Anaphora and Discourse Structure

We argue in this paper that many common adverbial phrases generally taken to signal a discourse relation between syntactically connected units within discourse structure, instead work anaphorically to contribute relational meaning, with only indirect dependence on discourse structure. This allows a simpler discourse structure to provide scaffolding for compositional semantics, and reveals multiple ways in which the relational meaning conveyed by adverbial connectives can interact with that associated with discourse structure. We conclude by sketching out a lexicalised grammar for discourse that facilitates discourse interpretation as a product of compositional rules, anaphor resolution and inference.Comment: 45 pages, 17 figures. Revised resubmission to Computational Linguistic

Bounded Modality

What does 'might' mean? One hypothesis is that 'It might be raining' is essentially an avowal of ignorance like 'For all I know, it's raining'. But it turns out these two constructions embed in different ways, in particular as parts of larger constructions like Wittgenstein's 'It might be raining and it's not' and Moore's 'It's raining and I don't know it', respectively. A variety of approaches have been developed to account for those differences. All approaches agree that both Moore sentences and Wittgenstein sentences are classically consistent. In this paper I argue against this consensus. I adduce a variety of new data which I argue can best be accounted for if we treat Wittgenstein sentences as being classically inconsistent. This creates a puzzle, since there is decisive reason to think that 'Might p' is classically consistent with 'Not p'. How can it also be that 'Might p and not p' and 'Not p and might p' are classically inconsistent? To make sense of this situation, I propose a new theory of epistemic modals and their interaction with embedding operators. This account makes sense of the subtle embedding behavior of epistemic modals, shedding new light on their meaning and, more broadly, the dynamics of information in natural language

The price of inscrutability

In our reasoning we depend on the stability of language, the fact that its signs do not arbitrarily change in meaning from moment to moment.(Campbell, 1994, p.82) Some philosophers offer arguments contending that ordinary names such as “London” are radically indeterminate in reference. The conclusion of such arguments is that there is no fact of the matter whether “London” refers to a city in the south of England, or whether instead it refers to Sydney, Australia. Some philosophers have even suggested that we accept the conclusion of these arguments. Such a position seems crazy to many; but what exactly goes wrong if one adopts such a view? This paper evaluates the theoretical costs incurred by one who endorses extreme inscrutability of reference (the ‘inscrutabilist’). I show that there is one particular implication of extreme inscrutability which pushes the price of inscrutabilism too high. An extension of the classic ‘permutation’ arguments for extreme inscrutability allow us to establish what I dub ‘extreme indexical inscrutability’. This result, I argue, unacceptably undermines the epistemology of inference. The first half of the paper develops the background of permutation arguments for extreme inscrutability of reference and evaluates some initial attempts to make trouble for the inscrutabilist. Sections 1 and 2 describe the setting of the original permutation arguments for extreme inscrutability. Sections 3 and 4 survey four potential objections to extreme inscrutability of reference, including some recently raised in Vann McGee’s excellent (2005a). Sections 5 sketches how the permutation arguments can be generalized to establish extreme indexical inscrutability; and shows how this contradicts a ‘stability principle’—that our words do not arbitrarily change their reference from one moment to the next—which I claim plays a vital role in the epistemology of inference. The second half of the paper develops in detail the case for thinking that language is stable in the relevant sense. In section 6, I use this distinction to call into question the epistemological relevance of validity of argument types; Kaplan’s treatment of indexical validity partially resolves this worry, but there is a residual problem. In section 7, I argue that stability is exactly what is needed to bridge this final gap, and so secure the relevance of validity to good inferential practice. Section 8 responds to objections to this claim. An appendix to the paper provides formal backing for the results cited in this paper, including a generalization of permutation arguments to the kind of rich setting required for a realistic semantics of natural language.1 Extreme indexical inscrutability results can be proved within this setting. The first half of the paper shows that the inscrutabilist is committed to extreme indexical inscrutability, which implies that language not determinately ‘stable’. The second half of the paper argues that good inference requires stability. The price of inscrutabilism, therefore, is to sever the connection between the validity of argument-forms and inferential practice: and this is too high a price to pay

Collaborative Diagnosis of Over-Subscribed Temporal Plans

PhD thesisOver-subscription, that is, being assigned too many tasks or requirements that are too demanding, is commonly encountered in temporal planning problems. As human beings, we often want to do more than we can, ask for things that may not be available, while underestimating how long it takes to perform each task. It is often difficult for us to detect the causes of failure in such situations and then find resolutions that are effective. We can greatly benefit from tools that assist us by looking out for these plan failures, by identifying their root causes, and by proposing preferred resolutions to these failures that lead to feasible plans. In recent literature, several approaches have been developed to resolve such over-subscribed problems, which are often framed as over-constrained scheduling, configuration design or optimal planning problems. Most of them take an all-or-nothing approach, in which over-subscription is resolved through suspending constraints or dropping goals. While helpful, in real-world scenarios, we often want to preserve our plan goals as much possible. As human beings, we know that slightly weakening the requirements of a travel plan, or replacing one of its destinations with an alternative one is often sufficient to resolve an over-subscription problem, no matter if the requirement being weakened is the duration of a deep-sea survey being planned for, or the restaurant cuisine for a dinner date. The goal of this thesis is to develop domain independent relaxation algorithms that perform this type of slight weakening of constraints, which we will formalize as continuous relaxation, and to embody them in a computational aid, Uhura, that performs tasks akin to an experienced travel agent or ocean scientists. In over-subscribed situations, Uhura helps us diagnose the causes of failure, suggests alternative plans, and collaborates with us in order to resolve conflicting requirements in the most preferred way. Most importantly, the algorithms underlying Uhura supports the weakening, instead of suspending, of constraints and variable domains in a temporally flexible plan. The contribution of this thesis is two-fold. First, we developed an algorithmic framework, called Best-first Conflict-Directed Relaxation (BCDR), for performing plan relaxation. Second, we use the BCDR framework to perform relaxation for several different families of plan representations involving different types of constraints. These include temporal constraints, chance constraints and variable domain constraints, and we incorporate several specialized conflict detection and resolution algorithms in support of the continuous weakening of them. The key idea behind BCDR's approach to continuous relaxation is to generalize the concepts of discrete conflicts and relaxations, first introduced by the model-based diagnosis community, to hybrid conflicts and relaxations, which denote minimal inconsistencies and minimal relaxations to both discrete and continuous relaxable constraints

Construction Requirements Driven Planning and Scheduling

Ph.DDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPH