc
aspects of a theory of anaphor interpretation. Gros/ approach indicates that one
Inus[ also considcr wllict thc spcakcr is talking ahou[; RcicIim;~n'sanalysis shows
must also consider what the speaker is talking about; Reichman's analysis shows
that ccrtain pllrascs in tllc con\.crsation play a spccial rolc in inrcrprclation, whilc
that certain phrases in the colllersation playa special role in interpretation, while
Wcbbcr inclicatcs how h c rcprcscntation of quantilicrs aff'cc~ithc ilitcrprctation
Webber indicates how the representation of quantifiers aflCcl~ the interpretation
ofani~phor.All thcsc approaches support thc vicw that iincc hcarcrs do not ha've
of anaphor. 1\11 these aPPfLl3ches support the view that "since hearers do not have
privilcgcd acccss to a spcakcr's mind, other than Uuough what a spcakcr says;
privileged access to a speaker's mind. other than through what a speaker says;
imposing structure c ~ nthc spcakcr's discoursc will ~rovidca fra~ncworkfor
impo~ing structure 011 the speaker's discourse will provide a framcwork for
establishing thc intcrprctation of anaphors.
establishing the interprelatinn of anaphors.
5.1.2 'Ihc Focusing Approach to Anaphora
5.1.2 The Focusing Approach to Anaphora
Onc of the biisic uniLs of languagc co~nrnunicationis thc dikoursc. Informally
One of the basic unil~ of language communication is the diScourse. Infonnally
and intuitively, a discoursc is a conncctcd piccc of tcxl or spoken language of
and intuitively, a discourse is a connected piece of text or spoken language of
more than onc scntcncc spvkcn by onc or more spcakcrs. If such an informal
more than one sentence spoken by one or more speakers. If such an infonnal
definition is to bc hclpfirl at all, somc notion of what it means to bc "conncctcd" is
definition is to be helpful at all. some notion of what it means to be "connected" is
nccdcd. Whilc thcrc arc many diffcrcnt propcnics which contribute to discoursc
needed, While there arc many different properties which contribute to discourse
conncclcdncss, in this chapter I want to considcr only onc: thc spcakcr or spcakcrs
connecledness, in this chapter I want to consider only one: the speaker or speakers
talk about sornctl1ing. onc thing at a timc.
talk about somcthing. one thing at a time.
In it discoursc spcakcrs ccnlcr Lhcir uttcntion on a particular discoursc clcmcnl
In a discoursc ~peakers cellLer their attention on a particular discourse clement,
11 is U>C clc111cntwhich is clnboratcd by a portion
onc wliicli I will call Lllc &.
one which I will call the focus. II is the clelJlent which is elaborated by a portion
of tllc discou~~c.So~l~crimcs
spcakcrs' discourscs can bc quitc diflcrcnt; thcir
of the discourse. Sometimes speakers' discourses can be quite diflcrcnt; their
discourscs ilrc incohcrcnt or at lcast hard to Follow bccausc:
discourses arc incoherent or at least hard to follow because:

Sidncr

274

la) thcy tiilk about scvcral c l c m c ~ ~ without

ls
rctaring
1a) they talk about several elemellts without refating
thcm or
them or
Ib) tlicy talk about scvcral clcmcnts without informing
Ib) they talk about several c1emenl~ without informing
lhc hcarcr that scwral clcrncrits will be
the hearer that several clements will be
d i x u s ~ c d;it oncc or
discLlssed at once or
2)

thcy do not choosc a central clcincnt for thc

2) do
they
not choose a central clement for the
discourse.
discourse.

In a nutshcll, discourscs with lticsc propcrtics arc not conncctcd, that is, thcy lack
rn <l Ilutshell, discourses with these properties arc not connected. that is, they lack
;In clc~ncntwhich is f(xiiscd on. 'I'lic focus is tlicn onc of thc connccting thrcads
an element which is focused on. The focus is then one of the connecting threads
LI1;lt I ~ Y ~ aC tcxt
S
or a sct of utrcranccs a discourse.
thaI makes a text or a set of ullerances a discourse.
l'c~using is a discourse phcnomcnon rrrihcr than onc of single scntcnccs.
Focusing is a discourse phenomenon mther than one of single sentenccs.
, would cxpcct that it
Whcn a spcakcr irscs scbcral scntcnccs about onc f t ~ u s onc
When ,t speaker uses several sentences about one focus, one would expect that it
would nccd to bc rc-inlroduccd in cach scntcncc. tlowcvcr, rc-introduction is a
would need to be re-introduced in each sentence. However, re-introduction is a
redundant and rhus inc~ficicn~
proccss; in fact. spcakcrs d o not usc it. If
redundant and lhus inefficient process; in fact. speakers do not usc it. If
rc-iiitroduction is not uscd, and still hcarcn claim to know what is bcing talked
re-introduction is not used, and still hearers claim to know what is being talked
about, h c r c must be somc mcans by which thc discnursc rcrnains conncctcd. In
about, Lhere must be some mcans by which the discourse remains connected. ]n
fact. thcrc arc two ways. First, spccial words indicaic to ~ h hcorer
c
"that I aln still
fa~t, there arc two ways. First, special words indicate to the hearer "that I am still
t;liking about thc thing I talkcd about in thc prcvious scntcncc;" tradilionally
talking about the thing [ talked about in the previous sentence;" traditionally
rhcsc signals irrc callcd aiiilphoric cxprcssions. Sccond. ~pcakcrsrely on ~ I S S U I ~ C ~
tllese signals arc called anilphoric expressions. Second. peakers rely on assumed
sharcd knowlcdgc in discourscs: thc spcakcr assumes that somc conncctions
shared knowledge in discourses: the speaker assumes that some connections
bctwccn thc f t ~ u 2nd
s somc orher c!emcnts arc alrcady sharcd with thc hcarer so
between the focus and some OLher clements arc already shared with the hearer so
Uiat shc or hc nccd not explicitly state what they arc. Of course. thcrc js a risk that
that she or he need not explicitly slate what Uley arc. Of course. there is a risk that
rhc conncctions are no longer obvious. resulting in a sct of scntcnccs which simply
the connections arc no longer obvious, resulting in a set of sentences which simply
confusc the hcarcr.
confuse the hearer.
Now a possible line of investigation bccomcs clear. 'Ihe focus and the
Now a possible line of investigation becomes clear. The focus and the
assumcd sharcd knowlcdgc can bc uscd as one of thc chicf consiraints on h e
assumed shared knowledge can be used as one of the chief consiraints on the
choice of thc co-specification of anaphoric cxprcssions. liulcs governing an
choice of the co-specification of anaphorie expressions. Rules governing an
anaphor intcrprctcr can bc discovcrcd which usc thcsc two sourccs of constraints.
anaphor interpreter can he discovered which usc these two sources of constraints.
In thcsc rulcs tllc ftcus will play a central rolc as a sourcc of co-specification. 'Thc
In these rules Ule focus will playa central role as a source of co-specification. The
~ ~ X L and
I S thc struuturc of a s s ~ ~ m csharcd
d
knowlcdgc arc significant to rulcs
focus and the structure of assumed shared knowledge arc significant to rules
governing thc choicc of anaphors bccausc thcy capturc thc cffccts of what has
governing the choice of anaphors because they capture the e!Tects of what has
bccn ti~lkcdabout previously and what thc spcakcr has ;ssurncd is knowlcdgc that
been tllked about previously and what the speaker has assumed is knowledge that
is sharcd with thc hcarcr.
is shared with the hearer.
'I'his vicw of focusing and anaphora rcsts on four assumptions about thc naturc
This view of focusing and anaphora rests on four assumptions about the nature
of communication, cach of which is true in most situ;ltions. First, thc spcakcr is
of communication, each of which is true in most situations. l-'irs1, the speaker is
assumcd to bc communicating about something. 'I'his assumption implies that the
assumed to be communicating about something. This assumption implies thal the
spcakcr is not speaking gibberish, that thc utterance contains rcfcrring cxprcssions
speaker is not speaking gibberish, that the utterance contains referring expressions

275

and communicatcs somc intcntion.. l'hc somcthing which thc commonication is

and communicates some intention.. The something which the communication is

of thc discriursc. Sccond, thc spcakcr assurncs that
about will bc callcd ttic
about will be called the focus of the discourse. Second, the speaker assumes that
thc hcarcr can idcnlify thc focus of thc discoursc. '1'11~ spcakcr wants to
the hearer can identify the focus of the discourse. The speaker wants to
conimunicatc about sorncthing, and for the communication lo trcur, thc hearer
communicate about something, and for the communication to occur. the hearer
must bc ahlc to distinguish what ~ h spcskcr
c
is com~nunic;~ting
about. 'Illird, the
must be ahle to distinguish what the speaker is communic;tting about. '111ird. the
spcakcr is not trying to conf~rscor dcccivc thc hcarcr. 'Ihc spcakcr uscs rcfcrring
speaker is not trying to confuse or deceive the hearer. '111e speaker uses referring
cxprcssions with thc intcntion of rcfcr.ring to somconc or s~)tnctliing,or wilh lhc
expressions with the intention of referring to someone or something, or with the
intcntion o f describing sorncthing or sonic crcnt. In Ciricc:in ([Gricc 19751) tcrrns.
intention of describing s()mething or some event. In Gricean ([Grice 1975]) teoos,
tlic byword is' "llc pcrspicuous." I;in;llly thc spcakcr ;issumcs tllc licarcr has
the byword is "Be perspicuous." Finally the spedker assumes the hearer has
ccnain ktiowlcdgc about tlic rcal wol.ld which can bc used to rcason about
certain knowledge about the re.11 world which can be used to reason about
rcfcrring cxprcssions during thc conanunication prcxlcss. Rcccnt rescarch
referring expressions during the communication process. Recent research
[[l'crrault ; I I I ~Colicn 19811, Allcn (Chnl~tcr2 of tl~isvolumc) [C'lirrk and Marshall
([perrault .11Id Collen 1981]. Allen (Chapter 2 of this volume) [Clark and Marshall
19783). ; ~ n dthe wcll known work oFScarlc [Scarlc 1969) ;rnd Austin [Austin 19623,
1978]), and the well known work of Searle [Searle 19691 <lnd Austin [Austin 1962],
dcscrihc n~odclsof thc spcakcr's kntrwlcdgc of what thc hcarcr bclic~cs. In this
descrihe models of the speaker's knowledge of what the hearer believes. In this
chaplcr. the wctikcst form of arch a rntldcl is assunicd: tllc spcakcr assutncs the
chapter, the weakest form of such a model is assumed: the speaker assumes the
hcarcr lii~senough rcal-world knowlcdgc in cornmoll with thc spcakcr lo know
hearer has enough real-world knowledge in common with the speaker to know
about I l ~ ccntitics in thc rcal world which thc spcakcr rcfcrs to and to know about
about the entities in ti,e real world which the speaker refers to and to know about
thc cognitikc clemcnts of tllc discoursc which thc spcakcr mcnlions: Wcbbcr
the cognitive clements of the discourse which the speaker mentions: Webber
(Chaprcr 6 of this vo!uinc) spcaks of this assumption as that of s11;lrcd knowlcdge
(ChJ~ter 6 of this volume) speaks of this assumption as that of shared knowledge
hctwccn spcakcr and hcarcr. 'I'lie spcakcr dmws on that knowlcdgc in
hetween speaker and hearer. The speaker draws on that knowledge in
conslrucring a nicssagc for a licarcr. 'lhcsc four assumptions will play an
constructing a message for a hearer. 'Illese four as<;umptions will play an
important part in thc discussion ofco-spccificarion intcrprctalion which follows.
important part in the discussion of co-specification interpretation which follows.
13y vicwing ft~tlsingas a prtccss that chooscs a ftrus as onc of thc clc~ncntsof
By viewing focusing as a process that chooses a focus as one of the clements of
discoursc structure, a ncw tool For intcrprcting anaphors bccomcs available. Ihe
discourse structure, a new tool for interpreting anaphors becomes available. llle
focus of thc discoursc will act as an indcx to thc spccificatians of rcfcrring
focus of the discourse will act as an index to the specifications of referring
exprcssinns. For dcfinitc anaphora thc focus is thc locus of thc specification
expressions. For definite anaphora the focus is ti,e locus of the specification
information. Eithcr the focus is thc co-spccifyitlg phlusc for an anaphor, when it
information. Either the focus is the co-specifying phrase for an anaphor, when it
mccts ccrtain syntactic, scmantic and infcrcntial knowlcdgc rest]-ictions, or clsc the
meets certain syntactic, semantic and inferential knowledge restrictions. or else the
the discoursc rcprcscntation of I h c phrase in fixus can bc uscd to gcncratc the
the discourse representation of the phrase in focus can be used to generate the
specification of tlic dcfinitc anapllor, nccausc rcprcscntations and knowlcdge are
specification of the definite anaphor. Because representations and knowledge are
csscntial to how an anaphor is interprctcd. an cxplanation of focus is incomplctc
essential to how an anaphor is interpreted. an explanation of focus is incomplete
without somc considcration of thc way in which it is rcprcscnlcd, and llow it is
without some consideration of the way in which it is represellted, and how it is
rclatcd to othcr conccpts pcoplc know about and othcr items nicntioncd in the
related to other concepts people know about and other items mentioned in the
discoursc. 'I'lic usc of ftcus also rcquircs anothcr typc of computational
discourse. The usc of focus also requires another type of computational
machincry, an inferring prtrcss. which is uscd to infcr from gcncral knowlcdgc
machinery, an in ferring process, which is used to infer from general knowledge
and othcr suppositions that a certain pn~positionis consistent with what clsc is
and other suppositions that a certain proposition is consistent with what else is
known.
known.
An cxamplc to illusuatc thc conccpt o f focus will bc helpful hcrc. In thc
An example to illustrate the concept of focus will be helpful here. In the
discoursc bclow, thc focus of discussion is the meeting of D2-1.
discourse below, the focus of discussion is the meeting ofD2-1.

Sidner

276

112-1 1 want to schcdulc a rnecting with Ira.

1)2-1 I want to schedule a meeting with Ira.
2 It should hc at 3 p.m.
2 It should be at 3 p.m.
3 We can gct togcrhcr in his office.
3 We can get together in his office.
4 lnvirc John to comc. too.
4 Invite John to come. too.
A11 four scntcnccs givc information about thc ft~uscdclcmcnt. WIlilc 112-3 and 4
All four sentences give infonnation about the focused clement While D2-3 and 4
~nnkcno dircct rcfcrcllcc to tllc inccling of 112-1, iIS Iluman hcarcrs, wc assume
make no direct reference to the meeting of 1)2-1, as human hearers. we assume
that thcsc scntc~iccsarc rcl;ltcd to thc rcst of 112 bccausc *icy can bc intcrprctcd as
that these sentences arc related to the rest of 1)2 because they can be interpreted as
giving inftirmation about Lllc firus nlcerirrg. 112-3 namcs tlic location of the
giving information aholll Ule focus lI1eefillg. 1l2-3 names the location of the
inccting wliilc 112-4 introduces ;III additional participant by usc of itlviir, and by
meeting while 1)24 introduces an additional participant by use of il/vi/r, and by
tlking advnnlagc orknowlcdgc that pcoplc arc invilcd to rncctings.
klking advantage orknowledge that people arc invited to meetings.
If H'C assumc t l ~ spc~kcrs
t
know that ~ncctiligshaw as~triiilcdplaccs, times,
If we assume thaI speakers know that meetings have associated places, times,
participants, and purposcs, then wlicn a ncw instancc of rnccting is cvokcd, this
participants, and purposes. then when a new instance of meeting is eYoked. this
kncrwlcdgc can hc uscd to i~ndcrsulndwhat thc spci~kcris conimunicaling to thc
knowledge can he lIsed to underst;md what the speaker is communicating to the
hcarcr ahout rncctings. I r also makes possihlc ;In cxplanation for how thc hcarcr
hearer about meetings. [t also makes possible an explanation for how the hearer
undcrsrands thc rolc the pronouns play in tlic discoursc: lhc pronouns cu-specify
understands the role the pronouns play in the discourse; the pronouns co-specify
h c clcmcnt in focus.
the clement in focus.
Of coursc, thc co-spccificr of' n pronoun must bc proposcd.hy sornc process, a
Of course, the co'specifier of a pronoun must be proposed-by some process, a
proccss which can intcrprct rulrs which rcstrict wliat might bc t)ic co-spccificr and
process which can interpret rules which restrict what might be the co-specifier and
thcn tcsr proposcd co-spccificfi. 'Ihus in 112-2, oncc thc firus is proposcd as the
then test proposed co-specifiers. 'llluS in 1)2-2, once the focus is proposed as the
co:spccificr of it. this inrcrprcta~ionprtxcss lnrlst assurc h a t rncctings can trcur at
co:specifier of ii, this interpretation process must assure that meetings can occur at
a parlicular tirnc. 'I'(I providc confirmniion, an inferring proccss uscs knowledge
a particular time. To provide confirmation, an inferring process uses knowledge
ofthc world to dctcrminc that rncctings havc ~irncs.'lhis bcing so. thc proposal of
of the world to determinc that meetings have times. 'this being so, the proposal of
mccring as thc co-spccificr of i~ is acccptcd.
meeting as the co-specifier of il is accepted.
'I'he cxpldnation of thc rotc of focus cannot bc quite so simplc bccause the
The explanation of the role of focus cannot be quite so simplc because the
focus of a dirounc can changc to a ncw clcrncnt of thc discoursc. A incans of
focus of a discourse can change to a new clement of the discourse. A means of
rccogni-/.ingd\is changc is rcquircd in the modcl of thc ftrusing proccss. For
recognizing this change is required in the model of the focusing process. For
cxarnplc, in 113 thc firus bcgins on rnccting. but thc it in 113-3 has rrly oflce as its
example, in 1)3 the focus begins on meeting. but the it in 1)3-3 has Illy office as its
co-spccificr. not the rnccting. 1)ctccting this co-spccificr rcquircs a means of
co-specifier, not the meeting. Detecting this co-specifier requires a means of
noticing a movcmcnt of focus 10 !try ofic and using thc infcrring mcchanism to
noticing a movement of focus to my office and using the inferring mechanism to
confirm thc choicc of thc ncw f i ~ u as
s ca-spccilicr.
confinn the choice of the new fileuS as co-specifier.
113-1 1 want to schcdulc a rnccting hith Gcorgc. Jim, Stcvc and Mikc.
1)3-1 I want2 to
meeting
with George, Jim, Steve and Mike.
Wcschedule
can lnccta in
my officc.
2 We can meet in my office.
3 I t's kind of slnall,
J It's kind of small,
4 hut wc'll only ncctl it for ahout an hour.
4 but we'll only need it for <lbollt an hour.
In ;rddition to the cornprchcnsit~l~
o f pronouns such as il, fixusing will bc
[n addition to the comprehension of pronouns such as ii, focusing will be
shown LO providc an cxplilnation k)r thc dcfinitc anaphora of this and ihar, as uscd
shown to pwviJe an explanation filr the definite anaphora of {his and Ihat, as used
in tllc discoi~rscshclow. Sincc dicsc dcfinitc anaphors havc rcccircd little
in the discoilrses below, Since these definite anaphors have received little
trcatmcnt in any litcraturc, an cxplanation of Lhcir bchavior as part of focusing
treatment in any literature, an explanation of their behavior as part of focusing
will ofTcr ncw insights about how languagc is undcrstotd.
will ofTer new insights about how language is understood.

277
114-1 The axon may run for a long distance. scnding off sckcral
sid~brmlchrsalong thc way,
sidebranches along the way.
2 bcforc it tcrmina~csin an cvcn fincr nctwork of filarncnts, h e
2 before ittcrminates in an even fincr network of filaments, the
i~ntri~iml
arbor.
IfnI/ina! arbor.
3 hli~n'slongcst axon runs for scvcral fcct. froin the spinal column
3 Man's longcst axon runs for scveral feet. from the spinal column
to t n ~ ~ x lthat
c s control movcmcnts of thc tocs.
tll muscles that control movements of the toes.
4 In spitc of its grcitt Icngth, his axon, likc all ncrvc libcrs, is a pan
4 In spite of its great length. this axon. like all nerve fibers. is a part
of a singlc ccll.
of a single cell.
S It is living mattcr.
5 It is living maller.
135-1 I'm having a party tomorrow night;
I)5-1 I'm having a party tomorrow night;
2 it will bc likc the onc I had last wcck.
2 it will be like the one I had last week.
3 'I'liat w r t y was a big succcss
J That lli!L!Y was a big success
4 bccausc cvcryonc dauccd.
4 because everyone danced.
5 'lhis onc wit1 I~itvcbcttcr food.
5 '1l1is ~ will have better food.
6 I'vc ahkcd cvcryonc to bring something spccial.
6 I've asked eve:ryol1e to bring something special.
7 Want to cnmc?
7 Want to come?
If ftxusing is to bc vicwcd as p;trt of an;\phor comprchcnsion, somc prcxcss
I f focusing is to be \'iewed as part (If anaphor comprehension. some process
must choosc, in a rcliablc way, what I havc dcscribcd looscly as thc focus of thc
must choose, in a reliable way, what I have described loosely as the focus of the
discoursc. 'I'hc p~.occss will bc ~.cquircdto rnakc usc of rcprcscntations of
discourse. The process will be required to make usc of representations of
t linkcd to t)thcr mcniory clc~ncntshccausc pcoplc
clcmcnts of a scntcncc d ~ a arc
clements of a sentence that arc linked to other memory clements because people
sccni to LISC just SLICII information thcmsclvcs. In addition, an,intcrprctcr will
seem to usc just SllCh information themselves. In addition, an' interpreter will
makc LISC of the focus. as well as as syntactic, scmentic. and-gcncral knowledge
make use of the focus. as well as as syntactic. semantic. and- general knowledge
rcstrict~ons, in dctcnnining thc co-spccificr of thc anaphoric cxprcssions. 'lhis
restrictions. in detennining the co-specifier of the anaphoric expressions. 'Ibis
. fwl~singprwcss and thc unaphor intcrprctcr raises
brief dcscription of a f i ~ u s thc
brief description of a focus. the focusing process and the anaphor interpreter raises
sumc qucstions which must be answcrcd. What is thc fwus of thc discoursc, and
sume questions which must be answcred. What is the focus of the discourse, and
how is it dctcrmincd? What kinds of assumptions about thc stnlcturc of the
how is it determined? What kinds of assumptions about the structure of the
knowlcdgc must be madc in ordcr to usc a focus for dcfinitc anaphor
knowledge must be made in order to use a focus for definitc anaphor
disambiguation? What infcrcnccs arc uscd in thc prcdiction of co-specifiers?
disambiguation? What inferences are used in the prediction of co-specifiers?
How docs an anaphoric intcrprctcr use thc focus to intcrprct pcrsonal and
How does an anaphoric interpreter use the focus to interpret personal and
1his4harpronouns?
this/lhal pronouns?
l'hc answcrs to thcsc qucstions will bc providcd in thc ncw fcw scctions. As
The answers to these questions will be provided in the new few sections. As
thc tllcory unfolds. I will also support thc following claims ahout dcfinitc
the theory unfolds. J will also support the following claims about definite
anaphora.
anaphora.
1)4-1 The axon may run for a long distance. sending off several

1. 'I h c role of fix:us in co-snccification

I. 'I he role of focus ill en-specification
Ftrus and it knowlcdgc nctwork togcthcr dctcmiinc tlic rclationships
Focus and a knowledge network together determine the relationships
among clcrncnts of UIC disco~rtsc. 'I'hcsc rclationships indicatc ways in
among clements of Ule discourse. These relationships indicate ways in
which co-spccification with UIC focus can bc accomplishcd.
which co-specification with U1e focus can be accomplished.
2. F t ~ u s c dinferring
2. Focused inferring
Focusing conlrols thc infcrcnce mcchanism nccdcd to dctcrminc a
Focusing controls the inference mechanism needed to determinc a
spccification relationship bctwccn a R ~ u sand an anaphoric noun
specification relationship between a filCUS and an anaphoric noun

Sidner

Sidncr

278

278

phrnsc bccausc inferring is uscd to confirm a hypotlicsizcd link bctwccn

phrasean
because
inferring
is used to con finn a hypothesized link between
anaphor
and a focus.
an anaphor and a focus.

3. 1)istingui~liin.qand disambicu;~tinedcfinitc a n a ~ h o r a
3. Distinguishing
definite anaphora
I't~us, and
useddisambiguatin2
w i ~ hLIIC rcprcscntation
of knowlcdgc in (I), with Wcbbcr's
Focus, rcprcscn~ation
used with the representation
in (l), with Webber's
) and with infi)~.rnation describing
(scc Chaptcrof6knowledge
representation
Chapter
6) and such
with asinf{lrmation
describing
scnlcncc (sec
syntistic
constr;~ints,
c-con~lnand,
atid sc~nantic
sentence
syntactic
constraints,
stich
as
c'command,
and
semantic
sclcctional rcstriclions, 'can distinguish those dcfinitc
an;~phora
se1cctional restrictions,' Can distinguish those definite anaphora
goicmcd by discoursc cffccts. It can bc used tu dis~mhiguatcthcir
by discourse
effects. It can be used to disambiguate their
gll\erned
specifications
as wcll.
as
well.
specifications
'I'hc thcory of focusing ~nakcsccstain tcstnhlc prcdictions, oncs which arc
The theory of focusing makes certain test<lb1c predictions, ones which are
produccd by lhc prcrccsscs and intcrprclcrs that arc lo bc dcscribcd in this chaptcr.
produced by the processes and interpreters that are to be described in this chapter.
'I'licy will prcdict which rcprcscntations arc thc spccificatiuns of ;inaphors and
They will predict which representations arc the specifications of anaphors and
hat decisions arc n ~ i ~ dtoc find thc rcprcscnt;~tions. Sincc thc Lhcory rclics on
'" hal decisions arc made to find the representations. Since the Uleory relics on
rcl~rcscntationsof k11o\i lcdgc, ir also innkcs prcdictions and stlggcsts c{)nstraints
representations of knowledge, it also 1llilkes predictions and suggests constraints
on both thc structure and the contcnt of thcse rcprcscntations. 111 discussing all
on both the structure and the content of these representations. In discussing all
thcsc prcdictions, I will illusir;~lctllc advanccs of thc focusing Ihcory ovcr carlicr
these predictilltls, J will illtlstrilte the advances of the focusing theory over earlier
work as ~ c l as
l cxplain thc limit;~tionsof lhc thcosy for intcrprcting onc class of
work as well as explain the limiwtions of the thcory for interpreting one class of
dcfinitc anaphora.
definite anaphora.
5.2 The Definition of Focus
5.2.1 A Skclcfl of l l ~ cl'rocuss hlodcl of Focusing
5.2.1 ASkclch of the I)rocess Model of Focusing

A prcrccss rnodcl of focusing consists o f thrcc distinct proccsscs. which fi~nctionin

A process model of focusing consists of three distinct processes, which tlmction in
a cyclc for cach scnlcncc of a discoursc. 'I'hc first proccss chooses foci based on
a cycle for each sentence of a discourse. The first process' chooses foci based on
what Uic spcakcr initially says. 'I'hcn an intcrprctcr uses thcsc foci and a sct of
what the speaker initially says. Then an intcrpreter uses these foci and a set of
rulcs of anaphor intcrprctation to intcrprct thc anaphoric cxprcssions in the
rules of anaphor interpretation to interpret the anaphoric expressions in the
discoursc. This intcrprctcr, likc a human hcarcr, must "kccp in mind" whatcvcr
discourse. This interpreter, like a human hearer, must "keep in mind" whatever
othcr ncwly mcntioncd clcmcnts thc spcakcr has introduced, sincc somctirncs an
other newly mentioned clements the speaker has introduced, since sometimes an
anaphor may co-spccify with one of th'csc instcad of thc clcmcnts in focus. A third
anaphor may co-specify with one of these instead of Ule clements in focus. A third
prtrcss i~pdatcsthc foci using thc onaphoric intcrprctations choscn by the
process updates the foci using the anaphoric interpretations chosen by the
intcrprctcr. Iluring h i s Irtsl phasc. thc updating pnxcss will mavc onc of thc foci
interpreter. During this last phase, the updating process will move one of the foci
to a IICW clclncnt of thc discoursc. if thc phrasc prcviously in focus is no longcr
to a new element of the discourse, if the phrase previously in focus is no longer
part of thc information convcycd by the scntcncc. 'I'hc thrcc pr(~csscstakcn
part of the inklrmation conveyed by the sentence. The three processes taken
s
of focus tracking: tllc rnodcl bchavcs likc
togctllcr sketch a sirnplc p r t ~ c s rnodcl
together sketch a simple process model of focus tracking: the model behaves like
its human counterpart in thc way it intcrprcts anaphors and in thc inshnccs in
its human counterpart in the way it interprets anaphors and in the instances in
which it fails to "understand."
which it fails to "understand."
'Ihc thrcc p r t ~ c s cyclc
s
can bc illustrated with the cxarnple below.
'111e three process cycle can be illustrated with the example below.

279
116-1 1,ist ncck tllcrc wcrc somc nicc strawbcrrics in tllc refrigerator.
1)6-1 Last \'leek there were some nice strawberries in the refrigerator.
2 'l'hcy camc from our h o d co-np and wcrc unusually frcsh.
2 They came from our filOd co-op and were unusually fresh.
3 1 went to use tticm for dinncr, but somconc had c:ltcn thcm all.
3 I went to usc them for dinner, but someone had eaten them all.
4 I-i~tcrI discovcrcd it was Mark wllo had catcn Lhcm.
4 Later I discovered it was Mark who had eaten them.
5 Mark has ii hollow Icg. and it's irnpossiblc to kccp f w d around
5 Mark has a hollow kg. and it's impossible to keep food around
whcn his stomi~chnccds filling.
whcn his slOmach needs filling.
Suppose thc first focusing prtccss initially gi~csscsthat strawbcrrics are the
Suppose the first focusing process initially guesses that strawberries are the
ftcus in 116-1. Ncxt a pronoun ioterpr;tcr would apply n rulc h a t says "A
focus in 1)6-1. Next a pronoun interpr~ter would apply a rule that says "II.
pronoun that can bc rcplaccd by tlic fixus plirasc, with tlic. rcsulting scntcncc
pronoun that can be replaced by the focus phrase, VYith the. resulting sentence
rcrn;rining syntilctically acccptablc. co-specifics with d ~ cfczus. ~ ~ n l c ssome
s
remaining syntactically acccptable, co-specifics with the focus, unless some
pragmatic knowlcdgc rulcs out that co-spccificr." to dc~cnnincthat strawbcrrics
pragmatic knowkdge rules out that co-specifier," tll detennine that strawberries
can rcplacc / ~ I P Jin~ 136-2 with no syntactic fiiilurc. An infcrcncc proccss. govcrncd
can r('place the)' in 1)6-2 with no syntactic failure. An inference process, governed
by ~ h pronoun
c
intclprcler, could confirm that str~lwbcrricscan colnc from food
by the pronuun interprcter, could confirm that strawberries can comc from food
co-ops iuid can bc Srcsll; thi~tis, n o contrad~ctionin gcnccrl knowlcdgc rcsults.
co-ops and can be fresh; that is, no contradiction in gcneral knowledge results.
Finally, the third prtwss can confirm stratrbcrrics ;is Ulc f t ~ l r ssincc it lias bcen
Finally, the tJlird process can confirm strav. berries :15 tJle foclls since it has been
rc-mcntioncd and bcc;iusc t)thcr objccts mcntior~cdin 1%-1, tlic rcfrigcrator and
re-mentioned and becaus(' other objects mentioned in D6-1, tJle refrigerator and
[tic prctious wcck. wcrc no1 discusscd in 116-2.
the previous week, werc not discussed in 1)6-2.
.l'hc ftcusing rncch;tnisn~will bc a usclul ~hcorcticnl.toot only if it is cohcrcnt
The focusing mechanism will be a useful theoretical. tool only if it is coherent
ti) talk about solnc clcmcnt of thc discourse as bcing in focus. While our
ttl talk about some clement of the discourse as being in focus. While our
intuilions as spcnkcrs and hearers Icd us to bclievc that thcrc is somctlling wc talk
intuitions as speakers and hearers led us to believe that there is something we talk
about. tlic inr~~ition
is pr-ohlunatic bccirusc thcrc appear to bc rnany phcnomcna
about, tJle intuition is prohlematic because tJlere appear to be many phcnomena
which function in distinguishing what it is that somculic is talki~igabout. Onc
which function in distinguishing what it is that someone is talk ing about. One
such phcnomcnon for marking focus are syntactic constructions, such as
such phenomenon for marking focus arc syntactic constructions, such as
thcrc- inscrtion scntcnccs as ( 5 ) and clcft scntcnccs as (6).
there' insenion sentences as (5) and cleft sentences as (6).
( 5 )'l'hcrc once was a wisc old king who livcd on a mountain.
(5) There once was a wise old king who lived on a mountain.
(6) It w;s 111cbutlcr who kid~iappcdthc hcircss.
(6) It was the butler who kidnapped the heiress.
Another phcnonlcnon which marks ftrus is specch strcss and prosodics: it appears
Another phenomenon which marks focus is speech stress and prosodics: it appears
that thcsc mark what thc spcakcr is most intcrcstcd in talking about. In (7) if
that these mark what the speaker is most interested in talking about. In (7) if
contrastive strcss is put on Jcrcrny, thc hcarcr might cxpcct tllat thc ncxt sentence
contrastive stress is put on Jeremy. the hearer might expect th<lt the next sentence
will say Inorc about him.
will say more about him.
(7) 1 want o ~ l of
c JI:I<EMY'S picturcs.
(7) I want olle of JEREMY'S pictures.
In iln irpcorning scction thcsc and similar pl~cnomcn;~
will bc prcscntcd and
In an upcoming section these and similar phenomena will be presented and
analyzed in dctiiil for tlicir rolc in dctcrmining ftrus. In tllc thcory that will be
analyzed in detail filr their role' in determining focus. In the theory that will be
prescntctl. tlic firus %ill hc dcliricd as 1h;rt discor~rscclcmc~ltsclcctcd by thc
presented. the fiJeus will be defilled as that discourse ekmellt selected by the
c o n ~ p i r ~ ~ ~ iproccss:
o n a l thc prc~csswill bc dcfincd so tllitt it hkcs into account all
compu~llional process: the pn)(:ess will be defined so that it takes into account all
thc phcnotncna. I lcncc. thc ddinitic!n of fcxus will bc a function of thc thcory
the phenomena. llence, the dcflnitil!1l of f(Jeus will be a function of the theory
rather thitn ;ui indcpcnclcnlly dcfincd objcct.
rather than all independently defined object.

SidneI

280

5.2.2 'Ibc llcprcsc~~tation

or Focus
5.2.2 The Ucprcscntation of Focus
In Lhc fircusing thcory, the clcmcnt of thc discoursc in ftxus will bc modclcd as a
In the focusing theory, the clement of the discourse in focus will be modeled as a
data structure. Fach of thc phrascs in a scntcncc, cvokc such stnlcturcs, which
data structure. Each of the phrases in a sentence. evoke such stnlctures, which
correspond to stnlcturcs in thc nicnwl modcls of spcakcrs and hcarcrs; that is,
correspond to stnlctures in the mental models of speakers and hearers: that is,
cach phrasc specifics a piccc of ;I mcl~taldi~ti~basc.
which is rcprcscntcd in somc
each phrase specifics a piece of a mental database, which is represented in some
way. In Wchhcr's tcrrns, thcsc structures arc "discoursc ctltitics" i ~ n dthe whole
way. In Webber's terms, these structures arc "discourse entities" and the whole
collcctio~iis a "discoursc ~nodcl." I will i ~ s ctlic tcrnis "cognitive clcnicnt~"or
collectioll is a "discourse model." I will usc the terms "LOgriiti\'e ele111ent~" or
"discourse clc~ncn~s"
whcn disct~ssing~ h c s cstructurcs bccausc tticy arc mcanr to
"discourse clements" when discussing these structures because they arc meant to
bc analogcjus to tllc strucrurcs in t l ~ cnicnti11modcls of spcakcrs and hearers.
be ana]oglius to the structures in the lTlenl;11 models of spe;lkers and hearers.
Sincc thc cogniliuc clcmcn~$arc rpccifications. rhcy bcsr a I-cprcsc~~tational
Since the cognilive clement,> arc specifications. they bear a represelllational
corrcspondcncc to ol)jccls it1 Illc spci~kcr'sworld. and onc nlttst considcr how
correspondence to ohjecls in the speaker's world, and one lllust consider how
~hcscclcmc~itsarc rcprcscntcd. 1 will assume thilt cach clcnicnt is rcprcscntcd as a
these clements arc represented. I will assume that each clement is represented as a
piccc of a nc1wol.k of clcmcnts. 'l'hc nctwork contains mmy clcmcnts, but Lhe
piece of a nelwork of elements. The network contains many clements, but the
ftrus is the clcrnc~ltsclcctcd as primary among thcm for a givcn pan, of a
focus is the clement selected as primary among them for a given part of a
discourse.
discourse.
What kind of data su'ucturc is rcquircd for rcprcscnting thc fixrus? First of all,
What kind of data suucture is required for representing the focus? First of all.
it is asstriativc; that is, ccruin spccial asa~iationsarc rnarkcd bctwccn clcmcnts
it is associative; that is, certain special associations arc marked between elements
of ~ l l cnctwork. 'Ihc nssuri;~tionsarc spccial in Ll~cs c ~ ~that
s c an clcmcnt has direct
of the network. The associations arc special in the sense that an clement has direct
links to ccrtait~othcr clcnicnt$ but no1 to ill1 clcmcnts. I-or cxaniplc, ~ncctinghas
linKS to certain other clement'; but nol to all clements. For example. meeting has
built-in ass(siatiot~sfor a timc, a pl:~cc, ir sct of p:lrticiplnts. and a topic of
built-in associatillns filr a time, a placc, ,. sel of participants, and a topic of
discussion, but it has no asscriations to color, cost or age. FACII pl~rascin a
discussion, bUl it has no associations to color, cost or age. Each phrase in a
discoursc is cncodcd as an instancc of thc gcncric clcmcnt spccificd by that phrasc.
discourse is encoded as an instance of the generic clement specified by that phrase.
'Ihus a 1)1eeli11gis cncodcd as an insfancc o f thc gcncric nctwork clc~ncntof
'1l1US a meelillg is encoded as an instance of the generic network clement of
mccting (existing prior lo thc discoursc). With a hierarchical net, inst;inccs of
meeting (existing prior to the discourse). With a hierarchical net, instances of
gcncralizcd tcmplatcs can bc crcatcd, as in Figure 1.
generalized templates can be created. as in Figure 1.

cvent
event
place
place
time
time

is-a .
mccting (gcncric)
(gcneIlc)
participant
participant
topic
topic
purpose
purpose

~~eat.il~g

instmcc
inswnce
rnccring-w
ith-Stancrzyk
meeting-with-Stanoczyk
placc: SO1 tirnc; 'I'hursday-at-3 participant: Stanoczyk, 1,cwin
place: 801 .time: Thursday-at-3 participant: Stanoczyk. Lewin
'

Figurc 1 Instances of a gcncral mccting clcmcnt

Figure 1 Instances of a general meeting clement

281

'Ihc data structilrc must also suppon two kinds of hicrarcliical links with thc
The data structure must also support two kinds of hicrarchicallinks with the
ability to inhcrit o n both. Onc link cxprcsscs h c is-a kind of rclittion; it allows
ability tlI inherit on both. One link expresses the is-a kind of relation; it allows
prclpcrtics from thc nctwork dcscription of onc clclncnt to bc inhcritcd by
properties from the network description of one clement to be inherited by
anothcr. 'l'hus thc gcncric mrcting is a conccptual clcmcnt which is-a kind of
another. 'lllUs the generic mceting is a conceptual clement whkh is-a kind of
clrnt. and it inhcrits Lhc assr~intionsof placc and t i ~ n cfro~nIhc is-a rc1atiun. The
c\cnt, and it inherits the associations of place and time from the is-a relation. The
sccond rclation with inlicritancc ciipturcs thc notion of en instancc typc. I b i s
second relation with inheritance captures the notion of an instance type. This
I~
likc 111rcting and a pl~rticular
rclatio~l(ccurs bclwccn a C O I I C C ~ ~ U ; clcmcnl
relation occurs between a ConCel)llIal clement like mceting and a particular
lnccting likc nicctinp-rritll-St;lnocrjk. 'I'liis clclncnt is a particular copy or
meeting like mccling-"ilh-Sl:mOcl.}k. This clement is a particular copy or
insu~nccof its parcnt nodc. Elcmcnw that arc gcncrics rcprcscnt abstract kinds
instance of its parent node. Elements that are generics represent abstract kinds
.
may scrvc as thc spccification
~ l l i l ci~lstanccsrcprcscnt objccts in thc W L I I . ~ ~110th
\\hile instances repleSenl objects in the world. Both may serve as the specification
of a pl1r;lsc in discourse.
of a phrase in discourse,
'I'hc datic stl.uctrtrc nccdcd must havc othcr propcr~ics. It must also allow for
The data structure needed must have other properties. It must also allow for
thc clnbcddi~lgof structure wilhin stnlctnrcs, bccausc tl~csc rcprcscnt olhcr
the embedding of structure within structures. bel:ause these represent other
discou~.scclcmcnts srthjcct to discussion and rc-n~cntion.If wc arc told that John
di~course clements subject to discussion and relllention. If we are told that John
is cating an icc crcaln conc, h c rcprcscnlation must show that thc act of cating
is eating an ice cream mne, me representation must show thaI the act of eating
includcs rwo sub-structures. one rc1)rcscnting John and dlc othcr thc k c crcarn
includes two sub-structures, one representing John and the uther the icc cream
conc. I-inally thc data structure must allow for a n;~turalrcprcscnhtion of scope of
COlle. Finally the data structure must allow for a natLlral representation of scope of
quantilicrs: thcir rcprcscntation is considcrcd by Wcbbcr in this volume, and a
quantiliers: their representation is considered by Webber in this volume, and a
discussion of how that rcprcscntation may bc 11scd is givcn latcr in this chaptcr.
discus~ion of how that representation may be lIsed is given later in this chapter.
'I'hcsc data stnlcturc clraractcristics arc ncccssary for anaphor comprchcnsion
These d:lta stnlcture characteristics arc necessary for alwphor comprehension
bccausc loss of any characteristic has important cffccts on what anaphors can bc
because Illss of (lny characteristic has important effeus on what anaphors can be
co~nprchcndcd,as wc will scc in thc cxamplcs in h i s chapter.
comprehended, as we will see in the examples in this chapter.
'I'hc pmpcrtics of a nct structure cxprcsscd hcrc arc sonlctimcs pan of
The properties of a net structure expressed here are sometimes part of
Artificial Intclligcncc rcprcscntation Ianguagcs (scc K1:ONE [llrachman 19781,
!l.rtificial Intelligence representution languages (sec KLONF., [Brachman 1978].
OWI.. [Hawkinson 19781. KRL, Itjobrow and Winograd 19771 among othcrs).
OWl., [Hawkinsun 1978]. KRL (Bobrow and Winograd 1977] among others).
'I'hcsc propcrrics will be ncccssary in thc discussions of focusing and anaphor
These.- properties will be necessary in the discussions of focusing and anaphor
intcrprctation that follow, so ~ h i c h c v c rrcprcscntation language is uscd, it must
interpretation that follow, so whichever representation language is used, it must
havc thc fcaturcs mentioned for the focusing theory.
have the features mentioned for the focusing theory.
'I'hc illustration of ftrus in figurc 1 is slightly misleading bccausc it suggests
The illustration of focus in figure 1 is slightly misleading because it suggests
that thc f i ~ u sis only thc computational encoding of thc spccification of a
that the focus is only the computational encoding of the specification of a
particular noun phrase. In fact, thc proccss which cstablishcs thc spccification o f a
palticular noun phrase. In fact, the process which establishes the specification of a
noun phrasc in fixus must hakc acccss to thc syntactic and semantic forms of the
noun phrase in foctls must have access to the syntactic and semantic forms of the
phrasc. If thcy arc lcft out, somc anaphors wit1 appcnr ambiguous. when in fact
phrase. If they arc left out, some anaphors will appear ambiguous, when in fact
thcy arc not. Unncccssary ambiguity can bc illustrated using 117 bclow.
they arc not. Unnecessary ambiguity can be illustrated using 1)7 below.
117-1 'i'hc first lnan on thc mtwn bccamc a national hcro.
D7-1 The first man on the moon bCC3me a n:Jtional hero.
2 Ilue to his status, hc rodc ~n ticker tapc paradcs, met public
2 Due to his status. he rode in ticker tape parades, met public
officials and was chascd by autograph hunters.
officials and was chased by autograph hunters,
'Ihe focus of this example is the firs1 mall on the moon. Suppose that the
The focus of this example is the first man on the moun. Suppose that the
spccificarion of that phrasc is the focus as dcpictcd bclow, wirhout benefit of the
specification of that phrase is the focus as depicted below, without benefit of the
rcfcrring dcfinite noun phrase.
referring definite noun phrase.

282

Sidner

13atrlhasc rcprcscntntion of:

Datahase represent:ltion of:
FOCUS:

FOCUS:

NEIII, .\RRlS~I'HONG
I h k : colonel in U.S. Anny
Rank: colonel in U.S. Anny
I'itllic~: 3 childrcn
Father: 3 children
Acllicvcn~cnt: first moon walkcr
Achievement: first moon walker

NEIL ,\HI\ISTRONG

'I'hc ~pccilic;~tionof Iris sk~ruswill I)c n~nbiguousbccnusc Ncil Annstrong has

The specification of his sllIlus will he ambiguous because Neil Annstrong has
sc\critl rolcs in which lic ha.; sta~us.Lhosc of 'f;~~hcr.
coloncl and tnoon walkcr. But
sCler,ll roles in whkh he ha~ SWIUS. those offathcr, colonel ,lI1d moon walker. But
11i.s s/ir/ur in i37-2 is not i~ntlsig~~ous
for hutnan S ~ C ~ I ~ C'1'0 ~ Saboid
.
unncccssary
his s/(JfUs in D7 2 i~ not ambiguous for human spc4Ikers. To amid unnecessary
a~nhigltity.Ihc cxprcssiu~twith its syntax and sc~nanticsmust bc included as pa11
amhiguity. the expression with its syntax and semantics must be included as palt
ollhc focusing proccss. I lcrcaficr, focus will bc spokcn ofiis bcing on a particular
of the focllsing process. Ilereafter, focus will be spoken of a~ being on a p;]rticular
noun phr,isc. 'I'his is nn infi~r~iial
mcans of rcfcrring to Lllc cncodinp of fixus by
noun phrase. This is an inflmnaJ means of referring to the encoding of focus by
thc firusing process. 11131 is. ~ C I I isS c~lcodcd;ISii rcprcscntiltio~lbuilt by syntactic
the focusing process, th;]t is. focus is encoded as a representation buill by syntactic
and sc~nuntic co~lstructs of tllc noun phrase which poinls to another
and semantic constructs of tJle noun phrase which points to another
rcprcscnta~ion its spccification,
representation its specification.
In addition to thc fbcus, ftlcusing must take into account thc actors of the
. In addition to the flICUS, f(lCusing must take into account the actors of the
discoursc. An actor ftxus is a discoursc itcm which is prcdicatcd as thc agcnt in
discourse. An actor fOCLlS is a discourse item which is predicated as the agent in
so~nccvcnt. I t is distinct from thc main ELIS IS. wliicll will bc called thc discourse
some event. It b distinct from tJle main focus. which will be called the discourse
fixus. Actors can hccomc Ulc discoursc focus only whcn no other iicm is available
fllCUS. Actors can become tJlC discourse focus only when no other item is available
for focusing. Actors rn~isthc specified scparatcly bcc;lusc (1) dlc focus o f the
for focusing. Actors must be specified separately because (1) tJle focus of the
discoursc oficn is distinguislicd liom rhc actor (scc thc cxamplc bclow). and (2)
discuurse often is di~tingllished from the actor (see the exmnple below). and (2)
aclors can bc spokcn of anaphoricrllly ;it thc samc tilnc d ~ a tlic
t dixoursc focus is
actors can be spoken of anaphorically at tJlC same time tJl<It the discourse focus is
pronominalized. As a result, diffcrcnt rulcs for govcri~ingmcntion of actors are
pronominalized. As a result.. different. rules for governing mention of actors are
nccdcd.
needed.
A typical cxamplc of an actor firus call bc found in D8.
A typical example of an actor focus can be found in D8.
118-1 Jcromc took his pigcon out on a lcash.
D8-1 Jerome took his pigeon out on a leash.
2 Sincc hc was trying to train it,
2 Since he was trying to train it,
3 hc hollcrcd "llccl" and "run" at it
J he hollered "heel" and "run" at it..
4 ;rs lhcy sauntcrcd along.
4 ,IS they sauntered along.
'Ibc actor lirus IS jusl whocvcr is cu~.rctillyUic agcnt in thc scntcncc. When the
The actor fllCliS is just whoever is currently tJle agent ill the sentence. When the
agwt of' 111c ncxl scnlcl~ccis ;I pronoun, thc actor f i m s is usu;~lly clioscn for
,lgellt of the nexl sellLCllce is a pronoun. the actor fllClIS is usually chosen for
co-spccificr. Jcrornc is tlic i~ctorl i m s in tlic first scntcncc of' 118. Using this actor
co-specifier. Jerome is the actor fiJeus in the first sentence of D8. Using this actor
~{XUS.the 00-spccificr of Ire can bc c~lablislicdas Jcromc. A t thc samc tiinc, the
fows. thc co-specifier of fte can be eswblished as Jerome. i\t the same time, the
discoursc focus is on Jcro~nc'spigcon. It is nccdcd as wcll bccausc thc pigcon is
discourse f(Jeus is on Jerome's pigeon. It is needed as well because the pigeon is
rc-nlcntioncd using i/. and sincc r11ej~in 118-4 co-specifics both Jcromc and his
re-mentioned lIsing it, and since they in ])8-4 co-specifics both Jerome and his
pigcon. Iiringing thc thc actor ftxus and discoursc f t ~ u stogcthcr is quite
pigeon. Bringing the the actor f(Jeus and discourse foclls together is quite
common, as shown bclow. whcrc h e discoursc focus is nccdcd to establish who
common. as shown below. where the discourse focus is needed to establish who

283

actually wcnt to thc movics froin among thc thrcc acton. Rulcs for annphors
actually went to the movie~ from among the three actors. Rules for anaphors
co-spccifying with actors will bc disc~isscdlatcr.
co-specifying with acWfS will be discussed later.
119-1 1 wantcd to go to thc movics on Saturday,
J )9-1 I wanted to go to the movies on Saturday,
2 John said hc'd comc too, but l%illdccidcd to stay homc and
2 John said he'd come too, hut Bill decided to stay home and
study.
study.
3 S o wc wcnt and af~crwardshad a bccr. ( n r = Johti, the sj>e(jker)
3 So we went and afterwards had a beer. (we::: John. tJl(' speaker)
5.2.3 I:indi~~g
'l'ht I )iscosrsc Focus
5.2.3 Finding Till' J)iscourse Focus

l.'or tlic focusing prcxcss to p r t ~ c c d a. n initial discourse kcus must bc found as

For the focusing process to proceed. an iniLial disLOlll'sC focus mllst be found as
carly as possiblc in [hc discoursc. 'I'lic focus rccogni~iona l ~ o r i ~ hI ~will
n proposc
early ,IS possible in the discourse. The focus recognitinn algorithm I will propose
c;ln bc vicwcd ;IS part of a bootstrapping operation. 'I'llc focusing algorithm
can be viewed as part of a hontslrapping npcmtioll. The focusing algorithm
dcpcnds upotl thc sclcction of an inilia1 ftrus, but o n LIIC b,isis of onc scnrcncc. it
depends upon tJle selection of an initial focus, but on tJle b'1sis of one semence. it
,
is not always pc~ssiblcto prcdict w h ; ~t l~~ cfocus will bc. '1'0 clioosc a f t ~ u s an
is Iwt always possible to predict what the focus will be. To choose a focus, an
initial prcdiction aficr ~ h cfirst scntcncc will bc mi~dc,and ~ l ~ ch ni s sclcction.
initial prediction after the first sentence will be made, and then this selection,
callcd ~ h ccxncctcd filcus, will citlicr tlc confin~~cd
or rcicctcd by thc basic
called the expected focus, will either he conlirmed or rejected by the basic
fi~usingalgorithm on t h ~b;~:iis
'
of thc anaphors in the disco~rrsc.
!(lClIsing algorithm on the ba:;is of the anaphors in the discourse.
'I'lie expcctcd ftcur algorithm can sclcct a n cxpcctcd focus d l ; ~is~not the
The expected ((lCUS algorithm can select an expected focus tJlat is not me
discourse ~OC'US.I.r~ckily spc;ikcrs t i ~ l kin such a way that incorrect predictions arc
discourse focus. I.udily speakers talk in such a way that incorrect predictions are
casily rccognizcd, and bctrcr choiccs ciin bc c;~silycomputed. tlc~iccthc basic
easily recognized, and betler choices can be easily Clllllputed. Hence the basic
ftzusing algorithm is dcsigncd to confir~ntlic cxpcctcd f(xus, and if it cannot, to
f\lCusing algoritJ1m is dcsigned to confirm the expected fOCllS. and if it cannot, 10
choosc a n attcrnatc phrasc to bc thc ftxus. 'l'llis mcthod pl.ovidcs an cffcctive
choose an alternate phrase to be the focus. This method provides an effective
algorithm bccausc once a falsc prcdiction is rccogni~.cd,an altcrnativc phrase is
algorithm because once a false prediction is recogni/ed. an alternative phrase is
always available.
always available.
I want to point
ncforc I rcvicw the rcliablc focus indicators and thc dcfil~~lts.
Before I review me reliahle focus indicators and the defaults, J want to point
out how I judged which phrasc was thc discaursc f t ~ u s .In cacll cxamplc, 1 uscd
out how J judged which phruse was the discourse focus. Jn each example. J used
thc pronouns which occur in thc sccond scntcncc of thc discourse (if thcre are
the pronouns which occur in me second sentence of me discourse (if mere are
any) as a signal of discoursc focus. Since pronouns contain littlc lexical
any) as a signal of discourse focus. Since pronouns contain little lexical
information, thcy rcflcct what thc spcakcr has f ( ~ u s c on
d in tllc prcvious scntcncc.
information. mey reflect what the speaker has focuscd on in the previous sentence,
so that thc focus is that phrase which co-specifics with thC pronoun (I am
so that the focus is that phrase which co-specifics with the pronoun (J am
assuming that co-spccificrs can bc rcliably choscn on an intuitivc basis by nativc
assuming that co-specifiers can be reliably chosen on an intuitive basis by native
spcakcrs of English).
speakers of English).
'I'hcrc arc a fcw indicators of focus that arc highly rclial)lc Incans of marking
There arc a few indicators of filCUS that arc highly reliable means of marking
f t ~ u s .Whcn thcsc indicators arc not prcscnt, t l ~ conly critcria tll;~trcmain pcnnit
f(lCllS. When me~e indicators arc not present, the only criteria thal renwin pennil
a noun phrase or vcrb phrasc to bc sclcctcd on thc biisis ol'prcfcrcnccs for ftlcus
a noun phrase or verb phrase to be seleCled on me basis 01" preferences for focus
Itrations. Onc criicrion which will not bc discussed hcrc is strcss and prosodics.
locations. One criterion which will not be discLissed here is stress and prosodies.
Whilc it appcsrs to affcct anaphor comprchcnsion in discoursc, not enough is
While it appear~ to affect anaphor comprehension in discourse, not enough is
known about strcss and prosodics ro discuss thcsc bchaviors in computational
known about stress and prosodies to discuss these behaviors in computational
tcms. Whcn thcy arc bctlcr understood, pcrhaps ncw algorithms can bc rcvised
terms. When they arc bener understood. perhaps new algorimms can be revised

Sidner

284

to incorporatc Uicir rolc.

to incorporate their role.
'Ihcrc arc a fcw scntcncc syntactic typcs Ltiat makc recognition of focus easy
There are a few sentence syntactic types that make recognition of focus easy
sincc thcsc scntcncc typcs havc dlc purpose of singling out onc discourse clcmcnt
since these sentence types have the purpose of singling om one discourse clement
from thc othcrs. Thcsc typcs arc clcft. pscudo-clcft and /hew-insertion scntcnccs
from the others. These types are cleft, pseudo-c1en and there-insertion sentences
as shown bclow:
as shown below:
(9) (pscudo-clcft agcnt) 'lhc onc who atc thc n~hbagaswas Hcnricru.
(9) (pseudo-cleft agent) '111e one who ate the n1tabagas was Henrietta.
t 10) (pscudo-clcfr ol~jcct)Whit IIcnrictta atc was tllc n~taha~as.
(10) (pseudo-cleft object) What Henrietta ate was the nJ!abagas.
( I 1) (clcft agent) It was I lclirictta who aic thc rutabagas.
(II) (cleft agenO Itwas Ilenrietta who ate the rutabagas.
112) (clcft objcct) It war the 1.uti11~nvas
that Iicnrictta ate.
(12) (cleft object) It was the rutabagas that I-knrietta ate.
(13) (agcnl) 'l'hcrc oncc was a ~ r i ~ i wlio
c c was chanccd into a frog.
(13) (agent) There once was i! prince who was changed into i! fmg.
(14) (objcct)'I'hcl.c w;~ca trcc which Snnchcz h;~d~lnntcd.
(14) (object) There was 9 llif.YJ1kh Sanchez hilil~.
As h c in[]-oductory entcncc of a discoursc. scntcnccs (13) and (14) providc a
As the introductory sentence of a discourse, sentences (13) <lnd (14) provide a
mcans of intnrtluciog a ncw objcct or iigcnt fc~rfurthcr discussion. Scntcnccs
means of introducing a new object or agent for further discussion. Sentences
(9)-(12)rarcly occur ;IS initial scnlcnccs in ii discourse sincc Uicy assumc Lhcre is
(9)-( 12) rarely occm as initial sentences in a discourse since they assume there is
sonic oI3jcct alrcady undcr discussion ahaut which tllcy providc ncw information:
SOI1lC' object already under discussion ahout which they provide new information;
for cxa~nplc.(9) tclls wlio ate thc rutithagas, thc rutabagas alrcady bcing known
for example, (9) tells who ate the rutabagas, the rutabagas already being known
about. As I will show in dcpth la~cron, senlc'nccs likc thosc of (9)-(12) move the
about. As I will show in depth later on. semcnces like those of (9)-(12) move the
focus from onc clcmcnt to a ncw one. 'I'hcsc cxaml)lcs suggest that ihereinscrtion
focus from one clement to a new one. These examples suggest that lhere-insertion
scntcnccs mark an initial cxpcctcd focus.
sentences mark an initial expected focus.
Whcn an cxpcctcd fucus is choscn on tllc basis of scmantic catcgorics of a
. When an expected focus is chosen on the basis of semantic categories of a
verb, thc most rcliahlc dcf;tult is in thc vcrh position of thc jjxm.' I n h c two
verb. the most reliable default is in the verb position of the theme.! I n the two
cxarnplcs bclow the cxpcctcd focus is indicated in parcnthcscs.
examples below the expected focus is indicated in parentheses.
1110-1 Mary took a ~iickclfrom hcr toy bank yesterday.
1)10-1 Mary2took
nickel
from her toy bank yesterday.
Shc aput
it on thc tahlc ncar Bob. ( h e nickel)
2 She put it on the tahle ncar Bob. (the nickel)
I11 1-1 Sandy walked hcr dog mar a bull one day.
DlI- I Sandy walked her dog ncar a bull one day.
2 lic walkcd quietly along. (Sandy's dog)
2 He walked quietly along. (Sandy's dog)
In U10, if co-specifics with a nickcl. While it is infcrcntially acceptable for ii to
In OlD, it co-specifics with a nickel. While it is inferentially acceptable for it to
co-spccify Mary's toy bank (since toy banks cnu bc put on tablcs), on first rcading,
co-specify Mary's toy bank (since toy banks call be put on tables), on first reading,
pcoplc undcrs~andthc nickcl to bc the antcccdcr~tof i f . A similar bchavior occurs
people understand the nickel to be the antecedent of it. Asimilar behavior occurs
with D11. In thcsc cascs thc noun phrasc in a prcpositional phrasc following the
with Dll. ]n these cases the noun phrase in a prepositional phrase foltowing the
thcme cannot bc thc ftrus of thc discoursc unless thc cxpcctcd focus is cxplicitly
theme cannot be the focus of the discourse unless the expected focus is explicitly
ovcrriddcn by a full dcfinitc noun phrase co-specifying with somc othcr phrase of
overridden by a full definite noun phrase co-specifying with some other phrase of

1. 'Ihis is Ciruhcr's [Grubcr 19761 lcrm Tor the n~dionoithc object case oTa vcrb. Ilis hcory extends
1. This verb
is Gruber's
[Gruber
1976jlerm
for the
of the
object
casewhere
of a verb.
I lis theory
e~tcnds inside a
scrnanlics
to include
verbs
suchnotion
as the
ones
bclow
the theme
is Itmted
verb semanlics
to include
prcposi~ional
phrase.verbs such as the ones below where the theme is located inside a
prepositional phrase.
(IS) Wc wailcd out Ihc lhundcrstorm in a ntndown old shack.
(lS) We (16)
wailed
out the
thunderstorm
a rundown
I'lcase
rocus
on thc star orinIndia
in Ihe old
caseshack.
on h e l e k
H6) Please focus on the slar of India in the ca~e on the lell
IT the conccpc or thcme is used as h e dcrault choice for expccled focus, thcse examples fit naturally
If the concept
is used a~ the default choice for ex petled focus. these examples fit natu rally
within of
thetheme
framework.
within the framework..

285
Lhc initial scntcncc. For cxamplc. in D10-2. if the h t l k wcre uscd in placc of it,
the initial sentence. For example, in 010-2, if the lxtllk were used in place of it,
thc cxpcctcd rtxus would hc ovcrriddcn in favor of bank.
the expected fOt:us would he overridden in favor ofbank.
In ii scntcncc without a thcmc, that is. whcrc only non-thcmc prepositional
In a sentence without a theme, that is. where only non-theme prepositional
pllrascs arc prcscnt, tllcrc docs not appcar to hc a prcfcrcncc for cxpcctcd focus.
phrases arc present, there docs not appear to be a preference for expected focus.
Most otlicr tllcl~~i~tic
positions (insirulncnt. goal and locntivcs) do not offcr a
Most other thematic positions (instrument, goal and locatives) do not offer a
strong prcfcrcncc for fisus allhougli somc wcak prcfcrcnccs somctimcs nppcar.
strong preference for focus although some weak preferences sometimes appear.
'Ilicsc wcak prcfcrcnccs arc for goal and any posilion in which an indclinitc
'Illese weak preferences arc for goal and any position in which an indefinite
occurs. Ilowcvcr. it is difficult to kl~owhow rclii~blctlicsc prcrcrcnccsi~rcwithout
occurs. However, it is diflicultto know how reliable these preferences arc without
somc nic;lns of dctcr~rii~lilig
tlic rolc of stress and pn)sodlcs in lhcsc cases.
some means of determining the role of stress and prosodies in these cases.
'I'licrcL)rc, no cl~rimcwill he rnadc ahotit prcfc~rnccfor cxpcctcd fiwrus for thcsc
Therefore, no claims will he m;H.lc <Ihollt preference for expected focus for these
positions, I~istci~d
tlic algorithln li~rco~nputingcxpcctcd ftrcus bclow will rcly on
positions. 1nste,lJ the algorithm f(Jr computing expected focus below will rely on
a sinlplc sclicnlc o~scntcnccsurfr~ccosdcr Tor tllcsc tlic~naticpositions.
a simple scheme of sentence surface order for these thematic positions.
One tlicm;~ticposition that is 11ot prcfcrrcd for discourse f i r i ~ sis thc agcnt.
One thematic position that is not preferred for discourse focus is the agent.
Whcn a pn~nountmurs i n a nun-agcnt position. iuid in tlic prcccding scntcncc,
When i.l pronoun occurs in a non-agent position, and in the preceding sentence,
ht)[li ;in agcnt and ;I pllriisc in anorllcr tlicmviic position can bc its co-spccificrs.
both an agent and a phrase in another thematic position can be its co-specifiers.
thc agcnt is not prcfcrrcd, as is illustrated in thc cxarnpjc bclrlw. Hcncc in the
the agent is not preferred, as is illustrilted in the example below. Hence in the
chtticc of cxpcctcd firus, tlic agcnt is ordcrcd last among possiblc noun phrasc
choice of expected focus, the ilgent is on.lcred last among possible noun phrase
cboiccs.
etlOices.
1112-1 A group at tiXN dcvclopcd a high spccdtcchnical chip packer,
.D12-1 A group at HXN developed a high speedtcchnical chip packer.
2 'l'hc prcss gnvc it ravc rcvicws.
2The press gave it rave reviews.
'I'wo scntcncc ronns affecting focus do not dcpc~ldon thcrnntic position. Onc.
Two sentence fonns affecting focus do not depend on thematic position. One.
is-a vcrbs, takc thc subjcct of thc scntcncc as cxpcctcd focus.
is-a verbs, takc the SUbject of the sentence as expectcd focus.
1313-1'I'hc I'ersonal Assistant nrouni is a rcscarch grow that is
1)]3-1 The Personal Assistant Wl!!lli is i! research &t:Q!!2 thill ~
dcsicninq picccs of a ~crsoni~l
assiqtant maram.
J'
designing pieces ill.il personal assistant programj'
2 (a) Scvcral graduatc sli~dcntsand rcscarch faculty arc mcmbers
2 (a) Scveral graduate students ilnd research faculty arc members
of di.
of tli'
(b) * Sevcra! graduatc studcnts and rcscarch faculty are
(b) Several graduate studcnts and research faculty are
mcmbcrs of
J.
members of tlj'
Whilc thc prcdicalc norninativc is bcing asstriatcd with thc subjcct in is-a
While the predicate nominative is being associated with the subject in is-a
scntcnccs, it docs not co-specify with tlic suhjcct. Instcad thc st~bjcctis being
sentences, it docs not co-specify with the subjcct. Instead the subject is being
dcscrihcd as having sonlc particular propcstics. i~ndhcncc is fundamental to the
described as having
some particular properties, and hence is fundamental to the
discussion. 1
discussion. 1

1. 'I'hcrc arc lwbc nominal forms which d ~ notco~tuin

t
Lhc lbcus in suhjccl position:
1. There are to-be
nominal forms which do noLconWin the focus in suhject position;
(17) A woman wilh grcal idcas is Amclia Michcls. Shc iv inspiring and works incredibly
(1 II woman with greal ideas is Amelia Michels. She L~ inspiring and works incredibly
hard.
Ashard.
h r :LS I can ~cll.thcsc romx arc a kind of lupicali~alionh a t is well markcd (to Lhc point ol bcing
As far :L~ r can lell. Ihese fomlS are a kind of lopicai izat ion that is well marked (10 the point of being
grarnuinlically odd For atnic spcakcrs). In Lhcsc cascs, Lhc subjccl is invcrlcd from prcdicale nominal
grammalically odd for some speakers I. In these cases. the subject is inverted from predicate nominal
pmilion and hcncc thc rocus i in nominal p i l i o n instead of in Ihc subject.
position and hence the focus L~ in nominal posi lion instead of in the subject.

Sklner

286

In thc otlicr non-thcmatic scntcncc form, thc vcrb phr;~sccan bc cxpcctcd

In the other non "thematic sentence form, the verb phrase can be expected
fircus ;IS is cvidcnccd by thc usc of do-so and do-il anal>hora. as wcll as the
focus as is evidenced by the usc of du-so and du-it anaphora. as well as the
scntcn~ialiionaphora shown bclow,
sentcntial it anaphor,l shown below.
1114-1 I.ast wcck. u c went oot to thc lake ncarmy cottage.
D14-1 l.ast week, y,e went out to the lake ncar my cottage.
2 1 L was a lot of fi~n.
2 Itwas alot of fun.
Scnlcntial a ~ ~ a p h o sccin
r a to co-spccify with an clcincnt rcprcscnting thc whole
Sentential anaphora seem to co-specify with an clement representing the whole
prcclica~ic~n
of thc scntcncc wliilc do-anaphora co-specify with lllc ucrh phrasc.
predication of the sentence while do-anilphora co-specify with the verb phrase.
'1'11s vcrb phr;lsc will bc uscd in the list foi cx1)cctctl firus, and LIIC ;lnaphor
The verb phrase will be used in the list for cxpcr.:led fUetlS, and the anaphor
i~~tcrprctcr
m ~ ~ dc[cnninc
st
whcthcr just tlic vcrb or ~ h cwht~lcscntcncc was tlic
interpretcr must determine whether just the \'t'fb or the whole senlence W<lS the
~ ~ K L IScl~tcntial
S.
il DII;I~J~~OI.;Icxa111plcs show tlli~t1)011i L ~ C I I I C ';111d agent arc
f(X'us. Sentential it anaphora examples sho\\' that butll theme and agent arc
prcfcrrcd bcrorc the vcrb phrase. l'xamplcs st~cliits 1115 indiciitc Il1;1t scntcntial it
preferred before the verb phrase. Examples such as DIS indicate that sentential it
n11;lphol.a arc no1 p~,cfcrrcdas focus ~ h c an Lhcmc is prcscnt sincc thc tho uscs of
anaphora arc not preferred as fOCllS y,hen a theme is present since the two uses of
ir co-spccify bcilr. and not thc capt~~ring.
it co-speci fy bear, and not the capturing.
1115-1 hlikc ci~pturcdabcar.
DIS-I Mike e<1!)tureda bear.
2 Evcryonc wid it madc a lot of noise,
2 Everyone said it made a lot of noise,
3 but I was nslccp ; I I I ~didn't hcar it.
3 but I was asleep and didn't hear it.
'Ihc agcnt is prcfcrrcd otcr scntcrltial if as wcll. In 1116. i/ co-specifics 1 1 7 ~bcar
The agent is preferred over sentential it as well. In D16. it co-specifics the bear
a l ~ l l o ~ ~1316-2
g l i is sc~nanlicallyncutri~l'hc~wccnhcar and the cntirc firs1 scntcncc.
although Dl6-2 is semantically neutral] hetween hear ,1Ild the entire first sentence.
1116- I Onc of thc black bcars got loosc ia tlic ]);irk tlic t~tlicrnight.
J)) 6-1 One of the black bears got loose in the park the other night.
2 It rrightcncd a11 thc cnlnpcrs and gcncrally causcd panic.
2 It frightened a11the campers and generally c<lused panic.
'1'0 s u ~ n ~ n n r i tllc
~ c ,choicc of cxl~cctcdfixrus has bccn sllcrwn to dcpcnd 11po11
To summaril.e, the choice of expected focus has been sh(~n to depend upou
Lhc grammatical rclations in a scotcncc, ;llhough a fcw scnlcncc typcs can be
the grammatical rclations in a sentence, although a few sentence types can be
judgcd on thc basis of syntactic propcrtics. 'Ibis mcans of choosing is an
judged on the basis of synWctic properties. This means of choosing is an
altcrnativc to tlic ;~pproacI~
of [liaranovsky 19731 who uscd a list of discourse
alternative to the approach of lBaranovsky 1973) who used a list of discourse
"topics" ordcrcd by rcccncy. 'I'hc algorilhm below chooscs an cxpcctcd focus on
"topics" ordered by recency. The algorithm below chooses an expected focus on
thc basis of the prcccding analysis of syntactic and semantic prcfcrcnccs: included
the basis of the preceding <lnalysis of syntactic and semantic preferences: included
in thc algurithms arc conlincnts about thc data structures and sentence
in the algorithms are comments about the data structures and sentence
information rcquircd for thc decisions in thc algorithm.
information required for the decisions in the algorithm.

1 . I%y "scrnanlically nculral," I mean lhal Ihc sclntional rcslriclions on f i e thematic posil~onin
I. By "semanlically
neutral,"
mean
that the bcaror
sclcctional
restrictions
on loose.
the thematic posilion in
qualion do not
rule outIthc
usc orcilhcr
Ihc evcnl
olgclting

question do not rule out the usc of either bear or the event of gelling loose.

287
'I'hc Expcctcd Focus Algorilhm:
The Expected Focus Algorithm:
Choosc an cxpcctcd fixus as:
Choose an expected focus as:
I . 'Shc subjcct of a scntcncc if thc scntcncc is an is-a or a ~hereinscnion
I. The sllbject of a sentence jf the sentence is an is-a or a there-insertion
scn tcncc.
sentence.
This stcp prcsurncs inkrrmatiun from a parsc lrcc about what the
This step pres,umes information from a parse lree about what the
subjcct, and vcrb arc and about whcthcr the scnttnce is
subject, and verb arc and about whether the sentence is
thcrc-inscrtion.
there-insertion.
2. 'I'hc fir-st nlcmhcr of Ihc dcCiiilt cxpcctcd f t ~ i i s!is[ (Dlil: list), computcd
2. The fir~t member of the default expected focus lisl (DEF list), computed
from the t l i ~ t ~ l ircla~ions
i ~ i ~ oFtlic vcrb, as follows:
from the thematic relations of the verb, as follows:
~ r d c rthc sct of pliruscs in Ihc scntcncc using thc following
Order the set of phrases in the sentence using the following
prcfcrclicc schcma:
preference schema:
- llic~ncunlcss thc thclnc is a vcrb complcn~cntin which casc the
- theme unless the theme is a verb clJlnplement in which case the
tllcn~cfiom thc romplc~ncntis uscd.
tllel1le from the l'Omplement is lIsed.
- all olhcr thc~lli~tic
positions with thc agcnt last
- all other thematic positions with the agent last
- the tcrh phrase'
- tbe verh phrase
'I'his sicp rcquircs a lisi of thc surfrlcc ordcr of rhc noun phrascs, and
This slep requires a list of the surface order of the noun phrases, and
a dat;~strrlcturc which indicates wliicl~ noun phr:tscs fill wllich
a data structure which indicates which noun phrases 1111 which
tlicm;~licslots in dlc verb. Such a data s ~ ~ - u c t imust
~ ~ . c hc uo~nputcd
thematic slots in the verb. Such a data Slructure must he computed
by a casc framc tnccliatiism such as thc onc rcportcd in [Marcus
hy a case frame mechanism such as the one reported in [Marcus
19801.
1980].
'Il!c cxpcclcd focus algorithm is uscd to chansc thc discourse focus. An
'Il~e expected focus algorithm is used to choose tlle discourse focus. An
analogous algorithm to choosc thc actor focus call bc dcfincd. 'his algorithm
analogous algorithm to choose the actor focus can be defined. This algorithm
~ o u l choosc
d
John as thc cxpcclcd actor in thc scntcncc bclow.
would choose John as the expected actor in the sentence below.
(1 8) John radc his pony to t11c big mc;tdow at tlic cdgc of thc farm.
(18) John rode his pony to the big meadow at the edge of me farm.
Wcrc h a t scntcncc to be followcd by a scntcncc with a pronoun in agcnt position,
Were that sentence to be followed by a sentence with a pronoun in agent position,
as bclow. thc pronoun would confinn thc cxpccicd actor focus as thc actor focus.
as below, the pronoun would con finn the expccted aclOr focus as the actor focus.
(19) flc likcd to sing as hc rode.
(9) He liked 10 sing as he rode.
Latcr 1 will discuss the itltcraction bctwccn thc actor and discoursc foci.
Later I will discuss the interaction between the actor and discourse foci.

5.2.4 Ilcjccting thc Expcctcd Focus

5.2.4 Hcjecting the Expected Focus

Whilc rhc cxpcctcd fixus algorithm can always choosc an cxpcctcd focus, its
While the expected focus algoritllm can always choose an expected focus, its
choicc may havc to hc ~.cjcctcd~ C C S I I S Cthc dcfihtilt position is ovcrriddcn by other
choice may have to he rejected because the default position is overridden by other
frrc~ors.'I'ypically, his tccurs whcn a pronoun, which docs not co-specify with the
factors. Typically, this occurs when a pronoun. which docs Ilot co-specify with the
cxpcctcd fixus, is ilscd in thc sccond scntcncc of thc discoursc. and no anaphor is
expected focus, is used in the second sentence of the discourse, and no anaphor is
uscd to co-specify with thc cxpcctcd fixus. In thc salnplc 1117. thc cxpcctcd fixus
used to co-specify with the expected ((lCUS. In the sample DI7, the expected fllCUS
is thc graduarion party, but in thc Following scntcncc the use of it Lo co-spccify
is the graduation party. but in the f(ll1owing sentence the usc of it to co-specify
with Cathy's housc indicatcs that thc focus is on thc house.
with Cathy's house indicates that the focus is on the house.
1117-1 Cathy wanrs to havc a big graduarinn party a t hcr house.
D17-1 Cathy wams to have a big graduation party at her house.
2 She clcancd it u p
2 She cleaned it up
3 so that thcrc would be room for everyone.
3 so that there would be room for everyone.

Sidner

Sidncr

288

288

'I'wo questions comc to mind: tlow can onc rccog~iizcthat the cxpcctcd focus
Two questions come to mind: How can one recognize that the expected focus
is not thc ftxus? How can an altcrnativc noun phrasc bc choscn ns thc focus?
is not the focus? How can an alternative noun phrase be chosen as the focus?
I{ccognition and sclcction both dcpcnd on thc ~ i s cof infcrcnccs about gcncral
Recognition and selection both depend nn the usc of inferences about general
knowlcdgc. I'or cx;tmplc. in I117 thc choicc of party for ir can bc rcjcclcd since
knowledge. For example. in 1)17 the choice of party for if can be rejected since
h;rving clcancd up an cvcnt wcluld bc rcjcctcd as incompntiblc with othcr
having cleaned up an event would be rejected as incompatible with other
kaowlcdgc about cleaning. I:ollowing tlic rcjcction of tllc cxpcctcd ftrus, a
knowledge about ckaning. Following the rejection of the expected focus, a
corrcct co-spccificr can bc sclcctcd bccsusc it is availuhlc in rllc p r c ~ i o ~Acnlcncc.
rs
wnect co-specifier can be selected bec;lllse it i~ avail<Jble in the previolls sentence.
'I'o find it. cnch a!tcr~intcdcfiiult focus ~ n ~ lb~
s t considcrcd ill turn. ilnlil one is
To find it. each alternate default focus Inust be considered in turn. until one is
found wliicli is not rcjcctcd o n thc hasis of gcncral knowlcdgc. 'Whcn thc fkusing
found which is not rejected on the hash; of general knowledge. 'When the focusing
PIIK'CSS runs agi~inaficr all tlic anaphors arc i~itcrprc~cd,
thc propcr firus can be
process nllls again after all lhe anaphors arc illlerpreted. the proper focus can be
clioscn.
chosen.
'I'hc dcfiiult cxpcctcd f t ~ u scan bc rcjcctcd only whcn Blc infcrcnce
The default expected focus can be rejected only when the inference
mccl~anismclcarly i~idicatcsthal llic prcdictcd co-spccificr is unacccplablc. 'I'hat
mechanism clearly indic<ltes thai the predicted co-specifier is unacceptable. That
is. thc infcrc~lccmust contradict givcn knowlcdgc from the discoursc or be
is. the inference must contradict given knowledge from the discourse or be
inco~np;~tiblc
w i ~ hotlicr gcncr;ll knowlcdgc. 'Ilic fact that a no1111phrasc besides
incompatible with other general know ledge. '1l1e lact U1at a noun phrase besides
hc acccpt;~blcas a co-spccificr is irrclcvant as long as the
Ihc cxpcctcd f t ~ u might
s
the expected focus might be acceptable as a co-specifier is irrelevant as long as the
cxpcctcd focus is acccp~thlc.For cxitmplc, in I111. rcpcatcd bclow, wliilc thc bull
expected focus b accep14lble. For example, in DlI. repeated below. while Lhe bull
night hc an acccp~ablca)-specifier for he, it is not considcrcd sincc tllc cxpcctcd
might he an n(cepwble co-specilier for he, it is not considered since the expected
fwos is acccpthlc.
f~lCus is ncceptable.
1311-1 Sirndy walked hcr dog ncar a bt~llOIIC day.
1)1]-1 Sandy walked her dog ncar a bull one day.
2 ilc ~ r o t ~ cquictly
d
along.
2 lie trolled quietly along.
A matter whicli is rclatcd to thc problcm of rcjccting a f i ~ u is
s how speakers
A matter which is related to the problem of rejecting a focus is how speakers
rccovcr from co-specification failures. Considcr thc following variation on 1)ll:
recover from co-specification failures. Consider the following variation on DIl:
1118-1 Si~ndywalkcd hcr dog ncar a bul!.
D181 Sandy walked her dog ncar a bull.
2 Shc saw how hc thscw back his grcat mcnacing horns.
2 She saw how he threw back his great menacing horns.
3 Hc certainly was aa unusual looking dog and thc namc "Little
3 He certainly was an unusunllooking dog and the name "Little
llull" fit him wcll.
Bull" fit him well.
Aftcr 1118-2 h c co-spccificr of hcsccms to bc thc bull mcntioncd in 1318-1. After
After Dl8- 2 the co-specifier of he seems to be the bull mentioned in DI8-1. After
thc third scntcncc, h c rcadcr is Iikcly to havc discovcrcd that thc dog has bccn the
the third sentence. the reader is likely to have discovered that the dog has been the
f i ~ u all
s along and that this discoursc is a bit hizarrc. Virginia Woolf [Woolf 19571
fllCus all along and that this discourse is a bit bizarre. Virginia Woolf[Woolfl957]
points out that litcraturc is intcrcsting for thc ways in which authors brcak rulcs.
points out that literature is interesting for tbe ways in which authors break rules.
'I'his chaptcr will only point out what rulcs can bc violatcd. Why thosc mlcs arc
This chapter will only point out what rules can be violated. Why those rules are
violatcd, and how ni~tiicspcakcrs rccovcr from violalions of thosc nrlcs remains to
violaled. and how nati\ e speakers recover from violations of those rules remains to
hc cxplaincd.
he explained.
In summary. tlic cxpcctcd ftxus can bc rcjccicd in favor of anotlicr phrasc in
In summary. the expected focus can be rejected in favor of another phrase in
~ h cdiscottrsc. Itcjcction is possiblc. only whcn thc prcdictcd co-spccitication
the discourse. Rejection is possible. only when the rredicted co-specification
hctwccn a dcfinitc anaphor and tlic cxpcctcd ftlcus is unacccptablc. 'I'hc rcjcctcd
hetween <l definite <Jnaphor and the expected focus is unacceptable. The rejected
plirasc must bc rcti~incdfor possiblc rc-in~roductionlater in the discourse.
phrase must he re14lined for possible re-introduction later in the discourse.

289
5.2.5 I t~rcrringand Focusing
5.2.5 Inferring :md Focusing
Confirming thc cxpectcd focus oftcn rcqiiircs infcrring somc truths and can be
Confinning the expected focus often requires inferring some truths and can be
quitc complcx, [Winograd 19721 citcs thc scntcncc "-I'hc city council rcfuscd h e
quite complex. [Winograd 1972] cites the sentence "The city council refused the
demonstrators a pcrmit bccausc thcy fcarcd violcncc," and hc dcscribcs some of
demonstrators" permit because they feared violence," and he describes some of
thc knowlcdgc nccdcd to dcrcrrninc thc antcccdcnt of [IIPJ!. ICharniak 19721
the knowledge needed to determine the antccedent of l!Iey. ICharniak 1972]
prcscnts nuincrous cxanlplcs of gcncral knowlcdgc, and [lsncr 19751 prcscnts onc
presents numerous examples of general knowledge, and [Isner 1975] presentS one
approach to handling infcrcncc for Wino~grad'sscntcnccs. 'Ihc crucial diffcrcncc
approach to handling inference for Winograd's sentences. '111e crucial difTerenee
bctwccn thcsc d~coricsand thc onc prcscntcd hcrc is tl~atthc fi~irsingprcrcss
between these thcories and the one presented here is that the focusing process
prcdicts a n anaphor's co-spccificr and tllcn an infcrring prtrcss confirnis thc
predicts an anaphor's co-specifier and then an inferring process confim1s the
prediction. A contradictic~nmay bc rcachcd. which indicates &at thc cxpcctcd
prediction. /\ contr,tdictioll may he reached, which indicates that the expected
bc rcjcctcd. 'I'hc infcrring rnny bc trivial: for 1318. he as co-specifying
f t ~ u musl
s
focus mUSl be rejected. The inferring may be trivial: for lJl8, !Ie as co-specifying
Sirndy's dog is rcjcctcd bccausc dogs d o not lravc horns. Whcn inferring is
Sandy's dog is rejccted because dogs do not have horns. When inferring is
complcx, fwusing is irdvantagcous.
complex, focusing is advantageous.
Iai~usingsimplifies thc infcrcncc proccss bccausc it dclimits thc beginning and
Focusing simplifies the inference process because it delimitS the beginning and
end proposilions that thc inrcrriog prcccss uscs, and it gotcrtls which infcrcncc
cnd propositions that the inferring process lIseS, and it governs which inference
can hc takcn back if a contradiction rcsults. Scl~cmcssuch as Isncr's dcpcnd upon
can he taken back if a contr<tdiction results. Schemes such as Isner's depend upon
unification to bind tllc pronoun rllry to a "constant" noun phmsc. Whilc [Ricgcr
unification to bind the pronoun (!Ir)' to it "constant" noun phrase. While [Rieger
19741 ncvcr stated 11ow pronouns arc to bc rcsolvcd for his systcm, his
1974] never stated how pronouns arc to be resolved for his system, his
mctIic;dology for infcrcncc si~ggcstsitsing unification in a manner similar to lsncr.
met];(ldology for inference suggests llsing unification in a manner similar to Isner.
I3y contract, focu5 tccliniqucs "bind" tllc pronoun to thc specification of thc focus
By contrast, focus techniques "bind" the pronoun to the specification of the focus
and dlcn look for an infcrcncc chain that supports thc resulting scntcnce.
and then look for an inference chain lhnt supports lhe resulting sentence.
For Winograd's scntcncc and its dual, both givcn bclow, thc use of actor focus
For Winograd's sentence and its dual, both given below, the use of actor focus
co-spccifics thc city council in both scntcnccs (actor focus
rulcs prcdicts that rhcl~~
rules predicts that (he)' co-specifics the city council in both sentences (actor focus
n ~ l e sarc pcnincnt bccat~sc ~ h c yis an aclor in Ihc scntcncc "Lhcy fcarcd
mles arc pertinent because they is an actor in the sentence "they feared
violcncc".);
violence" .)~
D19-I (a)'l'hc city council rcfuscd lo givc the womcn a pcnnit because
Dl9-l (a) The city council refused to give the women a pennit because
thcy fcarcd violcncc.
they feared violence.
(b) 'Ihc city council rcfuscd to givc thc womcn a pcnnit
(b) The city council refused to give the women a permit
bccausc thcy advncatcd revolution.
because lhey advocated revolution.
For 1319-la, thc infcrcncc chaitl from "city council fcars violcncc" to "city council
For Dl9-la,the infercnce chain from "city council fears violence" to "city council
rchscs to givc thc pcrmit" would be cstablishcd by reasoning of thc following
refuses to give the permit" would be established by reasoning of the following
form:
form:
Form o f rcc~soning:
Form of reasoning:
- Find chain of infcrcncc from (CC fcars violcncc) to (CC rcfuscs (CC givcs
- Find chain of inference ffllm (CC fears violence) to (CC refuses (CC gives
l'crmit Women)).
Permit Women).
If (X rcfusc (X givcs Y 2))is dcfincd as causcd by cithcr:
- If(X refuse (X gives Y Z) is defined as caused by eilher:
X is-Scltish or
X is-Selfish or
(X wants Y) or
(X wants Y) or
(X Dislikcs 2)or
(X Dislikes Z) or

Sidncr
Sidner

290

thcrc is cvcnt (W) and (W is-undcsirablc-to X) and ((% havc Y) --> Occur
there is event (W) and (W is-undesirable-to X) and Z have Y) _A) Occur

W)

W)

- 'Ihcn the chain of infcrcncc must bc found bctwccn (CC fcars violcnce)
- Then the chain of inference must be found between (CC fears violence)

and one of Lt~cabove.

and one of the above.
7hc first thrcc disjuncts cannot bc provcn. so a chain must bc found bctwcen (CC
The first three disjuncts cannot be proven, so a chain must be found between (CC
fcars violcncc) and somc cvcnt. which is undcsirablc to thc council and which will
fears violence) and some event, which is undesirable to the council and which will
trcur if thc womcn have a pcrrnit If violcncc is trtkcn ;m tlic cvcnt W. then one
occur if the women have a permit If violence is taken as the event W, then one
can casily dcducc t l ~ csecond conjunct from: (CC fcnrs violcncc) --> (Not (CC
can easily deduce the second conjunct from: (CC fears violence) --) (Not (CC
wants Violcncc)). and (Not (CC wants Violcncc)) --> (Violcncc is-undcsirablc-to
wants Violence. and (Not (CC wants Violence --) (Violence is-undesirable-to
CC). 'I'llc third cor~junct.that is. I W havc P c ~ n ~ i-->
t ) ftrcur violcncc), cannot be
CC). The third conjunct, that is, (W have Pellnit) --) (occur violence), cannot be
cslablishcd as truc. although it is consistcnt with othcr inhr~nation (no
established as true, although it is consistent with other infimnation (no
contradiction is rcnclicd). I:or Ltiusing. consistcncy bctwccn thc two cnds of the
contradiction is re<Jched). For focusing, consistency between the two ends of the
inrcrcncc chain is sulTicicnt, whilc for traditional schcnics, cstblishing of thc third
inference chain is suflicient. while for traditional schemes, establishing of the third
co~ijunctis iicccssary. Furlhcr~norc,for traditional schcrncs, ihc simplc chain of
conjunct is necessary. Furthermme, for traditional schemes, the simple chain of
inrcrcncc abovc would not occur. bccausc it is not known whcn thc infcrring
inference above would not occur, because it is not known when the inferring
prcx-cn begins that it is thc city council who fcars kiolcnce.
pmcess begins that it is the city council who fears violence.
For 1119-lb, firusing predicts incorrectly that thcy co-specifics with the city
For D19-1b. focusing predicts incorrectly that they co-specifics with the city
council. Sincc a tri~ditioniilsclicmc might also choosc this co-spccificr on its way
council. Since a traditional scheme might also choose this co-specifier on its way
to thc corrcct solution, thc significnncc of f i ~ u s i n gfollows from thc control which
to the correct solution. the significance of focusing follows from the control which
k c l ~ r sin inferring. 'Ihis clainl can bc illustrated by lhc dctails of Lllc inferring
occurs in in ferring. 'Ibis claim can be illustrated by the details of Ule inferring
process. I3uring thc prtrcss of chaining from thc city council advocating
process. During the process of chaining from the city council advocating
rcvolution to the council rcfusing to givc a pcrrnit., a contradiction would be
revolution to the council refusing to give a permit, a contradiction would be
rcachcd about the cvcnt. of rcvolution bcing both advocated by thc council (from
reached about the event of revolution being both advocated by the council (from
tllc choicc of co-spccificr) and undcsirablc to thc council (from the fourth
the choice of co-specifier) and undesirable to the council (from the fourth
conjunct of the definition of refusing abovc and gcncral knowledge hat city
conjunct of the definition of refusing above and general knowledge that city
councils usunlly find rcvolution undcsirablc). 'I'raditional schcmcs might scarch
councils usually find revolution undesirable). Traditional schemes might search
for anothcr cvcnt W to infcr about, whilc for ftcusing, the contradiction reached
for another event W to infer about, while for focusing, the contradiction reached
follows from thc co-spccificr chqicc. 'Ihis choice is then rcuactcd in Favor of
follows from the co-specifier choice. This choice is then retracted in favor of
anothcr f i ~ u choicc.
s
h a t is, thc womcn advocating rcvolution. Hcncc the search
another focus choke, that is. the women advocating revolution. Hence the search
is considerably rcduccd. Once the choice of womcn for they is madc, infcrring is
is considerably reduced. Once the choice of women for they is made. inferring is
also simplified just was it was for 1119-la.
also simplified just was it was for DI9-la.
A commcnt about finding contradictions in databascs. Sornc rcscarch on truth
1\ comment about finding contradictions in databases. Some research on truth
maintcnancc systcnls ([lloylc 19781 and [McAllcstcr 19781) has cxpcrimcntcd with
maintenance systems ([Doyle 1978] and [McAl1ester 1978J) has experimented with
constraint chccking and dcvclopcd i~lgorithmsfor cfllcicl~tlyfinding and undoing
constraint checking and developed algorithms for efficiently finding and undoing
contradictions: thcsc tcchniqucs havc bccn dcvclopcd as a mcans of reasoning
contradictions: these techniques have been developed as a means of reasoning
rncchanically in ways typical of thc problcm solving oftcn nccdcd by people.
mechanically in ways typical of the problem solving often needed by people.
Howcvcr, for a large scalc problem. finding contradictions may slill bc impractical.
However. for a large scale problem. finding contradictions may still be impractical.
Onc solution might be to choosc a databasc that is a subscclion of thc whole
One solution might be to choose a database that is a subsection of the whole
databasc with thc discourse clemcnts or cvcn thc focus as thc databasc core. As
database with the discourse clements or even the focus as the database core. As
yet, no one has considcrcd how to cxplorc only ccrtain "sub-sections" of a
yet, no one has considered how to explore only certain "sub-sections" of a

291

databasc for contradictions.

database for contradictions.
Onc might wish to arguc against IJlc usc of infcrring with ftsus on thc grounds
One might wish to argue against the usc of inferring with focus on the grounds
that for 1319-1b thcrc may bc son~cothcr infcrcncc path chain bclwccn the city
that for D19-1b there may be some other inference patJl chain between the city
council advocating vioIcncc and thc city council rcfusing to givc out a pcrmit:
council advocating violence and tlle city council refusing to give out a permit:
such a path would indicalc consistency in thc hcarcr's gcncral knowlcdgc of the
such a path would indicate consistency in the hearer's general knowledge of the
world and would pcrmit ~ h qlo? ccr-spccify with thc city council. If indccd such a
world and would permit thc)' Lo co-specify with the city council. I f indeed such a
p3tf1 cxistcd, tllc unlikcly co-spccificr would go through. Ilut this choicc would
patJl existed, the unlikely co-specifier would go through. But this choice would
dcpcnd on it h c m r Lliinking that city councils advocatc violcncc, a wry unlikcly
depend on a hearer tJlinking that city councils advocate violence, a very unlikely
bclicf to hold. What licarcrs hkc to bc thc co-spccificrs of aniipliors docs dcpcnd
belief to hold. What hearers take to be the co-specifiers of amiphors docs depend
on what thcy bclicvc. and wcrc thcy to havc such bclicfs about city councils, wc
on what tJley believe_ and were they to have such beliefs about city councils, we
would cxpcct thcm to prrrdtlcc such anapl~oricinlcrprctations.
would expect them to produce such anaphoric inlerprewtions.
So~ncrimcs111crc is n o olhcr focus choicc. If no othcr groups havc bccn
Sometimes there is no other focus choice. If no other groups have been
discussed hcf)~.c(20) is uttcrcd. tllc fkusing prtscss wot~ldrcspontf just as licarers
discussed he fore (20) is uttered. the focusing process would respomljust as hearers
do: rcjccc the only a~ailablccht~iccf(!r thc co-spccificr of [hey.
do: reject the only available choice for the co-specifier of lhey.
(20)'l'hc co~tncilrcfitscd a pcnnit hccausc thcy advocated rcvolution.
(20) The council refused a penn it lx'cause they advocated revolution.
On Ihc ft~usingthcory, thc only poniblc co-spccificr for ~Ifeyis thc council, which
On the focusing theory, the only possible co-specifier for they is the council, which
would bc rcjcctcd by tlic infcrring proccss. Sincc no othcr chciicc is rrvailablc, the
would be rejected by the inferring process. Since no other c1uiice is available, the
frxusing prtscss will fail to find a choicc, and tlle thcory will prcdict that such
focusing process will fail to tind a choice, and the tlleory will predict tJlat such
scntcr1,ccsarc odd. Conccivably. thc spcakcr intcndcd to s;~ysuch an odd thing. or
senteqces arc odd. Conceivably, the speaker intended to say such an odd tlling, or
Ihc spcakcr did not mcan to say what was actually said. In cithcr cnsc. focusing
the speaker did not mean to say what was actually said. In either Cilse, focusing
~
infcrcnccs; i t offcrs a constraint on how
docs na clilninnlc thc nccd f o making
docs not eliminille tl1e need for m<lking inferences; it offers a constraint on how
thcy arc madc. 'I'hc complexity of thc infcrring prtscss is constraincd to asking
they arc made. The complexity of tlle inferring process is constrained to asking
for confirmation of thc scntcncc predication, thcrcby eliminating combinatorial
for confirmation ()f tl1e sentence predication, tllereby eliminating combinatorial
search for frcc variablc bindings and nun-terminating infcrring.
search for free variable bindings and non-terminating inferring,

5.2.6 An Algorithm For Focusing

5.16 An Algorithm For Focusing

1 will now state rhc focusing algorithm which confirms or rcjccts thc expcctcd
1 will now state tlle focusing algorithm which confirms or rejects tl1e expected
~ ( K ' U S(fOund by thc cxpcctcd f t ~ ualgorithm
s
applicd lo the firs[ scntcncc in the
focus (found by tl1e expected focus algoritl1m applied to tl1e first sentence in tlle
disoursc), and in thc casc o f rcjcction, dctcrrnincs which phrasc is to move into
discourse), and in tlle case of rejection. determines which phrase is to move into
~(K'LIS:it is U S C ~for all scntcnccs of a discoursc cxccpt thc fir& whcrc thc cxpcclcd
foclIs; it is used for all sentences of a discourse except the first, where tl1e expected
ftcus ;~lgorilhniappliiu. 'I'hc algorihm lnakcs usc of scvcrirl data structurcs: Lhc
f(Jells algorithm appliL's. The algoritllm makes usc of several data structures: tlle
currcnt ftxus (C'l:). Lhc altcrnalc f i ~ u list
s (AI.J;I.), which is initialized to cither
current focus ('1'"). tlle alternate focus list (I\LFI.), which is initialized to either
thc dcraull cxpcclcd lisus list (l1F.F) or rhc potcniial fisus list (PFI.); and the
tlle default expected tilCuS list (DEF) or the potential focus list (PFL); and the
ftrus stack: the. lattcr two stnlcturcs havc not yct bccn introduced, and their
focus stack; the.lauer two stnJctures have not yet been introduced, and their

Sidncr

Sid ncr

292

292

purposc. as wcll 2s thc condition givcn in stcps 2 and 9. will bc discussed below.'
purpose. as well as the condition given in steps 2 and 9. will be discussed below.!
In d ~ calgorithm, thc tcrrn "discoursc initial" applies 10 t l ~ calgorithm's first
In the algorithm, the term "discourse initial" applies to the algorithm's first
opcration, which is on thc sccond scntcncc o f a discuursc, whilc "in progress"
operation, which is on the second sentence of a discuurse. while "in progress"
applics to any o f thc latcr scntcnccs.
applies to any of the later sentences.
'I'hc I:ocusi~~g
.\lgorithm
The Focusing Algorilhm

NOl'ti: 'lhc f i ~ u slack

s
is initially cmpty when

NOTE: '1l1e focliS Slack is initially empty when

h i s algoritlrln is uscd.
this algorithm is used.

NO'I'F:: 13cfirrc this algorithm runs. thc currcnt

NOTE: Before this algorithm runs, the current
firus (CI:) is sct to citlicr tllc dcfdult cxpcctcd focus
focliS rCF) is set to either tile default expected focus
found from Lhc cxpccrcd ftxus algoriih~n or Lhe
found from the expeCled foclis algorithm or the
discoursc f ~ u wlicn
s
discoursc is in progrcss.

discourse

flX:US

when discourse is in progress.

'1-0 co~ifinntllc currcnt foct~sas firus or to rcicct

To con finn the current focus as focus or to reject
tlic currcnt l i m s for another ftxt~sin tl~cnext sentence
the current I(>ells fm another focus in the next sentence
of thc discoursc:
of the discou rse:

0. l N 1 l l l 0 N : Makc note of thc

O.
INITIALIZATION: Make note of the
cxistcncc of do-anaphora. ani~phorsco-specifying the
existence of dO'anaphora, anilphors co-specifying the
CE' and AI-FI.. iniplicit spccifications. anapllors which
CF and ALF1., implicit specifications, anaphors whkh
specify clclncnts not in thc discoursc or thc lack of an
specify clements not in the discourse or the lack-- of an
anaphor use.
anaphor lise.

I. 110-ANAI'I-IORA: If the sentcncc contains

1. nO-ANAI}IIORA: If the sentence contains
do-anaphora, wkc the last mcmbcr of thc AI-FI. as the
do-anaphora. take Lhe last member of the ALFL as the
focus. Stack the currcnt focus in thc focus s ~ ~ cand
k
focus. Stack the current focus in the focus stack and
halt.
halt

2. FOCUS SIYI' COI,I,E:CCI'ION: Whcn h e

2. FOCUS SET COLLECnON: When the
discourse is in progress, if focus scts are being
discourse is in progress, if focus sets arc being
collcctcd, and no anaphora occur in the current
collected, and no anaphora occur in the current
scntcncc. conlinuc thc collection. If sornc anaphor
sentence, continue the collection, If some anaphor
appcars in thc currcnt scntcucc, use its co-spccificr as
appears in the current sentence, usc its co-specifier as
the focus. Halt.
the focus. Halt.

I. Stcps 2 and 9 makc usc of rocus scls. 'Ihcsc will bc discuscd lartcr in thc chaplcr. S ~ c p7 of h c
I. Steps 2 and 9 make use of focus scts. These will be discus.~ed uHter in the chapter. Step 7 of the
algorilhm makcs usc or implici~spccilrca~ion.a conccpt which wilt bc no1 discurscd here: Ihe stcp is
usea-uof rc
implicit
specilication.
a concept
willspcdlicalion
be nOl discus.~ed
here: the
stepconsidering
is
algorithm
makes lo
includcd
complclcncss
of thc algoril
hm. which
lmplicil
is in~porlant
whcn

included to a'i5U re complcleness of the algorithm. Implicit !>flcdlicalion is important when considering
thc intcrprciation or rull dclinitc noun phrascs. a topic not includcd in [his chaplcr. I!or a disntssion.
full definitc noun phrases, a topic nol included in this chapleT. I'or a discussion.
the interprctation
sce [Sidncrof19791.
see (Sidner 1979).

293

3. CIIOOSINC HF,'I'\VFk:N Ct; and AI,Fl,: If

3. CHOOSING HETWHN CF ami ALFL: If
thcrc is an anaphor co-specifying thc CF and anothcr
there is an anaphor co-specifying the CP and another
co-specifying somc mcmbcr of tllc AI.FI-, main the
co-specifying some member of the ALFL, relain the
CF as focus if thc anaphor is not in agcnt position, If it
CF as focus if the anaphor is not in agent position. lfit
is. wkc thc mcmbcr of h c AI.Fl. as focus. I f both are
is. take the member of the ALFL as focus. If both are
non-agents, rctiiin thc CF as fixus unlcss only the
non-agents. rcwin the CF as focus unless only the
Al.FI, mcmbcr is mcntioncd by a pronoun. In that
ALFI. member is mentioned by a pronoun. In that
case, movc dic ftzus to thc Al.t:I. inernbcr (Focus is
case, move tile focliS to the AI.FI. member (Foclls is
movcd by stacking tlic CI:. scuing the CF to thc
moved by stacking tile CF. selling the CF to the
co-spccificr of tllc anaphnric. tcrm, and thcn stacking
co-specifier of the anaphoric term. and then stacking
any fiaggcd implicit spccifications as long as that
any fiagged implicit specifications as long as that
specification is not thc spccification to which focus
specification is not the specification 10 which focus
moves.). tlalt.
moves.). Bait.
4. HI.:I',%ININC; 'I'tII< C:F 2s IOCUS: If a c r e
4. HETAINING THE CF as FOCUS: If there
arc anapllors which co-spccify only thc CF. retain the
arc anaphors which co-specify only the CF. relain the
CF as focus. Halt.
CF as focus. Halt.

5. AI,l;l. :IS FOCUS: If the anaphors only

5. ALFL as .'OCUS: If the anaphors only
co-spccify a mcnibcr of /\I-FI.. n1tri.c I h c focus to it. If
co-specify a member of ALFI .. move the foells to it. If
scvcral mcml~crsof dlc hL.FI1. arc co-spccificd. choose
several members of tile ALFL arc co-specified. choose
thc focus in the manncr suggcstcd by thc cxpcctcd
the focus in the manner suggested by the expectcd
focus algorithm. Halt.
focus algorithm. Halt.
6. E'OCIIS SI'ACK USE: lf thc anaphors only
6. FOCUS STACK USE: If the anaphors only
co-spccify a mcmbcr of thc focus stack, movc the focus
co-specify a member of the foeus stack, move the focus
to thc stack mcrnbcr by popping the stack. Halt.
to the stack member by popping the stack. Halt.

7. IhlYI,IOIT SI'ECII~ICA'I'ION: If a definite

7. 11\1PLlCIT SPECIFICATION: If a definite
noun phrasc i~nplicitlyspecifics an eicment associated
noun phrase implicitly specifics an clement associated
with Ihc focus. retain tllc CF and flag thc dcfit~itenoun
with the focus. retain UIC CF and nag the definite noun
phrasc as implicit spccification. If spccification is
phrase as implicit specification. If specification is
asstriutcd with member of AL-Fi,. move focus to that
associated with member of ALFL, move focus to that
mcmbcr and flag the dcfinjtc noun phrasc as implicit0
member and flag the definite noun phrase as implicitspccification. Ilalt.
specification. HaiL
8. LACK 01: ,\NAl'110UA: 1f thcrc are no
8. LACK OF ANAPIIQRA: If there arc no
anaphors co-specifying any of CF, Al.Fl, or focus
anaphors co-specifying any of CF, AI.FL or focus

Sidner

294

stack, but rhc CF cnn till a non-obligatory cascl in the

stack, but the CF can fill a non-obligatory easel in the
sentcncc or if thc vcrb phri~scis related lo thc CF by
sentence or if the verb phrase is related to the CF by
nominalira~ion,retain thc CF and halt.
nominali1.3tion, retain the CF and halt

9. I:OCUS SE'I' INl'l'l hl,l%h'l'lON: If there

9.
If is
there
arc FOCUS
no f i ~ mc~ztioncd
iSET INITIALIZATION:
and thc scntcncc
discourse
are no initial.
filCi mentioned
and
the
sentence
is
discourse
collcct f i ~ u sets.
s
initial. collcct filCUS sets.
10. NO I;OC:US IISII): Otherwisc if thc,rc arc
10. NO FOCUS USED: Otherwise if the,re arc
no
fixi ~ncntio~~cd,
rclain thc CF as fixus. For any

no fociunspccificd
mentioned. rel<tin
the CFtheas ftlCUS.
any
pronouns,
missingForco-spccificr
unspecified pronouns. the missing co-specifier
condition holds.2
condition holds. 2

'1'0 illustrate thc firusing algoriihm in action, ils bchavior will hc traccd during
To illustrate the fllCllsing algorithm in action, its behavior will be traced during
thc recognition of the initial ~ O C L Ior
S 116, wllic11 is rcpcatcd below:
the recognition of the initial focus of 1)6, which is repeated below:
1120-1 I .as[ wcck Ihcrc wcrc somc nice strawbcrrics in thc refrigerator.
D2D-l I.ast week
were
some
in me
refrigerator.
2 'l'hcyU1ere
cainc
from
our nice
foodstrawberries
co-op and wcrc
unustially
frcsh.
2 They came from our food co-op and were unusually fresh.
3 1 went to use h c m for dinncr. but sornconc had catcn thcm all.
3 1 went to usc IDem for dinner, but someone had eaten them all.
4 Iatcr I discovered it was Mark who had catcn thcm.
4 I.<lter I discovered it was Mark who had ealen mem.
5 Mark has a hollow lcg. and it's i~npossiblcto kccp food around
5 Mark has
a hollow
leg, and
irs impossible
to keep food around
when
his stomach
nccds
filling.
when his stomach needs filling.
D2O-I is a thcrc-inscrtit~nscntcncc, so stcp 1 of the cxpcctcd f o c ~ ~algorithm
s
D20-] is a U1ere-insertion sentence, so step 1 of the expected focus algorithm
indicates that the cxpcctcd focus is thc subjccl of thc scntcncc, that is, some
indicates that the expected [llCUS is me subject of the sentence, that is, some
s~mwberries.' I l c fi~usingalgorithm contains a nore that thc currcnt focus is set to
strawberries. The focusing algorithm contains a note that the current focus is set to
thc cxpcctcd focus, and thc Al.FI. be sct to the othcr phrascs in 1120-1, that is, last
the expected focus, and the ALFL be set to the Olher phrases in D20-1, mat is, last
week and the refiigeralor and thc vcrb phrase. I h c statc of the entirc focusing
week and the refrigermor and the verb phrase. 111e slate of lhe entire focusing
process at thc point in which D20-2 is cncountcrcd, is iltustratcd in Figure 2.
process at the point in which D20-2 is encountered, is illustrated in Figure 2.

1. Obligatory rclalions arc caws ofa verb lhal must he filled or thc mntcnce is odd as in "John sold."
L Oblillatory
relations are
cases
ofnot
a ~erb
that must
be filled
is odd as in "John
Non-obligatory
caws
nccd
bc lillcd:
in "John
~ or
~athe
book,"
l sentence
d onc non-obligatory
casesold."
is the pCMn
Non-obligatory
need was
not sold.
he filled: in "John sold a book," one non'obligatory ca.~e is the pcoon
lo whomcases
(hc book
to whom Z
theSce
book
was sold.
section
4.4 or his chapicr lijr a discussion of missing co-specifier uses,
2 See section 4.4 of this chapler for a discuS1;ion of missing co-specifier uses.

295

CF: m e s r r a W e s --spifics-->database representation of strawbcrrics

CF; some strawberries --specifics-- >database representation ofstrawberries
ALFl.: hsr meck the refigemtor, verb phrasc of DZO-1
ALA.: last Mftk. th, refrigerator, verb phrase of 020-1

&ntenee:

D2~2

Anaphors: theycvspccifics with CF

Anaphors: Iheyco-spccilics with CF

h x m u r : skips through stcps 0.3 of thc Focusing Algorithm

Processor: skips through steps ~3 of the Focusing Algorithm
At step 4: CF is taken as focus
At step 4: Cf is taken as focus
Figure 2 Action of focusing process for the stan of IXB2
figure 2 Action of focusing process for the stan of D~2.

'I'hc fixusing ;~lgori&mcauses stcp 4 to hc applicd to rctain t l ~ cCF of s ~ m e

The focusing algorithm causes step 4 (0 he applied to retain the CF of some
s/run~berricsas ~CKUS,bccausc tllcrc arc no do-anaphora, no firus scts and no
strawberries as focus. because there arc no do-anaphora, no fo('us sets and no
anaphors co-specifying with mcmbcrs of thc A!-FL.
anaphors co-specifying with member.; of the AI-FL.
In thc cxamplc abovc rulcs to bc formulated Intcr governing thc ctloicc of
In the example above rules to be formulated later governing the choice of
anaphors given a focus (in this casc an cxpcctcd fixus) dctcrminc that they
anaphors given a focus (in this case an expected focus) determine that they
co-sp.ccifics thc CF. I>cfinitc noun phrasc intcrprctntion. of which our food co-op
co-sp.ecifies the CF. Definite noun phrase interpretation. of which our food co-op
is an cxamplc, will not bc discusscd hcrc although it is trcatcd'fu~l~
in [Sidncr
is an example. will not be discussed here although it is treated' fully in [Sidner
19791. Now that thc algoritllln has bccn dcmonstriltcd ;n discoursc initial
1979]. Now that the algorithm has been demonstrated on discourse initial
scntcnces, wc turn to thc use of thc algorithm for a discourse in progrcss where
sentences, we turn to the usc of the algorithm for a discourse in progress where
focus movement, the focus stack, and thc alternate focus list play a role.
focus movement, the focus stack, and the alternate focus list playa role.
5.2.7 Focus Movcmcnt

5.2.7 Focus Movement

Sincc spcakcrs do not always talk about just onc thing. thc focusing process must
Since speakers do not always talk about just one thing, the focusing process must
provide for thc focus of thc discourse to changc. In M, thc strawbcrrics are
provide for the focus of the discourse to change. In 06, the strawberries are
discusscd for a fcw scntcnccs, and thcn the discussion moves to thc pcrson who ate
discussed for a few sentences, and then the discussion moves to the person who ate
thcm. Accounting for this movemcnt is ncccssary for anaphor interpretation
them. Accounting for this movement is necessary for anaphor interpretation
bccausc thc ncw discourse elcmcnt rnay be co-spccificd in latcr scnlcnccs. 'I'his
because the new discourse clement may be co-specified in later sentences. This
proccss of moving thc ftrus will bc callcd ftxlus movcmcnt. 'I'hc discnursc bclow
process of moving the focus will be called focus movement. The discourse below
illustratcs firus movcnicnt from nleeling to oflfic-e(in 1121-3) and back u) ~tleering
iIlustratcs focus moycment from meeting to office (in 1)21-3) and back to meeting
(in 1122-4).
(in 1)21-4).
1121-1 1 want to scl~cdulca mccting with Harry, Willic and Fdwina.
))21-1 I want to schedule.i! mcctingj with JHarry, Willie and Edwina.
2 Wc can usc my ufficq.
2 We can USC!!lY officci'
3 Ujkind of small,
3.l1Jii kind of small,
4 but &c rnccting. won't last long anyway.
4 but~~j won'tJ last long anyway.

Sidner

296

How can one tcll if focus

focus movement
movclncnt has occurred?
occurrcd? Judging from
from D21,
1121, one
gucss that focus
focus moves ""hcncvcr
uhcncvcr a new
ncw term
t c m is introduced.
introduccd. A
A
might guess
co~~ntcrcxa~nplc
Illis rule
rulc is the
tllc alternate
altcrnatc form ofD21
of 1121 bclow.
countcrexample
to tllis
below.
w;lnt to
v schedule
~ s c l i~ cmeetingj
d u l cwith
~ ~f1arry.
Harry.
.
Willicand
1122-11 want
1)2211
Willie
and Edwina.
J
Wc can usc !!!Yllf!kl:i'
m&i.
2 We
3 It won't take
o k c very
vcry long,
wc could have
havc it in the
thc conference
cc~nfcrcnccroom.
4 so we
1122-3, there
thcrc is no
1111 foclIs
firits movement.
movcmcnt. If
I f the focus
fcrus were
wcrc moved
movcd to office
oflicc and
In D223,
bdck to meeting,
mccting. the
Ihc moves would be
bc unnecessary
unncccssary since
since all the
thc sentences
scntcnccs arc
bJck
about
ahuut the
thc meeting.
mccting.
Focus
F ( ~ u smovement
movcmcnt is recognized
rccognizcd in a manner
rnanncr which
wllicli is akin to initial focus
focus
rccognition. Any new
ncw tcnn
lcnn in the discourse
d i ~ u u r s cis a potcntial
foc~~s.
'lhc sentence
scntcnce
recognition.
potcnlial foclIs.
The
following
following its introduction
i11ln)ductionmay contain citllcr
citlicr an anaphor
anaplior which can be
bc confimlcd
cotilirnicd
as co-specifying with
potential focus
witli tl,e
ilic potcntial
firus or an
;In anaphor wbich
which co-specifics witll
witli the
elcment
I' the anaphor co-specifics
potential focus,
clcmcnt already
alrc:tdy in focus.
focus. IIf'thc
co-spccitics with
u,itli the
thc potcntial
focus, the
co-spccific<1tion
co-spccilicatiottCilUSCS
csuscs the
tlic potelltial
potctitial focus
firus to become
bcco~ncthe
thc discourse
discourse focus.
With the
thc above
abovc description
dcxription there
thcrc is no focus
firus movement
movcmcnt following
following D22-2
cxprcssion co-specifics
co-spccilics with m),
I ~ office.
of/ir
J
thc original version,
vcrsion, D21-2,
1121-2,
bccausc no expression
because
For the
the
focus
does
moves
hccausc
ir
can
bc
takcn
to
co-specify
with
the
speaker's
tho focus docs mtwes hocause il
bo taken
co-specify
tho
omco,
ohce,'1and nothing co-specifics
co-spccitics with moeting.
mccting.
I h c two vresions
vcrsions of
uf 1)21
1121 indicate tl,e
Uic basic point of focus
fixus movement:
nlovcmcnt: whon
whcn the
Tho
sentence
co-specification with the potcntial
potcntidl focus
firus contains no
noco-specification
potential
scntcncc following
following aa potential
focus,
potential focus
focus, then
thcn focus
focus movement
movcmcnt docs
does not occur. Since
Since a potcntial
focus docs not
tlic discoorse
dixoursc focus.
firus. focus
focus movement
movcmcnt is like expected
cxpcctcd focus
focus
always bccomc
always
become tlle
recognition;
bofore tlle
rccognitian: if one tried
uicd to predict a focus
f ~ umovement
movancnt
s
bcfore
thc anaphor occurred,
thc prcdiction
wrong. just as prcdictions
expected focus
focus can be.
the
prediction could bc
be wrong,
predictions of expocted
Rather tl,an
prediction, it is bcst
bost to
Ulan consider
considcr focus
fixus movement
lnovcmcnt a matter
mattcr of prcdiction.
to think of
it as a mailer
based on the
mattcr of recognition
rccognition bascd
thc anaphorie
anaphoric terms
tcms that follow in the
discourse.
discourse.
Potential foci have
shon lifetime,
lifetime. If a potential focus
focus does not become the
havc a short
focus
thc interpretation
intcrprctatim of the sonteneo
scntcncc following
following the
thc one in which the
focus after the
sccn, it is dropped
droppcd as a potential focus. For example.
example, at D22-3 my
potcntial
potential is seen.
ojJice
be referred
Oflice is dropped,
droppcd. Hereafter
Hcrcaftcr if office
oflice is discussed.
discussed, it cannot hc
refcrrcd to using itif
until some
somc sentence
scntcncc re-introduces
rc-intrvduccs my
nly office
uflicc as a potentia]
potcntial focus.
Since any new tcnn
t c m in a sentence
scntcncc can be a potential
potcntial focus.
firus, when several
several tCJlJlS
terms
Since

1.
1. Note that
lhat itir cannol
cannot ro'spccify
m-spedfy with
wiUl the
Ule meeting
mecling because
bemuse lhe
h e tense
tense of
af the
Ule sentence
m t e n c e rules
~ l e oot
out
r the
lhe
co-specification.
rnrpedfieation.

297
occur in one scntcncc. somc mcans of choosing a potcntial focus is nccded.
occur in one sentence. some means of choosing a potential focus is needed.
Syntactic clcft constructions, as I have noted, indicate focus movcmcnt. In
Syntactic cleft constructions, as I have noted, indicate focus movement In
addition, onc would cxpcct that thc thcmc should bc the prcfcrrcd position for a
addition, one would expect that the theme should be the preferred position for a
potcntial focus. In fact the samc ordcr used for dcfault cxpcctcd foci can bc used
potential focus. In fact Ule same order used for default expected foci can be used
for potcntial firi, cxccpt that thc phrasc which confinns thc fixus is not included
for potential foci. except that the phrase which confinns the fiJeus is not included
in thc list bccausc it cannot bc a potcntial focus. In English scntcnccs, phrascs
in the list because it cannot be a potential f{JeLlS. In English sentences, phrases
which rncntion ncw information tcnd to occur towards thc cnd of thc scntcncc,
which mention new information tcnd to lJecur towards the cnd of the sentence,
wliilc old infcwmatian cxcurs at thc beginning: this niclllod of choosing potcntial
while old information occurS at thc beginning: this meUlOd of choosing potential
ftxus capturcs tliat bcllavior.
focus caplUrcs that behavior.
In summary. thc algori~limfor dctcrlnining rllc polc~itinlfirus list (PFI.) is:
In summary, the algorithm for determining Ule potential focus list (PFJ.) is:
1.

1. I f a clcft or pscudoclcft scntcncc is u s d . the

If a cleft or pseud{Jeleft sentence is used. the
patcntial foms is rhc clcft itcm if and only if the
potential f{JelIs is the cleft item ifand only if the
clcmcnt in non-clcfting position co-specifics thc
clement in l1on-clefting position co-specifics the
~ ( K U S . Whcn i t docs not. Lhc scntcncc is
focus. When it does not. Ule sentence is
incohcren t.
incoherent.

2. Othcrwisc ordcr a potential focus list of all thc noun

2. Otherwise order a potential focus Jist of all the noun
phrascs filling a thematic rclation in rhc
phrases Iilling a thematic relation in the
scntcncc, cxcluding a noun phrasc in agcnt
sentence, excluding a noun phrase in agent
position and thc noun phrasc which co-specifics
position and the nOlln phrase which co-specifics
thc focus if onc cxists. 'Ihc last mcmbcr of the
the focus if one exists. 'Ihe last member of the
1'1'1, is ttlc verb phrasc of thc scntcnce.
PFL is the verb phrase of the sentence.

How strong is thc f(ras/potcntial focus cxpcctation? An indication of the

How strong is the fiJelis/polential focus expectation? An indication of the
strcngth of focus is givcn in thc cxamplc below.
strength of focus is given in the example below.
D23-1 Expert: '1Bkc off the bolts.
023-1 Expert: Take off the bolts.
2 Apprcnticc: I am 1c)oscning them with thc plicrs that uscd to be
2 Apprentice: I am loosening them with the pliers that used to be
in onc of tllc tool boxcs. Whcrc arc thcy?
in one of Ule tool boxes. Where arc they?
IIlc use of they in Lhc last scntcncc is diflicult to undcrsland. 'Ihc expcctcd focus
lllC usc of they in the last scntence is difficult to understand. '[he expected focus
is bolts and is confirmed by thc use of r l ~ ain~thc apprcnticc's first statcment
is bolts and is confirmed hy the use of Ihem in the apprentice's Iirst statement
711c apprcnticc also introduces thc pliers as a potcntial f ( ~ u s .hut [hey cannot
llle apprentice also introduces the pliers as a potential focus. but {hey cannot
co-spccify to cithcr thc plicrs or tllc bolts (bccausc. as Lhc inferring process must
co-specify til either the pliers or the bolts (beclluse. as Ule inferring process must
dctcrminc. thc i~pprcnticck ~ i r ~ wwhcrc
s
rhcy arc in ordcr to d o h c task). IJcncc
determine. the apprentice knows where they arc in order til do the task). Hence
Sonic infc)rm;alts sly [hat 1hej8could co-spccify thc tool
thc usc of rlrry is slr;~~lgc.
the usc of I!ley is strange. Some informants s<ly that Ihe)' could cll-specify the tool
boxcs but thai such a choicc is li~rccdupon them only as a last rcsort to find
boxes but that slich a choice is fllrced upon them only as a last resort to lind
somcthing that lnnkcs sctisc. Such odd rcadings arc ci~pturcdby thc failurc to use
something that makes sense. Such odp readings arc captured by the failure to usc
thc ftsus or potcnlial fixus as thc co-spccificr of a pronoun.
the f(Jeus or potential flJeus as the co-specifier of a pronoun.
In gcncral, fisus movcmcnt c ~ c u r only
s
when thcrc arc dcfinitc anaphora that
In general, focus movement occurs only when there arc delinite anaphora that
arc uscd to co-spccify somcthing bcsidcs thc ftcus; thcsc anaphora signal the
are used to co-specify something besides the focus; these anaphora signal the
movcment. Howcvcr. Lherc is onc condition which docs not follow this gcncral
movement. However, there is one condition which docs not follow this general

Sidncr
Sidner

298

298

n ~ l c .Whcn two diffcrcnt anaphors co-specify with Lhc focus and a potcntial focus
rule. When two different anaphors co-specify with the focus and a potential focus
rcspcctivcly, and only onc of thc anaphors is a pronoun, thcrc is no certainty about
respectively, and only one of the anaphofS is a pronoun. there is no certainty about
which will bc focuscd on in thc ncxt scntcncc. Yct, thcrc sccms to bc a prcfcrcncc
which will be focused on in the next sentence. Yet, there seems to be a preference
for thc f t ~ uto
s bc markcd by thc pronoun use. In othcr words, pronouns scern to
for the focus to be marked by the pronoun usc. In other words, pronouns seem to
support a filcus more strongly than anaphoric dcfinitc noun phrases do. Consider
support a focus more strongly than anaphoric def1nite noun phrases do. Consider
thc casc below:
the case below:
1324-1 1 got a ncw hat
1)24-1 I got a new hat..
2 and I dccoratcd it with a big rcd bow.
2 and I decorated it with a big red bow.
3 (a) I think thc how will brighlcn it up a lot. (it = thc hat)
3 (a) I ulink the how will brighten it up a lot. (it = the hat)
(h) I rhink it will bl-ightcn up thc hat a lot. ( i l = the bow)
(b) I think it will brighten up ule hat a lot. (it = the bow)
4 If not, I think 1'11 still usc it.
4 If not, I think I'll still usc it.
Aftcr 1124-2, d ~ focus
c
is thc hat, eel-spccificd by if, and the potcntial fixus list
After 1)24-2, Ule focus is the hat. co-specified by iI, and the potential focus list
inch~dcsa big rcci buw. t'irhcr fonn of 1124-3 uses anaphors which co-spccify the
includes a big red buw. Eiuler fonn of D24-3 uses anaphors which co-specify the
hat and ihc bow. 1124-4 is syn~acticallyi~ndscmnntically ncutral on thc choicc of
hat and the bow. 1)24-4 is syntactically and semantically neutral on ule choice of
hat or bow as antcccdcnt of ir. llowcvcr. if thc scqucncc 1124-3a and 1324-4
hat or bow as antecedent of if. However. if Ule sequence 1)24-3a and 1)24-4
occurs. the i~co-specifics hat, wliilc if 112.1-3b is uscd. thc bow is sliglltly prcferred.
occurs, the if co-specifics hat, while ifD24- 3b is used, the bow is slightly preferred.
'l'his cxamplc suggcsts that i~nlikcthc gcncrnl casc. thc clcrncnt co-spccificd by the
This example suggests thilt unlike the gcneral case, the dement co-specified by the
pronoun should bccomc thc fixus. 1-lic sccond condition for focusing is:
pronoun should become the focus. The second condition for focusing is:
Whcncvcr both the current focus and a potcntial f r ~ u arc
s co-spccificd but only
Whenever both the current foclls and a potential focus are co-specified but only
onc of them is co-spccificd by a pronoun, ttic focus is dctcrnlincd by thc pronoun
one of them is co-specified by a pronoun, the focus is detemlined by the pronoun
co-spccificr. 'I'his condition appcars in the ft~usingalgorithmas stcp 3.
co-specifier. This condition appears in the focllsing algorithm-as step 3.
Steps 2 and 9 of the focusing algorithm distinguish a feature uniquc to focus
Steps 2 and 9 of the focusing algorithm distinguish a feature unique to focus
confirmation. The focus sct initialization steps in d ~ cfocusing algorithm are
confirmation. The focus set initialization steps in the focusing algorithm are
dcsigncd to rccognizc a discoursc situation illustrated in D25.
designed to recognize a discourse situation illustrated in D25.
1325-1 lohn and Mary sat on thc sofa and playcd cards.
])25-1 John and Mary sat on the sofa and played cards.
2 Flcnry rcad a book.
2 flenry read a book.
3 At 10 p.m. thcy went to Jocy's I3ar to hcar a ncw r t ~ group.
k
3 At 10 p.m. they went to Joey's Bar to hear a new rock group.
Aftcr D25-1 and 2, Lhc fixus of this discoursc is not sofa cards or book. It
After D25-1 and 2, Ule filCUS of this discourse is not sofa, cards or book. It
appears that D25 is about John, Mary and Hcnry and what thcy did for an
appears that 025 is about John. Mary and Henry and what they did for an
evening. In othcr words, thc focus in D25 is collcctcd ovcr scveral scntcnces. The
evening. In other words, the focus in 025 is collected over several sentences. The
cxpcctcd focus algorithm will choosc soh as cxpcctcd fixus, wliilc thc focusing
expected focus algorithm will choose sofa as expected fiJeus, while the focusing
algorithm without stcp 9 would confirm the cxpcctcd focus sincc no anaphors
algorithm without step 9 would' confirm the expected focus since no anaphors
occur in 1125-2. '1'0 capturc thc ftsuscollcction and to prcvcnt confirmation whcn
occur in 1)25-2. To capture the f(Jeus collection and to prevent confirmation when
no anaphors occur in thc ini~ialpart of a discoursc, fixus sct collcction is uscd. In
no anaphors occur in the initial part of a discourse, f(Jeus set collection is used. In
collccting focus scts. discoursc itcms in the salnc thcn~atic position in each
collecting focus sets. discourse items in ule same ulematic position in each
scntcncc arc collcctcd as onc sct. For 1125, this rncthod makcs scts of (1)cards
sentence arc collected as onc set For D2S, this method makes sets of (I) cards
and book, (2) John, Mary and Hcnry. and (3) sitting, playing and reading actions.
and book, (2) John, Mary and Henry, and (3) sitting, playing and reading actions.
Whcn 1125-3 is proccsscd through the ftxusing algorithm, they co-spccifics with
When 1)25-3 is processed through the f(Jeusing algorithm, they co-specifics with
John, Mary and Hcnry, and so thc thrcc will bc chosen as discoursc focus.
John. Mary and Henry, and so the three will be chosen as discourse focus.
'I'hc informal description of focus movcmcnt given hcre illustrates that focus
The informal description of focus movement given here illustrates that focus

299

confirmation and focus rnavcmcnl arc similar behaviors. So similar arc these
confirmation and focu~ movement arc similar behaviors. So similar arc these
bchaviors h a t thcy can bc fonnally dcscrihcd by one algorithm. That algorithm
behaviors that they can be fonnally described by one algorithm. That algorithm
providcs a statcmcnt of control flow and the dclails of thc conditions for
provides a statement of control flow and the details of the conditions for
ctmfinning or rcjccting a focus.
confinning or rejecting a focus.
'I'hc significancc of :I single algorithm for both pnxcsscs must not be
The significance of a single algorithm for both processes must not be
o\crlookcd; thc onc algorithm providcs n uniform trcatmcnt of two phcnomcna
OIerlooked: the one algorithm provides a uni!ixrn treatment of two phenomena
which at first gliincc appcar unrcl;itcd, namely, cxpcctcd f i ~ u confirmation
s
and
which at fiN glance appear unrcl<l!ed. namcly. expected focus confinnation and
ftrus Inovclncnt. l:i~rlllcrmorc. thc onc algoritJ31n indicatcs just how the two
focus movement. Furthermore. the one algorithm indicates just how the two
proccsscs arc silnilar. 'I'hc similarit!, in cxpcctcd firus cttlifirrnation and focus
processes arc similar. The similarity in expected focus confirmation and focus
cxpcctcd foci and
moycnlcnt can bc cxtcndcd bcyond tllc p;~rallclbctwccn dcri~~ilt
movement C,1n be extended beyond the parallel between default expected foci and
potcnti;rl f i ~sincc
i
thcrc arc syntactic structures which mark fwus rnovcmcnt just
potential foci since there arc syntactic structures which mark focus movement just
as thcrc arc syntactic forms which mark initial fi~cus. hlorc impo~tantly,the
as there arc syntJctic ulrms which mark initial focus. More impol1antly, the
focusing algorithm shows h a t cxpcctcd f i ~ u confirtnation
s
i ~ n dfocus movcmenr
focusing algorithm shows that expected focus confirmation and focus movemem
arc both prczcsscs which rcqiiirc additiotlal mention of rhc clcmcnt in focus to
arc both processes which require additional mention of the clement in focus to
contirm h c choicc.
Cllnfinn the choice.

5.2.8 Ihckaards I:ocus Rlovcmcnt

5.2.8 B:lchards Focus Movement
In dikoursc, discussion may bc rcturncd to a prcvious focus, that is, thc focus may
In diScourse, discussion may be returned to a previous focus. that is. the focus may
cvcntunlly shift h;~ckto n noun phcac previously in focus. ?his proccss is callcd
eventually shift back to a noun phrase previously in foclls. This process is called
ficus ~ o n l ~ i n g [a
. 1321-4 thc phrase rhe meeting co-specifics with 3 mccting
focus Dopping. [n D21-4 the phrase {he meeting co-specifics with a meeting
prcvio~lslyin focus.
previously in focus.
1321-1 1 want to schcdulc a rnccting with Harry, Willic and Edwina.
1)21-1 I want to schedule!! mcetingj with JHarry, Willie and Edwina.
2 We call usc my officei.
2 We can usemx~i'
3 It'sikind of small,
3 It'si kind ofsmall.
4 but thc mcctine won't last long anyway.
4 but the meetingj won'tJ last long anyway.
To retain previous foci, a stack is uscd. Generally whcncvcr an expression
To retain previous fod, a stack is used. Generally whenever an expression
rncntions an clcmcnt listcd as a fixus in the stack, called thc stackcd focus, the
mentions an clement listed as a fex:us in the stack, called the Slacked focus, the
focus is popped, and thc stackcd focus bccomcs thc focus again. In tcrms of the
focus is popped, and the stacked focus becomes the focus again. In teons of the
f i ~ umovcmcnt
s
algorithm. a stackcd focus is considcrcd as a possiblc focus choice
focus movement algorithm. a stacked focus is considered as a possible focus choice
following thc discoursc f i ~ u and
s potcntiat foci list
following the discourse focus and potential foci list
'1'0 claim that focus popping is in fact a stack bchavinr requires criteria for
To claim that focus popping is in fact a stack behavior requires criteria for
explaining why othcr hchaviors cannot and do not occur. l'hc basis for such
explaining why other behaviors cannot and do not occur. The basis for such
claims requires furlhcr investigation which has not bccn undcrtakcn hcrc. Focus
claims requires further investigation which has not been undertaken here. Focus
popping is dcscribcd as a stack bchavior because discussions in dialogues do
popping is described as a stack behavior because discussions in dialogues do
rcturn back to a prcvious focus without conccrn for intervening foci, and because
return back to a previous focus without concern for intervening foci. and because
once a focus pop occurs, thc intervening foci are not mcntioncd without focus
once a focus pop occurs, the intervening foci are not mentioned without focus

300

Sidner

rnovcmcnt similar to thc rcgular focus movcrncntl

movement similar to the regular focus movement 1
A sllmplc discoursc will indicate why a stack notion sccms to bc thc right one.
A sample discourse will indicate why a stack notion seems to be the right one.
In thc discoursc hclow. thc f i ~ u movcs
s
from W i l b ~ to
~ r thc book, to quarks, and
In the discourse below. the focus moves from Wilbur to the book, to quarks, and
to clc~ncntnryfield thcory. 'Ihcn a pop back to thc book trcurs. Oncc thc pop is
to elementary field theory. 'Illen a pop back to the book occurs. Once the pop is
inadc. Wilbur can be co-spccificd by he casily. A stack rcprcscnting the foci at the
made. Wilbur can be co-specified by he easily. A stack representing the foci at the
time that 1326-8 is pri~csscdis given in Figure 3.
time that ))26-8 is processed is given in Figure 3.
1326-1 Wilbur is ii finc sricntist and il thoughtful guy.
D26-l Wilbur is 11 fine sciel1LbL and a thoughtful guy.
2 I-icgave mc a hook :I whilc back which I rcally liked.
2 He gave me a hook a while back which I really liked.
3 It was on relativity tl~cory.
3 I t was on reliltivity tlleory,
4 and talks mostly ahout quarks.
4 and wlks mnstly about quarks.
5 'l'hcy ;lrc hard to ~maginc,
5 They arc hard to imagine,
6 hcci~uscllicy indici~tctllc nccd for clcrncntary ficld tllcorics of a
6 because tlley indicate the need for elementary field theories of a
complcx narurc.
complex nature.
7 'l'llcsc thctirics arc absolr~tclycsscntial to all relativity rcscarch.
7 These theories arc absolutely essential to all retJtivity research.
8 Anyway. I got it ~ h i l Ic was working on rhc initial part of my
8 Anyway, I got it ",hile 1was working on the initial part of my
rcscarch.
research.
9 I-lc's rcally :I hclpful collcaguc to have thought of giving it to
91-le's really a helpful colleague to have thuught of giving it to
me.
me.

FOCUS:

FOCUS:

clcmcntary ficld thcorics

elementary field theories

FOCUS Sl'ACK: quarks

FOCUS STACK: quarks
book
book Wilbur
Wilbur
Figure 3 St~ckof foci at D26-8.
Figure 3 SLack of foci at 026-8.
?hc discussion of fkusing so far has bccn conccrncd with localized
The discussion of focusing so far has been concerned with localized
inovcmcnts or focus from onc discourse clcrncnt to another, from a sccond to a
movements of focus from one discourse clement to another, from a second to a
lhird and possibly hack to a first. Focus-popping, howevcr, is a non-local
Lhird and possibly back to a first. Focus-popping, however, is a non-local
hchavior bccausc Ihc ftrus may rnovc past scvcral foci in thc stack tcl some
behavior because the foclIs may move past several foci in the stack to some
clcmcnt that has not hc mcntioncd filr a long portion of dic discoursc. 'Typically,
clement that has not he mentioned for a long portion of the discourse. Typically,
Lhis non-local popping b;rk to ;In old focus is accomp;lnicd by thc usc of a dcfinitc
Lhis non-local popping back to an old focus is accompanied by the usc ofa definite
noun phrasc to spccify lhc old fixus. 'I'hc dcfinitc noun phrasc is a clcar signal of
noun phrase to specify the old focus. The definite noun phrase is a clear signal of

I . Current implcmcntn~ionsor thc ftrusing p r c n x have becn dcsigncd with a simple lasl-in fial-out
I. Current implementations of the focusing (lroc($.~ have been designed with a simple last-in first-out
stack to pop loci unlil thc propcr focus is four~d.sincc this lypc of slack rcflecls Ihc popping back in a
stack to pop foci until the prollcr focus is found, since lhis typc of slack rcflcc15 Ihe popping back in 11
d~scourse.
discourse.

