Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling generalized implicatures using non-monotonic logics

  • Orginal Article
  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports on an approach to model generalized implicatures using nonmonotonic logics. The approach, called compositional, is based on the idea of compositional semantics, where the implicatures carried by a sentence are constructed from the implicatures carried by its constituents, but it also includes some aspects nonmonotonic logics in order to model the defeasibility of generalized implicatures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan, K. (1999). The lexicon and quantity implicatures. In Proceedings of the 1999 conference of the Australian linguistic society.

  • Allen J. (1984). Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence 23, 123-154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atlas J.D., Levinson S.C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics. In: Cole P. (eds) Radical pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, pp 1-57

    Google Scholar 

  • Besnard, P. (1989). An introduction to default logic. Springer-Verlag.

  • Carston R. (1995). Quantity maxims and generalized implicature. Lingua 96, 213-244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications. pp. 179–236. John Benjamins.

  • Chierchia, G. (2002). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/ interface. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Milan Bicocca.

  • Cooper R. (1983). Quantification and syntactic theory. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale R., Reiter E. (1995). Computational interpretations of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science 19(2): 233-263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty D.R., Wall R.E., Peters S. (1981). Introduction to Montague semantics, Vol. 11 of Syntese Language Library. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Etherington D.W. (1988). Reasoning with incomplete information. Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardenfors P. (eds) (1987). Generalized quantifiers: Linguistic and logical approaches. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasso, E., Lesmo, L., Lombardo, V., Macario, P.M., Salato, R., & Terenazi, P. (1990). Semantic interpretation of tense, actionality and aspect. In Proceedings of the 9th European conference on artificial intelligence. pp. 320–325.

  • Green, N. L., & Carberry, S. (1994). A hybrid reasoning model for indirect answers. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirty-second meeting of the association for computational linguistics. pp. 58–65. San Francisco.

  • Grice H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: Cole P., Morgan J. L. (eds) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnish R. M.(1976). Logical form and implicature. In: Bever T., Katz J., Langendoen T. (eds) An integrated theory of linguistic ability. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, pp 313-392

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J. B. (1985). A theory of scalar implicatures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Also published as Technical Report MS-CIS-85-56, LINC LAB 21, Department of Computer and Information Sciences.

  • Hobbs, J. R. (1985). Ontological promiscuity. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of the ACL. pp.~61–69.

  • Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.

  • Horn, L. R. (1984). Towards a new taxonomy of pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures. In Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications.

  • Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (1991). Discourse relations and defeasible knowledge. In Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. pp. 55–62.

  • Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.

  • Lifschitz, V. (1985). Computing circumscription. In Proceedings of the ninth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. pp. 121–127.

  • Lifschitz, V. (1986). Pointwise circumscription: Preliminary report. In Proceedings American Association for Artificial Intelligence. pp. 406–410. Philadelphia, PA.

  • Lyons, D., & Hirst, G. (1990). A frame-based semantics for focusing subjuncts. In Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting, association for computational linguistics. pp. 54–61.

  • Marcu, D., & Hirst, G. (1996). A formal and computational characterization of pragmatic infelicities. In Proceedings of the twelfth European conference on artificial intelligence. pp. 587–591.

  • McCarthy J. (1980). Circumscription—a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 27-39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy J. (1986). Applications of circumscription to formalizing common-sense reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 28, 89-116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, R. E. (1988). Using default logic to derive natural language presuppositions. In Proceedings of the seventh biennial conference of the Canadian society for computational studies of intelligence. pp. 14–21.

  • Montague R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantifiers in ordinary English. In: Hintikka J., Moravcsik J., Suppes P. (eds) Approaches to natural language. D. Reidel, Dordrecht Holland, pp 221-242

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberlander, J., & Lascarides, A. (1992). Preventing false temporal implicatures: interactive defaults for text generation. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on computational linguistics. pp. 721–727.

  • Pereira, F. C. N., & Shieber, S. M. (1987). Prolog and natural-language analysis. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. CSLI Lecture Notes Number 10.

  • Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1987). Information-based syntax and semantics. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. CSLI Lecture Notes Number 13.

  • Reiter R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81-132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, E. (1990). The computational complexity of avoiding conversational implicatures. In 28th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. pp. 97–104.

  • Rooth M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75-116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooy, R. (2003). Conversational implicatures and communication theory. In J. van Kuppevelt, & R. Smith (Eds.), Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue. Kluwer.

  • Sauerland, U. (2001). On the computation of conversational implicatures. In Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 11th annual meeting.

  • Sauerland U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 367-391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shieber S. M. (1986). An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, R. H. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Chapt. 16, pp. 325–364.

  • van Rooy, R. (2002). Relevance implicatures. http://staff.science.uva.nl/~vanrooy/papers.html.

  • Wainer, J. (1991). Uses of nonmonotonic logic in natural language understanding: Generalized implicatures. Technical Report CS-91-17, Penn State University. Department of Computer Science, University Park, PA 16802.

  • Wainer, J. (1993). Epistemic extension of propositional preference logics. In Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference on artificial intelligence. pp. 382–387.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Computação, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Caixa Postal 6176, Campinas, SP, 13083-970, Brazil

    Jacques Wainer

Authors
  1. Jacques Wainer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacques Wainer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wainer, J. Modeling generalized implicatures using non-monotonic logics. JoLLI 16, 195–216 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-006-9025-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-006-9025-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation