File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/88/p88-1004_metho.xml
Size: 40,286 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:12:11
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="P88-1004"> <Title>THE INTERPRETATION OF RELATIONAL NOUNS</Title> <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> THE INTERPRETATION OF RELATIONAL NOUNS </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Joe de Bruin&quot; and Remko Scha</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> BBN Laboratories 10 Mouiton Street Cambridge, MA 02238, USA ABSTRACT </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> This paper 1 decdbes a computational treatment of the semantics of relational nouns. It covers relational nouns such as &quot;sister.and &quot;commander; and focuses especially on a particular subcategory of them, called function nouns ('speed; &quot;distance', &quot;rating'). Relational nouns are usually viewed as either requiring non-compositional semantic interpretation, or causing an undesirable proliferation of syntactic rules. In contrast to this, we present a treatment which is both syntactically uniform and semantically compositional.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The core ideas of this treatment are: (1) The recognition of different levels of semantic analysis; in particular, the distinction between an English-oriented and a domain-oriented level of meaning representation. (2) The analysis of relational nouns as denoting relation-extensions.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> The paper shows how this approach handles a variety of linguistic constructions involving relational nouns. The treatment presented here has been implemented in BBN's Spoken Language System, an experimental spoken language interface to a database/graphics system.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 1 RELATIONAL NOUNS AND THEIR DENOTATIONS </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> When Jean Piaget faced his nine year old subject Hal with the question ~/Vhat's a brother?; the answer was: &quot;When there's a boy and another boy, when there are two of them.&quot; And, with a greater degree of formal precision, ten year old Bern replied to the same question: &quot;,4 brother is a relation, one brother to another. &quot;\[2\] \[8\] What these children are beginning to be able to articulate is that there is something wrong with the experimenter's question as it is posed: it talks about &quot;brothers&quot; as if they constituted a natural kin d, as if there is a way of looking at an individual to find out whether he is a brother. But &quot;brother&quot; is normally not used that way - a property which it shares with words like &quot;co-author; &quot;commander', &quot;speed', &quot;distance', and &quot;rating'.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Nouns of this sort are called relational nouns. As</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="25" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> Amsterdam, The Nathedands. </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> we shall see in a moment, their semantic properties differ significantly from those of other nouns, so that the standard treatments of nominal semantics don't apply to them. The problem of the semantic interpretation of relational nouns constitutes the topic of this paper. We shall argue that this problem is indeed a semantic one, and should preferably not be treated in the syntax. The semantic treatment that we present uses a multilevel semantics framework, and is based on the idea of assigning relation extensions as denotations to relational nouns.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Relational nouns are semantically unsaturated.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> They are normally used in combination with an implicit or explicit argument: &quot;John's brother.. The argument of a relational noun, if overtly realized in the sentence, is connected to the noun by means of a relationdenoting lexical element: the verb &quot;have&quot; or one of its semantic equivalents (the geni~ve and the prepositions &quot;of&quot; and &quot;with): &quot;John has a sister', &quot;John's sister; &quot;a sister of John's; &quot;a boy with a sister&quot; It has been noted that these lexical items interact differently with relational nouns than they do with other nouns.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> \[7\] Compare, for instance, the noun &quot;car&quot; in (1)/(labcd) with the relational noun &quot;brother&quot; in the parallel sentences (2)/(2abcd): (1) entails (labcd), but the corresponding (2) does not entail (2abcd).2 (1) &quot;John's cars are wrecks.&quot; (la) &quot;Some wrecks of John's are cars.&quot; ( l b) &quot;Some wrecks are John's.&quot; (1 c) &quot;Some ca~ are John &quot;S. &quot; ( l d) &quot;John has wrecks.&quot; (2) &quot;John's brothers are punks.&quot; #(2a) &quot;Some punks of John's are brothers.&quot; #(2b) &quot;Some punks are John's.&quot; #(2c) &quot;Some brothers are John's.&quot; #(2d) &quot;John has punks.&quot; A particular subcategory of the relational nouns, that we shall consider in some detail, is constituted by the function nouns; they are semantically distinct in that for every argument they refer to exactly one entity, which is an element of a linear ordering: a hum-ZWe refrain from saying that (2abod) are ungrammatical. Because of the semantic open-endedness of &quot;have&quot; and the genitivQ, these sentences can certainly be wellformod and meaningful, if uttored in an appropriate context. The issue at stake is that the inteqDreta~on whic~ is the saJient one for the genitive in (2) is not avaUable for the C/ommponciing elements in (2abcd). Sentences displaying this property have been marked with the #-sign (rathor than the ungrammoticality-aotorisk) in this paper.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> bet, an amount, or a grade. Examples are &quot;length&quot;, &quot;speed', &quot;distance&quot;, &quot;rating&quot;. Function nouns can be used in constructions which exclude other nouns, relational as well as non-relational. Compare, for instance: null (3) &quot;The USS Frederick has a speed of 15 knots.&quot; #(3a) &quot;John has a car of ~is wreck.&quot; #(3b) &quot;John has a brolher of Peter.&quot; The examples above show that there are significant semantic differences between phrases connecting relational nouns to their functions/values, and the corresponding, similarly structured phrases built around other nouns. This suggests that the standard treatment of ordinary nouns cannot be applied directly to relational nouns and yield correct results. To conclude this introductory section, we investigate this issue in a little more detail.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> Assume a semantic framework with the following, not very unusual, features. Nouns are analyzed as set-denoting constants; concomitantly, adjectives are analyzed as one-place predicates, prepositions as two-place predicates, verbs as n-place predicates.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Plural noun phrases with &quot;the&quot; or a possessive denote sets which have the same semantic type as the noun around which they are built: &quot;John's cars&quot; denotes a particular set of cars. In this approach, the representation of the noun phrase &quot;Peter's s/stern'would be: {x * SISTERS / POSSESS(PETER, x)}, where SISTERS denotes the set of persons who are a sister, and POSSESS represents the possessive relation indicated by the genitive construction.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> Now this expression does not have the right properties. It lacks necessary information: the predicate ~ x: POSSESS(PETER, x)) applies to elements of the extension of SISTERS; it cannot take into account how this extension was defined. For instance, if in a pa~cular world the set of sisters is co-extensional with the set of coauthors, the approach just outlined would incorrectly assign to &quot;Peter's sisters&quot; the same denotation as to &quot;Peter's co-aulhors&quot;.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> It is clear what the source of the problem is: the semantic representations for relational nouns considered above denote simple sets of individuals, and do not contain any information about the relation involved. To salvage a uniform compositional treatment, a richer representation is needed. One might think of invoking Montague's individual concepts \[3\] \[6\], or enriching one's ontology with qua-individuals (distinguishing between Mary qua sister and Mary qua aunt) \[4\]. In section 4 we will present our solution to this problem. First, we discuss why we didn't choose for a more syntactically oriented approach.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="25" end_page="26" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 2 AGAINST SYNTACTIC TREATMENTS </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Often, the complexities mentioned above are taken to require a distinction between intransitive common nouns and transitive common nouns in the syntax, with a concommittant proliferation of syntactic rules. Instead, we have chosen to extend a treatment of &quot;ordinary&quot; nouns only at the semantic processing stage. We shall now indicate some of the reasons for this choice.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Relational nouns are semantically dependent on an argument. In this respect, they are more reminiscent of verbs than ot standard nouns like &quot;boy&quot; or &quot;chair'. Most verbs of English have one or more argument places that must be filled for the verb to be used in a syntactically/semantically felicitous way; this property of verbs is probably an important reason for the persisting tendency to analyze them as n-place predicates rather than sets of situations. The semantic similarity between relational nouns and verbs has given rise to treatments which model the syntactic treatment of nouns on the treatment of verbs: one introduces lexical subcategories for nouns which indicate how many arguments they take and how these arguments are marked; the syntactic rules combine N-bara or noun-phrases with genitive phrases and preposition-phrases, taking these subcategorizations into account. \[15\] We will now argue, however, that from a syntactic point of view such a move is unattracfive. null Syntactically, relational nouns do not behave very differentJy from &quot;ordinary&quot; nouns. They combine with adjectives, determiners, preposition phrases and relafive clauses to form noun phrases with a standard X-bar structure; and the noun phrases thus constituted can pa~cipate in all sentence-level structures that other noun phrases partake in.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Also, no nouns have syntactic properties that would be analogous to the sentenco-levei phenomenon of a verb obligatorily taking one or more arguments. The overt realization of the arguments of a &quot;transitive noun&quot; is always optional.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Finally, we may note that relational nouns can be connected to their arguments/values by a variety of verbs and prepositions, which constitute a semantic complex that is also used, with exactly the same structure but with a different meaning, to operate on non-relational nouns. Compare, for instance: &quot;The Chevrolet of Dr. Johnson&quot; / &quot;The speed of Frederick&quot; &quot;Dr. Johnson's Chevrolet&quot; / &quot;Frederick's speed ~ &quot;The Chevrolet that Dr. Johnson has&quot; / &quot;The speed that Frederick has&quot; &quot;Dr. Johnson acquired a rusty Chevrolet&quot; / &quot;Frederick acquired a formidable speed&quot; &quot;A philosopher with a rusty Chevrolet&quot; / &quot;,4 ship wi~ a formidable speed&quot; The same set of terms is used in English for the ownership relation, for the part-whole relation, and for the relation between a function and its argument.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> These terms (like &quot;of', &quot;have&quot; and &quot;with&quot; ) are highly polysemous, and any language processing system must encompass mechanisms for disambiguating their intended meaning in any particular utterance.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> To summarize: relational nouns do not distinguish themselves syntactically from other nouns, and they mark their function-argument structures by means of polysemous descriptive terms. We therefore conclude that it would be theoretically elegant as well as computationaily effective to treat relational and non-relational nouns identically at the syntactic level, and to account for the semantics of relational noun constructions by exploiting independently motivated disambiguation mechanisms. The remainder of this paper describes such a treatment.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> First, Section 3 discusses the multilevel semantics architecture which constitutes the framework for our approach. Section 4 presents our answer to a basic question about relational nouns: what should their denotations be? This section then goes on to describe the semantic transformations which derive the desired analyses of constructions involving relational nouns. Section 5 briefly discusses the interface with a Discourse Model, which is necessary to recover arguments of a relation that are left implicit in an utterance. Section 6 shows that our treatment is useful for the purpose of response-formulation in questionanswering. null</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="26" end_page="26" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 MULTILEVEL SEMANTICS. </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Our approach to the problem of relation~d nouns is based on the idea of multilevel semantics, the distinction between different levels of semantic analysis.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> \[1\] \[10\] In this approach, interpreting a natural language sentence is a multi-stage process, which starts out with a high-level meaning representation which reflects the semantic structure of the English sentence rather directly, and then applies translation rules which specify how the English-oriented semantic primitives relate to the ones that are used at deeper levels of analysis.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> At every level of analysis, the meaning of an input utterance is represented as an expression of a logical language. 3 The languages used at the various levels of analysis differ in that at every level the descriptive constants are chosen so as to correspond to the semantic primitives which are assumed at that level.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> At the highest semantic level, the meaning of an input utterance is represented as an expression of the Eng/ish-oriented Formal Language (EFL). The constants of EFL correspond to the descriptive terms of 3BBN's Siren Language System uses a higher-o~er intensienel logic hased on Church's iaffC.3~Pcak:ulus, comDining fe~oJre6 from PHLIQA's logical language \[5\] with Montague'$ Intensionel Logic \[6\].</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> English. A feature of EFL which is both unusual and important, is the fact that descriptive constants are allowed to be ambiguous. Within each syntactic catsgory, every word is represented in EFL by a single descriptive constant, no matter how many senses the word may have. An EFL expression can thus be seen as an expression schema, where every constant can be expanded out in a possibly large number of different ways. (See \[5\] for details on the model theory of such a logic.) The ambiguity of EFL follows from its domainindependence. All descriptive words of a language are polysernous, and only when used in the context of a particular subject domain do they acquire a single precise meaning - a meaning which cannot be articulated independently of that subject domain. Even within one subject domain, many words have a range of different meanings. Joint representations for such sets of possible expansions are computationaJly advantageous; and when the range of possibilities is defined in an open-ended way, they are even necessary. Such cases occur when we attempt to account for the interpretation of metonymy, metaphor and nominal compounds \[12\], or the interpretation of multilevel plural noun phrases \[11\].</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> The logical language used at the domain-dependent level of representation is called the World Mode/Language (WML). This is an unambiguous language, with an ordinary model-theoretic interpretation. Its constants are chosen to correspond to the concepts which cons~tute the domain of discourse. 4 We can illustrate the distinction between EFL and WML by means of an example involving relational noiJns. Compare (4) and (5) below. Sentence (4) will usually be translated into something like (4a): s (4) &quot;John has a house in Hawaii.&quot; (4a) 3 he {he HOUSES/IN(h,HAWAII)}: HA VE(JOHN, h) Now consider (5) instead; a single-level architecture would have to analyse this sentence as (5b) rather than (Sa), since (5b) is the representation one would prefer to end up with.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> (5) &quot;Frederick has a speed of 15 knots.