Second order inference in natural language semantics

In this paper I look at a number of apparently trivial validinferences (as well as some invalid and missing inferences) associatedwith the possessive construction and with different types ofadjectival modification of nouns. In the case of possessives, allanalyses I know of, whether implemented or n...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Stephen Guy Pulman
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Polish Academy of Sciences 2018-08-01
Series:Journal of Language Modelling
Subjects:
Online Access:https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/185
id doaj-d7605884c54c4fa9a9ec49daaf475706
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d7605884c54c4fa9a9ec49daaf4757062021-02-25T14:50:48ZengPolish Academy of SciencesJournal of Language Modelling2299-856X2299-84702018-08-016110.15398/jlm.v6i1.18574Second order inference in natural language semanticsStephen Guy Pulman0Oxford University In this paper I look at a number of apparently trivial validinferences (as well as some invalid and missing inferences) associatedwith the possessive construction and with different types ofadjectival modification of nouns. In the case of possessives, allanalyses I know of, whether implemented or not, systematicallysanction invalid inferences. In the case of adjectives, there are somemodel-theoretic linguistic analyses that are adequate at a theoretical level, but no satisfactory practical computational implementations that I am aware of which capture the correct inference patterns. A common thread between the possessive and the adjectivalconstructions is that to derive the correct inferences we need secondorder quantification. This is an uncontroversial move withinmodel-theoretic formal semantics but a problem for computationalsemantics, since we have no fully automated theorem provers foranything other than first order logic (and only for subsets of firstorder logic do we have provers that are both fully decidable andefficient). I explore what is needed to provide a proof-theoreticaccount of the relevant inference patterns, and suggest some analysesrequiring second order axioms. In order to make this a practicalcomputational possibility I go on to propose two techniques forapproximating such inferences in a first order setting. The suggestedanalyses have been fully implemented, and in an appendix I provide asmall FraCaS-like corpus of relevant examples, all of which arehandled correctly by the implementation. https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/185computational semanticsinference
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Stephen Guy Pulman
spellingShingle Stephen Guy Pulman
Second order inference in natural language semantics
Journal of Language Modelling
computational semantics
inference
author_facet Stephen Guy Pulman
author_sort Stephen Guy Pulman
title Second order inference in natural language semantics
title_short Second order inference in natural language semantics
title_full Second order inference in natural language semantics
title_fullStr Second order inference in natural language semantics
title_full_unstemmed Second order inference in natural language semantics
title_sort second order inference in natural language semantics
publisher Polish Academy of Sciences
series Journal of Language Modelling
issn 2299-856X
2299-8470
publishDate 2018-08-01
description In this paper I look at a number of apparently trivial validinferences (as well as some invalid and missing inferences) associatedwith the possessive construction and with different types ofadjectival modification of nouns. In the case of possessives, allanalyses I know of, whether implemented or not, systematicallysanction invalid inferences. In the case of adjectives, there are somemodel-theoretic linguistic analyses that are adequate at a theoretical level, but no satisfactory practical computational implementations that I am aware of which capture the correct inference patterns. A common thread between the possessive and the adjectivalconstructions is that to derive the correct inferences we need secondorder quantification. This is an uncontroversial move withinmodel-theoretic formal semantics but a problem for computationalsemantics, since we have no fully automated theorem provers foranything other than first order logic (and only for subsets of firstorder logic do we have provers that are both fully decidable andefficient). I explore what is needed to provide a proof-theoreticaccount of the relevant inference patterns, and suggest some analysesrequiring second order axioms. In order to make this a practicalcomputational possibility I go on to propose two techniques forapproximating such inferences in a first order setting. The suggestedanalyses have been fully implemented, and in an appendix I provide asmall FraCaS-like corpus of relevant examples, all of which arehandled correctly by the implementation.
topic computational semantics
inference
url https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/185
work_keys_str_mv AT stephenguypulman secondorderinferenceinnaturallanguagesemantics
_version_ 1724251456852197376