Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics - 1991
DOI: 10.3115/977180.977225
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Helpful answers to modal and hypothetical questions

Abstract: University of EssexEngland emaih derce@uk.ac.essex (janet) 1.0 ABSTRACT, This paper describes a computational pragmatic model which is geared towards providing helpful answers to modal and hypothetical questions. The work brings together elements from fonnal. semantic theories on modality m~d question answering, defines a wkler, pragmatically flavoured, notion of answerhood based on non-monotonic inference aod develops a notion of context, within which aspects of more cognitively oriented theories, such as Rel… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is considered as an uncertainty cue only in its epistemic sense. This is also the case for some other modal auxiliaries (e.g., can, could, should, and would) which express uncertainty only when used in a particular sense, which may be identified from the surrounding context of the modal [2]. Such terms are called weak cues.…”
Section: A Uncertainty Cuesmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…It is considered as an uncertainty cue only in its epistemic sense. This is also the case for some other modal auxiliaries (e.g., can, could, should, and would) which express uncertainty only when used in a particular sense, which may be identified from the surrounding context of the modal [2]. Such terms are called weak cues.…”
Section: A Uncertainty Cuesmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…[10] ~Mskilltodrive(a) [11] ~Mlicensed(a) contradiction [10] [4] Again here the proof fails monotonically as in the second example above. The answer in this case is No, because John does not have a license.…”
Section: An Examplementioning
confidence: 95%
“…[1] M~drive(a) [2] ownscar(a) [31 licensed(a) [4] skilltodrive(a) [5] ownscar(a)&licensed (a)&skilltodrive(a) drive(a) [6] ~M(ownscar (a)&licensed (a)&skilltodrive(a)) [7] ~M~drive(a) [8] ~Mownscar(a) [9] ~M(licensed (a)&skilltodrive(a)) [10] ~Mlicensed(a) [11] ~Mskilltodrive(a) goal premise premise premise premise contradiction [7] [1] contradiction [8] [2] contradiction [10] [3] contradiction [11] [4] The theorem prover reports that the inference KB t-drive(a) is proven by refutation. The inference was proven monotonically (i.e., without the need to use the rule (R3)) and required no subproofs.…”
Section: An Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation