Japanese Honorifics and Situation Semantics 
R.Sugimura 
Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT) Japan. 
ABSTILACT 
A model of Japanese honorific expressions ill situation semantics is 
proposed. Situation semantics provides considerable power for analyzing 
the complicated structure of Japanese honorific expressions. The main 
feature of this model is a set of basic rules for context switching in 
honorific sentences. Mizutani~ theory of Japanese honorifics is presented 
and incorporated in the model which has been used to develope an 
experimental systom capable of analyzing honorific context. Stone 
features of this system are described. 
1. Introduction 
Tile Japanese language, like Korean and many nonoEm'opean 
languages, contains a grmmnaticalized system of Ironer)tic forms. It is well 
known that the use of honor)ties is closely connected to context, inehating 
aspects like relatiw, social standing. No effective mechanisms have heen 
developed to deal with this problem. Situation Semantics (SS) IBarwise 
1982,1984a,1984b,1985a, 1985b,1985c,1985d,1985ell Barwise & Perry 
1983\] \[l,experaneeJ\[Pollard 1985HCreary & Pollard\] is a ttmory of context 
used here to construct a nmdel of honorific sentences to analyze the 
relationship tmtween sentence and context. 
About Japanese, we call make use of Mizutani's theory of honor)lies 
\[Mizutani 1983a,1983b\]. This theory dees tackle tire relation between 
context and sentence, but it seems that SS can describe context move 
usefldly than Mizutani's theory. In this palter, SS is used to reconstruct the 
context given by Mizutani's theory. Ilonorifie forms arc analyzed and basic 
rules flu' context switching are established. 
Table 1 gives the relation between Mizutani's theory of honorifles and 
the model. This model can be divided into two parts. The first part describes 
basic context features and the second describes lexical rules based on 
Mizutani's Jal)anese grammar, along with some basic mechanisms of 
"context switching." 
Table 1 
Mizutani's Timory Our Model 
Social status Binary reiatioia Context of honorifics 
as vector element as event type in SS 
Discourse formalism none SS 
Gramnmr Japanese grammar Japanese grammar 
in CFG Form in IICG form 
Context switch in none 
In complex sentence honorific sentence 
Implement none In CIL 
m 
1st 
part 
2nd 
liar, 
..... = - = 
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 
analyze this in future research. In this paper only enough elements for 
context required in Mizutani's theory are set up. 
The main concern here is the second part of the model which deals with 
the relationship between contextual elements and lexical elements, attd 
especially the mechanism of "context switching" on honor)tics. 
Mizutani's theory of honorific exltression in Japanese is described first. 
Then the model in ~{S is presented. The context feature of relative social 
status in Mizutani'n theory is realized in the first part of the model. This is 
followd by explanal:ion ef some basic features designed to handle the 
mechanism of context switching in the second part. Finally, au 
experimental system based on this model is given. Tiffs system was 
implemented in CfL (Complex Indeterminate Imnguage)\[Mukai 1985a, 
1985b1. Results from some experiments processing Japanese honorific 
expressions are given at the end of the paper. 
2. Mizutani's theory of Japanese honorific expression 
2.1. Honorific Status 
tlonorific relations are represented as vectors in an abstract 
twodimensional henorifie space. In the honorific space the speaker in tim 
discourse is set as tile origin. Other individuals like hearer and agents wire 
are presented in the sentence of discourse are represented by vectors as in 
the following example. 
An honorific attitude is defined as tile vector between these points. For 
example, the honorific attitude from tim speaker (1) to the hearer (Y) is 
defined as a vector fi'om I{0,0) to Y(yl ,y2). The honorific attitude fi'mn the 
Ex.l \[ 
Agent A22(a21,a22) 
ltearer Y(yl ,y2) 
Agent Al(all,al2) 
......... )to,0) 
I 
llonorifie Space 
hearer Y to agent2 is defined as the vector fi'om (yl,y2) to (a21, a22), i.e., 
the vector (a2l-yl, a22-y2). 
Next, we define the honorific wlluc and the dh'ection in the following 
way, 
Definition 1 Honorific value 
For t = <at,a2>, 
honorifievalueof<t> - a2iffal = 0; 
0 iffal \= 0; 
Definition2 Honorific direction 
l) Up <1> > 0, 3) Flat <t> = 0Aal = 0, 
2)\])own <t> <0, 4)Across <t> =0Aal\=0, 
We represent the "flat" honor,fie relation between agents explicitly, 
but the "across" relation is represented as in which there is no need to 
express the honor,fie relation explicitly. For conventional use, we define 
the following direetlons. 
5) anyl up or down or flat. 6) any2 up or down or flat or across 
Te analyze ttte sentence uttered, definitions of tile following honorific 
relations are necessary, 
Definition.3 First order honorific relation 
The honer,fie attitude of the speaker to tim hearer. 
IY Definition4 Second order honorific relation 
The honorific attitude of tl,e ,;peaker or tile hearer toward the agent in 
the sentence of discourse. In this case the original point of tile vector should 
be tile point of the hearer or sl)eaker, whichever is higher. If I > 1\[ the 
original point of the vector will be l, att(t if \] < I1 tile origin will H We 
introduce the notation J which stands for" tile higher individual. 
JA Definition 5 Third order honorific relation 
The tmnorific relation between agents ofs discourse. 
A1 A2 
2.2. dapanese Gramnmr 
Now we can represent tim relation between these three honorific 
relations and the sentences of discourse. Before looking at this honorific 
relation, we will show the small oumber of Japanese grammar rules used fo 
define the structure of sample Japanese seutenees. This grammar is taken 
fi'om the "Sketeh of Japanese Gramlnar" \[Mizutani 1983al, a part of which 
is shown in Figure l. This grammar is presented in CFG, but we give the 
rules in I)CG. 
Figure. 1 
sentence--> sn sn ~.-> sn0 
*1) sn 
so0 
ph 
vp 
np 
n 
cnl 
v 
ps 
sub I 
sub4 
> sn0,1toLsn0. *2) sn ~-> sm,s0,em,ltel,s0. 
--> ph,ps, ph -.-> np,cm,ph. 
> vp. vp --> subl,v,sub2, honm'ificform 
--> v. vp --> v,sub4, honorific form 
> n. nit --> n,sub3, honorific fbrm 
- > \[(tarol;\[hanako I. (nanm of individual) 
--> \[gal. em - > \[nil. agent/objectcase ma,'ker 
--> \[anl. (meet) v --> \[iu\]. (say) > \[tal. ps ~-> \[mashi,tal. honorific form 
> \[ol, sub2 - > \[nasarul. 
--> \[mousul. sub3- > \[samaJ. (like "Mr.") 
tu his theory, Mizutani attaches Japanese terms to each terminal and 
non terminal node. Table 2 gives the correspondence between Mizutani's 
Japanese terms and standard English grammatical terms. Rules *1) and 
"2) above are not represented in his grammar. These rules were included 
specifically to represent direct and indirect speech. 
507 
'Fable. 2 
sn(sentence nuclear) = juttaiku sn0(senteuce nuclear 0) = juttaiku0 
era(case marker) = kakuhyoji, ps (post sentence marker) = juttaiji. 
ph (phrase element) = jutsuso, vp (verb phrase) = yorengo. 
v (verb) = doshi np (noun phrase} = tairengo, n (noun) = taigen. 
2.3.Relation between honorific context and Japanese grammar. 
The following relation holds between honorific relations and the 
sentence of discourse. The notation "= = = >" means the left element has 
some effect on the right element. 
l ) Changes in the the first order honorific relation arc shown. 
Rule I relation 
I,H ===> ps 
2) Changes in the second order honorific relation are shown by description 
of individual A1 and the honorific elements subl and sub2 of vp in the 
agent case, and by description of individual A2 as the np in the object 
case. 
Rule2 relation 
J,A1 ===> np (in agent case) vp (subl and sub2) 
J, A2 = = = > np (in object case) 
3) The third order honorific relation is shown by v in vp 
Rule 3 relation 
A1,A2 ===> v 
3. Model of the honorific sentence 
In this section, we present our model in SS. Readers who are familiar 
with SS can skip Section 3.1. 
3.1. First Part on Context Features 
3.1.1. Model of discourse 
In the theory of situation senmntics, discourses are represented within 
situations and constraints. In formal representation the sentence and 
context are expressed in the form "d,c \[sentence\[s, e". d stands for discourse 
situation (l)U), c is the speaker's connection (CS), s is abe setting and e is 
the described situation. There is another situation called a resource 
situation in this theory. In our model we define a resource situation for each 
individual. 
(I) Dhcourse Situation (I)U) 
lIere is an example of the representation of a sentence in discourse. 
Ex 2. John said "Tom met Jane" to Jim. 
el : = loc, 10 ; yes saying John ; yes 
addressing John,Jim ; yes uttering "Tom met Jane" ; yes 
l0 < ld (ld means discourse location) 
Discourse situations are represented in the following form as series of 
terms expressing relations between speaker A, hearer B and uttered 
sentence \]\[alpha\]\]. in SS, spatio4emporal location is defined in discourse 
situations, but we have no effective way to formalize it in our model, so 
spatio-temporal location is not represented. 
DU : = speaking A;yes addressing,A,B;yes saying,A,alpha;yes 
(11) Speaker's Connection (CS) 
The speaker's connection is a series of the following types. A is the 
actual object and \[AI is the word that represents A. 
CS : = speaking A;yes refers A \[A\] ; yes 
(111) Resource Situation(RS) 
A resource situation is defined for each individual in a discourse; it 
contains many events and constraints. 
RS : = agent A;yes 
has ; {SOAs, 
Constraints Necessary,Nomic,Conventional 
Event type,,,,} 
3.1.2. Honorific context in the sentence 
(I) Honorific Attitude Event type 
We introduce an "honorific attitude event type (Eh)" which stands for 
an honorific attitude in Mizutani's theory. 
Formula 1) represents the mind status (HE) of the speaker towards Eh. 
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 
external honorific event including social honorifics. 
Formulas 2) through 5) represent the basic honorific attitude event 
types (Eh). In Mizutani's theory, this event type is represented as a vector, 
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 
t __ ; yes" denotes that t is an individual which can be represented in" "as 
its name. 
Frame of Mind 
1)ilE:= Itr, A, Eh ;yes oft,_;yes oft',.r_;yes 
2) Eh : = honor up t,t';yes ind t ,_;yes ind t ,__ ;yes 
3) Eh : = honor down t,t';tyes ind t, __ ;yes ind t',__ ;yes 
4) Eh honor~across t,t ;yes ind t, __ ;yes ind t' ;yes 
5) Eh : = honor eq t,t';yes ind t, _ ;yes ind t' _ ;yes 
(11) Conditional Constraint on Word Selection 
In Section 2.3. we described the relation between honorific context and 
grammatical rules. This section corresponds to Section 2.3. 
In Japanese there are many honorific words, and some interesting 
phenomena are to be found in daily life. 
For example, a secretary in the company president's office should have 
many honorific words in his resource situation (RS) because he always has 
to be careful to use the appropriate honorific expression in his wm'k. On the 
other hand university students will have a poor stock of honorific words for 
there is no need to express honorific status, except to teachers. 
A constraint is required which determines the relation between the 
honorific event type (Eh) and word representation. This is the "conditional 
constraint on word selection (Cw)." Mizutani's rules for first order through 
third order honorific relations given in 2.3. correspond to this constraint 
Cw. Word representation should be an event type called "honorific word 
selection event (HW)", and if a person does not have this event type in his 
resource situation, he or she will have a poor range of honorifics. We 
represent these Cw and HW in formula 6). 
In formula 6), "Cwl(Eh,~q" denotes the conditional constraint of word 
selection Cw which has Eh and anchor "f" as its conditional schema. Anchor 
"f" determines the relation between indeterminates in Eh and objects like 
taro and hanako. See Barwise's work for details. 6) is read : ifEb is factual 
and Cw is satisfied, then ItW is actual. 
6) Cwl(Eh,f} : = Involve Eh, llW ;yes 
Conditional constraint on word selection has an honorific event type 
and its anchor as its scheme. In Japanese honorific expressions, if Eh and f 
are given, the word representation will follow very easily. Some instances 
of thls are given in formulas 7) through 15). For example, formula 7) can be 
read : if Eh is actual and the anchor f anchors t to individual J (J is the 
speaker or the hearer) or t' to A1 in the agent case, then hw is actual so that 
when refering to t' honorific form tairen-go (np) is added to the description 
AI. 
7) Eh(0f(t)=J,f(t')=A1 bw:=refert',\[Al\]\[npinh-form\] 
8) Eh{f) fit)= J, f(t') = A2 hw refer t', \[A2\]\[np in h-form\] 
9) Eh(f) f(t) = J, fit') = AI hw : = refer R, \[Rl\[vp in h-form\] 
10) Eh(f) f(t) = Al,f(t') = A2 hw : = refer R, \[R\]\[vp in h-form\] 
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', \[t\] 
13) Eh(f) f(t) =l, f(t') = A2 law:= refer t', \[t\] 
3.2. Second Part on The Relation between Context Features and the 
Sentence 
3.2.1. C1L as basic language 
Before going into the representation of lexical rules which give the 
correspondence between honorific word expressious and sentences, and 
context switching on honorific sentences, we describe CIL used in the 
description of lexical rules. Accurate accounts of C1L can be found in 
\[Mukai 1985a,1985b\]. llere only the part needed to understand the lexical 
rules in section 3.2.2 is describe(\[. 
CIL (Complex Indeterminate Language) can be represented by the 
following formula. 
CIL =Prolog + ParameterlzedTypes +Freeze 
=Prolog + Frame +Freeze. 
C1L has the unique data structure called "complex indeterminate." 
This data structure can be regarded as a frame and represented as in the 
following example. 
(1) term((Xwitha:= X,b:= YwhereX = Y)). 
(2) > term(Z),a!Z = abc,b!Z = abc. 
yes. 
Formula (1) is the specification of the data type and this can be used in 
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 
(2) will fail. Formula (2) utilizes the complex indeterminate and unifies 
"abc" to each slot value. 
3.2.2. DCG Rules for honorlfies 
(I) First order bonorifics As Rule 1 in Section 2.3. shows, first order 
honorifics affect "ps." This is illustrated by the following examples. 
Ex.3 This corresponds to Eh in 11) in section 3.1.2. 
ps(\[talX\],X,Context) <- 
dsolve(hono!((agent!(ds!Context))!(rs!Context), 
eq(speaker\](ds!Context),object!(lex!Context))). 
,,< 2, denotes the operator ":-" in Prolog \[Bowen 1982\]. "\[ta\]X\],X" is the 
DCG parsing mechanism. "Context" is a complex indeterminate variable 
for the context for this parsing part. "dsolve" is a Prolog predicate with the 
following mechanism. 
dsolve(X,Y). X is a list like \[a,b,c,dl which contains Prolog atmns or terms. 
Y is a Prolog atom or term. 
1) Search list X for Y. 
2) If there is a term in X with the same arguments 
but different term name, fail and return. 
3) if Y is not in X, then add Y to list X,succeed and return. 
4) lfY is in X, succeed and return. 
"hono!((agent!(ds!Context))!(rs!Cantext))" represents a list of honorific 
event types in the resom'ce situation of the agent of discourse. "object! 
(lex!Context))" represents the lexical object in this parsing stage. This 
508 
notation for lexical items has its origin in Lexical Functional Gramrnar 
tKaplan & Bresnaul, so this expression can be represented like (~object) in 
the LFG manner. 
This example states that if"ps" = |taL then there should he honorific 
information in the resource situation of the individual who is the speaker. 
If the speaker's RS contains two or nmre different terms expressing the 
honorific relationship between the same agents, fail. Thus, the 
mechanism of 2) in dsolve is very important because it shows that in the 
honorific information of one individual there should not be different 
information about the binary honorific relation between two individuals. 
(11) Second order honorifics Lexieal rules for second order lmnorifies 
can be represented as in following example program. 
Ex.4 This corresponds to Eh in 7) and 8) in Section 3.1.2. 
np(X0,X2,Context) <- 
n(X0,XI ,Context),sub3(X 1,X2,Context), 
dsolve(honn!((agent!(ds!Context))!(rs!Context), 
up(agenl,!(ds!X),obj!(lex!X))). 
(Ill) Third order honorifics Lexical rules for third order honorifics can be 
represenl;ed as in the following example program. 
Ex.5 This corresponds to Eh in 10) in section 3.1.2. 
vp(X0,X2,Context) <- 
v(X0,Xl ,Context),suM(X, ,X2,Context), 
dsolve(hono!((agent!(ds!Context))!(rs!Context), 
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 
it is very difficult to decide the context for each sentence. A sentence in 
discourse can be represented by the expression "I)S,CS,I\[alptm\]\]S,E", but 
then how do we nmp contexts like DS and CS to complex sentences ? 
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. 
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 
example, we establish relations a) through j) among S, T, U, Taro and 
ltanako. The operater > denotes the situation in which tim left hand side 
honm's the right hand side, < denotes the situation in which the right had 
side hmmrs the left hand side, and = denotes the situation in which there is 
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 
sentence change according to the form of speech, such as direct or 
indirect speech. BuL in the Japanese discourse there are no markers like 
"'" and "'", so in order to process these sentences correctly, we need the 
mechanism of"context switching." Without this mechanism, all sentences 
wonld be parsed with one context, but this cannot explain the reason why 
honorifics change in complex sentences. 
1) In S's utterance he said to R 
( "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. 
InRSofS a) S>Taro b) S>ilanakoc)S>T d) S> U 
e) taro > hanako 
In I{S ofT f) T < U g) !l' = Taro h) T < Ilanako 
i) Taro < tlanako 
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, 
/* a,b,c,d,e */ honoi(s!(rsiX)) = \[down(s,taro),down(s,hanako), 
down(s,t),down(s,u),down(taro,hanako)\], 
/* f,g,h,i */ honoi(ti(rs!X)) = \[up(t,u),eq(t,taro),up(t,hanalm), 
up(taro,hanako)\], 
/*j,k,I */ hono!(u!(rs!X)) = \[up(u,taro),up(u,hanako), 
down(taro,.hanako)\]. 
b2) an(X) --> sn0(X). 
L3) sn(X) --> snO(X),\[tol,sno(X), 
L4) an(X) -- > sm,sn0(Y),em,\[to\],sn0(Z), 
agent!(ds!Y) = agent\[Z,ds!X = ds!Z,obj!(ds!Y) = obj!Z. 
LS) sn(X) --> sn0(Y),\[to\],sn0(Z),agent!(ds!Y) = agent!Z,dsiX = ds!Z, 
obj!(dsIY) = ob.i!Z. 
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. 
LI) specifies the initial stage for parsing. In 1) above S tells R something 
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 
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 
for sn0, set agent of discourse of sn0 to agent of Z who utters sn0 and set 
object of diseom'se of sn0 to object of Z who hears this utterance. 
L5) means that in a sentence with no marker, there cat) be context 
switch, so if a parsing failed because of the context ofhonorifics, use this 
rule. 
Sentence 1) is analyzed using rule 1,5) and the mechanism of context 
switch is dcerived fi'om phase (I) to phase 010. 
(I) Parsing really starts with the rule 3) estimating that there is no 
context switching. But at point *1, a conflict between S's resource situation 
and honorific expression occurs. In S's resource situation, the honorific 
relation between S and Taro is down(S, taro), but \[taro,samal requests the 
honorific relation up(S,taro), so context switch occurs at *2. Rule 5) 
switches the agent of discourse fi'om S to U. Context switch does not occur 
at this point again. We use the notation I)S(S) to state that the agent of 
discourse is S. The symbol --> means the context of left hand side is 
changed to the context of the right hand side as the result of context switch. 
(T said U said Taro met llanake) 
taro sama ga hanako sama ni ai nasa( ta to U ga iware ta to T ga iu ta. 
in RS of S s 
down(s,taro) I 
I)S(S) sn0 
--sn0 I)S(S)--> I)S(U) sn0 
*l) down(s,taro) m?0 --sn0 
II l) -- cm -- -pn ~¢ I I np--em--? I iP 
? 'i ? ? "1 
taro sanla ga banako sanla ni o all nasat I,a to g ga iwaro ta 
ph ~ps nlFeI-lih 
(t0 Next, the parsing mechanism finds a conflict at point '3). lU,ga, 
iware,tal requests honorific relation up(S,U), hut the resource situation of 
S contains the honorific relation down(S,U). Then context switch given 
in 5) is al)plied at p(fint *4). 
in RS of S s 
down(s,taro) \[ 
DS(S)-.-> DS(T) sn0 *4) 
I)S(U) snO -- --sn0 *2) 
*1) an0 !--an0 
up(s,taro) p\[," 'P\[I' "ps *; 
np -- cm )h I ph ps 
L vf vp 
n-sub31 \[ li-sur3 su~4-stb2i nl !1 
taro sama ga hanako sama ni o au nasat ta to U ga iware ta to T ga it ta 
(U0 Finally, this sentence is parsed like the following tree. 
in ItS of S 
down(s,taro) i 
DS(T) sn0 DS(S) 
DS(U) sn0 ..... an0 
*2) '4 
"1) sn0-- sn0 
up(s,taro) Pf' I, --ps * 
np --cm l)la 1 Ic ps 
? - n\] ¢ 
n sub3 su 3 su ub2 n v I I I 
taro sama ga hanako sama nio au nasat ta to U ga iware ta to T ga it ta 
3.3. Ch and Cw 
509 
Now, we have come to the main point of our model, but there remains an 
interesting feature of Cw. This constraint is not verified so with some 
trepidation we touch on it briefly here. 
For example, when a worker "Suzuki" refers to his friend "Tanaka" with 
contempt, he will intentionally use a polite word to refer to him such as 
"Tanaka sensei" (Mr.Tanaka). When the hearer (Y)bears this polite 
expression,he decides on honorific event types but finds conflicts between these 
types and the normal social event types in his resource situation. 
Ex.6 
expression \[Tanaka sensei\] where Eh : = at h honor up,Suzuki,Tanaka 
expression \[Tanaka sensei\] where Eh : = at l: honor down,Suzuki,Tmml~a 
in RS of Y 
lIE := Iir Y,Eh;yes 
Eh:= at lu: honor eq,Tanaka,Suzuki 
--> hearer find conflict and the hearer wonders why \[! 
Then the hearer (Y) wonders why he broke the universal honorific 
event. Finally, he comes to the conclusion that Suzuki intends either to 
praise Tanaka or berate him. We can go no further on this problem here. 
There are other aspects to Eh. If the sentence is given first, Eh will be 
calculated for each word and there remains a possibility of conflict between 
honorific event types Eh in a simple sentence. In a complex sentence the 
mechanism of context switch will be used, but in a simple sentence this 
mechanism is not effective. When the hearer tries to deal with this 
conflict, he or she will assume that the speaker has some illegal honorific 
constraint Ch'. We have implemented this mechanism in our model system. 
4. System Configuration 
Our experimental system written in C1L runs on the DEC 2060 and 
utilizes Prolog as the basic programming environment, which enables us to 
use CIL. C1L is now compiled and runs very fast on DEC 2060. Next, we 
want to run this I)CG parser on the Bottom Up Parser \[Matsumoto 1983\], 
\[Matsumoto,Kiyono,1984\]. 
5. Some Other Examples 
\[n tiffs section, we give some examples which have no relation to 
context switching. 
1) Sentence without honorific expression. 
A sentence without honorifics is parsed. Those are resource situations 
fro" this type of sentence. 
I ?- parse(\[taro,ga,hanako,ni,at,tal,\[J,Context). 
RS ...... 
\[i1855 ::anchor: = 1857,relation: = rs,agent: =,r, 
has:=\[ 1626, 34221 3885\] 
\[__1624= anchor: = 1626, relation: -- honor, spec: = equi 
agentl: = s, agent2: = taro 
3420:: anchor: = 3422, relation: = bonor,spec: = equi 
agentl: = s,agent2: = hanako \] l 
2) Sentence with illegal honorific expression 
The following is an sentence with conflict between honorific word 
expressions. |taro\] is a word witbour honorifics but \[o,ai,nasat\] are words 
with honorifics fi'om the speaker to Taro. In a simple sentence, there 
should not he conflict between honorific relations. If there is, then the 
hearer R gets information that the speaker S has some trouble with 
honorific word expression. 
\[?- parse(l)S,RS,CS,\[taro,ga,hanako,ni,o,ai,nasat,ta\],\[\]). 
RS ...... 
\[ 1870 :: anchor:= 1872,relation:=rs,agent:=r, 
has:=\[__1641, 3437, 4555\[ 5330\] 
\[ 1639::anchor: = 1641,relation: = honor,spec: =equi, 
agentl: = s,agent2: = taro 
3435::anchor: = 3437,relation: = honor,spec: = equi, 
agentl: = s,agent2: = hanako 
4553::anchor: = 4555,relation: = honor,spec: = up, 
agentl : = s,agent2: = taro\], 
5688:: anchor: = 5690,relation: = rs,agent: =r, 
has:=\[ 5812\[ 5620\] 
\[ 5810::anchor: = 5812,relation: = illegal,argl: = bonor,arg2: = s\] 
3) Complex case 
This example sentence contains ninny honorific expressions. Tim 
system analyzes these expressions to find some honorific event type in the 
speaker's mind. 
I?-parse(DS,RS,CS,\[taro,sama,ga,hana ~o,ni,o,ai,nasai,masita\],\[I). 
RS ...... 
\[__2545 :: anchor: = 2547,relation: = rs,agent: = r, 
has:=\[ 2316, 4046,, 6558\] 7153.1 
\[ 2314::anchor: = 2316,relation:-- houm',spec: =up, 
agentl; -- s,agent2: = taro, 
4044::anchor: = 4046,relation: = honor,spec: = equi, 
agentl: = s,agent2: = hanako, 
6556::anchor:- 6558,relation: = hoaor,spec: = up, 
agentl:=s,agent2:=r\] 12068\] 
7. Conclusion 
It is easy to model honorific context in situation semantics. But we 
don't know how this context is represented in the human mind. This 
requires further research. 
This treatment of the context switching mechanisms of honorifics is 
a first step toward analyzing more complicated phenomena. The main 
contribution ~)f this model derives from the fact that in any complex 
sentence, there will probably be context switching on honorifics..But this 
model shows context switching in a complex sentence only and tttere 
remains more complicated phenomena like the following. 
S tlanako soma ni aLta' \[ttanako sama\] is a honorific fm'm 
(1 met Ilanake.) 
R "llanako samattc dare?' (Who is "Ilanako"?) 
I--- $1 -I S 'Tanaka Ilanako' (tlanako Tanaka) 
R 'Aa, hona no yatsu ka' \[hana\] is nonhonorific form 
(Oh, liana!) 
$1 is the direct speech act and ttmre should be a context switch 
because when R knows who llanako is, he refers to her with the 
nonhonorific "liana." But we do not formalize the context switch which 
decides who is the agent of sentence $1. To solve this problem, we should 
use an "anaphora mechanism for the honorific context" and in order to 
build a firm model of this mechanism, study not only of the anaphora 
mechanism I Barwise 1985c1 but also the focusing mechanism \[Sidner\] is 
required. These also are topic for filrtbcr research. 
ACI(NOWlA~\]DGEMEN'rS 
1 would like to thank Mr.Mukai of \[COT for his comments on context 
switching and Mr.Yokoi, the lleod of the Second Research Laboratory at 
ICOT, for his encouragement and for allowing nm ample time for this 
work. 
Reference

\[Barwise 19821 Barwise, J., "Some Computational Aspects of Situation 
Semantics", ACt,(1982),pp. 109-111. 

IBarwise 1984a\] Barwise, J., "Lectures on Situation Semantics", 
Lecture Notes for Winter Quarter(1984). 

\[Barwise 1984bl Barwise, d., "The Situation in Logic-- I", CSLI Report 
No. CSLI-84-2,March (1984). 

\[Barwise 1985a\] Barwise, J., "The Situation in l,ogic -- 11", CSIA Report 
No. CSLI-85-12, January (1985). 

\[Barwise 1985b1 Barwise, J., "The Situation in Logic -- 1\[I : Situation, Sets 
and the Axiom of Foundation", CSIJ Report No. CSIA-84-26, June (1985). 

\[Barwise 1985c1 Ilarwise, J., "A Model of the Treatment of Anaphora in 
Situation Semantics", Informal Notes, No. 1N-CS1,1-85-1(1985). 

lBarwise 1985d\] Barwise, J., "Notes on Situation Theory and Situation 
Semantics for CSL1 Summer School", Notes for lectures July 8-12(1985). 

\[Barwise 1985e1 Barwise,J., "On the Model Theory of Shared 
Information", Lecture Note for July 16 (19851. 

\[Barwise & Perry 19831 Barwise, J. & Perry, d., Situations and Attitudes 
(MIT Press, 1983). 

\[Mizutani 1983a\] S.Mizntani "Koku bunpo so-bye (Sketch of Japanese 
Grammar)", Bunpo to imi (Grammar and Meaning),(Asakm'a 1983l,pp.1-80 

\[Mizutani 1983b\] S.Mizutani "Taigu hyogcn no shikumi (Structure of 
llonorific Expressions)",Unyo 1 (Pragmatics 1),(Asakura 1983), pp. 158-178 

\[I,esperance\] Lesperance, Y., "Toward a Computational Interpretations of 
Situation Semantics",(draft) 

\]Pollard 1985\] Pollard, C.,J., "Toward an Anadic Situation Semantics", 
(draft) (1985) 

\[Creary & Pollard\] Creary L.G., & Pollard, C.J. "A Compntational 
Semantics for Natural l,anguagc" (1985) 

\]Cohen\] Cohen, P.,R., & Levesque, H.,J., "Speech Acts and Rationality" 
AC1,(1985) 

\[Kaplan & Bresnan\] Kaplan, R.,M., & Bresnan, J., "I,exical-Functional 
Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation" 

\[Mukai 1985a\] K.Mukai "llorn Clause Logic with Parameterized Types for 
Situation Semantics Programming" ICOT Technical Report No.TRI0I, 
February,(1985) 

\[Mukai 1985b\] K.Mukai "Unification over Complex Indetcrminates in 
Prolog" ICOT Technical Report No.TR113,June,(1985) 

\[Bowen 1982\] l). Rowen (ed.), I,.MByrd,F.C.N. Perdita, l,.M.Pereira & 1). 
il.I).Warren "l)ECsystem-10 Prolog User's Manual,Department of 
Artificial Intelligence, University of Edingbm'gh,(1982). 

|Sidner\] Candace L.Sidner, "Focusing in the comprehension of definite 
anaphora" M.Brandy & C.Berwick (ed.) Computational Models of l)iscom'se 
(MIT Press 1983) pp. 107-164 

\[Matsumoto 19831 Matsunmto, Y., et al., "BUP: A Bottom-Up Parser 
Embedded in Protog," New Generation Computing, vol. l, no. 2, pp. 145-158, 
1983. 

\[Matsumoto,Kiyono 1984\] Matsamoto, Y., Kiyono, M. and Tanaka, tI., 
"Facilities of the BUP Parsing System," Proceedings of the 1st 
International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic 
Programming, Rennes, France, Sept. 1984.