301

what is bcing
being talked
because of
talkcd about bccausc
of its distinguishing noun
noun phrase
phrasc head.
Pronouns
can bc
be used
Pronounscan
used as wel1.
wcll, but their usc is more
morc restricted
rcstrictcd and governed
govcrncd by the
interpreter
intcrprctcr rules,
rulcs, which prevent
prcvcnt a pronoun from co-specifying a stack item
itcm if
if the
discoursc or actor foci
firi arc acceptable
acccptablc co-specifiers.
co-spccificrs. The
I l i c interpreter
intcrprctcr roles,
ntlcs, in
in
discourse
conticction with the
thc foclis
k r u s algorithm.
algorid~m,impose
impost a kind
kind of
o f :'Il.1cKCd
stickcd focus
firus constraint
connection
that maintains
foclis
In
mainbins localized
l~~calizcd
firus movement.
~n~~\,cmcnt.
I n 1127
1127 a
n pronoun
pronoun may be
bc used
i ~ s c dto pop
b:.lck
uld focus.
fizus. There
'I'hcrc the
tlic focus
fucus begins
bcgins on career
carccr in
in law and moves
tnovcs to the
back to an
an old
o f dle
thc speaker,
spcakcr. with
will1 a potcnti;tl
k r u s of
o f (heir
/heir jobs. 'Il,e
l l i c i(i/ in
i n the last
friends of
potential focus
scntcncc co~spccifics
a]-specifics with a law career
cdrccr <lnd
and rccstablishcs
rc-cstablishcs it as focus.
sentence
1)27-1
1127-1 A: Have
Havc you ever
c w r thought
ihought of
o f a;Icareer
carccr in
in law?
law?
2 Il:
~llked with
Ii:I have
havc some
sumc friends
fricnds who
whc~arc lawyers.
lawycrs, and I've
i'vc C~lkcd
thc~nabout thcir
thcirjobs,
f i ~me.
r
them
jobs. but I don't think it's filf
In
because the
at D268
somc readers
rcadcrs find \)26
I126 difficult
diflicult bcc:~usc
tlic transition
transiti~~n
1126-8 is
I n contrast
contrast some
;~brupt for
f i ~ ra
;I pronoull
prn1101111
bc used,
ilscd, especially
cspcci;tlly if
i f anyway
n!lynsay is
is dl'1clcd
dclctcd from the
too abrupt
to be
sentence;
/he bouk
Luok in
in place
pl;sc of
of it;I seems
sccnls to be
bc more
morc acceptable.
acccpti~hlc. 'Illis
'lhis suggests that
scnicncc; the
stacked focus
firus constraint should be
bc modified
niodificd so that
h a t pronouns arc
are not
the stacked
111 co-specify with items
itcms lllorC
111orcthan one
onc position
position back in
in the stack.
intcrprctcd to
1l;lthcr than propose
propusc such
sucll a modification. some
somc additional evidence
cvidcncc about
Rather
discourse
disaursc must first bc
hc considered.
considcrcd.
Thcre
'lhcre arc circumstanccs
circu~nswnccswhcrc the stackcd
swckcd focus
firus constraint,
constraint. in
in its original fonn
form
or modified
modified as suggcsted
suggcstcd above,
ahow. fails to account
account adequately
adcquatcly for,
for some
solnc language
language
bchavior.
behavior. In
I n some
sumc discourses, a pop back to an
an old focus
focus can
can occur with a
pronoun
thc pronoun
pronoun could co-specify with the discourse
discoursc or actor
pronoun cven
cvcn though the
focus.
focus, and
and even
cvcn when
whcn many
Inany foci
f w i intcf\'cnc.
intcrvcnc. In
I n thcse
thcsc cases
cascs the non-local, popping
back movcment
rnovcnlcnt occurs
occun not only
unly because
hccausc a pronoun
pronoun was used, but
hut also because
bccause the
hearcr
hcarcr is aware
awarc of
o f other
othcr stmcturcs
stnlclurcs that help
hclp him
him or her
hcr to disccrn where
whcrc to
t11pop to.
to.
These
'lhcsc slructurcs
svucturcs make
makc it
i t possible
passiblc to usc a pronoun
pr1111ounto move
movc the
thc focus back without
confusion.
below. ili / co-specifics with the
cx;~mplcbelow,
thc pump, not the ratchet
ratchet
confusion. In
I n d,e
the example
discussion when
whcn \)289
1128-9 occurred. It
It appears that in
wrcnch. which was under discussion
wrench.
convcrsations,
conversations, words suchsuch as ok in
in combination
combination with a discoursc
discoursc that rcflccts
rcflccls the
lnsk
possible for speakers
wsk structure
structurc defined
dctincd by [Grosz
[Grosz 1977J.
19771, make
makc it possiblc
speakers to use
pronouns
lo co-spccify
CII-spccify with a phrase
phrasc from an earlier
carlicr part of
o f thc
the discourse.
pronouns La

Sidner

302

D28-1 A: Bolt ~ h pump

c
to dic basc plate. Thcrc arc 4 bolts. 4 nuts
D28-1 A: Bolt ~ lli.!.!D.ll to the base plate. There are 4 bolts, 4 nuts
and 4 washcrs. <hcrc follows an explanation of where to put the
and 4 washers. <here follows an explanation of where to put the
bolts and what tools to use.>
bolts and what tools to use.>
2 1i: I would likc to know if I can takc off thc back plate.
2 B: I would like to know if I can take off the back plate.
3 A: You shouldn't havc to. Arc you having troublc with the
31\: You shouldn't have to. Are you having trouble with the
bolts?
bolts?
4 13: Yes
4 B: Yes
5 A: <Now follows a long discussion of thc usc of thc ratchct
5 A: <Now follows a long discussion of the use of the ratchet
wrcncll. Lhc cxtcnsion iind thc strkct for thc wrcnch. 'Ihe
wrench. the extension .md the socket for the wrench. The
discussion cnds with:> You will usc thc 2" cxrcnsion and a 1/2"
discussion ends with:> You will use the 2" extension and a 112"
strket.
socket.
6
11: IJ is boltcd. N o w what should I do?
6 II: 11 is bolted. Now what should I do?
'Ihc typc of popping hack in discounc illustrated hcrc indicates that the
The type of popping bad in discourse illustrated here indicates that the
fisusing algorithm and thc anilphor intcrprclcr might bc joincd with a mechanism
focusing algorithm and the <lnaphor interpreter might be joined with a mechanism
which rccogni7cs thc task struclilrc assumcd hy a spcakcr, Just such a mcchanism
which recognizes the task structure assumed by a speaker. Just such a mechanism
has bccn proposcd by [Grosz 19771, and anothcr onc, for informal cc~nvcrsations
has been proposed by [Grosz 1977], and another one, for informal conversations
has bccn skctchcd by [ltcichman 19781; how thc algorithm and such mcchanisrns
has been sketched by [Reichman 1978]; how the algorithm and such mechanisms
might bc joincd rcmains lo bc discovered.
might be joined remains to be discovered.
5.2.9 Using thc Focusing ,Ilgoritlim for hlovc~ncnt
5.2.9 Using the Focusing Algorithm for ]\1m'cmcnt

To make clcarcr how Ihc focusing algorithm is uscd For fixus movcrncnt, let us
To make clearer how the focusing algorithm is used for focus movement, let us
trace thc action of the algorithm on thc following cxamplc discourse.
trace the action of the algorithm on the following cxample discourse.
1129-1Alfrcd and 7~1har
likcd to play baseball.
D291 Alfred and Zohar liked to play baseball.
2 'l'hcy playcd it cvcryday aftcr school beforc dinncr.
2 They played it everyday after school before dinner.
3 Aftcr lhcir gamc, Alfrcd and % ~ h ahad
r ice crcam cones.
3 After their game, Alfred and Zohar had icc cream cones.
4 lhcy tastcd rcally good.
4 They tasted really good.
5 Alfrcd always had rhc vanilla supcr scooper,
S Alfred always had the vanilla super scooper,
6 while Zollar tricd thc flavor of thc day cone.
6 while Zohar tried the flavor of the day cone.
7 Afrcr thc concs had bccn eaten.
7 After the cones had been eaten,
8 thc boys wcnt home to study.
8 the boys went home to study.
Using thc cxpcctcd focus algorithm. thc cxpcctcd f i ~ u for
s 1129-1 is baseball
Using the expected focus algorithm, the expected focus for ])29-1 is baseball
(it is t l ~ cthcn~cof thc vcrh complcmcnt). 'I'hcrc arc two pronouns in 1329-2, but
(it is the theme of the verb complement). There are two pronouns in ])29-2, but
only onc is considcrcd by thc discourse firusing algorithm bccausc [hey is in agcnt
only one is considered by the discourse focusing algorithm because they is in agent
position. As shown bclow, bcc:rusc ir co-specifics with thc cxpcctcd firus. the
position. As shown below, because it co-specifics with the expected focus, the
cxpccrcd f t ~ u iss confirmcd its ftxus.
expected focus is confirmed as focus.

303

CF: baseball --specifics--> database rcprcscntation of bascball

CF: baseball specifics--> database representation of baseball

FOCUS S'SACK: empty

FOCUS STACK: empty

A1-FL: verb phrase

ALFL: verb phrase

Scntcncc: 1129-2: 'Ihcy playcd it cvcryday aftcr school bcfnrc dinncr,

Sentence:
D29- 2: They played it everyday after school before dinner.
-------------Anaphors: il co-spccifics with baseball
Anaphors: it co-specifics with baseball
Proccssor at Stcps 1-2: Not applicable
Processor at Steps 12: Not <Ipplicable
at Stcp 3: CF takcn as discourse focus sincc
at Step 3: CF taken as discourse focus since
anaphar co-spccifics with C'F
anaphor co-specifics with CF
D29-3 also mentions bascball, by mcans o f thc dcfinitc noun phrasc /heir game.
029-3 also mcntions baseball, by mcans of the definite noun phrase their game.
'I'his use is a cast of lcxical gcnccili7ation of ftxus, a common Incans of rcfcrring
This usc is a case of lexical generalization of focus, a common means of referring
with an anaphoric dcfinitc noun phrasc. D29-4 shows a lnovcrncnt of thc focus.
with an anaphorie definite noun phrase. D29-4 shows a movement of the focus.

CF: 'bascball --specifics--> darabasc rcprcscntation of bascball

CF: 'baseball --specifies--) database representation of baseball
ALFL: ice creoln coilex, vcrb phrasc FOCUS STACK: empty
AlFL: ice cream COlles, verb phrase FOCUS STACK: empty
Scntcnce: D29-4: They tastcd rcally good.
Sentence: D29-4: They tasted really good.
Anaphors: they co-spccifies with icecrearn cones in ALFL
Anaphors:
they co-specifies with ice cream cones in ALFL
....................

Processor at Stcps 1 4: Not applicable

Processor at Stcps 1- 4: Not applicable
at Stcp 5: Sincc no anaphor co-specifics with CF, stack CF
at Step 5: Since no anaphor co-specifics with CF, stack CF
and takc CF as ice creorji conesplus its
and take
CF as ice cream
cones plus
spcciiication.
I>iscoursc
focusitsis CF.
specification. Discourse focus is CF.

1129-4 contains thc anaphor they. Sincc. on syn~acticgrounds. it dtxs not

1)29-4 contains the anaphor they. Since. on syntactic grounds, it docs not
co-spccify with thc fwus, the AL.I:I, (scl to thc PFI. hcforc thc start of the
co-specify with the focus. the ALFL (set to the PFI. bef()re the start of the
focusing algorithm) contains ice cream ones. an acccptablc co-spccificr for they.
focusing algorithm) contains ice cream cones. an acceptable co-specifier for they,
so ice cream cones is confirmed as focus. The old fwus of bascball is stackcd in
so ice cream cones is confirmed as focus. 'The old focus of baseball is stacked in
thc focus stack. In just this way. focus moves. In fJ~crcmaining two scntcnces
the focus stack, In just this way. focus moves. In the remaining two sentences
each ice crcam cone is spokcn about scparatcly using dcfinitc noun phrascs; this
each icc cream cone is spoken about separatcly using definite noun phrases; this

Sidncr

304

phcnomcnon, callcd co-prcscnt ftrci, will bc discussed later.

phenomenon, called co-present foci, will be discussed later.
Wc havc sccn that a proccss ~nodclof focusing and fixus tracking consists of
We have seen tlmt a process model of focusing and focus tracking consists of
thrcc sub-proccsscs. 'Ihc first, tllc fixus rccogniccr, ch(x)scsan cxpcctcd focus
three sub-processes. The first, the focus recogniler, chooses an expected focus
bascd on what thc spcaker initially sc~ys, l'hcn an intcq~rctcrapplics its rules of
based on what the speaker initially ~IYS. Then an interpreter applies its rules of
intcrprctalion, which makc usc of thc ftxus to intcrprct thc annphoric cxprcssions
interpretation, which make usc of the focus to interpret the anaphoric expressions
in thc ncxt scntcncc of thc discoursc. A third prtrcssor. Lhc ft~usingalgorithm,
in the next sentence of tllC discourse. /\ third processor. the fncusing algorithm,
updates Ihc firus using dlc an;~phorinccrprcrations to dccidc cifhcr to confirm an
updates the focus using the ilnaphor interpretations to decide either LO confirm an
ini~i;ildiscoursc pRr;isc as cxpcctcd ftrctls, 1n;lintain an cst;lhlishcd discoursc focus,
initial discourse phrase as expected focus, maintain an csWhlished discourse focus,
movc thc f i ~ u to
s a ncw plirasc in dlc discoursc or shiR rhc focus hack lo a phrasc
move tlK' focus to a new phrase in t.he discourse or shift the focus had to a phrase
~n
~ h i c hwas o ~ ~ cinc focus. 'I'hc inlctprctcr and rhc fixusing a l g ~ r i t l ~cycle
v. hich was once in focus. The interpreter and the focusing algorithm cycle
through the rc~nainingdiscoursc. Our undcrstancting of anuphor intcrprctation
through the remaining discourse. Our understanding of anaphor interpretat.ion
cxprcssion
uould not bc cu~nplctcwidlout an cxplaniition of Lhc a~~ilphoric
v.ould not be complete without an explanation of tile anaphoric expression
intcrprc~cr; to illustrate its behavior and to p1,ovidc a theory of anaphor
interpreter; to illustrate its behavior and to provide a meory of anaphor
in~crprc~ation,
thc rulcs it uscs for pcrsonal pn)nouns and for this-thal anaphora
interpretation, me rules it uses for personal pronouns and for this-thaI anaphora
a111bc prcscntcd and cxplaincd.
will be presented and explained.

5.3 Focus for t'rotloun Inlcrprctation

5.3 Focus for I~rotloun Interpretation
In h i s scction, I will show how thc discoursc, actor, potcntial and sucked foci can
In 'this section, I will show how me discourse, actor, potential and stacked foci can
bc uscd by a rulc-governcd intcrprctcr for finding the co-specifications of
be used by a rule-governed interpreter for finding me co-specifications of
pronouns. I will discuss thc gcncral form of thc n~lcsand sornc of tI1c interaction
pronouns. I will discuss the general form of the niles and some of the interaction
problcms bctwccn h e actor and discoursc foci that must bc rcsolvcd. Thcn I will
problems between the actor and discourse foci that must be resolved. Then I will
turn to how Ihc stackcd foci are uscd in rhcsc rulcs. Following this disc~~ssion.
I
turn to how tile stacked foci are used in these rules. Following this discussion, I
will rcvicw a numbcr of cxamplcs whcrc the pronouns intcrprclcr cannot function
will review a number of examples where the pronouns interpreter cannot function
adcqitatcly unlcss a rcprcscntation of scupc and rclatcd matters arc included in the
adcql~ately unless a representation of scope and related matters arc included in the
rcprcscntr~tionof specifications. Using Wcbbcr's rcprcscntation in h i s volume, I
represenwtion of specifications. Using Webber's representation in this volume, I
will discuss how thcsc are trcatcd. 'Thcn I will point out some uscs of pronouns
will discuss how these are treated. Then I will point out some uses of pronouns
which rcmain unaccounted for in the focusing theory.
which remain unaccounted for in the focusing theory.
'Ihc fixusing thcory assumcs that when intcrprctation rulcs for anaphora are
"ille focusing theory assumes that when interpretation rules for anaphora are
"run" by thc intcrprctcr, thcrc arc scvcral groups of discoursc clcmcnts available
"run" by the interpreter, there arc several groups of discourse elempnts available
as possiblc ct)-spccificrs: the discoursc fiwus and its assrxiatcd potcntial and
as possible co-specifiers: tile discourse filClIS and its associated potential and
stackcd ftxi, and thc actor focus and its assc~iatcdfoci. 'Ihc intcrprctcr must
stacked foci, and the actor focus and its associated foci. 'Ibe interpreter must
cht)osc among Lhcsc possiblc clcmcnts using constraints from scntcncc structure
choose among mese possible clements using constraints from sentence structure
and scmantics, and thc hcarcr's knowlcdgc of thc world. In this scction an account
and semantics, and me hearer's knowledge of the world. In this section an account
of thc intcrprctations of pronouns for cxamplcs which havc appcared prcviously
of the interpretations of pronouns for examples which have appeared previously
will bc given.
will be given.
Thc proposal made hcrc contains two implicit proccssing assumptions, (1)
The proposal made here contains two implicit processing assumptions, 0)
scrial proccssing, and (2) cnd-of-scntcncc processing. l3y "scrial proccssing," I
serial processing, and (2) end-of-sentence processing. By "serial processing," I
mean that thc intcrprctcr checks a focus as a candidate for thc intcrprctation of a
mean that the interpreter checks a focus as a candidate for the interpretation of a

305

pr(Im1lln.
;lnd then
thcn if
i f that focus
firus is unaccept.lhle,
unacccpt~blc,checks alternate
altcrnatc candidates
candidatcs in
in
pronoon, and
Hy "end-of-sentence
"cnd-of-scntcncc pr~rcssing."
Incan that prcmauns
intcrprctcd
turn. By
processing," I1 mean
pronouns arc not interpreted
Uic entire
cntirc sentence
scntcncc has
has heen
hccn syntactically
syntactic:~llyand semantically
scni:~nticallyinterpreted.
intcrprctcd. Both
until O,e
u f these
Uicsc criteria can
can he
hc given
givcn lip
up without undermining
undcrtnining the
thc focusing
hrusing theory.
theory. One
One
of
col~ldcl1\'ision
cn\.ision processing
prl~cssingin
in parallcl
pnrallcl by checking
checking the
thc foci and alternates
altcrnatcs and
and then
could
determining
thosc candidates
candidatcs
dclcrrnining the
thc pronuun's
prt~nuun'sspecification
spccification from an
;in ordering of
i ~allf those
that
for interpretation
th:tt meet
111ccrthe
thc criteria of
o f choice:
ch~~icc:
intcrprct;ltiun of
o f pronouns
pronoonc before
bcfurc the
Uic end
cnd of
of
the
lonccivahly
tlic sentence.
SCII~CIICC.
~ i ~ ~ i c c i v a the
tlic
b l y pronollll
p r ~ n o u ninterpreter
intcrprctcr could
col~ldchouse
chousc a specification
spccification
frum <l\'<lilahlc
;~v;iili~hlcin
inL~nn;ltion
;~ndthen
Uicn review
rcvicw it as more
murc {)f
Of the
Ulc sentence
scntcncc is
is
from
furmation and
prtrcsscd.
'lhcsc
two
ituplicit
pr~rccssing
assuniptic~ns
1h;l
v
c
hccn
tnadc
bccnuse
processed. These
implicit processing assumptions h;:IVC been made because
Uicy simplify the
tllc account
accoltnt of
o f focusing
fixusing and
and because
hccausc they
tlicy reflect
rcflcct an implemented
i~nplcmcntcd
they
version
syslc~ilwith focusing.
fircusing. Further
FurUicr research
rcscarcll will indkate
indicatc whether these
vcrsion of
o f a system
assumptions
assuniptions arc too
t i x ~strong--ifso,
sm~ng--ifso. the
thc focusing
firusing theory
tlicory can be
hc revised.
rcviscd.

5.3.1 Using
I:ocss for
lor Pronoun
I'ronot~nInterpretation
Intcrprut:~tionRules
Rules
Using Focus
1.0begin
hcgin the disclission.
discussion. let
lct us consider a
3 pronoun
pro~iouninterpretation
intcrprctatian rule
rulc that follows
follws
To
natur;llly from the
thc discussion
disct~ssionof
o f focus
firus and focus
firus mov,me11l
moverncnl in
in the
thc first half of
o f this
naturally
chaptcr. This
'l'his rule
rulc is not adequate
adcquatc for reasons
rcasons II will discuss
discuss hclow
chapter.
below and will be
revised
rcviscd over
ovcr the
thc course
coursc of
o f the
thc section.
scction.

R1:
Ill: If O,e
UCI pronoun under
undcr interpretation
intcrprctation appears
appcars in
in a sentence
tlrcm:~licrelation
rclalion uther
uthcr than agenl,
agcnc choose
choosc the
Uic discourse focus
focus
thematic
as the
Uic co-specifier
co-spccificr unless
unlcss any of
o f the syntactic,
syntactic. semantic
scmantic and
infcrcntial knowiedge
knowlcdgc constraints
constraints rule
rulc out the choi.ce.
chaise. If the
inferel1lial
pronoun appears
appcars in
in agent
agcnt position. choose
choosc the actor focus
focus as
pronoun
co-speciJier
thc same
wme way.
co-spccilicr in
in the
lluling out a co-specifier
co-spccificr on the hasis
hasis of
o f syntactic
synwctic and semantic
scmantic constraints
constraints is
Ruling
accomplished
thc various
various syntactic
synwclic relationships
relationships and restrictions
rcstrictions
accomplished by computing the
(such as Lasnik's
l.asnik's disjoint feference
rcfcrcncc fules)
rules) and by use
usc of
of semantic
scmantic selC'ctional
sclrctional
rcstrictions (such
(sucll as those
t l i ~ ~ sof
ocf Fodor
141dor and
and Kat/.
Katr discussed in
in the
thc beginning
beginning of
o f this
restrictions
chaptcr) on sentence
scnrcncc thelnutic
Uic~natic categories.
catcgorics.
knowlcdgc, the
chapter)
For inferential knowledge,
pr~rcssdiscLissed
discuwcd earlier
carlicr is
is used.
uscd.
inferring pnK'ess
When
sugjicstcd co-speciJier
co-spccilicr for
fur a pronoun
pronoun must be
hc given
givcn up,
up. R1 docs not
Wllcn a suggested
suggcst how to proceed
pnxccd in
in using
using either
ciUicr the
thc ,(ctor
istor or the
thc discourse focus
f < r i ~ to
s find
suggest
somc other
otlicr choice
choicc for a co-specifier.
co-spccilicr. It
I t is here
hcrc the
thc potential
are used, as
some
potential foci arc
illustrated
below,
illustratcd in
in the example
cxamplc bclow.

Sidner

306

1129-1 Alfrcd and Zohar likcd to play bascball.

1)29-1 Alfred and Zohar liked to play baseball.
2 l'hcy playcd it cvcryday artcr school bcforc dinncr.
2 They played it everyday after school before dinner.
3 hftcr tlicir gamc. Alfrcd and Zohar had icc crcam concs.
3 After their game. Alfred and Zohar had icc cream cones.
4'lhc boys thought Lhcy mtcd rcally good.
4 The boys thought they l<tsted really good.
5 Alfrcd always had thc vanilla supcr scoopcr,
S Alfred always had the vanilla super scooper,
6 whilc Zoliar tricd thc flavor of thc day cone.
6 while Zohar tried the flavor of the day cone.
7 hftcr thc ct~ncshad bccn catcn.
7 Afler the cones had been eaten,
8 thc boys wc111ho~ncto study.
8 the boys went home to study.
Alfrcd and Zohar arc thc initial acror f ~ ~ i whilc
rs
bascball is thc initial
Alfred and Zohar arc the initial actor fl>Cus while baseball is the initial
discoursc ~ ( K U1129-2
S . contains two pronouns, thrjv iind i/ which. according to Iil,
discourse fl>Cus. 1)29-2 contains two pronouns, II1('y and il whiL:h, according to RI,
co-spccify rcspcctivcly with Alfrcd i~ndZohar, and bascbatl. 1129-3 uscs [heir.
co-specify respectively with Alfred and Zohar, and baseball. 1)29-3 lIses their,
wliich co-specifics with Alfrcd and Zohi~r.but is not sccountcd for by rulc R1.
which co-specifics with Alfred and Zohar. but is not aL:counted for by rule RI.
t;orthcrmorc ri~f),
in 1129-4 docs not co-spccify with bascball but with ice crcam
Furthermore thry in 1)29-4 docs not co-specify with baseball but with icc cream
concs. IIow docs thc intcrprctcr concludc thcsc facts?
cones. How docs the interpreter conclude these facts?
It1 must bc cxtcndcd in a rnanncr that takcs advantage of thc potcntial foci.
RI must be extended in a manner that takes advant:Jge of tile potential foci,
discusscd cnrlicr. lhat arc available to tllc ft~usingalgorithm and thc anaphor
discussed earlier, that arc available to tile foellsing algoritlltn and the :maphor
intcrprctcr. 'Ihc potcntial firi call bc uscd whcncvcr thc currcnt actor or
illlerpreter. The potential fl>ci can be used whenever the current actor or
discaursc firus is rulcd out by critcria from syntax, sc~nanticsor infcrcntial
discourse focus is ruled out by criteria from syntax. semantics or inferential
knowledge. 'lbus sincc rift.)? in 1129-4 cannot co-specify with bascball (on both
knowledge. Thus since they in 1)29-4 cannot co-specify with baseball (on both
syntactic1 and scrnantic grounds), a potcntial focus is choscn. Whcthcr the
syntactic] and semantic 2 grounds). a potential focus is chosen. Whether the
potcntial focus bccomcs thc actor or discoursc focus dcpcnds on whcthcr the
potential focus becomes tile actor or discourse focus depends on whether tile
pronoun is used as an agcnl. In 1129-4, they is thc thcme, so t l ~ cdiscourse
pronoun is used as an agent. In 1)29-4, they is the theme, so the discourse
potcntial foci arc uscd. 'lhc first potcntial focus which mccts all thc constraints is
potential foci arc used. The first potential focus which meets all the constraints is
chosen as thc co-spccificr; in D29-4, icc crcam concs is thc first acceptable
chosen as tile co-specifier; in 029-4. ice cream cones is the first acceptable
potcntial focus which mccts all thc ncccssary constraints as a co-spccificr for they.
potential focus which meets al1 tile necessary constraints as a co-specifier for they.
Usc of R1 rnodificd in this way follows hand-in-hand with the focusing
Usc of Rl modified in this way follows hand-in-hand with the focusing
algorithm discusscd previously. 'Ihc algorithm updates its discoursc model after
algorithm discussed previously. The algorithm updates its discourse model after
each scntcncc by tracking pronoun use. Whcn a pronoun is used to co-specify a
each sentence by tracking pronoun usc. When a pronoun is used to co-specify a
new potcntial focus, either thc discourse focus or actor focus moves to that
new potential focus, either the discourse focus or actor focus moves to that
potcntial focus; which focus moves dcpcnds on whcthcr the pronoun fills the
potential focus; which focus moves depends on whether the pronoun fills the
agcnt position in thc vcrb framc, and in thc casc of multiple agents, whethcr the
agent position in the verb frame. and in the case of multiple agents, whether the
ongoing actor fmus is rc-mcntioncd. For cxamplc, after 1129-4, thc discourse
ongoing actor focus is re-mentioned. For example, after D29-4, the discourse
focus cllangcs to icc cream concs bccausc they co-spccifics with the icc crcam
focus changes to ice cream cones because they co-specifics with the ice cream
concs; thc boys rcrnain tlic actor f(sus. since [hey is not an agcnt casc for rnsle and
cones; the boys remain the actor focus. since they is not an agent case for taste and
sincc thc boys wcrc already rhc actor focus.
since the boys were already the actor focus.
l'hc pronoun intcrprctation rulc takcs into account thc movcmcnt of focus and
The pronoun interpretation rule takes into account the movement of focus and

1. Tlrcy is a plural pronoun while baseball is singular.

I. Tirey 2is aThe
plural
pronoun
while ba'iChall is singular,
discourse
itcrns filling the object case orwte should &&?able items.
1 The discourse items filling the object l'<lSe orwte should be !astable items.

307
constraints on syntax, scmsntics and itifcrcntial knowlcdgc. Howcvcr, some
constraints on syntax, semantics and inferential knowledge. However, some
additional pragmatic critcria nccd to bc addcd to dcal with thc intcractions
additional pragmatic criteria need to be added to deal with the interactions
betwccn actor and discoursc foci. bccausc a pronoun in agent position may
between actor and discourse foci, because a pronoun in agent position may
co-specify with thc discoursc fcxus rathcr than thc actor focus! Onc such examplc
co-specify with the discourse focus rather than the actor focus! One such example
of this observation is below.
of this observation is below.
D30-1 I haven't sccn Jcff for scvcral days.
D30-1 I haven't seen Jeff for several days.
2 Carl thinks hc's studying for his exams.
2 Carl thinks he's studying for his exams.
3 but it's obvious tonic Illat hc wcnt to thc Capc wilh Linda,
3 but it's obvious to me that he went to the Cape with Linda.
Although Carl is thc actor focus aftcr 1130-2. and he in D3O-3 is an agent
Although Carl is the actor focus after D30-2, and he in D30-3 is an agent
tlicmatic rclation in thc cmbcddcd scntcncc. thc prtipcr choice Tor tile co-spccificr
thematic relation in the embedded sentence, the proper choice ror the co-specifier
of ht. is Jcff. Italhcr than suggcst that Carl is considcrcd as thc co-spccificr and
of he is JetT. Rather than suggest that Carl is considered as the co-specifier and
thcn is rulcd oul (which sccms unlikely as thcrc arc no syiitactic, semantic or
then is ruled out (which seems unlikely as there arc no syntactic, semantic or
knowlcdgc constraints whicli climinatc it). onc might ask whclhcr Carl is ever
knowledge constraints which eliminate it), one might ask whether Carl is ever
cvcn considcrcd for prt~cssing. I n D30 it appcars not. 'Ihc discussion is about
even considered for processing. In D30 it appears not. 'Ille discussion is about
Jcff. who is introduced first. whilc Ulc actors sccln rclativcly incidcntal. In general
JetT. who is introduced first, while the actors seem relatively incidental. In general
such cascs arc rcsolvcd bccausc if the disr-oursc focus is animate and is established
such cases arc resolved because if the discourse focus is animate and is established
carlicr in thc discoursc than tl~cactor f i ~ u s thc
. dieoursc focus takcs prcccdence
earlier in the discourse than the actor filCUS, the discourse focus takes precedence
cvcn for pronouns in agcnt position. In csscncc this approach takcs thc discourse
even fOf pronouns in agent position. In essence this approach tilkes the discourse
focus as pritnary, the discoursc focus being what thc spcakcr is tajking about so far
focus as primary, the discourse focus being what the speaker is talking about so far
whitc ihc actor focus is Ltlc locus of infomiation about actions in thc discoursc.
while the actof focus is the locus of information about actions in the discourse.
'Ihis prcccdcncc rulc docs nor indicatc what to do whcn thc discoursc focus
'\his precedence rule docs not indicate what to do when the discourse focus
and actor focus arc both animatc, havc thc same gcndcr, number and person, and
and <Ictor focus arc both animate, have the same gender, number and person, and
arc both cstablishcd during the samc scntcncc of the discoursc. lntcrcstingly
are both established during the samc sentcnce of the discourse. Interestingly
cnough, pcoplc somctimcs havc difficulty choosing intcrprctations in such
enough. people sometimes have difficulty choosing interpretations in such
circumstances. In D31-2a below, he co-specifics with Johrt.(thc actor focus) but jf
circumstances. In D31-2a below, he co-specifics with John(the actor focus) but if
1131-2b followcd D31-1, he may co-specify with cithcr John or Mike (the expected
DJl-2b followed DJH, he may co-specify with either John or Mike (the expected
discourse focus).
discourse focus).
D31-1John callcd up Mikc yesterday.
031-1 John called up Mike yesterday.
2 a. Iic wanted to discuss his physics homework.
2 a. He wanted to discuss his physics homework.
b. Hc was studying for his driver's test.
b. He was studying for his driver's test
In these cases, nativc speakers rcport that thc co-spccificr for thc pronoun is
In these cases, native speakers report that the co-specifier for the pronoun is
ambiguous. If the pnlnoun fills an agcnt rclation, thc actor focus is prcfcrrcd, but
ambiguous. If the pronoun fills an agent relation, the actor focus is prefcrrcd, but
this prcfcrcncc is not a strong onc. It appcars h a t in such cascs thc ambiguity may
this preference is not a strong one. It appears that in such cases thc ambiguity may
not hc casily rcsolvcd unlcss additional information about thc two fwi is known
not be easily resolved unless additional information about the two foci is known
that stipulates that thc scntcncc is truc ofonly one.
that stipulates that the sentence is true ofonly one.
What about thc intcrprctation of posscssivc pronouns such as their in 1129-3?
What about the interpretation of possessive pronouns such as their in D2931

Sidner

Sidncr

J08

308

'l'hc general rulc for posscssivcs' can bc formulatcd as: if thc discoursc fixus and
The general rule for possessives! can be formulated as: if the discourse focus and
actor ftlcus wcrc not cstablishcd in thc samc scnrcncc of thc discourse, Lhcn the
actor focus were not established in the same sentence of the discourse, then the
discoi~rscfocus is thc co-spccificr (if acccptablc on thc untal grounds); if d ~ e
discourse focus is the co-specifier (if acceptable on the usual grounds); jf the
diroursc focus was unacceptable. thc actor focus is chcckcd for acccptability and
discourse focus was unacceptable, the actor focus is checked for acceptability and
that failing, thc po[cntial discoursc foci arc considcrcd; if both wcrc cstablishcd in
that failing, the potential discourse foci arc considered; if both were established in
thc snmc scntcncc, tlic usc will bc ambiguous. As in thc intcrprctation of pcrsonal
the same sentence, the usc will be ambiguous. As in the interpretation of personal
pronouns, this n ~ l cshows that tllc discourse ftxus takc prcccdencc as the
pronouns, this rule shows thilt the discourse focus take precedence as the
co-spccificr. Unlikc thc casc of pcrsonal pronouns. {heir is nlnbiguous bctwccn
cospccifier. Unlike the case of person'll pronouns, their is ambiguous between
agcnts and othcr discoursc clcmcnts: whcn thc p~.cccdsnceof ihc discoursc focus
agents and other discourse clements: when the precedence of the discourse focus
cannot bc cst~l~lishcd,
ambiguity occurs. Only when lhc discoursc fixus is not a
cannot be established, ambiguity occurs. Only when the discourse focus is not a
possihlc co-spccificr. ciln the actor f t ~ u I)c
s cclnsidcrcd witliout ambiguity.
possible co-specifier. can the actor focus he considered without ambiguity.
Anotlicr sourcc of a~nbiguityoccurs whcn an actor and onc potcntial actor are
Another source of ambiguity occurs when an aClor and one potential actor are
both prcscnt in s prciio~~s
scntcncc wlicrc thc discoursc ftxt~sis a non-animate
both present in a pre\iOllS sentence where the discourse focus is a non-animate
clcmcnt. An cxa~nplcis givcli bclow. Supposc that scntcncc (21) bclow followcd
clement. An eX'lmple is given below. Suppose that sentence (21) below followed
c;rh of (22). (23), (24) and (25).
each of(n), (23), (24) and (25).
(?I) klc knows;~lot about high cncrgy physics.
(21) He knows a lot about high energy physics.
(22) l'rof. llarby will tcll hlonty ahout tlic ncutron cxpcrimcnt.
(22) Prof. Darby will tell Monty about the neutron experiment.
(23) Prof. I3arby will lccti~rcMonty on h c ncutron cxpcrimcnt.
(23) Prof. Darby will lecture Monty on the neutron experiment.
(21) Prof. 13arhy will Iiclp Monty with L ~ nc~~trgn
C
cxpcriment.
(24) Prof. Darby will help Monty with the neutron experiment.
(25) I'rof. Ilarby ill tcach Monty about thc ncutron cxperimcnt.
(25) Prof. Darby will te<Jeh Monly about the neutron experiment.
Somc nativc spcakcrs find all of thcsc scntcncc pain ambiguous, while some
Some native speakers find all of these sentence pairs ambiguous, while some
nativc spcakcrs find only thc pair (22) followcd by (21) ambiguous. These
native speake~ find only the pair (22) followed by (21) ambiguous. These
cxamplcs arc surprisingly similar to D31. Fiow do snmc spcakcrs dccidc that he
examples arc surprisingly similar 10 D31. How do some spcakers decide that he
co-spccifics with hlonty or Prof. Ilarby? It appcars that lhcy makc a comparison
co-specifics with f\1onty or Prof. Darby? It appears that they make a comparison
and chonsc bctwccn thc actor focus and thc potcntial actor on the basis of
and choosc between the actor focus and the potential actor on the basis of
cvidcncc for thcir prcfcrrcd intcrprctation. When that cvidcnce is not
evidence for their preferred interpretation.
When that evidence is not
forlhcuming, informants arc confuscd. Such a bchavior suggests that tllc inferring
forthcoming, informants arc confused. Such a behavior suggests that the inferring
proccss postuintcd thus far should bc capable of a spccial judgrncnt whcn given
process postulated thus far should be capable of a spccial judgment when given
onc actor and onc potcnrial actor; it must wcigh its findings, and clioosc onc of the
onc actor and onc potential actor; it must weigh its findings, and choose one of the
t w o candidates as supcrior.
two candidatcs as supcrior.
What kind of cvidcncc can bc uscd in such cascs? 'l'hc hcarcr knows that thcrc
What kind of evidence can be used in such cases? The hearer knows thaI there
is sonic pcrson namcd Monty, who is probably malc, that thcrc is a professor
is some person named Monty, who is probably male, that there is a professor
n;~mcdl)arby, possibly nialc as well, that Ilarby is giving information to Monty
namcd Darby, possihly male as well, that Darby is giving information to Monly
~ I H I I I SOIIIC
~
physics cxpcrimc~it,tllc cxpcrimcnt bcing mnrkcd by thc dcfitiite
ahout somc physics cxperimcnt, the cxperiment being marked by thc definite
ai-tick ;aknt~wnto llic hcarcr, as wcll as somc critcria for dctcnnining who knows
article as known to the hearer, as wcll as somc criteria for detennining who knows
a lot about high cncrgy physics in thc context of tcaching. hclping, or lecturing.
a lot about high encrgy physics in the (wntext of teaching, helping, or lccturing.

1. Somc spcciaf cases rcquirc a Tcw addllional rulcs (ha1 arc discuswd Tully in [Sidncr 19791
1. Some SJlccial ca~ require a few additional rules thaI arc discussed fully in [Sidncr ]979].

309
A c o m p u t ~ t i o ~syslcm
li~
that makes such judgmcnts musf havc a vcry rich
II. computatiollal system that makes such judgments must have a very rich
knowlcdgc basc (that is. to know that Monty is 3 ~nalcnamc. that prclfcsson can
knowledge base (tilat is, to know that Monty is a male name, that professors can
bc malt. Lhnt professors arc cxpcrts. fiat neutron cxpcri~ncnts arc physics
be male. Ulat professors are experts, that neutron experiments are physics
cxpcri~ncnts)and hc ahlc to draw infcrcnccs from that basc. Nonc of this is
experiments) and he ahle to draw inferences from that base. NOlle of this is
surprising: howcvcr, a co~npotationalframework Tor carrying out such subtle
surprising: however, a computational framework for carrying out such subtle
judgnlcnts is still hcyond thc state of tllc art. 'l'llc mattcr of wcighing cvidcnce to
judgments is still heyond the state of the art. Tile matter of weighing evidence to
is si~nitarto thc sc~nanticcl~oiccincchanism
dccidc bctwccn t w o ciitidid;~~cs
decide hetween two candidates is similar to the semantic choice me(;hanism
postulated by [Marcus 19801 fi)r p'lrsing ccriain kinds of slructurcs such as
postu1<ned by [M,lrcUS 1980) for parsing certain kinds of structures such as
~ ~ ' c p o ~ i t i ophrnscs.
n;~I
'Ibis dcvicc, iihcn i~ltachingprcposilional phrascs. asks the
prepositional phrases. 'Illis device, when allaching prepositional phrases. asks the
scm;i~lticprtrccssor ; ~ h t ~its
u t prcfcrcr~ccsfur making tlic attachincnt.
semantic processor ah(llit its preferences for making the atwchmenl.
In sttinmary. tliis kind of ambiguity can hc gcncrillly handlcd with thc
[n summary. this kind of amhiguity can be genemlly handled with the
following condition.
rllllowing condition.
POTENTIAL ACTOR AMIlIGUITY CONDITION:

Whcncvcr a pronoun mity co-spccify with Lhc actor focus. and a

Whenever a pronoun may co-specify with the actor focus, and a
singlc polcnlial actor cxists, cxpcct a poniblc a~~ihiguity.'To
single rcsolve
POlclHialit, actor exists. expect a possible ambiguity. To
resolve1.it, 1.ook for c\.idcncc supporting thc statcmcnt in which h e
1. I.ook
for elidence
supporting
the isstatement
in actor
whichf ~theu as
s he
pmnoun
occurs. cvidcncc
which
lruc of thc
pronoun
occurs.
evidence
whieh
is
true
of
the
actor
focus
the the
co-spccificr, bui not of lhc potctitial actor. If this isasfound,
bUI not
of co-spccificr.
the potential actor. If this is found, the
co-specifier.
is tlic
actor focus
actor focus
is
the
co-specifier.
2. Cl~oosct l ~ cpotential actor whcn cvidcncc cxists fur it but
2. Choose
actor when evidence exists for it but
11otforthethcpotential
actor focus.
nut for3.OleHowc\lcr.
actor focus.
if thcrc is cvidcncc true fur both, choosc the actor
3. However,
if there
is evidence
for both, choose the actor
indicstc
possiblc true
ambiguity.
focus but
focus but indicate possible ambiguity.
A summary of a full set of rulcs for interpreting posscssi\~cand personal
A summary of a full set of rules for interpreting possessive and personal

pronouns can bc found in [Sidncr 19791. In this scction wc havc considcrcd thcir
pronouns can be found ill lSidner 1979). In this section we have considered their
motivation and gcncral form. 'I'hcsc rulcs rcprcscnt what can bc said about
motivation and general fonn. These rules represent what can bc said about
pronoun intcrprctation in thc abscncc o f any additional information in knowledge
pronoun interpretation in the absence of any additional infonnation in knowledge
rcprcscntation bcyond that suggcstcd in thc discussion of co-specification. 1.0
representation beyond that suggested in the discussion of co-specification. To
intcrprct ccrtain pronouns, such as thosc whcrc a co-spccifying phrasc docs not
interpret certain pronouns, such as those where a co-specifying phrase docs not
prcccdc thc pronoun in thc discourse. as in Lhc previously givcn 111, we must
precede the pronoun in the discourse, as in the previously givcn Ill, we must
considcr how knowlcdgc is structurcd and rcprcscntcd. It is to this mi~ttcrthat wc
consider how knowledge is structured and rcpresented. It is to this maller that we
now turn.
now turn.

Sidner

310

5.3.2 Focus and Knoalcdgc Rcprcscntation

5.3.2 Focus and Kno\\lcdge Representation
[VanLchn 19781 prcscnts cxtcnsive cvidcncc for thc vicw that pcople do not
[VanLchn 1978] presents extensive evidence for he view that people do not
nonnally disambiguate the scopc of ccrtain ambiguous quatltificrs whcn
nonnally disambiguate the scope of certain ambiguous quantifiers when
undcrstandina scntcnccs such as 1132-1.'
understanding sentences such as 1)32-1. 1
1132-1 Wcndy gavc cach girl I3mcc knows a crayon.
D32-) Wendy gave each girl Bmce knows a crayon.
2 Shc ilscd it to draw a Christmas card for hcr ~nothcr.
2 She used it to draw a Christmas card filr her mother.
tjc rcvicws Ihc major tlicorics of scoping phcnomcna and concludes that
He reviews the major theories of scoping phenomena and concludes that
diumbigu;~tionof quilntifier scopc docs not sccln to takc placc during parsing or
disambiguation of quantifier scope docs not seem 10 take place during parsing or
scmantic intcrprcta~ion of a scntcncc iind that Ihc dctcrmination of qurtntifrcr
semantic interpretation of a sentence and that the determination of quantifier
scopc is tllc rcsult of othcr linguistic prtxcssing.
scope is the result of other linguistic processing.
'1'0 cxplaitr rhc colnprchcnsion of 1132 abovc, somc underlying scmantic fonn
To explain the comprehension of 1)32 ahove, some underlying semanlic fonn
rcprcscnting scopc is nccdcd at somc point in Lhc processing of thc discourse. In
representing scope is needed at some poinl in the processing of the discourse. In
this volurnc, Wcbbcr ;lrgtlc\ ~a
rcprcscntation of scopc is nccdcd and what the
this volume, Webber argues why a representation of scope is needed and what the
rcprcscntation should bc. What rcrnai~lsto bc dctcrmincd is when it is uscd. The
representation should be. What remains to be determined is when it is used. The
prtmoon intcrprctcr rcq~~ilcs
such a rcprcscntation, for cxamplc. to clitwsc thc
pronoun interpreter requires such a representation. for example. to choose he
propcr co-spccificrs of she and i! in 1132-2. 'Ilic intcrp~.ctcr'sbchavior indicates
proper co-specifiers of she and it in D32-2. '111c intcrpreter's behavior indicates
that such a rcprcscntarion is necdcd, not in thc initial dc[crmi~i;~tion
o f a focus, but
that such a representation is needed, not in the initial determiriation ofa focus, but
in thc proccss of detcrmi~iingthc pronoun's co-spccitcr. 'Ibis use of scope
in the process of determining the pronoun's co-specifier. This use of scope
information is compatible with Van I chn's findings bccausc interpretations of
information is compatible with Van I ehn's findings because interpretations, of
scope art: not considered until ;idditional discourse material bcyond the single
scope arc not considered until additional discourse material beyond the single
scntcncc is prcscntcd.
sentence is presented.
A crayon in D32 may bc uscd to spccify objects which can be rcprcscnted by
A crayon in D32 may be used to specify objects which can be represented by
the formal rcprcscntations of Wcbbcr (Chaptcr 6 in this volurnc). Rathcr than Iist
the formal representations of Webber (Chapter 6 in this volume). Rather than list
thc actual fonnal notation, a paraphrase will bc prcscnted.
the actual fonnal notation, a paraphrase will be presented.
The first rcprcscntation (call it R1) cxprcsscs that h e r e is a
The first
representation
(call that
it RI)
is a
uniquc
sct of cntitics
arcexpresses
crayons that
and there
wcre cvokcd
in
are
crayons
and
were
evoked
in one
uniqueD32-1.
set ofl'hc
entities
that
members of the sct arc distributed so that each
D32-1.was
Thegivcn
members
of thetoset
arc distributed
so that
eachknows.
one 'Ihe
by Wcndy
somc
onc of thc girls
Brucc
was given
by
Wendy
to
some
onc
of
the
girls
Brucc
knows.
'Inc
rcprcscntation lcavcs open whcthcr all thc crayons wcre given
representation leaves open whether all the crayons were given
out, but makcs explicit the fact that all thc girls got crayons.
out, but makes explicit the fact that al1 the girls got crayons.
'lhc second rcprcscntation (call it R2) rcprcsents a crayon as a
The second representation (call it R2) represents a crayon as a
uniqr~csinglcton objcct that is a crayon and was cvokcd in
unique1132-1.
singleton
object
a crayon
and wasenlity
evoked
It win
givcnthat
by isWcndy
to a uniquc
thatinis a girl
D32-1.and
It was given by Wendy to a unique entity that is a girl
that is prototypic of thc girls Ijrucc knows.
and that is prototypic of he girls Bruce knows.

1. Some inrormanls find this example unacceptable hglish because they cannot dcdde whether she
1 Some informanLs find this example unacceptable r:nglish because they cannol dcdde whether she
in DJZ-2 is Wendy or someone else.
in D322 is Wendy or someone else.

311

A
possible reading
A tilird
third representation
rcprcscntatioli (R3) (which is a possiblc
rcading only
for s"me
be derived from Rl
somc speakers)
spci~kcrs)can bc
R1 by interpreting
intcrprcting a
crayon a'S
as a unique
uniquc set
sct having
hi~vingonly one
onc member.
mcmbcr. This
Ibis
corresponds to the
thc reading
rcading that there
thcrc was only one
onc crayon
crayon given
(in a collective
collcctivc way) to ti,e
Uic set
sct ofgir!s
ofgirls IJruce
nmcc knows.
Supposc now that 1)321132-1
adjudicates the two
Suppose
I is vague. and no processing
processing of it adjudic<ltes
readings
rci~dings(RI)
( I t l ) <Ind
and (R2)
(112) for a
o crayon.
rrnj,o~l.When
Whcn ti,e
tllc focus
f ~ r l l salgoritilm
algl)rithm runs after
aRcr 1)32-1
1132-1
is
is processed.
pr~rcsscd.a crayon will become
bccomc the
thc discourse
dicoursc focus.
fixus. but
hut its representation
rcprcscnlation either
cithcr
will not distinguish
between (l{1)
both as possible
possible
disting~lisll bctwccn
(1<1) and
and (R2)
(112) or will list botll
representations.
a
rcprcscntations.ll When
Wlicn the
thc pronoun
pronoun interpreter
i~itcrprclcr uses
llses iLS
ils rules
rules to choose
cb~~ose
ro-spccificr for
fi)iilir in
in 1)32-2.
1132-2, hotli
rci~dingsmust bc
a\,aili~hlc. The
'llic set
sct reading
rcading (RI)
(K1)
{'o-specifier
both readings
be available.
bc eliminated
climinatcd immediately
im~ncdiatcly because
bccausc of
o f syntactic
sylltac~icconstraints
colistraints that
Uiat rule out a
may be
co-spccilicr fi,r
fi1i il
ir with tbat
that reading.
rcading. so
st, (R2)
(112) is
is left.
Icft. forcing
forcing a reading
rcading for each girlas
{'o-specifier
girl as
the
prototypic girl. If
reading,
I f however.
howcvcr, a speaker
spcakcr accepts
accept? (R3)
(113) as an alternative
altcr~~ativc
rcading.
thc prou)typic
ti,en
botb one
Uicn 1)32
1132 is ambiguous
amhipuous since
sincc bc~th
onc crayon
crayon (R3)
(1<3) and
and a prototypic crayon (R2)
(112)
arc available
awilahlc to
10 focusing.
focusing.
To
sheh in
'1'0 determine
detcrminc ti,e
thc actor focus
f i ~ u sspecification
spccificati~lifor ~
in
r D32-2,
D32-2. the ambiguity
bctwccn Wendy
Wcndy and
and each girl must be
bc resolved
rcsolvcd since
sincc this is
is a case
casc of pOlcntiai
potcntiai
between
intcrpl-cution is
is three
thrcc ways ambiguous:
anihiguous: there
thcre is
is
ambiguily. Actually
Aculally the interpretation
actor <)mbiguilY.
Wendy,
each
girl
interpreted
as
a
set
as
in
(RI)
and
(RJ),
or
as
a
prototype
as
in
intcl.pretcd
sct in (111) and (R3).
in
Wcndy. rnch
(112). The
'l'hc set
sct reading
reading may
m.ly be c1imill<llcd
clilnin;~tedimmediately
immcdiatcly because
bcc;~~lsc
s11e
is singular. For
(R2).
she is
thc anaphor interpreter
intcrprctcr to choose
chtrosc between
bctwccn the remaining
remaining two, the
thc infcning
inferring
the
pnxcss must rule out one
onc of
o f the
tllc readings
rcadings and
and find the
thc other
othcr acceptable.
acccplablc. Many
process
hearers
choosc between
bctwccn Wendy
Wcndy and the
thc prototypic girl: in
in fact numerous
nulncrous
hcarcrs cannot
cannot choose
native
because neither
spcakcrs find
find D32
1132 odd. presumably because
ncithcr choice
choicc is particularly
native speakers
sensible
people do scnsihlc for them.
thcm. On the
thc whole,
whole. the focusing
focusing rulcs suggest
suggcst just what pcople
they
tl~cyrule otlt
out several
scvcral readings
rcadings (all of
o f which can apply after
aRcr D32-1)
1132-1) and U,en
U ~ c nthey
fail to choose given
givcn the discourse actor ambiguity.
Anothcr case
casc of
ofscmantic
in D32,
1132, is illustrated in
in
Another
semantic ambiguity, similar to the one in
1133 below.
D33
below.
J)33-j
buy a vegomatic,
1133-1 Sally wanted
wilntcd to huy
vcgomatic.
Shc had
hitd seen
sccn it advertised
advcrtiscd on TV.
I'V.
2 She
A l'cgomatic
may he
A
vrgo~~iaric
hc interpreted
intcrprctcd specifically,
spccifically. to
111 mean
mcan there
thcrc is
is one
onc particular
panicular

I.I. (kIth
Iknh (Martin
[Manin 19791
19191and
2nd Wehber
Wrhber (Chapler
[Chaplcr 6 or
or Ihis
lhis volume]
ralurnc] have asked
%Led whether
vhclher a sentence
xnlcncc which is
ambiuous
amblgunus between
bclween scveral
rrcral rcading.~
reading must be
be represented
rcprcenlcd hy several
avcral different
diffcrcnl structures.
nrucluw. one
onc forcach
for each
reading.
rcading Martin
hlanin proposes
proposa rcpn.'SCntations
rcpre\cnlalinns Ihal
lhal preserve
prcscrvc ambiguity
mhiguily until
until some
wlmc processor
processor demands a
refinement.
approoeh or
an al!C'rnrttivC'
still an
rrlincrncrlt Whether
Whclhrr this
Lhisapprmch
aran
allcrnnlivc rC'prC'scntation
rcprcwnlalion listing
lisling all readings
reading5 is best
b m is
isaill
open question.
qucslion.

Sidncr

Sidncr

312

312

vcgomatic, or non-spccificallyl , to mcan it is onc of thc marly vcgomatics. 'l'he

vcgomatic. or non-specificallyl to mean it is one of the many vegomatics. The
focus docs not distinguish bctwccn thc two aftcr 1133-1 bccausc, likc 1132-1.1333-1
focus docs not distinguish between the two after D33-1 because. like 1)32-1, D331
is ambiguous, and ncithcr intcrprctation can bc choscn with certainty. Whcn it is
is ambiguous, and neither interpretation can be chosen with certainty. When it is
resolvcd for co-spccilication in 1133-2, both rcadings can hc considcrcd, and the
resolved for co"specification in 1)33,2, both readings can be considered, and the
infcrring prtxcss must dcrcnninc that Sally saw a spccific onc on 'I'V. Noricc that
inferring process must detennine that Sally saw a specific one on TV. Notice that
thc vcgoinatic Sally saw is not identical to thc oilc shc wanlcd to buy: in 1133-2, it
the vegomatic Sally saw is llot idcntical to the one she w.JOted to buy: in 1)33-2, it
docs not co-spccify ivith Sally's vcgomatic. 'I'hcrcforc II-ICpronoun specification
docs not co-specify with Sally's vegomatic. Therefore the pronoun specification
inLtsL hc gcncr;~[cdaccordingly--aspccific onc sccn by Sally on 'I'V.
must be generated accordingly--a specific one seen by Sally on TV,
S~~pposc.
for a mtrncnt. that 1133-1 is inrcrprclcd so h a t a rcprcscntation that
Suppose, for a moment. that D33-1 is interpreted so that a representation that
maintins ambiguity is available. When thc pronoun intcrprctcr pnrcsscs a
mainwins ambiguity is available. When the pronoun intelllreter processes a
subscqucnt scntcncc with a pronoun, it need only rule out rcading:; if thc the
subsequent sentence with a pronoun, it need only ruk out reading:; if the the
infcrcncc machinc discounts as contradiclory onc of tlic rcadings (Sitlly didn't
inference machine disco\lnt~ as contradictory one of the readings (Sally didn't
want t c ~buy thc vcry onc shc saw on 'I'V). I f no rcading is rulcd out, the
want ([) buy the very one she saw on TV). If no reading is ruled out, the
co-spccificr would rcmain ambiguous. so that both thc indcfiliitc phrasc and the
co-specifier would remain ambiguous. so that both the indefinite phrase and the
pronoun would havc rimbiguous co-specifications. As the ncxt cxamplc shows.
pronoun would have ambiguous co-specifications. As the next example shows,
Lhcrc is somc cvidcncc f i ~ rthis bchavior.
there is some evidence for this behavior.
Considcr tllc case shown in 1334.
Consider the case shown in 1)34.
1134-1Sally bougl~ta vcgomatic that had a brokcn cutting blade.
1)341 Sally hought a vegomatie that had a broken cutting blade.
2 Shc had sccll it i~d~crtiscd
on 'I'V.
2 She had seen it advertised on TV.
R eegon~o~ic
[hot hurl a broke11crrr~irrgblade it1 thc context of 1134-1 usually mcans
A ,'egomotic fhor had a broke/1 CUlling blade in the context of D34-1 usually means
somc particular vcgomatic that Sally hought. llowcvcr, ir is anlbiguous among the
some particular vegomati~ that Sally bought. However. if is ambiguous among the
vcgomatic Sally bought, somc onc vcgomatic and a vcgotnatic h a t is an instance
vcgomatic Sally bought, some one vcgomatic and a vegomatic that is an instance
of the gcncric vcgomatic; that is, "it" is ambiguous among thrcc rcadings, Sally's
of the generic vegomatic; that is, "it" is ambiguous among three readings, Sally's
vcgomatic. and vcgoinatics takcn as thc spccific and nun-spccific rcadings.
vegomatic. and vegomatics Wken as the specific and non-specific readings.
For 1134-2. pronoun intcrprctcr docs not distinguish among thc thrcc readings
For 1)342. pronoun interpreter docs not distinguish among the three readings
since it acccsscs thc one providcd by thc spccification in 1134-1, which is the
since it accesses the one provided by the specification in D34-1, which is the
spccific rcading. '1'0 find tfic spccification of "it" thc inferring proccss must
specific reading. To find the specification of "it," the inferring process must
discovcr that it is odd (1) for Sally to havc sccn thc vcgomatic with a brokcn blade
discover that it is odd (1) for Sally to have seen the vegomatic with a broken blade
which shc bought bcing advcrtiscd on 'TV, and (2) for Sally to scc any broken
which she bought being advertised on TV, and (2) for Sally to sec any broken
vcgomatics on 'I'V. and (3) for Sally to havc sccn the vcry onc shc bought on '1'V.
vcgomatics on TV, and (3) for Sally to have seen the very one she bought on TV.
'Ihcn if no othcr choiccs fur ctz-spccification arc availahlc.. thc spccification of
Then if no other choices for en-specification arc available, the specification of
vcgomatic from 1134-1 must bc uscd to gcncratc an appropriatc spccificalioti for
vegomatic from 1)34-1 must be used to generate an appropriate specification fbr
"it". Since orily unbrokcn oncs not bought by Sally arc appropriatc, thc
"it". Since only unbroken ones not bought by Sally arc appropriate, the

I . 'lhc tcrms .'non-specific" and "spccilic" are tradi~ionalsemantic exprcsions which bcar no rclalion
I. The lerms
"non-specific"
and "speci/ic"A are
tradilionalrcading
semantic
which bear
no relalion terms
to "specify"
and "spccihcalion."
non-specific
of exprcs.~ions
o dog corresponds
in computational
to "specify"
and "specificalion."
A non-specific
rcadin~ of a dog corresponds in compulationallclTns
to a rcprcsenlalion
or an inslancc
orthc gcncric
dog. Lhal is. what is rcprcsenlcd is a dog which has Lhe
to a rerrcsenlalion
of anofinslance
of thedog
generic
L~, what is represented is a dog wh ich has the
charactcrislim
Ihc gcncric
- Lhaidog.is.thai
an animal
with four Icgs. a rail. mcdium s i ~ c .brown.
characterislics
ofbarks,
the generic
like.- thaI is. an animal wilh four legs, a tail. medium size. brown.
friendly,
and thedog
friendly. barks, and the like.

3D
spccification of "it" must bc gcncratcd using only part of thc phrasc froin D34-1.
specification of "if' must be generated using only part of the phrase from D34-1.
Ihis cxnmplc sccms problcmatic bccausc it placcs much wcight on the
lllis eX:lmple seems problematic because it places much weight on the
infcrring prnccss to dccidc that ccrlain rcadings arc odd. Howcvcr. this is likcly to
inferring process to decide that certain readings are odd. However, this is likely to
be just whcrc the wcight of tllc decision ougllt to bc; many nativc spcakcrs find
be just where the weight of the decision ought to be; many native speakers find
1134 slightly bizarrc bccausc thcir first rcading is that Sally had sccn a vcgomaric
D34 slightly bizarre because their first reading is that Sally had seen a vegomatic
with thc broken bladc advcrtiscd on 'I'V. In fact, it appcars that whcn a spccific
with Ule broken blade advertised on TV. In fact, it appears that when a specific
is introduccd, the spcakcr can dircct
indcfinitc noun phrasc such as a 11>~011ra/ic
indefinite noun phrase such as a l'egol!wlic is introduced, the speaker can direct
attention LO the non-spccific rcading morc rcadily with a plural pronoun, as shown
attention to the non-specific re<Jding more re;ldily with a plural pro'loun, as shown
bclow.
below.
(26) Sllc had seen thcrn advcrtiscd on TV.
(26) She had seell them advcrtised on TV.
'l'hc plural non-spccific rcading as in (26) hits bccn incorporatcd in thc pronoun
The plural non-specific re<luing as in (26) has been incorporated in the pronoun
intc~prctationrules. but Lhc gcncration of spccific;~tionsfor tllc singulars in more
interpretation rules. but Ole generation of specifications for the singulars in more
unusual cascs. such as 1134-2, has not: it is difficult to rccognizc that a
unusual cases. such as \)34-2, hilS not; it is difficult to recognize that a
spccification should bc gciicratcd whcn thc infcrring pnmss rejccts thc two
specification should he generated when tJle inferring process rejects the two
rcadings. tlowcvcr th;ti pcoplc f~ltcrin such cnscs.suggcsts that somc additional,
rcadings. However that people falter in such casessuggests that some additional,
possibly gcncral, problcin solving bcllavior is rclcvant to the propcr trcatmcnt of
possibly general, problem solving behavior is relevant to the proper treatment of
thcsc cascs.
th esc cases.
I:,xaniplcs such its 1134 arc pcrplcxing for anothcr reason; they arc cxamples of
Examples such as 1)34 arc perplexing for another reason; they arc examples of
what I will call. following IFahlman 19791. the "copy phctiomcnon". The
what I will call. following [Fahlman 1979]. the "copy phenomenon". The
ambig;ity ccnters around rhc fact that thcrc can bc many copics of an abstract
ambiguity centers around Ole fact that there can be many copies of an abstract
prototype. Autoinobilcs, computcr programs. airplane flights and money are
prototype. Automobiles, computer programs. airplane flights and money are
othcr common cascs of cntitics which exhibit the copy phcnomcnon. In 1135, the
other common cases of entities which exhibit lhe copy phenomenon. In ))35, the
intcrprctation of i/ dcpends on whcthcr the speaker is rcfcrring to a particular
interpretation of if depends on whether the speaker is referring to a particular
flight or thc normal Sunday flight, a copy of which occurred on /his Sunday.
flight or tl1e normal Sunday flight, a copy of which occurred on Ihis Sunday.
D35-1 TWA 384 was so bumpy this Sunday I almost got sick.
035-1 TWA 384 wa$ so bumpy this Sunday I almost got sick.
2 It usually is a very smooth flight.
2 It usually is a very smooth flight
Note that the i/ cannot co-specify with thc particular flight an this Sunday,
Note that lhe if cannot co-specify with the particular flight on Ihis Sunday.
Howcver, it is possiblc that b e spcakcr intcndcd TWA384 to rcfcr to a particular
However, it is possible lhat tl1e speaker intended TWA384 to refer to a particular
flight; if this is so,thc spcakcr mixcd thc spccific and non-spccific interpretations
flight; if tl1is is so, tl1e speaker mixed the specific and non-specific interpretations
for the co-spccif cr of if. just as in 1334-2.
for the co-specifier of il. just as in D342.
Anothcr characteristic usc of anaphora is the bound variable casc given by
Another characteristic use of anaphora is the bound variable Gase given by
t'artcc [Parlcc 1972. 19781. In 1136 bclow, him co-specifics with Archibald. while if
Partee [Partee 1972, 1978]. In D36 below, him co-specifics witl1 Archibald. while if
hinlselfwcrc uscd, it would constitute a rcflexivc usc of every man.
himselfwere used, it would constitute a reflexive use of every man.
1136-1 Archibald silt down on the floor.
D36-1 Archibald 54lt down on the floor.
2 bvcry man put a flowcr in front of him.
2 Every man put a flower in front of him.
In linguistic thcory, bound variables arc assumcd to be rcprcscnted in sentence
In linguistic lheory, bound variables arc assumed to be represented in sentence
semantics: when uscd in conjunction with syntactic disjoint rcfcrcnce rulcs,
semantics: when used in conjunction with syntactic disjoint reference rules,
pronouns within Ihc scopc of thc quantifier can bc disunguishcd from non-scoped
pronouns within the scope of the quantifier can be distinguished from non-scoped
oncs. Since the pronoun intcrprctct takes account of these conditions, it can easily
ones. Since the pronoun interpreter takes account of lhese conditions, it can easily
choose a propcr co-specifier for him in D36 in tcrms of the focus, but for himselfjt
choose a proper co-specifier for him in D36 in terms of the focus, but for himse/fit

Sidner

Sidncr

314

314

bill rccognisc the bound rclation to every man. I t is crucial to thcsc cases that part
will recognize the bound relation to every man. It is crucial to these cases that part
of thc rcprcscntntion of the intc~prctationof scntcncc phrascs is some scope of
of the representation of the interpretation of sentence phrases is some scope of
quantification, cspccially whcn it is unambiguous.
quantification, especially when it is unambiguous.

5.3.3 Focus Restrictions on Co-specification

5.3.3 Focus Ucstrictions on Co-spceirieation
'I'hcrc arc othcr restrictions on co-spccificalion h a t rcsult fro~nthc pr{~cssingof
There arc other restrictions on co-specification !.hat result from the processing of
tlic firusing algoi-ithm. As discusscd prcviously. thc firusing algorithm can acccss
the focusing algorithm. AS discussed previously, the Jellsing algorithm can access
ii stlick otl which old firi arc stored. In addition to co-specifying with current
a stack on which old flJei arc stored. In "ddition to co-specifying with currcnt
actor and discourse ftri, a spcakcr may use a pronoun to co-specify a discourse
actor and discourse foci. a speaker may usc a pronoun to co-specify a discourse
clcnicnt that was once in focus but is no longcr: [Grosz 19781 dcscribcd and
clement that was once in f(Jeus hut is no longer: [GroSl 1978] described and
illustrated Ihis bchavior for anaphoric noun phrases in task oricntcd dialogues. It
illustrated this behavior for anaphoric noun phrases in task oriented dialogues. It
can bc c;ipturcd in thc pronoun intcrprctalion rulcs by a nllc which sclcct~
can be captured in the pronoun interpretation rules by a nile which selects
c~uldidatcsfrom thc fi~cusstack. Howcvcr, Ihcre is n constraint. callcd the stacked
candidates from the leus stack. However, there is a constraint. called the stacked
constmint, on this usc due to the nature of the focusing algorithm. An
foclls constraint, on this usc due to the nature of the focusing algorithm. An
anaphor which is intcl~dcdto co-specify wit11 a stacked fwus must not bc able to
anapl10r which is intended to cO'specify with a stacked flJeUS must not bc able to
co-spccify with citllcr thc f o ~ u sor potcntial focus. Art cxa~nplcfrom a literary
cO'specify with either the focus or potential focus. All example from a literary
text1 whcrc a pronoun co-specifics with a srackcd fucus is prcscrited below.
text l where a pronoun co-specifics with a stacked focus is presented below.
Was that old lady cvil, thc onc Saul and I had sccn sitting on
Was that
lady evil,
olle Saulabout
and Iher.
had Whcn
seen sitting
on car
1 hadthedrcalncd
thc trolley
thcold
porch?
1
had
dreamed
about
her.
When
the
trolley
car
the porch?
took me and Saul past hcr housc again this morning, she was
lOok me
and Evil.
Saul itpast
housesound
againtothis
gone.
hadher
a quccr
it inmorning,
English. she was
gone. Evil. it had a qucer sound to it in English.
{Hcre the narrative moves on to an incident in a school
{Here classroom.
the narrativeA moves
on to
an incident
in a school
discussion
bctwecn
thc speaker
and a male
classroom.
discussion
between
the speaker
and a male
teacherAensues
for fivc
paragraphs.
l'hc succecding
paragraph
teacherbegins:}
ensues for five paragraphs. The succeeding paragraph
begins:}

She had worn an old brown coat and a grecn scarf over her
She had
worn an old brown coat and a green scarf over her
head.
head.

