Abstract
This paper presents an information-based logic that is applied to the analysis of entailment, implicature and presupposition in natural language. The logic is very fine-grained and is able to make distinctions that are outside the scope of classical logic. It is independently motivated by certain properties of natural human reasoning, namely partiality, paraconsistency, relevance, and defeasibility: once these are accounted for, the data on implicature and presupposition comes quite naturally.
The logic is based on the family of semantic spaces known as bilattices, originally proposed by Ginsberg (1988), and used extensively by Fitting (1989, 1992). Specifically, the logic is based on a subset of bilattices that I call evidential bilattices, constructed as the Cartesian product of certain algebras with themselves. The specific details of the epistemic agent approach of the logical system is derived from the work of Belnap (1975, 1977), augmented by the use of evidential links for inferencing. An important property of the system is that it has been implemented using an extension of Fitting's work on bilattice logic programming (1989, 1991) to build a model-based inference engine for the augmented Belnap logic. This theorem prover is very efficient for a reasonably wide range of inferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AndersonA. and BelnapN., 1975, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, I. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
AvronA., 1992, “Whither relevance logic?,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 21, 243–281.
Barba EscribaJ., 1992, “Two formal systems for situation semantics,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33(1), 70–88.
Barwise, J., 1989, “Situations and small worlds,” pp. 79–92 in The Situation in Logic, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
BarwiseJ. and SeligmanJ., 1994. “The rights and wrongs of natural regularity,” in: Philosophical Perspectives, pp. 331–364 J.Tomberlin, ed. California: Ridgeview.
Beaver, D., 1993, “What comes first in dynamic semantics,” Research Report LP-93-15, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.
BelnapN., 1975. “How a computer should think,” pp. 30–56, in Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, G.Ryle, ed., Stocksfield: Oriel Press.
BelnapN., 1977. “A useful four-valued logic,” pp. 8–37 in Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, J.Dunn and G.Epstein, eds., Vol. 2 of Episteme, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
BlameyS., 1986, “Partial logic,” pp. 1–70 iin Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. III, D.Gabbay and F.Guenthner, eds., Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Burton-Roberts, N., 1989, The Limits to Debate: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition, Vol. 51 of Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.
CrossC. and ThomasonR., 1992. “Conditionals and knowledge-base update,” pp. 247–275 in, Belief Revision, P.Gädenfors, ed., Chapter 10, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
deKleerJ., 1986, “An assumption-based TMS,” Artificial Intelligence 28, 127–162.
DevlinK., 1991, Information and Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DowtyD., WallR., and PetersS., 1981, Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
FauconnierG., 1985, Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford Books, The MIT Press.
Fitting, M., 1989, “Negation as refutation,” pp. 63–70 in Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, R. Parikh, ed., IEEE.
Fitting, M., 1990, “Kleene's three-valued logics and their children,” in Proceedings of the Bulgarian Kleene '90 Conference, (unpublished ms.).
FittingM., 1991, “Bilattices and the semantics of logic programming,” Journal of Logic Programming 11, 91–116.
FittingM., 1992, “Kleene's logic, generalized,” Journal of Logic and Computation 1, 797–810.
GazdarG., 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.
GinsbergM., 1988, “Multivalued logics: A uniform approach to reasoning in artificial intelligence,” Computational Intelligence 4, 265–316.
GriceP., 1975, “Logic and conversation,” in Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, P.Cole and J.L.Morgan, eds., New York: Academic Press.
GroenendijkJ. and StokhofM., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic,” Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.
Gunji, T., 1982, Towards a Computational Theory of Pragmatics: Discourse, Presupposition and Implicature, Indiana University Linguistics Club.
KarttunenL. and PetersS., 1979, “Conventional implicature,” in Syntax and Semantics, Volume 11: Presupposition, C.-H.Oh and D.Dinneen, eds., New York: Academic Press.
Kempson, R., 1975, Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics, Cambridge University Press.
KleeneS., 1952, Introduction to Metamathematics, Vol. 1 of Bibliotheca Mathematica, Groningen: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Konolige, K., 1988, “Hierachical autoepistemic theories for nonmonotonic reasoning: Preliminary report,” Technical Note 446, Artifical Intelligence Center, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Computer and Information Sciences Division.
Makinson, D., 1989, “General theory of cumulative inference,” pp. 1–128 in, Second International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 346, R. Parikh, ed.
Mercer, R., 1992a, “A default logic approach to the derivation of natural language presupposition,’ Technical Report 332, Department of Computer Science, The University of Western Ontario.
MercerR., 1992b, “Default logic: Towards a common logical semantics for presuppositions and entailments,” Journal of Semantics 9, 223–250.
Muskens, R., 1988, “Going partial in Montague Grammar,” Technical Report 0, Institute for Languag, Logic and Information.
PriestG., 1979, “The logic of paradox,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 219–241.
PriestG. and RoutleyR., 1989a, “The philosophical significance and inevitability of paraconsistency,” in Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent, G.Priest, R.Routley, and J.Norman, eds., München: Philosophia Verlag.
PriestG. and RoutleyR., 1989b, “Systems of paraconsistent logic,” in Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent, G.Priest, R.Routley, and J.Norman, eds., München: Philosophia Verlag.
ReadS., 1988, Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
ReiterR., 1987, “A logic for default reasoning,” pp. 69–83 in Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, M.Ginsberg, ed., Chapter 3.1, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
RescherN., 1969, Many-Valued Logic, New York: McGraw-Hill Company.
Schöter, A., 1995, “Paraconsistent feature logic,” in Nonclassical Feature Systems, A. Schöter and C. Vogel, eds., Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, Volume 10, Chapter 1, Centre for Cognitive Science, The University of Edinburgh.
ThijsseE., 1990, “Partial logic and modal logic: a systematic survey,” Research Report ITK 11, Institute for Language Technology and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
Veltman, F., 1991, “Defaults in update semantics,” DYANA Deliverable R2.5.C, ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.
WilkesA. and LeatherbarrowM., 1988, “Editing episodic memory following the identification of error,” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 40A(2), 361–387.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
A shorter version of this material was originally presented at the Fifth International Symposium on Logic and Language, Noszvaj, Hungary, 1994. The author is now in the Mathematical Reasoning Group, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 80 South Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1HN, U.K.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schöter, A. Evidential bilattice logic and lexical inference. J Logic Lang Inf 5, 65–105 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00215627
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00215627