Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present a model for the interpretation of imperative sentences in which reasoning agents play the role of speakers and hearers. A requirement is associated with both the person who makes and the person who receives the order, which prevents the hearer coming to inappropriate conclusions about the actions s/he has been commanded to do. By relating imperatives with the actions they prescribe, the dynamic aspect of imperatives is captured. Further, by using the idea of encapsulation, it is possible to distinguish what is demanded by an imperative from the inferential consequences of the imperative. These two ingredients provide agents with the tools to avoid inferential problems in interpretation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Carlos, A.C.: Von Wright’s Deontic Logics and Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives. Ratio Juris 11(1), 67–79 (1998)
Harry, B.: Dialogue pragmatics and context specification. In: Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue, Studies in Computational Pragmatics. Natural Language. Processing Series No. 1, pp. 81–150. Benjamins, Amsterdam (2000)
Buvac, S.: Resolving Lexical Ambiguity Using a Formal Theory of Context (1998), http://www-formal.Stanford.EDU/buvac/ (visited in October 1998)
Chellas, B.: Imperatives. Theoria 37, 114–129 (1971)
Gries, D.: The Science of programming, Department of Computer Science. Cornell University, Upson Hall Ithaca, NY (1983)
Hamblin, C.L.: Imperatives. Basil Blackwell, USA (1987)
David, H.: First-Order Dynamic Logic. In: Goos, Hartmanis (eds.). LNCS, vol. 68. Springer, Yorktown Heights (1979)
Hoare, C.A.R.: An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming. Communications of the ACM 12(10), 576–580, 583 (1969)
Jorgensen, J.: Imperatives and logic. Erkenntnis 7, 288–296 (1937-1938)
Lopez, F., Luck, M.: Empowered situations of autonomous agents. In: Garijo, F.J., Riquelme, J.-C., Toro, M. (eds.) IBERAMIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2527, pp. 585–595. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Piwek, P.: Imperatives, Commitment and Action: Towards a Constraint-based Model. LDV Forum: Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, Special Issue on Communicating Agents (2000)
Prakken, H., Sergot, M.: Contrary-to-duty Obligations. Studia Logica 57(1/2), 91–115 (1996)
Ross, A.: Imperatives and Logic. Theoria (Journal) 7, 53–71 (1941)
Krister, S.: Validity and Satisfaction in Imperative Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31(2), 203–221 (Spring 1990)
Dan, S., Deirdre, W.: Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Great Britain, London (1986)
Raymond, T.: Properties, Propositions and Semantic Theory. In: Rosner, M., Johnson, R. (eds.) Computational Linguistics and Formal Semantics, pp. 159–180. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)
von Wright, H.G.: Deontic Logic: A personal View, Ratio Juris, pp. 26–38 (1999)
Robert, W.: Jorgensen’s Dilemma and How to Face It. Ratio Juris 9(2), 168–171 (1996)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pérez-Ramírez, M., Fox, C. (2004). Agents Interpreting Imperative Sentences. In: Gelbukh, A. (eds) Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. CICLing 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2945. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24630-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24630-5_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-21006-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24630-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive