Ambiguities in Natural Language and Time References

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989100%3A27240%2F19%3A10243001" target="_blank" >RIV/61989100:27240/19:10243001 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://books.google.cz/books?id=3qTBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&hl=cs&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank" >https://books.google.cz/books?id=3qTBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&hl=cs&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Ambiguities in Natural Language and Time References

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

There are many ambiguities in natural language that make its processing and analysing rather difficult. This issue has much in common with the difference between topic and focus articula-tion within a sentence and with ambiguity of terms occurring with de dicto or de re supposition. While in our theory there is no reference shift and unambiguous terms denote one and the same entity independently of a context, they vary in the way this entity is used. Moreover, I find that whereas articulating the topic of a sentence activates a presupposition, articulating the focus fre-quently yields merely an entailment. A presupposition P of a sentence S is entailed by the posi-tive as well as negated form of S. Hence, if P is not true the proposition S has a truth-value gap. The difference between a presupposition and mere entailment is substantial, because one and the same sentence can have two or more non-equivalent readings due to different topic-focus articulations. Another ambiguity that I am going to deal with is related to sentences in past or future with a reference time when this or that happened or will happen. Such sentences come with a presupposition that the time of evaluation is in a proper relation to the reference time. Furthermore, it can be undetermined whether definite descriptions refer to their holder in time t of evaluation or in time t&apos; belonging to the reference time interval. Logic cannot disambiguate a sentence, of course. This is a pragmatic issue. Yet, logic can con-tribute to disambiguating and our better mutual understanding by making all these hidden fea-tures explicit and logically tractable. My background theory is Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL). TIL is an expressive logic apt for the analysis of sentences with presuppositions, because in TIL we work with partial functions, in particular propositions with truth-value gaps. Moreo-ver, procedural semantics of TIL makes it possible to explicitly formalize different readings of a sentence in the form of fine-grained structured procedures encoded by these variants. In this way almost all the semantically salient features are decoded so that we can deal with them and derive relevant consequences of them.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Ambiguities in Natural Language and Time References

Popis výsledku anglicky

There are many ambiguities in natural language that make its processing and analysing rather difficult. This issue has much in common with the difference between topic and focus articula-tion within a sentence and with ambiguity of terms occurring with de dicto or de re supposition. While in our theory there is no reference shift and unambiguous terms denote one and the same entity independently of a context, they vary in the way this entity is used. Moreover, I find that whereas articulating the topic of a sentence activates a presupposition, articulating the focus fre-quently yields merely an entailment. A presupposition P of a sentence S is entailed by the posi-tive as well as negated form of S. Hence, if P is not true the proposition S has a truth-value gap. The difference between a presupposition and mere entailment is substantial, because one and the same sentence can have two or more non-equivalent readings due to different topic-focus articulations. Another ambiguity that I am going to deal with is related to sentences in past or future with a reference time when this or that happened or will happen. Such sentences come with a presupposition that the time of evaluation is in a proper relation to the reference time. Furthermore, it can be undetermined whether definite descriptions refer to their holder in time t of evaluation or in time t&apos; belonging to the reference time interval. Logic cannot disambiguate a sentence, of course. This is a pragmatic issue. Yet, logic can con-tribute to disambiguating and our better mutual understanding by making all these hidden fea-tures explicit and logically tractable. My background theory is Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL). TIL is an expressive logic apt for the analysis of sentences with presuppositions, because in TIL we work with partial functions, in particular propositions with truth-value gaps. Moreo-ver, procedural semantics of TIL makes it possible to explicitly formalize different readings of a sentence in the form of fine-grained structured procedures encoded by these variants. In this way almost all the semantically salient features are decoded so that we can deal with them and derive relevant consequences of them.

Druh

C - Kapitola v odborné knize

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10201 - Computer sciences, information science, bioinformathics (hardware development to be 2.2, social aspect to be 5.8)

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA18-23891S" target="_blank" >GA18-23891S: Hyperintensionální usuzování nad texty přirozeného jazyka</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název knihy nebo sborníku

Slavonic Natural Language Processing in the 21st Century

ISBN

978-80-263-1545-2

Počet stran výsledku

23

Strana od-do

28-50

Počet stran knihy

249

Název nakladatele

Tribun EU

Místo vydání

Brno

Kód UT WoS kapitoly

—