&quot;</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> 4To provide a smooth interface with underlying application systems, there is a third level of semantic interpretation. The language used at this level is called the Data Base Language (DBL). Its constants stand for the fites and attributes of the _,~tP _t'.,~e_ \[o be accessed, and the avaiiable graphics system opemUons and their parameters.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> SAccommoda~ng discourse anaphore may motivate a different treatment of the indefinite noun phrase, repre~mting its semantics by a Skelem-constant or a similer device, rather than by the traditional existential quantifier. For the present discussion we may ignore this issue.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> 2? (Sb) F-SPEED(FREDERICK). amount(15, KNOTS) In a multilevel semantics architecture, however, one would prefer to maintain a completely uniform first stage in the semantic interpretation process, where (5) would be treated exactly as (4), and therefore be analyzed as (5a). By applying appropriate EFL-to-WML translation rules, the EFL expression (5a) would then be transformed into the WML expression (5b).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> Taking natural language at semantic face value thus simplifies the process of creating an initial meaning representation. The remaining question then is, whether one can in fact write EFL-to-WML translation rules which yield the desired results. This is the question we will come back to in section 4. In the remainder of the present section, we first give some more detail on the general properties of the translation rules and the logical languages.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> The interpretive rules which map syntactic structures onto EFL expressions are compositional, i.e., they correspond in a direct way to the syntactic rules which define the legal input strings. There is a methodological reason for this emphasis on compositionality: it makes it possible to guarantee that all possible combinations between syntactic rules are in fact covered by the interpretive rules, and to minimize surprises about the way the rules interact. Similar considerations apply when we think about the definition of the EFL-to-WML translation: we wish to guarantee that the WML translations of every EFL expression are defined in an effectively computable way, and that the different rules which together specify the translation interact in a predictable lashion. This is achieved by specifying the EFL-to-WML translation using strictly Ioca/rules: rules operating only on constants, which specify for every EFt. conslant the WML expressions that it translates into.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> Translation by means of local rules, which expand constants into complex expressions, tends to create fairly large and complicated formulas. The result of the EFL-to-WML translation is therefore processed by a logical simplification module; this keeps formulas from becoming too unwieldy to handle and impossible to evaluate.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> Local rules by themselves do not specify what combinations between them will lead to legitimate results. Since the rules can be applied independently of each other, we need a separate mechanism for checking the meaningfulness of their combined operalion. This mechanism is the semantic type system.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> EFL, WML and DBL are typed languages. This means that for every expression of these languages, a semantic type is defined. The denotation of an expression is guaranteed to be a member of the set denoted by its type. In WML, for instance, FREDERICK has the type SHIPS which denotes the set of all ships; GUAM and INDIAN-OCEAN have the type LOCATIONS which denotes the set of all locations; CARRIERS and SHIPS both have the type SETS(SHIPS) which denotes the powerset of the set of all ships; F-SPEED has the type FUNC TIONS(U(SHIPS, PLANES, LAND-VEHICLES), AMOUNTS(SPEED.UNITS)), which denotes the set of functions whose domain is the union of the sets of ships, of planes and of land vehicles, and whose range is the set of amountexpressions whose units are members of the set of speed-units.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> Given the types of the constants occurring in it, the type of a complex expression is determined by formal rules. For instance, the expression F-SPEED(FREDERICK) would have the type AMOUNTS(SPEED-UNITS). The rules which define the types of complex expressions also define when an expression does not have a legitimate type, and is therefore not considered to be a bona fide member of the language. For instance, F-SPEED(GUAM) does not have a legitimate type, because the typecomputation rule for function-application expressions requires that the type of the argument not be disjoint with the domain of the function.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> The semantic type constraints make it possible to express the possible interpretations of ambiguous EFL constants by means of local translation rules, without running the danger of creadng spurious nonsensical combinations. For instance, if &quot;Guam&quot; were the name of a ship as well as the name of a location, there could be one EFL constant GUAM.EFL with two WML-expansions: GUAM-LOC with type LOCATIONS and GUAM-SHIP with type SHIPS. Applying the EFL-to-WML rules to F-SPEED(GUAM-EFL) would nevertheless yield only one result, since the other combination would be deemed illegitimate.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> In the next section we show how relational noun denotations and EFL-to-WML translations may be chosen in such a way that sentences involving relational nouns after an initially uniform treatment end up with plausible truth conditions - so that, for instance, (5) above can be initially analyzed as (5a) and then translated into (5b) in a principled way.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="26" end_page="30" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4 MULTILEVEL SEMANTICS FOR RELATIONAL NOUNS </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The treatment we propose is based on a simple, yet powerful idea: analyse a relational noun as denoting the extension of the corresponding relation R (i.e., the set of pairs <x,y> such that R(x,y)), and allow predicates to apply not only to individuals but also to such pairs. 6 As an example, consider again the phrase &quot;Peter's sisters.&quot; that we discussed in section 1 above, in the treatment we propose, this phrase would get the EFL analysis (6a).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> eTerminoiogy: We assume directed relation~ If <x.y> is a pair in a relation-extension, we call x the argument and y the value. (6) &quot;Peter's sisters&quot; (6a) {x ~ R-SISTER / POSSESS(PETER,x)}, where R-SISTER, with the type 7 U(MALES, FEMALES) X FEMALES, denotes the extension of the sister-relation, and where POSSESS has as one of its types:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> for (6) by applying the translation rule: POSSESS ,,> ('A. u,v: u =v\[l\]) where u has type THINGS and v has type THINGS X THINGS. Applying this rule to (6a) yields after Thus, we see that by allowing the semantic translation of &quot;Peter's'to select over pairs consisting of a person and the sister of that person, we can end up with a representation of &quot;Peter's sisters&quot; which comes close to having the right denotation: it denotes the correct set of persons, but they are still paired up with Peter. This &quot;extra information&quot; is of course a problem. For instance, &quot;Peter's sisters are Mary's aunts.&quot; asserts the equality of two sets of persons, not two sets of pairs of parsons.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> it turns out that we have two distinct cases to deal with: to account for the interaction between a relational noun and the phrases which indicate its arguments and values, we would like to treat it as denoting a relation-extension; but to account for its interaction with everything else, we would like to treat it as denoting a set of individuals. In order to make the relational treatment yield the right results, we must assume that part of the meaning of ordinary descriptive predicates is an implicit projection-operator, which projects tuples onto their value-elements. This is the solution we adopt. We formalize it by means of a meaning-postulate schema which applies to avery function F which is not among a small number of explicitly noted exceptions: V x,y: F(x) =, F(<y,x>) The copula &quot;be&quot; is not an excep~on to this meaning postulate schema: it operates on values rather than relation-elements. This is the reason why &quot;John&quot; is not available as an argument for &quot;brother&quot; in (2ac) above ('Some punks of John's are brothers.&quot; &quot;Some brothers are John's') We shall now consider the actual EFL-to-WML 7Notation: A X B denotes the set of pairs <x.y> such that x is in the denotation of A and y is in the denotation of B.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> translation rules which handle the relational nouns in a little more detail. The EFL relations have many different translations into WML; which ones are relevant in a given case, is decided by considering the semantic types of the arguments to which they are applied. Consider again, for example, the part of the EFL-to-WML translation rules that deals with the interpretation of the possessive relation as specifying a relational argument, as in &quot;Peter's sister', &quot;Frederick's speed':.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> POSSESS -> ~. u,v: u ,, v\[l\]) where u has type THINGS and v has type THINGS X THINGS. Being a local translation rule, this rule could be applied to any occurrence of POSSESS in an EFL formula. However, many such applications would give rise to semantically anomalous WML formulas (with necessarily denotationless sub-expressions) which are filtered out if there are any other non-anomalous interpretations. For instance, the above rule for POSSESS would yield an anomalous expression if applied to the representation of &quot;Peter's cars', because the EFL constant CARS does not denote a set of pairs but a set of individual entities. It would also yield an anomalous expression if applied to &quot;The USS Frsderick's sisters', because the type of the EFL constant FREDERICK, which is SHIPS, is disjoint with the argument type of R-SISTER, which is U(MALES, FEMALES).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> To avoid spurious generation of anomalous expressions, the semantic types of the arguments of an EFL function or EFL relation are checked before the EFL-to-WML rule for that function or relation is applied. For instance, the above rule for POSSESS will only be applied to an expression-of the form</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> As noted above, the interdefinability which exists between &quot;have; &quot;of', the genitive, and &quot;wi/h', when they are used, for instance, in reference to ownership, carries over to their use for indicating the relation between a relational noun and its argument. Thus, the EFL representations of &quot;of', &quot;have; and &quot;w/th&quot; have WML translations which, modulo the order of their arguments, are all identical to the rule for POSSESS discussed above.