Japanese and Situation Semantics R.Sugimura

Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT) Japan.

ABSTILACT A model of Japanese expressions ill situation semantics is Ex.l [ proposed. Situation semantics provides considerable power for analyzing the complicated structure of Japanese honorific expressions. The main Agent A22(a21,a22) feature of this model is a set of basic rules for in context switching ltearer Y(yl ,y2) honorific sentences. Mizutani~ theory of Japanese honorifics is presented and incorporated in the model which has been used to develope an Agent Al(all,al2) experimental systom capable of analyzing honorific context. Stone features of this system are described...... )to,0) 1. Introduction I Tile , like Korean and many nonoEm'opean llonorifie Space languages, contains a grmmnaticalized system of Ironer)tic forms. It is well hearer Y to agent2 is defined as the vector fi'om (yl,y2) to (a21, a22), i.e., known that the use of honor)ties is closely connected to context, inehating the vector (a2l-yl, a22-y2). aspects like relatiw, social standing. No effective mechanisms have heen Next, we define the honorific wlluc and the dh'ection in the following developed to deal with this problem. Situation Semantics (SS) IBarwise way, 1982,1984a,1984b,1985a, 1985b,1985c,1985d,1985ell Barwise & Perry Definition 1 Honorific value 1983] [l,experaneeJ[Pollard 1985HCreary & Pollard] is a ttmory of context For t = , used here to construct a nmdel of honorific sentences to analyze the relationship tmtween sentence and context. honorifievalueof - a2iffal = 0; 0 iffal \= 0; About Japanese, we call make use of Mizutani's theory of honor)lies [Mizutani 1983a,1983b]. This theory dees tackle tire relation between Definition2 Honorific direction context and sentence, but it seems that SS can describe context move l) Up <1> > 0, 3) Flat = 0Aal = 0, usefldly than Mizutani's theory. In this palter, SS is used to reconstruct the 2)])own <0, 4)Across =0Aal\=0, context given by Mizutani's theory. Ilonorifie forms arc analyzed and basic We represent the "flat" honor,fie relation between agents explicitly, rules flu' context switching are established. but the "across" relation is represented as in which there is no need to Table 1 gives the relation between Mizutani's theory of honorifles and express the honor,fie relation explicitly. For conventional use, we define the model. This model can be divided into two parts. The first part describes the following direetlons. basic context features and the second describes lexical rules based on 5) anyl up or down or flat. 6) any2 up or down or flat or across Mizutani's Jal)anese grammar, along with some basic mechanisms of Te analyze ttte sentence uttered, definitions of tile following honorific "context switching." relations are necessary, Table 1 Definition.3 First order honorific relation m The honer,fie attitude of the speaker to tim hearer. Mizutani's Timory Our Model Social status Binary reiatioia IY Context of honorifics as vector element as event type in SS 1st Definition4 Second order honorific relation The honorific attitude of tl,e ,;peaker or tile hearer toward the agent in Discourse formalism none SS part the sentence of discourse. In this case the original point of tile vector should Gramnmr Japanese grammar be tile point of the hearer or sl)eaker, whichever is higher. If I > 1[ the in CFG Form in IICG form 2nd original point of the vector will be l, att(t if ] < I1 tile origin will H We Context switch in introduce the notation J which stands for" tile higher individual. none In complex sentence liar, honorific sentence JA Implement none In CIL Definition 5 Third order honorific relation ..... = - = The tmnorific relation between agents ofs discourse. I~ is very easy to reln'esent some context features in discourse in SS, but context involves some very difficult problems like "focusing." We want to A1 A2 analyze this in future research. In this paper only enough elements for 2.2. dapanese Gramnmr Now we can represent tim relation between these three honorific context required in Mizutani's theory are set up. relations and the sentences of discourse. Before looking at this honorific The main concern here is the second part of the model which deals with relation, we will show the small oumber of Japanese grammar rules used fo the relationship between contextual elements and lexical elements, attd define the structure of sample Japanese seutenees. This grammar is taken especially the mechanism of "context switching" on honor)tics. fi'om the "Sketeh of Japanese Gramlnar" [Mizutani 1983al, a part of which Mizutani's theory of honorific exltression in Japanese is described first. is shown in Figure l. This grammar is presented in CFG, but we give the Then the model in ~{S is presented. The context feature of relative social rules in I)CG. status in Mizutani'n theory is realized in the first part of the model. This is Figure. 1 followd by explanal:ion ef some basic features designed to handle the sentence--> sn sn ~.-> sn0 mechanism of context switching in the second part. Finally, au *1) sn > sn0,1toLsn0. *2) sn ~-> sm,s0,em,ltel,s0. experimental system based on this model is given. Tiffs system was so0 --> ph,ps, ph -.-> np,cm,ph. implemented in CfL (Complex Indeterminate Imnguage)[Mukai 1985a, ph > vp. vp --> subl,v,sub2, honm'ificform 1985b1. Results from some experiments processing Japanese honorific vp --> v. vp --> v,sub4, honorific form expressions are given at the end of the paper. np > n. nit --> n,sub3, honorific fbrm 2. Mizutani's theory of Japanese honorific expression n - > [(tarol;[hanako I. (nanm of individual) cnl --> [gal. em - > [nil. agent/objectcase ma,'ker 2.1. Honorific Status --> [anl. (meet) v --> [iu]. (say) tlonorific relations are represented as vectors in an abstract v ps > [tal. ps ~-> [mashi,tal. honorific form twodimensional henorifie space. In the honorific space the speaker in tim sub I > [ol, sub2 - > [nasarul. discourse is set as tile origin. Other individuals like hearer and agents wire sub4 --> [mousul. sub3- > [samaJ. (like "Mr.") are presented in the sentence of discourse are represented by vectors as in the following example. tu his theory, Mizutani attaches Japanese terms to each terminal and non terminal node. Table 2 gives the correspondence between Mizutani's An honorific attitude is defined as tile vector between these points. For Japanese terms and standard English grammatical terms. Rules *1) and example, the honorific attitude from tim speaker (1) to the hearer (Y) is "2) above are not represented in his grammar. These rules were included defined as a vector fi'om I{0,0) to Y(yl ,y2). The honorific attitude fi'mn the specifically to represent direct and indirect speech.

507 'Fable. 2 In Japanese there are many honorific words, and some interesting sn(sentence nuclear) = juttaiku sn0(senteuce nuclear 0) = juttaiku0 phenomena are to be found in daily life. era(case marker) = kakuhyoji, ps (post sentence marker) = juttaiji. For example, a secretary in the company president's office should have ph (phrase element) = jutsuso, vp (verb phrase) = yorengo. many honorific words in his resource situation (RS) because he always has v (verb) = doshi np (noun phrase} = tairengo, n (noun) = taigen. to be careful to use the appropriate honorific expression in his wm'k. On the 2.3.Relation between honorific context and Japanese grammar. other hand university students will have a poor stock of honorific words for The following relation holds between honorific relations and the there is no need to express honorific