**Semantics-Pragmatics-Interface for Metonymy Resolution** Josef Meyer-Fujara (FH Stralsund), Hannes Rieser (Uni Bielefeld) Baufix toy airplane used in construction dialogues Reconstructed lf-expression With = ls airplane’(s) Op[Nls airplane’(s)] = [N Op(ls airplane’(s))] = [N Op(airplane’)] = [N lx C (depicts(x,C) y (yC airplane’(y)))] or, e.g. = [N lx u (noise_of(x,u) airplane’(u))] For a = xi (airplane’(xi) ly (=(y,xi)) this’), a possible result of applying Op is Op(a) =xi (C (depicts(xi,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) ly (=(y,xi)) this’) Example sentence This is an airplane. Determining the scope of metonymy by reconstructing false lf-expression via Op Intuition: Op(a) yields readings of a which cannot be derived lexically. For a tree T, Op(T) is defined recursively as the tree that results applying Op to the daughters of T’s root. For every one-place predicate j, Op(j) is either j or an expression j~ which contains j and is applicable to an argument, such as a one-place l-expression. Op(x P) = x Op(P) Etc. Data Corpus of task-oriented dialogues (construction dialogues from SFB 360) LF-Structure of This is an airplane Reconstructed lf-expression S S • Grammar: Syntax (GB-version) • Context-free base • Raising rules • [SX NP Y ] [S NPi [SXeiY ] ], • where NP = [Det Nom] and X and Y cover the rest of the sentence • [S NP INFL X ] [S INFL [S NP X] ] • generate LF • Scope of fragment: • This is an airplane. • Peter believes/knows that this is an airplane. • The airplane is left to the car and/or the car is right to the airplane. • Max gives that airplane to Peter. NP Pred NPi Result of Op-application to lf-structure Det Nom VP S: xi (C (depicts(xi,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) this’ = xi) Vcop NP NPi: lS’ xi (C (depicts(xi,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) S’) S’: ly (=(y,xi)) this’ an airplane this is ei Det: lPlS’ xi (P(xi) S’) N: lu C (depicts(u,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) Pred2: ly (=(y,xi)) NP: this’ VP: ly (=(y,xi)) Det: this’ NP: xi Vcop: = lu C (depicts(u,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) Op airplane’ this’ = xi an’ lf-Structure of This is an airplane S’: x (airplane’(xi) ly (=(y,xi)) this’) • Conversational Implicature (Grice) by Default • Cooperativity Assumption • Two Cases: • Violation of quality maxim • Utterance under lfa is false. • Scope of metonymy: subutterance with lfb: • bM,w,i,c,g avail(c) = • Op(b)M’,w,i,c,g avail(c) • Default: Meaning of subutterance is Op(b)M’,w,i,c,g • Meaning of utterance is Op(a)M’,w,i,c,g • by recursiveness of Op • Violation of relevance maxim, similarly Intensional Semantics Mapping of LF into lf (intensional predicate calculus, IPC) yields expression a Uses possible worlds, time instants, contexts and modal bases NPi: lS’ xi (airplane’(xi) S’) S’: ly (=(y,xi)) this’ Det: lP lS’ xi (P(xi) S’) N: lz airplane’(z) NP: this’ Pred2: ly (=(y,xi)) VP: ly (=(y,xi)) Det: this’ Case 1: Violation of quality maxim b = airplane’ Op(b) = lu C (depicts(u,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) Case 2: Violation of relevance maxim This is not a motorbike said of an airplane model a° = xi (motorbike(xi) ly (xi=y) this’) Op(a°) = xi (C (depicts(xi,C) x (xC motorbike(x))) this’=xi) NP: xi Vcop: = • Models M used: Kaplan models • characterized by • a set of worlds W, and a set of instants I, giving the set of circumstances W I = {<w, i> | wW, iI }, • a context c specifying • sp(c), the speaker in c • ind-ob(c), the indicated objects in c, • avail(c), the set of accessible objects in c • mdb(c), the modal base in c • a valuation function V for IPC • a variable assignment function g an’ airplane’ this’ xi = a = xi (airplane’(xi) ly (=(y,xi)) this’) Metonymical interpretation of false lf-expression by default = Interpretation of reconstructed lf-expression in model M’: Case 1: Violation of quality maxim Op(a)M’,w,i,c,g = 1 Case 2: Violation of relevance maxim Op(a°)M’,w,i,c,g = 1 and non-trivially so Kaplan model M W = {w1, w2}, I = {i1}, W I = {<w1, i1>, <w2, i1>} U = {airplane-model1, airplane1, airplane2, , {airplane1, airplane2}} ind-obj(c) = airplane-model1 avail(c) = {airplane-model1} mdb(c) = {<w1, i1>} V(airplane’)(c)(<w,i>) = {airplane1, airplane2} for all <w,i> W I g(x1) = airplane1, g(C) = , etc. Interpretation in model M (cf ) aM,w,i,c,g = 0 (quality maxim violated) a°M,w,i,c,g = 1 trivially (relevance maxim violated) • Updating information state • with formula Op(a) derived by default and constructing M’ by persistently extending M, especially V • Case of violated quality maxim • Interpretation in model M’: V is extended to include, e.g., depict, noise_of Case of violated quality maxim Interpretation in model M: xi (airplane’(xi) ly (=(y,xi)) this’)M,w,i,c,g = 0 xi (C (depicts(xi,C) x (xC airplane’(x))) this’ = xi) M,w,i,c,g = 1 depict as = Real-world airplanes Real-world airplanes avail(c) avail(c) Op Contact josef.meyer-fujara@fh-stralsund.de hannes.rieser@uni-bielefeld.de .ppt-File downloadable from www.sfb360.uni-bielefeld.de and www.user.fh-stralsund.de/~jmeyer References Chierchia, G. & McConnell-Ginet S. (2000) (2nd ed.). Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press Grice, P. H. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harv. Univ. Press Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press Meyer-Fujara, J. & Rieser, H. (2003). A General Framework for Metonymy Resolution. Report of SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld, to appear Meyer-Fujara, J. & Rieser, H. (1999). Zur Semantik von Repräsentationsrelationen II. Report 1999/01 of SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld Rieser, H. & Meyer-Fujara, J. (eds.) (2000). BI-Metonymy 6th to 8th of October, 2000, Proceedings, Report 2000/01 of SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld Rieser, H. & Meyer-Fujara, J. (1997). Zur Semantik von Repräsentationsrelationen I. Report 1997/07 of SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld SFB 360 (eds.): o. J., Wir bauen jetzt also ein Flugzeug. Konstruieren im Dialog. Arbeitsmaterialien Interaktion sprachlicher und visueller Informationsverarbeitung. SFB 360, Univ. Bielefeld