I n this cxa~nplc,sllc co-specifics with the old lady discussed previously. If Potok
In this example, she co-specifics with the old lady discussed previously. If Potok.
liad told of a discussion hctwccn thc spcakcr and a fcmalc tcachcr, it would no
had told of a discussiol1 between the speaker and a female teacher. it would no
longcr bc possiblc 10 tell that she was co-spccisying with thc old woman. 'Ihe
longer be possible [0 tell that she was co-specifying with the old woman. The
rcading of slre as tcirchcr ~rlightbc a bit surprising bccausc what Ulc tcachcr is
reading Df she as tcacher might be a bit surprising because what the teacher is
wcaring was not relevant to thc previous conversation, but it certainly is not the
wearing was not relevant to the previous conversation, but it ccrUlinly is not the

I . "In ~e lkginning" by Chain] I'otok, page 212, chapter 4.I:awcett Publicalions.Inc. Conn. 1975.

I. "In \he IJcginning" by Chain] POlok, page 212, chapter 4. Fawcett Publications, Inc. Conn.1975.

315
casc that an inferring proccss would dccidc h a t tcuchcrs do nbt wcar old bmwn
case that an inferring process would decide that teachers do not wear old brown
coats and so forth.
coats and so forth.
'Thc slacked f ~ u constraint
s
is not shtcd dircctly within thc ftrusing
The stacked focus constraint is not stated directly within the focusing
algorithm. Rathcr it is implicit in its function. '171~following situation is rulcd out
algorithm. Rather it is implicit in its function. '111e fil110wing situation is ruled out
by Uic manncr in which a ficus is uscd: A pronoun cannot co-spccify with a
by the manner in which a focus is used: 1\ pronoun cannot co-specify with a
IS
a cLII.rcIit l i ~ u iss a11; I C C C P ~ ; I ~CO-spccificr,
~C
sincc that current
str~ckcd~ ~ X T Lwlic~l
stJcked focus when a curren! focus is an acceptable co-specifier, since that current
f t ~ i i swill bc take11 as thc inlcrprct:rlion, and tllc slilckcd focus will ncvcr come
focus will be taken as the interpretation, and the stacked focus will never come
into considcratioo. 'lllc stl~ckcd ftxus constraint is a conscqucncc of the
into consideration. 'Ille stacked focus constraint is a consequence of the
Inovcmcnt of fixus in thc fwus machincry.
movement of )(US in the focus machinery.
'I'hc stackcd firus constriiint. howcvcr, may bc twcrriddcn. An astonishing sct
The stacked fucus constraint, however, may be llverridden. An astonishing set
19741. [I)ci~tsch19751). Onc
of cxamplcs was idcntificd by CJrosr (SCC [I)CIIISC~
of examples was identified by GroSI (sec [Deulsch ] 974], [DeutSlh 1975]). One
such cxamplc was givcn previously (1128). and ;cnothcr is sllown bclow.
such eX<lmple was given previously (1)28), and another is shown below.
A: 011cof thc bolts is stuck and I'm trying to usc both h c plicrs
1\: One ill the bolts is stuck and I'm trying to usc both the pliers

and thc wrcnch to pct it unstuck.

and theE:wrench
getthc
it unstuck.
1)on.t tousc
plicrs. Show mc what you arc doing. Show
E: Don't usc the pliers. Show me what you arc doing. Show
mc tlic 1/2" combination wrcnch.
me theA:112"
Ok.combination wrench.
1\: Ok.
E: Show me the 1/2" box wrcnch.
E: Show me the 112" box wrench.
A: 1 already got looscncd.
1\: I already gotillooscned.
Gcncrally rcadcrs undcrstand this cxamplc without taking cnough time to go
Generally readers understand this example without taking enough time to go
back and rcst thc intcrvcning co-spccificrs bcforc choosing onc of thc bolts in this
back and [cst the intervening co-specifiers before choosing one of the bolts in this
exarnplc.' Instcad somc othcr proccss is helping drivc thc understanding of what
example. 1 Instead some other process is helping drive the understanding of what
is mcant. Onc explanation is that undcrstanding dcpcnds on knowing that
is meant One explanatioll is that understanding depends on knowing that
something being loascncd complctcs the task that A originally indicated in the
something being loosened completcs the task that A originally indicated in the
first scntcncc. 'Ilic focus of A's first command indicatcs cxactly what is bolted.
first sentcnce. '1l1C focus of I\'s first command indicates exactly what is bolted.
I'hus the focus could providc thc co-spccification for thc object undcr discussion,
Thus the focus could provide the co-specification for the object under discussion,
but some other mcchanisrn, which intcrprcts completion of task goals, indicatcs
but some othcr mlXhanism, which interprets completion of task goals, indicates
whcrc to pop back in thc sct of task cnvironmcnts undcr consideration. The fixus
where to pop back in the set of task environments under consideration, The focus
rclcvant for that task cnvironmcnt is uscd to dctcrminc thc co-specification of a
relevant for that task environment is used to dcteJlTIine the cO'specification of a
pronoun.
pronoun.
How many such discourse intcrprctation mcchanims cxist? While this
How many such discourse interpretation mechanisms exist? While this
chaptcr docs not addrcss this qucstion dircctly, somc spccu1;ltion is possible due to
chapter does not address this question directly, some speculation is possible duc to
rcscarch rcportcd clscwhcrc (see [Ciros~191111, (Sidncr 19791. [Itohinson 19811). In
research reported elsewhere (see IG ros, 19811, \Sidller 1979], [Robinson 1981 D. In
gcncral, it appcars that discourses pcrmitting violations of thc shckcd fixus
general. it appears that discourses permitting violations of the stacked (()(Us
constraint must contain an implicit structurc of msks pcnincnt to the conversation
constraint must contain an implicit structure of tasks pertinent to the conversation
1. This informal evidcncc nccds lo bc tcslcd out in a psychological laboratory. ?he au~horhas not
1. This done
informal
evidence
needs
10 becxpcrimcnlation
tested out in a psychological
Iaboralory. The aulhor has nOl
so,but
the rcrulB
of such
would bc hclpful.
done so, but the results of such experimentation would be helpful.

Sidner

Sidner

316

316

or somc other wcll spccificd structure which guidcs the hcarcr in understanding.
or some other well specified structure which guides the hearer in understanding.
Without this stnlcturc rhc l~carcrhas no mcans for choosing somctllii~gotllcr than
Without this structure the hearer hils no means for choosing something other than
thc currcn t ftrus as co-specifier.
the current focus as co-specifier.

5.3.4 Pronouns \Vliich 1 laye No Co-specifiers

5.3.4 Pronouns Which lIa\'c No Co-specifiers
'Ihc prcvious discussion h;ls assumcd that a pronotrn is always prcccdcd by a
The previous discussion has assumed that a pronoun is always preceded by a
co-spccifying phrasc. Iiowcvcr, this is not always thc casc. and a con~plctctheory
co-specifying phrase. Ilowever, this is not always the case, and a complete theory
of' pronoun intcrprctation must address cascs whcrc t l ~ eco-specifying phrase
of pronnun interpretation must address cases where the co-specifying phrase
appears aflcr thc pronoun: and whcrc 11(1 so-s~ccifvine,phrase cxistj but one is
appears afier the pronoun: and where 1lQ co-specifying phrase exists but one is
c
implicd by ~ h discussion.
implied by the discussion.
Pronouns which arc t~scd with thcir cu-specifiers appcnring aRcr the
Pronouns which arc lIsed with their co-specifiers appearing afier the
(Kcurrcncc of thc pronoun I~avcbccn callcd backward anaphora in thc linguistic
occurrence of the pronoun have been called backward anaphora in the linguistic
li~craturc; I will rcfcr to thcni as forward co-s~ccificrs. Two such cxamplcs, (27)
literature; I will refer to them as forward co-specifiers. Two such examples, (27)
and (28) arc givcn below.
and (28) arc given below.
(27) I f b comcs bcfore the show, givc Johu thcsc tickcts and scnd him
(27) Ifhe comes before the show, give John these tickets and send him
to thc thcatrc.
to the theatre.
(28) Ncar him, Ilan saw a snake.
(28) Ncar him. Dan saw a snake.
In gcncral thc pn)noun co-specifics with somc noun phrase intcrprc~~tion.
but h e
In general the pronoun co-specifics with some noun phrase interpretation, but the
phrasc is placcd forward in thc discoursc. 'Ihc types of scntcnccs in which this
phrase is placed forward in the discourse. '111e types of sentences in which this
bchavior can txcur arc limitcd. In gcncral it sccms to be pcrmittcd for fronted
behavior can occur arc limited. Jn general it seems to be permitted for fronted
scntcntial prcpositional phrascs (as in (28)), fur complcmcnt scrltcnccs fronted on
sentential prepositional phrases (as in (28, for complement sentences fronted on
anothcr scntcncc (as in (27)). and for sentcnccs containing co-ordinating
another sentence (as in (27, and for sentences containing co-ordinating
conjunctions. Extcnsivc rcscarch in linguistics on forward co-spccificrs (ISolan
conjunctions. Extensive research in linguistics on forward co-specifiers ({Solan
19781 contains a good rcvicw) givcs rcfiablc cvidcnce that it is govcrncd by
1978l.contains a good review) gives reliable evidence that it is governed by
structural constraints. In particular, syntactic rules can bc stilted that dctermine
structural constraints. In particular, syntactic rules can be stated that detennine
whcn forward co-specifiers are not pcrmittcd. ? h e most reccnt formulation, by
when forward co-specifiers arc not permitted. The most recent fonnulation, by
Solan. callcd thc backward anaphora rcstriction. fails on ccrtain scntcnccs such as
Solan, called the backward anaphora restriction, fails on certain sentences such as
In h ~ room
r Afar),sawn ghost. so furthcr rcscarch is still nccdcd.
III her room Mary sow a ghost, so further research is still needed.
Whatcvcr thc bcst formulation of thc syntactic rulcs for forward co-specifiers.
Whatever the best formulation of the syntactic rules for forward co-specifiers,
they arc prcfcrablc only in initial scntcnccs of a discoursc. For cxamplc. whcn a
they arc preferable only in initial sentences of a discourse. For example, when a
scntcncc such as (27) occurs in mid-discourse, if a spcaker has bccn talking about
sentence such as (27) occurs in mid-discourse, if a speaker has been talking about
Hcnry, and just bcgun mcntion of Charlcs. will bc takcn (by native spcakcrs) to
Henry. and just begun mention ofCharlcs, b will be taken (by native speakers) to
co-spccify with Henry, or with Charlcs, if licnry can bc rulcd out on basis of some
co-specify with Henry, or with Charles, if Henry can be ruled out on basis of some
spccial pragmatic knowlcdgc. ? h e focus rulcs can capturc just this bchavior when
special pragmatic knowledge. The focus rules can capture just this behavior when
uscd in conjuriction with h c propcr syntactic rules.
used in conjunction with the proper syntactic rules.
T'hc pronoun intcrprctcr acts on a condirion that will bc called the missing
The pronoun interpreter acts on a condition that will be called the missing
co-s~ccificrcondition. In the rcmaindcr of this scction. 1 will define that
co-specifier condition. In the remainder of this section, I will define that
condition. I h c pronoun intcrprctation rulcs jncludc a rule for recognizing a
condition. The pronoun interpretation rules include a rule for recognizing a

317

missing cil-spccificr, and this recognition forins tllc basis of thc condition to which
missing co-specifier, and this recognition forms the basis of lhe condition to which
the fi~usingalgorid~mrcsptmds.
the focusing algnritllm responds.
'Ihcrc arc many iiscs of pronouns wlicrc thc pronoun has n o co-spccificr in the
There arc many uses of pronouns where the pronoun has no co-specifier in lhe
prcccding discourse. whcrc tlic pronoun is not uscd to co-spccify forward. and
preceding discourse. where the pronoun is not used to co-specify forward. and
whcrc it is not uscd in conji~nc~ion
with sotnc action such as pointing. Onc sucl~
where it is not used in conjunction with some action such as pointing. One such
usc, pronutuls that spccify a gcncric from a non-spccific reading. has alrc;idy bcen
usc, pronouns t11<.lt specify a generic from a non-specific reading. has already been
considcrcd. fiuwcver. such a cast is disting~rislicdfrom tlic ones givcn bclow
considered. Huwever. slIch a case is distinguished from thc (Jncs given below
bcc;~uscthe pronoun is not uscd t o specify a gcncric which is gcncmlcd from the
because the pronoun is not used 10 specify a generic which is generated from the
f i ~ u s c dnoiln phrase: cithcr thc pronouns hclow spccify willlout a gcncrating
focllsed noun phrase: rather the pronouns hclow specify without a generating
p11r;lsc. 'I'hc cxa~nplcsgi\cn hclow ;ire ii-o~nscvcril wurccs: thc fist tllrcc are
phrase. The examples giYen bdow arc from se\er<.ll sources: lhe first t1lree are
from I1'ost;il 19691. dic iilurth fron~[Cllafc 19721. thc fifth from diiilogucs collcctcd
from 11'05tall%9). the lilUrth from [Chafe 19721. the fifth from dialogues collected
for tlic Phl. sysrcnl ([Sidncr 10781). and the last was spokefi by a lccturcr at a
for the P/\ I. systell] ([Sidner 1978]). and lhc last was spoken by a lecturer at a
prc~cntnt~on
this autllor i~ttcndcd.
presentation this author attended.
1137-1 1 s,~whlr. Smiih tlic othcr day; you know. & dicd last ycar.
I)371 I SdW Mr. Smith the other day; you know. she died last year.
2 John is ;in olpti;~n.IIc ~nisscsIhcm vcry 111llch.
2 John is an orphan. He misses them very Illuch.
3 1'1-0-Castro pcoplc clon'~bclicvc hc is a monstcr.
3 Pro-Castro people don't believe he is a monster.
4 1 wcnt lo a conccr~liist 11igIlt. 'I'hcv playcd I~cctliovcn'sninlh.
4 I went to a concert last night. They played Beethoven's ninlh.
5 1 want to rncct wit11 llrucc ncxt wcck. Plcasc arrange for us.
5 1want to meet with Bruce next week. Please arrange .it for us.
6 1 ~ ~ s to
c dbc qi~itca tcnnis player. Now whcn I gct together
6 I- used to he quite a tennis player. Now when I get together
with ~ h young
c
guys lo play, I can hardly gct it ovcr the net.
with lhc young guys to play, I can hardly gel.i! over lhe net
With thc cxccption of 1137-1. most hcarcrs arc able to say which is the intcndcd
With lhe exception of 1)37-1. most hearers arc able to say which is the intended
spccificatifln of thc prulioun in thc cascs abovc; 1337-1 can bc understood if the
specification of the pronoun in lhe cases above: 1)37-1 can be understood if the
hcarcr is infonncd that Mr. Smith had a wifc. I ~ O H ' C Y Cs~o. ~ n eof thcsc, cspccially
hearer is infonned that Mr. Smilh had a wife. However. some of lhesc, especially
1 and 2, arc so odd that most hcarcrs rcad thc scntcncc scvcral timcs bcfore
1 and 2. are SlJ lJdd Ulal most hearers read lhe sentence several times before
comprchcnding. Hcarcrs arc dividcd on the acccptability of 3, and most hcarcrs
comprehending. Hearers are divided on lhe acceptability of 3, and most hearers
find 4 and 5 acccptahlc. Such examplcs, as far as I can tell, do not occur naturally
find 4 and 5 acceptahle. Such examples. as far as I can tclf, d~ not occur naturally
in writtcn samplcs.
in written samples.
WI-iilc thcsc uscs of pronouns can bc rccognizcd by the nllc intcrprctcr, how
While lhese uses of pronouns can be recognized by lhe mle inlcrpreter, how
thcy arc undcrslood rcrnains a mysrcry. IWcbbcr 1978a. 1978b1 provides some
they arc understood remains a mystery. [Webber 1978a. 1978bl provides some
additional constrainrs on Lhcir usc. t.Iowewr, thc ftxusing approach provides
additional conslraints on their usc. However, U1C focusing approach provides
somc basic struclurc h a t hclp to providc ;In cxplanation. In all thc rnul!i-scntcnce
SlJIne basic structure lhat help to provide an explanation. In all the multi-sentence
cascs. ~ h pronoun
c
specifics sonicthing which is cloxly asst~iatcdailh Lhc fixus.
c;lses. the pronoun specifics something which is closely aSSllCiated with lhe focus.
More cxplvna(ion is rcquircd sil~ccspcakcts do nu( i~ndcrstiindthose pronoun
More explanation is required since speakers do not lInderst;1lld lhose pronoun
iisos which sccm to hc rclatcd to thc non-cxisrcncc of an objcct (such as John's
uses which seem to he rclat('d to the non-existence of an ohject (such as John's
piircnts in light of Jol~n's~ ~ r l ~ h s n l ~ o oWh;~lcvcr
d).
thc Inanncr in which hcarcrs
parenl" in light of John's orph;mhoodl. Whatever the manner in which hearers
rccovcr sl~ccilicationsfor such prt~nouns.somc principles arc nccdcd that govern
recover spccificalilJns for such pronouns, some principles arc needed that govern
why somc pronouns arc acccplahlc and others arc not.
why some pronouns arc acceptable and others arc not.

Sidner

318

5.3.5 'I'hc I'rohlcrn of I'arallclisn~

5.3.5 The Problem or I)arallclism

..

I hc pronoun intcrprctatinn rulcs give incorrect predictions for ccrtain uses of

The pronoun interpretation rules give incorrect predictions for certain uses of
pronouns, uscs that arc difficult to dcfinc. Intuilivcly, thcy may bc charactcrizcd
pronouns, uses that arc difncult to define. Intuitively, they may be characterized
as instances of par:~llclstl.ucturc bctwccn scnlcnccs of a discuursc. 'I'o understand
as instances of paralicI structure between sentences of a discourse. To understand
whal is nicant by pi~rallclstructurc, two simplc cascs onc in which Ihc rulcs d o
what is meant by parallel structure, two simple cases, one in which the rules do
prcdict correctly, and another in which thcy fail. will bc discussed. In 1138. thc
predict correctly, and another in which they fail, will be discussed. In \)38. the
pronoun co-spccifics with thc mud p x k , as Lhc proooun intcrprct:rlion rules
pronoun co-specifics with the mud pack, as the pronuun interpretation rules
would prcdict. 'I'hc parallclism of tlicsc scntcnccs is rcflatcd in Lhc semantics of
would predict The parallelism of these sentences is renccted in the semantics of
put rrlr and pull offas wcll as in tlic si~nil:~rity
of tlic syntactic structurc of ~ h two
c
pul 011 and pul! uffiJS well ,IS in the similarity of the syntactic structure of the two
scntcnccs, cach contilining an inipcrativc mood nuin clausc.
sentences, e<Jch containing an imperative mood main clause.
1138-1 I'ut thc mud pack on your face.
])38-1 Put the mud pack on your face.
2 Aftcr 5 min~rlcs,pull it off.
2 After 5 minutes. pull it off.
hc pronoun intcrprctation rulcs prcdict thc propcr co-spccificr in 1138 bccause
he pronoun interpretation rules predict the proper co-specifier in 1)38 because
thc thematic relations or the vcrh follow thc simitariry of structurc. In 1139, thc
the thematic relations of the verb follow the similarity of structure. In I>39, the
pronoun ir co-specifics with rose iind not with thc grccn Whiticrlcaf. 7 h c initial
pronoun it co-specifics with rose and not with the green Whitierleaf. The initial
ftcus aftcr thc first scntcncc is Whiticrlcaf. but thc pilmllcl synrrlctic structurc of
focus after the first sentence is Whiticrleaf. but the parallel syntactic structure of
bctwccn
rhc scntcnccs secms to govcrn thc choicc of co-spccificr. '1.u st~mn~arizc,
the sentences seems to govern the choice of co-specifier. To summarize, between
s similariry is prcfcrrcd as a mcans of
similarity of structurc and thc f o c ~ ~rulcs,
similarity of structure and the focus rules, similarity is preferred as a means of
choosing thc co-spccificr. so whcn tach givcs a dil'fcrcnt prcdictiun. similarity of
choosing the cospecifier. so when each gives a different prediction, similarity of
structurc must be used.
structure must be used.
1339-1 'Ihc grccn Whiticrlcaf is most commonly found ncar the wild
1)39-1 The green Whiticr1caf is most commonly found ncar the wild
rose.
rose.
2 Ihe wild violct is found ncar it too.
2 The wild violet is found ncar it too.
On first glance it appears that thc pronoun intcrprctarion rulcs could be
On first glance it appears that the pronoun interpretation rules could be
"frxcd" by simply observing that thc initial fixus is wrong and that a potential
"fixed" by simply observing that the initial focus is wrong and that a potential
focus should bc chosen. N o such option is available, for such a "fix" rcquires that
focus should be chosen. No such option is available, for such a "fix" requires that
the infcrring proccss rcjcct thc initial focus. To do so, thc infcrring proccss nceds
the inferring process reject the initial focus. To do so, the inferring process needs
somc knowlcdgc about the world that indicates thc unacccptability, For 1139 no
some knowledge about the world that indicates the unacceptability. For D39 no
such knowlcdgc could possibly bc forthcoming since all the flora involved are
such knowledge could possibly be forthcoming since all the flora involved are
fuund ncar one anothcr. 'Ihcrc is no knowlcdgc to the cffcct. that violcts are found
found ncar one another. There is no knowledge to the effect that violets are found
near wild roses and not ncar ~hiticrlcafs.'
ncar wild roses and not ncar Whitierleafs. )
Anothcr cxnmplc of parnllcl structurcs is shown in 1140. 'I'hc parallel
Another example of parallel structures is shown in D40. The parallel
structurcs again arc rcflcctcd in thc similarity of lhc syntactic forms as wcll as Chc
structures again arc reflected in the similarity of the syntactic fonns as well as the

1. In certain caws a special audicncc may have dilfercnl rcsponscs lo thc parallelism above. I:or
1. In ccrtain
cases
a special
audience
mayflowers
have different
re;ponscs
to bchare
the parallelism
abovc.
For special
cramplc.
bohnists
who
know whal
are ncar olhcrs
might
dilrcrenuy.
Ilul crcn
e~ample, botanists who know what nowers are ncar others might beha~e dilferenlly. But cI'en special
audicnccs must somctimcs t~scgcncral cechn~qucs. Such is Ihc caw in thc 1139 cramplc. -use
usc general
audiences
must sometimcs
Whitierlcars
are imaginary
flora. tcchnlques. Such is thc case in the D39 e~ample. because
Whitierlcars are imaginary flora.

319

semantics
scmantics of most
mas1 and mine.
mitie. After
Aftcr D40-1,
I>l0-1. the
thc initial focus
kxus is the car radiator (that
is, the
thc prototypic car radiator).
radiator). Using the
thc focusing
fixusing niles,
ntlcs, it will be taken
takcn to
co-specify
co-specify with that radiator. But
I3ut this prediction is incorrect;
incorrect; itil co-specifics
co-spccifics with
tl,e
tlic radiator of the
thc speaker's
spcakcr's car.t
car.'
frce bolt hook_
hook.
1140-1On most cars the radiator has a free
D40-1
2 But
l3ut on mine.
minc. it has
hi~sa floating
floating bolt hook.
The
'lhc usc of it11 here
licrc is simi1.lf
similar to tnc
ttic instance
insolncc of a generic
gcncric for itif in the example
example of
chc vcgomatic
vcgomatic with
will1 the
tlic broken
brokcn cuuing
cutting blade.
bladc. What makes
makcs it different
diffcrcnt is that
the
))40-2
semantic fonn which is similar to ))40-1.
1110-2 has an
;in underlying
undcrlyingscma~itic
1140-1. D40-1
D40-1 specifics
specifics
a universal set
sct of cars and says something about one
onc of the
tlic parts for those cars;
can;
1)40-2
1x0-2 specifics
spccilics a set
sct of one thing. the
thc speaker"s
spc;~kcr'scar. and says
says something
sotnctliing about a
part
p;irt of it;
it; the
thc speaker's
spcakcr's car is related
rclatcd to the
ihc universal
univcrs;~lcar by instantiation.
instanliation. Thus
'Thus itif
in 1)40-2
1140-2 is not pointing to some instance of the
thc prototypic radiator; it co-specifics
with the
Lhc radiator of the
thc speaker's
cpcakcr's car,
car. but the
thc co-specification seems
sccms to come
comc about
partly due to tl,e
Uic representation
rcprcccntation of tl,e
die radiator
radiaror in 1)40-1.
1x0-1. The similarity in the
underlying semantics
scmantics of ))40-1
1140-1 and ))40-2
1x0-2 must bc
uscd in interpreting
intcrprcting the
be used
pronoun.
Onc might wish to construct some
solnc special
spccial purpose
purpasc mechanism that looks
looks for
One
similarities
siniili~ritiesin structure between
bctwccn two sentences.
scntcnccs. This
'This method
mcthod is
js doomed
doomcd for two
reasons.
parallelism exists
rcasons. First,
firs^ parnllclistn
exicts in many aspects
aspccts of language,
languagc, and it happens
happcns at
arbitrary levels
lcvcls of stnlcture.
stntcturc. Second.
Sccond. at any given
givcn level.
lcvcl. tl,e
~Iicproblem of
arhitrary
modcls of language since
recognition of parallelism has plagilcd
plagued computational models
such models
firs suggested.
suggcstcd. For example,
cxamplc, parsing of English sentences
scntenccs
modcls were
wcrc first
containing conjunction is as yet
problem. Methods
yct an unsolved problcm.
Mcthods tried
tricd for parsing
cnnjunctions,
thosc of [Woods
[Woods 1973]
19731 in LUNAR, fail
fail because of
conjunctions, such as those
ovcrgcncralization.
I~ccognition
of
parallelism
is
still
beyond
computational
overgncralization. Recognition
stilt
theory.
The fact that interpretation
parallelism has failed for other aspects
intcrprctation of parallclis~n
aspects of
cotnputational models
modcls of language only indieates
indicates that the
thc problem is a deep one.
computational
An extended
be shown here.
cxamplc in [Sidoer
[Sidncr 1979],
19791, which will not bc
hcrc, indicates
cxtcndcd example
tllat
be found bctwccn
between whole
dial parallel constructions may he
wholc paragraphs in a discourse.
discourse.
Such constructions affect
affcct the
thc interpretation
intcrprctation which speakers
spcakcrs and hearers
licarcrs choose
choose for
anaphors;
parallel stnleture
between two
anaphors: hearers
hcarcrs seem
sccm to L1ke
takc advantage of the
thc parallcl
structure bctwccn
paragr;lphs
paragrz~phsof a discourse
discourse in deciding
dcciding what was meant.
One
possible consequence
conscqucticc of these
lhcsc observations
obscrvations could be that the focus
focus
Onc possiblc
shouldbc
yct unspecified
unspccificd mechanism
algorithm should.
algoritllm
be abandoned in favor of some as yet

1.
example.
1. The author
author thanks
Ulanks R.C.
R.C. Moore
Mmrc for
for suggesting this
thisexample.

Sidner

320

that is ablc to dctcrminc parallcl relations among scls of scntcnccs in a discourse.

that is able to dctermine parallel relations among sets of sentences in a discourse.
tIowcvcr. mcthods for intcrprcting pronouns from parallcl scntcnccs and
However. methods for interpreting pronouns from parallel sentences and
paragraphs offer no constructive way of intcrprcting thc pronouns in most of thc
paragraphs offer no constructive way of inLerpreting the pronouns in most of the
cxa~nplcsprcscntcd in this chaptcr. Many cascs of co-spccificalion occur where
examples presented in this chapter. Many cases of co-spccil1cation occur where
thcrc is no similarity of structure othcr than d ~ ccommon subjcct-vcrb-objcct
there is no similarity of structure other than the common subject-verb-object
pattcrn typical of l'nqlisli scntcnccs. Sit~ccwhat is bcirig talkcd aboi~lappcars in
pattern typic<l] of English sentences. Since what is being talked about appears in
many co~islitucntpositions in scntcnccs of a disco~rrsc,thc s-v-o pnttcrn is too
many collstituent positions in sentences of a discourse, the s-v-o p<lllern is too
gross a lcvcl to spccify si~nil;~rity.
I4cncc whilc parallclism is nccdcd to dcal with a
gross a level to specify similarity. Hence while parallelism is needed to deal with a
certain sct of c;iscs l i ~ rwhich thc pronoun intcrprctation rulcs predict incorrcctly.
certain set of cases for which the prolloun interpretation rules predict incorrectly,
those rulcs arc clfccti\~cfor many othcr cascs of co-y~ccificntionwhcrc parallclism
those rules arc effective for many other cases of cO'specification where parallelism
would not bc hclpful. Onc may concludc that ficus prtmss accounts for onc
would not be helpful. One may conclude that focus process accounts for one
and that sonic diffcrcn~~ncchanismis nccdcd to
aspect of ana1)lior i~~tcrprct;ltion,
aspect of anaphor interpretation. and that some differelltlllechanism is needed to
cncodc si~nilariticsit1 stnlcturc which arc used in discotirsc. 'Ilic cxarnplcs in this
ellCllde similarities in stnlCture which arc used in discourse, '111(' examples in this
chaptcr providc somc ;idditioni~lobservations about thc naturc of parallclism in
chapter provide some mldiLionill obsenations about the nature of parallelism in
intcrprcting pronouns in naalral languages and Icd 11s to concludc that furrhcr
interpreting pronouns in natural languages and led us to conclude that further
rcscarch is nccdcd.
research is needed.
5.4 'I'hc lntcrprctdtion of This and T h a ~
5:4 The Interpretation of This and That

5.4.1 Co-present Fori in Amlphor Disambiguation

In ;In cnrlicr section. it was pointed o i ~ hat

t somctimcs spcakcrs discuss scvcra1

In an earlier section. it was pointed out that sometimes speakers discuss several
conccpts at oncc without indicating that thcy arc doing SO. Gcncrillly this causes
concepts at once without indicating that they arc doing so. Generally this causes
thc discoursc to bc confusing cnougll to prcvcnt thc hcarcr fiom understanding.
the discourse to be confusing enough to pre\'ent the hearer from understanding.
Somctimcs howcucr pcoplc discuss morc than onc Lhing wiihour confusion. How
Sometimes however people discuss more than one thing without confusion, How
is that possiblc? Olic such case has already hccn prcscntcd; in t l ~ clast scction, it
is that possible? One such case has already been presented; in the last section, it
was sl~ownth31 an actor ftcus may hc prcscrlt in many discoiirscs in addition to
was shown that an actor focus may be present in many discourses in addition to
thc discoursc f t ~ u s .It is also possible to havc co-nrcscnt discoursc foci within the
the discourse focus. It is also possible to have co-present discourse foci within the
discourse.
discourse.
In this scction 1 will first dcscribc in morc dctail rhc conccpt of co-prcscnt foci.
In this section I will first describe in more detail the concept of co-present foci.
'I'hcn I will illustratc hctw i~ can cxplain thc usc of /hi5 and f h a ~in discourse.
Then I will illustrate huw it can explain the usc of this and that in discourse.
t-inally I will discuss ~ h crulcs of intcrprctiition for thcsc anapllors and their
Finally I will discuss the rules of interpretation for these anaphors and their
rclation lo thc firusing ;~lgo~-ilIlrn.I will show thaL wlicn uscd togcthcr in a
relation (0 the focusing algorithm. I will show that, when used together in a
diwo~~rsc,
tlri\ ;rnd !ha, kccp ~ h clirus on t ~ ol~jccts
o
at oncc, whilc when uscd
disl:our~e, this and Ihat keep the !i.)Cus on two objects at once, while when used
scpi~ratcly,/hi.\gcncrally niovcs tlic f t n u ~and rhnr docs no[.
separately, this generally movcs the focus and that docs nol.
Just w h ~ tis mcanl by co-~rcscnt
Wlicn morc than onc clcmcnt is
Just what is meant by co-present fhci? When more than one clement is
introduced in a dixicoursc ;~ndci~chis discussed rclativc to thc othcr or rclativc to a
introduced in a dismUfsc and each is discussed relative to the other or relative to a
class in which both trcur, tfic discoursc is said to bc maintaining co-prcscnt foci.
class in which both occur, the discourse is said to he maintaining co-present foci.
An cxamplc will bc hclpful for i~ndcrstandinghow this bchavior occurs.
An example will be helpful for underst<lnding how this behavior occurs.

m?

321

1l5-1
115-1 I'm having
ha\.ing a party tomorrow night;
night:
likc ule
Uic one
onc II had last week.
wcck.
2 it will be like
3 That party was a big success
succcss
4 bccausc
because everyone
cvcryonc danced.
5 This one
better food.
onc will have
havc bcttcr
food.
6h I've
I'vc asked
askcd everyone
c\,cryonc to bring something
so~ncthingspecial.
spccial.
7 Want to come?
Two dilTerent
parties arc wlked
dircrcnt partics
talkcd abollt;
about; that is.
is, both of Ulem
U~cmarc in
ill focus.
fixus. To
indicatc that
th;~tthe
thc speaker
spcakcr wants to discuss both, thaI
rhar is introduced
inuoduccd to co-specify
co-spccify
indicate
with the
d ~ cone mentioned
mcntioncd second.
sccond. The
'l'hc second
sccond party
pirrty is used
uscd as a means
Incans for
c(lmparison
compi~risonto the
thc first:
first: hence
hcncc Ihis
111;s indicates
ind~catcsthe
dic main concern
conccrli of tile
UIC speaker
spcakcr while
thaI
sccondary concern.
conccm.
rhor a secondary

5.4.2 Interpretation of ('o-present Ihis and Ihal

/Iris and lhar

rlror has been
bccn difficult
diflicult to explain.
cxplain. Most previous
prc\fious
'fhc anaphoric lISC
use of this
The
cxplanations (for
(fix example,
cxan~plc,by [Halliday
[Halliday and Hasan 19761.
19761, Willmore
[Fillmore 1971)
19711 and
explanations
[I.akoff
[Iakoff ]974])
19741) require
rcquirc sume
surne (u"cept
colccpt of proximity. II inguists have observed
obscrvcd that
l
uscs of Ihis
this and Ihal
rhor' secm
sccm to involve
dcictic (that is, physic~lly
deictic.
physically pointing) uses
proximity to the
he sellse
thc speaker.
spcakcr. "I'lhc
sense of proximity for lhis
111;s is being
bcing ncaf
ncar lhe
the
speaker.
spcakcr. while
whilc for thai,
rhor, it means
mcans "ncar
"near you or not ncar either
cithcr of us but at any Tate
rate
nut
me."' 2 By
13y analugy,
analogy, they
thcy explain anaphoric
z~naphoricIhis
rhis indicating ciuler
cithcr proximity
not ncar me:
in the time
timc and Sp;ICC
spire or
of the context or in the
thc sense
scnsc of experience
cxpcricncc or empathy
cmpathy with
the
pauly. Thesc
thc speaker,
spcakcr, while
whilc for Ihal,
rhor, there
thcrc is less
lcss proximity or em
cmpadly.
'lhcsc explanations
cxplanations
vaguc enough
cnough for us to ask for a more
morc concrete one.
arc vague
With focusing
possible. The
fixusing a dilTerent
diffcrcnt explanation
explan;~tionis possiblc.
Thc speaker
spcakcr needs
nccds a way to
wlk
and Ihal
talk about two objects
objccts of the same
samc type (for example,
cxamplc, Ihis
rhis Ielle,
l~rrcrand
rho/ one), but
onc of them. To
use a pronoun bccause
cannot usc
becausc it will co-specify with only one
distinguish
distingt~ishule
UIC two and yet allow both to be spoken about,
abouf Ihis
/his and Ihal
rhor phrases
are
thc case where the speaker
spcakcr wants to indicate
indicatc that one
onc of the two is
arc used.
uscd. In the
morc important,
important. it will be
hc co-specified
CII-spccificdusing this;
rhis; when
whcn this is used
uscd to mark
rclativc importance.
importance, it will be
he referred
rcfcrrcd to as primary focus.
facus.
relative
focusing algorithm,
algorithm. let
Ict us
To consider how this is accomplished with the focusing
analyze
analyzc 1)5
115 in dewil
detail for a summation of the
thc focusing
focusing behavior. 1)5-1
115-1 and 2

lhe sample
samplc case below, the
thc speaker
speaker would be pointing
pointingat
meh painting
painling as the
lhc senlence
renlenee is utlered.
ullemd.
I. In the
at each
(2Y
)m
ir a Van Gogh:
Gogh: !b.!! one is
isaa Renoir.
Kenoir.
(29)
This
painting i..
lZ [Halliday
58~59.
[Ilalliday and Hasan
llasan 19761.
19761. op. cit.,
cir.. pages 58-59

Sidncr
Sidncr

322

322

establish a focus on the party tolnorrow night according to thc ftrusing algorithm.
cstablish a focus on thc party tomorrow night according to the focusing algorithm.
Among thc potcntial foci of D5-2 is (he one I hod last week. 135-3 indicatcs that
Among tllC potential foci of 052 is the one I had last week. D5-3 indicates that
thc spcakcr wants to siiy morc about thc potcntial filcus whilc maintaining Bic first
tI1e speaker wants to say more about me potential fiJeus whilc maintaining tlic first
focus: this is acco~nplishcdby nlcans of using rhnr illstcad of rhc to co-spccify with
focus; tI1is is accomplished by means of using that instead of the to co-specify with
tire party last wcck. If [he had bccn uscd. it would causc thc hcarcr to s ~ ~ p p o s e
til\: party last weck. If the had bcen used, it would causc the hearer to suppose
initially in prvccssing that lllc spcakcr was talking about tlic upco~njngparty; thcn
initially in proccssing that the speaker was talking about the upcoming PLlrty; then
tlic hcarcr would nccd to rcjcct thc choice bccausc of thc tcnsc of thc vcrb. Thafis
tile hearer would need to reject the choice because of the tense of the verb, ThaI is
a much clcarcr tncans of tclling thc hcarcr which one is undcr discussion.
a much clearer means of telling tile hearer which one is undcr discussion.
How is thc first f i ~ um;~intiiiicd
s
in thc f(rusing algorithm for 135? Whilc two
How is the first filCUS maintaincd in thc focusing algorithm for J)5? While two
discoursc f i ~could
i
he introdl~ccd.a sitnplcr clloice is available; thc first focus
discourse foci could he introduced, a simpler choice is available; thc first focus
could bc stackcd at thc top of thc. ftcus suck. Whcn a noun phnlsc wit11 [his as
could be stacked at lie top of the fllCus stlck. When a noun phrasc with {his as
dctermilicr is cncountcrcd. thc co-prcscnt fixus from thc stack could h e n be
determiner is encountered, We co-present focus from the stack could then be
choscn as the co-spccificr.
chosen as the co-specifier.
I h c kcrncl of thc rulc b r this and thnr is:
The kernel oftl1e rule for Ihis and that is:
(his i s a dctcrmincr uscd for main f t ~ u s that
.
is. [his + <noun
Ihis is a determiner used for main focus, wat is, {his + <noun
phrase> dctcrmincs I n i n ftcus, wliilc ~Aar (noun phrase>
phrase>
determineswith
main
focus, while
phrase>
co-spccifics
a potcntial
or oldthat
f ~ u+s (noun
.Howcrcr,
if thc focus
co-specifics
with
a
potential
or
old
focus.
However,
if
the
focusphrase
has bccn mcn~ioncdusing rhal, thcn a rlrisdcfi~iitcnoun
has been
mentiolled
then
a this definite noun phrase
must
co-spccifyusing
with thai,
an old
focus.
must co-specify with an old focus.

D5 is a casc whcrc ttic primary focus (tomorrow night's party) is stackcd, in favor
D5 is a case where the primary focus (tomorrow night's party) is stacked, in favor
of a discussion of a sccond clcmcnt in thc discoursc. signalled by t l ~ cuse of rhal. It
of a discussion of a second clemcnt in the discourse, signalled by tile use of (hal. It
moues into focus, and w h c ~thc~ first party is discussed again, lhis must bc uscd.
movcs inw focus, and when the first party is discussed again, this must be used.
An cxamplc of the nonnal n ~ l cinstantiation is givcn below in D41. First Hilda's
An example of the nonnal mle instantiation is given belllw in D41. First Hilda's
plan is in focus and thcn thc speaker's own plan. 'I'hcrcaftcr Hilda's plan is talked
plan is in focus and then tile speaker's own plan. Thereafter Hilda's plan is talked
aboutmsing that.
about'using that.
D41-B: What arc the plans for thc banana raid?
041 B: What are the plans for the banana raid?
A: According to Hilda's plan, you and I stay hcre until
A: According
plan, you
I stay
untilI think
evcryonc to
clscHilda's
is in position.
1 don'tandmuch
like ithere
bccause
everyone else is in position. I don't much like it because I tI1ink
wc'll miss all thc action. I tl~inkI'vc got a bcttcr plan: we'll be
we'll miss
all the party,
action.and
I think
I've got a better plan: we'll be
Eloise and Hilda thc scarch party. With
thc guidc
We guide party, and Eloise and Hilda the search party. With
this plan, wc'll bc in o n thc action. Wcll, what d o you think,
wis plan, we'll be in on the action, Well, what do you think,
isn't il a bctlcr p l ~ nthan that onc?
isn'[ it a better plan Wan tllat one?

'I'hc rule for rhisand 01ar rcflccts thc locus of h c spcakcr's conccrn. In 115 the
Thc rule for this and that reflects tI1e locus oflle speaker's concern. In))5 me
first thing introduced is t l ~ cchicf conccrn. whilc in 1M1,A indicatcs conccrn with
first Wing introduced is the chief concern, while in ))41, A indicates concern with
hcr own plan rathcr than Hilda's. In gcncral, when thc spcakcr uses hat as
her own plan rather Wan Hilda's. In gcneral, when the speaker uses that as
dctcrmincr for a dcfinitc anaphor that co-specifics with the f t ~ u s Ihe
, spcaker is
detennincr for a dcfinitc anaphor tI1at co-specifics with the f(Jeus, the speaker is
indicating that chicf conccrn lies with anOthcr clcmcnt onc that has prcviously
indicating fuat chief concern lies witl1 anoller clement, one that has previously

323

bccn in ftxus, but that has bccn "put on hold" until thc spcakcr finishcs with the
been in focus, but that has been "put on hold" until the speaker finishes with the
clcrncnt mcntioncd by thc rhnl phrase.
element mentioned by the that phrase.
'Ihe abovc explanation is incomplete. Spcakcr conccrn functions slightly
The above explanation is incomplete. Speaker concern functions slightly
differently whcn thc spciikcr and hcarcr arc not focuscd on thc same elcmc~~ts.
differently when the speaker and hearer arc not focused on the same elements,
and cspccially whcn r h i . ~and /hat co-spccify clcmcnts of diffcrcnt typcs. In DS
and especially when this and thaI co-specify elements of different types. In D5
and 1341, spcakcr and hcarcr arc ft~uscdon what thc spcakcr makcs lhc focus of
and \)41, speaker and hearer arc foc~sed on what the speaker makes tJle focus of
thc discnursc. Ilowcvcr, in somc dialogues, the spcz~kcrand hcarcr do not always
the discourse. However, in some dblogues, the speaker and hearer do not always
sharc focuscd itcms. Considcr 1142 bclow.
share focllsed items. Consider \)42 below.
1342-1 A: 1.ct.s flip a coin i~ndscc whocalls it.
1)42-1 1\.: l.et's nip a coin and sec who calls it.
2 11: Hcads.
2 B: Heads.
3 A: 'I'hat's what it is. ( * 'I'his is what it is.)
3 1\.: That's what it is. (. This is what it is.)
'I'hc f(xus of Uiis dialoguc is the coin which is hcing flipped. Il has a sccond
The focus of this dblogue is the coin which is being flipped. n has a second
focus which is thc rcsull of thc loss. Wlicn A speaks of 13's ftcus, A uscs that to
focus which is the resull of me toss. When I\. speaks of Irs focus, I\. uses thai to
rcfcr to it: [hir cannot bc so uscd. Whcn scvcral cxamplcs arc considcrcd, the
refer to it this cannot be so used. When several examples arc considered, the
propcr fo~mulationof thc rulc bccotncs clear: whcn spcakcr and hearer (as a
proper fOlmulation of We rule becomes clear: when speaker and hearer (as a
sccond spcakcr) havc diffcrcnt f(rus, usc rhar as Ihc dctcrrnitlcr of a dcfinitc noun
second speaker) have different focus, usc Ihat as tJle detennincr of a definite noun
plirasc that co-spccitics thc hcascr's focus, and use /his for Lhc spcakcr's focus.
phrase that co-specities the hearer's focus, and usc Ihis for tJle speaker's focus.
That in IW2 is used non-co-prcscntly. Non-co-prescnt 11stsof [his and rho/ are
ThaI in 1)42 is lIsed non-co-presently. Non-co-prcsent uses of this and Ihal are
thosc whcrc thc iinaphors spccify discoursc clcmcnts that rcprcscnt t w o different
liose where lie anaphors specify discourse elements liat represent two different
In
typcs 'of objcas and whcrc thcre is only one ftrus pcr spcakcr.
types' of objects and where there is only one focus per speaker.
In
nun-co-prcscncc, this co-specifics an clcincn[ which bccotncs h c fmus whilc rhar
non-co-presence, this cO'specifics an clement which becomes lie focus while that
co-specifics somc othcr discoursc elcmcnt which stays out of focus in spitc of the
co-specifics some other discourse element, which SL.1yS out of focus in spite of the
anaplioric tcnn. Sincc non-co-prcscnt uscs conccrn focus movcment, let us
anaphoric tenn. Since non-co'present uses concern focus movement, let us
discovcr just how thcy bchavc in discourse.
discover just how they behave in discourse.
5.4.3 This and Thor in Focus hlovcment
5.4.3 This and That in Focus Movement

When considering thc bchavior of this in discount, onc may observe that a this
When considering the behavior of this in discourse, onc may observe that a this
dcfinite noun phrasc movcs thc focus to whatcvcr is spccificd by the hcad noun of
definite noun phrase moves the focus to whatever is specified by the head noun of
thc dctinitc noun phrasc. As the rulcs in the discussion of pronouns indicate,
the definite noun phrase. As the rules in the discussion of pronouns indicate,
usually thc focus mows to Ihc Icading potential firus in thc potcntial focus list
usually Ule focus moves to the leading potential focus in tJle potential focus list
Yct somctitncs thc f t ~ u smovcs to thc cntirc tlcscription givcn by thc prcvious
Yet sometimes the focu~ moves to the entire description given by the previous
scntcnccs: somctimcs, surprisingly. thc fixus docs not rc;rlly mnvc in Ihc scnsc
sentences; sometimes. surprisingly, lie filCUS does not really move in fue sense
that a ncw clcmcnt is co-spccificd: thc samc clcmcnt is spccificd but from a
that a new clement is co-specified; the same clement is specified but from a
diffcrcn
t pcrspcctivc.
different
perspective.
Thir
dcfinitc anaphora arc uscd in four ways dcpcnding upon the typc of noun
This definite anaphora arc used in four ways depending upon the type of noun
phrasc hcads that thcy and thc f t ~ u contain.
s
'Ihc cascs arc cnumcratcd bclow
phrase heads that they and the f(lCUS contain. 'Ibe cases are enumerated below
with
sample
illustrative
tcxls.
with sample illustrative texts.

324

Sidncr

Thc focus
focus and rhi~dcfinitc
nouhs: thc
a,-specifier
1. The
lhis definite anaphor have thc
the same head nouns:
the co-specifier
Rlr
mcmbcr of the
dlc potcnlial
Rrus list and can be
bc chosen just as
for thc
the anaphor is a member
potential focus
co-spccificrsarc; move the
t l ~ cfocus
focus to co-specifier.
pronoun co-specifiers
co-spccificr. 1
1M-17hc
nln for a long distance, sending
scnding off
offseveral
D4-11bc axon niuy
may nlO
several
sidcbro~lchrs
sidebranchfs along thc
the way.
bcforc it terminates
tcl-~ninatcsin an cvcn
nctwork of tilarner-ls,
Filamccts, the
2 before
even finer
finer network.
rrni~i~arl
urbor. (FOCUS:
(FOCUS: thc
ten"illal
arbllr.
d,e axon)
3 h1;ln's
sc\,cral feel,
fcct. from thc
column
Man's ~nc!Ilongest axon
~xon runs for several
the spinal cotumn
111
rnuxlcs that control
conlrol movements
mo\,cmcnts ofthe
ofthc toes.
to muscles
441n
In spite
spitc of its grcnt
m
ncrvc fibers,
fibers, is a pan
great Icngth,
length. ~
this axon.
like all.oerve
part
cell. (NEW
(NI:W FOCUS:
1:OCUS: Man's longest axon)
o f a single cell.
of
5 It is living matter.

2. The
'lhc focus
foclls and this
rhis definite
dcfinitc anaphor
aniiphor have
h;lvc different head
hcad nouns: the focus
focus
bc considered
considcrcd as a co-specifier
co-spccificr of thc
{his definite
dcfinitc an.aphor
anaphor bcfo~~.should b"
the this
before other
potcntinl
fcrus is an acceptable
;~cccptablcco-specifier.
co-specifier, thc
focus does
docs not mm'c.
move.
potential foci. If die
the focus
the focus
))43] Consider the roomful of
electronic equipment
makes up a
1143-1
ofclcctronic
cquipmcnt that m;ikcs
modem, high-spccd
high-speed digital computer.
modcni.
2 Rack after
;lftcr rack of transistors. diodes,
diodcs. magnetic
magnetic core memories.
nlcmories.
magnctic
mcmorics-magnetic film
film mcmories-3 all laced
togedler by an intricate system
laccd u~gcthcr
system ofwiriog
of wiring many miles in
length.
length.
4 llnaginc
& m,
every thing in it, shrunk to about the size
Imagine.l!J
Lillilll. and everything
of a cigarette
the room)
cigarcttc package. (FOCUS: thc
i?nan,clougl2ill.
& to a clever elcctrical
electrical
5 Now suppose we give 1h.b marvelous
en.gineer, a man working,
working, however.
however, not in our own midcenturv.
rnidccnturv.
cnginccr,
but about d,e
hut
thc year 1900.
1900.
6 Wc
We prcscnt
present our gift
dcmonstratc a few ofdle
of the remarkable feats
feats it can perform:
7 and demonstrate
perfonn:
several
scvcral hundred thousand additions in one second...
sccond...
8 We lc;~vc&
le,lve this tantalizing
tantalirine,-device with the suggestion
suggestion that he try
package...
to find out what's inside the cigarette package
...

1
head. Choose
the co-specifier
3. This
Tliis definite
dcfinitc anaphor has an empty
cmpry hcad.
Choosc thc
co-spccificr from the
potential focus list.
list but order
ordcr the verb phrasc
clioicc. Move the
phrase predication as first choice.

1. This example and ihe

ncxl are from
from [Denes
[Dencsand Pinson 1973J.
19731,The
7'heSpcwh
Chain: The Physiesond
1.
the nCXl
Speech Chain:
Physics and
Brology
' m s . Garden City,
City. New York.
124, and 122.
122, respectively.
mspeaively.
Biology ofspoken
a/Spoken language.
Language.. Anchor IPress.
York. pagu
pages 124,

325
focus to the co-s~ccificr.~
focus to the co-specifier. 2
1144-1 Sincc howcvcr, thc intcrprctation has bccn put forward as a
D44-1 Since however, the interpretation has been put forward as a
hypothcsis,
hypothesis,
2 somc wcight will bc addcd to it
2 some weight will be added to it
3 if it can bc shown to havc an antcccdcnt probability. (FOCUS:
3 if it can be shown to have an antecedent probability. (FOCUS:
the intcrprclation)
the interpretation)
4'l&
is what I shall cndcavnr to do in the remaining pages.
4 This is what I shall endeavor to do in the remaining pages.
(NEW IzOCUS: show rhat thc intcrprctation has antcccdcnt
(NEW FOCUS: show that the intcrpretation has antecedent
probability)
probability)
,
4. A this dcfinitc anaphor occurs inside of a qt~antificdplirase. 'Ihc /his dcfinitc
4. A this definite anaphor occurs inside of a quantified phrase. The this definite

anaphor takcs its co-spccificr from thc quantificd variable; such cascs arc similar
anaphor takes its co-specifier from the quantified variable; such cases arc similar
to thc bound vari;tbIc pronouns discusscd in ~3 a r l i c r .I~h c focus docs not move.
to the bound variable pronouns diSCllssed in earlier. The focus docs 110t move.
(In thc cxarnplc4bclow. Lhc quantificd phriisc and fhisanaphora arc undcrlincd.)
(In the example4 below. the quantified phrase and Ihis anaphora arc underlined.)

1M5-1Wc can. thcrcforc. asscxiate wit11 & aoint ncar the earth a
])45-1 We can. therefore. associate with
Illiin.t ncar Lhe earth a
vector g whicli is lhc accclcration that a body would cxpcrience
vector g whicll is the acceleration that a body would experience
if it wcrc rclcascd at this aoint.
if it were released at this 1lQiul.
2 We call g thc gru~sfario~mlfilr/sfrrt~g/lr
at the poinr in question.
2 We call g the gravitational field slrcng/h at the point in question.
Why arc this anaphora prtrvidcd as a signalling hchavior whcn if and definite
Why arc Ihis anaphora provided as a signalling behavior when it and definite
anaphora using /ha arc availablc? 'Ihc cascs citcd abovc pc~micLhc conclusion
anaphora using Ih(' arc available? The cases cited above permit the conclusion
h i t the spcakcr nccds a way to signal fcxus mobcmcnt whcre it and the anaphora
that Lhe speaker needs a way to signal focus movement where il and Ihe anaphora
would kccp thc focus on an cxisting discourse clcmcnt. Somctimcs the speaker
would keep the focus on an existing discourse clement. Sometimes Lhe speaker
also nccds a way to signal a ~ I C Wview of the focus (case 2); in such cascs it could
also needs a way to signal a new view of the focus (case 2); in such cases il could
not. provide this signal, and rhe noun phrascs arc too easily takcn to be ncw items
not provide this signal, and the noun phrases arc too easily taken to be new items
in the discourse, rathcr Lhan the focus from a diffcrcnt description. Only in
in the discourse, rather Lhan the focus from a different description. Only in
quantificd phrascs can rllis i~napliorabc used without moving focus; as thcse cases
quantified phrases can this an<Jphora be used without moving focus; as these cases
arc wcll marked by thc quantifier, the hcarcr can distinguish them as a spccial
are well marked by the quantifier. the hearer can distinguish them as a special
case.
case.
In contrast to /his, llrat uscd non-co-prcscntly singles out an clcmcnt of the text
In contrast to this, lhat used non-co-presently singles out an clement of the text
for rc-mention without causing a focus movcmcnt. Thc focus may move later, but
for re-mention without causing a focus movement. The focus may move later, but
another anaphor must causc thc move.
another anaphor must Cause the move.
Ihcre arc two kinds of nun-co-prcscnt rkar, which will bc called new mention
ll1ere arc two kinds of non"co-present that. which will be called new mention

rum

2. This cxamplc is from Ihomzi A. Goudge. [Goudge 19691 7ke lhoughr ojCS. Peirce. Dover
2. This Publications.
example is from
A. Goudge. [Goudge 1969) The Thought of c.s. Peirce. Dover
Inc., Ihomas
New York,
page 326.
Publi~lions.lne., New York, page 326.
3. Quanlificd phrase patterns also use that in a similar way.
3. Quantified
phrase
patterns
also and
use David
rhat in Ilalliday
a similar [Rcsnik
way. and Ilalliday 19661. Physics: ParlI. John Wiley
4 1:rorn
Kcwick.
K&ca
4. Fromand
Resnick. Roben and David lIalliday (ResniK and Halliday 1%6]. Physics: Part I. John Wiley
Sons. lnc. Ncw York. page 405.
and Son.... Inc. New York, page 405.

Sidner

Sidncr

326

326

& and prcvious mention tho[. New rncntion thar dcscribcs an clerncnt which
J.h.m, New mention that describes an clement which

.l.!J.gJ and previous mention

has not bccn mcntioncd previously in fhc tcxt. It signals a new discoursc element
has not been mentioned previously in the text. It signals a new discourse element
and can bc uscd without confusion as long as no other dcfinitc noun phrases with
and can be used without confusion as long as no other definite noun phrases with
thc samc noun hcad as thc l h a ~phrasc cxist in the discoursc. Two examples of
the same noun head as the lhal phrase exist in the discourse. Two examples of
ncv rncntion tho1 arc givcn below.'
new mention that arc given below. 1
1346-1 l h i s is a coursc in biology.
))46-1 This is a course in biology.
2 Iiiology studics thosc crititics that arc callcd or~anisms:mcn,
2 Biology studies those entities that are called organisms: men,
worms, ycast cclls. hactcrial cclls arc organisms.
worms, yeast cells. bacterial cells arc organisms.
3 Some organisms arc unicellular,
3 Some organisms arc unicellular,
4 somc ilrc multi-cellular.
4 some arc multi-cellular.
1347-1 In Marigold's gardcn, roscs grow cvcry whcre.
))47-1 In Marigold's garden, roses grow everywhere.
2 Shc likcs roscs of thc Fastcrn gorgc variety morc than thosc of
2 She likes roses of the Eastern gorge variety more than those Qf
thc Wcstcrn shore.
1h Western
3 so shcshore,
has a lo1 of thcm in hcr collcction.
3 so she has a lot of them in her collection.
4 'lhcy grow to priyc winning sl~apcsand sizes.
4 They grow to prile winning shapes and sizes.
A prcuious rncntion rhor phrasc takcs as its co-spccificr thc intcrprctation of
A previous mention tlwl phrase takes as its co-specifier the interprctation of
sornc pllrasc. mcnrioncd prcviorlsly in thc discoursc An cxamplc2 is givcn below.
somc phrase, mentioned previously in the discourse. An examrle2 is given below.
1148-1 If hlNhlS11 is rcfcrrcd to by I3 citl~cras "thc may& of San
D48-1 If MNMSD
referred
to by D either as "the mayor of San
Ilicgo"is or
"1)'s neighbor,"
Diego" or "I)"s neighbor,"
2 r h a l nodc 'MNMSIY rcprcscnis thc individual rcfcrrcd to.
2 then node 'MNMSD' represents the individual referred to.
3 'Illc problcrn is that only looking at that nodc providcs no
3 'llle problem
is that
only
looking atth"t
provides no
of thc
dil'fcrcnccs
in thcnode
two rcfcrcnccs t o MNMSD,
rcflcction
reflection of the differences in the two references to MNMSD,
4 cvcn though the surfacc IlEFNPs d o cxprcss lhis difference.
4 even though the surface DEFNPs do express this difference.
5 Ftrus spaces provide a mcans of rcprescnting this diffcrcnce.
S Focus spaces provide a means of representing this difference.
In 1348, that nod? co-specifics with thc nodc of D48-2. If thc rcst of the
In D48, that node co-specifics with the node of 048 2. If the rest of the
discoursc is ignored, 1M8-3 would havc bccn cqunlly acccptablc using this.
discourse is ignored, D48-3 would have been equally accept1blc using this.
liowcvcr, the author dtxls not want to focus on that node sincc in the next scntence
However, the author docs not want to focus on that node since in the next sentence
shc uses {his dflere~lceto focus.
she uses this dijJerence to focus.
'I'hc important question about prcvious mention thar is why it exists at all in
The important question about previous mention that is why it exists at all in
English. I t is clcar from 1)48 why tlris cannot bc uscd, but what about rhe or if? In
English. It is clear from 1)48 why this cannot be used, but what about the or if! In
thc cxarnplcs I havc found, it in place of thal is ambiguous in indicating what
the examples I have found, it in place of that is ambiguous in indicating what
objcct is bcing rcfcrrcd to. T ~ inP placc of that sccms to bc possible, but has a
object is being referred to. The in place of that seems to be possible, but has a
ccnain c f f i t . Supposc 1M8-3 wcre:
cenain effect. Suppose 1)48-3 were:
(30) 'l'hc prohlcm is that only looking at thc nodc providcs no
(30) The prohlcm is that only looking at the node provides no
rcflcction of thc dill'crcnccs in thc two rcfcrcnccs Lo MNMSI) ...
reflection of the dif1crences in the two references to MNMSD...
'Ihc LISC of thr forces a movcmcnt o f fmus from thc pcrson to thc nodc, whcn
'[he lise of the forces a movement of focus from the person to the node, when
I . 'thc first cxa~nplcwmcs trorn I.uria. S.E. [IL.uria 19751 Thir~ySixI.ecturer in Biologv, Cambridge:
I. The first
I.uria.
S.E.of[Luria
M ITexample
Prm, 3. comes
11 alsofrom
contains
a usc
dciflic1975]
this. ThirtySix Lecturer in Biology, Cambridge:
MIT Prcs.~,
It also
contains
a usc
this.
2. 3.I:rorn
[Cirma
19771.
pageof8deictie
2
2. From (Grosl. 19771. page 82

327
what thc author actually wants to turn hcr attcntion to is thc diffcrcnccs in thc two
what the author actually wants to turn her attention to is the differences in the two
rcfcrcnccs to thc person. In othcr words, an intcrvcning, and in this case
references to the person. In other words, an intervening, and in this case
unncccssary, focus movcmcnt occurs.' t~lcnccrhar scrvcs a uscful function in the
unnecessary, focus movement occurs.! Hence that serves a useful function in the
languagc; it allows the spcakcr re-mcntion discoursc clcmcnts without them
language: it allows the speaker re-mention discourse clements without them
becoming thc focus of thc spcakcr's (and thcrcforc thc hcarcr's) attcntion.
becoming the focus afthe speaker's (and therefore the hearer's) attention.
5.4.4 Using thc I~ocusRlovc~tlcntAlgorithm
5.4.4 Using thc Focus 1\ lovclllcnl Algorithm

'To concludc this scction ilnd illustrate how thc anaphor inlcrprctcr and the
To conclude this section and illustrate how the anaphor interpreter and the
ftrusing algorithm fitnction for /his and rhar anaphora, thcir bchavior will be
focusing algorithm function for this and that anaphora, their behavior wilt be
illustrated o n an cxamplc which uses !his and lhar non-co-prcscntly.
illustrated on an example which uses this and 'hat non-co-presently.
1149-1 Onc day Iiill's fathcr bougl~tIjill a ncw softball.
])49-1 One day Bill's fJlher bought Bill a new softball.
2 Ilill and his fricnds playcd with it daily.
2 Hill and his friends plJyed with it daily.
3 Not long aftcr Ilnrry was givcn a hardball by his uncle.
3 Notillng after Harry was given a hardball by his uncle.
4.l'his ball. allowing morc spccd and accuracy than Bill's, bccame
4 This ball. allowing more speed and accuracy than Ilill's, became
the boys' choicc for all thcir baseball games.
the boys' choice for all their baseball games.
5 That bo~hcrcdIlill's father
5Thal bothered Bill's father
6 bccatlsc hc didn't Iikc to scc I3ill ncglcct his toys.
6 bccause he didn't like to see Bill neglect his toys.
?bc cxpcctcd f i ~ u sof 1149 is a sofiball. I t is confirmed by the use of it in
Tbc expected focus of 1)49 is a softball. It is confirmed by the use of it in
1349-2. 1339-3 introduces a hardball, which is a potcntial Focus fi~rthc discourse.
])49-2. 049-3 introduces a hardball, which is a potential filCUS filr the discourse.
Sincc /his dcfinitc anaphom must use thc potcritial fccus list as a sourcc for
Since this definite anaphora must use the potential focus list as a source for
co-spccificrs (whcn no co-pi-cscnt that is prcscnt), and since thc source passes
co-specifiers (when no co-present that is present), and since the source passes
synlactic. semantic. and infcrcncc critcria. this boll in 1x94 is chosen to co-specify
syntactic, semantic, and inference criteria, this ball in D49-4 is chosen to co-specify
with the putcntial focus of a hardball. Whcn rlle focusing algorithm runs after
with the potential focus of a hardball. When the fllCusing algorithm runs after
D49-4, thc focus must move because of the use of this. In Lhc ncxt scntence a
D49-4, the focus must move because of the use of this. In the next sentence a
noun phrasc consisting only of rhar occurs. 'Thc potcntial focus list of the previous
noun phrase consisting only of that occurs. The potential focus list of the previous
sentcncc contains /he boys' choice, their baseball games and tllc predication
sentence contains the boys' choice, their baseball games and the predication
cxprcsscd by the vcrb phrase, l l l c rules for that prcdict that the last mcmber of
expressed by the verb phrase. 111e rules for that predict that the hist member of
hc potential ftxus list is thc co-specifier of thar, a predication, which is what,
the potential focus list is the co-specifier of that, a predication, which is what,
intuitively, rhar co-specificswith.
intuitively, that co-specifics with.
lhjs scctjon has introduced and dcvclopcd thc notion of co-prcscnce in
This seclion has introduced and developed the notion of co-presence in
discoursc, for undcrstanding thc use of {his and rh~rranaphora. Co-presence is a
discourse, for understanding the usc of this and that anaphora. Co-presence is a
mcans for talking about two or rnorc discoursc clcmcnts that are rclatcd to each
means for talking about two or more discourse clements that are related to each
othcr, Dccausc Ianguagc is spokcn in a lincar dimension, and pcrhaps bccause
other. 13ecausc language is spoken in a linear dimension. and perhaps because

1. There is anolher reason for using !hat. Ihe context which precedes the tcxt oTIM8 makes reference
1. Theretoisaanother
for using
that.
contc~t which precedes the tc~t orI)48 makes reference
Lgure inrca.~on
h e tcxt.
7b!
node The
doubles
as a dc~aicphraw. Ihis cnanlple wggcsls hat here is an
to a figure
in the te~l
That
node doubles
a dciClie
c~ample suggCl>1S that there is an
imporlant
relation
bclwecn
focusingasand
dcixis.phrase.
a matterlbis
demanding
hnher research.
important relation belween focusing and deixis. a matter demanding further research.

328

Sidner

pcoplc havc troublc paying closc attcn~ionto two things at oncc, it is not rcally
people have trouble paying close atlention to two things at once, it is not really
possible to focus on both clc~ncntssimultaneously. lnstcad, two clcments are set
possible to focus on both clements simultaneously. Instead, two elements are set
up for discussion and considcrcd in turn using thc normal Ftzusing process.
up for discussion and considered in turn using the normal focusing process.
Co-prescncc cascs arc wcll signallcd in languagc bcl~rtvior,pcrhaps to prcvcnl
Co-presence cases arc well signalled in language behavior, perhaps to prevent
cunfusion for hcarcr. Sincc hcarcrs arc somctimcs confuscd by single focus, it is
confusion for hearer. Since hearers arc sometimes confused by single focus, it is
not surprising that co-prcscnt ftri most bc signallcd clcarly cnough so that some
not surprising that co-present foci must be signalled clearly enouh so that some
of thc ptttcntial confi~sionis rcduccd. It may wcll bc that Lhc signalling is
of the potential confusion is reduced. It may well be that the signalling is
ncccssary for tlic spcakcr as wcll. to hclp kccp track of what IIC or shc is trying to
necessary for tile speaker as well, to help keep track of what he or she is trying to
say. 'lhis is mcrc speculation until focusing is applied to thc gcncnuion of
say. This is mere specu1<Jtioll until focusing is applied to the generation of
languagc. and a thcor): of its bchuvior is givcn. Somc rcscarch in this direction is
language, and a theory of its behavior is given. Some research in this direction is
discussed by h1cl)onald in this volumc.
discussed by McDonald in this volume.
In contrast to co-prcscnl f c ~LISC
i of his and rhclr noun phrascs, nun-co-prcscnt
In contrast to co-present foci usc of this and {har noun phrases, non-eo-present
uscs of thcm allow thc spc;~kerto indicntc whicll of all thc things she or hc has
uses of them allow the speaker to indicate which of all the things she or he has
mcntioncd is most i~npol-tant to thc discussion. This and rhnr uscd in
mentioned is most important to the discussion. This and Ihat used in
non-co-prcscncc allow thc spcakcr to point at thc rclcvant malcrial with the lcast
non-eo-presence allow the speaker to point at the relevant malerial with the least
confusion. Hcncc thc real diffcrcncc in h c s c uscs is a difTcrcncc in Ule spcakcr's
confusion. Hence the real difference in these uses is a difference in the speaker's
plans for, and thc hcarcr's mcans of dcciding. what will bc talkcd about.
plans for, and tile hearer's means of deciding, what will be talked about.

5.5 Conclusions

5.5 Conclusions

In this chaprcr thc conccpt of ftxus has bccn defined and thc rolc of focusing in
In tllis chapter tile concept of focus has been defined and the role of focusing in
understanding discoursc has bccn illustrated. '1'0 formalize and clarify this
understanding discourse has been illustrated. To fonnalize and clarify this
bchavior, I havc dcscribcd algorithms for finding thc focus and for moving the
behavior, ] have described algorithms for finding the focus and for moving the
focus as the discoursc progrcsscs. 'l'racking the movemcnt of thc f t m s includes a
focus as the discourse progresses. Tracking the movement. of tile focus includes a
means of distinguishing tllc prcscncc of morc than onc f t ~ u in
s thc discourse; the
means of distinguishing the presence of more than one focus in thc discourse; the
focusing algorithm tracks both thc discoursc ftrus. thc chicf ctcmcnt of discussion
focusing algoritllm tracks both the discourse focus, the chief clement of discussion
and the actor focus, thc cllicf actor in a portion of the discourse.
and the actor focus, tile chief actor in a portion of tllC discourse.
Focusing providcs thc foundation for a theory of anaphor intcrprctation. The
Focusing provides the foundation for a theory of anaphor interpretation. The
foci and aspccts of thc focitsing algorithm togcthcr with linguistic rulcs for disjoint
foci and aspects of the focllsing algorithm together with linguistic rules for disjoint
rcfcrencc and sclcctional restrictions, and with rcprcscntations of ncrwork
rcference and selectional restrictions, and with representations of network
relations and scntcntial scopc information provide an account of thc intcrprctation
relations and sentential scope information provide an account of tile interpretation
of many uscs of dcfinite anaphora. i3otb thc rulcs and rcprcscntations havc bccn
of many uses of definite anaphora. Both the rules and representations have been
shown to bc compatible with thc proccss of L~using,and ncccssary to focusing in
shown to be compatible with the process of focusing, and necessary to focusing in
providing information rclcvant to dctcrmining Lhc co-spccificr of a pronoun. In
providing in formation relevant to determining the co-specifier of a pronoun. In
most cascs, thc focus itsclf providcs a co-spccificr, and in somc cascs, a gcncrator
most cases, the focus itsclf provides a co-specifier, and in some cases, a generator
for thc spccification.
for the specification.
Focusing simplifies a crucial stcp of anaphor interpretation. In choosing a
Focusing simplifies a crucial step of anaphor interpretation. In choosing a
co-specification, i~lfcrcnccsabout knowlcdgc of thc evcryday world arc necdcd,
co-specification. infcrences about knowledge of the everyday world arc needed.
and focusing has contributed a mcans of controlling thc inferring process.
and focusing has contributed a means of controlling the inferring process.

329

Because
I%ccausctl,e
thc pronoun interpreter
intcrprctcr predicts a co-specifier
co-spccificr and then
thcn asks for
confinnation
based on the prcscncc
presence of contradictions in the
confirmation or rejection
rcjcction bascd
thc inferring
infcrring
process. tl,e
process is colli
rolled by the focus
In prcvious
previous
Uic inference
infcrcncc pnxcsc
conlrollcd
f i ~ u machinery.
machincry.
s
pnrcsc.
Al natural langungc systems
systcms interpretation
inlcrprclatioli resulted
rcsul~cdfrom
from binding of free
frcc variables
Ainallirallanguage
howcvcr, many inferences
infcrcnccs had to hc
thcn "undone"
during inferring: however,
be drawn and then
due
binding choices.
eliminates
duc to incorrect hinding
choiccs. Tbe
'l'hc focusing
focusing approach
appr~~acli
climinatcs this kind of
tiS
blind hinding and
arid unbinding
i~nl~inding
:IS well
wcll as shortening
shortc~lingtJ1C
thc inference
infcrcncc chain search.
sct~rch.
In this chapler
cliaplcr II hale
hi~vcabo
;II\o illustrated
illustr;~tcdthe value
valuc of concept of co-presence
co-prcscnce for
interpreting
and thaI.
i~i[crprctinglhc
~liclise
usc of this
rhisand
rhar. Co-presence
Co-prcscncc is the
thc means
mc;~nJby which
wliicli a speaker
spcakcr
C~1ll
be focused
and it has bccn
been shown
can bc
fi~cuscdon more
inorc than
d1;11ione
onc thing in a conversation.
convcrst~lio~i.
tIi;~trhi,
rhar used
uscd co-presently
c~vprcscntly<.t110,"",
allou, the
dic maintenance
rnaintcnancc of two foci,
foci, one of main
that
,his and thaI
concern
conccrn and the
thc other
(~lhcrof secondary
sccondnry concern
co~iccrnto the
thc speaKer.
spcakcr. This
This and that
rhar lIsed
used
nun-co-prcscntlg. that
Iht~tis.
ic, when
whcn only one
onc of the
thc two types
typcs of noun phrases is found,
found,
non-eo-presently,
also indicate
indicatc main
~iiainconcern
conccrn (this),
(rhi~),or secondary conccrn (thaI)
(rhar) relative
rclativc to some
other
otlicr focus.
fixus.
111e
by Grosz.
cascs described
dcscrihcd hy
Grosz, and the
thc need
nccd for parallelism
I h c focus
f(rus "popping" cases
undcrscorc the
thc role
n ~ l cof higher
liighcr discourse
discoursc structures
struclurcs in focus
ftrus intcllJrctation.
intclprct;~[ion. The
underscore
(iros?
Gros?. examples
cxnmplcs \"iobtc
viol;~tc the stacked
st;~ckcd theus
firus constraint. but arc comprehensible
comprchcnsible
knowledge of task
wsk structures.
structures. The
'lhc p.~rallclism
bccaosc
tlic speaker
spcakcr relics
rclics on knowledge
b(':caus~ the
parallelism
cxamplcs show that
tliat some allditional
addition;il structure
structul-c is also used
uscd in
ill understanding
undcrstanding
examples
dirourccs. While
\\'liilc ftx:us
firus popping makes
nit~kcsusc
use of the focus
firus algorithm.
;~lgoriUim.the parallel
discourses.
structure cases seem
sccni to rely
rcly on a mechanism
mcclianisn~which is dfrferent
dirfcrcnt in kind.
This ch<.lpter
chaptcr further
filrthcr specifics
spccilics the nature
naturc of focusing
firusing as
;IS it relates
rclalcs to a theory
thcory of
definite
dclinitc anaphor
anaplior illlerpretation.
intcrprctalion. /\
A focus-based
focus-b;scd theory
thcory with stipulations for syntax,
syntax.
infcrcntial knowledge.
knowlcdgc, pm\,idcs
cxplanatory theory
lhcory
semantics and inferential
provides a prcdictivc
predictive and explanatory
anaplior interpretation.
intcrprctatiun. The
'rlic theory
tha~ryis prcdictivc
stipulatcs legal
lcgal and
of anaphor
predictive bccausc
because it stipulates
illcgal pronoun uses
uscs as well
wcll as their
thcir interpretations:
intcrprctations: it is explanatory
cxplanatory bccausc
illegal
because it
hinges on the
thc focusing
focusing algorithm using <tl1aphora
anaphora as signals
signals of what is being
dirusscd. while
whilc the
thc syntactic,
syntactic, semantic
scmantic and inferential
infcrcnti31 knowledge
knowlcdgc used in
discussed.
interpreting
provide for changes
intcrprcting anaphora providc
changcs in the foci
foci of discourse,
discoursc, changes that
rcflcctcd in pronoun usc.
use.
arc reflected
Focusing
be a necessary part of the tlleory
thcory of the
thc pragmatics of
Fcrusing seems
sccms to hc
language.
bnguagc. In his well
wcll known William James
Jamcs lcclUres.
Icclurcs, [Grice
[Gricc 19751
19753 defined
dcfincd several
several
maxims
of conversation.
n~;~xims
convcrsatio~i,one of whieh
which was the
thc maxim of relevance.
rclcvancc. Grice
~ r i c 1c 'says
about this maxim:

1. Grice.op. cit. page 67.

Sidner

330

Undcr the category of R~lrrriotlI plncc a singlc maxim, namely,

Under "Rc
the category
Rela/iotlthc
I place
a single
namely,
is tcrsc, its
formulation
rclcvant."of'I'tlough
inaxiin
itself maxim,
itselfwhich
is terse,
its formulation
"Be relevant,"
a nurnhcrtheofmaxim
prol>lcms
cxcrcisc
mc a good dcal;
concciils'Jll(lugh
of problems
whichkinds
exercise
good
deal; thcrc
conceals
a number
questions
abwt
what diffcrcnl
andme
focia of
rclcvancc
what
different
kinds
and
foci
of
relevance
there
questions
ahout
may hc. h o w thcsc shift in tllc coursc of a talk cxchangc, how to
may be,allow
how for
these
the subjects
course of
talk cxch,mge,archow
to
ofacoi~vcrsatioi~
lcgiti~natcly
thcshift
factintliat
allow for
the factand
that
of conversation are legitimately
so subjects
on.
chaiigcd.
changed, and so on.
As long as rclcv;~nccis a part of a thcory of pragmatics. ftxusing must bc
A;:; long as relevance is a part of a theory of pragmatics, focusing must be
includcd in tliat tllcr~ry,wl~cthcrit is the thcory which Gricc has bcgun LO unfold
included in that thcory, whether it is the theory which Grice has begun to unfold
or some c~thcrone. t~tzusingand licus as thcy have ~ C C I Iused 1ic1.cbcar dircctly
or some other one. Focusing and IlJeUS as they have been used here bear directly
on Gricc's concerns: for thcy suggcst a mcans for carrying out thc nlaxiin of
on Grice's concerns: for they suggest a means for carrying out the maxim of
rclcvancc. Namcly, a spcakcr is spcr~kingrclct~~~nlly
in a discnu~~sc
if hc or shc
relevance. Namely, a speaker is speaking relevantly in a discourse if he or she
intrclduccs a focus. and p n ~ c c d sto anothcr one by nicntio~ling it and
introduces a focus. and proceeds to another one by mentioning it and
rc-mentioning it wilt1 dcfinitc anaphora. Old fwi ilrc rc-inbokcd by a dcfinitc
re-mentioning it with delinite anaphora. Old f(lei me re-imoked by a definite
noun pl~rascuhich points out which old focus is co-spccificd or in onc of the
noun phrase which points out which old focus is co-specified or in one of the
othcr, lcss dircct, waFs discussed in thc pi.cvious cliaptcrs. Notlling lcss dlan the
other, less direct, ways discussed in the previous chapters. Nothing less than the
usc of frlcus will si~niccfor rclcvancc: for thc lnolncnt thc spcakcr fails to provide
usc of flJeus will surnce for relevance: for the moment the speaker fails to provide
a f t ~ u for
s thc hcarcr and to point back to it in succcssirc uttcranccs, LIIC hearer
a focus for tlle hearer and to point back to it in successive utterances, the hearer
has n o mcans of knowing what is rclcvilnt in thc discoursc at hand. In some scnsc
has no means of knowing what is relevant in the discourse at hand. In some Sense
tlie discoursc ccascs 10 be a discourse.
the discourse ceases to be a discourse.
I'crhaps it is surprising that focusing should play suc11a ccntral rolc in a thcory
Perhaps it is surprising Ulat focusing should play such a c~ntral role in a theory
of pragmatics. In particular, it is surprising tli;i1 firusing onc's attention on
of pragmatics. In particular, it is surprising that focusing one's attention on
so~ncthi~~g
and signalling onc's focus is part of thc criteria for speaking rclcvantly.
somclhillg and signalling one's focus is part of the criteria for speaking relevantly.
Onc cxpccts relcvancc to bc a maltcr of wh:it is slid about some thing, rathcr than
One expects relevance to be a matter of what is said about some thing, rather than
that thc thing is mcntioncd consistcntly. llut if wc rcmcllibcr that fixusing allows
that the thing is mentioned consistently. But if we remember that focusing allows
fi)r thc spcilkcr to tcll thc Ilcarcr that Ulc same thjng is slill under discussion and
for the speaker to tell the hearer that the same tlling is still under discussion and
without nccding to say explicitly what that thing is. thcn thc rolc of ftrcusing is not
without needing to say explicitly what that thing is, then the role of focusing is not
so surprising. Fallsing must then bc thc first criterion for spcaking rclcvantly,
so surprising. focusing must then be the first criterion for speaking relevantly,
sincc it explains how a hcarcr dccidcs what rhc spcakcr is talking about.
since it explains huw a hearer decides what the speaker is talking about.

5.6 hcknowlcdgcmcnts
5.6 Acknowledgements

'I'hc rcscarch rcportcd in this paper was supported in part by dlc Advanced
The research reported in this paper was supported in part by the Advanced
licscarch Projccts Agency undcr contract No. N0014-77-C-0378. licscarch
Research Projects Agency under contract No. NOOI4-77C-0378. Research
rcportcd hcrc was also donc at thc Artificial Intclligcncc 1,aboratory of the
reported here was also done at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the
~assachuscttsInstitute of 'l'cchnology. Support for thc hboratory's artificial
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for the laboratory's artificial
intclligcncc rcscarch is provided in part by thc Advanccd IZcscarch Projects
intelligence research is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects
Agcncy of the Dcpartmcnt of Dcfcnsc undcr ONli contract N0014-75-0643.
Agency of the Department of Defense under ONR contract N0014-75-0643.

CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER6

So What
W e Talk
About
Now?
So What
CanCan
We Talk
About
Now?
Bonnie
Lynn
Webber
Bonnie
Lynn
Webber

6.1 Introduction
6.1 Introduction

I startcd my rcscarch on an;rphoric rcfcrcncc in natural language whcn I was

I started my research on anaphoric reference in natural language when I was
struck by thc following two cxamplcs:
struck by the following two examples:
111-1John gavc Mary five dollars.
D1-1 John gave Mary five dollars.
2 I t was morc than he gavc Sue.
2 It WllS more than he gave Sue.
112-1 John gavc Mary five dollars.
D2- I John gave Mary five dollars.
2 Onc of I ~ P I Iwas
T counterfeit.
2 One of them was counterfeit
in wliich both ii and //inti sccm to follow from thc wmc phrascfive dollars. This
in which both it and them seem to follow from the same phrasefive dollars. This
sccrncd cxtraordinary; if dcfinitc pronouns likc it and ihry rcferrcd anaphorically
seemed extraordinary: if definite pronouns like it and the)' referred anaphorically
to tcxt strings, how could thc same string of tcxt justify hoth a singular and a
to te~t strings, how could the same string of text justify both a singular and a
plural pronoun.
plural pronoun.
Morcovcr, ncirhcr of the natural lang~iagcundcrstand;ng (N1.U) systems that I
Moreover, neither of the natural language understand;ng (NLU) systems that I
had workcd on up to the time - 1,UNAII [Woods et. al. 19721 and IIBN's speech
had worked on up to the time - LUNAR [Woods el. a!. 1972] and BON's speech
understanding systcln [Woods 19761 - could handle hoth cxamplcs cithcr. That is,
understanding system [Woods 1976} - could handle both examples either. That is,
whilc thcsc systcms had rulcs for identifying what noun phrases madc available
while these systems had rules for identifying what noun phrases made available
for subscqucnt dcfinite anaphora.' for cach typc of noun phrase, therc was only
for subsequent definite anaphora,l for each type of noun phrase, there was only
one slich rulc. As a conscqucncc. onc could program the systcm to treat five
one such rule. As a consequence, one could program the system to treat five
dollars as cithcr an indcfinitc plural noun phrase (NP). latcr to bc refcrenccd as by
dollars as either an indefinite plural noun phrase (NP), later to be referenced as by
they, or as a mass NP - a singular quantity - later to be rcfcrenced as as if, but not
they, or as a mass NP - a singular quantity - later to be referenced as as it, but not
both.
both.
Nor was this problcrn acknowlcdgcd, much less solvcd, by any of the anaphor
Nor wa5 this problem acknowledged, much less solved, by any of the anaphor
rcsolution hcurislics coming from cithcr artificial intclligcncc or psychology (i.e..
resolution heuristics coming from either artificial intelligence or psychology (i.e.,
heuristics for choosing h c intcndcd rcfcrent of a dcfinitc anaphor from among
heuristics for choosing the intended referent of a definite anaphor from among
possible altcrna~ivcs). All thcsc hcuristics simply assumcd that a tcxt made things
possible alternalives). All these heuristics simply assumed that a text made things
available for latcr anaphora. and hat thc intcndcd rcfcrcnt wol~ldalways be
available for later anaphora. and thal the intended referent would always be
among the possiblc altcrnativcs. Nor could srandard linguistic thcory at the time
among the possible alternatives. Nor could standard linguistic theory al the time
account for thc anaphoric bchavior in both cxamplcs: dcfinitc pronoun anaphora
account for the anaphoric behavior in both examples: definile pronoun anaphora
1. one of the functions served by dc6nitc pronouns like "it" and "hey" and definite NR.
1. one of the functions served by definile pronou os like "il" and "they" and definile N/'!;.

Wcbbcr
Webber

332

332

was only of intcrcst within thc singlc scntcncc and cvcn that, only with rcspcct to
was only of interest within the single sentence and even that, only with respect to
Icxical, syntactic and/or scmantic constraints on what a pronoun could be
lexical, syntactic and/or semantic constraints on what a pronoun could be
asstciatcd with. witliirr /hat SUI)IP sentence.
associated with, within Ihat same sentence.
1:ive ~ o l l ~is~clcarly
rs
not an iwdatcd cxamplc. Onc can quickly discovcr many
Fil'e Jollars is clearly not an isolated example. One can quickly discover many
instances wherc a singlc scntcncc admits a varicry of things avail:iblc for
instances where a single sentence admits a variety of things available for
suhscqucnt annphora. bascd on what sccms to bc thc samc phrasc. For cxamplc,
subsequent anaphora, based on what seems to be the same phrase. For example,
'I'hc I~liodcsianridgcback down thc block bit
The Rhodesian ridgeback down the block bit
me yestcrduy. Its rcally a vicious bcast
me yesterday. Its T('ally a vicious beast.

- 'I'llc Ithodcsian ridgcback down thc block bit

- The Rhodesian ridgeback down the block bit
mc ycstcrday. Thcy'rc rcally vicious bcast..
me ye~terday. They're really vicious beast".

- t3ch girl in Mary's class marcl~cdup to the

- ~:'lch girl in Mary's class marched up to the
dcsk illid took a brick. Sire then went back and sat
desk ,md took a bric:k. She then went back and sat
quictly in hcr scat
quietly in her scat
- Fhch girl in Mary's class marched t ~ pto the
- f~ch girl in Mary's class marched lip to the
dcsk and took a brick. TIIPJ~
U S C ~ thc~nto build a
desk and took a brick. The)' used them to build a
mockup o f Ihc Grcal Wall of China.
mockup of the Great Wall of China.
- John didn't marry a Swcdish blondc. She was
- John didn't marry a Swedish blonde. She was
I3anish.
Danish.

John didn't marry a Swcdish blonde. She had

John didn't marry a Swedish blonde. She had
brown hair.
brown hair.
John didn't marry a Swcdish blonde; She's
10hn didn't marry a Swedish blonde; She's
just liking with him.
just li\ing with him.
Wcndy gave each boy a grecn T-shirt.. She
Wendy gave each boy a green T-shin. She
gavc orle to Suc as well.
gave one to Suc as well.
Wcndy gavc each boy a grecn '1'-shirt. Sue,
Wendy gave each boy a green T-shirt. Sue,
shc gavc a rcd one,
she gave a red one.

In hcginning my rcscarch, my fccling was that whatcvcr rcgutaritics were

In hcginning my research, my feeling was that whatever regularities were
prcscnt in rnaking things availiiblc to cithcr dcfinitc pronoun or "onc" amphora,
present in making things avail;thlc to either definite pronoun or "onc" anaphora.
thcy could not bc formulated purcly i'n t c m s of lcxt strings, parsc trccs or any of
they could not be formulated purely i'n terms of lext strings, parse trees or any of
thc thcn-currcnt A I rcprcscntations. Wliilc I shall not comment on thc first two
the then-current AI representations. While I shall not comment on the first two
typcs of rcprcscntations. thc A l rcprcscntations uscd within computcr-bascd NI-U
lypes of representations. the 1\1 representations used within computer-based NLU
systcrns fcll roughly into thrcc catcgorics, none of which was motivated by
systems fell roughly into three categories. nonc of which was motivated by

333
undcrstanding continuous discourse and thc phcnomcna common to it.

understanding continuous discourse and the phenomena common to it.

1. Scvcral followcd formalisms oftcn borrowcd

1. Several followed formalisms often borrowed
from linguistics (c.g., I-UNAR's syntactic parse trce,
from linguistics (e.g., LUNAR's syntactic parse tree,
S14Rl)l.U'~ splclnic analysis [Winograd 19721, most
SHRDI.Us systemic analysis {Winograd 1972}, most
"casc" rcprcscntations Illrucc 19751) that wcrc mcant
"case" representations [Bruce 1975]) that were meant
to miip "paraphrascs" (syntactic and/or lcxical
to map "paraphrases" (syntactic and/or lexical
variants) into thc slimc rcprcscntation.
variants) into the same represenlation.

2. Scvcral wcsc modifications of a logicat

2. Severnl were modifications of a logical
formalism (c.g. thc lncaning rcprcscntation languages
fonnalism (e.g. the meaning rcprcsenlalion languages
uscd in I.UNAlt. 1'141.1QA [llmnncnbcrg ct.ill. 19801,
used in LUNAR. PHI.IQA [Bronnenberg el. al. 1980],
clc.) that wcrc Incant to provide a well-understood
ctc.) that were meant to provide a well-understood
single-scntcncc semantics.
single-sentence semantics.
3. ScvcraI WCTC mcailt to fill in for material often
3. Several were meant to lill in for material often
Icfl untaid in n;rturnl languagc uttcranccs (Schank's
left unsaid in natural language utterances (Schank's
fra~nc-likc conceptual dcpcndcncy rcprcscntation
frame-like conceptual dependency representation
[Schank 19751). Whatcvcr prtrcdurcs wcrc uscd to
[Schank 1975)). Whatever procedures were used to
handlc i~is~rnccs
of anaphora wcrc oncs that could be
handle instances of anJphora were ones that could be
graftcd onto lhcsc formalisms, a posteriori.
grafted onto these formalisms, a posteriori.

Surprisingly cnough, such proccdurcs wcrc not con?plctc fililurcs, and cven

Surprisingly enough. such procedures were not complete failures, and even
had modcst succcss. I.UNAII. for cxarnplc, was ablc to make use of its logical
had modest success. LUNAR. fllr example, was able to make usc of its logical
rncaning rcprcscntation to dcal with such ncrn-obvious anaphoric rcfcrcnces as
meaning represeJ1lation to deal with such non-obvious anaphoric references as
D3-1130 any salnplcs contain bis~nuthand rulhcnium?
03-1 Do any samples contain bismuth and ruthenium'!

2 YES
3 Givc me rheir ovcrall analyses.
3 Give me their overall analyses.
whcrc it corrcclly intcrprctcd "lhcir" in D3-3 to rcfcr to thc sct of samples which
where it correctly interpreted "their" in D3~3 to refer to the set of samples which
contain bismuth and ruthenium. In forming this sct dcscriplion -.i.c., "samples
contain bismuth and ruthenium. In forming this set description -' i.e., "samples
that contain bismuth and rulhcnium" - I.UNAR ignorcd its own answer to
that contain bismuth and ruthenium" - I.UNAR ignored its own answer to
qucstion D3-1. 'Ibus in cxamplc 1M. it would incorrcctiy proposc "samplcs that
question ))3- L 'Ibus in example D4, it would incorrectly propose "samples that
cantain bismuth and rutl~cnium"(mthcr than "samplcs") as thc intcrprctrrtion of
contain bismuth and ruthenium" (rather than "samples") as the interpretation of
"they".
"they".
D4-1130 any samples contain bismuth and ruthcnium?
04-1 Do any samples contain bismuth and ruthenium'!
2 NO
2ND
3 ?hcn what d o rheycontain?
3 '111en what do they contain?
So, to summarize thc thcn-current situation in linguistics and A1 natural
So, to summarize the then-current situation in linguistics and Al natural
languagc undcrstanding, thc formcr cithcr wcrcn't intcrcstcd in discoursr:
language understanding, the former either weren't interested in discourse
anaphora or tricd to handlc it by eithcr string or structure matching - clcarly
anaphora or tried to handle it by either string or structure matching - clearly
inadcquatc - whilc Lhc lattcr attcmptcd to dcal with it using whatcvcr ad hoc
inadequate - while the latter attempted to deal with it using
ad hoc
, whatever
rncthods could bc graftcd onto rcprcscntations primaril;
dcsigncd for othcr
2YES

methods could be grafted onto representations primarily designed for other

Webbcr
Webber

334

purposes. What my rcscarch has bccn dircctcd at thcn is (1) a definition of what a
purposes. What my research has been directed at then is (1) a definition of what a
tcxt makcs availablc for anaphora that can acco~nmodatc~ h ckinds of cxarnples
text makes available for anaphora that can accommodate the kinds of examples
presented abovc and also bc amcnablc to computational trcatmcnt and (2) within
presented above and also be amenable to computational treatment and (2) within
that computational trcatmcnt, a characterization of fcaturcs of a rcprcscntational
that computational treatment, a characterization of features of a representational
formalism (or sct of rclatcd formalisms) Illat would most cficicntly support the
formalism (or set of related formalisms) that would most efficiently support the
proccdurcs.l 'Ihat is. I havc attcmptcd to articulatc what a tcxt rnakcs available
procedures.] That is. I have attempted to articulate what a text makes available
for annphora in tcrms of thc structurc (as opposcd to contcnt) of its scntenccs, as
for anaphora ill terms of the structure (as opposed to content) of its sentences, as
thcy arc rcprcscn~cd in such a fonnaIism. I.ikc any othcr structure-bascd
they arc represented in such a fonnalism. l.ike any other structure-based
undcrslanding stralcgy. this would have thc advantage of bcing colnrnon to all
understanding strategy. this would have the advantage of being common to all
uscrs of a l;uigi~agc.whcthcr thc contcnt wcrc complctcly u~ldcrstoodor not.
users of a language, whether the content were completely understood or not.
As for thc rcmnindcr of this papcr, thc first part is bascd on my thcsis rcscarch
I\s for the remainder of this paper, the first part is based on my thesis research
[Wcbbcr 1978a1, aidlough it has profitcd from rcccnt work wirh R. Ilobrow on a
[Webber 1978a], although it has profited from recent work with R. Bobrow on a
naturat Idngr~agc i1ltcrf;lcc wc call PSI-KI.ONF, for "l'arsing and Scrnantic
natural language interf:lce we call i'SI-KLQNr~ for "Parsing and Semantic
Intcrprctatioa in KI,-ONE" [Iiohrow and Wcbbcr 1980a. 1980b, 19811. I have
Interpretation in KLQNE" [Bobrow and Webber ]980a. 198Gb, 1981]. I have
a150 changed my tcminolcigy somc~)llat.to cmpllasizc thc commonality of this
aho changed my terminology somewhat, to emphasize the commonality of this
work with thc complcmcntary sct of issucs discussed by Sidncr (this volumc). 'Ihe
work with the complementary set of issues discussed by Sidncr (this volume). llte
sccond part o f thc papcr cont;tins an approach to "onc" anaphc~rathat diffcrs
second part of the paper contains an approach to "one" anaphora that differs
substantially from that prcscntcd in [Wcbbcr 1978aI. 'Ihis new approach has the
substantially from that presented in [Webner 1978a]. 'Iltis new approach has the
attractive fcaturc of reducing two scparatc difticult problems inlo h c same (albeit
auractive feature of reducing two separate difficult problems into the same (albeit
still difficult) one.
still difficult) one.

6.2 Fundamental Assumptions

I'hc approach I have adoptcd to identifying what a tcxt makes availablc for the
llte approach] have adopted to identifying what a text makes available for the
in~crprctatioilof dcfinitc pronoun and "oncW-anaphorais bascd on the notion of a
interpretation of definite pronoun and "one"-anaphora is based on the notion of a
"discoursc model". I h c assumption is that onc objcctivc of discourse is to talk
"discourse model". 2 The assumption is that one objective of discourse is to talk
about somc situation or statc of thc rcal or some hypothetical world. 'To do this, a
about some situation or state of the real or some hypothetical world. To do this, a
spcnkcr must havc a mcntal modcl of that situation or state. Ibc ensuing discourse
speaker must have a mental model of that situation or state. The ensuing discourse
is thus. at one Icvcl, an attcrnpt by thc spcakcr to dircct thc listcncr in synthcsizing
is thus. at one level. an attempt by the speaker to direct the listener in synthesizing
a similar "discoursc modcl" and by that. acquirc information about the spcakcr's
a similar "discourse model" and by that. acquire information about the speaker's
situation or statc. (In this scnsc, I am equating "undcrstanding" with
situation or state. (In this sense, I am equating "understanding" with
"synthcsizing an appropriate rntdcl".)
"synthesizing an appropriate model".)
1. As [llankarncr and Sag 19761 point out, both definite pronoun and "one" anaphora may be
L As [Ilankamer
both definite
pronoun
and lhcy
"one"
anaphora "control"
may be by the
"controlled"and
by Sag
l h i n19761
g olhcrpoint
than out.
UIC prcvious
tcxt. In
panicular,
dcrnonstrale
"controlled"
by
Ihing,s
other
Ihan
Ihe
previous
text.
In
particular.
!hey
demonstrate
"control"
by the what
spatio-lcmporal conlcxl that spcakcr and listcner share. In Lhis papcr. I shall only be discussing
spatio-temporal
context
that speaker
share.make
In this
paper, I shall only be discu~;ng what
tcxts (and,
to a lim~ted
cxlcnt,and
whatlistener
infercncc)
available.
leKlS (and.2. toThis
a limited
extent, that
whathas
inference)
make available.
is a ndion
bcen cxplorcd
in cognitive psychology to a p l a i n h e infcrcnccs Ihat
2. This pcoplc
is a nolion
thaIunderstanding
has been explored
in Tor
cognitive
to explain
the inferences
draw in
t c x t See.
examplc.psychology
[Collins. Brown,
and Iarkin
19771. that
people draw in understanding texl See, for example, [Collins, Brown, and Larkin 1917].

335
Informally, a discoursc model (DM) may bc dcscribcd as thc sct of cntitics
Infonnally, a discourse model (DM) may be described as the scl of entities
"naturally cvokcd" (or in Sidncr's terms, "spccificd") by a discoursc, li'nked
"naturally evoked" (or in Sidner's terms, "specified") by a discourse, linked
togcthcr by thc rclalions they pilrticipatc in. I havc callcd thcsc things "discourse
together by the relations they participate in. I have called these things "discourse
cntitics", and Sidncr lias callcd thcm "cognitive clcrncnts". In linguistics, they
entities", and Sidner has called them "cognitive clements". In linguistics, they
harken back to what [Karttuncn 19761 has callcd "discoursc rcfcrcnts". 'lhe
harken back to what [Kamunen 1976) has called "discourse referents", The
sltcrnatc tcnninologics h a t Sidncr and I havc ndoptcd rcst on wanting to kcep
alternate terminologies that Sidner and I have adopted rest on wanting to keep
"rcfcr" a scparalc tcchniciil Icrin. That is. "rcfcrring" is what pcople do with
"refer" a separate technical term. That is, "referring" is what people do with
language. Ihoking and accessing discoursc cntitics arc what tcxts/discourscs do.
language. Evoking and accessing discourse entities arc what texts/discourses do.
A discoursc cntity inhabits a spcakcr's discoursc modcl and rcprcscnts sotncthing
1\ discourse entity inhabits a speaker's discourse model and represents something
thc spcakcr has rcfcrrcd to. A spcakcr refus to so~llcthingby uttcranccs that
the speaker has referred to. 1\ speaker refffs to something by utterances that
cithcr erloke (if first rcfcrc11cc) or nccess (if subscqucnt rcfcrcncc) its
either evoke (if first reference) or access (if subsequent reference) its
corresponding discoursc cntity.
corresponding discourse entity.
'1'0 illuslratc thc notion of cntidcs "naturally cvokcd" by a discoursc, considcr
To illustrate the notion of entities "naturally evoked" by a discourse, consider
the following scntcncc.
the following sentence.
115-1 Fach 3rd-gradegirl brought a brick to Wcndy's house.
1)5-1 beh 3rd-grade girl brought a brick to Wendy's house.
-lhcn cansidcr cach of thc f[)llowing continualiuns. In cach casc, I would label
Then consider each of the following continuations. In each case, I would label
what is HCCCSSC~by thc dcfinitc pronoun an cnlity "iiaturally cvokcd" by scntence
what is accessed by the definite pronoun an entity "naturally evoked" by sentence
115 -1.' As thc rcadcr can scc, such cntitics may havc dcscriprions appropriate'to
1)5 -1.] I\s the reader can sec, such entities may have descriptions appropriate'to
individuals, scts, stuff, cvcnts, activities, etc.
individuals, sets, stuff, events, activities, etc.

- Shc ccnainly was surprised.

- She certainly
surprised.
diewas
G Wendy
she;:, Wendy

'Ihcy knew she would bc surprised.

They knew[hey
she would
be of
surprised.
the SPI
3rd-grade girls
they == the set of3rd-grade girls
She pilcdthcm on Lhc front lawn.
She piledthem
frontset
lawn.
then?on thethe
of bricks, each of which some
them 3rd-grade
;:, the set
of
bricks,
each of which some
girl brought
io Werldy's house
3rd-grade girl brought to Wendy's house

Shc was surpriscd that they kncw where it was.

She was surprised
that they
knew where it was.
ii Wrtldy's
house
il;:, Wendy's house

- Nccdlcss to say. it surprised hcr.

- Needless toilsay.
it surprised her.
G the brick-prese~ltingevent
if;:, the brick-presenting event

in thcsc conlinualions should be taken as indicatine the same urect Tor bolh
I. 'lhe svmbol
1. The svmbol
;:, in these continuations should be taken as ind icaling the same largel for both
expressions.
expressions.

Wcbbcr

336

Webber

336

Gcncrally. Wcndy can always find so~ncthingto do with

Generally. Wendy can always find something to do with

thc~n.
them.
lhrtlr = bricks, bricks people bring her
the'1I! :=; bricks. bricks people bring her

Noticc ~norcovcrthat texts idcntical at a conccptual lcvcl may not bc idcntical

Notice moreover that texts identical at a conceptuallevcl may not be identical

vis-a-vis thc discourse cnrilics tllcy n;~tur;illy cvokc, cvcn though thcir phrasings
vis-a-vis the discourse entities they n,lturally evoke, even though tlleir phrasings
diffcr only slightly. For example
differ only slightly. For example
136-1 John travclcd around 1-rance twice.
D6-1 Jol1n traveled around Francc twice.
2 ??l'hcy wcrc both wondcrful.
2 ??They werc both wonderful.
117-1 John took t w o trips around 1:rance.
1)7-1 John took two trips around France.
2 'lhcy wcrc both wuntlcrful.
2 They were both wonderful.
hlcllonald tnrlkcs LI similar point in Ihlcl)un;~ld19771, whcrc hc discusses the
McI)onald makes a similar point in IMcDonald 1977], where he discusses the
problcm of gcncl.ating subscqucnt "rcfcrri~ig" cxprcssions. lIc takcs as his
problem of generating subsequent "referring" expressions. He takes as his
cxamplc conccptual lcvcl thc first-ordcr prcdicatc logic and considers English
example conceptual level the first-order predicate logic and considers English
renderings of thc simple formula,
renderings of the simple formula,
Vx man(x)
mortal(x)
"Ix man(x) => mortal(x)
which include
which include

1. For any thing. if that thing is a man, thcn it is mortal.

1. For any thing. if that thing is a man, then it is mortal.

2. Rcing a man irnplics bcing mortal.

2. Being a man implies bcing mortal.

3. All men are mortal.

3. All men are mortal.
Mclbnald notcs that only thc first vcrsion givcs the variable x a separate
McDonald notes that only thc first version gives the variable x a separate
status, thcrcby making it something h a t can bc spccified again (e.g., "it is ~nortal).
status, thereby making it something Illat can be specified again (e.g.. "it is mortal).
Thc sccond vcrsion givcs thc upcn formula "man(x)" scparatr tatu us, rnaking it in
The second version givcs the open formula "man(x)" separatl' status. making it in
turn available for rc-spccification (c.g., "It also irnplics being subject to
turn available for re-specification (e.g., "It also implies being subject to
supply-side economics."). Mc1)onald concludes
supply-side economics."). McDonald concludes
In short, it is not possible to prcdict which objccts will be
In short, it is not possible to predict which objects will be
explicitly rcfcrrcd to and which not just on thc basis of a
explicitly referred to and which not just on the basis of a
formula in thc iiitcrnal rcprcscntation language.
formula in the internal r.cpresentation language.
It is not just what thc conccptual lcvcl information is. but how that information is
It is nol just what the conceptuallevcl information i5. but how tllat information is
rcalizcd that dctcnnincs what typcs of discnursc cntitics iirc avrlilablc whcn.
realized that detennines what types of discourse entities are avail'lble when.
Now a spcakcr is usually not ablc to communicate all at oncc thc rclcvant
Now a speaker is usually not able to communicate all at once the relevant
propcrtics and relations s/he may want to ascribc to thc rcfcrcnt of a discourse
properlies and relations s/he may want to ascribe to the referent of a discourse
cntity. 'l'o do thaL s/hc may have to dircct thc listcncr's attcntion to that rcfcrent
entity. To do that, s/he may have to direct the listener's attention to that referent
(via its corresponding discourse cntity) scvcral timcs in succcssion. When the
(via its corresponding discourse entity) sevcral times in succession. When the
speaker wants to rc-acccss an entity already in his/hcr 1lM (or another one
speaker wants to rc-access an entity alrcady in his/her DM (or another one

337
directly infcrrablc from it), s/hc may d o so with a dcfinitc anaphor (pronoun o r
directly inferrable from it}, sthe may do so with a definite anaphor (pronoun or
NP). In so doing, thc spcakcr assumcs (1) that on t l ~ cbasis of thc discoursc thus
NP). In so doing. the speaker assumes (1) that on the basis of the discourse thus
far, a similar cntity will bc in (or "dircctly" infcrrablc from) thc listcncr's growing
far. a similar entity will be in (or "directly" inferrable from) the listener's growing
I3M iind (2) that thc listcner will bc ;tblc to re-access (or infer) that cntity on rhe
DM and (2) that the listener will be able to re-access (or infer) that entity on the
basis of thc spcakcr's cucs. (For cxamplc, pronouns arc less o f a cuc than
basis of the speaker's cues. (ror example. pronouns arc less of a Clle than
anaplloric NPs.) l h c problcm ~ h c n ,at Icnst for dcfililc anaphor5 is idcntifying
anaphoric NPs.) "Ihe problem then. at least for definite anaphor~ is identifying
what discoursc cntitics ;I tcxt naturally cvokcs.
what discourse entities a text naturally evokes.
What charactcrizcs a discoursc cntity? hly minimal vicw is that ;I discourse
What characterizes a discourse entity? My minimal view is that a discourse
cntity is a "conceptual coatlioclk" (a tcrm coincd by WiIlialli Woods) (111 which to
entity is a "conceptual coathoo~" (a term coined by William Woor,is) on which to
hang dcscriplions of thc cntity's rcal world or hypothctical world corrcspondcnt.
hang descriptions of the entity's real world or hypothetical world correspondent.
As soon as a discoursc cntity is evokcd. it gcts a dcscription. Oicr thc course of
As soon as a discourse entity is evoked, it gets a description. Over tile course of
thc tcxt. t l ~ cdcscriptions it rcccivcs arc dcritcd from both Ihc content of the
the tex!. the descriptions it receives arc derived from both tile content of the
spcakcr's utlcranccs a i d thcir position within the discoursc, as wcll as whatever
speaker's utLerances and their position within the discourse, as well as whatever
gcncral or spccific infornmation about tlic disco~~rsc
cntity thc listcncr can bring to
general or specific information abOllt the discourse entity the listener can bring to
bcar. (For cxamplc, as Lhc tcxt convcys thc passagc of timc. a dcscription likc "the
bear. (For example, as the text conveys the passage of time. a description like "the
16-ycar old girl that ..." might changc to "tlic 20-ycar old girl that....") Illese
16-year old girl tIlat..." might change to "the 20-year old girl thaL...) 'I11ese
dc~riptionsprovidc part of Ihc mcans by which a lisrcncr can dccidc tllc intcndcd
descriptions provide part of the means by which a listener can decide the intended
hrgct of subscqucnt dcfinitc anaphora (the othcr bcing providcd by focusing
target of subsequent definite anaphnrJ (the other being provided by focusing
rncchanisms. as discusscd by [Grosy. 19771 and Sidncr in Chapter 5 of this
mech~nisms. as discussed by [GroS/. 1977] and Sidner in Chapter 5 of this
volume). What 1claim is a spccial status for thc initial dcscription (11)) that tags a
volume). What I claim is a special St..1tus for tile inilial description (II)} that tags a
ncwly cvokcd discoursc entity. (Exilmplcs of such Irk Follow the cquivalcnce
newly evoked discourse entity. (Examples of such IDs follow the equivalence
symbol (=)in thc continuations to cxamplc D5-1above.)
symbol (=) in the continuations to example D5-1 above.)
In what way is a discoursc entity's I13 spccial? For onc thing, it is Lhe only
]n what way is a discourse entily's ID special? For one thing. it is the only
inf~nnationabout an cntity that can, from Ihc first and wifhout question, b e
infonnation about an entity tIlat can, from tile first and without question. be
assurncd to bc sharcd (though not ncccswrily bclicvcd) by both spcakcr and
assumed to be shared (though not necessarily believed) by both speaker and
listcncr alikc. 'lhus, a t Last initially, ir is an infcrencc that thc spcakcr can assume
listener alike. Thus, at least initial1y, it is an inference tIlat tile speaker can assume
Uic listcncr both capable of and likcly to makc. That UIC spcakcr nccdn't believe
the listener both capable of and likely to make. That Ule speaker needn't believe
thc dcscription for it to be cffcctivc is discusscd in [Pcrrault and Cohcn 19811 -the description for it to be effective is discussed in [Perrault and Cohen 1981] -h a t thc listcncr nccdn't bclicvc it cithcr is discussed in [Webbcr 1978bl. The
that the listener needn't believe it eimer is discussed in [Webber 1978b]. The
important thing is that it is shared, and hcncc uschl.
important tiling is that it is shared, and hence useful.
Now this view of discoursc undcrstanding docs not prccludc discourse entities
Now this view of discourse understanding docs not preclude discourse entities
from bcing cvokcd by othcr things than thc tcxt. In fiict, 1 will arguc that certain
from being evoked by other tIlings than the text. ]n fact. I will argue tIlat certain
typcs of discoursc cntitics must bc dcrivcd from othcr oncs infcrcntially. In
types of discourse entities must be derived from other ones inferentially. In
p3rticuI;lr, I will arguc that it is thc simplcst way of accounting for anaphoric
particular, I will argue that it is the simplest way of accounting for anaphoric
acccss to "gcncric sct" discoursc cntitics. 1 will show that, from any discourse
access to "generic set" discourse entities. I will show that, from any discourse
cntity (cxccpt, in gcncral, oncs cvokcd by a proper noun phrase, namc, title, ctc.),
entity (except. in general. ones evoked by a proper noun phrase. name, title, ele.),
thc spcakcr can prcsumc that a listcner is capablc of deriving a discourse cntity
me speaker can presume that a listener is capable of deriving a discourse entity
corrcsponding to onc of a limited numbcr of gcncric sets to which the rcfcrcnt of
corresponding to one of a limited number of generic sets to which the referent of
thc original discourse cntity belongs.
tile original discourse entity belongs.
I h c problcms I sct out to solve - idcntifying what a tcxt makes available for
The problems I set out to solve - identifying what a text makes available for

Wcbber

Webber

338

dcfinitc pronotlo nnaphora (and, it turns out, for "onc" anaphora as wcll) and

definite pronoulI anaphora (and, it turns out, for "one" anaphora as well) and
dcvcloping computationally fcasiblc ways for making thcm available in an N1-U
developing computationally feasible ways for making them available in an NLU
syslcm wcrc Lhus transformed into (1) idcntifying thc discoursc cntitics a text
system were thus transformed into (1) identifying the discourse entities a text
cvokcs and (2) ascribing to thcm appropriatc Ills. What I discovcrcd was that
evokes and (2) ascribing to them appropriate IDs. What I discovered was that
thcsc things dcpcnd hcavily on co,rrbirtaroric fcaturcs o f a scntcncc.' Moreover,
these things depend heavily on combinatoric features of a sentence. 1 Moreover,
thcsc fcaturcs can bc capturcd in Ihc structure o f a rcprcscntational formalisln (as
these features can be captured in the structure of a representational formalism (as
opposcd to itr lcxical content). and can bc tlic basis for prt~cdurcswhich identify
opposed to it5 lexical content), and can be the basis for procedures which identify
thc cntitics cvukcd by ij tcxt and dcrivc tllcir Ills. What I havc rcalizcd more
the entities evoked by a text and derive their IDs. What I have realized more
rcccntly is discussod in Section 6.5: namely, that thc sc~tiantic problem of
recently isdiscllsscd in Section 6.5: namely, that the sel1lantic problem of
intcrprcting "onc" anaphora2
can be rcduccd to thc alrcady considcrcd problcrn
interpreting "one" anaphora 2 can be reduced tD the already considered problem
of identifying possihtc "sct-typc" rcsolvants fur dcfinirc plural anaphora.
of identifying possihle "set-type" resolvant,> for definite plunll anaphora.
assumptions, I want to
Ilchrc finishing this statcmcnt of my f~~ndamcntal
Before finishing this statement of my fundamental assumptions, I want to
comment on whcrc 1 scc cvoking ond labcling discour-sc cntitics fhting into thc
CDmment on where I sec evoking and labeling discourse entities fitting into the

wholc process of undcrstanding continuous tcxL Firsf m a t discourse cntities am

whole process of understanding continuous text. First. most discourse entides are
oncs cvokcd by a noun phrase in its clausal conccxt.' Now whcthcr or not a
(Jncs evoked by a noun phrase in ito; clausal context.) Now whether or not a
d i r o u m cntity should bc cvukcd (and if so. how it should bc described) dcpcnds
discour.iC entity should be evoked (and if so. how it should be described) depends
on clausal features cspccially thc combinatoric fcaturcs prcsenwd in Section 6.3
on clausal features especially the combinatoric features presented in Section 6.3
that oftcn rcmain clusivc, cvcn aAcr the clause is parscd and both gene'nl
tllat often remain elusive. even after the clause is parsed and both general
scmantic and particular pragmatic knowledge is applied. ?hat is, sentences o h
semantic and particular pragmatic knowledge is applied. nat is, sentences often
what might be callcd an "undcrconstraincd combinatoric problcm" [Robrow
poSc what might be called an "undeJConstrained combinatoric problem" [Bobrow
and Webbcr 19Sb]. What is required of scmantic inwrprctation is to delineate
and Webber 19803]. What is required of semantic interpretation is to delineate
thc problcm to be solved. What happens then dcpends o n what is required: w
the problem 10 be solved. What happens then depends on what is required: one

1. Combinatoric lcaturcs are disarssed in the ncxt scction. Bricfly put, the o m s I am considcring are:
1. Combinatoric features are discussed in the next scction. Brieny put, the OITeS I am considering are:
iteration "A window was ~estedin each house" implies Ihc speaker is viewing the situaljon in
iteration"A window was lested in each housc" implies the speaker is viewing Ihe situation in
tcrms of one tcsdng per house.
terms of one testing per house.
dcncndcncy 'A window was tesled in mch house" implies undcr one inlemrctation that the
dependency
"A window
testedoninIhc
each
house" house:
impliesa under
i laswialcd
l inlemrellltion
that the
parlicular
mndowwas
dcpcnds
particular
window
with housel
was tested
particular
on the
particular
house:
a window
a5.'iOCialcd
with housel
was Icsted
in window
housel. depends
a window
associaled
with
housc2
was leslcd
in hnuse2.
elc. Under
a dimerent
in housel.
a
window
a'isociated
with
housc2
was
tested
in
housc2.
etc.
Under
a
different
inlcrprcblion. thc particular window is indcpcndcnl of h e house. Ihc same one tested
interpretation. the particular window is indcpendenl of the house. ll1e same one tested
throughoul
throughout
cardinalily "'1-wo windows wcrc lcslcd in each house" implies Tor any given htusc lherc were two
cndinalily "Two windows were tested in each housc" implies for any given house there were two
windows Ic~lcd.whcrc h c two arc distinct From one anothcr. N o h h e scnlcnce docs not (on
windows tl'Slcd. where the two are distinct from one another. Notice the scntenee docs not (on
its own) imply anyd~ingahaul the cardinalily of thc cnlirc window SCL
its own)
anY~ling aboul the cardinality of the entire window SCl
2. as imply
opposcd
lo h e ~ynrflcfic.prohlcm o i chanclcrizing where "onc(s)" can and cannot occur. a
2. as opposed 10 the ~}'nlaeri(' prohlem of characlcrizing where "onc(s)'" can and cannot occur. a
prhlcm cd intcrcsl to transiormalional grammarians, cf. Seelion 6.5.
problem 3.of Clauscs
intcrest m
toatransformational
grammarians,
Seetionmms,
6.5. as may vcrb phrases. For example.
y dso cvokc discourse
entities ofcr.various
J. Clauses may also evok e discourse entities of various son~, as may verb phrases. For example,
Slir file disso1vpd)~aslinro theflour, [hen knead the douahfor 10 minutes or until elasrk
Stir Ille dis.to/vl'd )'Fa.tl inlo thejlour, IIlen knead the dough/or 10 minutes or until elastic.
'Ihc discourn cniity dwribablc as "[he dough" is cvokcd by Ihc lira clause, or ralher. the reader's
'Ille discoUTSC
entity describable
as "the
dough"
is evoked
the lirstinclause,
or rather, the reader's
understanding
or it. I lowcvcr,
I will
be ignoring
suchbyexamplcs
this discussion.
understanding oril. However, I will be ignoring such examples in Ihisdiscussion.

339

possibility is that rhc dicoursc/pragmatics componcnt - using whalcvcr discourse

possibility is that the discourse/pragmatics component - using whatever discourse
and pragmatic information is availablc to it may bc forccd to solvc thc problem
and pragmatic information is available to it may be forced to sulve the problem
immcdiatcly in ordcr to provide an npprnpriatc response.
immediately in order to provide an appropriate response.
Ilut what if no immcdintc response to the scntcncc is ci~lledfor? What if one
But what if no immediate response to the sentence is called for? What if one
docsn't nccd to commit oncsclf onc way or another? 'Illen the combinatoric
doesn't need to commit oneself one way or another? nlen the combinatoric
aspects of Lhc scntcncc's intcrprctatiorl can rcmain undcrconstraincd - i.c.,
aspects of the sentence's interpretation can remain underconstrained - Le.,
amhigoous. On thc othcr hand, if the nccd to intcrprct latcr scntcnccs rcquircs a
ambiguous. On the other hand, if the need to interpret later sentences requires a
particular rcsolution or particul;ir typc of rcsolution, that can rcsult in further
particular resolution or particular type of resolution. that can result in further
constraints on Bic dclincation. For cxamplc, in prcxcssing ii dcfinitc anaphor, a
constraints on the delineation. For example, in processing a definite anaphor, a
listcncr n u y simult,~ncously(1) tnakc cxplicit somc or all tllc possiblc scnscs of a
listener may simultaneously (I) make explicit some or all the possible senses of a
prcvious scntcncc; (2) fonnulrltc appropriate 11)s for the ciilitics that cach sense, if
previous sentence; (2) fonnuble appropriate I [)s for the entities that each sense, if
corrcct. would cvokc; (3) idcnlify onc of Ihcsc cntitics as tllc intcndcd wsolvant of
correct. would evoke; (3) idelltify one oflhese entities as the intended resolvant of
thc dcfinitc rrnapltor; and (4) tllcrcby idcntify Ihc corrcct, intcndcd scnsc of that
the definite anaphor; and (4) thereby identify the correct, intended sense of that
previous scntcncc. What cnablcs the listcncr to do all this is thc fact that
previous sentence. What enables the listener to do all this is the fact that
altcrnativc possiblc intcrprctalions d o nol Icad to cqually satisfying ways of
alternative possible interpretations do not lead to equally satisfying ways of
rcsolring the anaphor.
resolving the anaphor.

6.3 hctOTS ill Forming Discourse-dependent Descriptions

As I ~ncnrioncdin the last section, ir is ncccssary to takc-account of ccrtain

As I mentioned in the last section, it is necessary to take- account of certain
combinatoric aspccls of a scntcncc in order to form appropriate 113s for the
combinatoric aspects of a sentence in order to fonn appropriate IDs for the
discourse cntitics it evokes. l o d o this rcquircs inter alia:'
discourse entities it evokes. To do this requires inter alia: l

I. distinguishing bctwecn dcfinitc and indcfinitc noun phrascs

1. distinguishing
between
and noun
indefinite
noun phrases
and bctwccn
singulardefinite
and plural
phrascs.
and between singular and plural noun phrases.
2. distinguishing. for each modifier in a plural noun phrase,
2. distinguishing,
for eachinformation
modifier inabout
a plural
nounsct
phrase.
the entire
denoted by
whcthcr i t convcys
whether it conveys infonnation about the entire set denoted by
d ~ cplural noun phrase or about thc individual sct mcmbers.
the plural
nuun isphrase
the individual set members.
truc ofortheabout
verb phrasc/prcdicate.
'I'hc samc
The same is true of me verb phrase/predicate.

3. resolving any cllipscd.vcrb phrases in Ihc scntencC

3. resolving any ellipsed'verb phrases in the sentence.
4. identifying what has tc~ditionallybccn called "quantifier
4. identifying what has traditionally been called "quantifier
scopc assignmcnts", although. as notcd in Scction 6.2, thcy may
scope assignments".
although,
as the
noted
in Section
6.2,heard.
they may
when
scntcncc
is first
not bc dctcrminablc
not be dClenninable when the sentence is first heard.

1. Other featurn are dlscusscd in [Wcbber 1978al.)

1. Other features are discussed in [Webber 1978a].)

Webber

340

Aftcr this, I shall show onc way in which combinntoric aspects of a scntcnce
After this, ] shall show one way in which combinatoric aspects of a sentence
can be aniculatcd in a logical formalism, and hcncc provide a ntructural basis for
can be articulated in a logical formalism, and hence provide a 5tructural basis for
forming appropriatc discoursc cntity Ills. I h i s is illustrated bricfly in Scction 6.4,
forming appropriate discourse entity IDs. lhis is illustrated briefly in Section 6.4,
ancr which 1 discuss thc derivation of "gcncric sci" discourse cntitics from specific
afier which I discuss the derivation of "generic set" discourse entities from specific
ones and thc usc of both in understanding "onc" anaphora.
ones and the usc of both in understanding "onc" anaphora.
6.3.1 The ncrinilc/lndefinitc Distin"clion

My reason for rcquirjng distinct rcprcscntations for dcfi~iitcimd indcfinitc noun

My reason for requiring distinct representations for definite and indefinite noun
phrases is that whilc both can cvokc discourse cntitics in thc samc contcxt, the
phrases is that while both can evoke discourse entities in the same context, the
descriptions appropriatc to them arc quitc diffcrcnt.' I.ooking first at simple
descriptions appropri<lte to them arc quite different. l Looking first at simple
singular noun phrascs with no olhcr quaiitificd noun phrascs around. compare the
singular noun phrases with no other quantified noun phrases around, compare the
following cxamplcs.
following examples.
138-1Wcndy bought fflc ycllow 'I'-shirt lliat 1:lliot had admired.
U8-1 Wendy bought U)e yellow "['-shirt that Elliot had admired.
2 IL cost twcnty dollars.
2 It cost twenty dollars.
139-1 Wcntly bought a ycllow '1'-shirt that Elliot had admired.
1)9-1 Wendy bought a yellow T-shirt that Elliot had admircd.
2 It cost twcnty dollars.
2 It cost twenty dollars.
In citllcr casc. UIL' mrgct of "it" h3s a uniquc dcscription'rl~at both discourse
In either case, lh.:- targel of "it" has a unique description-that both discourse
participants share. In 118, it is thc explicit dcscriprion i h e ~ ~ e l l T-shirl
o ~ v fhat Elliof
participants share. In D8, it is the explicit description the yellow T-shirt that Elliot
had adtt~ired. In 139, it is thc dcrivcd dcscription, something likc "thc
had admired. ]n lJ9, it is the derived description, something like "the
just-rncntioncd ycllow T-shirt that 13liot had admircd. that Wcndy bought." 'To
just-mentioned yellow T-shirt that Elliot had admired. that Wendy bought." To
sce that only this dcscription can be prcsumcd to bc sharcd, notice that I39 can bc
see that only this description can be presumed to be shared, notice that D9 can be
uttcrcd truthfully if Elliot had admircd scvcral ycllow T-shirts o r cven if Wendy
uttered truthfully if Elliot had admired several yellow T-shirts or evcn if Wendy
had bought sevcral such '1'-shirts. 'l'hus it docs not cvcn presuppose that thcre is a
had bought several such T-shirts. Thus it docs not even presuppose that there is a
uniquc ycllow 'I'-shirt that Elliot had admircd that Wcndy bought. But it docs
unique yellow T-shirt that Elliot had admired that Wendy bought. But it docs
mcnrion only onc such T-shirt. As such. thc above dcscriplion applics uniqucly to
mention only one such T-shirt. As such, the above description applies uniquely to
onc cntity - the onc accessed by "it".
one entity - the one accessed by "it".
'rile point is that thc cntity cvokcd by a singular dcfinitc noun phrase can
'nle point is that the entity evoked by a singular definite noun phrase can
usually bc described adequately by just that dcscription (but cf. Scction 6.3.2 on
usually be described adequately by just that description (but cf. Scction 6.3.2 on
qu~ntificrscoping). On thc othcr hand. an adcquatc dcscription of thc entity
quantifier scoping). On the other hand. an adequate description of the entity
cvokcd by a singular indcfinitc noun phrase dcpcnds on a conjunct,ion of (1) the
evoked by a singular indefinite noun phrase depends on a conjunct,ion of (1) the
dcscription inhcrcnt in thc noun phrase (c.g. ellow ow T-sltirl thaf Klliol hod
description inherent in the noun phrase (e.g. yellow T-shirt that Elliot had
adtttire); ( 2 ) a prcdicatc that cmbodics the rcmaindcr of the scntcncc (e.g. which
admired); (2) a predicate that embodies the remainder of the sentence (e.g. which
W n d y bmugh~):and (3) a prcdicatc that relatcs that cntity to thc scnlcnce cvvking
Wendy bought): and (3) a predicate that relates that entity to the sentence evoking
it (c.g. "which was mcntioncd in (or cvokcd by) scntcncc <k>"). 'Ihis conjunctive
it (c.g. "which was mentioned in (or evoked by) sentence <k>"). 'Il)is conjunctive

1, As I mcniioncd carlicr. dcfinilc descrip~ionscan be uscd in two ways: they can be u r d like dclinite
L As I mentioncd
two ways:
they canmodcl
be used
like definite
pronouns 10earlier,
acccscdefinitc
cntiticsdescriptions
prcsumcd Lcan
o bebeinused
h e in
lislcncr's
d~smursc
or lhcy
rran be used to
to access
cntities inlo
presumed
to beItinis the
discourse model
or theythat
canis be
used to
pronounsevoke
new cniitics
that modcl.
Ihe listener's
kttcr use ordcfiniic
dcscriplions
rclcvant
here.

evoke new entitics into that modeL It is the latter use or dcfinite descriptions that is relevant here.

341
dcscription fornrs tlic entity's initial description (ID).
description fomls the entity's initial description (lD).
Noticc h a t forming thc sccond conjunct rcquircs all cllipscd vcrb phrascs in
Notice that forming the second conjunct requires all cllipsed verb phrases in
thc scntcncc bc rccovcrcd. If not, a scntcnce like
the sentence be recovered. Ifnot. a sentence like
1110-1 A woman wliom Wcndy knows is too.
DIO-l A woman whom Wendy knows is too,
would cvokc a discoursc cntity which coilld only bc dcscribcd as the
would evoke a discourse entity which could only be described as the
jusl-t~iet~lioncd
wo~)la)ln~hot~r
lV~11dykilows n,Jro i.s loo. 'lhis is not vcry useful from
just-mc/ltioncd woman who/H Wendy kllows who is too, This is not very useful from
thc point of vicw of reasoning about cntitics.
the point of view of reason ing about entities.
Iiowcvcr, a morc important rcason for requiring Lhc rccovcry of clIipscd vcrb
However, a more important reason for requiring the recovery of ellipsed verb
phrrlscs is that doing so LniIy rcvcal othcr noun pllrascs that should bc aswxiatcd
phrases is that doing so may reveal other noun phrases that should be associated
with discoursc cntiiics. Failurc to do w may result in subscqucnt dcfinitc
with discourse entities. Failure to do so may result in subsequent definite
anal)liora fiiling to havc rcfcrcnts. For cxamplc.
anaphora failing to have referents. For example.
111 1-1 John didn't bokc a cnkc for Wcndy. On thc othcr hand. Elliot
I>11-l John didn't bake a cake for Wendy. On the other hand. Elliot
did 0,but stic didn't like it.
did 0, but she didn't like it.
0 = bakc a cakc for Wcndy
o= bake
a cake for Wendy
il = (tic ']j~s~-ii~c~~tioncd''
cake that Elliot
it = the "just-mentioned" cake that Elliot
biikcd for Wcndy
baked for Wendy
If tllc cllipscd vcrb j)hrasc has not hccn rccovcrcd by thc tirnc thc bur clause is
Iftlle ellipsed verb phrase has not heen recovered by tlle time the but clause is
bcing prt~csscd.rhcrc \rill hc 110 way of accounting fur thc pronoun ir. (I inguists
being processed. there will hc no way of accounting fm the pronoun it. (I inguists
havc used thc tcrm "missing antcccdcnt" [Grinder and Postal 19711 to dcscribe
havc used tile tcrm "missing antecedent" [Grinder and Postal 1971] to describe
this situation. in wllicli thc "antcccdcnt" of a dcfinitc pronoun is not cxplicit,
this situation. in which fie "antecedent" of a definite pronoun is not explicit.
bcing somehow "containcd" in an cllipscd connitucnt.)
being somehow "contained" in an ellipsed constituent.)
'I'hc siimc chiiractcrislic bchi~viorof dcfinitcs and indcfinitcs just discussed for
The same characterisLic behaYior of detinites and indefinites just discusscd for
singular noun phrascs holds for plural noun phrascs as wcll. 'Ihc rcfcrcnt of the
singular noun phrases holds for plural noun phrases as well. The referent of lhe
dcfinitc plural pronoun the): likc thc rcfcrcnt of a dcfinitc singular pnlnoun, must
definite plum! pronoun ,he)', like the referent of a definite singular pronoun, must
satisfy a uniql~cdcscription sharcd by spcakcr and listcncr. While both indefinite
satisfy a uniquc description sharcd by speaker and listencr. While both indefinite
and dctinitc plural noun phrases in contcxt may evokc uniqhcly dcscribablc sct
and definite plural noun phrases in context may evoke uniql.lely dcscribable set
cntitics, lhc proccdurc for forming thcir descriptions again differs in the two cascs.
entities. tile procedure for forming tl1eir descriptions again differs in fie two cases.
Consider, for cxamplc, thc following scnrcnccs. (Comments arc in parcnthescs):
Consider. for cxample, the following sentences. (Comments are in parentheses):
1112-1 I mw Ihc guys from "Ycs" on 'I'V tonight. ( I saw all of thcm.)
Dl2-1 I saw tlle guys from "Yes" on TV tonight. (I sawall offiem.)
2 1 SAW tllc live guys from "Ycs" on 'l'V tonight. (I saw all of them
2 I saw tile five guys from "Yes" on TV tonight. (I sawall of them
- that is, tivc.)
- that is, five.)
3 1 saw a11 fivc guys from "Ycs" on 'rV tonight. (Usually they're
3 I sawall five guys from "Yes" on TV tonight. (Usually they're
only around in twos and Ihrccs.)
only around in twos and threes.)
4 1 saw somc guys from "Ycs" o n 'I'V tonight. (I didn't scc thcm
41 saw some guys from "Ycs" on TV tonight. (I didn't sec fiem
all.)
all.)
5 1 saw four guys from "Ycs" on '1'V tonight. ('lhcrc arc more
51 saw four guys from "Yes" on TV tonight. C1here are more
than four guys in Ycs.)
than four guys in Yes.)
'Ihc first thrcc scntcnccs cach contain a dcfinitc plural noun phrase.
"he first three sentences each contain a definite plural noun phrase.
Corresponding to that noun phrase, a discoursc cntity will bc cvokcd into the
Corresponding to that noun phrase. a discourse entity will be evoked into the
listcncr's discoursc modcl which can bc dcscribcd appropriately as rhe (ser ufl guys
listener's discourse model which can be described appropriately as the (sci of) guys
from 'Yes'. Clhc sccond two scntcnccs providc thc cardinality of that sct as wcll.)
from 'Yes'. ((he second two sentences provide the cardinality of that set as well.)

Wcbbcr
Webber

342

342

This can bc vcrificd by following cithcr of thcsc scntcnccs by '"'I'hcy wcrc bcing
This can be verified by following either of these sentences by '''They were being
intervicwcd by Dick Cavctt" and considering what is ncccsscd by /hey. Ihc last
interviewed by Dick Cavett" and considering what is accessed by they. lhe last
two scntcnccs, on thc othcr hand, cach contain an indcfinitc plural noun phrase.
two sentences, on the other hand, each contain an indefinite plural noun phrase.
'Thc only appropriate dcscription for thc discoursc cntity that cach of thcse noun
The only appropriate description for the discourse entity that each of these noun
phrascs in context cvokcs is something likc the ~ U S / - ! I I P I I ~ ~ Oset
I I Fof~ guys /TOm
phrases in context evokes is something like Ihe jushllel1tiol1ed set of guys [rom
'Yes' thut I SOU' 011 TI' tot~ight.'l'his is bccausc cithcr scntcncc is cansistcnt with
'Yes' that J saw 011 TV lonight. This is because either sentence is consistent with
thcrc bcing othcr mcrnbcrs of "Ycs" whom I didn't scc o n 'I'V tonight, as wcll as
there being other members of "Yes" whom I didn't see on TV tonight, as well as
othcr mcmbcrs whom I did scc but w1~1rn I don't mean to include in my
other members whom I did sec but whom I don't mean to include in my
st-~tcmcnt.'('l'hc last scntcncc simply providcs additional cardinality information
statement. (The last sentence simply provides additional cardinality information
about that sct of guys frum 'Ycs' that I saw.)
about that set of guys from 'Yes' that I saw.)

6.3.2 Qu;~ntilicrScoping
6.3.2 Quantifier Scoping
l'hc phcnorncnon to bc discussed hcrc has traditionally callcd "quantifier
The phenomenon to be discussed here has traditionally called "quantifier
scoping" or "quantificr ordcring", aftcr its fo~n~ulation
in thc lint ordcr predicate
scoping" or "quantifier ordering", after its formulation in the first order predicate
calcul~~s.
b r l y in thc devclupmcnt of'l'ransfomational G n m ~ ~ l aitr was
, found to
calculus. Early in the development of Transformational Grammar, it was found to
pusc a problcm for Ihc trcatmcnt of passivizatiun as an "optional" (it.,
pose a problem for the treatment of passivization as an "optional" (i.e.
sc~nanticallyneutral) transformation. 'Ihc problcm can bc illustrated by the
semantically neutral) transformation. '111e problem can be illustrated by the
minimally diffcrcnt pair of sentcnccs
minimally different pair of sentences

- h c h boy in thc room spcaks two languages.

- Each boy in the room speaks two languages.

Two languagcs arc spoken by cach boy in the room.

Two languages arc spoken by each boy in the room.
Evcn though thcsc two scntcnccs diffcr only in thcir voicc (active vs. passive),
Even though these two sentences differ only in their voice (active vs. passive),
thcy havc diffcrcnt immediate intcrprctations: rhc first allows for different
they have different immediate interpretations: the first al10ws for different
languagcs pcr boy, and thc sccond implies thc samc two languagcs. indcpcndcnt
languages per boy, and the second implies the same two languages, independent
of boy. Bccausc thc traditional way of rcprcscnting the two scntcnccs logically has
of boy. Because the traditional way of representing thc two sentences 10gical1y has
thcm differ in whcthcr or not thc univcrsal quantifier (V) associated with the
them diffcr in whethcr or not the universal quantifier (V) associated with the
intcrprckition of wch hy in the roo111is outsidc or insidc thc scope of the
interpretation of each boy in lhe roOIl! is outside or inside the scopc of the
cxistcntial quantificr (3) associated with thc intcrprctation of [wo languages, the
existential quantifier (3) associated with the interpretation of two languages, the
problctn has bccn callcd that of "qiiantificr scoping" or "q~lnntifjcrordcring". If
problem has been called that Df "quantifier scoping" or "quantifier ordering", If
thc univcrsal is outsidc thc scopc of thc cxistcntial (V3), thcn it can "distribute"
the universal is outside the scope of the existential (V3), then it can "distribute"
ovcr the cxistcntial and what Va111,chn [Vanlxhn 19781 has callcd a
over the existential and what VanLehn [Vanl.ehn 1978] has cal1ed a
"diffcrcnt/pcr" rcading is allowcd. (In thcorcm proving, this is callcd a Skolcm
"different/per" reading is al1owcd. (In theorem proving, this is called a ~
functional dcpcndcncy of thc cxistcntial on thc univcrscll [Nilsson 19801.) If the
functional dependency of the existential on the universal [Nilsson 1980).) If the
univcrsal is insidc thc cxistcntial (3V), thcn the cxistcntial is indcpcndcnt of the
universal is inside the existential (3V), then the existential is independent of the
univcrsal and van Lchn's "sarnc/pcr" rcading is implied.
universal and van Leho's "same/per" reading is implied.
What I want to comment on hcre is the importance of quantifier
What I want to comment on here is the importance of quantifier

343

scoping/ordcring lo undcrstanding anaphora in discourse. That importnncc ariscs

scoping/ordering 10 understandinganaphora in discourse. That importance arises
from thc diffcrcnt anaphoric propcrtics of "samc/pcr" and "diffcrcnVpcr"
from the different anaphoric properties of "same/per" and "different/per"
rcadings, as shown in tllc following pairs of scntcnccs.
readings, as shown in the following pairs of sentences.
1313-1Mary showcd cach boy an apple.
D13'] Mary showed each boyan apple.
2'lhc applc was a Mackintosh.
2The apple was a Mackintosh.
1114-1 Mary showcd cach boy an apple.
Dl4-1 Mary showed each boyan apple.
2'lhcn shc lnixcd thc applcs up and had cach boy gucss which
2Then she mixed the apples up and had each boy guess which
was his.
was his.
P
follows from a
In cxamplc 1313, undcrstanding thc anaphuric N P I ~ apple
In example DB, understanding the anaphoric NP Ih(' apple follows from a
"samc/pcr" rcading of thc first scnrcncc, whilc in cxnmplc 1114, ilndcrsranding
"same/per" reading of the first semence, while in example 1)14, understanding
thc annphoric N1' "thc apples" follows froln a "dil'fcrcnt/pcr" rcnding of that
the anaphorie NP "the apples" follows from a "differenllper" reading of that
samc first scntcncc. 'I'hat is, only a "diffcrcnt/pcr" rcading allows thc possibility
same first sentence. That is, only a "different/per" reading allows the possibility
ofii diffcrcnt applc pcr Ijoy and hcncc a ~ p c ~ i l i i tsct
b l ~of npplcs.
of a di fferent apple per boy and hence a specifiable set of apples.
What this dcmonstratcs is both that somcthing & quantificr scoping is
What this demonstrates is both that something like qU~lIltifier scoping is
ilnporlnnt for undcrstilnding anaphora in disco~lrsc ar~d that thc spcakcr's
important fm understanding anaphora in discourse alld that the speaker's
intcndcd quantifcr scopc assig~rmcnl(if s/hc indccd has onc) may only bc made
intended quanti fer scope assignment (if s/he indeed has one) may only be made
clcar latcr in thc discourse.
clear later in the discourse.
It is intcrcsting to notice that such "umc/pcr" and "diffcrcnt/pcrW rcadings
It is interesting to notice that such "same/per" and "different/per" readings
arc not limitcd to tllc intcrprctation of indcfinitc noun phrascs; the same
arc not limited to Ole interpretation of indefinite noun phrases; the same
phcnomcnon ariscs wit11 dcfinitc noun phrascs as wcll. Consider thc following
phenomenon arises with definite noun phrases as well. Consider the following
case:
case:
1115-1 In cach car. the mcchanic adjustcd thc radio antenna.
D15-1 In each car, the mechanic adjusted me radio antenna.
2 He had found them all 4 inchcs too short.
2 He had found them all 4 inches too short.
1'0 undcrstand the second scntcncc corrcctly, onc must givc a "samc/pcr"
To understand the second sentence correctly, one must give a "same/per"
rcading to thc description tile t?iechatric- thc samc mechanic for all thc cars - and a
reading to the description the mechanic - the same mechanic for all the cars - and a
"diffcrcnt/pcrWrcading to the radio anlerrna - a diffcrcnt one for cach car. That is.
"different/per" reading to the iadio aIJlellllG - a different one for each car. That is,
onc must scc an intrinsic dcpcndcncy bctwccn radio antennas and cars. (While
one must see an intrinsic dependency between radio antennas and cars. (While
world knowlcdgc about mechanics, cars and radios may confirm thc sensibility of
world knowledge about mechanics, cars and radios may confirm the sensibility of
thcsc rcadings, it is also possible for a second scntcnce to rcquirc, say, a diffcrcnt
these readings, it is also possible for a second sentence to require, say, a different
mcchnnic pcr car as wcll. as in
mechanic per car as well, as in
1116-1 In cach car. the rncchanic adjustcd thc radio antenna.
Dl6-1 In each car. the mechanic adjusted the radio antenna.
2 Unhrtunady For the drivcrs. rhc mcchanics knew zip about
2 Unfortunately for the drivers, the mechanics knew zip about
radios.)
radios.)
'Ihc rcason for hedging above vis-a-vis "somcthing likc" quantificr scoping is
The reason for hedging above vis-a-vis "something like" quantifier scoping is
that Bobrow and I have rcason lo advocatc a rcintcrprclation of quantificr scoping
that Bobrow and [ have reason to advocate it reinterpretation of quantifier seoping
in tcrms of the combinatoric fcaturcs - dcpendcncy. ilcration and cardinality. For
in terms of the combinatoric features - dependency, iteration and cardinality. For
cxamplc, wc would distinguish a "sainc/pcrW and a "diffcrcnt/pcrU rcading (of
example, we would distinguish a "same/per" and a "different/per" reading (of
cithcr a dcfinitc or an indcfinitc NP) in tcrms of whclhcr or not thc NP is sccn to
either a definite or an indefinite NP) in terms of whether or not the NP is seen to
dcncnd (cithcr Skolcm-functionally, intrinsically or explicitly) on some
depend (either Skolem-functionally, intrinsically or explicitly) on some
disuibutivc quantificr (i.e.. somc itcratcd dcscri~tion). Our rcintcrprctation
distributive quantifier (Le., some iterated description). Our reinterpretation

Wcbbcr
Webber

344

344

rcflccts thc considcrablc (and growing) body of cvidcncc that there is wide
reflects the considerable (and growing) body of evidence that there is wide
variation in pcoplc's grasp of quantificd scntcnccs: certain aspccts of thcm sccm to
variation in peoplc's grasp of quantified scntences: certain aspects of them seem to
bc undcrstood casily and consistcntly. evcn whcn the scntcnccs arc prcscntcd with
be understood easily and consistently. even when the sentences arc presented with
no contcxt (c.g., "thrcc <x>'sW implies. to people that Lhcre arc at lcast thrce
no context (e.g., "three <x)'s" implies. to people that there arc at least three
scparatc things dcscribablc as an <x>, ncvcr just onc or two things, each
separate things describable as an <x>. never just one or two things, each
dcscribablc in rnorc than onc Hay as an <x>). Certain othcr a$pccts pcoplc have
describable in more U1an one way as an <x. Certain other aspects people have
troublc grasping at all [\'an1 chn 19781 - much lcss trying to sclcct which ofscvcral
trouble grasping at all [Vanl ehn1978] much less trying to select which of several
altcrnativc rcadings is intcndcd (c.g., t l ~ cdata basc qucrics bclow that [I'homas
alternative readings is intended (e.g" the data base queries below that rrhomas
19761 rlskcd Ilirman sul)jcctsto answer.
1976] asked human subjects to answer.

- out
I'rint out any dcpartmcnts that scll cvcry articlc that some
. Print
anyrnakcs.
department~ that sel1 every article that some
company
company makes.

I'rint thc dcpartmc~itswhosc cntirc linc of itcrns is supplicd

Printbythe
departmcnts whose cntire line of items is supplied
a singlc colnpany.
by a single company.
Scvcral siibjccts intcrprctcd thcsc qucrics in ways that borc litrlc rclation to any of
Several subjects interpreted these queries in ways that bore little relation to any of
rhc strict logical rcadings. whilc othcr st~bjcctsclaimcd hey madc no scusc at all.)
the strict logical readings. while other subjects claimed they m;lde no sense at all.)
Wc fccl n bcttcr modcl for pcoplc's understanding of quantificd scnknccs in
We feci a better model for people's understanding ef quantified sentences in
discoursc is onc in which wc can scparatc oul thosc aspccts of quantification that a
di?course is one in which we can separate out those aspects of quantification that a
listcncr will immcdintcly undclstand in a givcn scntcllcc and rnakc a colnmitrncnt
listener will immediately understand in a given sentence and make a commitment
to from thosc aspccts which cannot bc imrncdiatcly undcrstood. whosc rcsolution
lO from those aspects which cannot be immediately understood. whose resolution
will hc postponed. Only whcn fnrccd to by anotlicr task, like thc nccd to act in
will be postponed. Only when forced to by another task, like the need to act in
rcsponsc to thc sclttcncc or the 11ced to understand a following one, will the
response to the sentence or the need to understand a following one, will the
listcncr nttcmpt to rcsolvc (partially, if not fuliy) hcsc lattcr aspccls. As prcsentcd
listener auempt to resolve (partially. ifnot fuliy) these latter aspects. As presented
in [Ih~browand Wcbbcr 19811. a combinatoric modcl allows for this separation.
in [Bobrow arid Webber 1981]. a combinatoric model allows for this separation.
Note though that thc purpose of such a combinatoric m d c l is to allow the
Note though U13t the purpose of such a combinatoric model is to allow the
discoursc undcrstandcr lo postponc decisions about cornbinatoric fcaturcs as long
discourse understander to postpone decisions about combinatoric features as long
as possible, whilc still capturing all thosc aspccts of meaning that can be
as possible, while still capturing all those aspects of meaning that can be
imrncdiatcly graspcd. I~Iowevcrin most cascs, in ordcr to dcscrihc the discourse
immediately grasped. However in most cases, in order to describe the discourse
cntitics that a clause givcs risc to. somc rcsolution is rcquircd, cvcn if just to
entities that a clause gives rise to, some resolution is required, even if just to
ascertain and comparc ils conscqilcnccs with current discoursc demands. The
ascertain and compare its consequences with current discourse demands. The
rulcs for dcriving discoursc cntity dcscriplions prcscntcd in Scction 6.4.4 arc thus
rules for deriving discourse entity descriptions presented in Section 6.4.4 arc thus
hascd on fully rcsolvcd forms, Fi~rit discussion in tcrms of perhaps only partially
based on fully resolved forms. For a discussion in terms of perhaps only partially
rcsolvcd combinatoric fcaturcs, t l ~ crcadcr is rcfcrrcd to Illobrow and Wcbbcr
resolved combinatoric features. t11C reader is referred to (Bobrow and Webber
19811.
1981].

345

6.3.3 Mcmbcr/Set Information

Plural noun phrnscs may providc infonnation about two scparatc things: a set and
Plural noun phrases may provide infonnation about two separate things: a set and
its mcmbcrs. For example,
its members. For example,
1117-1 thrcc dottcd lincs which intcrscct at point P
J)] 7-1 three dOlled lines which intersect at point P
2 chc hrcc dottcd lincs which intcrscct at point P
2 the Uuee dolled lines which intersect at point P
Dolled is a prupcrty of cach individusl line. Three, on thc othcr hand, supplies
DOlled is a property of each individual line. Three, on the other hand. supplies
information about tlic cardinality of thc scts of lincs which satisfy tllcse
infonnation about the cardinality of the set" of lines which satisfy these
descriptions. Morcovcr. UIC rclalivc clausc - which itlter.scc/ of poi17r /' - docs not
descriptions. Moreover. the relative clause - which illterscrt at point r - docs not
dirccdy restrict wllictl indi\idu:il lincs bclong to thcsc scts, but ralllcr spccilies a
directly restrict which individual lines belong to these sets, but rather specifies a
propcrty of apprt~priatcscts uf thrcc lincs. I'~.cnominal. prcpositioniil and clausal
property of appropriate set~ of three lines. Prenominal, prepositional and clausal
mod~ficrswi~hina noun phrase may all bc uscd to dcscribc cithcr a sct as a unit or
modifiers within a noun phrase may all be used to describe either a set as a unit or
thc sct's individual mcmbcrs.
the set's individual members.
For handling anaphora, a distinction must be drawn bctwcen sct and ~ncmber
For handling anaphora, a distinction must be drawn between set and member
infonnation within a plural noun phrasc. both for dcscribing lhc crility i[ cvokcs
infonnation within a plural noun phrase, both for describing the entity it evokes
and for dcscribing host cntitics cvokcd by any cmbcddcd noun phrascs.
and for describing those entities evoked by any embedded noun phrases.
Considcr tlic following scntcnces.
Consider the following sentences.
1118-1'I'hrcc mcn who tricd to lift a piano dropped it.
D18-1 Three men who tried to lift a piano dropped it.
2'l'hc thrcc lncn ~ h tricd
o to lift a piano dropped it.
2 The three men who tried to lift a piano dropped it
3 'l'hrcc mcn who tricd to lift a piano dropped them.
3Three men who tried to lift a piano dropped them.
4 ' l a c dlrcc lncn who tricd to lift a piano droppcd thcm.
4 The three men who tried to lift a pi.mo dropped them.
In the first two scntcnccs, thc rclativcclausc convcys information about the set
In the first two sentences, the relative clause conveys information about the set
of mcn as a unit. 'ihus it can bc undcrstotd as acccssi~igthc discourse entity
of men as a unit. Thus it can be understood as accessing the discourse entity
dcscribablc as the jusf-met~tionedpiunowhich rl~ejusl-,ner71iolzed three met1 tried lo
describable as the just-mentioned piano which the just-mentioned three men tried to
18. Howcvcr, in Ule sccond two scntcnces, thc rclativc clause convcys information
lift. However, in Ule second two sentences. the relative clause conveys infonnation
about cach mcmbcr of thc sct. 'Ilus /hey can bc understood as accessing the
about each member of the set Thus Ihey can be understood as accessing the
entity dcscribablc as rhe jusr-lllenrioned pianos, each of which one of the
entity describable as the just-mentioned pianos, each of which one of the
just-mentioned men tried to 18.'
just-mentioned men tried 10 lift.l

6.3.4 'I'hrcc Uses of Plurals

6.3.4 Three Uses of Plurals
Anothcr factor in forming appropriatc IDS for cntilics cvc~kcdby plural noun
Another factor in filrming appropriate IDs for entities evoked by plural noun
phrascs involvcs distinguishing what thc scnlcncc is prcdicating of cach sct and
phrases involves distinguishing what the sentence is predicating of each set and
what it is predicating of cacll individual sct rncmhcr. 'Ihat is. I scc disrributivcncss
what it is predicating of each individual set member. "J1,at is, I see distributiveness
(i.c., an cquivalcnt thing bcing prcdicatcd of cach individual sct mcmbcr) as only
(Le. an equivalent thing being predicated of each individual set member) as only

1. Thme four sentences hint at another distinction that must be madc in order to identify discourse
1. These
four sentences
at another
distinction
must be made in order to identify discourse
a noun
phrasethat
&curs crnbcddcd in a rclalivc clause (as a piano dm3
enlilia
adcquatclyhint whclhcr
entities above)
adequately'
whether
noun phrase
embedded
in a relative clause (a~ a piano does
or in the
matrixascnlcnce.
This isoccurs
discussed
a1 lenglh in [Wcbbcr 1978~1and p c b b c r l978bl.
above) or in the matrix sentence. This is discussed at length in [Webber 1978c] and (Webber 1978b].

346

Webber

one of three distinct scnscs that a sentence containing a plural noun phrasc can be
one of three distinct senses that a sentence conlaining a plural noun phrase can be
uscd to convcy. '!he hrcc scnscs 1 call distrihutivc, collcctivc and coniunctivg
used to convey. The three senses I call distrihutive. collective and conjunctive.
Cansidcr for cxample
Consider for example

- Thrcc boys bought fivc roscs.

- Three boys bought five roses.
This can be uscd to convcy either:
This can be used to convey either:

1. that I3oy 1 b o ~ ~ gfivc

h t roscs. ll11y2 bought fivc roscs and Boy3
1. that bough1
Boy I bought
fi\'e roses,
Boy2 bought
five roses
andthc
Boy3
fivc roscs
(dt~~rtbutire
rcadir~g).
Should
sentcnce
boughthave
five conlaincd
roses (distributive
reading).
Should
the
sentence
an cxplicit "cach." this would clcarly be the
have contained
an explicit
"each,"
this would
clearly
the can
intcndcd scnsc.
tlowcvcr
as [Stcnning
19781
notcs.be"cach"
intended
sense.
However
as
[Stenning
19781
!lotes,
"each"
can
bc implicd contextually as wcll - e.g.,
be implied contel'.tually as well- e.g.
-How many roscs did each of your customers buy?
-How many roses did each of your customers buy?
Wcll, ten boys bought 8 roscs cach.
Well. ten
boysboys
bought
8 roses
each.
'I'hrcc
bought
5 roscs.
Three boys
bought
5
roses.
And one girl, shc bought thrce dozen.
And one girl, she bought three dozen.
2. that thrce boys (fonncd into a consortium) bought five roses
2. that (collec/ive
three boysreading).
(fanned into a consortium) bought five roses

(collective reading).

3. t l ~ the
~ t total of rosc-buying boys is three and the total
3. thatnumber
the totalofofroses,
rose-buying
boyswhich
is three
the total
cach of
wasand
bought
by some
numberrose-buying
of roses, boy,
each
of
which
was
bought
by
is fivc (cotijuncrive readirlg). 'I'his some
implics that
rose-buying
boy, is cithcr
five (conjunctive
reading).
Thisnot
implies
tllc speaker
does not know
or does
care that
to tell the
the speaker
either
knowupor with
does roscs.
not careAsto irtellis the
listencr
howdocs
boysnot
match
the least
listenercommital
how boys
match up with
it is wllcn
the least
dcfault
thcrc is no
interpretation,
it mayroses.
be tllc As
commital
interpretation,
contextual
bias. it may be the default when there is no
contextual bias.

It is important for the listener to identify the intended sense because of their
It is important for the listener to identify the intended sense because of their
diffcrcnt implications. That is,
different implications. That is,
- If Ihe cxamplc is understood distributively. it implics that
- If the
example
is understood
distributively,
that
each
of thc boys
owns fivc roses
as a rcsult itofimplies
thc transaction.
each of the boys owns five roses as a result of the transaction.

- If it is undcrstood conjunctivcly, thcn it implies that cach of

- Ifit hiscunderstood
conjunctively,
it implies
that
of
boys owns at
lcast onc (or then
part of
onc) rosc
as aeach
result.
the boys owns at least onc (or part of one) rose as a resull
- If it is understood collcctivcly, then it docs not imply that
is understood
thenroscs
it docs
imply that
- If itany
individual cotlcctivcly,
boy owns any
as not
a rcsult
Only the
any individual
boy
owns
any
roses
as
a
result
Only the
consortium owns roscs, and it owns five.
consortium owns roses, and it owns five.

Distinguishing these implications is important not only for reasoning but for
Distinguishing these implications is important not only for reasoning but for

347
anaphora as well, as thc following pairs of sentcnces show:
anaphora as well, as the following pairs of sentences show:
1119-1' h c thrcc boys ordered a hrgc anchovy pi7.m.
D191 The three boys ordered a large anchovy pi1.Za.
2 Bccausc of thc hcavy traffic, ir was dclivcrcd cold,
2 Decause of the heavy traffic, it was delivered cold.
1120-1 'The thrcc boys cach ordcrcd a largc anchovy p i n .
1)20-1 The three boys each ordered a large anchovy pizza.
2 Dccausc of the hcavy traffic, [hey wcre dclivcrcd cold,
2 Decause of the heavy traffic, they were delivered cold.
l3ccausc English has a diffcrcnt pnlnoun for accessing a sct than a n individual,
Because English has a different pronoun for accessing a set than an individual,
thc distributivc usc of a plural must bc distinguished from a conjunctive or
the distributive usc of a plural must he distinguished from a conjunctive or
collcctivc usc. Olily whcn a plural is uscd to convcy distributivc quantification can
collective usc. Only when a plural is used to convey distributive quantification can
it changc the discoursc cntity cvokcd by a singular noun phrasc within its scope
it change the discourse entity eyoked by a singular noun phrase within its scope
from an individual to a sct. 71'l~is
mcans that a diffcrcnt pronoun would be uscd to
from an individual to a set. This means that a different pronoun would be used to
rcfcr to it.
refer to it.
Spccifically. in 1)19 il acccsscs a discoursc cntity appropriately dcscribcd as !he
Specifically. in D19 if accesses a discourse entity appropriately described as the
In 1120. /hey ~CCCSSCSthe
j u s / - ~ r i r ~ ~ / i oIurge
t ~ e da~rchoq.pizza/hat rlre Boj.5 ord~r~rl.
jus/-!I1rllfiol1cd large mre/lOl')' pizza 'hal ,Ire bo)'s ordeml. In 1)20. they accesses the
sct cvokcd by t l ~ csame noun phrasc, this tirnc dcscribablc as the sel of
set evoked by the same noun phrase. this time describable as the set of
jusf-~net~~io~~ed
Iorge ot~cholyp i i ~ nccich
~ ofwhich ~ l a ordered
s
by olie of rhe three
just-mell{iolled large anrho!')' pizzas, each ofwhirh was ordCfrd by ol1e of {he three
boj~s. 'Thc gcncral issuc is getting appropriatc descriptions. In thc original
boys. 'The general issue is getting appropriate descriptions. In the original
cxamplc,
example,
'lhrce boys bought fivc roses.
Three boys bought five roses.
dcpcnding on which sensc of three boys thc spcakcr mcans to convcy. the
depending on which sense of three boys the speaker means to convey. the
description appropriatc to the discourse entity cvokcd by jive roses will be
description appropriate to the discourse entity evoked by five foses will be
somcthing like
something like

- thc sct of just-mcntioncd roses, each of which belongs to a

- the set of just-mentioned roses, each of which belongs to a
sct of five roscs which one of thcsc thrcc rosc-buying boys
set of five roses which one of these three rose-buying boys
bought (distributive)
bought (distributive)
- the sct of fivc roscs, each of which one of the three
- the set of five roses, each of which one of the three
rosc-bu y ing boys bought (in part or in roro) (conjunctive)
rose-buying boys bought (in part or ill to (0) (conjunctive)

thc sct of five roscs which this rosc-buying consortium of

the set of five roses which this rose-buying consortium of
thrcc boys bought (collcctivc)
three boys bought <collective)
6.4 An Apprapriatc I ~ o r m ~ l i far
s n ~Computing I)cscriptions
6.4 An Appropriate Formalism for Computing Uescriptions
6.4.1 Noun t'hrascs in Gcneral
6.4.1 Noun I>hrascs in General

'Ihc attcmpt to capture both quanlificr scope and prcdication in an adequate

The attempt to capture both quantifier scope and predication in an adequate
rcprcscntation implics a formalism with logical opcrators. Unfortunately, a "flat"
representation implies a formalism with logical operators. Unfortunately, a "flat"
predicate calculus will not sufficc: its structure is not rich cnough to allow a
predicate calculus will not suffice: its structure is not rich enough to allow a

Webber
Webber

348

348

distinction to bc made bctwccn a prcdicalc asstlciatcd with a scntcntial vcrb

distinction to be made between a predicate associated with a sentential verb
phrasc and a prcdicatc asstxiatcd with anothcr part of thc scntcncc. For cxample,
phrase and a predicate associated with another part of the sentence. For example,
Sonic cotrorl T-shir!is expensive.
Some (3x)
catlOIl T-shirt is expensive.
.Cotton(x) A 'r-shirt(x) A F.xpcnsivc(x)
(3x) . Cotton(x) 1\ T-shirt(x) 1\ Expensivc(x)

Without this distinction. it is impossible to cffcct diffcrc~ittrcatmcnts for

Without this distinction, it is impossible to effect different treatments for
dcfinitc and indcfinitc noun phri~scsor to rcsolvc cllipscd vcrb phrascs [Wcbbcr
definite <tnd indefinite noun phrases or to resolve ellipscd verb phrases [Webber
1978aI. a ncccssry stcp in producing adcquatc Ills. Morcovcr. thcrc is no way in
]978a]. a necessary step in producing adequ<tte Jl)s. Moreover. there is no way in
a "flat" prcdicatc calculus rcprcscnts~ionto distinguish 3 noun phrasc cmbcddcd
a "flat" predicate calculus representation to distinguish a noun phrase embedded
in a rclativc clausc from one in a matrix clnusc. ('Ibis is anotllcr ncccssary
in a relative clause from one in a matrix clause. Cl11is is another necessary
distinctioo discusscd in [Wcbbcr 1978al.)
distinction discussed in [Webber 1978a].)
Onc forrnrrlis~ntli;~th u h contains thc logical opcriltors and allows Lhc above
One fOnTI<tlism that boLh contains the logical operators and allows the above
dis1inctic)ns to bc madc is a n extension of rrsrric~~ri
q ~ ~ t ~ i $ ~ ~ ~Int i restricted
o,~.l
distinctions to be made is an extension of rrstriefed qualJlijicatioll. 1 In restricted
quan~ification,a quantification operator (c.g. V. 3). thc \.ariablc of quantification
quantification. a quantification operator (e.g. 'rI. 3). the \ariablc of quantification
and thc class it rangcs over (notcd implicitly as a prcdicatc) constitute a stn~ctural
and the class it ranges over (noted implicitly as a predicate) constitute a structural
unit of thc rcprescntiition - i.e.. (Qx:l') whcrc Q is a quantification operator; x, the
unit of the representation - Le.. (Qx: P) where Q is a quantification operator; x, the
variablc of quantification; and P, a prcdicatc. For cxamplc, E\lrv buy is happy can
variable of quantification; and p. a predicate. For example. Em)' boy is happy can
bc rcprcscntcd as
be represented as
( Vx: Ijoy ) . Ilappy(x)
('rIx:lloy). Happy(x)

This is uulh fi~nctionallycquivalcnt to

This is truth functionally equivalent to
Vx . Iioy (x) 3 Happy(x)
'rIx . Boy (x):J Happy(x)
Similarly Some boy is happy can be represented as
Similarly Some boy is happy can be represented as
( 3x:Boy). Happy(x)
which is n t h functionally equivalent to
which is truth functionally equivalent to
( 3x ) . Doy(x) 1\ Happy(x)

1. The formalism nctually hcing uscd lo implcmcnt Ihc5c idcas i s K1;ONL a uniform language bascd
I. The on
formalism
actually
heing usedinhcr~lancc
(0 iml'llemenl!hese ideas is KL-ONE. a uniform language based
be idca
of Wuclurcd
nctworks [Ilrachman 1978. 19791. K1,-ONE has scvcral
on the idea of structured inheritance networKs [Ilraehman 1978. 1979]. KL-ONE has several
advanlagcs ovcr even a lypcd fin[-ordcr prcdicatc c~lculus( I 01'C) rormalism: bcing a non-linear
adl/antages
over c\'en aittyped
(I DPe) formalism: being a non-linear
allowsfirst-order
Tor pirlinlpredicate
ordcringcalculus
of dcpcndcncia.
(In Lhc IaIC. IcR-lo-righi ordcring
rcprcantalion.
representation. il allows for p~rlial ordering of dependencies. (In the F01'C. len-to-righl ordering
risidly dcfincs dcpcndcncies.) Morcovcr, il will allow us to rcprmnt -- in tcrms of mappings-- all and
rigidly defines
Moreover, it currently
will allowknown.[Robrow
us to represcnl and
.. inWcbbcr
terms of1980aI
mappings -- all and
only thedependencies,)
combinaloric informalion
only !he combinatoric information currently known.IBobrow and Webber 198Oa)

349

To cxtcnd this notation to includc rclativc clauscs is quitc simple.

To cxtend this notation to include relative clauses is quite simple.

Semantically, a rclntivc clausc can bc vicwcd as a prcdicatc, iilbcit a complex one.
Semantically, a relative clause can be viewed as a predicate, albeit a complex one.
One way to provide for arbilrarily complcx prcdicatcs is through tllc usc of the
One way to provide for arbiuarily complex predicates is through the usc of the
abstraction (or "A") opcrator. For cxample, the noun phrase a pmtrut can bc
abstraction (or ">0.") operator. ror example, the noun phrase a peanut can be
rcprcscntcd as
represented as
3x:Peanut

whilc thc noun phrasc a paar~ur[hat I.tfejendy gave lo a gorillrr ciln bc rcprcscntcd as
while the noun phrase a peanut that Wendy gave 10 a gorilla can be represented as
3x:,\(u:Pcanut)[(3y :Gorilla). Gave(Wcndy,u.y)]

This follows rhc semc format as (Qx:I') as abovc. In this casc

This follows the same fOlmat as (Qx:P) as ahove. In this case
Mu:Peanut)[(3y:Gorilla) . Gave(Wcndy,u,Y)]
specifics a llnary prcdicatc which is truc if its argurncnt is a peanut that Wcndy
specifics a unary predicate which is true if its argument is a peanut that Wendy
gave 10 some gorilla.
gave to some gorilla.
Noticc that rcprcscn~ingNYs in t c m s of (possibly conlplcx) typed quantifiers
Notice th;lt representing NPs in teoos of (possibly complex) typed quantifiers
in this way providcs Tor both cxplicit and implicit dcpc~idcncicsbctwccn noun
in this way provides for both explicit and implicit dependencies between noun
phrascs - cxplicitly. by allowing thc type-prcdicatc of onc vi~riablcto dcpcnd on
phrases - explicitly, by allowing the type-predicate of nne variable to de[1cnd on
the value of anothcr. and implicitly, by quantifier ordcring and attendant
the valuc {)f another, and implicitly, by quantifier ordering and attendant
discourse-rclatcd or rcal-world knowledge.
discourse-related or real-world knowledge.

6.4.2 Singular Noun Phrases

6.4.2 Singular Noun Phrases

I argucd in Scction 6.3 that in order to fonn appropriatc Ills, it was ncccssary to

I argued in Section 6.3 that in ordcr to fonn appropriate IDs, it was necessary to
distinguish whclhcr a noun phrasc was singular or plural. dcfinitc or indefinite.'
distinguish whelher a noun phrase was singular or plural. definite or indetinite.l
One way to d o so is to use a typcd existential quantificatit~nalopcrator ("there
One wny to do so is to use a typed existential quanlificatil1nal operator ("there
exist$", o r 3) for indcfinitc NPs and anothcr opcrator I!, to bc rcad "thcre exists
exisl<;", or 3) for indefinite NPs and another operator' 31, to be read "there exists
a unique" - for dcfinitc Nl's. 110th arc o f h e form
a unique" - for definite NPs. Both are of the form

<operatorXvariable):<S>

whcrc <operator> is cithcr 3 or 3! and <S> is an opcn scntcnce In <variable>. For

where <operator) is either 3 or 31 and <S> is an open sentence m <variable>, For

example,
example,

1. The rollowing discussion contains a more uniform treatmcnr of delinite and indefinite n w n
I. The following discussion contains a more unifonn tre30ncnt of definite and indefinite noun
phrases than that prcscnlcd in mcbber 1978al. Ilowever. it dm not ailcn~pllo capture the notion of
phrases undermnstraincd
than thal presentcd
in (W cbbcr 1978a]. Ilowe~er. it docs not attcmpt to raplure the notion of
combinatoticr

underconstraincd oombinatorics.

Wcbbcr
Webber
3x: Hat
3x: Hat
3!x:h(u:Hat)Saw(Suc,u)
3!x:>..(u: Hat)Saw(Sue,u)
3x: A(u:Hat)Rcd(u)
3x:>..(u:Hat)Red(u)

350

a hat
ahat
the hat Sue saw
the hat Sue saw
a rcd hat
a red hat

6.4.3 Plural Noun Phrases

6.4.3 Plural Noun Phrases
As for the singttlar/plural noun phrasc distinction, anc can havc thc unmarked
/\s for the singular/plural noun phrase distinction, one can have the unmarked
casc carrcspond to singular NPs, as abovc. Howcvcr. thc shndard logical way to
case correspond to singular NPs, as above. However, the standard logical way to
specify a sct via its dcfining propcrty (or sct of propcrtics)' - i.c., whcrc (ulthe
specify a set via its defining property (or set of properties)1 - i.e., where {ulthe
arbitri~ryprcdicatc 1') rcprcscnls tllc sct of things u for which Pu is w e - is
arbitrary predicate P} represents the set of things u for which Pu is true - is
inadcquatc for rcprcscnting all plural noun phrascs, as it docs not allow onc to
inadcquatc for representing all plural noun phrases, as it docs not allow one to
prcdicntc things about thc scts thcmsclvcs. 'I'his is bccausc {uIPu) always refers to
predicate things about the sets themselves. This is because {ulPu} always refers to
ihc lnaxi~nnl sct of u's such [hat Pu is true. For cxamplc, Ihis notation is
the maximal set of u's such that Pu is true. For example, this notation is
inadcqilatc to rcprcscnt noun phrascs like
inadequate to represent noun phrases like

thrcc mcn who rricd to lift a piano

three men who tried to lift a piano
masscd bagpipc bands
massed bagpipe bands
Tlic scnsc of thc forrncr is sonie sct of rncn, of cardinality thrcc, who togcthcr tried
TIle sense of the former is some set of men, of cardinality three, who together tried
to lift a piano.
to lift a piano.
Onc way to rcmcdy this dcficicncy is to iiltroducc a way of getting at the
One way to remedy this deficiency is to introduce a way of getting at the
subscts of a givcn sct, a way providcd by thc standard mathcmatical notion of a
subsets of a given set, a way provided by the standard mathematical notion of a
powcr sct. 'lhc power sct of a givcn sct is thc complctc sct of its subscts. The
power set The power set of a given set is the complete set of its subsets. The
mathcmatical notation uscd to indicate thc powcr sct of thc sct A is 2A. This
mathematical notation used to indicate the power set of the set /\ is 2/\. This
rcflccts thc fact that thc sizc of thc powcr sct of a sct is 2 raiscd to thc size of the
reflects the fact that the size of the power set of a set is 2 raised to the size of the
SCL Corrcsponding to this. but in t c n s of prcdicatcs (whosc extensions arc scts)
set Corresponding to this. but in terms of predicates (whose extensions arc sets)
rather than in tcnns of scrs dircctly, onc can use a function, sct, which takes
rather than in terms of sets directly, one can usc a function, set, which takes
prcdicatcs on individual x's to prcdicatcs on set5 of x's. For cxample, if Man is a
predicates on individual x's to predicates on set~ of xs. For example. if Man is a
prcdicatc which is truc if its argumcnt is an individual man, Lhcn sct(hlan) is a
predicate which is true if its argument is an individual man, then set( Man) is a
predicate which is lruc if its argurncnt is a scl of incn. Similarly, if
predicate which is true ifits argument is a set of men. Similarly, if
A(v:Man)[(3y:Piano) I (v,y)]

is a prcdicatc truc if its argumcnt is a man who liflcd a piano, thcn

is a predicate true if its argument is a man who litled a piano, then

1. A xt may also be specified cxplieilly via a tiit of its members

1. A set may also be specified explicitly via a lisl of its members.

35\

A(v:set(Man))[( 3y: Piano)1 ~ v,y)]

prcdicatc truc
argitmcnt is a set
sct of men
mcn such that the set
sct of them
thcm lifted
liftcd a
is a predicate
true if
jf its argument
othcr hand,
piano. On the other
set(A(v:Man)[(3y:Piano). L(v,y)))

predicate which is true

t ~ ifcits
i l l argument is a set
sct of mcn,
cach of whom lifted a
is aa predicate
men, each
piano. 1
All plurals (besides
(bcsidcs conjunctions like !lob
/lob orld
Trd arid
olld Carol and
alld Ted
alld Alice)
Alice) can
be rcprcscntcd
represented wit11
with this set
operalOr, thc
the difference
hetween definite
now bc
scl opcralor,
diffcrcncc bctwccn
dcfinitc and
indefinite
indclinitc coming out in the
ihc choice
choicc of quantifier.
qui~ntificr.For example.
cxamplc.

'

I.(v.y)]
(i) 3x: A(v:sct(Ma11))[(3y:l'iano)
A(v:set(Mml[(3y:Piano) L(v,y)]
some
somc men
mcn who
whit (togclhcr)
(togchcr) lifted
liftcd a piano
(ii)
(ii) 3x: set(iI(v:Man)[(3y:Piano)
sct(~(v:Ma11)[(3y:l'iano)L(v,y)))
I.(v,y)])
some
lifted a piano
somc men
mcn who (each)
(cach) liftcd
Definite plurals can bc
be rcprcscntcd
represented like definite
Dcfinitc
dcfinitc singulars
singulars using the "unique
cxi!itcntial"
cxistcntial" operator.
(iii) 3!x: il(v:seI(Man[(3y:Piano)
h(v:sct(Man))1(3y:Piano) l.(v,y)]
l.(v.y)]
O,e
men who (together)
Ulc lncn
(togcthcr) lifted
lincd a piano
(iv) 3!x: seI(A(v:Man)[(3y:l'iano)
sct(A(v:M;1n)[(3y:l'iano) L(v,y)))
I.(v,y)])
(cach) lifted
liftcd a piano
the lncn
meo who (each)
In (iv) the definiteness
the pluial
pluia! should be intcrprctcd
interpreted as indicating
dcfinitcncss of thc
indicating O,e
the lolal
rota1
set ofall
of all and only thosc
those individuals
individuals (in
(in the context)
contcxt) satisfying
satisfying the given
giwn predicate.
etc.),
included in
rwo metl,
met the
rhe (wo
rlvo men.
~r~err,
ctc.), can be
bc includcd
Cardinality, if
if specified
spccificd (c.g. (wo
these rcprcscntations
representations simply by using the cardinality "[
=
thcsc
"1 ["1" and equality
equality "="
operaton. For example,
cxamplc, parallel to (i)-(iv)
(i)-(iv) above are
operators.
3x:
A(v:set(Man))[(3y:Pig), L(v,y)
/\ [v[=3)
3x: A(v:sct(Man))[(3y:ap).
I.(v.y) A
lvl=3]
(togclhcr)liftcd
"thrcc rncn
"three
men who (together)
lifted a pig"
3x: il(u:set(A(v:Man)[(3y:Pig).
L(v,y)]([ul=3)
~(u:sel(h(v:Man)[(3y:Pig).I.(v.~)l))[lul=3]
"three
men who (cach)
hfted a pig"
"thrcc mcn
(cacb) liflcd

1.
lhat prcdicales
predicates like I.l.. ("lifC')
to both
both individuals
individuals and sets,
1. 1
1 am assuming
asuming U~ai
("lift") can
can be
bc applied
applicd la
a s , with the
appropriate
semantics falling
evaluation. This
"semantic ovcrloadlng"
overloading" is well-known
appropriate semantics
Salling out at
a1 cvalualion.
l h e nolion
nottan of
oS"seman11c
thee programming
in B
programming languages
hnguages lilerature.
lilcrature.

Webber

352

31x:
v:set(Man[(3y:Pig) . I.(v,y) 1\
Ivl = 3]
3!x: h(
A(v:sct(Man))[(3y:l'ig).
A lvl=3]
"the three
lhrce men
mcn who (together)
(togcthcr) lifted a pig"
31x:
L(v,y)])[Jul = 3]
3!x: h(u:sct(h(v:Man)[(3y:Pig)
A(~l:set(A(v:Man)[(3y:Pig)L(v,y)]))[lul=3]
"the
"thc tluee
Uircc men who (e;,ch)
(cr~cli)lifted a pig"
At this
be ppuulcd
the abscncc
absence of
of universal
this point,
point. the
Uic reader
rcadcr might bc
u ~ ~ l cabout
d
thc
quantifiers
V's
tllUS
far,
given
that
ill
clemen
wry
logic,
the
swndard
quantificn - V's - tlius far, givcn
in clcmcnciry logic.
standard practice is
to usc
'1l1C slnndard
standard cxamplc
example of
of this is
usc them
thcm to represent
rcprcsclit plural noun phrases. 'lhc

All men are

arc morwl
mom1
'Ix.
Vx . Man(x)::>
Man(x) 3 Morwl(x)
Mortal(x)
However.
attributable to individuals, and as 1I
Houevcr, this assumes
assumcs tllal
that things
things are
arc only attribulablc
discussed earlier,
be attributed 1to11 sets as wcll.
wei!. Adopting
carlicr. English allows
allows things to bc
the
the mtions
notions of
of fcrusing
focusing the listener
lhc above
;~bovcconventions permits
pcr~nitsa separation of thc
on a set
tl,at set or about its indi\,idual
individual
sct of things
things and of saying something
v~mcthingabout lllnt
mc~iibcrs.Only
Only whell
whc~iattributing some
somc propcrty
members.
property to
to cach
each ~nclnber
member of
of somc
some seL
se~
would olle
o11cadd in a universal
tinivcrsnl quantifier.
qo;~ntificr.For example,
wuuld
example.
Ihrec men
~ncnatc
ate a pizza.
Three
( ]x:l.(u:sct(Manllllu!
= 3])(3y;
Pizza) Ate(x,y)
3x:A(u:sct(Man))[lul=
3])(3y:Pirza)
Ilirec mcn each
cach all.:
atc aa pizza.
l1ucc
( ]x:,(u;sct(Man)[Jul
= 3])(VwEx)(3y;Pizza) Atc(w.y)
Ate(w,y)
3x:A(u:suI(Man))[luI=3j)(VwExX3y:Pizza)
pizza.
'Thc three
thrcc men atc a piua.
The
h(u:sct(Man))[lul=3])(3y:Pizra)Atc(x,y)
( 33!x:
Ix; h(u;sct(Man))[Iul
= 3])(3y;Pizza) Ate(x,y)
I h c three
lhrcc men
mcn each ate a pizza.
piua.
The
A(u:sct(Ma1i))[lul=3])(Vw~xX
( 33!x:
Ix; ,(u;sct(Mall))[lul
= 3])(VWEX)( 3y:Pizza)Atc(w,y)
3y;Pizza) Mc(w,y)
still choose to interpret scntcnccs
Now one might still
sentences like "each man ate a pizza"
tcrms of a universal quantifier
quantifier i.e..
simply in terms
simply
i.e.,

atc a pi7.1..a
pins
h c h man ate
F,ach
Vx: Man)(
Man)( 3y: Pizza)
P~iza)Ate(x,y)
Atc(x,y)
( 'Ix:
misses the point that such sentences are
Howcvcr, this misses
However,
arc rarely meant
mcant to
to imply true
truc
llicy imply that the
univcrsality. Rathcr they
univcrsality.
thc prcdicatc holds ofevery
of every rncmber
member ofsome
of some
nlorc limited
limited set
sct that the
thc speaker and listener
listcncr jointly rccognix.
h a t is, "each
more
recognize. ''mat
<xY
is
morc
correctly
interpreted
as
"each
of
thc
<x>sW
i.e.,
in
tcrms
of
<x>" is morc corrcctly intcrpreted "cach ofthc <x>s" - i.e.,
of a definite
dcfinite
sct and a univcrsal
univcml quantificr
quantifier ovcr
over that sct:
set:
sct

353

Filch man atc a pizza.

blCh man
a pilla,
(3!w:atesct(Man))(Vxcw)(
3y: Pizza) Alc(x,y)

(3!w: sct(Man(VxEwX 3y; Pinal Ate(x,y)

As with o ~ h c dcfinitc
r
noun plirnscs, it is tlic task of pragmatics lo figure out what
As with other definite noun phrases, it is the task of pragmatics to figure out what
acctiunts for thc dcfinitcncss, including dcfinitcncss by virtue of being the
accounts for tile definiteness, including definiteness by virtue of being the
totrll/univcrsal sct of rhi~igsdcscribablc as an <x>. In thc ft~llowingdiscussion - as
total/universal set of things describable as an <x>. In the following discussion - as
in [Ibhrow and Wcbbcr 19811 - I will bc rcprcscnling cxplicitly thc dcfinite set
in [Bobrow and Webber 1981}- I will be representing explicitly the definite set
asst~iatcdwith "cach Nl's".
associated with "each NPs",

6.4,4 I>erhing I>iscoursc Entity IDs

6.4.4.1 11)s for Spccilic I)iscoursc Entities
6.4.4.1 (l)s for Specific Discourse Enlitil$

Following thc cxa~nplc fi~rnmalism prcscntcd in Scction 6.4, the scntcncc

Following the examplc fomlalism prcsented in Section 6.4, the sentence
rcprcscntstions wc arc intcrcstcd in will have tile form
representations we arc interested in will havc the fonn

whcrc Q stands for a (possibly cmpty) scqucncc of typcd quantifiers h e

where Q stands for a (possibly empty) sequence of typed quantifiers the
"quantifier collar" - and 1'. a (possibly complcx) prcdicatc applicd to thc variables
"quantifier collar" - and p. a (possibly complex) predicate applied to the variables
of quantification xl....,xn. For cxamplc, thc scntcnce
of quantification xl ...xn. For example, the sentence
F ~ c hboy gavc a girl hc kncw thrcc pcaches
Each boy gave a girl he knew three peaches
has one rcading ( i t . . the one in which he varies wirh each boy) which can be
has one reading (i.e.. the one in which he varies with each boy) which can be
rcprcscnted as
represented as
(3!s: set(Boy( VxES) ( 3y: >.(u:Gir1) [Know(x,u)
(3z: >.(w:sct(PeachI1wl;;; 3]) Gave(x,y,z

tIcrc tllc rcprcscntation for thc clausc is simply thc opcn formula
Here the representation for the clause is simply the open formula
Gave(x,y,z)

whilc tlic noun ptir;~scs correspond to clcmcnts in thc qu;~ntificrcollar. Ihe

while the noun phmscs correspond to clements in the quantifier collar. The
variahlc x is shown to ritngc over individual boys frc~mthc dcfinitc scl indicatcd by
variable x is shown to range ovcr individual boys from the definite set indicated by
"s". thc variablc y is shown to sclcct, fiir each boy, an individual girl hc knows,
"s", the variable y is shown to select. filr each boy, an individual girl he knows,
whilc thc variahlc z rangcs ovcr scts of individual pcachcs whosc cardinality is 3.
while the variable z ranges over sets of individual peaches whose cardinality is 3.
In this rcprcscntntion - a typc of Prcncx Normal 1:oml thc opcn formula to
In this representation - a type of Prencx Nonna1 Foml the open fannula to
thc right of thc quantifier collar can bc vicwcd as a parrent - a way o f describing a
the right of the quantifier collar can be viewcd as a pal/em a way of describing a
ser of ground litcral formulas by giving thcir sy~~raclic
shape. 'Ihc literals in this set
set of ground literal fi)rmulas by giving their sYl/tactic shape. 'Ille literals in this set

Wcbber
Webber

354

354

will vary according to how individual constants arc substituted for thc variablcs in
will vary according to how individual constants are substituted for the variables in
thc pattcrn. 'I'hc quantifier collar, on thc othcr hand, can bc vicwcd as a
the pattern. The quantifier collar, on the other h,md, can be viewed as a
co~~zbirraroricspec/'Jca~iot~which dctcrmi~~cswhat ordcrcd con~binntions of
cOlllbinaloric specification which. determines what ordered combin<ltions of
constants can bc assigncd to thc variablcs to instantiatc or stamp out copies of the
constants can be assigned to the variables to inst<lntiatc or stamp out copies of the
pattern. Among Lhc co~nhinatoricconstraints on individual instantiations arc the
pattern. Among the combinatoric constraints on individual instantiations arc the
thrcc carlicr mcntioncd factors - dcpcndcncy, distribution and cardinality. It is
three earlier mentioned factors' dependency, distribution and cardinality. It is
with rcspcct to thcsc thrcc factors1 that thc rulcs for forming appropriate spccific
with respect to these three factors! that the rules lr forming appropriate specific
(as opposcd to gcncric) discoursc cntity Ills can bc spccificd.
(as opposed to generic) discourse entity IDs can be specified.
.
In what follows, I will first prcsclit two rulcs for forming Ilk whcrc thc
In what follows, J will first present two rules for forming IDs where the
cvoking iiolln phrasc (NP) is no1 dcpcndcnt on any iteration, and dlcn two rulcs
evok ing JlOlln phrase (NP) is not dependent on any iteration. and then two rules
for forming 11)s whcn h c r c is such a dcpcndcncy. 'I'hc Ills arc filrmcd by a
for forming IDs when there is such a dependency. The I\)s arc formed by a
prwcdurc which movcs across a clausc rcprcscntation Icft-to-right, applying
procedure which moves ,ICTllSS a clause representation left-to-right, applying
wllichcvcr rulc matchcs in ordcr to idcntify tltllc ncxt discoursc cntity. and thcn
whichever rule matches in order to identify the next discourse entity, and then
rcwriting thc rcprcscnti~tionin tcrrns of h a t cntity in ordcr to rcmovc sonlc of
rewriting the represent,ltion in terms of lIlat entity in order to remove some oft'le
qusntificational cotnplcxily. ('l'his should hccomc clcarcr' through tllc cxamplcs.)
quantific.ltional complexity. (This should hecome clearer through tlle examples.)
Onc filrthcr now bcforc bcgiluning: in [Wcbbcr 1978i11, I nccdcd six tulcs in
One further noll~ before beginning: in [Webber 1978'1], I needed six rules in
ordcr to account for thc salnc data as hcrc. 'I'hc current reduction comcs from a
order to <lccount for the same data as here. The current reduction comes from a
more uoiform trcatmcnt of dcfinitc and indcfinitc Nl's - cf. Scction 6.4.2 - and a
more uniform treatment of definite and indefinite NPs - cf. Section 6.4.2 - and a
trcntmcnt of "cach" NPs as itcnting ovcr sornc definite (possibly
tr9atment of "each" NPs as iterating over some definite (possibly
discoursc-dcfinitc) sct - i.c.. rcprcscnting "cach" Nl's as a quantihcr scqilcnce of
discourse-definite) set - i.e., representing "each" NPs as a quantifier sequence of
thc form (3! V). cf. Scction 6.4.3
the fonn (3! \f). cf. Section 6.4.3
Non-itcratcd Contcxts
Non-iterated Contexts
Hcrc wc considcr discoursc cntitics cvokcd in thc following two contexts
Here we consider discourse entities evoked in the following two contexts
( 3x : <type) . p(x)
( 3!x : <type , P(x)

whcre <type> is cithcr a prcdicatc on individuals or a predicate on scts. The

where <type) is either a predicate on individuals or a predicate on sets. The
rclcvant point is that thc qui~ntificr(3 or 3!) is not within thc scope of a
relevant point is that the quantifier (3 or 3!) is not within the scope of a
distributivc (V). liulc 1 bclow applics to singular and plural indefinites (3). Rule
distributive (\f). Rule I below applies to singular and plural indefinites (3), Rule
2 to singular and plural dcfinitcs (3!).
2 to singular and plural definites (3 I).
As for notation. I wiII limit ~nysclfto unary prcdicatcs. since any n-ary
As for notation. I will limit myself to unary predicates. since any n-ary
prcdicatc can bc rcwrittcn as a unary onc on thc variable of intcrcst by
predicate can be rewritten as a unary one on the variable of interest by
"lambda-fication" - LC.,
"Iambda-tication" - Le.,

1. disregarding other factors like lense. negation and modality [Webber 1978a]
1. disregarding other factors like tense, negation and modality [Webber 1975al-

355

x(u)[P(u, Yl, ... ,yk)]x =dcfP(x)

I will also not make cxplicit any quantifiers to thc right of the onc of iritcrcsf
I will also not makc explicit any quantifiers to the right of the one of interest,
absorbing thcm rather illto the predicate for simplicity - i.e..
absorbing them rather into the predicate for simplicity - Le.,
( 3xQ) QlIantyQlIant k
,\(u)[QlIant2... Quant k . Pu:...] x

P(x)....::>
( 3xQ)
= deft 3xQ) . P'(x)

Itulc 1: 'l'hc first n ~ l ca1,plics in tllc following indefinite contexts (lcft column) to
Rule 1:--The first nile applies in the following indefinitc contexts (left column) to
product discourse cnritics with Ills as in tl~cright column. ('l'hc cl;rusc being
produce discourse entities with IDs as in the right column. (The clause being
prtrcsscd is labclcd S and i sti~ndsfor t l ~ ciota Ft~nctionuscd in forming dctinite
processed is labeled Sand i stands for the iota function used in forming definite
descriptions.)
descri ptions.)
( 3xQ). p(x)
( 3x: sct(Q)). P(X)
( 3x: sct(Q))(VXEX) . p(x)

~ule

iX: Qx 1\ )lex) 1\ Evokc(S,x)

iX: sct(Q)X 1\ P(X) /\ Evokc(S.X)
iX: set(Q)X 1\ (V'XEX) P(x)
/\ Evoke(S,X)

Rulc 1 has thc cffcct of associating with a clause like

1 has the effect of associating with a clause like
1 saw a cat.
J saw a cat
( l x : Cat) Saw(1,x)
( 3x: Cal) Saw(l,x)

the discoursc cntily describable as

the discourse entity describable as
"thc cat I saw that was evokcd by sentence S"
"the cat I saw that was evoked by sentence $"
iX: Cat(x) A Saw(1,x) A Evoke(S,X)
iX: Cat(x) 1\ Saw(l,x) 1\ Evoke(S,X)
("Evoke" corrcsponds to thc predicate discussed in Section 6.3.1.) Rulc 1 also
("Evoke" corresponds to the predicate discussed in Section 6.3.1.) Rule I also
associates with a clause like
associates with a clause like

I saw thrce cats.

I saw three cats.
( 3x: h(~:~~l(Ciit))[lll[=
31 ) .Saw(1.x)
( 3x: ,\(u:set(Cat))[!u! = 3]) . Saw(I,x)
thc discoursc cntity describable as
the discourse entity describable as
"the thrcc cats h a t I saw that werc evokcd by S"
"the three cats that I saw that were evoked by S"
iX : h(u:sct(Cat))[lu 1 = 3]X A Saw(1,x) A Evokc(S,X)
iX: i\(u:set(Cat})Uul = 3]X 1\ Saw(I,x) 1\ Evokc(S,X)

and with the clause

and with the clause

Wcbber
Webber

356

'I'hrcc cats cach danccd thc tango.

danced the tango.
Three cats
( 3x:each
~(u:sct(Cat))[(u(
= 3])( V x f X) .l'ango(x)
( 3x: A(u:set(Cat)[Iul = 3])( 'v'XEX) . Tango(x)
tllc discoursc cntity dcscribablc as
the discourse entity describable as
"tlic thrcc cats who tach dnnccd thc tango
"the three cats who
thateach
wcrcdanced
cvokcdthe
by tango
S"
were
evoked
by
S"
that
iX: h(u:sct(Cat))[lul=3]X A (VxeX) .'l'ango(x)
iX: Mu:sel(Cat))[I11I::::
])X 1\ ('v'xEX) . Tango(x)
A I:vukc(S,X)
1\ Evoke(S,X}
Q
! & 2: 'fhc sccond rulc applics ill thc following thrcc dcfinitc contexts (left
Rule 2: The second rule applies in the followi~g three definite contexts (left
column) to product discoursc c~ititicswith 11)s as in thc right column.
column) to produce discourse entities with IDs as in the right column.

(3!x:Q). p(x)
(3!x:sct(Q). P(X)
( 31x:sct(Q)('v'XEX). P(x)

iX:Qx

iX:QX
iX:QX

This nllc is very sirnylc, assigning to cach discourse cntity. associated with an
This mle is very simple. assigning to each discourse entity. associated with an
indcpcndcnt dcfinitc NP. simply that description. I f thc dcfinitc is mcnnt t o b e
independent definite NP. simply that description. If the definite is meant to .be
annphoric, lhcn this ncw description must bc compatible with oncs already
a'naphoric, then this new description must be compatible with ones already
a~tributcdto ~ l i ccntity so spccificd. If not, Ulc 113 is assigncd to thc ncwly evoked
attributed to the entity so specified. If not. tile IJ) is assigned to the newly evoked
cntity. Rule 2 is intcndcd to co\cr all thc following cascs:
entity. Rule 2 is intended to cover all the following cases:

- I saw b c cat who hates Sam.

- I saw the cat who hates Sam.
I saw thc cats who hate Sam.
] saw the cats who hate Sam.
- I saw the thrcc cats who hate Sam.
- ] saw the three cats who hate Sam.

'Ihe thrcc cats who hatc Sam cach plottcd mayhem.

The three cats who hate Sam each plotted mayhem.
nut since its application and conscqucnccs arc so simplc. 1 will not bother to
nut since its application and consequences arc so simple. J will not bother to
go through specific cxarnplcs.
go tluough specific examples.
At this point, I want to takc up thc restriction in Rulcs 1 and 2 that the
/\t this point. I want to take up the restriction in Rules 1 and 2 that the
quantifier 3 or 3! appear at tllc IcR cnd of rhc wff. What about quantifiers "in the
quantifier 3 or 3! appear at the lell end of the wIT. What about quantifiers "in the
nliddlc"? llccausc thc C ~ ~ I L I SisC hcing proccsscd scqucnlially Icft-to-right this is
middle"? Because the clause is being processed sequentially left-lo-right. this is
not a problem. 'I'o scc this, considcr a w f f o f thc form
not a problem. To sec this, consider a wIT of the form

whcrc H is either indcfinitc ( 3 ) or dcfinitc (3!), Q2 may bc dcpcndcnt on xl, and

where H is either indefinite ( 3 ) or definite (]1), 02 may be dependent on Xl' and
Q1 and Q2 may bc prcdicatcs on cilhcr scts or individuals for cxarnple
OJ and Q2 may be predicates on either sets or individuals for example

--

357
Sornc boy kisscd a girl hc likcd.
Some boy kissed a girl he liked.
( 3x1: Ii~y)(3x~:h(l1:Girl)
[l.ikcd(xl,u)]) K(xl.xZ)
( 3x I: Boy)(]x2: x(u:Girl) [Liked(x 1,u))) K(xI,x2)
Aftcr thc first quantifier (3xl: Boy) is prcxcsscd and its asst~iatcddiscourse cntity
i\fter the first qllantifier (3xI: Boy) is processed and its associated discourse entity
(el) idcntificd, w c can rcwritc this wK in tcms of cl, thcrcby rcmuving thc first
(cI) idcntified, we can rewrite this wff in tenns of el' thereby removing the first
quantilicr LC.,
quantifier Le.,

'Ihat is. tk wff schema givcn abovc a n bc rcwriUcn as

'1 'hat is. the wffschema given above can be rcwriucn as
( 3x2:4) .--P(cl.xZ)

or if Q2 dcpc~idson xl, as it docs in thc "bay kiss girl" cxamplc,

or if 02 depends on xl' as it does in the "boy kiss girl" example,

'Thus, providcd thcrc is no distributive bctwccn thc t w o quantifiers, each will

Thus, provided there is no distributive betwcen the two quantificrs, each will
in turn bc lclt~nostand bc mdtchcd by cibcr 12ulc I or Rulc 2. 'Hlc two cases
in turn be leftmost and be matched by either Rule I or Rule 2. "nle two cases
will bc takcn up in
~ l l c r ca distributive is intcrpilsed bctwccn thc two qi~ant~fiers
where a distributive is interposed between the two quantlflcrs will be taken up in
thc ncxt scction.
lhe next section.
Itcrated ContcxQ

Iterated Contexts
Hcrc wc consider discourse cntitics cvokcd in the remaining two contexts
Here we consider discourse entities evoked in the remaining two contexts

indcfinitc: ( Vy l...yk)(3x:<type>). P(x)

indefinite: (VYl"'YkX3x:<type. p(x)

definite: (VYl'''YkX3 !x:<type. p(x)

where <type>is cithcr a prcdicatc on individuals or a prcdicalc on'scts, and may

where <type> is either a predicate on individuals or a predicate on 'sets, and may
bc a function of yl...yk. (In thc definite casc, it must bc depcndcnt on one or more
be a function of Yl"'Ylc (In the definite case, it must be dependept on one or more
of thcsc varinblcs in order for Rulc 4 bclaw to bc applicablc. Othcrwisc, the
of these variables in order for Rule 4 below to be applicable. Otherwise, the
dcfinitc might just as wcll be to Ulc lcft of Ulc distrihutives, matching rhc context
definite might just as well be to the lett of the distrihutives, matching the context
of Rulc 2. 'TI-lc notations ( Vy ]...yk) and (3y l...yk) arc. respcctivcly, short fix
of Rule 2. The notations ( VYl"'Yk) and (]Yl"'Yk) arc, respectively, short for

and

and

( 3yl~el)-.(3ykEek)

where el...ck are sct-typc discourse entities. How arbitrary wffs can bc rewritten
where cI...ek are sct-type discourse entities. How arbitrary wITs can be rewritten

Wcbber

358

Webber

358

in the above rather gcncral format will bc justified after Rulcs 3 and 4 are
in the above rather general format will be justified after Rules 3 and 4 are
presented.
presented.
Rule

J:The third rule applies in the following three indefinite contexts (left
Rule

I: 'l'hc third rulc applies in thc following thrcc indcfinitc contcxts (left

column) to produce thc discoursc cntity Ills in thc right.

column) to produce the discourse entity IDs in the right.

(VYl"'Yk)(]x:Q). p(x)
(VYl"'Yk)(3X: sct(Q. P(x)
(VYl'''Yk)(3X: sct(Q))(\fx: X). p(x)

( xlQx 1\ (3Y!""Yk) . p(x)

1\ Evoke(S'x
(X I set(Q)X 1\ (3Yl'''Yk).' P(X)
1\ Evoke(S,X)}
(X I set(Q)X 1\ (3Yl'''Yk)
1\ (VXEX). P(x) 1\ Evoke(S,X})

and Q may dcpcnd o n onc or morc of the

whcrc IYx) stands for h(u)[P u,~]....Y~]x
where P(x) stands for >.(u)[P u'Yl''''Yk)x and Q may depend on one or more of the
y's. 'Ihc set notiition [x I ..I dlould be intcrprctcd as thc sct o f all things for which
y's. '111e set notation Ix I...] should be interpreted as the set of all things for which
thc right-hand sidc description is true - i.c.. Ihc maximal sct.
the right-hand side description is true' Le., the maximal set
'I'his rulc has thc cffccl uf associating will) thc indclinitc singular in a clause
This fule has the e(fect of assl>ciating with the indefinite singular in a clause
like
like
Fach cat ato a mousc it saw.

Each cat
atc a mouse~(u:Mousc)[Saw
it saw.
y,u]) .Ate y.x
(Vycl)(3x:
(VyEel)(3x: ,I,.(u:Mouse)[Saw Y,u]). Ate y,x

(wlicre cl is the discourse cntity associated with the dcfinitc set o f cats) the
(where e1 is the discourse entity associated with the definite set of cats) the
discoursc cntily dcscribable as
discourse entity describable as
h e sct of tliings each of which is a rnausc and for cach of which
!.he set thcrc
of things
eachwho
of which
is a mouse
andwhich
fOf each
whichby S
wasof
evoked
is a cat
saw it and
atc it and
there is(Xa 1cat
who
saw
it
and
ate
it
and
which
was
evoked
by
( ~ Y E cMousc(x)
~)
A Atc(y,x) A Evokc(S.X)) S
(x I (3yEel) Mouse(x) 1\ Ate(y,x) 1\ Evokc(S,X}}
and associating with thc indefinite plural in a clause like

and associating with the indefinite plural in a clause like

Fach cat ate threc mice.

cat
ate three mice.
(VyEcl)(3x:
A(u:sc~(~.I~uSC))[~U~=~]). Atdy,~)
(VyEel)(3x: ),,(u:seL(MollsC[lul=3]). Atc(y,x)
l-~ch

the discoursc cntity dcscribable as

the discou rsc entity describable as
thc sct of things, cach of which is a sct of thrcc micc and for
the setcach
of things,
each thcre
of which
threethem
miceand
andwhich
for was
is a iscata set
whoof atc
of which
each of
which
there
is
a
cat
who
ate
them
and
which
was
cvokcd by S
evoked(X
by1 S( 3 y q ) set(Mousc)X A Atc(y.x) A Evokc(S.x))
(X I (3yEc 1) scl(Mousc)X A Ate(y,x) A Evokc(S,x
and finally, associating with the indefinite plural distributive in aclausc like
and finally, associating with thc indefinitc plural distributive in a clause like

359

Fish cat atc tlircc micc, one by one.

EICh cat
ate three mice,
(Vycl)(3x:
A ( u onc
: s c tby
( Mone.
o u ~ ~ ) ) [ l ~ = 3 ] ) ( V ~ ~Atc(y,x).
X).
('v'yEC])(3x: )..{u:sct(Mousel1u] =3]X'v'XEX). t\tc(y,x).
thc discourse cntity dcscribablc as
the discourse emity describable as
thc sct of things, cach of which is a sct of thrcc micc and for
the setwhich
of things,
each
of which
is cach
a set onc
of three
miceand
andwhich
for was
thcrc's
a cat
who atc
of tllcm
which cvokcd
there's abycat
who
atc
each
onc
of
them
and
which
was
S
evoked[X1(3ycl)
by S
srt(Mousc)X A (VXEX)Atc(y,x) A Evokc(S,X)]
IX 1(3YECl) sct(Mollse)X A ('v'XEX) t\te(y,x) A Evokc(S,X)]
Itulc 4: 'lhc fourth and final n ~ l capplies in thc following lhrcc dclinite
Rule .1: The fourth and final nile applies in tllC following three definite
c
cntity Ills ia thc right.
cont&ts (Icit column) lo pl.oducc ~ h disctlursc
contexts (left column) to produce the discourse entity IDs in the right.
('lfY!'''Yk)(3lx:Q). P(x)
('lfY!"'Yk)(3!x:scl(Q)). P(X)
('lf Yl'''Yk)(31x:sct(Q)('v'XEX). P(x)

IXI(3Y]"'Yk)' Qx]
IXI(3Yl"'Yk)' sCl(Q)X]
[XI(3y],..y}.). sct(Q)X]

'I'tiis mlc is intcndcd to cover such cascs as

This rule is intended to cover such cases as

In cach car thc stccring whccl was stuck.

In each car the steering wheel was stuck.

Each boy pilcd up his own books.

Each boy piled up his own books.

In cacll car the two front whccls wcrc undcr-prcssurcd.

- In each car the two front wheels were under-pressurcd.
It has thc cffcct of associating with thc NP "the stccring uhccl" in h e first
clause

It has the effect of associating with the NP "the steering wheel" in the first

clause

In cach car Lhc stccring whccl was stuck.

In each(VxEcI)(3!y:
car the steering
wheel was stuck. u,x]) Stuck y
h(u:S-Whccl)[Havc
(\fxEc 1)(31y: )..{u:S-Whecl)[Have u,x]) . Stuck y

the discourse cntity describable as

the discourse emity describable as
the sct of Lhings. cach of which is thc stccring whccl o f one of
the set thc
of things.
cars each of which is the sleering wheel of one of
tile cars[x] (3yccl). S-Whccl(x) A Havc(x.y)]
[x] (3YEC1)' S-Whecl(x) /\ Have(x,y)]

whcrc "S-Whccl" stands for sreeri~lgWIIPPI.c1 is thc discoursc cntity asstxiatcd

where "S-Wheel" stands for steering wheel, eJ is the discourse entity associatcd
with Lhc dctinitc sct of cars, and "Havc" is a rough cncoding o f thc implicit
with the definite set of cars. and "Havc" is a rough encoding of thc implicit
dcpcndcncy rcliitionship bctwccn stccring whccl and car.
dependency relationship between stccring wheel and car.
Itutc 4 also associa~cswith thc NI' his own books in thc sccond clause
Rule 4 also associates with thc Nt> his own books in the second clause
Fach boy pilcd up his own books.
Each boy piled up his own books.