status, except to teachers. sentence of discourse. The notation "= = = >" means the left element has A constraint is required which determines the relation between the some effect on the right element. honorific event type (Eh) and word representation. This is the "conditional l ) Changes in the the first order honorific relation arc shown. constraint on word selection (Cw)." Mizutani's rules for first order through Rule I relation third order honorific relations given in 2.3. correspond to this constraint I,H ===> ps Cw. Word representation should be an event type called "honorific word 2) Changes in the second order honorific relation are shown by description selection event (HW)", and if a person does not have this event type in his of individual A1 and the honorific elements subl and sub2 of vp in the resource situation, he or she will have a poor range of honorifics. We agent case, and by description of individual A2 as the np in the object represent these Cw and HW in formula 6). case. In formula 6), "Cwl(Eh,~q" denotes the conditional constraint of word Rule2 relation selection Cw which has Eh and anchor "f" as its conditional schema. Anchor J,A1 ===> np (in agent case) vp (subl and sub2) "f" determines the relation between indeterminates in Eh and objects like J, A2 = = = > np (in object case) taro and hanako. See Barwise's work for details. 6) is read : ifEb is factual 3) The third order honorific relation is shown by v in vp and Cw is satisfied, then ItW is actual. Rule 3 relation 6) Cwl(Eh,f} : = Involve Eh, llW ;yes A1,A2 ===> v Conditional constraint on word selection has an honorific event type 3. Model of the honorific sentence and its anchor as its scheme. In Japanese honorific expressions, if Eh and f In this section, we present our model in SS. Readers who are familiar are given, the word representation will follow very easily. Some instances with SS can skip Section 3.1. of thls are given in formulas 7) through 15). For example, formula 7) can be 3.1. First Part on Context Features read : if Eh is actual and the anchor f anchors t to individual J (J is the 3.1.1. Model of discourse speaker or the hearer) or t' to A1 in the agent case, then hw is actual so that In the theory of situation senmntics, discourses are represented within when refering to t' honorific form tairen-go (np) is added to the description situations and constraints. In formal representation the sentence and AI. context are expressed in the form "d,c [sentence[s, e". d stands for discourse 7) Eh(0f(t)=J,f(t')=A1 bw:=refert',[Al][npinh-form] situation (l)U), c is the speaker's connection (CS), s is abe setting and e is 8) Eh{f) fit)= J, f(t') = A2 hw refer t', [A2][np in h-form] the described situation. There is another situation called a resource 9) Eh(f) f(t) = J, fit') = AI hw : = refer R, [Rl[vp in h-form] situation in this theory. In our model we define a resource situation for each 10) Eh(f) f(t) = Al,f(t') = A2 hw : = refer R, [R][vp in h-form] individual. 11) Eh(f) fit) = I, fit'} = Y law refer E, [E Hps in h-form] 12) Eh(f) fit) = 1, f(t') = A 1 bw : = refer t', [t] (I) Dhcourse Situation (I)U) 13) Eh(f) f(t) =l, f(t') = A2 law:= refer t', [t] lIere is an example of the representation of a sentence in discourse. 3.2. Second Part on The Relation between Context Features and the Ex 2. John said "Tom met Jane" to Jim. Sentence el : = loc, 10 ; yes saying John ; yes 3.2.1. C1L as basic language addressing John,Jim ; yes uttering "Tom met Jane" ; yes Before going into the representation of lexical rules which give the l0 < ld (ld means discourse location) correspondence between honorific word expressious and sentences, and Discourse situations are represented in the following form as series of context switching on honorific sentences, we describe CIL used in the terms expressing relations between speaker A, hearer B and uttered description of lexical rules. Accurate accounts of C1L can be found in sentence ][alpha]]. in SS, spatio4emporal location is defined in discourse [Mukai 1985a,1985b]. llere only the part needed to understand the lexical situations, but we have no effective way to formalize it in our model, so rules in section 3.2.2 is describe([. spatio-temporal location is not represented. CIL (Complex Indeterminate Language) can be represented by the DU : = speaking A;yes addressing,A,B;yes saying,A,alpha;yes following formula. (11) Speaker's Connection (CS) CIL =Prolog + ParameterlzedTypes +Freeze The speaker's connection is a series of the following types. A is the =Prolog + Frame +Freeze. actual object and [AI is the word that represents A. C1L has the unique data structure called "complex indeterminate." CS : = speaking A;yes refers A [A] ; yes This data structure can be regarded as a frame and represented as in the (111) Resource Situation(RS) following example. (1) term((Xwitha:= X,b:= YwhereX = Y)). A resource situation is defined for each individual in a discourse; it (2) > term(Z),a!Z = abc,b!Z = abc. contains many events and constraints. yes. RS : = agent A;yes Formula (1) is the specification of the data type and this can be used in has ; {SOAs, Constraints Necessary,Nomic,Conventional formula (2). "a := X" means assign value X to slot a. "X=Y" denotes the condition part. If this condition is not satisfied the unification "term(X)" in Event type,,,,} (2) will fail. Formula (2) utilizes the complex indeterminate and unifies 3.1.2. Honorific context in the sentence "abc" to each slot value. (I) Honorific Attitude Event type 3.2.2. DCG Rules for honorlfies We introduce an "honorific attitude event type (Eh)" which stands for (I) First order bonorifics As Rule 1 in Section 2.3. shows, first order an honorific attitude in Mizutani's theory. honorifics affect "ps." This is illustrated by the following examples. Formula 1) represents the mind status (HE) of the speaker towards Eh. Ex.3 This corresponds to Eh in 11) in section 3.1.2. A denotes the individual and "Itr" indicates that in the nfind of the individual A, the honorific event type Eh is "represented." Eh shows the ps([talX],X,Context) <- dsolve(hono!((agent!(ds!Context))!(rs!Context), external honorific event including social honorifics. eq(speaker](ds!Context),object!(lex!Context))). Formulas 2) through 5) represent the basic honorific attitude event ,,< 2, denotes the operator ":-" in Prolog [Bowen 1982]. "[ta]X],X" is the types (Eh). In Mizutani's theory, this event type is represented as a vector, DCG parsing mechanism. "Context" is a complex indeterminate variable but we represent it in the form of a binary relation. For one example, in 2) "honor-up" denotes the honorific relation between individuals t and t'. "ind for the context for this parsing part. "dsolve" is a Prolog predicate with the following mechanism. t __ ; yes" denotes that t is an individual which can be represented in" "as its name. dsolve(X,Y). X is a list like [a,b,c,dl which contains Prolog atmns or terms. Frame of Mind Y is a Prolog atom or term. 1)ilE:= Itr, A, Eh ;yes oft,_;yes oft',.r_;yes 1) Search list X for Y. 2) Eh : = honor up t,t';yes ind t ,_;yes ind t ,__ ;yes 2) If there is a term in X with the same arguments 3) Eh : = honor down t,t';tyes ind t, __ ;yes ind t',__ ;yes but different term name, fail and return. 4) Eh honor~across t,t ;yes ind t, __ ;yes ind t' ;yes 3) if Y is not in X, then add Y to list X,succeed and return. 5) Eh : = honor eq t,t';yes ind t, _ ;yes ind t' _ ;yes 4) lfY is in X, succeed and return. (11) Conditional Constraint on Word Selection "hono!((agent!(ds!Context))!(rs!Cantext))" represents a list of honorific In Section 2.3. we described the relation between honorific context and event types in the resom'ce situation of the agent of discourse. "object! grammatical rules. This section corresponds to Section 2.3. (lex!Context))" represents the lexical object in this parsing stage. This

508 notation for lexical items has its origin in Lexical Functional Gramrnar switch, so if a parsing failed because of the context ofhonorifics, use this tKaplan & Bresnaul, so this expression can be represented like (~object) in rule. the LFG manner. Sentence 1) is analyzed using rule 1,5) and the mechanism of context This example states that if"ps" = |taL then there should he honorific switch is dcerived fi'om phase (I) to phase 010. information in the resource situation of the individual who is the speaker. (I) Parsing really starts with the rule 3) estimating that there is no If the speaker's RS contains two or nmre different terms expressing the context switching. But at point *1, a conflict between S's resource situation honorific relationship between the same agents, fail. Thus, the and honorific expression occurs. In S's resource situation, the honorific mechanism of 2) in dsolve is very important because it shows that in the relation between S and Taro is down(S, taro), but [taro,samal requests the honorific information of one individual there should not be different honorific relation up(S,taro), so context switch occurs at *2. Rule 5) information about the binary honorific relation between two individuals. switches the agent of discourse fi'om S to U. Context switch does not occur (11) Second order honorifics Lexieal rules for second order lmnorifies at this point again. We use the notation I)S(S) to state that the agent of can be represented as in following example program. discourse is S. The symbol --> means the context of left hand side is Ex.4 This corresponds to Eh in 7) and 8) in Section 3.1.2. changed to the context of the right hand side as the result of context switch. np(X0,X2,Context) <- (T said U said Taro met llanake) n(X0,XI ,Context),sub3(X 1,X2,Context), taro sama ga hanako sama ni ai nasa( ta to U ga iware ta to T ga iu ta. dsolve(honn!((agent!(ds!Context))!(rs!Context), up(agenl,!(ds!X),obj!(lex!X))). in RS of S s (Ill) Third order honorifics Lexical rules for third order honorifics can be down(s,taro) I represenl;ed as in the following example program. I)S(S) sn0 Ex.5 This corresponds to Eh in 10) in section 3.1.2. vp(X0,X2,Context) <- I)S(S)--> I)S(U) sn0 --sn0 v(X0,Xl ,Context),suM(X, ,X2,Context), dsolve(hono!((agent!(ds!Context))!(rs!Context), *l) down(s,taro) m?0 --sn0 up(agenti(lex!X),obj!(lex!X))). 3.2.3 Context switching in honorific sentences When we utilize the contextual elements like I)S and RS in discourse II l) -- cm -- -pn ~¢ ph ~ps it is very difficult to decide the context for each sentence. A sentence in I discourse can be represented by the expression "I)S,CS,I[alptm]]S,E", but nlFeI-lih then how do we nmp contexts like DS and CS to complex sentences ? I np--em--? I iP Mizutani's theory of honorific forms does not go into context switching in a complex sentence. So we have expanded his grammar and propose a basic mechanism for contcx~ switching. ? 'i ? ? "1 Consider sentence l) below uttered by individual S to R which means "individual T said that individual U said that Taro met llanako." In this taro sanla ga banako sanla ni o all nasat I,a to g ga iwaro ta example, we establish relations a) through j) among S, T, U, Taro and (t0 Next, the parsing mechanism finds a conflict at point '3). lU,ga, ltanako. The operater > denotes the situation in which tim left hand side iware,tal requests honorific relation up(S,U), hut the resource situation of honm's the right hand side, < denotes the situation in which the right had S contains the honorific relation down(S,U). Then context switch given side hmmrs the left hand side, and = denotes the situation in which there is in 5) is al)plied at p(fint *4). no need to use honerifics between left hand side and right hand side. The main point in utterances of this fm'm is that honorifics in these in RS of S s sentence change according to the form of speech, such as direct or down(s,taro) [ indirect speech. BuL in the Japanese discourse there are no markers like "'" and "'", so in order to process these sentences correctly, we need the DS(S)-.