| { | |
| "paper_id": "C86-1041", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:14:17.237524Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Selkl Akama", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Fujitsu", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "I" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Td. 2-~-19", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "I Masahlto RawamorI Sophia University", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "2 Kieicho", | |
| "settlement": "Chivodaku Tokyo", | |
| "country": "Japan" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Shinyokohama", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "I Masahlto RawamorI Sophia University", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "2 Kieicho", | |
| "settlement": "Chivodaku Tokyo", | |
| "country": "Japan" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Japan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Yokohama", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "I Masahlto RawamorI Sophia University", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "2 Kieicho", | |
| "settlement": "Chivodaku Tokyo", | |
| "country": "Japan" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "This paper gives a formal theory of presupposition using situation semantics developed by Barwise and Perry, We will slightly modify Barwise and Perry's original theory of situation semantics so that we can deal with non-monotonic reasonings which are very important for the formalization of presupposition in natural language. This aspect is closely related to the formalization of incomplete knowledge in artificial intelligence,", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C86-1041", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "This paper gives a formal theory of presupposition using situation semantics developed by Barwise and Perry, We will slightly modify Barwise and Perry's original theory of situation semantics so that we can deal with non-monotonic reasonings which are very important for the formalization of presupposition in natural language. This aspect is closely related to the formalization of incomplete knowledge in artificial intelligence,", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "In constructing a natural language understanding system we face,serious problems in syntax, semantics and pragmatlcs, From a computational point of view, pragmatics especially poses the greatest problem. At present there exists no appropriate theory of pragmatics for natural language. A few approaches proposed so far seem to offer linguistic or computational difficulties in their foundation, for they never give a computational mechanism for pragmatics in an effective way.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In understaqding the meaning of a natural language we use both the knowledge for the language and the so-called world know~", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Most of the inferences used in natural language can be dependent upon the latter. Many researchers, however, have ignored in their formalism this aspect of natural language reasonings.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We believe that a desirable formalism must include two important devices: firstly a representation of world knowledge: secondly, an inference system involved in the world knowledge. The forme,\" has already been realized in many A] systems, while the latter cannot be found in most systems. As for the latter,\" although there are such non-classical systems as non-monotonic logics and fuzzy logic, a more suitable inference system for incomplete knowledge is definitely in need. And linguistic observations have shown that traditional model-theoretic formalisms are inadequate in this respect.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Presupposition is essential In understanding natural language. The possibility of suspending presuppositions of a sentence shows that presupposition has lobe undarstobd as an inference in an incompletely perceived world. Hence constructing a theory of natural language reasonings as presup. position calls for one\" Incorporating non-monotonic reasonings, From such considerations we choose Situation Semantics (henceforth SS) developed by Barwise and Perry (1983) as a basis of our theory. In SS the meaning of a sentence is represented as a relation between the situations in which the sentence is uttered and the situations described by such utterances. We take presuppositions to be information about the described situations consistently restricted by the uttered situations.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 439, | |
| "end": 463, | |
| "text": "Barwise and Perry (1983)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In section Z we review presupposition briefly. The subsequent sections will provide a theoretical foundation for it on the basis of 5S.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Before formalizing pr(~supposition, we shah consider the important question: \"what is a presupposition?\" The answer to this question Is the kev to the construction of a formal theory of presupposition.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2, Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We find in the literature-several definitions of presupposition. For example, many philosophers and linguists assume the definition generally represented as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2, Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(Def 1) A presupposes 8 iff (i) A entails B 00 -A entails B", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2, Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This definition leads the undesired conclusion that B Is a +.autology. Clearly an improved definl'tion is in order. Karttunen (1973) gives the following as an alternative: (IDef 2) A ~tically presupposesB relative tq a set of assumed facts C iff it is riot acceptable to utter A In the context C unless C entails B, This definition says that a presupposition is an entailment of the sentence in a context. Regretablv, nowever, there are no formal definitions for such terms as 'entails', 'relative to', 'context, in the above definition, Gazdar (1979) ,'on the other hand, gives the following definition.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 116, | |
| "end": 132, | |
| "text": "Karttunen (1973)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 538, | |
| "end": 551, | |
| "text": "Gazdar (1979)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2, Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(Def 3) praBmatic presupposition is entailed bv the context in favour of the weaker requirement that they be consistent with the context. There he further gives the fallowing informal definitions of essential terms in the above definition @s follows, (Def 3.1) A sentence A is entailed bv a set of sentence B Just in case A is true in every possible world in which all members of B are true.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2, Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(Def 3.2) A sentence A is consistent with a set of sentences 8 just in case A is true tn some possible world in which all members of B are true. Thus Gazdar's definition crucia}lv depends on the notion of consistency.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2, Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Although llis definition seems to be more plausible than the other definitions based en entailments, as it enables us to accommodate the so-called projection prob!em at ease, yet It is not' entirely free from shortcomings, HIS theory is based on possible-world semantics, which is not quite adequate as a natural language semantics. The Inappropriateness of such a theory is discussed in BarwJse and Perry (1983) , Akama (1986) in detail. From a computational point of view, especially many of its deficiencies can be stated, To say the least possible-world semantics seems to fail to deal with partial information in an effective way, And in theories in this tradition only restricted statements can be derived from its model that is, accessibility relations affect logical structures in the model. Moreover although unrealistic objects may be possible in a model, they are not suitable for a computational paradigm.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 388, | |
| "end": 412, | |
| "text": "BarwJse and Perry (1983)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 415, | |
| "end": 427, | |
| "text": "Akama (1986)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2, Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In computer science Mercer and Relter (1982) formulated presupposition, more or less In Gazdar's spirit, as an inference generated from a pragmatic rule, namely, default rule. Since their formalism ts based on first-order theory, similar shortcomings as in the case of passible-world semantics can be pointed cut. It is, however, interesting to notice its flexlbiiity in the application to knowledge representation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 20, | |
| "end": 44, | |
| "text": "Mercer and Relter (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2, Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "To overcome the above mentioned difficulties in traditional theories, we introduces SS as an underlying theory for presupposition below,", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "2, Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We are concerned in this section with formalizing the notion of presupposition within the framework of SS.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Formal Theory of Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Our theory is a little different than the version presented In Barwise and P(~rrv (1983) or Barwise (1985) , for we Introduce some modifications in the theory so that we can accomodate presupposition in natural language, More specifically, our formalism assumes a non-monotonic relation between events called plausibility orderin9, as opposed to the monotonic 'persistence' relation assumed in Barwise and Perry (198] ). As a consequence, our theory is not only capable of treating presupposition In an elegant way, but is able to deal with default and autoepistemic reasonings as well.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 63, | |
| "end": 88, | |
| "text": "Barwise and P(~rrv (1983)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 92, | |
| "end": 106, | |
| "text": "Barwise (1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 394, | |
| "end": 417, | |
| "text": "Barwise and Perry (198]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Formal Theory of Presupposition", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "|n this section we review briefly some basic points of SS. Here we mainly follow the formalism recently introduced in Barwise (1984 Barwise ( , 1985 rather than the original one in Barwise and Perry (1983) since it is simpler and more comprehensive.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 118, | |
| "end": 131, | |
| "text": "Barwise (1984", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 132, | |
| "end": 148, | |
| "text": "Barwise ( , 1985", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 181, | |
| "end": 205, | |
