The Natural Language Conjunction And

In the first part of this article, we show that, contrary to the Gricean tradition, inter-clausal and is not semantically equivalent to logical conjunction and, contrary to temporal approaches such as Bar-Levand Palacas 1980, it is not temporallyloaded. We then explore a commonsenseidea – namely that while sentence juxtaposition might be interpreted either as discourse coordination or subordination, and indicates coordination. SDRT already includes notions of coordinating and subordinating discourse relations (cf. Lascarides and Asher 1993, Asher 1993), and the meaning of and is related to this distinction. Similar distinctions that play a crucial role in anaphora resolution have also appeared in AI – cf. Scha and Polanyi 1988, or Webber 1991. However, this discourse-structure-based distinction has not been well defined yet, and our approach provides independent motivation for it. This paper argues that the semantics of and includes a notion of coordination expressed as the requirement of a Coordinated Discourse Topic (CDT).CDT characterizes aclass of discourse relations, among which are Narration and Result.Once the basic semanticcontribution of and is isolated, effects related to its presence such as changes in temporal structure, blocking of a Discourse Relation, or conditional meanings are shown to follow from the defeasiblearchitecture set up by SDRT.

[1]  J. Austin How to do things with words , 1962 .

[2]  H. Grice Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[3]  Ruth Kempson,et al.  Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics , 1975 .

[4]  Susan F. Schmerlinc Asymmetric Conjunction and Rules of Conversation , 1975 .

[5]  Zev Bar-Lev,et al.  Semantic command over pragmatic priority , 1980 .

[6]  R. Posner,et al.  Semantics and Pragmatics of Sentence Connectives in Natural Language , 1980 .

[7]  Robin Cohen,et al.  A computational model for the analysis of arguments , 1983 .

[8]  Lauri Carlson,et al.  "Well" in dialogue games , 1984 .

[9]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[10]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  QUANTIFIERS AND FOCUS , 1986 .

[11]  William C. Mann,et al.  Relational propositions in discourse , 1986 .

[12]  L. Polanyi A formal model of the structure of discourse , 1988 .

[13]  Remko Scha,et al.  An Augmented Context Free Grammar for Discourse , 1988, COLING.

[14]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[15]  J. Pierrehumbert,et al.  The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse , 1990 .

[16]  Nicholas Asher,et al.  Commonsense Entailment: A Modal Theory of Non-monotonic Reasoning , 1991, IJCAI.

[17]  Nicholas Asher,et al.  Reference to abstract objects in discourse , 1993, Studies in linguistics and philosophy.

[18]  R. Carston Conjunction, explanation and relevance , 1993 .

[19]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From discourse to logic , 1993 .

[20]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis , 1991, ArXiv.

[21]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  The Semantics and Pragmatics of Presupposition , 1998, J. Semant..

[22]  Allan Ramsay,et al.  Reference-based Discourse Structure for Reference Resolution , 1999 .

[23]  Nicholas Asher,et al.  Common Ground, Corrections, and Coordination , 2003 .

[24]  David R. Dowty The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: semantics or pragmatics? , 1986, The Language of Time - A Reader.

[25]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment , 1993, The Language of Time - A Reader.