-> DS(T) sn0 *4) mechanism of"context switching." Without this mechanism, all sentences wonld be parsed with one context, but this cannot explain the reason why I)S(U) snO -- --sn0 honorifics change in complex sentences. *2) 1) In S's utterance he said to R *1) an0 !--an0 ( "T said, U said, Taro met tlanako") "taro sama ga hanako sama ni ai nasa( ta' to U ga iware ta' to T ga iu ta. up(s,taro) p[," 'P[I' "ps *; InRSofS a) S>Taro b) S>ilanakoc)S>T d) S> U np -- cm )h I ph ps e) taro > hanako In I{S ofT f)T < U g) !l' = Taro h) T < Ilanako i) Taro < tlanako L vf vp In RSofU j) U < Taro k) U < [lanakol)Taro > ftanako These are the parsing rules used to analyze utterances. IA) sentence--> an(X), ds!X = Y, agent!Y = s, ohilY = r,at!Y = L, n-sub31[ li-sur3 su~4-stb2i nl !1 /* a,b,c,d,e */ honoi(s!(rsiX)) = [down(s,taro),down(s,hanako), down(s,t),down(s,u),down(taro,hanako)], taro sama ga hanako sama ni o au nasat ta to U ga iware ta to T ga it ta /* f,g,h,i */ honoi(ti(rs!X)) = [up(t,u),eq(t,taro),up(t,hanalm), (U0 Finally, this sentence is parsed like the following tree. up(taro,hanako)], /*j,k,I */ hono!(u!(rs!X)) = [up(u,taro),up(u,hanako), in ItS of S down(taro,.hanako)]. b2) an(X) --> sn0(X). down(s,taro) i L3) sn(X) --> snO(X),[tol,sno(X), DS(T) sn0 DS(S) L4) an(X) -- > sm,sn0(Y),em,[to],sn0(Z), agent!(ds!Y) = agent[Z,ds!X = ds!Z,obj!(ds!Y) = obj!Z. DS(U) sn0 ..... an0 LS) sn(X) --> sn0(Y),[to],sn0(Z),agent!(ds!Y) = agent!Z,dsiX = ds!Z, *2) '4 obj!(dsIY) = ob.i!Z. "1) sn0-- sn0 LI) and L2) are fornml rules to start the process, while L3),L4} and LS) are basic rules for determining context switch in sentences of discourse. up(s,taro) Pf' I, --ps * LI) specifies the initial stage for parsing. In 1) above S tells R something np --cm l)la 1 Ic ps so this context is set in the slot denoted by ds!X. L2) states that all of the features of sn0 are transfered to sa to meet a ? - n] ¢ requirement of Mizu(ani's grammar. This is done easily by unification. 1,3) means that all of the featnres in sn0 are transfered to sn. This mechanism corresponds to indirect speech. L4) means that there should be context switch. As the discourse situation n sub3 su 3 su ub2 n v for sn0, set agent of discourse of sn0 to agent of Z who utters sn0 and set I I I object of diseom'se of sn0 to object of Z who hears this utterance. taro sama ga hanako sama nio au nasat ta to U ga iware ta to T ga it ta L5) means that in a sentence with no marker, there cat) be context 3.3. Ch and Cw 509 Now, we have come to the main point of our model, but there remains an don't know how this context is represented in the human mind. This interesting feature of Cw. This constraint is not verified so with some requires further research. trepidation we touch on it briefly here. This treatment of the context switching mechanisms of honorifics is For example, when a worker "Suzuki" refers to his friend "Tanaka" with a first step toward analyzing more complicated phenomena. The main contempt, he will intentionally use a polite word to refer to him such as contribution ~)f this model derives from the fact that in any complex "Tanaka " (Mr.Tanaka). When the hearer (Y)bears this polite sentence, there will probably be context switching on honorifics..But