Encoding Ambiguity in Logical Form
Inherent ambiguity is present in natural language sentences, which stems from factors such as word
meanings and the scoping of quantifiers and operators.
Example:
"I saw a man with a telescope."
This sentence can have multiple syntactic structures and interpretations:
1. "I" saw a man who had a telescope.
2. "I" used a telescope to see a man.
The word "with" is ambiguous and can convey different meanings depending on the context,
resulting in multiple meanings of the sentence.
Example with Quantifier Scoping:
"Every student loves a teacher."
This sentence is ambiguous in terms of the scope of quantifiers, leading to different logical forms:
1. Interpretation 1: Every student loves the same teacher.
2. Interpretation 2: Each student loves a different teacher.
The quantifiers "every" and "a" can be scoped differently, resulting in 2 different interpretations of
the sentence's meaning.
Encoding Ambiguity:
• To address the inherent ambiguity in natural language sentences, we use quasi-logical form.
This separate level of representation from the logical form allows for the encoding of
ambiguities within the logical structure itself.
Example:
"Sue watched the ball."
• In this sentence, the word "ball" could refer to different things. For instance, it could mean
a sports object used in games, or it could mean a social event involving dancing.
• Now, if we want to represent both these meanings in a logical form, we could use something
called a quasi-logical form. This form helps us deal with the fact that one word can have
different meanings.
(THE b1 : ({BALL1 BALL2} b1) (PAST (WATCH1 SUE1 b1)))
THE b1 indicates that there's a thing (denoted by b1) and we're talking about it.
{BALL1 BALL2} represents the two possible meanings of the word "ball".
(PAST (WATCH1 SUE1 b1)) indicates that Sue watched whatever b1 represents.
• So, this representation captures both possible meanings of "ball" in the sentence.
• By using this quasi-logical form, computational systems can keep track of these different
meanings, helping them understand sentences better, even when words have multiple
senses.
Ambiguity from scoping:
• Ambiguity from scoping occurs when there are multiple possible interpretations of how
quantifiers and operators apply within a sentence.
• For instance, in a sentence like "Every boy loves a dog," the interpretation can vary
depending on the scope of the quantifiers (every and a)
• To address this ambiguity, the passage introduces an abbreviation convention. This
convention collapses multiple interpretations of scoping into a single representation,
reducing the complexity of logical forms.
Example:
"Every boy loves a dog."
In this sentence, there are two possible interpretations of how the quantifiers "every" and "a" scope
over the nouns "boy" and "dog." One interpretation is that every boy loves some dog, while another
is that there is a single dog loved by every boy.
(LOVES1 <EVERY b1 (BOY1 b1)> <A d1 (DOG1 d1)>)
This representation collapses multiple possible scoping interpretations into one form
This abbreviates an ambiguity between the logical form
(EVERY b1 : (BOY1 b1) (A d1 (DOG1 d1) (LOVES1 b1 d1)))
and
(A d1: (DOG1 d1) (EVERY b1 : (BOY1 b1) (LOVES1 b1 d1)))
Further abbreviation:
This abbreviation simplifies the representation of quantified expressions by eliminating redundant
information.
<EVERY b1 (BOY b1)>
In this expression, the variable b1 is used to quantify over boys.
However, since the predicate BOY is a simple unary predicate without any additional constraints,
the variable b1 can be dropped. Therefore, the expression can be abbreviated as:
<EVERY b1 BOY>
Negation:
Operators such as negation and tense can also introduce ambiguity in logical forms because they
are sensitive to the scope of quantifiers and other operators.
Example:
"Every boy didn't run," which can be interpreted in two different ways based on the scope of
negation.
1. In one interpretation, the negation applies to the entire quantified expression, resulting in the
meaning that some boys didn't run, but others did. This interpretation can be represented a
(NOT (EVERY b1 : (BOY1 b1) (RUN1 b1)))
This logical form states that there exists at least one boy who didn't run.
2. In another interpretation, the negation applies only to the predicate "run," indicating that no
boys ran. This interpretation is represented as:
(EVERY b1 : (BOY1 b1) (NOT (RUN1 b1)))
This logical form asserts that all boys did not run.
To capture both readings in a single logical form, the passage introduces the use of unscoped
unary operators, such as "NOT," which are wrapped around the predicate. In this case, the logical
form:
(<NOT RUN1> <EVERY b1 BOY1>)
represents the ambiguity by placing the negation operator outside the quantified expression. This
form allows for both interpretations of the sentence to be encompassed within a single
representation.
Treatment of Proper Names
Proper names, like "John," may refer to different individuals depending on the context.
To address this, a discourse variable is introduced, represented as
(NAME <variable> <name>)
where <variable> denotes the variable associated with the name and <name> represents the
specific name.
For example, the logical form of "John runs" would be represented as
(<RUN1> (NAME j1 "John"))
indicating that the name "John" is associated with the variable `j1`.
Treatment of Pronouns:
Pronouns, like "he" or "him," also require contextual interpretation.
They are handled using a special function
(PRO <variable> <proposition>)
where <variable> represents the variable associated with the pronoun and <proposition>
denotes the proposition.
- For instance, the quasi-logical form for "Every man liked him" would be
(<PAST LIKE1> <EVERY m1 MAN1> (PRO m2 HE1))),
where HE1 represents the sense for "he" or "him."
- When the restriction is a simple unary predicate, such as "he," the pro forms are often
abbreviated, like
Reduction of Logical Forms:
- These constructs significantly reduce the number of logical forms initially computed for a
sentence.
- However, not all ambiguities can be captured by the abbreviations, necessitating a list of
possible logical forms for some sentences, even with a single syntactic structure.
