<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P86-1017">
  <Title>Encodinl~ and Acquiring Meanings for-Figurative Phrases *</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="106" end_page="107" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2. The Program
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The program RINA \[Zernik85b\] is designed to parse sentences which include figurative phrases. When the meaning of a phrase is given, that meaning is used in forming the concept of the sentence. However, when the phrase is unknown, the figurative phrase should be acquired from the context. The program consists of three components: phrasal parser, phrasal lexicon, and phrasal acquisition module.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="106" end_page="107" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.1 Phrasal Parser
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> A lexical entry, a phrase, is a triple associating a linguistic pattern with its concept and a situation. A clause in the input text is parsed in three steps:  (1) Matching the phrase pattern against the clause in the text. (2) Validating in the context the relations specified by the phrase situation.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (3) If both (1) and (2) are successful then instantiating the phrase concept using variable bindings computed in (1) and (2).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2">  For example, consider the sentence: $9: :Fred wanted to marry Sheila, but she ducked the issue for years. Finally he put her on the spot.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> The figurative phrase is parsed relative to the context established by the first sentence. Assume that the lexicon contains a single phrase, described informally as: phrase pattern: Personl put Person2 on the spot situation: Person2 avoids making a certain tough decision concept: Personl prompts Person2 to make that decision The steps in parsing the clause using this phrase are:  (1) The pattern is matched successfully against the text. Consequently, Personl and person2 are bound to Fred and Sheila respectively.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> (2) The situation associated with the pattern is validated in  the context. After reading the first phrase the context contains two concepts: (a) Fred wants to marry Sheila, and (b) she avoids a decision. The situation matches the input.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> (3) Since both (1) and (2) are successful, then thepattern itself is instantiated, adding to the context: Fred prompted Sheila to make up her mind.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> Phrase situation, distinguished from phrase concept, is introduced in our representation, since it help solve three problems: (a) in disambiguation it provides a discrimination condition for phrase selection, (b) in generation it determines if the phrase is applicable, and (c) in acquisition it allows the incorporation of the input context as pan of the phrase.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="107" end_page="107" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.2 Phrasal Lexicon
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> RINA uses a declarative phrasal lexicon which is implemented through GATE \[Mueller84\] using unification \[Kay79\] as the grammatic mechanism. Below are some sample phrasal patterns.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> PI: ?x &lt;lay down&gt; &lt;the law&gt; P2: ?x throw &lt;the book&gt; &lt;at ?y&gt; These patterns actually stand for the slot fillers given below:</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="107" end_page="107" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.3 Phrase Acquisition through Generalization and
Refinement
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Phrases are acquired in a process of hypothesis formation and error correction. The program generates and refines hypotheses about both the linguistic pattern, and the conceptual meaning of phrases. For example, in acquiring the phrase carry the water, RINA first uses the phrase already existing in the lexicon, but it is too general a pattern and does not make sense in the context.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> ?x carry:verb ?z:phys-obj &lt;for ?y&gt; Clearly, such a syntactic error stems from a conceptual error. Once corrected, the hypothesis is: ?x carry:verb &lt;the water&gt; &lt;for ?y&gt; The meaning of a phrase is constructed by identifying salient features in the context. Such features are given in terms of scripts, relationships, plan/goal situations and emotions. For example, carry the water is given in terms of agency goal situation (?x executes a plan for ?x) on the background of rivalry relationship (?x and ?y are opponents). Only by detecting these elements in the context can the program learn the meaning of the phrase.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="107" end_page="109" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3. Conceptual Representation
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The key for phrase acquisition is appropriate conceptual representation, which accounts for various aspects of phrase meanings.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Consider the phrase to throw the book in the following paragraph: $2: The famous mobster avoided prosecution for years. Finally they threw the book at him for tax evasion.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> We analyze here the components in the representation of this phrase.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="107" end_page="108" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.1 Scripts
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Basically, the figurative phrase depicts the trial script which is given below:  (a) The prosecutor says his arguments to the judge (b) The defendant says his arguments to the judge (c) The judge determines the outcome, either: (I) to punish the defendant (2) not to punish the. defendant  This script involves a Judge, a Defendant, and a Prosecutor, and it describes a sequence of events. Within the script, the phrase points to a single event, the decision to punish the defendant. However, this event presents only a rough approximation of the real meaning which requires further refinement. (a) The phrase may be applied in situations that are more general than the trial script itself. For example: Sl0: When they caught him cheating in an exam for the third time, the dean of the school decided to throw the book at him.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Although the context does not contain the specific trial script, the social authority which relates the judge and the defendant exists also between the dean and John.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> (b) The phrase in $2 asserts not only that the mobster was punished by the judge, but also that a certain prosecution strategy was applied against him.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="108" end_page="108" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.2 Specific Plans and Goals
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> In order to accommodate such knowledge, scripts incorporate specific planning situations. For example, in prosecuting a person, there are three options, a basic rule and two deviations: null (a) Basically, for each law violation, assign a penalty as prescribed in the book.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1">  (b) However, in order to loosen a prescribed penalty, mitigating circumstances may be taken into account. (c) And on the other hand, in order to toughen a prescribed  penalty, additional violations may be thrown in. In $2 the phrase conveys the concept that the mobster is punished for tax evasion since they cannot prosecute him for his more serious crimes. It is the selection of this particular prosecution plan which is depicted by the phrase. The phrase representation is given below,</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> where ulterior-crime is the third prosecution plan above.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="108" end_page="108" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.3 Relationships
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The authority relationship \[Schank78, Carbonel179\] is pervasive in phrase meanings, appearing in many domains: judge-defendant, teacher-student, employer-employee, parentchild, etc. The existence of authority creates certain expecta- null tionsi if X presents an authority for Y, then: (a) X issues rules which Y has to follow.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (b) Y is expected to follow these rules.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> (c) Y is expected to support goals of X.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> (d) X may punish Y if Y violates the rules in (a).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> (e) X cannot dictate actions of Y; X can only appeal to Y to act in a certain way.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> (,9 X can delegate his authority to Z which becomes an au null thority for Y.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> In S10, the dean of the school presents an authority for John. John violated the rules of the school and is punished by the dean. More phrases involving authority are given by the following examples.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> 511: I thought that parking ticket was unfair so I took it up with the Judge.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8">  time. Everybody was upset, but nobody stood up to the boss.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> 513: Jenny's father lald down the law: no more late dates.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> The representation of the phrase take it up with, for example, is given below: phrase pattern ?x:person &lt;take:verb up&gt; ?z:problem &lt;with ?y:person&gt; situation (authority (high ?y) (low ?x))</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> The underlying situation is an authority relationship between X and Y. The phrase implies that X appeals to Y so that Y will act in favor of X.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="4" start_page="108" end_page="109" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.4 Abstract Planning Situations
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> General planning situations, such as agency, agreement, goal-conflict and goal-coincidence \[Wilensky83\] are addressed in the examples below.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> S1: The Democrats in the house carried the water for Reagan in his tax-reform bill.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> The phrase in S1 is described using both rivalry and agency. In contrast to expectations stemming from rivalry, the actor serves as an agent in executing his opponent's plans. The representation of the phrase is given below: phrase pattern ?x:person carry:verb &lt;the water ?z:plan&gt; &lt;for ?y:person&gt; situation (rivalry (actorl ?x) (actor2 ?y))</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Many other phrases describe situations at the abstract goal/plan level. Consider $14: S14: I planned to do my CS20 project with Fred. I backed out of it when I heard that he had flunked CS20 twice in the past.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Back out of depicts an agreed plan which is cancelled by one party in contradiction to expectations stemming from the agreement.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> S15: John' s strongest feature in arguing is his ability to fallbaekon his quick wit.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> Fall back on introduces a recovery of a goal through an alternative plan, in spite of a failure of the originally selected plan.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> 516: My standing in the tennis club deteriorated since I was bogged down wlth CS20 assignments the whole summer.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> In bog down, a goal competition over the actor's time exists between a major goal (tennis) and a minor goal (CS20). The major goal fails due to the efforts invested in the minor goal.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="5" start_page="109" end_page="109" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.5 Emotions and Attitudes
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> In text comprehension, emotions \[Dyer83, Mueller85\] and attitudes are accounted for in two ways: (a) they are generated by goal/planning situations, such as goal failure and goal achievement, and (b) they generate goals, and influence plan selection. Some examples of phrases involving emotions are given below. Humiliation is experienced by a person when other people achieve a goal which he falls to achieve. The phrase in S17 depicts humiliation which is caused when John reminds the speaker of his goal situation: S17: I failed my CS20 class. My friend John rubbed nlynose lnit by telling me that he got an A+.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Resentment is experienced by a person when a certain goal of his is not being satisfied. This goal situation causes the execution of plans by that person to deteriorate. The phrase in S18 depicts such an attitude: S18: Since clients started to complain about John, his boss asked him if he had a chip on his shoulder.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Embarrassment is experienced by a person when his plan failure is revealed to other people. The phrase in S19, depicts embarrassment which is caused when a person is prompted to make up his mind between several bad options.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> 519: Ted Koppel put his guest on the spot when he asked him if he was ready to denounce appartheid in South Africa.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> In all the examples above, it is not the emotion itself which is conveyed by the phrase. Rather, the concept conveys a certain goal situation which causes that emotion. For example, in $20 (rub one' s nose) a person does something which causes the speaker to experience humiliation.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="109" end_page="109" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4. Learning Phrase Meanings
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Consider the situation when a new phrase is first encountered by the program: User: The Democrats in the house carried the water for Reagan's tax-reform bill.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> RINA: They moved watery User: No. They carried the water for him.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> P~\[NA: They helped him pass the bill.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Three sources take pan in forming the new concept, (a) the linguistic clues, (b) the context, and (c) the metaphor.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="109" end_page="109" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.1 The Context
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The context prior to reading the phrase includes two concepts: null  (a) Reagan has a goal of passing a law. (b) The Democrats are Reagan's rivals-they are expected to  thwart his goals, his legislation in particular. These concepts provide the phrase situation which specifies the context required for the application of the phrase.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="109" end_page="109" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.2 The Literal Interpretation
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The literal interpretation of carried the water as &amp;quot;moved water&amp;quot; does not make sense given the goal/plan situation in the context. As a result, RINA generates the literal interpretation and awaits confirmation from the user. If the user repeats the utterance or generates a negation, then RINA generates a number of utterances, based on the current context, in hypothesizing a novel phrase interpretation.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="109" end_page="109" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.3 The Metaphor
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Since the action of moving water does not make sense literally, it is examined at the level of plans and goals: Moving water from location A to B is a low-level plan which supports other high-level plans (i.e., using the water in location B).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Thus, at the goal/plan level, the phrase is perceived as: &amp;quot;they executed a low-level plan as his agents&amp;quot; (the agency is suggested by the prepositional phrase: for his tax-reform bill; i.e., they did an act.for his goal). This is taken as the phrase concept.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="4" start_page="109" end_page="109" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.4 The Constructed Meaning
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The new phrase contains three parts:  (plan-agency (actor ?x) (plan ?z) (plan-of ?y)) Thus, the phrase means that in a rivalry situation, an opponent served as an agent in carrying out a plan.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>