this expression,he decides on honorific event types but finds conflicts between model shows context switching in a complex sentence only and tttere these types and the normal social event types in his resource situation. remains more complicated phenomena like the following. Ex.6 S tlanako soma ni aLta' [ttanako sama] is a honorific fm'm expression [Tanaka sensei] where Eh : = at h honor up,Suzuki,Tanaka (1 met Ilanake.) expression [Tanaka sensei] where Eh : = at l: honor down,Suzuki,Tmml~a R "llanako samattc dare?' (Who is "Ilanako"?) in RS of Y I--- $1 -I lIE := Iir Y,Eh;yes S 'Tanaka Ilanako' (tlanako Tanaka) Eh:= at lu: honor eq,Tanaka,Suzuki R 'Aa, hona no yatsu ka' [hana] is nonhonorific form --> hearer find conflict and the hearer wonders why [! (Oh, liana!) Then the hearer (Y) wonders why he broke the universal honorific $1 is the direct speech act and ttmre should be a context switch event. Finally, he comes to the conclusion that Suzuki intends either to because when R knows who llanako is, he refers to her with the praise Tanaka or berate him. We can go no further on this problem here. nonhonorific "liana." But we do not formalize the context switch which There are other aspects to Eh. If the sentence is given first, Eh will be decides who is the agent of sentence $1. To solve this problem, we should calculated for each word and there remains a possibility of conflict between use an "anaphora mechanism for the honorific context" and in order to honorific event types Eh in a simple sentence. In a complex sentence the build a firm model of this mechanism, study not only of the anaphora mechanism of context switch will be used, but in a simple sentence this mechanism I Barwise 1985c1 but also the focusing mechanism [Sidner] is mechanism is not effective. When the hearer tries to deal with this required. These also are topic for filrtbcr research. conflict, he or she will assume that the speaker has some illegal honorific ACI(NOWlA~]DGEMEN'rS constraint Ch'. We have implemented this mechanism in our model system. 1 would like to thank Mr.Mukai of [COT for his comments on context 4. System Configuration switching and Mr.Yokoi, the lleod of the Second Research Laboratory at Our experimental system written in C1L runs on the DEC 2060 and ICOT, for his encouragement and for allowing nm ample time for this utilizes Prolog as the basic programming environment, which enables us to work. use CIL. C1L is now compiled and runs very fast on DEC 2060. Next, we I{EI~ERENCE want to run this I)CG parser on the Bottom Up Parser [Matsumoto 1983], [Barwise 19821 Barwise, J., "Some Computational Aspects of Situation [Matsumoto,Kiyono,1984]. Semantics", ACt,(1982),pp. 109-111. 5. Some Other Examples IBarwise 1984a] Barwise, J., "Lectures on Situation Semantics", [n tiffs section, we give some examples which have no relation to Lecture Notes for Winter Quarter(1984). context switching. [Barwise 1984bl Barwise, d., "The Situation in Logic-- I", CSLI Report 1) Sentence without honorific expression. No. CSLI-84-2,March (1984). [Barwise 1985a] Barwise, J., "The Situation in l,ogic -- 11", CSIA Report A sentence without honorifics is parsed. Those are resource situations fro" this type of sentence. No. CSLI-85-12, January (1985). [Barwise 1985b1 Barwise, J., "The Situation in Logic -- 1[I : Situation, Sets I ?- parse([taro,ga,hanako,ni,at,tal,[J,Context). and the Axiom of Foundation", CSIJ Report No. CSIA-84-26, June (1985). RS ...... [Barwise 1985c1 Ilarwise, J., "A Model of the Treatment of Anaphora in [i1855 ::anchor: = 1857,relation: = rs,agent: =,r, Situation Semantics", Informal Notes, No. 1N-CS1,1-85-1(1985). has:=[ 1626, 34221 3885] lBarwise 1985d] Barwise, J., "Notes on Situation Theory and Situation [__1624= anchor: = 1626, relation: -- honor, spec: = equi Semantics for CSL1 Summer School", Notes for lectures July 8-12(1985). agentl: = s, agent2: = taro [Barwise 1985e1 Barwise,J., "On the Model Theory of Shared 3420:: anchor: = 3422, relation: = bonor,spec: = equi Information", Lecture Note for July 16 (19851. agentl: = s,agent2: = hanako ] l [Barwise & Perry 19831 Barwise, J. & Perry, d., Situations and Attitudes 2) Sentence with illegal honorific expression (MIT Press, 1983). The following is an sentence with conflict between honorific word [Mizutani 1983a] S.Mizntani "Koku bunpo so-bye (Sketch of Japanese expressions. |taro] is a word witbour honorifics but [o,ai,nasat] are words Grammar)", Bunpo to imi (Grammar and Meaning),(Asakm'a 1983l,pp.1-80 with honorifics fi'om the speaker to Taro. In a simple sentence, there [Mizutani 1983b] S.Mizutani "Taigu hyogcn no shikumi (Structure of should not he conflict between honorific relations. If there is, then the llonorific Expressions)",Unyo 1 (Pragmatics 1),(Asakura 1983), pp. 158-178 hearer R gets information that the speaker S has some trouble with [I,esperance] Lesperance, Y., "Toward a Computational Interpretations of honorific word expression. Situation Semantics",(draft) [?- parse(l)S,RS,CS,[taro,ga,hanako,ni,o,ai,nasat,ta],[]). ]Pollard 1985] Pollard, C.,J., "Toward an Anadic Situation Semantics", RS ...... (draft) (1985) [ 1870 :: anchor:= 1872,relation:=rs,agent:=r, [Creary & Pollard] Creary L.G., & Pollard, C.J. "A Compntational has:=[__1641, 3437, 4555[ 5330] Semantics for Natural l,anguagc" (1985) [ 1639::anchor: = 1641,relation: = honor,spec: =equi, ]Cohen] Cohen, P.,R., & Levesque, H.,J., "Speech Acts and Rationality" agentl: = s,agent2: = taro AC1,(1985) 3435::anchor: = 3437,relation: = honor,spec: = equi, [Kaplan & Bresnan] Kaplan, R.,M., & Bresnan, J., "I,exical-Functional agentl: = s,agent2: = hanako Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation" 4553::anchor: = 4555,relation: = honor,spec: = up, [Mukai 1985a] K.Mukai "llorn Clause Logic with Parameterized Types for agentl : = s,agent2: = taro], Situation Semantics Programming" ICOT Technical Report No.TRI0I, 5688:: anchor: = 5690,relation: = rs,agent: =r, February,(1985) has:=[ 5812[ 5620] [Mukai 1985b] K.Mukai "Unification over Complex Indetcrminates in [ 5810::anchor: = 5812,relation: = illegal,argl: = bonor,arg2: = s] Prolog" ICOT Technical Report No.TR113,June,(1985) 3) Complex case [Bowen 1982] l). Rowen (ed.), I,.MByrd,F.C.N. Perdita, l,.M.Pereira & 1). This example sentence contains ninny honorific expressions. Tim il.I).Warren "l)ECsystem-10 Prolog User's Manual,Department of system analyzes these expressions to find some honorific event type in the Artificial Intelligence, University of Edingbm'gh,(1982). |Sidner] Candace L.Sidner, "Focusing in the comprehension of definite speaker's mind. anaphora" M.Brandy & C.Berwick (ed.) Computational Models of l)iscom'se I?-parse(DS,RS,CS,[taro,sama,ga,hana ~o,ni,o,ai,nasai,masita],[I). (MIT Press 1983) pp. 107-164 RS ...... [Matsumoto 19831 Matsunmto, Y., et al., "BUP: A Bottom-Up Parser [__2545 :: anchor: = 2547,relation: = rs,agent: = r, Embedded in Protog," New Generation Computing, vol. l, no. 2, pp. 145-158, has:=[ 2316, 4046,, 6558] 7153.1 1983. [ 2314::anchor: = 2316,relation:-- houm',spec: =up, [Matsumoto,Kiyono 1984] Matsamoto, Y., Kiyono, M. and Tanaka, tI., agentl; -- s,agent2: = taro, "Facilities of the BUP Parsing System," Proceedings of the 1st 4044::anchor: = 4046,relation: = honor,spec: = equi, International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic agentl: = s,agent2: = hanako, Programming, Rennes, France, Sept. 1984. $ 6556::anchor:- 6558,relation: = hoaor,spec: = up, agentl:=s,agent2:=r] 12068] 7. Conclusion It is easy to model honorific context in situation semantics. But we

510