| "text": "Barwise and Perry (1983)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The most attractive idea of SS is the shift of attention from 'truth conditions to 'information conditions'. $5 can be said to be an attempt at explicating the nature of language focussing on the following two aspects:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) under what conditions a sentence can be used to convey information.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) what information the sentence conveys under those conditions.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A situation S can contain information in virtue of some constraint the holds between types of situations. We denote types of situa.tions as S, S' .... We write s:S If situation s is S, A type of situation S is realized if there is a real situation s such that, s:S, There are three categories of objects across situations: namely, individua.~ denoted as: a, b .... ; relations: r, s .... : and Iocat~ L 1 .... Corresponding to each category, there are purely abstract, sort or dummy. entities called indeterminates that stand proxy for genuine objects. We represent indeterminates by So, $b .... ; $r. $r' .... ; $], $1' .... Anehorin 9 is a function that assigns individuals, relations, and locations to the indeterminates.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "For example, the following is a type of situation where a is in relation R to be b: \" S -($s]ln $s: at $1: R. a, b: 1] where R, a, and b denote some respectively specific relation and individual, and $s and $1 are indeteminates.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Given an anchor that assign 1' to $1, the following can be a real situation where a and b are in the same relation R: in s: at ]' : R, a, b; 1.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A Constraint is a relation holding between types of situation, S -> ~r, we read it as S involves S'. Intuitively this means that if S is realized, that is, there is a real situation s:S, then there is a real situation s' such that s':S'.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Given any constraint and any anchor f for some or all of the parameters in S, the result of replacing the parameters by appropriate values will give rise te an actual constraint.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "To wit, if", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,1 Outline of Situation Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "is actual, then so is", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "S~ S'", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We call the latter an instance of the former, t4ere we can extend the involves relation to a three-place relation as", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "S(f) \u2022 S'(f).", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "S # S'/B", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "S(f) \u2022 S'(f).", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "whhere B is the backcjround conditions on the situations in which constrain(between S and S' holds. Let R be n*l-place relation taking n+l objects al ..... an*l. is realized. ]f $an*l Js an environment constant, that is, it Is fixed in some way, then it only takes n objects and a truth value to determine the same proposition.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "S(f) \u2022 S'(f).", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the above mentioned remark of involves relation, B corresponds to an environment constant. Parametric Information is relative to some assignment to parameters in a type of situation. Barwise (19B~) uses the two distinct terms for 'meaning', namely, situation meaning and situation-type meanin 9, The former is used for talking about the meaning of particular situation, while tile latter Is for the meaning of a certain tvPe of situation. We can identlfv situation meaning with information, so a particular state of affairs has a situation meaning. And understanding 4he situation meaning of particular mental state requires an understanding of the situation-type meaning of that type of state, as it normally functions in the external life of the agent, Here If we take into account a congnitive state of the agent we need two parallel sets of constraints, one on some activity A and the other on cognitive activity about A.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 186, | |
| "end": 200, | |
| "text": "Barwise (19B~)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "S(f) \u2022 S'(f).", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "'~, More formally, let #S, #S' .... be types of situation of the mental state for a fixed agent. Also tile agent is able to construct #0: #S ~ #S', Usually we assume the following diagram of constraints between mental situations and situations, that is,", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "S(f) \u2022 S'(f).", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "S # S' t #S ~ #S'", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "S(f) \u2022 S'(f).", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Here we assume there exists a homomorphJsm F from a collection of types of situation to a collection of corresponding types of situation of mental states, namely there is an F such that F(s) -flS, This generates that an agent can interpret real situations in various ways. Thus involve relation relation between real situations and mental si%uations can be regarded as an inverse of F, namelv F-'(#S) -S. According to the above mentioned definitions we can eostruct some types of situation of mental state in the effective way, If there is no agent, as is the case in a knowledge system, #S is considered as self-referential statement on fie. We think its foundations are more or less cotroversial, ]n SS an inference is an activity that attempts to use facts about the world to extract additional information, information implicit in the facts, A sound inference then is the appropriate chain of information.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "S(f) \u2022 S'(f).", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There are two main features to be taken into account when providing an appropriate definition for presupposition in natural language, One thing is to accommodate a lack of complete information. The other thing is to accommodate the agent's belief context, fhe former is called 'default' and the latter autoepistemic' respectively. Although they appear to be independent of each other in their involvement in presupposition, our formalism is capable of dealing with both of them.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,2. Formalism of Modified SS", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Our modification of SS is mainly concerned with revising the involves relation between situations. As we said at the outset of this chapter, instead of the partial ordering of information, namely, ~.nccA~e assumed in the original version of Barwise and Perry (1983) , we shah introduce the plausibility ordering, -(, satisfying the following conditions:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 241, | |
| "end": 265, | |
| "text": "Barwise and Perry (1983)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,2. Formalism of Modified SS", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) A -{ B implies Ac_B (=_ is an ordinary monotonic relation), (Z) A ~ A (reflexivity), (3) A -( B and B -( C impllies A -C C (transitivitv), Although the exact nature of' the plausibility ordering is rather vague, its intuitive meaning is that any information, whether correct or incorrect in the actual, is of use in the model for SS.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,2. Formalism of Modified SS", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "For instance, we presuppose b y__defau]t in a certain cognitive state towards the world. Presuppositions are appropriate interpretations of information depending on the agent even if it includes both information and misinformation, A 4 -B/C if #A~#B = where A, B denote type of situation of the world and IIA, t/B, types of situation of the agent's mental states relative r.g A, B. In the definil;ion we of course assume the involve relation satisfies'the above mentioned seven conditions. And if there is no agent in the krlowledge sVstem, #A is part of' A since any knowledge base is itself coherent structure in the I~ruth eondition. In such a case presuppositions correspond to the default as loog as we adopt ordinary inference system.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,2. Formalism of Modified SS", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We can formalize va|-ious t~pes ill presuppositions bv making use el' this definition. For example, this definition predicts we can do valid inference from rnJsinformation arid do invalid inference from correct information. The inferences carried out by human being have manv demonstrai:ive characters related to tbe cognitive processes of information of the world. Here we shall regard any information to be used bvtbe agent as a presupposition in a certain context,", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3,2. Formalism of Modified SS", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "I~eehanizing presuppositions in natural language is Lr~e mosl. importanl:, task Fur pragmatics. Fur the sake of partiality or inf'eL'matiun presented in a senLeoce, SS is more suitable than a rllodel-Lheol'etJc selrlaatigs. In eLIr ~,l'eatmeat every information is considered useful tbo~J w(9 dispense with such ae ideal principle as persistence of information.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "I~. Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "We now revise the theory of constraints on the basis of the plausible chain of information introduced above.We assume the following conditions on the modified involves relation:(1) If B is fixed, then if $1 $ S2/B and 62 ~ SS/B then $1 ~ SS/B, It is to be noticed that condition (7) means that certain parametric constraints can affect a truth condition as information increases. In the original approach Jn SS it is nontrivial to represent any nonmonotonicitv in the effective way.We now define presupposition in the framework of SS as below:(Def ~) A ~ B in tile background condition C iff A -) B/C and -A ,~ B/C Jr #An#B }~", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "annex", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Methodology and Verii'ial)ilitV in Montague Grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Akama", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Akama, S.(1986), \"Methodology and Verii'ial)ilitV in Montague Grammar\", to appear in Prec. of COLING 86.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Stanford. Barwise, 3. and Perrv, 3.(198_{), Situations and ALtitudes", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Barwise", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1984, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Barwise, 3.(1984), \"the Sit, uaLion in Lofic h I_ogJc, Meaning arid Informabion\". [:SLI Report 84-2, Sl;anford, .(1985), \"the Situatior~ in Logic If: Conditionals and Conditional klfe['matien', CSi[ Report 85-21, Stanford. Barwise, 3. and Perrv, 3.(198_{), Situations and ALtitudes, Boston: MI f Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Presupposition of Compound Sentence", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "L", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karttumeo", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1973, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "4", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "169--193", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Karttumeo, L.(1973), \"Presupposition of Compound Sentence\", E@tie le_r]#~, 4, 169-193.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "The Representation of Presup--positions Using Default", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "E" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Mercer", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Railer", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Mercer, R.E. and Railer, R,(1982), \"The Representation of Presup-- positions Using Default\", Technical Report 82-1, Department of Computer Science, the University ef British Columbia.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "text": "Suppose parameter-free type S -[$slin $s: R, al ..... an, Sam1; i] (l -0 or 1)", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "uris": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |