Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imperatives as Obligatory and Permitted Actions

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (CICLing 2003)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2588))

Abstract

We present a dynamic deontic model for the interpretation of imperative sentences in terms of Obligation (O) and Permission (P). Under the view that imperatives prescribe actions and unlike the so-called “standard solution” (Huntley [10]) these operators act over actions rather that over statements. By distinguishing obligatory from non-obligatory actions we tackle the paradox of Free Choice Permission (FCP).

Imperatives are a type of sentence. Levinson says “it seems that the three basic sentence types, interrogative, imperative, and declarative are universals, all languages appear to have at least two and mostly three of these” Levinson [14] p. 242).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón Carlos, Martino Antonio, 1990. “Logic Without Truth.” Ratio Juris. March 1990. 46–67.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bunt, Harry. 2000. “Dialogue pragmatics and context specification” in “Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue;” Studies in Computational Pragmatics, Amsterdam: Benjamins, Natural Language. Processing Series No. 1, 2000. P. 81–150.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Buvac, Sasa. 1995. “Resolving Lexical Ambiguity Using a Formal Theory of Context.” Visited in October 1998. in http://www-formal.Stanford.EDU/buvac/

  4. Chellas, B., 1971. “Imperatives.” Theoria. Vol 37, 114–129. 1971

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Dignum F., Meyer J.-J. Ch., and Wieringa R. J., 1996. “Free choice and contextually permitted actions.” Studia Logica, 57:193–220, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Gries, David, 1983. “The Science of programming.” Department of Computer Science. Cornell University. Upson Hall Ithaca, NY. 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hamblin, C. L, 1987. “Imperatives.” Basil Blackwell. USA. 1987

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hare R. M., 1961. “The Language of Morals.” Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Reprinted in 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Harel David, 1979. “First-Order Dynamic Logic.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Edited by Goos and Hartmanis. 68. Springer-Verlag. Yorktown Heights, NY. 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hoare. C. A. R., 1969. “An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 12, No 10. October 1969. pp. 576–580, 583.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Huntley Martin, 1984. “The Semantics of English Imperatives.” Linguistics and Philosophy. Vol 7. 1984. 103–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jorgensen Jorgen, 1937. “Imperatives and logic.” Erkenntnis. Vol. 7, (1937-1938), pp. 288–296.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kamp, H., 1973. “Free-Choice Permission.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kamp, H. 1973. Proc. of the Aristotelian Society, N.S. 74: 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Levinson Stephen C., 1983. “Pragmatics.” Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lyons John, 1968. “Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics.” Cambridge at the University Press. 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  16. MacFadyen Heather, 1996. “Using Verb Moods.” HyperGrammar. University of Ottawa. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Manara and De Roeck, 1997. “Context as Partial Beliefs, and the Pragmatic Modelling of Presuppositions.” Context 97. Brazil. 66–74.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Martino A. Antonio, 1981. “Deontic logic, Computational linguistics and legal information systems.” Proceedings of the first international conference on logic, informatics, law. Vol. 2. Florence, Apr. 6-10. 1981. http://www.idg.fi.cnr.it/pubblicazioni/monografie/lid1bint.htm

  19. Megginson David, 1996. “The Purpose of a Sentence.” HyperGrammar. University of Ottawa. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Meyden R. van der, 1996. “The Dynamic Logic of Permission.” Journal of Logic and Computation, Vol 6, No. 3 pp. 465–479, 1996. A version of this paper appeared at the IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Philadelphia, 1990.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Nodine Mark H., 1996. “Glossary of Grammatical Terms.” A Welsh Course. 1996. http://www.cs.brown.edu/fun/welsh/Glossary_main.html#I

  22. Pérez-Ramírez, M., 2000. “Imperatives, state of the art.” CLUK 3. University of Brighton. UK. April, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pérez-Ramírez, M., 2002. “Formal pragmatic model for imperatives interpretation” University of Essex. UK. (draft thesis).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Piwek, P., 2000. “Imperatives, Commitment and Action: Towards a Constraint-based Model.” In: LDV Forum: Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, Special Issue on Communicating Agents, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Piwek, P., 2001. “Relating Imperatives to Action.” In: Bunt, H. and R. J. Beun, Cooperative Multimodal Communication, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Series 2155, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg. 2001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Radford Andrew, 1997. “Syntactic theory and the structure of English. A minimalist approach.” Cambridge University Press. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ramsay, A. 2000. “Speech act theory and epistemic planning” in “Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue;” Studies in Computational Pragmatics, Amsterdam: Benjamins, Natural Language. Harry Bunt, Bill Black (eds). Processing Series No. 1, 2000. P. 293–310.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ross A., 1941. “Imperatives and Logic.” Theoria (journal). Vol. 7. 53–71. 1941.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Segerberg Krister, 1990. “Validity and Satisfaction in Imperative Logic.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Volume 31, Number 2, Spring 1990. 203–221.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Sperber Dan and Wilson Deirdre, 1986. “Relevance.” Communication and Cognition. Great Britain London. 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stirling, Colin. 1992. “Modal and temporal logics.” Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, vol. 2. Edit. S. Abramsky and D. Gabbay and T. Maibaum. Publisher, Oxford University Press. 477–563. 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Turner Raymond. 1992. “Properties, Propositions and Semantic Theory. In Computational Linguistics and Formal Semantics.” Edited by Michael Rosner and Roderick Johnson. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 159–180. 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Vere, Steven and Bickmore, Timothy, 1990. “A Basic Agent.” Computational Intelligence, Vol. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  34. von Wright George Henrik, 1968. “An Essay in Deontic Logic and The General Theory of Action.” North Holland Publishing Company-Amsterdam. 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  35. von Wright, Henrik Georg. 1991. “Is There a Logic of Norms?” Ratio Juris. 1991. 67–79. 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  36. von Wright, Henrik Georg. 1999. “Deontic Logic: A personal View” Ratio Juris. 1999. 26–38. 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Walter Robert, 1996. “Jorgensen’s Dilemma and How to Face It.” Ratio Juris. Vol 9. No. 2 June 1996. 168–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Weinberger Ota, 1991. “The Logic of Norms Founded on Descriptive Language.” Ratio Juris. 1991. 284–307.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wieringa R. J. and Meyer J.-J.Ch.. 1993. “Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview.” In J.-J.Ch. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa, editors, Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. Wiley, 1993. 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, University of Essex, CO4 3SQ, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, UK

    Miguel Pérez-Ramírez & Chris Fox

Authors
  1. Miguel Pérez-Ramírez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Investigación en Computación (CIC), Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Col. Zacatenco, CP 07738, Mexico D.F., Mexico

    Alexander Gelbukh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pérez-Ramírez, M., Fox, C. (2003). Imperatives as Obligatory and Permitted Actions. In: Gelbukh, A. (eds) Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. CICLing 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2588. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36456-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36456-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00532-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36456-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation