<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P90-1012">
  <Title>NORMAL STATE IMPLICATURE</Title>
  <Section position="9" start_page="93" end_page="93" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
8 Conclusions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> This paper has provided a convention for identifying normal state implicatures. Normal state implicature permits a speaker to omit certain information from an indefinite description in certain situations without being misunderstood. The convention is that if S makes a request that tt perform an action A on an E, and if S and H mutually believe that S has a plan whose success depends upon the E being in the normal state N with respect to that plan, and that S's request is a step of that plan, then S is implicating a request for S to do A on an E in state N.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In order to specify the convention for normal state implicature, I distinguished the notions of stereotype, plan-independent normal state, and normal state with respect to a plan. This distinction may prove useful in solving other problems in the description of how language is used. Also, a representation for states, in terms of causal event chains, was proposed.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The convention I have provided is important both in natural language generation and interpretation. In generation, a system needs to consider what normal state implicatures would be licensed by its use of an indefinite description.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> These implicatures determine what qualifications may be omitted (namely, those which would be implicated) and what ones are required (those which are needed to block implicatures that the system does not wish to convey), lr In interpretation, a system may need to understand what a user has 17This latter behavior is an example of Joshi's revised Maxim of Quality: &amp;quot;If you, the speaker, plan to say anything which may imply for the hearer something you believe to be false, then provide further information to block it.&amp;quot; \[JosS2\] implicated in order to provide a cooperative response. For instance, if during a dialogue a system has inferred that a user has a plan to make an immediate delivery, and then the user says (15a), then if the system knows that the only truck in terminal A is out of service, it would be uncooperative for the system to reply with (15b) alone; (15c) should be added for a more cooperative response. null 15.a. User: Is there a truck in terminal A? b. System: Yes, there is one c. but it's out of service.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> This work may be extended in at least two ways. First, it would be interesting to investigate what plan inference algorithms are necessary in order to recognize normal state implicatures in actual dialogue. Another question is whether the notion of normal state implicature can be generalized to account for other uses of language.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>