1988 InterpretationAsAbduction

(Hobbs et al., 1988) ⇒ Jerry R. Hobbs, Mark Stickel, Paul Martin, and Douglas Edwards. (1988). “Interpretation As Abduction.” In: Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.3115/982023.982035

Subject Headings: Language Interpretation; Abduction

Notes

Cited By

Quotes

Abstract

An approach to abductive inference developed in the TACITUS project has resulted in a dramatic simplification of how the problem of interpreting texts is conceptualized. Its use in solving the local pragmatics problems of reference, compound nominals, syntactic ambiguity, and metonymy is described and illustrated. It also suggests an elegant and thorough integration of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

1. Introduction

Abductive inference is inference to the best explanation. The process of interpreting sentences in discourse can be viewed as the process of providing the best explanation of why the sentences would be true. In the TACITUS Project at SRI, we have developed a scheme for abductive inference that yields a significant simplification in the description of such interpretation processes and a significant extension of the range of phenomena that can be captured. It has been implemented in the TACITUS System (Stickel, 1982; Hobbs, 1986; Hobbs and Martin, 1987) and has been and is being used to solve a variety of interpretation problems in casualty reports, which are messages about breakdowns in machinery, as well as in other texts. ^[1]

It is well-known that people understand discourse so well because they know so much. Accordingly, the aim of the TACITUS Project has been to investigate how knowledge is used in the interpretation of discourse. This has involved building a large knowledge base of commonsense and domain knowledge (see Hobbs et al., 1986), and developing procedures for using this knowledge for the interpretation of discourse. In the latter effort, we have concentrated on problems in local pragmatics, specifically, the problems of reference resolution, the interpretation of compound nominals, the resolution of some kinds of syntactic ambiguity, and metonymy resolution. Our approach to these problems is the focus of this paper.

In the framework we have developed, what the interpretation of a sentence is can be described very concisely:

To interpret a sentence:

(1) Derive the logical form of the sentence,
        together with the constraints that predicates
             impose on their arguments,
        allowing for coercions,
    Merging redundancies where possible,
    Making assumptions where necessary.

By the first line we mean " derive in the logical sense, or prove from the predicate calculus axioms in the “knowledge base, the logical form that has been produced by syntactic analysis and semantic translation of the sentence. “

In a discourse situation, the speaker and hearer both have their sets of private beliefs, and there is a large overlapping set of mutual beliefs. An utterance stands with one foot in mutual belief and one foot in the speaker's private beliefs. It is a bid to extend the area of mutual belief to include some private beliefs of the speaker's. It is anchored referentially in mutual belief, and when we derive the logical form and the constraints, we are recognizing this referential anchor. This is the given information, the definite, the presupposed. Where it is necessary to make assumptions, the information comes from the speaker's private beliefs, and hence is the new information, the indefinite, the asserted. Merging redundancies is a way of getting a minimal, and hence a best, interpretation. ^[2]

In Section 2 of this paper, we justify the first clause of the above characterization by showing that solving local pragmatics problems is equivalent to proving the logical form plus the constraints. In Section 3, we justify the last two clauses by describing our scheme of abductive inference. In Section 4 we provide several examples. In Section 5 we describe briefly the type hierarchy that is essential for making abduction work. In Section 6 we discuss future directions.

References

1. John Bear, Jerry R. Hobbs, Localizing Expression of Ambiguity, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, February 09-12, 1988, Austin, Texas doi:10.3115/974235.974278
2. Charniak, Eugene, 1986. “A Neat Theory of Marker Passing", Proceedings, AAAI-86, Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Pp. 584--588.
3. Herbert H. Clark, Bridging, Proceedings of the 1975 Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, June 10-13, 1975, Cambridge, Massachusetts doi:10.3115/980190.980237
4. Philip T. Cox, Tomasz Pietrzykowski, Causes for Events: Their Computation and Applications, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automated Deduction, p.608-621, July 27-August 01, 1986
5. Downing, Pamela, 1977. “On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns", Language, Vol. 53, No. 4, Pp. 810--842.
6. Jerry R. Hobbs, An Improper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, June 15-17, 1983, Cambridge, Massachusetts doi:10.3115/981311.981322
7. Jerry R. Hobbs, Ontological Promiscuity, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, p.60-69, July 08-12, 1985, Chicago, Illinois doi:10.3115/981210.981218
8. Hobbs, Jerry R., 1985b, "The Logical Notation: Ontological Promiscuity", Manuscript.
9. Hobbs, Jerry (1986) "Overview of the TACITUS Project", CL, Vol. 12, No. 3.
10. Jerry R. Hobbs, William Croft, Todd Davies, Douglas Edwards, Kenneth Laws, Commonsense Metaphysics and Lexical Semantics, Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, p.231-240, July 10-13, 1986, New York, New York doi:10.3115/981131.981163
11. Hobbs, Jerry R., and Paul Martin 1987. “Local Pragmatics". Proceedings, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pp. 520--523. Milano, Italy, August 1987.
12. Joos, Martin, 1972. “Semantic Axiom Number One", Language, Pp. 257--265.
13. Kowalski, Robert, 1980. The Logic of Problem Sohing, North Holland, New York.
14. Levi, Judith, 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals, Academic Press, New York.
15. Norvig, Peter, 1987. “Inference in Text Understanding", Proceedings, AAAI-87, Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington, July 1987.
16. Nunberg, Geoffery, 1978. “The Pragmatics of Reference", Ph.D. Thesis, City University of New York, New York.
17. Martha E. Pollack, Fernando C. N. Pereira, An Integrated Framework for Semantic and Pragmatic Interpretation, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, p.75-86, June 07-10, 1988, Buffalo, New York doi:10.3115/982023.982033
18. Fernando C. N. Pereira, David H. D. Warren, Parsing As Deduction, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, June 15-17, 1983, Cambridge, Massachusetts doi:10.3115/981311.981338
19. Pople, Harry E., Jr., 1973, "On the Mechanization of Abductive Logic", Proceedings, Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pp. 147--152, Stanford, California, August 1973.
20. Stickel, Mark E., 1982. “A Nonclausal Connection-Graph Theorem-Proving Program", Proceedings, AAAI-82 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Pp. 229-233.
21. Stickel, Mark E., 1988. “A Prolog-like Inference System for Computing Minimum-Cost Abductive Explanations in Natural-Language Interpretation", Forthcoming.
22. Thagard, Paul R., 1978. “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice", The Journal of Philosophy, Pp. 76--92.
23. Wilks, Yorick, 1972. Grammar, Meaning, and the Machine Analysis of Language, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

;

	Author	volume	Date Value	title	type	journal	titleUrl	doi	note	year
1988 InterpretationAsAbduction	Jerry R. Hobbs Mark Stickel Paul Martin Douglas Edwards			Interpretation As Abduction				10.3115/982023.982035		1988

↑ Charniak (1986) and Norvig (1987) have also applied abductive inference technique s to discoume interpretation.
↑ Interpreting indirect speech acts, such as "It's cold in here," meaning “Close the window," is not a counterexample to the principle that the minimal interpretation is the best interpretation, but rather can be seen as a matter of achieving the minimal interpretation coherent with the interests of the speaker.

[1] Charniak (1986) and Norvig (1987) have also applied abductive inference technique s to discoume interpretation.

[2] Interpreting indirect speech acts, such as "It's cold in here," meaning “Close the window," is not a counterexample to the principle that the minimal interpretation is the best interpretation, but rather can be seen as a matter of achieving the minimal interpretation coherent with the interests of the speaker.

[1]

[2]