Wcbber
Webbcr

360

('VXEc2)(31Y: >.(u:sct(Rook))[Havc(u.x)]). P(x,y)

the discoursc cntily describable as

the discourse entity describable as

thc sct of things. cach of which is associatcd wilh somc boy as

the set of things. each of which is associated wilh some boy as
his set o f books
his set of books
(YI (3xce2). sct(l1ook)lf A tlavc(y,x))
(YI (3xEe2) . sct(Book)Y A Have(y,x
&hcrc c2 is thc discoursc cntity asst~iatcdwith the dcfinitc sct of boys and "P"
where e2 is the discourse entity associated with the definite set of boys and "P"
stands for "pilcd up".
stands for "piled up".
A n d finally, it associates with thc NP "thc front whccls" in thc rhird clause
"nd finally. it associates wilh the NP "the fmnt wheels" in the third clause
In cach car thc two front whccls wcrc uiidcrprcssurcd.
In each(VXCC]
car the#3!
twoY front
wheels were unuerpressured,
: A(U:SCI(F-WIICCI))[ILI~
= 2 A I ~A\.c(u,x)])
('VxEel )(3! Y: >.(u:sel(F-WheellIul =2 A Harc(u,x)))
(VyeY) . Undcrpressurcd(y)
('IyEY) . Underpressured(y)
thc discoursc cntily dcscribablc as
the discourse entily describable as

thc sct of things. cach of which is associated with somc car and
the sel of things. cilch of which is associilted with some car and
is !he sct c ~ two
f front whccls for that car
is !he set (If two front wheels for that car
(YI (3xEcl) h(u:scl(Whccl))[lul= 2]Y A Havc(Y.x))
(YI (3xEe1) A(u:scl(Wheel[Iul = 21Y A Havc(Y.x
where cl is again thc discoursc cndty associatcd with thc dcfinite sct ofcars.
where el is again the discourse entity associated with the definite set ofcars.
13efarc winding up &his prcscntalion, 1 want to take up thc restriction in Rules
Before winding up this presentation. I want to take up the restriction in Rules
3 and 4 h a t a distributive contcxt can bc rcprcscntcd simply as a quantifier collar
3 and 4 that a distributh'e context can be represented simply as a quantifier collar
of the form
of the fonn

i.e., a form with no indefinite or definite cxistcntials, which I have becn

i.e., a form with no indefinite or definite existentials, which I have been
abbreviating as
abbreviating as

Again, bccausc thc clausc is bcing proccsscd scqucntially Icfl-to-right, this

"gain, because the clause is being processed sequentially left-la-right, this
rcstriction docs not posc a problem. '1'0 sce this, considcr any of the following
restriction docs not pose a problem. To sec this, consider any of Ule following
situations
situations
- (3y: scl(Ol('VyEY)(3x:02)"'P(x),...
(3y: set( 0 1(VyEY)(3!x:02)...P(x}...
- (3 !Y: sct(Ol('VyEY)(3x: 02)"'P(x),...

361

(3!Y: sct(Q1(VyEY)(3!x: Q2)...P(x)....

whic11 all have cxistcntials (3 or 3!) as well as distribt~tivcqi~antificrs(V) bcforc

which all have cxistentials (3 or 3!) as well as distributive quantifiers (V) before
thc quantifier in question (3x: Q2)or (3!x: Q2). Notice that bccnusc of thc way
the quantifier in question (3x; Q2) or (3!x: Q2)' Notice that because of the way
"cach", "cvcry", ctc. arc trcatcd, cvcry dislributivc is paircd with an cxistcntial sct
"each", "every", etc. arc treated, every distributive is paired with an existential set
that specifics thc domain of thc distribution. Q2 may bc i! prcdicate on
that specifics the domain of the distribution. 02 may be i~ predicate on
individuals or a predicate on scts, and in cithcr casc, may depcnd on y. (If Q2
individuals or a predicate on sets, and in either case, may depend on y. (If 02
mcrcly depends on Y 1, thcn it is simply a casc covcrcd by Rulc 2 above.)
merely depends on Y I' then it is simply a case covered by Rule 2 above.)
1 showcd carljcr how simplc cxistcntials could hc rcmovcd. Now for the
I showed earlier how simple cxistelltials could he removed. Now for the
cxistcntial-distributive pairs, b) lZulc I in thc first two cnscs and l t ~ ~ 2l cin the
existential-distributive pairs, hy Rule I in the first two cases and Rule 2 in the
second two, onc can idcntify thc disc{~ursccnrity c. asstxiatcd with Ihc lcftmost
J
second two, one can identify the discourse entity ej associated
with the leftmost
pair and subscqk~cntlyrcwritc it as
pair and subsequently rewrite it as
(VyEcl
J
IZulc 3 can now bc uscd to rctnovc any indcfinitc cxistcntials in d ~ cxopc of this
Rule 3 can now be used to remove any indefinite existentials in the scope of this
distribulivc and Rule 4. any dcfinitc cxistcntials in its scope, lcaving thc above
distributive and Rule 4, any definite existentials in its scope, leaving the above
form
form

'n~isconcludes my prcscnt~tionof thc four rulcs nccdcd to ircount for the

"Illis concludes my presentition of the four rules needed to account for the
spccific discourse cntitics cvoked by (disarnbiguatcd) qi~antificdcxprcssions. In
specific discourse entities evoked by (disambiguated) quantified expressions. In
thc next section. I take up thc issue of gcncric scl entities.
the next section. I take up the issue ()f generie set entities.
6.4.5 11)s lor Dcrivcd Entitics: Generic Sets
6.4.5 IDs for ncrhed Entities: Generic Sets

Not all dcfinitc plural anaphora are intcnded to spccify particular scts of <x>s
Not all definite plural anaphora are intended to specify particular sets of <x>s
evoked by a tcxt. Othcrs sccm intcndcd to spccify scts that onc c o ~ ~characterize
ld
evoked by a text. Others seem intended to specify sets that one could characterize
roughly as "thc sct of Lhings dcscribablc as an <x>". 'I'hcsc sct cntitics I have
roughly as "the set of things describable as an <x>". These sct entities I have
callcd "generic sca", although I do not mean to imply thcrcby ha[ <x> nccd be
called "generic sets". although 1 do not mean to imply thereby thaC <x> need be
any son of "natural gcnus". For cxamplc, just as a dcfrnitc plural anaphor may
any sort of "natural genus", For example, just as a definite plural anaphor may
spccify a particular scts of <x>s like
specify a particular sets of <x>s like
1121-1 I scc thrcc Japancsc cars outside.
])21-11 sec three
carsbclong
outside.
2 110 Japanese
any of thcm
to you?
2 Do any of them belong to you?

~ h e k the just-menlioned Japanese cars Isee outside

them; the just-mentioned Japanese cars I see outside

Webber

362

D22-1
each boy a grccn'r-shirt
green T-shirt at
1122-1 Last
I.ast week
wcck Wendy
Wciidy again bought cach
Maey's.
Macy's.
2 She's always buying them.

them;;
just melltiolled
green T-shirts,
T-shirt.~ each o
oJwhich
Wendy
rhej~rst
ttietlriotledgreen
f which kVe~~dy
!hem = the
bought
at
Alacy'sJor
some
bay)
bough! a! Aiacyifor SUIIIC boy)
a definite
may also specify
generic sct
set entity like
dclinitc plural anaphor
nnaphorrnay
specify a;I gcncric
D23-1
the parking lot.
1)23-I I1see
scc seven
scvcn Japanese
Japancsc cars in thc
22'llicy'rc
'Illey're really
rcally selling
sclling like hot cakes.

the)'
ttrej, == Japanese
Japat~esccars
can

D24-1
green 1'-shirt
T-shirt at Macy's,
Macy's.
1124-1 Last
1.ast week
wcck Wendy
Wcndy bought
buught each
cach boy a grccn
2 She
gives
them
to
everyone.
Shc givcs thcrn cvcryonc.

them;:;;
!he111 grew
green T-shirts
T-shirts

'lhc imponant
important questions
qucstions regarding access to gcncric
The
generic sets arc thus:

1.
interpreted as specifying a
1. When is a definite
dcfinitc plural anaphor intcrprctcd
set?
generic set?

2. Is there
thcrc a limit on the
thc generic
gcncric scts
h a t"aa dcfinitc
2.
sets tthat
definite plural
specify, and if so,
so. in what way is that limit related
anaphor can specify,
thc material
matcrial prescnt
prcscnt in the
thc tcxt
to the
text and whcrc
where it is located?>
Aspccts of these
thcsc questions arc discussed
discusscd in Sidner
Sidncr (Choptcr
Aspects
(Chapter 55 of
of this volume)
volume) and
[Sidncr 1979].
1979). In particular.
p;lrticular. she
shc shows that it is the clcmcnts
(Sidner
clements jg
in 1il!;ill aatt any
timc that
h a t arc the
thc major (if not thc
particular time
dle only) tcxtual
textual source of
of gcncric
generic set
cntitics. Reflecting
llcflccting this.
this, she
shc augments
augmcnts her anaphor resolution hcuristics
entities.
heuristics for
dcfinitc plural anaphora to try generic
gcncric set rcw~lvants
definite
rcsolvants bascd
based on the clc~ncnts
clements in
frrus
at
thc
particular
timc.
'lhc
cornplcmcntary
problcm
that
1
havc
focus the
time. The complementary problem dlat I have considered
considered
briclly here
hcrc is tllat
Uiat of characterizing this "bascd
and want to discuss briefly
"based on" relation
relation
hctwccn foclIsed
fcruscd clemenL~
clcnicnLs and generic
gcncric set
sct cntitics
between
entities and hcncc,
hence, the range of
of gencric
generic

363
sct cnlitics that can and cannot bc accesscd?
set entities that can and cannot be accessed.l
For cxarnplc, thc cntity dcscribablc as the set ofjus~-n~et~tiot~ed
grcerr T-shirts
For example, the entity describable as the set o/just-mentioned green T-shirts,
each of which Il'endj~ gave 10 sonle boj, can givc risc ro an cntity appn)priatcly
each of which Wendy gave to some boy can give rise to an entity appropriately
dcscribablc as greet1 T-shirts as in 1124 abovc, or cvcn T-shirts as in 13-23 below,
describable as green T-shirls as in 1)24 above, or even T-shirts as in 1)-23 below,
but not shirls, conort rfiings.ctc. If onc o f thc lattcr is rcquircd to understand an
but not shim, col/all things. etc, If one of the latter is required to understand an
uucrancc, it is distinctly biTarrc.as in cxamplc 13-25.
utterance, it is di~tinctly bizarre, as in example 1)-25.
1125-1 I.ast wcck Wcndy bought cacli boy a grccn '1'-shirt at Macy's.
/)25-) Last week Wendy bought each boy a green T-shirt at Macy's.
2 Shc prcfcrs thc~iiin mtwc subducd colors, but lhcsc wcrc on
2 She prefers thelll in more subdued colors, but these were on
salc.
sale,
1126-1'I'hc grccn '1'-shirt yclo gavc mc is lovely.
/)26- I The green T-shirt you gave me is lovely.
2 ?? I3ut I prcfcr thcin wid1 long slccvcs and a button-down collar.
2?? But I prefer them with long sleeves and a button-down collar.
111en1 shirr5
thelll == shirts
I would likc to claim that Lhc listcncr call gcncratc ncw gcncric-sct cntitics,
I would like to claim that the listener can generate new generic-set entities,
whosc 11)s arc bascd on gcilcralizations of a rccent dcscl.iption thc listcncr has
whose IDs are based on generali/.ations of a recent description the listener has
cilhcr hcard or dcrivcd. 'll~cscgcncraliza~ionswill bc lilllitcd to oncs that the
either heard or derived, '111ese generalizations will be limited to ones that the
listcncr can, with sumc ccrt;iinty, assulnc that lhc spc;tker avumcs that s/hc the
listener can, with some certainty, assume that the speaker assumes that s/Ile the
Ijstc~lcr call (and will) makc. 'l'hat is, thcy will rarcly dcpcnd on world knowlcdgc
listener' can (and will) make. That is, they will rarely depend on world knowledge
cvcn a typc/inhcritancc liicrarchy, sincc that cannot bc assumcd to bc sharcd.
. even a type/inheritance hierarchy, since that cannot be assumed to be shared.
As for thc dcscriptiolls that are subjcc~to such gcncralizations. 1 agrcc with
~s for the descriptions that are subject to such generalizations, I agree with
~ i d n c rthi~tthcy arc rclalcd to notions of focus - what tlic spcakcr'is talking about
Sidner that they are related to notions of focus - what the speaker' is talking about
and in tcrms of. Such available dcscriptions can includc nr)t only (1) thc Ills
and in terms of. Such available descriptions can include nut only (l) the IDs
dcrivcd for and ascribable to all thc focuscd discourse cntitics. but also (2) those
deri~ed for and ascribable to all the focuscd discourse cntitics, but also (2) those
dcscriplions in thc tcxt which don't cvokc or acccss discuursc cntitics. To scc this,
dcscriptions in the tcxt which don't evoke or access discourse entities. To sec this,
considcr thc following two cxarnples.
consider the following two examples.
D27-1 Wcndy bought somc 'T-shirts ycstcrday,
D27-1 Wendy bought some T-shirts yestcrday.
Usually shc chargcs thcm. but ycstcrday, shc paidcash.
Usually she charges them, but ycsterday. shc paid cash.
then?G T-shirrs Wendy buy3
them == T-shirts Wendy buys
1128-1 Wcndy wouldn't buy a grccn T-shirt, bccause thcy always run
D28-1 Wendy wouldn't buy a grcen T-shirt, because they alwa:ys run
in the wash.
in the wash.
theti E green T-shirfs
them == green T-shirts
In U27 UIC gcncric sct accesscd by rhon is not dcscribablc by a gcncralization
In 027 the generic set accessed by them is not describable by a generalization

1. Thcrc arc olhcr dcfini~cplural anaphors ha1 a c m to target cnlilics corrcspondirig lo Ihc "natural
1. Therescl"
are lo
other
definile
pluralindividual
anaphors that
seem pcrhaps
to larget entities
corresponding
10 the I'rincc
"natural(personal
which
a givcn
belongs.
in a given
conlcxL I31cn
set" 10 communication)
which a given has
individual
perhaps examplc
in a given
conlexL orspokcn
IJlen Prince
(personal
poirltcd belongs,
out Ihc rollowing
in a lranscripl
narralivc:
communication) has pointed out the rollowing example in a transcript or spoken narrative:

I wcnt lo pick up Jan Ihc olhcr day. You know, they live in thai big house on Vine.

I wentto piek up Jan the other day. You know, they live in thaI big house on Vine.

Ilcre rhey .seems LO a c c w Jan's nalural "living" scl - i.c.. hcr family. Ilowcvcr. I don't plan to discuss

I1ere ,hey
seems
access Jans natural
"living" sel
I.e.,inrcrenlial
her ramily.proccss
I1owever,
don't plan
discuss(and not
hcrc
Ihc to
charactcrisiics
and boundaries
or .that
thatI nrakcj
suchtoenLitics
here the other
characteristics
and boundarics
or and
that allows
inrcrential
processLOthat
makespresume
such entitics
(and not
ones) available
to the listener
Lhe spcaker
corrcclly
that availabilily.
other oncs) available to the listener and allows the speaker to corrcctly prcsume thaI availability.

Webbcr
Webbcr

364

364

ofanything explicitly in thc tcxt. 12atlicr it is dcscribablc by a generalization of the

of anything explicitly in the texl. Rather it is describable by a generalization of the
discoursc cntity 11) ihc juri-rjrentioned set of T-shirts riiat Wetldj~bough1 yesterda)r.
discourse entity ID {he just-mentioned set ofT-shim that Welldy bought yesterday.
In D28, on the othcr hand, no spccific discoursc cntity is evokcd by thc indefinite
In D28. on the other hand, no specific discourse entity is evoked by the indefinite
noun phrase a greet? T-shirt, yct /hey is ablc to acccss thc discourse cntity
noun phrase a grt;en T-shirt, yct thcy is able to access the discourse entity
dcscribablc as grekr T-~hirfs.
'Thus I bclicvc that both cxplicit tcxt dcscriptions
describable as green T-shirts. Thus I believe that both explicit text descriptions
(which don't ncccssarily cvokc discoursc cnlitics) and discoursc cntity IDS are
(which don't necessarily evoke discourse entities) and discourse entity IDs are
sourccs of gcncralizablc dcscriptions and hcncc, of thc discourse entities
sources of generalizable descriptions and hence, of the discourse entities
associated with tllcm.
associated with them.
'Ihc accessibility of gcncric scts dcrnands atrcntion for scvcml rcasons. Most
The accessibility of generic sets demands attention for sevcral rcasons. Most
obviously, onc must account Tor thc instnnccs of dcfinite anaphora b a t sccm to
obviously, one must account for the instances of definite anaphora that seem to
acccss thcm. I.css obviously, it allows for a uniform account to bc givcn of "one"
access them. Less obviously, it allows for a uniform account to be given of "one"
anapl~orcl.;IS I shall show in thc ncxr section. And finally, it is yet anoll~crinstance
anaphora. as I shall show in the next section. And finally, it is yet another instance
of thc gcncrally inuiguing problcrn of what infcrcnccs a spcakcr can assume a
of the generally intriguing problem of what inferences a speaker can assume a
listcncr both capablc of and !ikcly to make.
listener both capable of and likely to make.

6.5 Onc Amphora

6.5 One An3phora
'Ihc anaphoric usc of the work "onc" (or "oncs") is another phenomenon
Ib.e anaphoric usc of the work "onc" (or "ones") is another phenomenon
colnnion to natural I'nglish discourse. On thc surface, an annphoric-"one" noun
common to natural English discourse. On the surface, an anaphoric-"one" noun
phrasc is immcdiatcly rccognizablc in that it has dic word "onc(s)" taking the
phrase is immediately recognizable in that it has the word "one(s)" taking the
plncc of (at Icssl) its hcad noun. For example,
place of (at least) its head noun. For example,

- onc Lhat I hcard long ago

- one that I heard long ago
- thc striped one you got from Harry
- the striped one you got from Harry

- thrcc small oncs

- three small ones
Not all uses of "one" in Fnglish arc anaphoric, of course: "one" is used by itself as
Not all uses of "one" in English are anaphoric, of course: "one" is used by itself as
a formal, non-spccific third person pronoun e.g.,
a formal, non-specific third person pronoun e.g,.
- One is cautioned against harassing thc bears
- One is cautioned against harassing the bears

- Onc docsn't do that in politc company

- Onc doesn't do that in polite company
or as a number - e.g.,
or as a number - e.g.,

- One truc faith. two Frcnch hens, ...

One true faith. two French hens, ...

- We arrivcd at one p.m.

- We arrivcd at one p.m.

365
Although in most cascs it is casy to distinguish anaphoric from formal or numcric
Although in most cases it is easy to distinguish anaphoric from formal or numeric
"onc" on surfacc syntactic grounds alone, it is possible for thcrc tu bc syi~tacrically
alone, it is possible for there to be syntactically
"one" on surface syntactic grounds
ambiguous cascs in tcxt, 1 c.g.,
ambiguous cases in text,l e.g.,
- Sincc anyonc can choosc his favorite numbcr, I want one.
- Since anyone can choose his favorite number, ] want one.
Sincc John has a cat and I don't, I want one.
Since John has a cat and I don't, I want one.

In linguistics. nnc can point to at lcast two significantly dirrfrcnt approachcs to

In linguistics, one can point to at least two significantly different approaches to
"onc" ;~naphora: thc transfonna~ionalapproach (which is conccrncd with its
"one" an3phora: the transformational approach (which is concerned with its
syntax) and thc tcxt-lcvct approxl\ (which is rnorc conccrncd with scnlantics).
syntax) and the text-level apprmch (which is more concerned with semantics).
Sincc thc apprv;~chLlli~tI uill bc prcscnting hcrc diffcrs from both of thcsc, I will
Since the approach that I v. ill be presenting here diffcrs from bOlh of these, I will
mention Illcrn boll1 to prc~vidc'a hasis for comparison.
mention them both to provide a hasis for comparison.
In transfonnation;~i grdinmar. "onc" aniiphora has bccn discussed purely
[n transfonmtional grammar. "one" anaphora has been discussed purely
syntactically, as an intril-scntcntial suhslitl~tionphcnomcnon. For cxamplc, Ilakcr
syntactically, as an intra-sentential substitution phenomenon. For example, Baker
[Ilakcr 19781 prcscnts such an account in thc contcxt of dccili~ngbctwccn two
[Baker 1978] presents such ,111 account in the context of deciding between two
altcr~iativcstructural analyscs o f noun phrascs - thc so-callcd "N1'-S analysis" and
alternativc structural analyses of nOUll phrases - the sO'called "NP-S analysis" and
tile "llct-Noln analysis". 'Ihc rcwritc rulcs of lhcsc twi) onalyscs arc roughly as
the "Det-Nom analysis", 'J1le rewrilc rules of these two analyses arc roughly as
fbllows:
f6110ws:
Ikt-Nom
Np$
Det-Nom
NI' --> NP S
NP --> I k t NO^
Nt> } NP S
NP --) Det Nom
N o ~ n--> Nom S I Noln PP 1 hdj Nom
NP --> ! k t N
NP ..} DetN
Nom } Nom S I Nom flP I Adj Nom
Nom --> N
Nom o.} N
Dakcr argucs for hc "llct-Nom analysis" bccausc it sccms to allow the
Baker argues for the "Det- Nom analysis" because it seems to allow the
simplcst statcmcnt in tcrms of struclurnl idcrrfity of what "onc(s)" can substitute
simplest statement in terms of structural idelllity of what "one(s)" can substitute
for. The statcmcnt that Ilakcr arrives at is
for. The statement that Baker arrives at is
X
NOM
Y
ADJ
NOM
X
NOM
Y
AOJ
NOM
z Z
he
+count
the
+count
Number
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
4
6
1
2
5
3

. w

condition: 2 = 5
condition: 2 = 5
1,2,3,4, one .6
==- 1.2,3,4, Number
one ,6
Number
whcrc a NOM inhcrits its fcaturcs (c.g, count NUMI%I:R, clc.) from thosc of its
where a NOM inherits its features (e.g. count. NUMBER, ctc,) from those of its
1. In speech. h e ambiguity may not arise bemuse anaphoric "one" is uns~rwcd,while Ihe other Lwo
1. In ~T'ccch.
ambiguity
uscs ofthc
"anc"
aren'l. may not arise because anaphorie "one" is ullStressed. while thc othcr Lwo
uses of "onc" aren'l

Wcbbcr
Webber

366

366

hcad noun. Informally, thc above transformation states that a' NOM constitucnt
head noun. Infonnally. the above transfonnation states that a" NOM constituent
prcccdcd by an adjcctivc or dcfinitc dctcnnincr, wliosc licad is a count noun, can
preceded by an adjective or definite detenniner. whose head is a count noun, can
is singular or
bc rcplaccd by "onc" o r "ones" (dcpcnding on whcthcr d ~ NOM
c
be replaced by "one" or "ones" (depending on whether the NOM is singular or
plural in NUMIEK) if an identical NObl appears carlicr in the scntcncc. I h i s
plural in NUM HER) if an identical NOM appears earlier in the sentence. This
transformation is mcant to account for cxa~nplcslike
transformation is meant to account for examples like
1129-1 1 prcfcr thc stripcd tic you got from your aunt to the paislcy
D29-11 prefer the striped tic you got from your aunt to the paisley
onc.
one.
'l'hc problcm with this structt~ral-identityaccount is not only that it is limitcd
The problem with this structural-identity account is not only that it is limited
to indii idual scntcnccs. hut h a t it is not cvcn an adcquntc syntactic account a t that
to indh idual sentences, but that it is not even an adequate syntactic account at that
Icvcl. Considcr for cxamplc is thc following.
level. Consider for example is the following.
1130-1 If Mary offcrcd you a ncw Porschc and Sally offcrcd you a '68
D30-1 If Mary offered you a new Parsche and Sally offered you a '68
Morgan. wliicli onc would you choosc?
Mnrgan, which one would you choose?
Undcr no analysis docs lhis scntcncc nlcct thc aructural conditions of Rakcr's
Under no analysis docs this sentence meet the structural conditions of Raker's
rulc: rather n,hich V I I P means ro~lglily"whicl~mcrnbcr of thc sct consistin: of the
rule: rather which 011(' means roughly "which member of the set consisting of the
ncw I'orschc Mary offcrcd yo^^ and tllc '68 hlorgtn Sally on'crcd you". Bakcr's
new Porsche Mary offered you and the '68 Morgan Sally oncred you". Baker's
approach has nothing to say about 1his.I In tcxt linguistics, a particularly clear
approach has nothing to say about this. l In text linguistics, a particularly clear
falhcit purcly discursive) analysis of both dcfinitc pronoun and "onc" aniiphora is
(albeit purely discursive) analysis of both definite pronoun and "one" anaphora is
prcscntcd in [tlalliday nnd Hasnn 19701, tvhcrc thc primary concern is with h e
presented in [Halliday .md Has.1n 197(1]. where the primary concern is with !he
notion of "cohesion" what makcs a tcxt l~oldtogcthcr. what makcs it morc than a
notion of "cohesion" what makes a text hold together, what makes it more than a
random sct of scntcnccs. According to thc authors. botli dcfinitc pronouns and
random set of sentences. According to the authors. both definite pronouns and
"onc(s)" can instantiate typcs rrf cohcsivc relations: thc fornlcr, thc rclation of
"one(s)" can instantiate types of cohesive relations: the former, the relation of
"rcfcrcncc", thc latlcr, the rclation of "substitulion". "llefcrcncc". as Halliday
"reference", the latter, the relation of "substitution", "Reference", as Halliday
and Hasan use the term, rclatcs a tcxt clcmcnt likc a dcfiiiitc pronoun and
and Hasan usc the term, relates a text element like a definite pronoun and

...something
clse by rcfcrcncc to which it is intcrprctcd in the
...something
else by reference
to which
it is interpreted
in therelation
givcn instance.
Kcfcrcnce
is a potentially
cohesive
given because
instance.thcReference
a potcmiaJly
cohesive
thing that isscrvcs
as the sourcc
of tlle relation
interpretation
becausemay
the itsclf
thing bc
thatanserves
as the
of the interpretation
of source
tcxt [Idalliday
and Hasan 19761.
clcmcnt
may itself
be
an
clement
of
text
[Halliday
and Hasan 1976],
pp.308-9.
ppJOg-9.
Except for their terminology, Halliday and Hasan's gcncral position on definite
Except for their tenninology, Halliday and Hasan's general position on definite
anaphora and its rcla~ionto the djscoursc is not all that far from that which i have
anaphora and its relation to the d}scourse is not all that far from that which I have
bccn attempting to formalize.
been attempting to formalize.
"Substit~ition" on thc othcr hand, is
"Substitution" on the other hand, is
1. baker poses an additional constraint on ''one" anaphora in (Raker 19791 - eWeclively. a
L Baker"transderivalional
poses an additional
constraint
on "one"
anaphora
in (l\aker
1979] .trans~ormalional
effectively, a rulcs
constraint"
arbitrating
bclween
optional,
applicable
"transderi_alional
constraint"
arbitraling
belween
optional,
applicable
transrormational
rules.cxamplcr
Ilowever. this still lreals "one"anaphora purcly inira-scntenlially and !,[ill docs not addrcss
However.
thisasstilllrea15
"one" anaphora purely intra'scntentially and still docs not address examples
such
DU)above.)
such as D30 above.)

367

formal (lexicogrammatical)
(lcxicogrammatiol) relation.
rclation, in which a form
form (word or
a formal
Uic usc of a grammatical signal
spccificd through tl,e
words) is specified
gonc bcforc.
bc recovered
rccovcrcd from
from what has gone
before.
indicating that it is to be
The source
sourcc of recovery
rccokcry is the text,
tcxt, so that the relation
rclation of
Tbe
inhcrcntly
substitution is basically an cndophoric onc. It is inherently
cohcsivc, since
sincc it is the
thc preceding
prcccding text
tcxt that provides
providcs the relevant
cohesive,
cnvironmcnt in which the
thc presupposed
prcsupposcd item
itcm is located
environment
[Flelliday and Hasan
Hawn 1976];
19761; p.308.
[Halliday
pJ08.

S o unlike
i~nlikcdefinite
dcfinitc pronouns. "one(s)"
"onc(s)" establishes
cstablishcs cohesion
cohcsion simply at the
thc level
lcvcl of
So
smlcturc. Thus
'l3us except
cxccpt for
fix not confining
confining itself
itsclf to the
thc single
wording and syntactic structure.
scntcncc and being
bcing more
ink~rcconcC'rncd
conccrncd with the filnction
"onc(s)" than with its
sentence
function of "0I1C(5)"
syntax, Halliday and Hasan"s
llasan's account of "onc(5)"
"onc(s)" anaphora
snaphora still
still mirrors
formal syntax.
flaker's.
Raker's.
In [Webber
[Wcbbcr 1978a),
1978al. I1 lOok
took.an
to fonnalizing
fonnali~ingwhat
whit1 a text
tcxt makes
makcs
'an approach 10
available
loo far from
from Halliday and Hasan's. I
a\;~ilablcfor "one"-anaphora that was not too
hascd that work on the
thc view
kicw that
tliat what "one"
"onc" accessed
acccsscd was a "description" that the
based
fclt was available
availablc to the
thc listener.
listcncr. Such descriptions
dcscriptions can bc
spcakcr felt
speaker
be made available
thc speaker's
spcakcr's and hearer's
hcarcr's shared
sharcd spatio-temporal
spatio-tcmporal context.
contcxt as in two pcoplc
by the
people
peering into a geology exhibit
pccrir~g
cxliibit case
casc and one
onc saying
saying to the
thc other.
othcr, "Even
"llvcn larger ones
wcrc.found
thc Marc
hlilrc Cambrium."
Caml)rium." However,
Howcvcr, a speaker can usually rely
rcly more on
were
found in the
descriptions
slhe
has
uttered
being
available
to
tl,e
listener.
lIence.
uttcrcd bcing availablc thc listcncr. Ilcnce, the most
dcscriptions s/hc
likcly place to look for descriptions
dcscriptions accessible
acccssiblc to "one" anaphora is the text.
likely
iny 1978a approach.
approach, I came to
IO feci
feel
With more thought about the problcms
problems in my
simplcr account was possihlc.
cllrrcnt approach to
Bl anaphoric "onc(s)"
"one(s)"
possible. My current
that a simpler
rcduccs it to tl,e
Uic earlier-discussed
carlicr-discussed problcm
idcntifying the
thc possiblc
rcsolvanu of
possible resolvanlS
reduces
problem of identifying
?his approach is bascd
thc intuition that "one"
dcfinitc plural anaphors.
anaphors. This
definite
based on the
phrascs
indicatc to a listener
listcncr selection
sclcction from
from a set.
set. That
Ihat is,
is. tl,e
UIC interpretation
phrases always indicate
bc the same as the
thc interpretation
intcrpretation of "one of them".
them".
of anaphoric "onc" should be
lhis reduces
rcduccs the
thc problem
problcm to the
thc (still nontrivial)
non-trivial) one of identifying
idcntifying the
thc set-type
sct-type
This
spccific and generic)
gcncric) that this implicit "them"
"thcm" can
can access.
acccss?l
discourse entities (both specific
l h i s way of treating "onc" anaphora may seem
sccm fairly obvious
obvious h~re:
hcrc: however,
rIbis
obviousncss only follows
follows from considering the
thc sets
scts a text
tcxt makes
makcs available
available for
its obviousness
acccss and realizing
rcalir.ing that these
thcsc selS
scts -- both specific
spccific and generic
gcncric -- must also be
access
providc an account of definite
dcfinite anaphora. As for the evidence,
"around" to provide

1. Evidence
Evidcncc for
lor this approach
appraach also comes
comcs from
lrom Baker
Dakcr [Baker
[Dakcr 1978].
1978]. Ills
llis rewrite
rcwrilc rules
mlcs given
given above
above 1.
require
+count" . i.e.,
rcquire lhe
Ihc "one" constituenl
canslilucnl to
lo be interpretable
inarprclable a<;
as having the
thc feature"
feature "+counl"
ie.. to be capable
capable of
specifying a set.
X", docs
set. A
A mass
mass tcnn
term X, cxccpt
exccpl whcn
when interprclcd
inlcrprclcd as "types of
ofX",
d m nol
no1 spccify
specify a set.
r L It is
also
X" case - e.g.
alsc not
no1 open
apcn to
lo "onc"
"one" anaphora.
maphora. except
exccpl in this "types
"typcs of
olX"
eg.
lave red wine, especially ones
ancs thaL
Ulal have
have been aged properly.
properly.
I love

Wcbber
Webber

368

cnnsidcr first somc spccific scts cvokcd by a text:

consider first some specific sets evoked by a text:
1131-1 A11 thc wines in 1)avc's ccllar arc drinkable.
D31-11\Ilthe wines in Dave's cellar arc drinkable.
2 Hc bought thcm 10 years ago.
2 He bought them 10 ycars ago.

they the wiiles in Dave's cellar

they == the wines in Dave's cellar
1332-1 Suc gavc cach boy a grccn hat
D32-1 Suc gavc cach boy a green hat
2 Shc had gottcn thcm on sale.
2 She had gotten them on sale.
rhcin = rhe srr ofjusr tnetlriottcd green hars each of which
them == the sri ofjust mentiolled green hats, each afwhich
It'enrf' g l z i s/u
~ some boy
Welldy gm'e to some boy
1133-1 1 scc a IiMW, a I'orschc. and an hudi outside.
D33-1 I sec a BMW, a Porsche. and an I\udi outside.
2 110thcy bclong to you?
2 Do they belong to you?
/ h ~G
y (/he.jus/-t?~~ntiot~~d
BAl IV I see oulside.
they == [lhejusl-mentiull('d BtU IV I Sfe outside.
rlr e ju.sr-ttlet~liot~~d
I'orsche I see outside.
[he just-melltiolled Punche I see outside,
flrrju.s~-ttictr/iu~ied
Audi I see ourside]
the just-meflliolled Audi I see ou[side]
Fbch of thcsc can bc thc implicit sct froin which a "onc" anaphor sclccts.
Each of these can be the implicit set from which a "one" anaphor selects.
113.1-1 All thc wincs io llavc's ccllar arc drinkable.
])34-11\11 the wines in Dave's cellar arc drinkable.
2 So bring mc thc oncs hc bought in Florence:
2 So bring mc the ones hc bought in 1-1orence:

SF.I.EC1' "oncs" from: thc wincs in Dave's ccllar

SEI.ECI' "ones" from: the wines in Dave's cellar
L135-1 Sirc gavc cach boy a grccn hat
D35-1 Sue gave each boy a green hat
2 Unfortunately Lllc largest onc was tom.
2 Unfortunately tllC largest onc was tom.

SELECT "one" from: [the jusr-menrio~ledgreen

SELECf "onc" from: {the just-mentiolled green
hars. t-ach of which Sue gave lo sunte boy]
hals, each afwhich Sue gave to sume boy]
1136-1 1 scc a IIMW, a Porschc and an Audi outside.
D36-11 sec a BMW, a Porsche and an I\udi outside.
2 Is one yours?
2 Is one yours?
SI:I,ECl' "onc" from:
SELEcr "one" from:
[[hejusr-aienrioned BAIIY I see ourside.
{Ihejusf-menlioned BAfW I see outside,
rlre just-irrn~tiondPorsch~I sef outside.
tlrejust-l1IeflliuneJ Parsclle I see outside,
thp jusl-t~~eti~iuned
Audi I see outside]
tire just-/Ilellfioned Audi I see outSide]
Noticc that thcrc may bc additional stipulations givcn in thc tcxt concerning
Notice that there may bc additional stipulations given in the text concerning
which mcmbcr or mcrnhcrs arc to bc sclcctcd c.g.. lroghr in Florence, largest,
which member or members arc to be selceted e.g., bought in Florence, largest,
ctc. tiowcvcr in thcsc cxampla, sclcction from a spccific sct-type discoi~rsccntity
etc. Howevcr in thcsc examples, selection from a spccific set-type discourse entity
docs account for thc data.
docs account for thc data.
Ncxt considcr somc gcncric set-type cntitics cvokcd by a tcxt.
Next considcr somc gcneric set-lypc cntitics cvoked by a text
1137-1 All thc wincs in Ilavc's ccllnr arc drinkable.
\)37-11\11 tllC wines in Davc's ccllar are drinkable.
2 Hc buys thcm only from thc bcst merchants.
2 He buys them only from the best merchants.

{hem = wines
[hem == wines

369
1138-1 Suc gavc cach boy a grccn hat
D38-1 Sue gave
each boy
a green hat
2 Usually
shc pays $8 apiccc for thcm.
2 Usually she pays $8 apiece for them.
1139-1 I saw 7 Japancsc station wagons today.
D39-1 I saw2Ihcy
7 Japanese
wagons
muststation
really bc
sellingtoday.
like hotcakes.
2111ey must really be selling like hotcakes.

hey G Japotlese slario~~

wagons
they::: Japanese station wagons
Again. cach of Lhcsc gcncric scts can bc thc implicit sct from which a "one"
Again, each of these generic sets can be the implicit set from which a "onc"
anaphor sclccts.
anaphor selects.
IWO-1 All thc wincs in I)a\*c's ccllar arc drinkable.
1)40-1 All the wines in Da\'c's cellar are drinkable.
2 So wc don't nccd to opcn thc ones hc bo~ightycstcrday.
2 So we don't need to open the ones he bought yesterday.

SF.l.I:.CI' "oncs" from: wines

SEl.ECr "ones" from: wines
IM1-1 Suc gavc cach boy a grcen hat
D41-1 Sue gave
a green
2 Shceach
gavcboy
Wcndy
onchat
too.
2 She gave Wendy one too.

SEl.t:.CI' "one" from: green hats

SELECI' "one" from: green hats
3 Shc gavc Wcndy a red one.
3 She gave Wendy a red one.
SEI.I:.Cf "onc" from:hars
SELEcr "onc" from:hats
'1M2-1
1 saw 7 Japancsc station wagons on Walnut Slrcct and another
1)4211 saw 7 Japanese station wagons on Walnut Slreet and another
one on Pine.
one on Pine.

SELECT "one" frorn:Jopanese stariurt wagons

SELECT
"one"
station
wagonsonc Jcan bought.
2 Ihcy
wcrcfrom:Japanese
all s~nallcrthan
thc Frcnch
2111cy were all smaller than the French one Jean bought.

SELEfl "one" from: srarion wagons

SELECT "onc" from: station wagons
Noticc that just as Lhcrc may bc morc than onc gcncric sct cntity derivable (via
Notice that just as there may be more than one generic set entity derivable (via
gcncralization) from a salicnt description, so may Ulerc bc more than onc generic
generalization) from a salient description, so may there be morc than onc generic
set cntity from which a "onc" anaphor may sclcct.
sct cntity from which a "onc" anaphor may select.
Thc final point I want to makc concerns thc ability of morc subtle inferential
The final point I want to make concerns the ability of marc subtle inferential
processes to makc additional scl-typc entitics availablc to "onc" anaphora. As
processes to make additional settype entities available to "one" anaphora. As
notcd in Footnotc 16 (illustrated by the cxarnplc rcpcatcd bclow), inferential
noted in Footnote 16 (illustrated by the example repeated below), in ferential
processes can certainly makc sct-typc cntilics acccssiblc to cxplicit dcfinite
processes can certainly make set-type entities accessible to explicit definite
anaphora like !hey. Howcvcr, as thc cxamplc shows. such cntitics scem lcss
anaphora like they. However, as the example shows, such entities seem less
availablc to thc implicit "of thcm" in a "onc" anaphor.
available to the implicit "of them" in a "one" anaphor.
1M3-1I wcnt to pick up Jan thc othcr day.
1)43-1 I went to pick up Jan thc other day.
2 You know, they livc in that big housc on Vine.
2 You know, they livc in that big housc on Vine.
lhey = Jan'sfamily
they =:=. Jan's/amity

Wcbbcr
Wcbbcr

370

IM4-1 I wcnt to pick up Jan the othcr day.

D44-1 I wcnt to pick up Jan the other day.
2 ??You know. thc oldcr onc brokc his ankle?'
2?? You know, the older one broke his ankle?l

SI:,I,ECT one from: Jrrn'sfit~rily

SELECf one from: Jan'sfamily
Why this is thc case is not clcar. Intuitivcly, one could say that it was easier for
Why this is the case is not clear. Intuitively, one could say that it was easier for
a listcncr to takc an cxplicit r h q via Jan to Jan's family. d u n it was to takc "one"
a listener to take an explicit they via Jan to Jan's family, tllan it was to t3kc "one"
to iin implicit tl~cythcnvia Jan tl~roughJan's filmily to a sclcctih from that set.
10 an implicit Ihcy then via Jan tl1rough Jan's family to a sclecti~n from that set
A s 1 notcd carlicr. 1 haw not invcstigatcd thc boundarics of thc infcrcntial
As I noted earlier, I have not investigated tile boundaries of the inferential
proccsscs which might makc such asstxiatcd "natural sct" entities nvailablc. More
processes which might make such associated "natural set" entities available. More
to thc point. n o onc I k n o w of has as yct rcally invcstigalcd Ihc actual distribution
to the point, no one I know of has as yet really investigated the actual distribution
of "one" anaphora to look at the rangc of infercnlial prtrcsscs assumcd to be at
of "one" anaphora to look at the range of inferential processes assumed to be at
work thcrc. Whatc\,cr thc rcsutts of such invcstigations ]nay bc though. I am sure
work there. Whatever the results of such investigations may be though, I am sure
that this unificd approach to dcaling with dcfinitc plural and "onc" anaphora has
that this unified approach lo dealing with definite plural and "one" anaphora has
tlic joint advantages o f clcgancc and computation;rl cflcicncy. Wc arc currently at
the joint advantages of elegance and computational efficiency. We are currently at
work on its irnplcrncnt3tion.2
work on its implementation. 2

6.6 Conclusion
6.6 Conclusion
1 am writing Illis papcr thrcc ycars aftcr cornplcting and publi'shing thc rcsults of
am writing this paper three years after completing and publfshing the results of
my thesis rescurch. Sirlcc thcn thc othcr authors rcprcscntcd in this volume have
my thesis research. Since then the other authors represented in this volume have
finislwd tllcir rcscarch as wcll. I havc tl~usbccn ablc to bcncfit from their
finished tI)eir research as well. I have tl1US been able to benefit from their
invcstigations in rcthinking my past rcscarch and co~nposingthis papcr. l have
investigations in rethinking my past research and composing this paper. I have
also bcncfittcd from their many LISC~LII
commcnts on i t
also benefitted from their many useful comments on it
What 1 llavc prcscntcd hcrc is an approach to idcntifyi~gwhat particular kinds
What J have presented here is an approach to identifyi~g what particular kinds
of noun phrascs makc available to talk about ncxt (dcfinitc anaphora) or in tcms
of noun phrases make available to t3lk about next (definite anaphora) or in tcoos
of ncxt (onc anapl~ora). In some way, this must be part of any spcakcr's
of next (one anaphoral. In some way, this must be part of any speaker's
knowledge o f the language. If s/hc wants to talk about (or in tcnns of) something
knowledge ofLhe language. Ifs/he wants to talk about (or in terms of) something
and havc thc listcncr follow, s/he'must abcy the rules prcscntcd here at least more
and have the listener follow, s/he "must obey the rules presented here at least more
oftcn than not. Sidncr also presents sjmilar rulcs, relating to sentcncc organization
often ilian not. Sidner also presents similar rules, relating to sentence organization
- some positions inviting thc infcrcnce morc than othcrs that thc associated entity
- some positions inviting ilie inference more than others that the associated entity
will bc talked about or in tcrms of ncxt. McDonald's concern is to provide these
will be talked ahout or in terms of next. McDonald's concern is to provide these
typcs of knnwlcdgc for rcal timc gcncration.
types of knowledge for real time generation.
It is cxciling to bc working in this arca, and it is my fccIing that results of
It is exciting to be working in this area, and it is my feeling that results of
J

1. I am aware that it seems pcrfcctly fine to say "You know. the one who broke his ankle?". In that
1. I am aware that it seems perfectly fine to say KYOli know. the onc who broke his ankle''', In that
case, it would sccm thal "one" is sclccling from the generic set or Jans that h e speaker prcsumes the
case, it would seem thaL onc" is selecting from the generic set of Jans that the speaker presumes the
lis~cncrlo know (and pmibly confuse). I low proper names evoke gcncric sels is an object of Furlher
li~tener to know (and possibly confuse). Ilow proper names evoke generic sets is an object of further
study.
study. 1 Work being carried out at b l t hranek and Newman Inc. and the University of Pennsylvania
2 Work being carried out at Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. and the University of Pennsylvania.

371

intercsl boh psycholinguistically and computationally will continue to bc

interest bolh psycholinguislically and computationally will conlinue to be

produccd.
produced.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aho.
Tlic Theory
'Ihcorv ill
of I';!rsina.
'l'ranslati~in.,md
Com~iling
Aha. A. and
aod Ullrnan,
Ullman. J. 1972 The
Parsing Tennsl"t;on
and Comoiling
VoI.
I'rcnticc-Hall.
Vol. 1. Englcwood
Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alio,
119731The
').he 'Illeory
'llieorv Q[J.'illiing.
i,fl'arsi~i&'l'ranslntiiin,and
Cornoiline.
Aho. A. and Ullmnn.
Ullman. J. 119731
Transbtiim and Compiling,
Vol. 2.
Englewood Cliffs.
Vul.
2, Englcwo~id
Cliffs, NJ: Prealice-Hall.
l'rcnticc-liall.
Allcn,
lo .S'pcrch
'I'R 121179.
121/79.
Allen. J. 1979 A I'QII
I'/an Nirsed
/lased Apl~rnach
Approach 10
Speech Acl
Act R~cug~ririun.
Recognition. TR
of Compu[cr Science,
Scicncc. University
Univcrsity ofToronto.
of'l'oronto, Toronto.
I)cpartnicnt ofComputcr
!)r.:partmcnt
J.F.. and Perrault.
Analyzing inteillion
ill ullerances,
Artificial
Allen. J.I.'..
Allcn.
l'crrault. C.R.
C.11. 1980
1980 il~ral)ui~rg
i~~re~lrio~r
in
urrerairces, iZnificial
Intelligence 15(3):
Intclliecnce
15(3): 143-178.
143-178.

Austin.
J.L. 1962.
1962, How To
'1.0 l2ll'lllings
ilo lliines With Words.
Austin, 1.L.
Words. New York: Oxford Ullivcnity
University
Press.
Prcss.

w.

Raker, C.L. 1978

nakcr.
1978 Introduction ill
tr, Gcncrative-Tmnsformational
Gcncra~ivc-'l'ransfom~ationalSyntax.
Englewood Cliffs NJ: Preotice-liall.loc.
Englcwl~od
Prcnticc-llall. Inc.

Baker. C.L.
Syntactic theory
the projecliuri
projection prub1r111,
problrm, 1.inauistic
Linguistic !..lliu!iI.Y
Bakcr,
C.L. 1979
1979 Sy~rlacric
~ h n , r yand rhe
10(4):
lO(4): 533-581.

Baranovsky.
1973 .SOIIIP
h~urislicsfur
of
Daranovsky. S. 1973
Some heuristics
jar Aulomaflc
Automalic Deleclion
Detection and Resolu~ion
Resolution of
A~raphora
Scicnccs. University of
Anaphara in Discourse. M.S.
M.s. thcsis.
thesis. Ucpt.
Dept. of Computer Sciences.
Texas. Austin.
Barwisc.
1. 1982 Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge,
Cambridgc, MA: Bradford
Barwise, J. and Perry. J.
Books.
Bclnap.
Stccl. 1976 The
Thc Logic
I.oeic ill
of Oueaions
Belnap. N.D.,
N.D.. and T.B. Steel.
Ouestions and Answcrs,
Answers. Yale
University Press,
Univcrsity
Prcss, New Haven.
klavcn, Conn.
Belnap. N.D.,
N.D., 1963
Analysis oj
I'reliminary Report,
1963 An
Ana/ysis
of Questions:
Quesrionr
Preliminary
Hclnap.
TM-12871000/00.
'I'M-1287/000/00. Systems Development
Dcvclopmcnr Corp.
Corp., Santa Monica, Ca..
Ca..

Bcrwick.
co~~slrainrs
Procccdinq~2f
~f
Berwick. R. and K. Wcxlcr
Wexler 1982 Parsing
I'arsing constraints
and bindirrg,
binding. Proceedings
the First West Coast
Coost Conference
thc
Confcrcncc on Formal
F~irmalLinguistics,
1.incuistics. Stanford University.
-

374

Bibliography
llibliugraphy

Berwick, ll.
Models of
Language
Ilcrwick,
R. and Weinberg,
Wcinbcrg, A,
A. 1982
1982 The
The Role ofGrammars
ofGrairrtttars in
itr Alodels
of 1,oitguage
Use,
Use, Cognition.
Connition, in press.
Bobrow, D.G.
An Overview
KRL
Knowledge
nobrow.
1l.G. and Winograd, T. 1977
1977 AII
Overvtew of
of K
R L A Kitowledge
Representation l.aflguage,
Cl~tnitivcScience. 1(1):346.
1(1):3-46.
Represerr~a~ion
Iarrguage, Cognitive

m,

Bobrow, RJ.
PSI-KLONE: l'arsitrg
Parsing and
semantic
R.J. and Webber,
Wcbbcr. BL
11.1. 1980a.
'1980a. PSI-KI.ONl?:
atrd semntlric
Hc~brow,
i1ilerprelation
in
the
BUN
natural
language
understanding
system,
Proc.
1980
it!rerpre/n/ion it! [he B l l N rrarural larrguage underrlorrdittg sysrettt,
I980
CmadiJIl
Socictv for COlllputJlional
Conrr111tational Studies
Stlrdics Q[
( ~ f Intelligence
lntclliacricc Conference.
Cdnndian Society
pp.13l-l42.
pp.131-142.
RJ.
Knowledge represemation
for
K.J. and Webber,
Wcbbcr. B.L
H.I.. 198Gb.
1980b. K~tow/edge
represeir~riotr for
processing.
Prot.
Pmc. 1st Annual
Anno;ll Conference
C11nfcrcncc ill
,F the
thc American
Amcrican
s~Jllfatic/scmantic
j ~ r l a / c / s c ~ ~ t tprucnsitrg,
~lic
I\ssociation
Aisoci;rlion fill
for Artificial
Artifici;~l InlcOigcncc,
Inlcflincncc, Stanford University,
Univcrsity, Stanford CA, pp.
316-323.
Bobrow,
nobrow,

nob row. RJ.

Parsing and
semantic interpretation
llobrow.
1t.J. and Webber,
Wchbcr, RL.
B.L. 1981
1981 I'arsitrg
orrd smnanric
itirerprerarion as
incremC11Ial
itarer~rcnralrecogniJiol1,
recugttiriott, Sympusium
Svninusium on Human Parsing Strategies
Stratceics. University of
Texas,
I'X.
'Texas. Austin TX_

Brachman,
A srnicrurnl
structural paradigm for
for representing
Ilrachman, R. 1978
1978 A
represerrritrg knowledge, Technical
Report
3605,
Bolt
Beranek
&
Newman
Inc..
Cambridge
MA.
I<cpon 3605.13olt Ikranck & Ncwman
Brachman,
Rrachman, R.
K. 1979
1979 0/1
011 the
ihe epistemological
episrr,rtological status
slarus of
of semantic
semarrric networks,
neiworks, in
Associative Networks. ed.
cd. N. Findler.
I-indlcr. New York: Academic Press, pp. 3-50.
3-50.

Brach'man, R. J.. Bobrow,

W., Webber,
13rach;nan.
Ilobrow, R.
I<. J.,
J.. Coben,
Cohcn, P., Klovstad, J. W..
Wcbbcr. B.
R. 1.. and
and
1979 Research
it1 Norural
Lorlguoge U"derstanding:
Uirders~ortding:Artrrual
Woods.
Woods, W. A. 1979
Research in
Naturall.anguage
Annual Report
August 31;
Newman, Cambridge,
September I.
1, 1978
1978 tv
lo Augusl
31, 1979,
1979, Bolt
Holt Beranek
ikranck &
& Ncwman,
Massachusetts.

nradg.
1981 Compoter
C ~ ~ m ~ uVision,
t c r Amsterdam: North-Holland:
North-Holland.'
Brady, Michael
Micbael 1981
Brcsnan. 1.
J. 1978
1978 AA realistic
realis~ictrans!unnatioflal
rrnnsfontra~ionni grantntar
1.insuistic l11cory
111eorv S!.lliJ
and
Bresnan,
grammar in Linguistic
Hallc, J. Bresnan,
13rcsnan. G.
G. Miller,
Millcr, MIT
MI'I' Press,
Prcss, pp. 1-54.
I'svcholosical Reality. cd. M. Halle,
Psychological

m,

nronnenbcrg. W..
W., Bunt
H., Landsbergen,
Landsbcrgcn, S.,
S.. Seha,
Scha. R..
R.. Schoenmakers,
Schoenmakers. W., and
Bronnenberg,
Bun~ H.,
Utteren, E.
System P
PHLlQAI,
Van Utteren.
E 1980
1980 The
The Question-ANswering
Ques/io~~-ANsweritrg
Sysrem
H L I Q A I , in Natura!
Langoage
Systems. cd. L. llloe
l a n n u a g Ouestion
Ouestim Answering Svstcms,
Bloc Munich,
Munich. Germany: Hanser
Hanscr
Publishing.
I'ublishing.

375

Brown,
Brown. G.P.
G.P. 1980
1980 Characterizing
Characrerizi~rgindirect
indirecl speech
speech acls,
ac/$ Am.
Am, 1.:.
1, Como. Linguistics
I.inauisticp
6(3-4):
150-166.
6(3-4):150-166.

Mulliple-Body 111rcrup1s
IlIlerupls ill
Discourse Gelleratioll,
B.S.
Brown,
Brown. R.
It. H. 1973
1973 Use
Usr oj
of liul~ipk-Body
it1 Discourse
Ge~rera~ion,
Dissertation,
Massachusetts
Institute
ofTechnology.
ofl'cchnology.
1)isserration.
Bruce,
Jar lIalurallanguage,
Hruce. B.C.
I1.C. 1975
1975 Case
Case systems
sysrenrs for
~mluralIn~rguage.Technical Report
Rcport 3010, Bolt
Rolt
Beranek
Camhridge MA.
Ilcranck &
& Newman Inc.,
lnc..Camhridgc

firucc,
Plans and
social actiun,
Bruce. B.C.
B.C. 1981
1981 Plarrs
arrd sociul
ocriu~l. Thcorctic~l]
'fheoretic:~l Issues
issucs .in
in Reading
Comprehension.
cd.
R.
Spirt). B.
II. Bruce,
Ilrucc, and-W.
and W. Brewer.
Ilrca,cr. Hillsdale.
Hlllsdalc, NJ: Lawrence
lawrence
C , ~ m ~ r c h c n s icd.
~ ~ nR.
. Spiro,
Erlbaum
Associates. Publishers.
Krlbaurn Associatcs.
I'ublishers.
BurtD.n,
Semanfic gro~rl~~rnr:
grammar: AII
An ellgillecring
Ilurton, R.R.
R.K. 1976
1976 .Te~~lo~lric
engirrecri~lgtechnique
rech~rique
ffor
i r constructing
cu~~srruc~i~ig
nalura/language
systems.
~aliurollnr~guogrunderstanding
u~ldersra~ldi~rg
s)'s/cr~r$nBN
IIIIN Report
Rcport 3453.
Chafe,
Discourse Structure
Human K~ron,ledgc.
Kllawledge, Lan.ua.e
Slrucrurr and
orrd Hur~ro~r
1.anguaee
Chafe. W. 1972 Discourse
Comprehension
and the
the Acquisition
Comprchcn~it~n
&
Acattisition ill
d Knowledge
Knowlcdee ceL
cd. J.n.
J.B. Carrol and R.O.
R.O.
Freedle.
Frccdlc. Washington:
Washingu~n:Winston, ppAI-69.
pp.41-69.
Charniak, E. 1972 Toward
Mudel OJChildrcll's
Slory Comprehellsiol,
M.LT,
A.L
To~varda hlc~del
Of Childrrn'sSror)~
Corrrprehensio~r,
M.I.T. A.I.
Lab
-266, Cambridge,
l a b TR
1.R-266,
Cambridge. MA.
Chester,
oj
Fonllal
Proofs
illlo
Ellglish, i\nificial
Artificial
1976 The
The Trallslation
Tra~lsln~io~r
of F
o n ~ ~ aProo/s
l
i111o English,
Chester. I1 1976

Intelligence 7(3),
hdl&mc
7(3). pp.261-278.

Chomsky, N. 1955
1955 The Logical
l.oeical Strocture
Structure of Lingoistie
1.ineuistic lheary
ihroru reprinted
rcprintcd in part
1975, New York: Plenum.
Plcnum.
1975,
Chomsky, N. 1965
1965 Aspects
Asoccts illUle
of thc Theory
Thcarv illSyntax,
ofSvntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Presq.

Chomsky. N. 1973
1973 COfldiliollS
Condiriu~rs0"
011Transfanna/ions.
Tronsfonnalio~ls.in !l
A Festschrift
Fcstschrift for Morris
S.I<. Anderson
Andcnon and P. Kiparsky New York: tlolt.
Halle, cd. S.R.
1I01~ Ilinchan,
Rinehart, and
Winston.

m,

1975 Reneetions
l < c f l c c t i oon
n s Language,
I.anauaec,
~
Ncw
Rntheon.
Chomsky. N. 1975
Chomsky,
New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky. N. 1976 Conditions
Conditions on Rules oj
of Grammar,
Grammar. Linguistic
1.ineuistic Analvsis
Chomsky,
Analysis
2(4):303-351,
2(4):303-351.
Chomsky,
Chomsky.

N. 1977
1977

Fonn illl.!!
m hm
ad

Q.Il

Interpretation, New
m.

York:
York:

Bibliography

376

North-Holland.
Chomsky. N. 1977
1977 all
011 u~h-frru~~en~e~~r
Svntax. ed. P. CulicoYer.
Culic~iver,A.
wh-movemell! in Formal Syntax.
Akmajian.'l:
Prcss.
Akmajian, T. Wasow, New york: Academic Press.
nn Government
Go\,crnment and
nnd Binding.
Hinding. Dordrecht:
1)ordrccht: Foris.
1981 l.cctllrcs on
Chomsky. N.
N.1981l.cclores
Faris.
tlallc, M.
hl. 1968
1968 :I!J
' l l c Soond
Sound Pattern
Pattcrn ill
of English,
Eti~lish,Ncw
New York:
Chomsky. N. and Halle.
Harper and Row.
Harpcr
Referellce lDiaries.
Tinlap-2:
'Illeoretieal
Clark. H.H. and M;~rsh;~ll
Marshall C. 1978
1978 Rcferrncr
l i n r i ~ ~in. ~ 'l'inlnn-2:
,
'llicorctical
in Natural 1.:1l1guagc
131ieui1ec Processing.
Proccssing. 7:57-63.
757-63, New York: Association for
Issucs
Issues in.
Computing Machincry
ofCompuwti~malLinguistics.
1.inguistics.
Machinery and h
thee Association ofCompuwti(Jnal
Clippinger,
Speaking with hlmry
MUIlY Tongues:
Problems in Aludcling
Modeling
Clippingcr. J. H.
tl. 1975
1975 Speaki~rg
Turigucr: '\'011/(,
SUIIIPI'roblerirs
Speakers of
Ae!ual lliscuurxc,
Discourse. in B.
Nash-Webber and R. Schank.
Si~mkrrr
of Acrual
11. Nash-Wcbbcr
Scliank. cds.. Tinl,p-I'
Tinlao-l:
'l'hcoreticill Issues in.
in Natural II.anguage
anruasc Proccssing.
Theoretical
Processing, Ncw
New York: Association for
Computing Machincry
Machinery and tl,e
Linguistics. pp.
thc Association of Computational
Cumputational I.ingoistics,
68-73.
68-73.

A computer
comnuter model ill
of
Clippingcr. J. H. 1978
1978 Mcanina
Clippinger.
Meaning and 1)iscounc:
Discourse: !l
psychoanalytic speech
Baltimore. MD:
psvchoan;~lvtic
soecch and cognition
c<~enitionHaltimore.
MI): Johns Hopkins University
University
Prcss.
Press.
Codasyl 1977
1977 Data Base
nasc Task G
r o w ill
of CODASYI.
C0I)ASYI. Prorramminc!
Codasyl
Group
Programming lanruage
Language
N.Y., 1971.
Committee Report, ACM Publications,
l'ublications, N.Y.,
1971.
Cohcn, P.R.
P.II. 1978
1978 all
O n k~roairrg
l'R 118,
118. Dept of
Cohen.
kllowillg wha1
what IU
/0 soy:
say: pla~ming
plollllillg speech acrs
act~ TR
Computer Science.
Science. U. Toronto.
Colc. P..
1.1.. 1975
1975 Syntax
Svntax i!lli!
and Semantics
Semantics. Vol. 3.;
3: Speech
Socech Acts. NY:
Cole.
p .. and Morgan. lL.
Academic Press.
Collins, A.,
A.. Drown, J.S., and larkin.
Larkin, K. 1977
Inference in rexl
text understanding,
1977 Infermce
urrderslanding.
Technical Report CSR-TR-40,
'l'cchnical
CSR-I'R-40, Center
Centcr for the
thc Study of Reading,
Reading, Champaign IL.
Cooper, W. and Paccia-Cooper.
Pacda-Cooper, I.
J. 1980
1980 SvnU!
Svntax ill!Jl
and
Harvard University Press.
Prcss.

~. Cambridge,
&.K.&.
Cambridge. MA:

Cooper, W. and Sorenson,

syntactic
Fundafnerrral frequency cOlllours
conlours at
a1 synlaclic
Cooper.
Sorcnson, lJ. 1977
1977 l-'undamemal
boundaries.
Societv of Amcrica.
boulldories. Journal of lhc
the Acoustical Society
America. 62, pp. 683-692.

377

Davey, A. 1974 Discourn Produc~iun Ph.13. I)isscrtation, Edinburgh Univcrsity.

Davey, A. 1974 Discourse ProdUCliU1! , Ph.D. Dissertation, Edinburgh University.
(published as 1)iscoursc Production: A Comnulcr Modcl of Somc A s ~ c c t sof 3
(published as Discourse Production: !l Computer Model of Some ~ ill .!!
S~cakcr,F.dinburg11: Fdinburgh University Press. 1979.)
Speaker, f.dinburgh: I:-::dinburgh University Press, 1979.)
Ilcnes and Pinson I973 'I'hc S~ccchChain; thc Phusics and l3iolo~vof tlic Svoken
Denes and Pinson] 973 The Speech Chain: the Physics and Jliology ill the Spoken
I.anguagc, Gardcn City, Ncw York: Anchor Prcss.
Language, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press.
lkutsch, 13. 1974 7jpescriprs of Task Orierrtcd Dinlugs Un p i~blishedmanuscript,
Deutsch, B. 1974 Typescripts of Task OrientC'd Dialugs, Unpublished manuscript,
SRI-lntcrnational. hlcnlo Park, Ca.
SRI-International, Menlo Park, Ca.
lkutsch, R. 1975 I~si~~blishirrg
C'or~texr111Ta~k-Oritt~red
Iliulogues, Proceedings o
f
Deutsch. n. ]975 Eslablishi/lg ('olltext III Task-Oriented Dialogues, Proceedings of
thc 13 Anniral Mccting of ACl-. AJCI. Microfiche 35. p. 27.
the 11 An Hual Meeting of ACt. AJCI. Microfiche 35', p. 27.
Iloylc, J. 1978 Tm/h Aloirr~oiriet~cr
S j ~ ~ a ifor
l s Probleti~ Solvitrg, M.I.T. A.1.
Doyle, 1. 1978 Trulh Main/ai/fence Sys/('/IlS for Problem Solving, M.I.T. AJ.
1abor;ltory A1-'1'12-419, Cambridgc, MA.
Laboratory AITR-419, Cambridge, MA.
Er~lst,G., and Newcll. A. 1969 GPS: A Casc Study Gcncrality and Problcm
Ernst, G., and Newell. A. 1969 GPS: !l Case S!.llil.Y in Generality and Problem
Solving. Ncw York: Acadcmic Yrcss.
Solving. New York: Academic Press.
Fnhlman, S. E. 1979 NEI'I.: A Systcm for IZcnrcscnting and Using 12cal-World

Fahlman, S. E. 1979 NETt: !l System for Representing and 1illng Real-World

Knowlcd~c.Cambridge: '171~MIT Prcss.
Knowledge. Cambridge: 'Ille MIT Press.

Fikcs. R.E.. and Nilsson. N.J. 1971 STRIPS: A tlrnj~lpproachro rhe applicarion of
Fikes, R.E., and Nilsson, NJ.1971 STRIPS; A new approach to the applica/ion of
~hcoret~t
provi~lgto problctt~s;olaitlg. Artificial Intcllincncc 2:89-205.
theorelll provillg to problem soll'l'ng. Artificial Intelligence 2:89-205.
Fillmore. C. 1968 The casefir case, in Universals i11 1-in~uisric'Theory, ed. E.. nach
Fillmore, C. 1968 The caseJilr case, in Universals in Linguistic '[neary, cd. E. Bach
and G'. Hams, New York: Holt, Ilinchart. and Winston, pp. 1-90.
and G. Hanns, New York: Holt, Rinehart. and Winston. pp. 1-90.
Fi tlmnrc. C.F. 1971 I,ecrurcs o n .Deixis, Unpublished manuscript, 1,inguistics
Fillmore. c.F. 1971 Lectures on Deixis, Unpublished manuscript, Linguistics
D;partrncnt, Univcnity of California, Bcrkclcy.
I\:partment, University of California, Berkeley.
Fodor, J. 1975&J I .anmaec oflhouaht. Ncw York: Thomas Crowcll.
Fodor. J. 1975111e l.anguage ofThought, New York: Thomas Crowell.
Fodor, J. 1982 The Modularity 1)f Mind, unpublished manuscript.
Fodor, J.1982 The Modularity illMind, unpublished manuscript.

Ford. M. and Holmcs, V. 1978 I'lar~ningunits and syntax in senler~ceproduction

Ford, M. and Holmes, V. 1978 Planning units and syntax in sentellce production
Coenition 6, pp. 35-53.
Cognition 6, pp. 3553.
Gcncscrcth, M. R. 1978 Aufomated Consulfarionfor Contplex Cornpurer Systems,
Genescreth, M. R. 1978 Automated Consultation for Complex Computer Systems,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University,

Bibliography

378

Gcrritscn, Rob, 1978 S1:'FD Referettce Atanual, Vcrsion COO B04 draft,
Gerritsen, Rob, 1978 SE/:'D Reference Manual, Version COO
B04 draft,
lntcrnational Data Iiasc Systcrns, Inc., l'hiladclphia, Pa., 19104.
Intcrnational Data Ba5e Systems, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. 19104.
Goldman. N.M. 1974 Co~~lpuler
Get~eru/iotiof Nurural Language fiotn a Deep
Goldman, N. M. ]974 Computer Generation of Natural Language from a Deep
Ca~~ceprual
Base, I't1.1). 1)isscrtation. Sun ford University.
CO/laptual Base, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford Univcrsity.
Gordon, I)., and 1.akoff. G. 1975 Cotlvcrsa/ionol posrulflres in Svntax and
Gordon, D., and l.akoff, G. 1975 Conversational postulatl's, in Syntax and
Scinnntics, Vol. 3; Snccch W. cd. 1'. C d c and J.1.. Morgan. Ncw York:
Semantics. Vol. J; Snmh .1ill. cd. P. Cofe and 1.1.. Morgan. New York:
Acadcmic Prcss. pp.83-106.
Academ ic Press. pp.. 83-1 06.

Goudgc, '1. 1969, 'l'lic 'I'hou~htufC.S. I'circc. New York: 13ovcr Publications.
Goudge. T. 1969, The ThoughtillC.S. Peirce, New York: Dover Publications.
Svil[nx and Scrnantics, Vol. 1;Spcech
Gricc, H.P. 1975 I.ogic- o11d cor~~lo:~fltiu~~.
Grice. H.P. 1975 I,og;c alld COllversatioll. Syntnx and Semantics, Vol. J..;, Speech
P.
Colc
and
].I_.
Morgan.
Ncw
York:
Acadcmic Prcss, pp. 41-58.
Acrs.
cd.
Acts. cd.
P. Cole and 1.L Morgan. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
Grinder, J.. and Postal, P. 1971 hiissing atitecedct?ts, 1.in~uistic Inauiry
Grinder, 1.. and Postal. P. 1971 Missing antecedellts. Linguistic !.lliI..Yl.n:.
2(3):269-312.
2(3):269-3]2.

