Table Of ContentLecture Notes in Computer Science 7415
CommencedPublicationin1973
FoundingandFormerSeriesEditors:
GerhardGoos,JurisHartmanis,andJanvanLeeuwen
EditorialBoard
DavidHutchison,UK TakeoKanade,USA
JosefKittler,UK JonM.Kleinberg,USA
AlfredKobsa,USA FriedemannMattern,Switzerland
JohnC.Mitchell,USA MoniNaor,Israel
OscarNierstrasz,Switzerland C.PanduRangan,India
BernhardSteffen,Germany MadhuSudan,USA
DemetriTerzopoulos,USA DougTygar,USA
GerhardWeikum,Germany
FoLLI Publications on Logic, Language and Information
SublineofLecturesNotesinComputerScience
SublineEditors-in-Chief
ValentinGoranko,TechnicalUniversity,Lynbgy,Denmark
ErichGrädel,RWTHAachenUniversity,Germany
MichaelMoortgat,UtrechtUniversity,TheNetherlands
SublineAreaEditors
NickBezhanishvili,ImperialCollegeLondon,UK
AnujDawar,UniversityofCambridge,UK
PhilippedeGroote,Inria-Lorraine,Nancy,France
GerhardJäger,UniversityofTübingen,Germany
FenrongLiu,TsinghuaUniversity,Beijing,China
EricPacuit,TilburgUniversity,TheNetherlands
RuydeQueiroz,UniversidadeFederaldePernambuco,Brazil
RamRamanujam,InstituteofMathematicalSciences,Chennai,India
Daniel Lassiter Marija Slavkovik (Eds.)
New Directions
in Logic, Language
and Computation
ESSLLI 2010 and ESSLLI 2011
Student Sessions
Selected Papers
1 3
VolumeEditors
DanielLassiter
StanfordUniversity
DepartmentofPsychology
420JordanHall
450SerraMall
Stanford,CA94305,USA
E-mail:[email protected]
MarijaSlavkovik
UniversityofLuxembourg
6,RueRichardCoudenhoveKalergi
1359Luxembourg
E-mail:[email protected]
ISSN0302-9743 e-ISSN1611-3349
ISBN978-3-642-31466-7 e-ISBN978-3-642-31467-4
DOI10.1007/978-3-642-31467-4
SpringerHeidelbergDordrechtLondonNewYork
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2012940850
CRSubjectClassification(1998):F.4.1,I.2.3-4,I.2.7,D.3.2
LNCSSublibrary:SL1–TheoreticalComputerScienceandGeneralIssues
©Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2012
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis
concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,re-useofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,
reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthispublication
orpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheGermanCopyrightLawofSeptember9,1965,
initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.Violationsareliable
toprosecutionundertheGermanCopyrightLaw.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,etc.inthispublicationdoesnotimply,
evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevantprotectivelaws
andregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Typesetting:Camera-readybyauthor,dataconversionbyScientificPublishingServices,Chennai,India
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Preface
We are happy to present you with the second volume of selected papers from
the Student Sessions of the European Summer Schools in Logic, Language and
Information (ESSLLI), in what we hope will develop into a biannual tradition.
This collection contains revised and expanded version of papers presented at
the Student Sessions of the 22nd and 23rd ESSLLI, held respectively in 2010 in
Copenhagen, Denmark, and in 2011 in Ljubljana, Slovenia. ESSLLI has taken
place every year since 1989 under the auspices of FoLLI, the Association for
Logic,Languageand Information.Since 1996,the Student Sessionhas provided
a forum in which promising young scholars can present their work in a friendly
andsupportiveenvironmentandgetconstructivefeedbackfromexpertreviewers
and audiences from diverse areas.
Many papers from previous Student Sessions have represented original per-
spectives and lasting insights from promising young researchers. In recognition
of this, a volume of selected best papers from 2008 and 2009 appeared for the
first time in early 2011 as a Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume (Inter-
faces: Explorations in Logic, Language, and Computation,ed.ThomasIcardand
ReinhardMuskens).Wehopethatwiththisfollow-upvolumewemayencourage
promising young researchers in future years to submit high-quality work to the
Student Session.
Wereceived49submissionsinthe2010StudentSession,outofwhich16were
selectedfororaland11for posterpresentations.Inthe 2011Student Sessionwe
received 53 submissions out of which 16 were selected for oral and 6 for poster
presentation.Outofthe32papersselectedfororalpresentations,weselected15
that were extended and reviewed again for inclusion in this volume.
WewouldliketothankthosewithoutwhomtheStudentSessionandthisvol-
ume would not have been possible: our hard-workingProgramCommittees, the
helpful audiences,and especially the main ESSLLI organizersand the many ex-
pertreviewerswhogenerouslytooktimetohelpselectthesepapersandsharpen
the insights that they contain.
April 2012 Daniel Lassiter
Marija Slavkovik
Organization
Program Committee 2010
Jens Ulrik Hansen Roskilde University, Denmark
Szymon Klarman VrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam,TheNetherlands
Ekaterina Lebedeva INRIA Nancy, University Henri - Poincare,
France
Pierre Lison DFKI Saarbru¨cken,Germany
Mingya Liu University of Go¨ttingen, Germany
Marija Slavkovik University of Luxembourg
Natalia Vinogradova Bordeaux-1 University, France
Program Committee 2011
Anna Chernilovskaya Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hanna de Vries Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Janez Kranjc Jozef Stefan Institute, Slovenia
Daniel Lassiter New York University, USA
Daphne Theijssen Radboud University Nijmegen,
The Netherlands
Sander Wubben Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Fan Yang University of Helsinki, Finland
Table of Contents
Language and Computation
Predicting the Position of Attributive Adjectives in the French NP ..... 1
Gwendoline Fox and Juliette Thuilier
Abductive Reasoning for Continual Dialogue Understanding........... 16
Miroslav Jan´ıˇcek
SCA: Phonetic Alignment Based on Sound Classes ................... 32
Johann-Mattis List
Embodied Quantifiers ............................................ 52
Simon Pauw and Michael Spranger
Ranked Multidimensional Dialogue Act Annotation .................. 67
Marcin Wl(cid:2)odarczak
Logic and Computation
The Good, the Bad, and the Odd: Cycles in Answer-Set Programs ..... 78
Johannes Klaus Fichte
Distributed Knowledge with Justifications........................... 91
Meghdad Ghari
Epistemic Logic, Relevant Alternatives, and the Dynamics
of Context ...................................................... 109
Wesley H. Holliday
Towards a Generalization of Modal Definability...................... 130
Tin Perkov
Modeling Semantic Competence: A Critical Review of Frege’s Puzzle
about Identity ................................................... 140
Rasmus K. Rendsvig
Comparing Inconsistency Resolutions in Multi-Context Systems........ 158
Antonius Weinzierl
Logic and Language
Vague Determiner Phrases and Distributive Predication............... 175
Heather Burnett
VIII Table of Contents
The Syntax and Semantics of Evaluative Degree Modification.......... 195
Hanna de Vries
A Kripkean Solution to Paradoxesof Denotation..................... 212
Casper Storm Hansen
Trust Games as a Model for Requests .............................. 221
Jason Quinley
Author Index.................................................. 235
Predicting the Position of Attributive Adjectives
in the French NP
Gwendoline Fox1 and Juliette Thuilier2
1 University of Paris 3 - SorbonneNouvelle (ILPGA) and EA 1483
2 UnivParis Diderot, SorbonneParis Cité, ALPAGE,UMR-I001 INRIA
1 Introduction
French displays the possibility of both pre-nominal and post-nominal ordering
of adjectives within the noun phrase (NP).
(1) un magnifique tableau / un tableau magnifique
a magnificent painting / a painting magnificient
“a magnificient painting”
While alladjectivesmayalternateinposition,the choicebetweenbothordersis
not as free as suggested in (1):
(2) a. un beau tableau / ??un tableau beau
a nice painting / a painting nice
b. un très beau tableau / un tableau très beau
a very nice painting / a painting very nice
“a (very) nice painting”
c. *un beau à couper le souffle tableau / un tableau beau à
a nice to cut the breath painting / a painting nice to
couper le souffle
cut the breath
“a breathtakingly beautiful painting”
The examples in (2) show that the positionning of attributive adjectives is a
complex phenomenon: unlike magnifique, the adjective beau cannot be placed
freely when it is the only element of the adjectival phrase (AP). It is strongly
preferred in anteposition (2-a). The addition of the pre-adjectival adverb très
gives more flexibility and equally allows both orders (2-b) whereas the use of a
post-adjectival modifier constrains the placement to postposition (2-c).
The phenomenon of adjective alternation has been widely studied in French
linguistics ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] among others). Many constraints were
proposed on different dimensions of the language: phonology, morphology, syn-
tax,semantics1,discourseandpragmatics.Onlyoneofthemiscategoricalinthe
1 In some cases, alternation leads to meaning differences for the adjective (see for
instance [1], [3], [7]). The decision between the different possible accounts of how
thesedifferencescouldbegeneratedisbeyondthescopeofthisarticle.Wethusleave
aside these semantic considerations and focus here on the form of theadjective.
D.LassiterandM.Slavkovik(Eds.):ESSLLIStudentSessions,LNCS7415,pp.1–15,2012.
(cid:2)c Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2012
2 G. Fox and J. Thuilier
sensethatitimposesaspecificpositiontoanyattributiveadjective:thepresence
ofa post-adjectivalcomplement(3)ormodifier (2-c)only allowspostpositionof
the adjective.
(3) un homme fier de son fils / *un fier de son fils homme
a man proud of his son / a proud of his son man
“a man proud of his son”
The other constraints participating in the alternationbetween antepositionand
postposition are not categorical. For instance, as noted in the corpus studies
of [2] and [3], length is a preferential constraint: short adjectives tend to be
anteposed to the noun. The sequence “un magnifique tableau” in (1) illustrates
that this rule can be violated whether one considers the length of the adjective
alone: magnifique has 3 syllables, or the relative length between the adjective
and the noun (3 > 2).
Althoughtheabove-mentionedworkshaveenabledtoidentifytheconstraints
playingaroleintheplacementofadjectives,mostarebasedonintrospectionand
only examine a few of these constraints. It is thus very difficult to evaluate the
actualimpactofeachoftheminusage,andthereforetoestimatetheirrespective
weight in the speaker’s choice for one position over the other. This paper aims
to get a better grasp of the general picture of the phenomenon. To do so, we
present along the same lines as [8], [9] and [10], a quantitative study, based on
two corpora: the French Tree Bank (henceforth FTB) and the Est-Républicain
corpus (henceforth ER). We propose a regression model based on interpretable
constraints and compare the prediction capacities of different subsets in order
to determine what kind of informations are the most reliable to account for the
placement of adjectives.
The paper is organisedasfollows.We presentinsection2 the methodological
aspectsofourstudy:constitutionofthedatatableandpresentationofthestatis-
tical model. In section 3, we describe the variables derived from the constraints
found in the literature. Section 4 is dedicated to the comparison of the models
basedonthedifferentsubsetsofvariablesandtotheinterpretationoftheresults.
2 Methodology
Building the Datatable. Thefirststepofthisworkistocollectthedatacon-
cerningadjectivesandcapturetheconstraintsfoundintheliterature.Thestudy
is based on the functionally annotated subset of the FTB corpus [11]2, which
contains 12,351 sentences, 24,098 word types and 385,458 tokens. It is, for the
moment,theonlyexistingtreebankforFrench.Weextractedalltheoccurrences
of attributive adjectives from this corpus3, and filtered out numeraladjectives4,
2 This subset corresponds to thepart that was manually corrected.
3 We identified attributive adjectives using the following pattern in the treebank: an
adjective occuring with a nominal head within a NPis an attributiveadjective.
4 Cardinal numerals such as trois ’three’, vingt ’twenty’, soixante ’sixty’... are some-
times annotated as adjectives in theFTB.
Predicting thePosition of AttributiveAdjectives in the French NP 3
adjectives appearing in dates5, abbreviations6 and incorrectly annotated occur-
rences. We also discarded the 438 adjectives occurring with a post-adjectival
dependent since postposition is obligatory in this case, regardless of the values
of other constraints that we consider (see (2-c) and (3)). The remaining adjec-
tives constitute the basis of the datatable, to which we have added information
on the position of each adjective with respect to the noun it modifies, and 10
other variables that we describe in section 3.
Three variables of our study are based on frequency counts: freq, Collo-
cAnt and CollocPost. They were extracted from the ER corpus for more
reliable counts. The raw corpus contains 147,934,722tokens,and is available on
theATILFwebsite7.ItwastaggedandlemmatizedwiththeMorfette system[12]
adapted for French. We used ER for these constraints because it is around 380
times larger than FTB. We therefore consider that frequency in ER is a better
estimatorofthe probabilityofuseofanadjective.Also,weuse herea logtrans-
formedvalueofthefrequencytoreducetherangeofvaluesofthisvariable.More
precisely,thethreevariablestakethefollowingvalue:log(frequency in ER+1),
in order to avoid a null value in case an adjectival lemma or noun-adjective
combination is absent from ER.
Presentation of the Datatable. The datatable contains 14,804 occurrences
corresponding to 1,920 adjectival lemmas. 4,227 (28.6%) tokens appear in an-
teposition,and10,577(71.4%)inpostposition.Table1showsthattheadjectival
lemmas displaying occurrences in both positions representonly 9.5% of all lem-
mas, yet these few lemmas correspond to 5,473 occurrences, i.e. 37.0% of the
datatable, which means that very few adjectives actually alternate in usage but
they are highly frequent.
Note that amongthe alternatingadjectives (occurringin both positions),the
ratio between anteposed and postposed occurrences is the reverse from that of
all adjectives: there are 3,727 anteposed (68,1%) and 1,746 postposed (31,9%)
adjectives. Alternating adjectives thus show a preference for anteposition. The
generalpatternisthereforethatpostposedadjectivestendtobe infrequentlem-
mas occurring only in postposition, whereas alternating adjectives tend to be
frequent and to prefer anteposition.
Table 1. Distribution of adjectival lemmas and tokensaccording to position
anteposed postposed both positions Overall
number of lemmas 125 1613 182 1920
6.5% 84.0% 9.5% 100%
tokens 500 8831 5473 14804
3.4% 59.7% 37.0% 100%
5 Examples of dates containing adjectives: "[13]ADJ [mars]N", "[lundi]N [31]ADJ".
6 Nounsoradjectivesareviewedasabbreviationsiftheirlastletterisacapitalletter.
7 http://www.cnrtl.fr/corpus/estrepublicain/
