聪明文档网

聪明文档网

最新最全的文档下载
当前位置: 首页> On Coordination and the Common Ground

On Coordination and the Common Ground

时间:    下载该word文档
OnCoordinationandthe
CommonGround
AntonBenz

1Introduction
Inthistalkweconsidertheroleofcommongroundforsomecoordinationproblemsindialogue.There,weconcentrateespeciallyonthedifferencebetweenexplicitandimplicitrepresentations.Aprototypicalexampleforacoordinationproblemistheso-calledcoordinatedattackproblem1:(1Twodivisionsofanarmyarecampedontwohilltops.Inthevalleyawaitstheenemy.Itis
clearthatifbothdivisionsattacktheenemysimultaneouslytheywillwinthebattle,whileifonlyonedivisionattacksitwillbedefeated.Asaresult,neithergeneralwillattackunlessheisabsolutelysurethattheotherwillattackwithhim.Inparticular,ageneralwillnotattackifhereceivesnomassage.Thecommandinggeneralofthefirstdivisionwishestocoordinateasimultaneousattack.Thetwoarmieshavetocoordinateajoinedprojectsimultaneousattackwithacommongoaldefeatingtheenemy.Thereisaviewonlanguageuse2whichemphasisesespeciallytheroleofjoinedprojectsandtheirrelationtocommongroundandpublicgoals.Inthistalkwewanttoconsidertheroleofcommongroundmoreclosely,especiallyitstwoaspectsascommoninformationwhichisprovidedbygeneralrulesoflanguageinterpretation,andasexplicitlyrepresentedcommonknowledge.
Ifweconsideronlymonologue,thenwecanidentifythecommongroundatacertainpointwiththeinformationwhichhasbeenintroducedintheprevioustext.Thereareprincipallytwowaystorepresentthecommonground:Asasetofpossibleworldsorinamoresyntacticway,e.g.asaDiscourseRepresentationStructure(DRS3.Itiscommongroundthatasentenceψholdsiffψistrueinallworlds,oriffitisaDRS–condition.ThemeaningofaDRSisasetofworlds,orworld–assignmentpairs.Thisallowstocomparethetworepresentations.Themaindifferenceiswithrespecttofine–grainednessandlogicalomniscience4.Wecallthepossibleworldsrepresentationthecommoninformation,andtheDRS-likerepresentationacommonDRS.
Ifwelookatdialogue,thenthedistinctionbetweentheserepresentationshasmoreinterestingaspects.Asanexample,welookattheuseofspecificindefiniteNPsandreferencetothembyuseofpronounsordefinitedescriptions5.
(2A:Yesterday,amanranintomyoffice,whoinquiredafterthesecretary’soffice.
B:Wasthemanwearingapurplejoggingsuit?
A:IfitwasArnoldhewas,andifitwassomebodyelsehewasnot.
DekkerobservesthatA’sanswersoundsstrange,evenifweassumethattherewasmorethanonepersoncomingintotheoffice,oneofthemArnold.Weassumethatadefinitedescriptiondefϕpicksoutanobject(1whichmustbegiveninthecommonground,and(2whichistheonlyoneinthecommongroundwhichhasthepropertyϕ.Fordialoguethereareagainthetwowaystorepresentthecommonground:Asasetofpossibleworldsorinasyntacticway.Accordingtothefirstview,thecommongroundcanbeidentifiedwiththesetofallworldswhichareepistemicallypossibleforoneofthedialogueparticipants,orwhicharepossibleforoneoftheparticipantsaccordingtothebeliefsoftheotherparticipantsabouthisbeliefs,etc.Intuitively,B’suseofthemanintheexamplerefersbacktoaspecificpersonintroducedbyA.Butifwerepresentthecommongroundasasetofpossibleworlds,thenthereisnouniquerealobjectsuchthatadefinitedescriptioncanpickitoutastheonlyobjectwhichisaman.Thereisonlyauniquediscoursereferent,butdiscoursereferentsarenotpartofthecommoninformation.Hence,wecantryaDRS–likerepresentationforthecommonground,butthenwehavetoexplaininwhichsensesuch
[4,pp.176–183].Theexampleistakenfromp.176.course,itisH.H.Clark’sviewwehaveinmind[2].3[6],ore.g.asasentenceinDynamicPredicateLogic[5].
4See[4,Ch.7]and[7,Ch.2]foradiscussionofvariousnotionsofknowledgeandbeliefinmodalapproachesandtheproblemoflogicalomniscience.
5TheexampleisduetoP.Dekker[3].InDekker’soriginalversionB’sutterancecontainsapronounbutourpointbecomesclearerifwereplaceitbyadefinitedescription.
2Of1See
1

aDRSiscommon,andhowinterlocutorsmanagetorefertothesameobject.Thelastpointiscriticalespeciallyifweassumethatreferentsintroducedbyspecificindefinitesarefreevariables.Wewillarguethat:
Bothrepresentationshavetobekeptdistinct.
Successofcoordinationisdefinedrelativetocommoninformation.TherearefixedrulesinacommunityforhowtoupdatethecommonDRS.
Ourmainexamplewhichshowsthatwehavetomakeadistinctionbetweencommoninforma-tionandcommonDRSesistheuseofspecificindefinitesandanaphoricreferencetotheobjectsintroducedbythem.Here,weassumethatallparticipantsuseDRS-likerepresentationsforthecommongroundandthattheinterpretationofdefinitedescriptionsdependonthem.Thatthedescriptionthenreferstothesameobjectisacoordinationproblem.WediscussthisexampleinSection3.Wemodelitbyuseofmulti–agentsystems.Thissystemsconsistofasetofsituations,joinedacts,atransitionoperation,andafunctionPwhichspecifieswhichjoinedactscanpossiblybeperformedinwhichsituation.SemanticandpragmaticconditionsenterasrestrictionsonthefunctionP.Weintroducemulti–agentsystemsinmoredetailinSection2.Successhastobedefinedwithrespecttocommoninformation.ThisismotivatedbyExample(1.Wheresuccessmeansthatinterlocutorsmanagetosolveacoordinationproblem.Inordertoshowthatfixedupdaterulesplayacrucialroleforcoordinationwediscussthetimeimprecisionproblem6,andtheMuddyChildrenPuzzle7inSection4.
2DialogueandMulti–AgentSystems
WedescribedialoguefragmentsasMulti–AgentSystems.Here,wefollowthetheorydevelopedin[4].Withinthisframeworkwecandescribedialogueandtheupdateoftheknowledgebasesoftheparticipantsasagame.Thishastheadvantagethatwecanexploitstandardtechniquestodefinetheinformationofagentsinapossibleworldsframework,andwegettheusualdefinitionofmutualknowledge.Amulti–agentsystemconsistsofthefollowingcomponents:1.AsetSofglobalstates.
2.AsetACTofpossibledialogueacts.
3.AfunctionP8whichtellsuswhichdialogueactscanbeperformedinwhichdialoguesitua-tions.4.Atransitionoperationτ:ACT×SSwhichmodelstheeffectofperformingadialogueact.5.AsetofinitialdialoguesituationsS0.
WeidentifydialogueswiththesetDofallsequences

免费下载 Word文档免费下载: On Coordination and the Common Ground

  • 29.8

    ¥45 每天只需1.0元
    1个月 推荐
  • 9.9

    ¥15
    1天
  • 59.8

    ¥90
    3个月

选择支付方式

  • 微信付款
郑重提醒:支付后,系统自动为您完成注册

请使用微信扫码支付(元)

订单号:
支付后,系统自动为您完成注册
遇到问题请联系 在线客服

常用手机号:
用于找回密码
图片验证码:
看不清?点击更换
短信验证码:
新密码:
 
绑定后可用手机号登录
请不要关闭本页面,支付完成后请点击【支付完成】按钮
遇到问题请联系 在线客服