Grosr., li.. 1977 The Rc~~resetr~uriorr

atrd Use of Fo(+usC I Dialogue Utrders/anding,
Grosz, B. 1977 The Representation and Use of Focus ill Dialogue Understanding!
'I'cchnical Notc 151, Artiiicinl Intclligcncc Ccntcr. $trtnford.Rcscarch Institute,
'I~chnical NOle 15 I, Artificial Inlclligence Center, Stanford. Rescarch Institute,
Menlo Park. Ca.
Mcnlo Park, Ca.
Gros~,13. 1978 l~bcusirig BI Dialog.. 'I'inlnn-2: lhcorctical Issucs in Natural
GroSl. B. 1978 Focusing in Dialog. Tinlap-2: lllcoretical Issues in Natural
I .nnruaac I'roccssing. 7:96-103. Ncw York: Asstxiation for Computing Machincry
Languagc Processing. 7:96-103, New York: Association forClJInputing Machinery
and Associalion of Computational 1-inguistics.
and Association of Computational Linguistics.
Gros;; n. 1981 Focusitrg a~rdDescrip/iori in Nalurnl Inrnguage Dialogues, in
n. 1981 Focusing alld Description ill Natural Language Dialogues, in
Elcmc~rts,f 1)jscoursc Undcrstandinq, A. Joshi. R. Wcbber, and I. Sag (eds.)
Elemcnts ill Di5course Understnnding. A. Joshi. B. Webber, and L Sag (cds.)
Cambridge: Canlbridgc Univcrsily Prcss. pp. 84-105.
Cambridgc: Cambridge University Press. pp. 84-105.
GroS/~

Grubcr, J. 1976 Ixxical Str~~crurc

in Svntax and Scm;!nrics. New York: North
Gruber, 1. ]976 Lexical Structure ill ~ .i!!J..d Semantics. New York: North
Holland.
Holland.
lI;~lliday,M. A. K. 1966 No~esotr rraasirivily otld rherne it1 f:~:ilglirh. Journal QF
Halliday. M. A. K. 1966 Notl's 011 transitivity and theme ill English. Journal Qf
I .incuistic~2:37-8 1.
l-inguistics 2:37-81.
llalliday, M. A. K. 1970 I~utrc!ionul 1)iversiry it1 1,alrguage as Seen porn a
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970 Functional IJiversily in Language as Seen from a
Cur~sideratiott of Modality nrrd Mood ill I:'i~glirh. Foundario~i~
il_f lnnnuane
Consideration of Modality and Mood ill English. Foundations of Language
6:322-361.
6:322-361.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, It. 1976 Cohesion in Endish. landon: Longman
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman

379

Press.
Hankamer.
Deep and
Ilankamcr, J.,
J.. and Sag,
Sag. I.1. 1976 ilrep
arrd surface
surfncr anapllOra.
arrallhora, Linguistic
1.ineuistic Inquiry
7(3):391-426.
7(3):391-426.

Harris. I..
R. December.
RO/lOT.~)'stelll:
Natura/l.anguage Processing
Pracessing
I.. R..
I)cccmbcr. 1978 The
The ROIIOT
Sysrerrr: N~rruralI.arrguoge
Applied ta Uara
/Jala nusr
Base Query.
Aplrliedru
Query. in Proceedings
Procccdines of
u f the
h c ACM 78. Washington D.C.

Ilawkinson. II .. 1975 The

The IRepresentatiun
~ ~ p r . ~ s o r r , uJCuncepts
o
rfr i Corrcep~s
o~~
irr OWl..
011'1.. Proceedings
1'rocccdines llf
ef
a
Hawkinson.
in
the
Fourth
International
Joint
Conference
in
AnificiJl
Intelligence,
4:
107-114.
I'ourth Intcrnational Jl,inlConfcrcncc in Artificial lntclliecncc. 4:107-114.

Hendrix,
language processing.
Hcndrix. G.
G. 1977 llumon
ilurrrarr engi1lrering
errgineerirrg ffor
i r applied natural
rrarural brrguoge
Proc.
l'nic. 5th Inh
Int. J.L
J t , Conf. on Artificial
Artificial Intelligence,
lntclliacnc~
Hendrix.
Hcndrix. G.
G. G.
G.. E. D.
I). Sacerdoti,
c c r d o t i D.
I Sagalowicz.
Sngalowicz. and J. Slocum.
Sl(xum. June,
Junc, 1978.
1978.
IJeI'eluping a Narriral
Natllra/l.anguage
InterIaee tu
Data. hCM
ACM Transactions
IIei~eIopi~~g
Larrgunge Irrrerface
lo COII/plex
(bnrl~lexi)oru.
'l'ranwctionp QJl
pl!
Dotabase
No.2.
Ijatabasc Systems.
Svstcm, Vol. 3. No.
2.

m,

Higginbotham,
Pronouns and
Bound Variables.
Higginhotham. 1.
J. 1980 Pronourrs
arrd noutld
i'uriables. Linguistic
l.inai~isticInquiry, 11(4).
Il(4).

pp. 679-708.
679-708.

Hintikka.
Belief. Ithaca. New York: Cornell
Ilintikka. J. 1963
1903 Knowledge
Knowlcdac and l%clicf.
Corncll University
Press.
Hobbs, J. R. 1976 Prorrvun
Pronoun Resolu~iorr,
Resolution. Rcscarch
Research Report #76-1,
#76-1, City College,
City University
Univcrsity of New York. New
Ncw York.
Hobbs,
Examp/es oj
Elusive At~receder~ls
Antecedents porn
from Published Texis,
Hobbs. J. R. 1977 38 Exantples
of l7lusive
Texts,
Rcport #76-2.
#76-2, City College.
Collcge, City University
Univcrsity of Ncw
York: New York.
Research Report
New York:
Hobbs. J. R. 1979 Cohamce and Co-reJerence. Cognitive Science. 3(1): 67-90.

Hornstcin, N. 1981 Two

Two 1V0ys
ways oj
of interpreting
ir~tcrpreting quantifiers.
quar~tijicrs. mimeographed,
Hornstein,
Columbia Univcrsity.
University.
Horrigan.
Modelling sittlple
simple dialogs,
Dept. of Computer
Ilorrigan. M.K.
M.K. 1977 hlu(lcl1itrg
dialogs, TR
TT 108, Ikpt.
Scicncc, U. Toronto.
Science.
Hull, R. D.,
D., 1974 A Logical
Logica/ Analysis
Ana/ysis oj
of Questions
Questions
Dissertation,
1)isscrtation. University
Univcrsity of Cambridge.
Cambridgc, Jesus College.
Collcge.

and Answers,
Answers. Ph.D.

Bibliography
Bibliography

380

Isner, I).
D. W. 1975
"Understanding"
Through
Representation and
Isncr.
1975 Understanding
Undrrsro~~di~ig
"Und~rs~andii~g"
Through Rrpresen~otion
Reasoning, Ph.1).
Ph.D. dissertation.
Pittsburgh. 1)cpartmcnt
Department of
Rwso~rirrg.
disscrotion. University of I'iwburgh.
o f Computer
Science.
Jackcndoff, 1
1972 Scmnntic
Grammar. Cambridge.
Cambridge.
R.1. 1972
Semantic lntcmrctati~m
Interpretation hGcnerativc
in Generative Grammar,
Ma: M
MIT Press.
Joshi. A. K. and
and R. Wcischcdcl,
1977 Compulation
Co~~ipu~aliotr
of a suhcloss
of inferences:
itrfrretrces:
Weischedel, 1977
ofa
subclass of
l'rrsupl~osiliu~i
J. Q[Comp
of C ~ m n .I-inguistics.
I.ineuistic$.
PresuppositiO/l and l~~rroilrner~l.
/;"111ailmCf11. in
in Ani,
Am. L

firesnan, ]981
Lexical-fulIctjollal Grammar:
fonnal System fur
for
Kaplan. R.
I<.and
and J. Brcsn:~n,
1981 L.exirol-fuircrioi~ol
Groiirr~rar:.A fur~~rolSys~oii
Gnirn~~iorical
Repr~sertruriuri.M
1.1' Center
Cc~itcrfor Cognitive
Cog~iitivcScience
Scic~iccOccasional
Occasional Paper
Gmmmmicaf
RepreSenlaliull,
MIT
#13.
#13.
Kaplan, S.L
Dij)/orellce
Natural I.o,,guog~
J.onguage and
High revel
Kaplan.
S.J.. 1978
1978 On
0 1 1 rthe
l i D~$jiirr~rcr
~
R
IBelll'{,{>11
PP
I PI,
Nnrurnl
o,ld High
/.eve/
Quev I.mrguogr~.
I'rucccdincs of
nftlic
Washington D.C.
Query
I.al/guages. in
in Proceedings
the ACM 1978. Washington

Kaplan.
1979a Cooperati"e
Cooperurir'e Rr.~potisrs
1.anguage
Kaplan. S. J.,
J.. 1979a
RespollSes froin
from ao Porroblc
Portable Nurural
Natural l.anguage
Ilorn
Ouerj SysIe111,
1'h.l). I)isser(~tion.
as
Dala Rase
Rase Query
Syslel1l. Ph.D,
Disscrt<'.ltion. U.
U. of Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania, available ,as
Stanford Heoristic
ticuristic Programming
Prtrgramnri~igProject
I'n~jcct Rcport
Co~nputcrScience
Science
Stanford
Report HPP-79-19.
HPP-79-19. Computer
I)cpartmcnr,
Stanford Univcrsity,
Stanford. Ca. 94305. July. 1979.
Department. Stanford
University. Stanford.

Kaplan. SJ..
Joshi. 1979
A Techniquefor
Alanaging the
Kaplan.
S.J., F..Mays.
E.Mays, and
and AX
A.K. Joshi,
1979 A
Techniquefur ilatrngirig
rhe Lexicon
iin
ti a
o Narurol
latrguogc 111ter~h-e
lo a Changing
Chotrgilrg Dora
Narurall.anguagc
liller/ace 10
Data Rosr,
Base, in
in Pri~cccdinep
Proceedings of&
of ~
IJCAI
1979,'rokyo.
!JeAI
1979.
Tokyo.
Japan.
-Kantuncn,
I..1976
1976 Discourse
in Svntax
and Semantics.
Scrnantics, vol. 7.
7.. ed. 1
Kantunen. L.
Discourse refire~~/~,
referelils. in
Syntax and
J..
McCawlcy.
Prcss, pp. 363386.
363-386.
McCawley. New York: Acadcrnic
Academic Press.
Karttuncn,
L.. 1977
Presupposition and Li~rguistic
Linguistic COlltext,
Qfi n1JK
Kantuncn, L..
1977 Prcsupposirion
Corllext, in.
i n Proceedings
P r ~ ~ c c c def&g
~

Prcsn~~osirion.
lmnlicatur~. (A.
Texas Confcrcncc
Conference ill! I'crfiirmativcs.
]>crformativcs Presupposition
i!llii Implicature.
Ilogcrs.
13. Wall,
and J. P. Murphy. Ed.).
Ccntcr for Appliid
12inguistics,
Rogers. II.
Wall. and
Ed.). Center
Applie'd Linguistics.
Arli~igton.
Arlington. Va.

Katz. J. J. and Fodor.

Fodor, J. 1\.
Semalltic Theory.
Katz,
A. 1963
1963 The Structure
Stnrcrure ofa
ofa Semolrric
Theory, I.anguage,
l.aneuanp,
39(2):170-210.
39(2): 170-210.
ECP Extensiolls l.inguistic
pp. 93,133.
Kayne. R. 1981
1981 ECPEx/ensions
1 . i n c u i sInquiry
t i c m 12(3). pp.
93-133.
Keenan. E.L..
of
Presupposition in
Natural Language,
Language .in
~
Kccnan.
E.L., 1971
1971 Two
Two Kinds o
f l'resupposilioti
i n Natural
in &
dj~
in I.inguistic
Semantics. (c.
D. T. Langcndocn,
Langendoen. Ed.).
in
1,incuistic Semantics,
(C. J. Fillmore and D.
Ed.), Holt,
Holf
-

381
Rinchart, and Winston, N.Y,pp. 45-52.

Rinehart, and Winston, N.Y, pp. 4552.

Kccnan, E.I.., and Hull. R.D., 1973 The I.ogica1 Pres~rpposifiut~s

of Queslions and

Keenan, E.L., and Hull, RD., 1973 The !.ogical Presuppositions ofQuestions and
Atiswen. in Prasu~~ositioncn
h Philosonliic und I.innuistik, (Pclofi and Frank,
Answers. in Prasuppositioncn in Philosophic und Lingllistik, (Petofi and Frank,
Ed.), Atlicnaum Vcrlag, I'rankhn.
Ed.), tl.thenaum Verlag, Frankfurt.

Kcmpcn, 1. 1977 h'uiltiit~g a Ps~rhologically Plausible Sea~et~ceGr~ierolor.

Kempen, I. 1977 Buildillg a Psychologically Plausible Sentence Generator.

prcscntcd cli 'l'hc Confcrcncc of Empirical and Mcthodological Foundations of
presented at The Conference of Empirical and Methodological Foundations of
Sc~nantic 'Ihcorics for Natural I-anguagc. March 1977; Nijmcgcn, 'lhe
Semantic Theories for Natural Language, March 1977; Nijmegen, The
Nchcrlands.
Netherlands.

Kcmpcn. J. and Hocnki~mp, F.. 1980 A Procedural Cirmtatfnr for Senrence

Kempen, 1. and Hoenkamp, E. 1980 A Procedural Grammar for Sentence

Yroductiotl. 'I'cchnical 12cport Max-Plank lnstitutc, Nijmcgcn,'lhc Ncthcrlands.
Pruduction. Technical Rcport Max-Plank Institute, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Krauwcr, S. and I.. dcs Tombcs 1980 Fitlire slare ~rurtsdziccrsas a rflodel oJ(he

Krauwcr, S. and L. des Tombes 1980 finile slate lrallsducers as a model of the
Iut~guagcpmccssor lJ~rccl~tWorking l'a~crsin I .inn~~istics.
no. 19
language processur Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics. no. 19

Kroch, A. 1981 Resur~~p/i\)r

prot~out~s
arld [he n~t~tiesr~sit~g
of wh-islu~id~liolations,

Krach, A. 198] Resumpl;ve prollouns alld the amnestying ofwh'islal1d violations,

Procccdin~so f lhc Chicaco 1.in~uisticSocicty, Chicago. 11.
Proceedings of 1!:l Chicago I jnguistic Society, Chicago. II.

Labov. W. 1966 Oti rhr G'ranrt/la~iculilyof Fvetyduj. Sl~cech.Proceedings of the

Labov. W. ]966 Oil (he GrallFlIlaticali(y of Fveryda)' Speech. Proceedings of the
Linguistic Stricty o f Anicrica mccting, 19G6, Ncw York.
Linguistic Society of America meeting, 1966, New York.

LakoiT, R. 1974 Ret~zarksU I I This atid Tho!, P r c z c c d i n ~~f fie 'I'cntli licaional
Lakoff. R. 1974 Remarks 011 This and That. Proceedings ill1!:l Tenth Regional
Mcctin~of thc Chicago I-innuistic Socicty. cd. 1-aGaly,Fox and Ruck. Chicago:
Meetin\! of the Chicago Linguistic Society, cd. LaGaly,Fox and Ruck. Chicago:
Chicago 1,inguistics Socicty, lCk345-356.
Chicago Linguistics Society. H}:345356.
lashlcy, K. 1951 The Problc~nof Serial Order it) Beha~lior,in ],.A. Jeffrcss (ed.)
Lashley. K. 1951 The Problem of Serial Order in Eehm'ior, in L.A. Jeffress (cd.)
Ccrcbral Mcchanisrns I3cllavior: 'lhc ljixon Svm~osium.Ncw York: Wiley.
Cerebr<11 Mechanisms in Behavior: The Hixon Symposium. New York: Wiley.
Lasnik, H. 1976 Remarks on C'o-ref2ret1ce,1.inalistic Analvsis. 2(1):1-22.
Lasnik, H. 1976 Remarks on C(Y reference, Linguistic Analysis, 2(1): 1-22.
1 , c h n c ~W. 1977a Humat] at~dcotnpu~u~ional
yue~lioa atlswrritlg, Cnanilive
Lehnen. W. 1977a Human and computational questiun answering, Cognitive
Scicncc ](I). pp. 47-73.
Science 1m, pp. 4773.
I.chncrt, W., 1977 The I'rixess cfQucsrioti Atrsweri~lg,'l'li 88, Ilcpt. of Computer

Lehnert, W., 1977 The /'roass o!Ques(ion Answering, TR 88, Dept of Compuler
Scicncc, Yalc University.
Science. Yale University.

l,cwis, P. and 1I.E. Stcarns 1968 Sjlnlax-direc~cd~rransduc~ion

Lewis, P. and R.E. Stearns 1968 Syntax-directed transduction J.illJ..w.ill Qf

Association i,r Comnutina Machincry, 15:3, pp. 464-488.
Association for Computing Machinery, IS:3, pp. 464-488.

pf

Bibliography

382

1.ibernian.
1967 Intonation.
Cambridge, MA: Mn
MI'I
Libemlan, P. 1967
Inlonation. I'ercc~tion.
Perception. and lanaoane.
Language. Canibridge,
Press.
I.ightfoot,
Hornstcin, N. 1981
1981 Exolanation
I.inauistics, 11Jndon:
lnndon:
Lightfoot, I).
D. and Hornstein.
Explanation ill Linguistics,
langrnan.
l.ongman.
1). 1978
1978 COf/textual
Lb~trrxr~ral
Refirenre
irt Nnrurnl
1.ockman.
Lockman, A. D.
Reference Rcsolurion
Resolution ill
Natural Ignguage
l..{lnguage
Proassing, I)cpt.
Dept. of Computer Science
Rutgers University, New
Scicncc TR-70.
'IR-70. Rutgcrs
I'rocccsirtg.
Hrunswick.
Brunswick, N.1.
N.J.
Imia, S. E. 1975
Thirty-,ix I.eetures
in Biology.
I.uria.
1975'l'hirtv-six
l.cct~~rcs
Hiolonv. Cambridge,
Carnbridgc, MA: MIT
MII' Press.
Prcss.

Mann, W. C"
C.. Bates.
Iiatcs. M"
M.. GroSI,
Grosf. B.
H. J..
Mcllonald. D.
I). I)..
McKcown, K. R. and
J" McDonald.
D" McKeown.
prcss. The
The Srarr
Tex/ Gefleration.
Getleroriun. Asrericon
f
Swartout. I. in press.
.)'tafe ofrhr
of/he Arr
Art irr
in Text
American .lourt~al
Journal u
of
Computationall.inguistics.
Co~ttpu~aric~rtoll.biguisrics.
Mann, W. C. and M~oorc,
Moore, J. 1981
Multiparagraph Text.
Mann.
1981 Computer
Cotttpurer GenPration
Getlrroriotr of
of hlulliparr~graph
Texr.
American Jourtxil
Journal o
ofCompulativnal
Unguis/ies,
1), pp. 17-29.
17~29.
Arrlerican
f C'o~rrpumriu~~nl
/.irrguis/ics,7(
7(1).

Marcus. M. 1980
1980 f!
A TIlcory
l l i m r v !!f
of Syntactic
Svntactic Recognition
Rccoenition for Natural L,mguagc.
1.aneuag.
Cambridgc:
Cambridge: MI'I
M IT Prcss.
Press.
Project. Technical Report, Information
1981 The
The Consul Projrcr.
information Sciences
Mark, W. 1981
Institute,
Institute. Marina Dcl
Del Ray, California.
Martin, W. 1979
Role~ Co-Descriptors
FomlOl Represerr/arion
Representation of
Martin.
1979 Roles
Co-Dcscriprors and the
rhe Fomtal
of
Quol/tified
Expression~ Laboratory for Computer
Qunrlrijied English Expressions
Cvmputcr Science, TM-139,
'I'M-139,
M.LT., Cambridge, MA.
M.I.T.,
The Grammar o
offQuantification,
dissertation, MIT
May, R. 1977
1977 ihc
Ouantification, PhD disscrtation,
])epanment of Linguistics.
Department
McAllester, D. 1\.
Mail/tenance Sysrnn.
,~)stem. MIT Al
AI Lab
McAllcstcr,
A. 1978
1978 A Three
T h r e ~Valued
Valued Truth
Tmrh Alairl/ma~rce
Mcmo
473, Cambridge, MA.
Memo 473.
McDonald. D.M. 1977
Subsequent reference:
reference: synracric
syntactic artd
al/d rherorical
rhetorical constrain
Is,
Mcl~onald.
1977 Subsequent
consrroinls,
Processing. 7:64-72,
in Tinlap-2: Theoretipl
Thcorctical ~ ill
in ~
Natural l.anguage
l a n e u a ~hxm,hg.
7:H-72, New
Assuciation of Computational
York: Association fur Computing
Cornpuling Machinery and Association
Linguistics.

I.anauaae Generation 3
a Er=
Process ~f
McDonald D. D. 1980a Natural
Natural l.anguage
~ ~
J1f

383

llccisinn-making Undcr Constraints, Ph13 dissertation, Mt'I" Dcparmcnt of

Decision-making Under Constraints, PhD dissertation. MIT Department of
Computcr Scicncc and Electrical Engineering.
Computer Science and Electrical Engineering.
McDonald. 13. D. 1980b A Linear-time hfodel of Longuage Productio~t:Some
McDonald, D. D. 1980b A Linear-time Model of Language Production: Some
abstract in thc proceedings of 18th Annual Mceting
Psycholinguisric It~rplicatio~~s.
Psycholinguistic Implications. abstract in the proceedings of 18th Annual Meeting
of the Association for Computational I.inguistics, June 1980. Univcrsity of
of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 1980, University of
Pennsylvania, pp. 55-57.
Pennsylvania, pp. 5557.
McIIonald. D. D. 1981 hIUMR1.E A I:lexiblc Systn)lfir I.at~guageProducrion.
McDonald. D. D. 1981 AlUM RLE, A Flexible System for Language Production.
IJCA 1-81,August 1981. L'nivcrsity of Ilritish Columbia, p. 1062.
l1eAI-8], August 1981. University of British Columbia. p.1062.
hlcI)onald, D. I). (in prcpnriltion) Nnfural I.onguage Production by Corlrputers: A
McDonald, D. D. (in prep:uation) Noturall.onguage Production by Computers: A
Survey. Univcrsity of Massachusetts 'l'cchnical Report.
Survey. University of Massachusetts Technical Report.
McKcown. K.R., 1979 I'ar(~phrasingUsing Giver1 arrd New IflfLlrntalion in a
McKeown. K.R . 1979 Paraphrasing Using Gil'CIJ Gnd New Illformation in a
Ques!to~~-At~sizrri~~g
Sja~nn,in Procccdinas o f tllc 17th Annual Mceti~ieof the
Ques/ion-Answering ,\')'5/elll, in Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the
Aswicintion
Coin~utationalI .in~~~istics,
pp.62-67.
Association for Computationall.inguistics, pp.62-67.
McKcown, K. K. 1980 Ger~eratit~g
Rel~vanr I:'xplotratiot~s:Natural language
McKeown. K. R. 1980 Generating Relevant Explanations: Natural language
respotlses lo qutstions about darnbase sfnrcrurt.. Y rtxccdi nss o f thc First An nual
responses to questions about database structure. Proceedings of the First An nual
National Confcrencc on Artificial Intcllincnce, Stanford, CA, August 1980, pp.
National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, CA, August 1980, pp.
306-309.
306-309.
hlcehan. I. R. I976 The A feianovel: Writitlg Slories by Computer. Research
Meehan, J, R, 1976 The Metal/ovel: Writing Stories by Computer. Research
IZcpor?74, Thc Yale A.I. Group, Yalc University, Ncw Havcn, Connecticut
Report 74, The Yale A.1. Group, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
~ i n s kM.
~ , 1974 A I.iamework for Represellling Knowledge, in P. Winston (ed.)
Minsky, M. 1974 A Framework for Representing Knowledge, in P. Winston (cd.)
'l'he Psvchology of Com~utcrVision, New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 211-227.
The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hili. pp. 211-227.
Montaguc. R. 1974 The Proper Trea~tnenlof Quanlijica~io~l
in Ordi~latyEtrglish, in
Montaguc, R. 1974 The Proper Treall~enl ofQuantification in Ordinary English, in
Formal
Philoso~ky,cd. by 'Thomason, R., ps. 247-270, Yalc University Prcss, New
Formal Philosophy, cd. by Thomason. R. ps. 247-270, Yale University Press. New
Haven.
Haven.

Morgan,
. L. 1978 Toward a Rational Model of Discovrse C m p d ~ *
Morgan,
J. L. 1
1918
Toward a Ratiotull Model of DiscOll~ Com~nsion.
lhcorctical
in Natural
7:109-114, New
IinlaD-2: lbcorcticaJ ~ m&1uW 'ADgyAee Processiua. 7:109-114, New
Yo&:
Association for Computing Machinery and Association of ComputaW
Yorl: Association for Computing Machinery and Association of Computational
Linguistic&
Unguistics.
Nash-Webbcr B. and Schank R. 1975, I'inlan-1: Thcorctical Issucs in Natural
Nash-Webbcr B. and Schank R. ]975. Tinlap-l: Theoretical Issues in Natural
Tanguaec Processing, New York: Association for Computing Machinery and the
Language Processing. New York: Association for Computing Machinery and the

Bibliography

384

Association of Computational Linguistics.

I.inguistics.
New York Times
'l'imcs Corporation. 1973
1973 The
The Watergate
Watergale Hearings -- Break-in and
Ncw
Coverup, New York: Viking Press.
Cover-up.

Solvine Methods
Mclhods in Artificial
Artificial Intelligence.
lntclliecncc. Ncw
Nilsson,
1971 Prohlcm
Nilsson. N.J. 1971
Prohlem Solving
New York:
McGraw-HilI.
McGraw-14ill.
Nilsson,
1980 I'rincinlcs
l'ioga Press.
Nilsson. N.J. 1980
Principles of Artificial
Artificial lntclliecncc
Intelligence I'alo
Palo Alto.CA:
AltoCA: Tioga
Partcc.
1%.ti.
1972 Opacit)'.
Opacirl: Co-referenre
Cu-rcfcrrrrrr arid
of ~
atural
Partee. II.
H. 1972
and Pmrluur~s
Pronou",; Semantics ill
Natural
I.aneuaec
I). Davidson
I)a\,idwn and G.
G . tiarman.
415-441.
I.anguage cd. D.
Harman. Iloston:
Iloston: I(cidcl.
Reidel. pp. 41
5-441.
Partcc.
B. H. 1978
1978 Mourld
Olher Arra/~hors
'lhcorctical
Partee. II.
Bound Variables orid
and Other
Anaph()r~ 'rinlnn-2:
Tinl,p-2: Theoretical
Iwl~cs
in
N;~tl~ral
I.aneuazc
I'rc~ccssing,
7:79-85,
Ncw
York:
Association
Issues in Natur<ll Language Processing,
New
Association for
Cornputati[mal
Linguistics.
Computing Mechincry
Machinery and Association of Com
pula tiona1Linguistics.
I'ostal. P.
P. M. in preparation. Relational Grammar.
Pcrlmuttcr,
Perlmutter. I).
D. M. and Postal.

R., Allcn.
atid Cohen.
Cohcn, P.R. 1978'
1978'Sprech
Pcrrault.
Allen. J.F..
J.I'.. and
Speech acts as a basis for
for
Perrault. C. R.
undrrsranding
cohrrmcr. Tinlap-2:
'l'inlan-2: Theoretical
'I'licorctical lssucs
in Natural
understanding dialogue coherence,
Issues ill
I.aneuaec
I'roccssine, 7: Ncw
Language ProL:cssing.
New York: Asa~cialion
Association fur
for Computing Machinery and
Association of Computational
Computational Linguistics.
L.inguistics, pp. 125-132.
125-132.
Pcrrault,
Allcn. J.F. 1980
1980 A plan-basedanalysis
of indirecr speech acls
L
Perrault, C. R.. and Allen,
plan-based anal)'sis ofindirect
aCI~ 1.
ASSOC,
C m , Linguistics
l.ineuistics 6(3),
6(3),pp. 167-182,
167-182.
Assoc, ~
Pcrrault,
Cohcn. P. 1981
1981 11's
ow11 good,
irouns
Perrault, C. It..
R.. and Cohen.
It's for
for your own
good, Elcmcnts
Elements of D
Discourse
Undcrstandinp,
Joshi, 1l.L.
H.L. Webber
Webbcr and I.A.Sag.
I.A. Sag. New York:
Understanding. eds. A.K. Joshi.
I'rcss, pp.217-230.
Cambridge Univcrsity
University Press.
pp.217230.
1969 Arrophuric
l=ifth Regional
Ilcaional Meeung
Mccttnn 2f~
o f b
R~stal.
Postal. P. 1969
Anaphoric Islands.
Islands. l'ancrs
Papers from thc
the Fifth

Chicaeo
Ilinnick. Davison,
I)avisan, Green
Grccn and Morgan.
Chicago I.ineui?lic
I.inguistic m,
Society, cd. Binniek,
Morgan. Chicago:

Scricty. 5;205239.
5:205-239.
Chicago 1.inguistic
Linguistic Society.

Prince. E..
8, 1978
1978 A Comparisoll
Conlparison of
of Wh-clefts
M'h-cleJs alld
and 11-clejls
I.aneuap,
It'clefts in Discourse.
Discourse, '-angllage,
54, Vo1.4.
Rcichman.
1978 COnl'ersalional
Con~,ersolionalcoherency.
S c h x . 2(4):283-327,
2(4):283-327.
Reichman, R. 1978
coherency, Coenitivc
Cognitive~,
1976 The
The Synracric
of Anaphorq
Reinhan,
Reinhart, T. 1976
Syntactic Domain of
Anaphoro. Ph.D. dissertation,
dissertation,

385

Ikpartmcnt of Forcign 1.itcraturc and I .inguistics, M.I.'I'., Carnbridgc, MA.

Department of foreign Literature and Linguistics, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA.

w,H.

Kciter, R.. 1978 On Cluscr! World Data fluses, in I.onic and Ilata
Reiter. R.. 1978 On Clused World Data Bases, in Logic and Data Bases, H.
Gallairc and J. Minkcr (Eds.). I'lcnum Prcss. N.Y.
Gallaire and 1. Minker (Eds.). Plenum Press, N.Y.
Rcsnick and Halliday 1966 Phvsics: Pan 1, New York: John Wiley.
Resnick and Halliday 1966 Physics: Part 1, New York: John Wiley.

liicgcr, C. J. 1974 ~ o t ~ c e p t u aAlf ~ l n o y : I. Theory a t ~ dCotriyuter Program for

Rieger. C. 1. 1974 Conceptual !lfp/11ory: A Theory alld Computer Program for
Processing the Alcnr~itlg Tutltnit uf Narurnl 1.atiguage Utrrratrces Stanford
Processing the Meaning Con/ent 0/ NalUral I.anguage Uurrances, Stanford
Artificial Intclligcncc l a b Mcnlo AIM-233. Stlnford. CA.
Artificial Intelligence Lab Memo AIM-233. Stanford. CA.
Ilicsbcck. C.K. 1975 ('ot1ccp/ual at~olysir,in Conccvlual Information I'rocessing,
Riesbcck. C.K. 1975 Conceptual analysis, in Conceptual Infonnation Processing.
cd. 1l.U. Schank, Arnstcrdarn: North-Holland.
cd. R.c. Schank. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Robcrts. 1i. and Goldstcin. I. P. 1977 The I:KI. Alatrual. AIM-409, Artificial
Roberts, B. and Goldstein. J. P. 1977 The FRI. Manual. AIM-409, Artificial
Intclligcncc laboratory. Mnssachusctts Institulc of 'l'cch!ic~logy. Cambridge,
Intelligence Laboratory. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusctls.
Massachusetts.
l<obinson, A. 198 1. Deterrtli~~itlg\wb phrase reffret~tsit! dialogues. American
Robinson. A. 1981. Detennining I'rrb phrase referents in dialogues. American
Journal of Corn~utntionnl1.ineuistics. 7(1):1-16.
Journal of Computational Lingu istics. 7(1): 1-16.
Iioscnschcin. S. J., Octobcr. 1976 HUH'Iloes a Sys~arl Ktrow When to Slop
Rosenschcin, S. 1.. October, 1976 /lOll' /Joes a Sys/em A'now When to Stop
Ir$erenci~tg?,in American Journal of Com~utalional1.inauistics.
lll/ercncillg?, in American Journal ofComputalional Linguistics.
Itoss, J. 1967 Corrstraitlrs an variables it1 sj7tliax. Ph.1). disscrtation. MI'T
Ross, 1. 1967 Constraillls 011 variables in ~J'ntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT
Dcpanrncnt of 1.inguistics.
Department of Linguistics.
Saccrdoti. E.11. 1973 I'latrni~lgin a hierarch))of absrmcriotr space4 Proc, 3rd lnt, Jt,
Sacerdoti, E.D. 1973 Planning in a hierarchy o/abstractioll spaces, Prq~ 3rd ln1.l!.
Conf, on Artificial Intclliacnce, pp. 412-422.
Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 412-422.
Saccrdoti. E.11. 1975 The ttonlinear tttlture of plans. Proc. 4th Int. JL
Sacerdoti, ED. 1975 The nonlinear nature of plans, Proc. 4th l!J.h 11 Qmf. 2!!
Artificial Intcllinenc~,pp. 206-214.
Artificial Inteltigcncc~. pp, 206-214.
Sadock. J.M. 1974 'l'oward a 1,inntlistic 'lhcorv of S ~ c c c hActs. New York:
Sadock, J.M. 1974 Toward a Linguistic Theory Qf Speech Acts. New York:
Acadcmic Prcss.
Academic Press.
Schank. R. 1975 Concc~tual Information Processing. Ncw York: American
Schank, R. 1975 Conceptual Information Processing. New York: American
Elscvier.
Elsevier.
Schank, R. and Colby. M. C.. 1973 Comuutcr modcls of thought and l a n n w ,
Schank, R. and Colby, M. C., 1973 Computer models ill thought and language.
San Francisco: Frcernan.
San Francisco: Freeman.

Bibliography

386

w,

Schiffcr, S.R.
S.R. 1972
1972 Meaning., London:
London: Oxford Univcrsity
Prcss.
Schiffer,
University Press.
Goodson. J.I..
1979 The
The plan
recognition
Schmidt. C.F..
C.F.. Sridharan,
Sridharan, N.S..
Schmidt,
N.S., and Goodson,
J.L. 1979
plall recogllitioll
proble~n:
inlerseclion o
f arlijcial
inlelligence alld
and psycholog:
problem: An
All illtersectioll
of
artificial ill/elligence
psycholog)~ Artificial
Intelligence
45-83.
Intclliecnc~9(1), pp. 45-83.

R.. 1969
1969 Speech
Snccch Acts
Acts. an Essay ill
in thc
Pliilosoohv of
Scarlc. J. R.,
the Philosophy
of i.anaua%.
Language. New
Searle,
York: Cambridgc
Prcss.
Cambridge Uni\.crsity
University Press.
Svntax and Semantics
Semantic$ Vo1.
3: Speech
Soecch
Scarlc, J.R. 1975
1975 Indirecl
Searle,
Indirect speech acls
acts. in Syntax
Vol. 1;
Acts.
P.
Colc
J.I..
Morgan.
Ncw
York:
Acadcmic
Prcss,
pp.
Acts,
cd.
Cole
and
New
Academic
Press,
59-82.
Sliapiro. S. C. ]975
1975 Gel/frat/on
Gei~eralioflas Porsh~g/,o~s
~ l w o r kinto
irrto a Lir~ear
Shapiro.
Parsing from a N
Network
Linear String.
A~~rericar~
C ( ~ ~ ~ ~ p u l a llirguis~ics.
idr~ai
Microfiche 35.
American Jourf~aluf
Journal ojCol/1pulaliullall.inguistics,
Microfiche

Sliattuct-Hufnagcl 1979
1979 Senlolce
rlrodel based on speech
errors
Shattuck-Hufnagel
Sentence produdion:
production: a model
speech e"ors
Hillsdale, NJ:
E. Walkcr,
Walker, Hillsdale,
lawrcncc
Erlbaum, pp. 295-342.
Lawrence Erlbaom,
295-342.

polrrnrs.
Scntcncc Processing
Proccscing cd. W. Cooper
Coopcr and
pllllerll5, in Sentence

m.

1976 Computer
Coni~utcr lIased
Raccd Mcd~cal
C~,nsultations: MYCIN.
Shortl~ffc. E. H. 1976
Medical Consultations:
Shortliffe,
Amstcrdam.'lhc
o l l a Inc.'
Inc.
d
Amsterdam, The Ncthcrlands:
NeOmlands: I'.lscvicr
Elsevier North ~
Holland

C.1.. 1978
1978 The
The Use
Use of
of Focus as a Tool forDisa~flbiguorio,r
ofDefinile Noun
Sidncr, C.L.
Sidner,
for Disambiguatioll ofDefinite
Phrases,
ll~corcticalIssues
lssucs ill
in Natural I.anguage
1.aneuanc Processing,
Proccssing. 7:86-95,
7:Sb-95.
Phras", l'inlao-2:
Tinlap-2: neorctical
New York:
Yurko ACM and ACL.
C. 1979
1979 Towards
Towards a cor?~pulationol
of dejinile
Sldncr. C.
computational iheory
theory of
definite anaphora
anaphora
Sidncr,
cornprehension
m Clgllsh
discourse, Technical
Tcchnical Report
Rcport 537. MII'
comprehension in
English discourse,
MIT Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory.
Laboratory, Cambridge MA.
lnlclligcnce

Silverman. H. 1975
1975 A Digilalb
Therapy Advisor, Technical
Tcchnical Rcport
Digilalis Therapy
Report 143, Project
Silverman,
Massachu~etts.
MAC, Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
Cambridge,
Massachusctts lnstitulc ofTcchnology, Cambridge. Massachusetts.
Shxurn. I.
1972 Generating
Generarir~gEnglish discourse
discoursefrorn
Simmons. R. F. and Slocum,
Simmons.
J. 1972
from semantic
rrcrworks
C o m m u t ~ i c a till
i ~lh
tlic
~ nM:M
ACM
~ ~ f 15,
15. 10,
10,891-905.
Iletworks. Commuoications
891-905.
Solan, I..
Anaphora in Child language.
Language, Ph.D. dissert.1tion,
Dept. of
1.. 1978
1978 Anaphura
disscrtation. Dcpt.
1.inguisrics.
Linguistics, Univcrsity
University of Massachusctts,
Massachusetts, Amhcrsf
Amherst, MA (available through the
Graduate Linguistic Student
Graduatc
Studcnt Association, University
Univcrsity of Massachusetts).
Massachusetts).

Johnson-Laird P. N.,
June. 1976
1976 A Pmgramma~ic
Steedman, M. I.,
Steedman,
J" and Johnson-Laird,
N., June,
Programmatic Theory

387

of
of Linguistic
Lirrguislic

Perfom1al1ce,
Pefomiarice,

presented
prcscntcd at

the Stirling
thc

Conference on
Confercnce

Psycho]
ingu ist ics.
Psvcholineuistics.
Stenning,
pragmatics, in 1.ineuistic
l.inguistic Theory
K.. 1978
1978 AI/aphara
Arlaphora as all
a11 approach
approach 10
lo progrrlalics
Stcnning. K.,
and
Psychological
Reality,
cds.
M.
Halle,
J,
Bresnan,
and
G.
Miller.
and Psvclioloeical
Hallc. J. IIrcsnan,
G . Millcr. Cambridge:
MIT
MIT press,
press.

m,

Strawson,
and
ill sprech
spcech oaels.
Philosoohy of
of
Strawson. P.F.
P.F. 1971
1971 Intentioll
Irrr~rrrior~
arsi cOI1l'ClItion
corn,err/iur~in
c ~ sin &'1l1C
?
I'hilosoohy
Language,
Uni,ersity 1'
I'ress:pp,
23-38,
I.anauaec, cd.
cd. lR,
J.R. Searle
Scarlc New
Ncw York: O'ford
Oxford Uni\crsity
rcss:pp. 23-38.
Swartout,
Advisur vvirh
lVilh lHxp/(maliolls.
Technical
Report
SwartouL I.1. ]977
1977 A Digitalis
1)igirolis Thtrapy
Tlrrrapy Advisor
~ x p i ~ n ~ u r i'l'cchnical
ur~s
Rcport
l.aboratory
Institute of
of Tcchnolugy.
Technology,
1.aburatory for
fur C",nputer
Co~nputcr Science,
Scicncc. Massachusetts
Massachusctls Institutc
Cambridge,
Carnbridgc. Massachusetts.
Massachusctls.
Swartout.
alld
}uslijicatiol1S
of Expert Cwrsul~ing
Consulting
Swartout. I.1. 1981
1981 Produ<'ing
I'roiiu<.brgE'(planat;olls
~.~pIa~ro~
orrd
i ~ Jus/r~coriorrs
~
rrr
,f,fxperI
Programs,
Computer Scicnce.
Science,
Pmgran~s. Technicai
l'cchnical Report
llcport 251,
251. Laboratory
I.aboratory for Cornputcr
Massachusctls Institute
lnstilutc ofTcchnulogy,
of'l'ccl~~~~~lugy.
Carnbridgc. Mas~rhuxtts.
MassachusetLS
Cambridge.
MaSSi.lChusctts.

Thomas,
asking, 'I'cchnical
Technic"l rcpurt
report 11C5866.
RC5866,
Thomas. J. e.,
C.. 1976
1976 Qualltifiers
Quorrrfiers alld
arid questioll
yursriorr askirig,
IIIM 'fhomas
'Thomas J,I. Watson Research
Ilcscarch Ceoter.
Ccntcr.
111M

I.cckcrnan. Il.H,
H.H. I)ustcrL
'l'hornpson. 1'.1'"
F.P.. P.e.
P.C. Lockcman,
Thompson,
J)oster~ R. I)cvcrill,
DeYerill, 1969 REL:
REL: AA
Rapidly EXlensible
Ex~ensihleI.angllage
1.arrguage System,
S~,srorl,in Procccdina
F thc
Rapidly
Proceedings ,ill
tlle 24th ACM
Nnriunal Conference,
Confcrcng. N.Y.,
N.Y.. N.Y.
N.Y.
National
Van Lehn,
Lchn. K. A. 1978
1978 Detennillillg
Derennirrir~gthe
/he Scope uffirrglish
Van
oj r:l/glish Quorrlijiers,
Qual/lifiers. AI-1'R-483,
AI-TR-483.
Artificial
Institute of
of Technology,
Technology.
Artificial Intelligence
Intelligence Laboratory.
Laborao~ry, Mass;,chusetts
Mass;rchusctts lnstitutc
Cambridge, MA.
Cambridge.
Walker, D.
D. E,
E. 1976
1976 Speech
Speerh UI/derstal/ding
U~rdersla~~ding
Research,
Walker.
Research, Final Technical Report,
Report,
Projcct 4762.
4762. Artificial
Artificial Intelligence
lnlclligcnce Center.
Ccntcr. Stanford
Sunford Rcscarch
Project
Research Insritute.
Institute, Menlo
Park. CA.
CA.
Park.
Walk D.
D. 1..,
I.., July. 1978
1978 All
An Ellglish
Fnglish l.anguage
1.anguoge Queslion Answrirlg
Waltz.
Answering Sysrcrn
System for
Jar a
large Relatiollal
Relarionol Database,
Da~ahosc,Communications
Communic;~tionsof ihc
o c . Corno.
Large
the aAssoc,
Compo Mach.,
Mach.. 21(7),
21(7).
pp. 526-539.
pp.526-539.
Wasow, T. 1977
1977 TransJonnations
Tronsfinna~ior~s
and the
/he Lexicon,
Wasow.
LexiCfJll. in Formal
Fonnal Svntax,
Syntax. ed.
cd. P.
Culicovcr,A. Akmajian. and
and'r.
Wasow, Ncw
CulieDYer,
T. WasDw.
New York: Academic Press.
Wcbber, B. L., 1978a
1978a A Fannal
Formal Approach 10
lo Discourse Anophora,
Webber.
AllapllOra. Technical
Tcchnical

Bibliography

388

Rcport 3761. Dolt Ikranck and Ncwman, Inc. Carnbridgc, MA.

Report 3761, nolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. Cambridge, MI\.
Wcbbcr. 13. I,., 197% Julrn~pitlgnlirad aflhe s p ~ a k e con recog~~itio~i
fwn7 indefinite
Webber. B. L., 1978b Jumping ahead oflhe speaker: on recognition from indefinite
NPs.
workslior, on indcfinitc rcfcrcncc. Univcrsity of Massacl~usctts,
NPs, Sloan workshl1D on indefinite reference. University of Massachusetts,
Amhcrst, Ma., 1)cccmbcr.
tlmherst, Ma., December.
Wcbbcr. l3. I.., 1978c Descriptiott fornrariori a ~ cii.~course
~d
rautfel sj~rl/hesis.Proc.
Webber. n. 1.., J978c Description fimnatioll and discourse mudd sYlllhe;;is, ~
'I'lNl.hP-2, Asw~c.corn^. I.ing
TINJ.tlP-2, tlssoc. Comp.!J.ng.

Wcbbcr, 13. I.., 1981 Ili.~cours ~r~odrl

sy~irhesis: preii~tlitraries to referet~ce.
Webber, B. 1.., 1981 Discourse I1lOdel synthesis: preliminaries to referena,
k:lcrncnts of discol~rscundcrsl;~ndinq. cds. A. K. Joshi. 1%. I,. Wcbbcr, and I, A.
Elements ill discourse undcNanding, cds. A. K. Joshi. B. L. Webber, and 1. A.
Sag. Ci~n~bridgc:
Cambridge Univcrsity Press.
Sag. Camhridge: Cumhridge University Press.
of a Ur~ique Class of lnfirences:
M'cixhcdcl. I<. M., 1975 C~~t)~~!u/nriun
Weischedel, R. M" 1975 Computatiun of a Uniqul' Class of Infaenees:
tnld I~r~/nib~rrrlr.
Ph.1). disscrtution. Dcpt. of C o ~ n p i ~ t cand
I'rcsu~~~~o.si~ion
r
l'rl'supposition and FIJ/ailment, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Computer and
Information Scicncc, Univcrsi~yof I'cnnsylvania. I)liiladclphia, Pa.
Information Science. University ofl'ennsylvaniu, Philadelphia, Pa.

Annphora in
Wilcnsky. li. 1978 1,ircusillg it1 rhe Co~rrprclrensrorr of U~Jir~ire
Wilensky, R. 1978 Focusing in Ihe Comprehension of Definite Anaphora in
Urrtlers~ot~Jirrg
Goc~l-lhtwdS/orios,lJh.13. Lhcsis. Yalc Univcrsity.
Understanding Gllill IJiI5l'd Siorics. Ph,D. thesis. Yale University.
I . i ~ i ~ u i sl~lai~iry,
~ic
8(1), pp. 101-139.
Williams, F.. 1977 I)iscoursea~rJlugi~~alfi)~~~,
Williams, E.1977 fJiscollrsealld logicalform, Linguistic 1.llilli.iJ:y, 8(1), pp. 101-139.
Willams, F,. 1980 I'redict7liui1,1.in~~listic
Inquiry. 11(1), pp.203-238.
Wiliams, E. 1980 Predication. I.inguistic Inquiry, ll(l), pp.203-238.
Winograd, '1'. 1972 Undctstandinp Natural I.aneuaec. Ncw York: Acadcmic Press.
Winograd, '1'.1972 Understanding Natural Language. New York: Academic Press.
Winston, P. H. 1980 l.canring and Reasorritrg by Analog)#:ihe details AIM-520,
Winston, P. H. 1980 I.earning and Reasoning by Analogy: the details, AIM-520,
Artificial lntelligcncc laboratory, Massachusctls Instituie of Tcchnology,
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusclts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge. Massachusetts.
Cambridge, Massachusctts.
Woods, W. 1967 The Ser~ranticsfor a Question Rt~~weri~ig
syslenl, Ph.D.
Woods, W. 1967 The Semantics for a Question Answering system, Ph.D.
disscrtation, Harvard Univcrsity. Rcport NSF-19, Aikcn Computation
disscrtation, Harvard Univcrsity, Report NSF'19, Aiken Computation
laboratory, Iiarvard Univcrsity. (rcprintcd by Garland Publishing. 1979)
Laboratory, Harvard University. (rcprinted by Garland Publishing. 1979)
Woods. W.A. 1970 Transirio~tnelwork gron~ntarsfir t~oiurallanguage analysi~
Woods. W.A. 1970 Transilion network grammars for nalural language analysis,
Comm. Assnc. Corno. Mach. 13(10), pp. 591-606.
Comm. Assoc. Compo Much, 13(10), pp. 591-606.

Parsing Syste~nfur Transition Network

Woods, W. 1973 An Experi~nen~al
Woods. W, 1973 An Experimental Parsing System for Transition Network
(;ratnmars, Natural 1.annuanc Proccssing, cd. It. Rustin. New York: Algorithmics
Grammars, t:!..a.nI.Ii!l Language Processing, cd. R. Rustin. New York: Algorithmics
Press, pp. 111-154.
Press, pp. 111-154.

389

Woods, W. A., R. M, Kaplan, and B. Nash-Wchbcr, 1972 The Lutlar Scierzces

Woods, W. A., R. M. Kaplan, and Il Nash-Webber, 1972 The LUllar Sciences

Itfonnotion S~vs~nn:
Fitral Repurl, 131lN Keport 2378, ROIL Bcranck, and Ne wman
JIJ!onnation ~)'stem: filial Report. BBN Report 2378, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman
Inc.. Cambridge, Mass.
Inc., Cambridge. Mass.

Woods, W. A.. ct. al. 1976 Speech understcinditig sjps/enrs:.finolrcchttical progress

Woods, W. A.. et. 31. 1976 Speech understalJding systems: final (('chnical progress
r~porl,'Technical rcport 3435, Bolt. Rcranck, and Ncwman Inc., Cambridge, Ma.
report. Technical report 3438, nOll. Beranek. and Newman Inc., Cambridge, Ma.

Woolf, \I. 1957 A Room of One's Own. Ncw York: Harcourt, Rrace and
Woolf, V. 1957 !1 Room of One's Own. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Jovanovich.
Jovanovich.

Yngvc. V . 1960 ,I ~lrodrlaiid n hy~~othesisfor

larlglrage s~nrrtuwProcccdina of
Yngvc. V. 1960 A model alld a hypothesis!or language structure Proceedings of~
Aincrici~nI'hil0so~liica1 S ~ ~ l i c t104,
y , pp. 444-466.
/lmcriCiln Phl111sophical Society, 104, pp. 444-466.

Index

!letions. 63.78. 84.

In 117-120

focus. 283
283
Actor focus.
52.77,107.108,
110,112-113,
116-117, 118,119, 120-125,127
52.
77.107-108.110,
112-113,116-117,118,119,120-125,127
i111dindirect
indirect speech
spcccll acts,
BC~S,
148-150.155
and
148-150,
155
spcccli acts,
acts, 135-136
135-136
and speech

Agent
Agen~

69. 76,
76. 77.
77. 80
SO
Allernative, 69,
Alternatiye,
meanings and
and logical
logicill foml,
fornl, 43,
43.73-74
meanings
73-74
null alternative,
alteroatire, 135
135
ill planning,
planning. 113.
113. 122,
122.126.128-129,130.
131
in
126.128-129,130.131
Ambiguous paths,
paths. 69.
69.200.201
Amhiguous
200, 201
hnaphor resolution,
resolution. 2(,7-269,
267-269,270-273,331-334
Anaphar
270-273, 331-334
Annphora, bound Yariable,
variable, 314,
314,325
An.phora,
325
Anaphoric
An.phoric reference
and computaiional
101
computational constraints.
constraints. 101
Antecedent, 267,341
267, 341
Assurnablc
132-173, 181,207
Assumable knowledge,
knowledge, 172-173.
AlN,
261. Seealso
ATN,261.
See also LUNAR
LUNAR
Attribute
database.
database. 63-64.65.70.205
63-64,65, 70,205

Backward
ll.ckward anaphora.
anaphora, 316-317
Belief
llelief suucturc,
structure, 149-150
Belief.
176,187,207,291
llelief, 33.75,76,83,111,116-117,167-170,172.
33, 75, 76, 83,111,116-117,167-170,172,176,187,
207,291

Index

Best guess. 193

Binding. 38-40. 50, 51, 60, 102.272, 291, 329
Body
of rule. 118, 121, 123, 124,152

Case frames. 287

CIoscd world 1)atabase. 190
Closed world Database, 190

Co-indexing. 38, 39
Cu-indexing. 38, 39
and communicativc behavior, 27
and communicative behavior, 27
and predication co-indexing, 53-54
and predication co-indexing, 53-54
Co-prescnt discounc foci, 320

Co-specification, 269

Co-spc:cifter, 269
Co-spedfy,269

CODASYL model, 170,177,178,179.194,200,202

CODASYL model, 170, 177,178, 179.194,200,202
Cognitive clcmcnrs, 280
Cognitive clements, 280
Coherent discourse, 272
Coherent discourse, 272
Computational complexity
Computational complexity
Allen system, 76
Allen system, 76
McDonald systcm, 92-100
McDonald system, 92-100
Sidner system. 62-63
Sidner system, 62-63
Wcbbcr system, 46-50
Webber system. 46-50
Computational pragmatics, 170-177
Computational pragmatics, 170177
definition. 171
definition. 171
Conceptual dcpcndcncy, 333
Conceptual dependency, 333

392

393

Conjunction, 170. 194-195, 198

Conjunctintl, 170. 194-195, 198
Conjunction scoping, 194
Conjunction scoping, 194
cxnmple, 194
example, 194
Col~stitucntcommand (c-corn~nand).39
Constituent command (c-command), 39
Context spaces, 273
Context spaces. 273

Co~~vcrsationnl
Maxim ofquantity (Gricc). 175.182, 191
Conversational Maxim of Quantity (Grice), 175,182, 191
Coopcrativc conversation
Cooperative conversation
conventions, 171,172-175
conventions, 171, 172-175
dcfiniiion. 167-168
definition, 167-168
Coopcrativc rcsponsc, 167-171
Cooperative response, 167171
Corrcctivc indircct rcsponsc, 174-175,207
Corrective indirect response, 174-175,207
cotnputation of. 180-183
computation of, 180-183
definition, 174
dcfinition,174
examples OK 181,190,191
examples of, 181, 190, 191

Database ( I N ) schema
Database (DB) schema
in infcrcncing. 194,195.200
in infercncing, 194, 195, 200
as knowledge source, 170,178,201
as knowledge source, 170,178,201
as uscr model, 200
as user model, 200
Ikfinitc anaphora. 170,268,276. 331.337-339
Definite anaphora, 170,268,276, 331,337-339
Definite plural anaphora, 338,361-362,367,370
Definite plural anaphora, 338,361-362.367,370
Definite pronoun anaphora, 332.338
Definite pronoun anaphora, 332, 338
Direct rcsponsc, 168,169,171-174. See also Indirect response
Direct response, 168. 169.171-174. See also Indirect response
Discourse and generative grammar, 30
Discourse and generative grammar, 30

Discourse and mles of inference, 29,76-77,171,176-177,178,180,

Discourse and rules of inference, 29, 76-77, 171. 176-177, 178, 180,
182,189,191,207
182, 189, 191, 207

394

Index

I )iscou rsc
Discourse
crcation of discoursc cntitics, 42-44
creation of discourse entities, 42-44
clcmcots, 280
clements, 280
cntitics. 37, 104,335.280
entities. 37, 104,335.280
focus, 282
focus, 282
fonning descriptions of, 354-363
fonni ng descriptions of, 354-363
gcncric scls, 347
generic selS, 347
liaking of discoursc cnti~ics.50-63
linking of discourse enliLies, 50-63
Discourse model, 280,306,334-336

Iliscoursc rc fcrcnts, 335

Discourse rcfercnlS, 335
Disjoim reference. 305
Disjunction, 198

llomain drivcn infcrcncc, 169,170,176-178

Domain driven inference, 169,170, 176-178
Doinain specific knowledge. 176-178, 181,199-201

Domain transparency, 178,182, 189,191, 199-200.202.207

Domain transparency.l78, 182,189,191,199-200,202,207
Effects
Effects
of agent actions, 111,118
of agent actions, HI, 118

Ellipsis, 170, 188

Ellipsis, 170, 188
Entailment, 173, 182, 191,203

Entity

Entity
database, 178, 179,205
database, 178, 179, 205
discourse, 37,104,336,280
discourse, 37, 104,336,280

Error handling, 169,180-183

Error handling, 169. 180-183
examplcs. 190,191
examples. 190, 191
Expectation. 126

Expectation, 126

F ~ p c c t c dfocus algorithm, 283,286,287

Expected focus algorithm. 283. 286, 287

395

Expected
Expected focus
focus rejection,
rejection, 287
287
Expected
Expcctcd focus,
focus.283
283
Extensional
Extcnsio~ialquestions,
questions.175,
175. 183,200
183.2W
Extensional semantics, 64, 71

Focus,
273,274
Focus,32,
32,273,274
confirmation,
276, 289,299
confirmation,55-56,
55-56,276,289,
299
current
current focus,
focus, 51
51
in
183-185
in suggestive
suggestiveindirect
indirect response,
rcsponse,183-185
it-clefts,
59
it-clefts, 59
movement,
296, 302
movement, 295,
295,296,302
movement,
300
movemcnt, local,
local, 299,
299,300
movemcnt, non-local,
non-local,301
301
movement,
popping,
329
popping. 299,
299.329
potential
potential focus,
focus,52-53
52-53
set,:298
sets;298
space,272
space,272
stack,57-59
57-59
stack,
stress,61-62
61-62
stress,
task
task structure,
structure,63
63
topicali7.ation,
59
topicali7ation,59
tracking,278,303
tracking. 278,303
wh-questions,59,
59,185
wh-questions,
185

Focusingalgorithm,
algorithm,283,
283,291,294
Focusing
291, 294
Focusing,274,275,278,303
274,275,278,303
Focusing,
Forwardco-specifiers,
co-specifiers,315,
315,316
Forward
316
Gencration
Generation
specificationof
ofNoun
Phrase,269
269
specification
Noun Phrase,
Genericset
set
Generic
in
discourse,
337
in discourse, 337

396

Index
Ilclpful bchavinr. 107. 167-172. See also Corrcctivc indircct rcsponse,
Helpful behavior, 107, 167-172. See also Corrective indirect response,
Suggcs~ivcindircct rcsponse
Suggestive indirect response

Hc!pful rcsponscs, 134. SPP01so Suggcsti~cindirect rcsponse

Helpful responses, 134. See also Suggestive indirect response
Highlighted,272

Indcfinitc noun phrascs. 339,340

Indefinite noun phrases, 339,340
lndircct rcfcrencc, 198,205
Indirect reference, 198,205
lndircct rcsponsc, 168-170,171, 177, 184,186,187,206
Indirect response, 168-170, 171, 177, 184,186,187,206
compu~ationof, 174.175, 180-183, 190,191,204
computation of, 174-175, 180-183, 190,191,204
lndircct spccch acts, 34,76,78,82-83 108,109,110,119,144-151, 155-158,
Indirect speech acts, 34,76,78,82-83 108, 109.110. 119.144-151, 155-158,
160
160
Jnfcrcncc. 29.76-77, 169,170, 171,176-178,178, 180, 182.189, 191,207 272,
Inference. 29, 76-77.169,170,171, 176-178,178,180,182,189,191,207272.
277,288,289-291.308

277,288,289-291.308

lnfcrring process. 275,311

Inferring process, 275,311
INFORM, 135,149
INFORM. 135, 149

INFORMIF, 136
INFORMIF, 136

INFORMREF, 136
INFORMREF,136
Inlcnsional language, xxii
Intensional language. xxii

Intentional act, 118

Intentional act, 118

Intentions and discourse, 33,74-75,167-168,170-171, 186,207

Intentions and discourse, 33, 74-75, 167-168. 170-171. 186,207
surface inlcntions, 7
surface intentions., 7
lntcrprctation of possessive pronouns, 307
Interpretation of possessive pronouns, 307
Intcrpreter. 304
Interpreter, 304

397

Invcrtcd fields
Inverted fields
in qucry, 196,204-205
in query, 196,204-205
Is-a verbs, 285

Knowlcdgc nctwork. 277

Knowledge network, 277
Language driven infcrcncc, 172, 176-177,178,180,182,189,207
Language drivcn infcrcncc, 172, 176-177, 178,180,182,189,207
Levcl of infercncing rulcs (The), ]54

1.cxical ambiguity. 190, 191,200

Lexical ambiguity, 190, 191, 200
Lexicon, 169,178,179,189,191, ]94, 195, 199-200,201,205

I.l.(k) (prcdictivc) parser, 92-97

cxamplc. 95-96
example, 95-96
and rcsumptive pronouns, 101-104
and rcsumptivc pronouns, 101-104
in spcccll production, 101
in speech production, 101

U.(k) (predictivc) parscr, 92-97

I-oadcd qucstions, 171,172-174

Loaded questions, 171, 172-174

Logical form (1-F). 31 41.67-68.70

logical fonn (IF), 3141,67-68,70

LUNAR, 188,331-333

LUNAR,188,331-333

Marking focus, 279

Marking focus, 279
Maxim of rclevance, 329-330
Maxim ofrelcvance, 329-330

hlcssagc languagc. 87, 100,226-229

Message language, 87,100,226'229
Message wcll-fomcdncss constraint, 100
Messagc wclHonnedness constraint, ]OQ
and branching stnlcturcs, 100-101
and branching stmeturcs, 100-101
Mcta Query Ianguage (MQL). 64-70,178-180,181-182,183,185,186,189,
Meta Query Language (MQL). 64-70,178-180,181-182,183,185,186,189,

190,191,195

190,191,195

Index

Missing antcccdcnt, 341

Missing antecedent, 341
Mining co-spccificr condition. 316
Missing co-specifier condition. 316
Modifier placcmcnt, 195
Modifier placement, 195
Morphological analysis, 201
Morphological analysis, 201

Movcincnt of fwus. 306

Movement of focus, 306

MQI.. See hlcra Qucry I anguage

MQL See Meta Query Language
Mutual bclicf, 83, 146-148
Mutual belief, 83. 146-148
Ncgarion, 173 192-194,197
Negation, 173 192-194, 197
Ncw informalbn, 186
New information, 186

New mcntion that, 325-326

New mention thai, 325-326
Obstaclc dctcction, 113,132
Obstacle detection, 113, 132
Obstnclcs, 108
Obstnc!es, 108
One anaphora, 332,334,338,364.377
as a cahcsion phcnomcnon, 365
as a cohesion
phenomenon,grammar,
365
in lransfomational
365-366
in transformational grammar, 365-366

Olle anaphora, 332, 334, 338, 364--370

Opcn world Database, 190

Open world Database, 190

Parallel structure, 318

Parallel structure, 318
Paraphrase of qucry input, 178,182
Paraphrase
of query190,191-199,202-206
input, 178,182
cxamplcs,
examples, 190, 191-199,202-206

Parallelism, 318-320,329

Pancr, 92-97.190
Parser, 92-97, 190

398

399

Panin& 92-97.179.190-199
Parsing. 92-97,179, 19(H99
Path finding in databasc. 198-199,200,201
Path finding in database, 198-199,200, 201
Perlocutionary farce. 171,207
Perlocutionary force. 111. 207

PHIdIQA1.176.333
PHLlQAI,176,333
Plan consuuction rules, 124
Plan construction rules. 124

Plan construction, 110.111

Plan construction, 110. 111
Plan in fcrcncc rules. 126

Plan in fcronce rules, 126

Plan inference, 110,112,113,115

Plan inference. 110, 112, 113. 11S

Plan recognition, 112,115

Plan recognition, 112. lIS
Plan, 110,119
Plan, 110, 119

PUNNEIZ, 219.220
PLANNER, 219-220
Planning and discourse, 34,74-83
Planning and discourse. 34. 74-83

Planning rules, 112

Planning roles, 112

Plausible meanin& 198

Plausible meanina. 198

P t u d noun phrase. 339.350-353

Plural noun phrase, 339. 350-353
Portability. of system, 19PXl2
Portability. ofsystem, 199-202

Potential foci 296,SM

Potential foci, 296, lOS
Potential fbcrn &I
Potential focus list. '1!J7

297

Potential focuq 296

Potential focus, 296
Pragmatics, xvii, xix, xx, 167,169,170-172,329,338-339,353
Pragmatics, xvii, xix, xx, 167,169,170-172,329.338-339,353

Preconditions, 111,118
Preconditions, Ill, 118

400

Index

Prcdicatc calculus
Predicateascalculus
a rcprcscntation for natural Ianguagc, 342,348-353
as a representation for natural language, 342,348-353
Prcncx normal fonn, 44-45,46.48,353-354
Prenex normal fonn. 44-45, 46.48, 353-354
Prcscntcd scl178,186, 189
Presented set. 178. 186, 189

Preamption. 173-174,175.177.181-182,185,191.203,207
Prcsumption.
173-174.70-73
17S, 177,181-182,185,191. 203,1J11
in discourse,
in discourSe,70-73
Presupposition, 73,172-174.175.207
73,172-174,175,207

Prcsup~tion,

Rcviws mention that, 326

Previous mention that, 326

Pronwn intcrprctation rules, J05

Pronoun interpretation rules, .lOS
Pronoun interpretation, 304
Pronoun interpretation. 304
Pronouns; ambiguous uscs, 307
Pronouns. ambiguous uses. 307
PSI-KIDNE!, 334
PSI-Kl.oNE, 334
Push-down procesmr. 48-49
Push-down processor, 48-49
Quantification, 194, 197-198,206
Quantification,
194, 197-198,206
rcprcscntation
of', 344-353
representation of, 344-353
Quantifier raising (QR), 45.67.74
Quantifier raising (QR), 45, 67, 74
Quantifier scoping, 31,43-44,342-344, See also Sentcnccs, cornbinatoric
Quantifier
scoping,
fcaturcs
of 31, 43-44, 342-344, See also Sentences, combinatoric
features of
Quantifiers, and discourse, 31,65,354-361
Quantifiers. and discourse, 31, 65, 354-361
Question answering. 107
Question answering. 107
Rating heuristics for inferring plans, 126
Rating heuristics for inferring plans, 126

Recognition of intention, 146,149

Recognition of intention, 146,149

401

R F L 188

RF.L.188

Relational database 33,63,178

Relational database 33. 63. 178

Rclatianal model. 178

Relational model. 178

Repmntation of scope. 309

Representation of scope. 309

RbQUFSI'. 136

REQUFSf. 136

Rcsponsc organiwtion, 180.188-189.194

Response organization, 180,188-189, 194
Rcsponsc set 178,180,181,194,196
Response set, 178,180, 181, 194, 196

Kcstricted quantification, 348

Restricted quantification, 348
Kcsumptivc pronoiins and dimursc, 101-104
Resumptivc pronouns nnd discourse, 101-104

Rule of construal, 42
Rule of construal, 42

Ssuucture (surfacesou~turc),60,61
S-strueture (surface structure). 60. 61

Scope of quantifies, 281

Scope ofquantifiers. 281
SEED (database), 170,202
SEED (database). 170. 202

Semantic ambiguity, 311

Semantic ambisuity. 311
Semantic interpretation, 338
Semantic interpretation. 338
Semantic relatedlless 195
Semantic relatedness. 19S

Semantic selectional restrictions, 271. lOS

Sentence frasmcnl5, 109

ScnScaca
Sentenca
combinatoric f a m m of. 337-339
combinatoric features of. 337-339
Sentential, 286

402

Index

Scrial processing, 304

Serial processing, 304
Shared knowledge, 146, 147
SIIRDLU, 333

Singular noun phricscs, 349-350

Singular noun phrases, 349-350
Skolcm fiinctional dcpcndcncy, 342
Skolem functional dependency, 342
Specification gcncration, 312

Specification generation, 312

Specified Subjcct constraint, 39,51

Specified Subject constraint, 39, 51

Spcci fy, 268

Specify, 268

Spccch ac475-77.108.111 119,135,171

Speech act,
75-77,and
108.dircct
11] 119,
135,acts,
171comparison of, 76,119
indircct
spccch
indirect and direct speech acts, comparison of, 76, 119

Spccch errors, 91.222

Speech ~rrors, 91. 222

Stacked focus constraint, 300,313

Stacked focus constraint. 300, 313
Stacked focus. 299

Stacked fOCUS, 299

Stonewallitl& 168,175
Stonewalling, 168,175
Scrcss, and focus, 6162
Suess. and focus, 61-62

Subjacency, 51

Suggestive i n d i m response, 183-187

Sugestive
indirect response, 183-187
computation
of, 184-185
computation of. 184185
-wks 192
examples, 192, 204
Supportive indirect rrspolucg 187.188
Supportive
indirect respoIUIeS, 187, 188
examples.
1%. XM
examples. 196. 204
Surface linguistic 4 151
Sudace linsulsdc acts. lSI
Surface speech, 161

403

Surfacc structure. See S-structure

Surface structure. See S-structure
Syntiix and semantics
Syntax and semantics
interaction of, 68-70,195
interaction of, 68-70, 195

Syntax-directed translation. 47-49

Syntax-directed translation, 4749
non-si~nplctranslation, 48
non-simple translation, 48
simplc translation, 47
simple translation, 47
'I'hcrnatic positions, 285
Thematic positions, 285
'Ihcme, 284
111cme, 284

This and / h o ~320-327

,
This and Ihat, 320-327
l'r;~nsformationalgrammar, 44-46
Transformational grammar. 44-46
'I'ransportability, 176,187, 199-201
Transportability. 176.187,199-201
Vague rcfcrcnces, 194
Vague references. 194

Vagucncss

Vaguencss
in qucrics, 187-189,190,205-206
in qucries, 187-189, 190.205-206
Vcrb phrase ellipsis, 341
Verb phrase eJJjpsis, 341

VP (Verb Phrasc) deletion and copying, 41

VP (Verb Phrase) deletion and copying, 41

Want precondition, 118

Want precondition,US

Wants. 116
Wants,U6

Word scnse disambiguation

Word sense disambiguation
cxamplc, 191,200
example. In, 200
World knowledge, 167,171-172,176,178,199
World knowlcdge, 167. 171-172, 176,178.199