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> Function nouns, like &quot;speed&quot; and &quot;length', induce a special interpretation on preposition phrases with &quot;of'. Such phrases can be used to connect the function noun with its va/ue. The treatment of relational nouns sketched in the previous section can also accommodate this phenomenon, as we shall show now.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> Consider example (7) below, which is identical to (5) above. It gets, in the treatment we propose, the EFL analysis (5a); this analysis is exactly analogous to the one that a syntactically similar sentence involving a non-relational noun would get. (Cf. (4) and (4a).) (7) &quot;Frederick has a speed of 15 knots.&quot;</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> It is the task of the EFL-to-WML translafion rules to define a transformation on EFL expressions which would turn (5a) into (5b) or a logically equivalent formula. null (7b) F-SPEED(FREDERICK).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> amount(15, KNOTS) To achieve the desired result, we need a rule for HAVE which is precisely analogous to the rule for POSSESS above; and we need a rule for OFwhich is not analogous to the rule for POSSESS above: &quot;a speed of 15 knots&quot; is unlike &quot;the speed of the USS Frederick&quot; in that in the former case we must connect the relation with its value rather than its argument. The rule for OFthat we need here is as follows: OF => ~. u, v: u\[2\] = v) Note that different rules for one EFL constant can coexist without conflict, because of the assumption of lexical ambiguity in EFL. (In the general case, an EFL expression will have several WML expansions for this reason; often, many rule-applications will be blocked by semantic type-checking.) This basic approach makes it possible to transform the EFL representation of any of the constructions shown in the examples in section 1 into reasonable World Model Language and Data Base Languago formulations of the intended query. We shall illustrate the process of applying the EFL-to-WML translations and logical simplifications in a little more detail while showing how to extend this treatment to function nouns which can take more than one argument. Such nouns interact with specific kinds of preposition phrases to pick up their arguments. For instance: &quot;Frederick's distance to Hawaii; &quot;the dis. tance from Hawaii to Guam&quot;. As an example, we will now discuss the noun &quot;readiness&quot; as used in the U.S. Navy, which designates a two-argument function.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> &quot;Readiness; as used in the Navy baffle managemerit domain, refers to the degree to which a vessel to be more precise, a unit - is prepared for combat or for a specific mission. This degree is indicated on a five-point scale, using either c-codes (C1 to C5), if referring to combat readiness, or m-codes (M1 to M5), if referring to mission readiness. The readiness for combat can furthermore be the overall readiness (the default case) or the readiness with respect to one of the four resource readiness areas: personnel, training, equipment or supplies. Therefore, READINESS-OF is a function which maps two arguments, an element of SHIPS and an element of READINESS-AREAS, into READINESS-VALUES.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> Consider as an example the noun phrase &quot;/he readiness of Frederick: If we ignore for the moment the effect of the &quot;singular the&quot; operator (see section 5), its initial translation is:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> The parts of this expression are translated as follows.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="19"> A logical transformation translates the functionconstant READINESS-OF into the following equivalent expression, which will be convenient for subsequent processing:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="21"> which in its turn is equivalent to</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="23"> The relation OF is eliminated in the EFL-to-WML transformation by a variant ~ of the translation rule mentioned above. It transforms OF(x, FREDERICK) into x\[1\]\[1\], FREDERICK The net result of these logical and descriptive transformations is the following expression:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="25"> This expression is then simplified to:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="27"> which in its turn can be transformed into a logically equivalent but more optimally evaluable expressions: (for: {FREDERICK} X READINESF-AREAS, apply: ~ x: <x, READINESS-OF(x)>)) (The actual system may apply further transformations (from WML into DBL), if it has to account for discrepancles between the database structure and the canonical domain model, possibly followed by further optJmizations at the DBL leveL) Other restrictions on &quot;readiness; as in &quot;the readiness o.n.n personnel', &quot;the personnel readiness, or &quot;a c l readiness', are handled in an analogous manner:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="29"> where PREMOD is the EFL translation of the elided relation in a noun-noun compound. (Note that if the same preposition is used with different nouns to mark different argument places, we need a more elaborate notation which identifies the arguments of a function by labels rather than by position.) *MuIti-an:jument func~ns are viewed as functions on n-tuplas. OF specifies, in this case, the first element of the argument-n-tuple. degNotation: (for: A. Iplldy: F) denotas the beg contmning the results of all applications of the function F to elements of the set A. Because of the essentially local character of the descriptive transformations on HAVE, OF, ON, PREMOD, etc., and the completely general character of the simplifications dealing with intersections of sets and tuples, a small number of transformations (a few for each EFL relation) covers a wide variety of expressions. null</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="8" start_page="30" end_page="30" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 5 IMPLICIT ARGUMENTS. </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> One or more of the arguments of a relation may be unspecified in the input sentence, while the intent of the utterance is nevertheless that a particular argument should be filled in. The present section discusses briefly how this issue can be dealt with during a phase of semantic processing which follows the EFL-to-WML translation.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The most important case arises from the usa of definite descriptions in the English input sentence.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> The phrase *the readiness of Frederick&quot;, for instance, leads to an expression which has the operator &quot;the&quot; wrapped around the expression which represents &quot;readiness(as) of Frederick'. &quot;the&quot; is a pragmatic operator, which selects the single most salient element out of the set that it operates on.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Where the expression representing &quot;readiness of Frederick on personnel&quot; would denote a set containing exactly one tuple, the expression representing &quot;readiness of Frederick&quot; denotes a set containing a number of different tuples: ones with EQUIPMENT, PERSONNEL, OVERALL, etc., filled in as the second argument, l=timinating the &quot;the&quot; operator consists in accessing a Discourse Model to find out which of the fillers of the second argument place is contextually most accessible. (We assume that available discourse referents are stored at every level of embedding in a recursive model of discourse surface structure, such as \[9\]). If none of the readiness areas were mentioned in an accessible discourse constituent, the system defaults to the &quot;unmarked&quot; readiness area, i.e.,</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="9" start_page="30" end_page="30" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> OVERALL </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Plural definite noun phrases are treated in a similar fashion. For instance, &quot;the readineesas of Frederick&quot; leads to an expression in which a pragmatic operator selects the contextually salient multiple element subset of the tuples in the extension of READINESS-OF which have FREDERICK as a first argument. In this case, if no particular subset of the readiness areas can be construed as a discourse referent, the system defaults to the assumption that here the overall readiness plus the four resource readinesses are intended. (Another possibility being the reference to the ship's readiness history:, a sequence of past, current and projected future readinesses.)</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="10" start_page="30" end_page="30" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 6 RELATION EXTENSIONS AS </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> ANSWERS.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The decision to treat relational nouns as denoting relation extensions has an immediate consequence, of some practical importance for question-answering systems, concerning the way in which wh-questions involving relational nouns are answered. For example, the request &quot;List the speeds of the ships in the Indian Ocean.&quot; could be answered in three ways, of ascending informativeness: 1) with a set of speed values (possibly of smaller cardinality then the set of ships in the Indian Ocean) 2) with a bag of speed values (of the same cardinality as the set of ships) and 3) with a set of <ship, speed> ordered pairs, such that each ship is paired off with its speed.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Clearly, 3) is most likely to be the desired response (although it is possible to envision situations where reponses 1) and 2) are desired). One cannot obtain this response, however, if the semantic translation of the noun phrase &quot;the speeds of the ships in the Indian Ocean&quot; does not retain the information of which speed goes with which ship. An important advantage of our approach to the relational noun problem is that it preserves this information, making 3) the normal reponse and 1 ) and 2) derivable from it.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> This may be compared to the &quot;procedural semantics&quot; approach to this same problem, as found in the work on LUNAR \[14\]. In this work, meaning is regarded as procedural in nature, and quantifications are represented in terms of nested iterations. The request &quot;List the speeds of the ships in the In.an Ocean'would be represented as:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> where the action of this representation would be to iterate over the class SHIPS, for each member checking to see if it is IN the INDIAN.OCEAN, and if so, printing its speed. The PRINT operator is made &quot;smart&quot; enough to detect the occurrence of the free vadable in its argument and to add in a printout the value of this variable for each iteration.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Note that while this representation provides for the tuple response (3), and perhaps, if the &quot;smartness&quot; is made optional, for the bag response (2), the set response (1) would seem out of reach. In contrast, the approach this paper presents allows for all three, by generating as a default response the tuple set, and then optionally &quot;projecting&quot; on its second column.</Paragraph> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>