An Intelligent Question-Answer System over Natural-Language Texts

  • Marie DužíEmail author
  • Bjørn Jespersen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 554)


The success of automated reasoning techniques over large natural-language texts heavily relies on a fine-grained formal analysis of these texts. While there is common agreement that the analysis should be hyperintensional, most automatic reasoning systems are still based on intensional logic. In this paper, we introduce a hyperintensional system of reasoning and answering. We apply Tichy’s Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL) which comes with a procedural (as opposed to truth-conditional) semantics. Our goal is to analyse empirical questions that come attached with a presupposition.


Hyperintensional logic Procedural semantics Presupposition Question Answer Transparent Intensional Logic TIL 



This research was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, project no. GA18-23891S, Hyperintensional Reasoning over Natural Language Texts, and by the internal grant agency of VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, project no. SP2018/172, Application of Formal Methods in Knowledge Modelling and Software Engineering.


  1. 1.
    Číhalová, M., Duží, M.: Questions, answers and presuppositions. Computación y Sistemas 19(4), 647–659 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duží, M.: Tenses and truth-conditions: a plea for if-then-else. In: Peliš, M. (ed.) The Logica Yearbook 2009, pp. 63–80. College Publications, London (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duží M.: Topic-focus articulation from the semantic point of view. In: Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. LNCS, vol. 5449, pp. 220–232. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duží, M., Jespersen, B., Materna, P.: Procedural Semantics for Hyperintensional Logic: Foundations and Applications of Transparent Intensional Logic. Springer, Berlin (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duží, M., Macek, J.: Analysis of time references in natural language by means of Transparent Intensional Logic. Organon F 25(1), 21–40 (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duží, M.: Presuppositions and two kinds of negation. Logique Anal. 239, 245–263 (2017). The special issue on How to Say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitzpatrick, J.: The whys and how comes of presupposition and NPI licensing in questions. In: Alderete, J., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 138–145 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hajičová, E.: What we are talking about and what we are saying about it. In: Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. LNCS, vol. 4919, pp. 241–262. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harrah, D.: The Logic of questions. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, pp. 1–60 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jespersen, B.: Anatomy of a proposition. Synthese (2017).
  11. 11.
    Katz, J.J.: Semantic Theory. Harper & Row, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keenan, E.L., Hull, R.D.: The logical presuppositions of questions and answers. In: Petöfi, J.S., Franck, D. (eds.) Präsuppositionen in Philosophie und Linguistik, pp. 441–466. Frankfurt, Athenäum (1973)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levinson, S.C.: Pragmatics. Cambridge University, Cambridge (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pagin, P.: Assertion. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition).
  15. 15.
    Peliš, M.: Consequence relations in inferential erotetic logic. In: Bílková, M., (ed.) Consequence, Inference, Structure, in the book series Miscellanea Logica VII, Charles University of Prague, pp. 53–88 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peliš, M., Majer, O.: Logic of questions and public announcements. In: Bezhanishvili, N., Löbner, S., Schwabe, K., Spada, L. (eds.) 8th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language and Computation 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 145–157. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sintonen, M.: On the logic of why-questions. In: PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 168–176. University of Chicago Press (1984)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schnieder, B.: A logic for ‘because’. Rev. Symbolic Log. 4(3), 445–465 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tichý, P.: Collected papers in logic and philosophy. In: Svoboda, V., Jespersen, B., Cheyne, C. (eds.) Filosofia, Czech Academy of Science, and Dunedin. University of Otago Press, Prague (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tichý, P.: The logic of temporal discourse. In: Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 3, pp. 343–369 (1980). Reprinted in (Tichý 2004: 373–369)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsohatzidis, S.L.: A problem for a logic of ‘because’. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 25(1), 46–49 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wiśniewski, A.: The Posing of Questions: Logical Foundations of Erotetic Inferences. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, FEIVSB-Technical University of OstravaOstravaCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and Religious StudiesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations