Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1994/Center.for.the.Study.of..html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) at Stanford
``` I won't forward the CSLI Calendar to RRE regularly, but I wanted to pass along this particular issue, which describes talks on an impressive range of interesting topics.
It is sometimes asked why I sent talk abstracts to RRE, when the vast majority of RRE readers can't attend the talks. I personally find it useful to know what's going on at other places, and I often track down the people who are giving the talks, or else look their papers up in article indexes and so on.
Date: Wed, 4 May 94 14:57:55 PDT From: burke@Prosit.Stanford.EDU (Tom Burke) Subject: CSLI Calendar, 5 May 1994, vol.9:27
C S L I C A L E N D A R O F P U B L I C E V E N T S
---
5 May 1994 Stanford Vol. 9, No. 27
---
A weekly publication of the Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305-4115 ____________ CSLI ACTIVITIES DURING 5 -- 13 MAY 1994
THURSDAY, 5 MAY 10:00 - STASS Seminar Cordura Hall, Room 100 Topics in Partiality Jens Erik Fenstad, University of Oslo and Xerox Abstract below
12:00 - CSLI TINLunch Cordura Hall, Room 100 Discussion of J. E. Tiles's "Criteria of Mental Phenomena and the Problem of the External World" Tom Burke, CSLI Abstract below
4:15 - SSP Forum Building 60, Room 61-F Undoing Actions with Verbs: Particles, Un-, and Canonical States in Acquisition Eve Clark, Stanford Linguistics Abstract below
FRIDAY, 6 MAY 10:00 - Natural Language Technology Workshop Cordura Hall, Room 100 Sponsored by Xerox and CSLI Schedule below
12:30 - PCD Seminar Skilling Auditorium Interactive and Proactive Agents in User Interface Ted Selker, IBM Almaden Abstract below
12:30 - Logic Lunch Building 380, Room 383-N Discovering Needed Reductions Using Type Theory Philippa Gardner, Edinburgh Mathematics Abstract below
3:15 - Philosophy Colloquium Building 90, Room 91-A Hilbert's Program and the Substitution Method Grigori Mints, Stanford Philosophy Abstract below
3:30 - Linguistics Colloquium Ventura Hall, Room 17 The Role of the Segment in American Sign Language Phonology Diane Brentari, UC-Davis Linguistics Abstract below
TUESDAY, 10 MAY 3:00 - Seminar on Computational Learning and Adaptation Cordura Hall, Room 100 From Correlations to Structure in Biological Sequences Tod M. Klingler, Stanford Biochemistry Abstract below
WEDNESDAY, 11 MAY 7:00 - Discourse Structure Discussion Group Ventura Hall, Room 17 Topic to be announced
THURSDAY, 12 MAY 10:00 - STASS Seminar Cordura Hall, Room 100 Understanding Reciprocals Stanley Peters, Stanford Linguistics Abstract below
12:00 - CSLI TINLunch Cordura Hall, Room 100 From Folk Philosophy to Folk Psychology Eros Corazza, CSLI Abstract below
2:30 - CSLI Seminar Cordura Hall, Room 100 Levels of Meaning Francois Recanati, Ecole Polytechnique/CNRS Abstract below
4:15 - Ethics in Society Lecture Building 160, Room 163-F Health Care Reform: Can We Change our Values? Daniel Callahan, Hastings Center
7:30 - Phonology Workshop Ventura Hall, Room 17 Alignment Effects in Mandarin Tone Sandhi Domains Vivienne Fong, Stanford Linguistics Abstract below
FRIDAY, 13 MAY 12:30 - PCD Seminar Skilling Auditorium Managing Metaphors in Advanced User Interfaces Aaron Marcus, Aaron Marcus and Associates
3:15 - Philosophy Colloquium Building 200, Room 2 Deciding the Undecidable: Wrestling with Hilbert's Problems Solomon Feferman, Stanford Mathematics and Philosophy Abstract below
3:30 - Linguistics Colloquium Cordura Hall, Room 100 Prosodic Constituents in Compounds Eunjoo Han, Stanford Linguistics Abstract below
____________
The CSLI Calendar appears on Thursday of each week (more or less) throughout the academic year. Announcements, abstracts, and other information to appear in the Calendar on a given Thursday should be submitted by e-mail to incalendar@csli.stanford.edu by 5:00 p.m. on the previous Tuesday.
Past issues of the CSLI Calendar, a quarterly schedule of upcoming CSLI events, and other information about CSLI are available on-line by way of a CSLI gopher server on kanpai.stanford.edu. The Calendar, with all available abstracts, is also posted each week to the csli.bboard newsgroup.
____________
STASS SEMINAR on Thursday, 5 May 10:00 a.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100 Topics in Partiality Jens Erik Fenstad University of Oslo and Xerox jfenstad@parc.xerox.com
We start by arguing for the need for partial structures in logic and linguistics. Next we shall briefly survey some topics in the logic of partial connectives and predicates. We shall conclude by discussing if partial structures really need a partial logic.
____________
CSLI TINLUNCH on Thursday, 5 May 12:00 noon, Cordura Hall, Room 100 Discussion of J. E. Tiles's "Criteria of Mental Phenomena and the Problem of the External World" Tom Burke CSLI burke@csli.stanford.edu
What is the connection between [existential] phenomenology (Brentano, Meinong, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty) and classical American pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey, Mead)? Unfortunately not enough has been done to carefully compare and contrast these two philosophical traditions.
Tiles's draft "Criteria of Mental Phenomena and the Problem of the External World" is a piece contrasting the views of Franz Brentano and John Dewey on the nature of mentality. What are the criteria for counting a living being as a mental being? This is obviously an important question in the philosophical foundations of the cognitive sciences. According to Tiles, Brentano describes two criteria, while Dewey adds a third. More broadly, Tiles's paper points to some fundamental differences between the two traditions represented by these two philosophers, suggesting a considerable divergence where one might have suspected a closer connection.
Copies of Tiles's paper will be available inside the front doors of Ventura Hall and Cordura Hall.
____________
SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FORUM on Thursday, 5 May 4:15 p.m., Building 60, Room 61-A Undoing Actions with Verbs: Particles, Un-, and Canonical States in Acquisition Eve Clark Stanford Linguistics eclark@psych.stanford.edu
Shoes can be tied and then untied, parcels wrapped and then unwrapped, dishes covered and then uncovered. The present studies were designed to find out how children describe reversals of action that restore objects to some prior state. In English, the prefix un-_ offers the most productive device, but it takes time for children to start to produce it. At first, they rely on a verb like open, on general purpose undo, and on particles like off or out. In moving to uses of un-_, English-speaking children must also learn that it applies primarily to verbs of enclosing, covering, and attaching. The options children choose in English are compared to those children follow in German, which has no reversal prefix but does have productive particles. In both languages, children rely on semantically similar forms for their early expressions of reversal.
____________
NATURAL LANGUAGE TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP on Friday, 6 May 10:00 a.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100 russo@adoc.xerox.com
Xerox PARC, Xerox Desktop Document Systems, and CSLI are hosting a technology briefing on the newest developments in natural language processing. Over the last twenty years Xerox PARC has made significant research breakthroughs in the area of natural language processing. The research results have been published for the scientific community, but now for the first time they will be shared with technology innovators from companies developing commercial products.
The agenda for the event is as follows:
10:00 Welcome, introductions, agenda Daniella Russo, Xerox Lexical Technology Product Manager
10:15 Welcome from CSLI John Perry, Director CSLI
10:30 Xerox Lexical Technology: Theoretical Grounding for a Practical Implementation Ron Kaplan, Xerox PARC research fellow and consulting professor of linguistics at Stanford
11:30 Xerox Lexical Products Suite Andy Gelman, Xerox Lexical Technology Development
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Intelligent Information Access Jan Pedersen, Xerox PARC research fellow
2:00 Xerox PARC: A Tradition in Natural Language Processing John Seely Brown, Director Xerox PARC
3:00 Text Processing: The Next Generation Ivan Sag, Stanford Linguistics
4:00 Demos: Xerox Lexical Technology Visual Recall: a new document management software from XSoft Textbridge: an OCR program from Xerox Imaging Systems
____________
SEMINAR ON HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION on Friday, 6 May 12:30 p.m., Skilling Auditorium Interactive and Proactive Agents in User Interface Ted Selker IBM Almaden selker@almaden.ibm.com
Agents of various sorts have been described in respect to cognition and computers for decades. The pandemonium of agents in models of how we think and AI robots making decisions have taken the sidelines to the compelling notions of user helper Agents. The computing industry is becoming obsessed with both user interface agents which support learning and using computer tools as well as investigative agents which can roam around collecting things of importance to a user.
This talk will outline techniques and strategies styles and power of different approaches to agents people are considering. We will also describe agents we have been experimenting with and the ways in which we find them valuable as assistants and as advisors.
TED SELKER is Manager of User System Ergonomics Research (USER) at IBM Almaden Research Center. His work focuses on developing new paradigms for using computers: The COACH research system demonstrates the use of adaptive user models in help/tutoring environments. The VREP project is developing a "linguistics" for the use of graphic techniques in computer interfaces. He also developed IBM's Trackpoint II, an integrated pointing device with performance advantages derived from a special behavioral/motor match algorithm. Previously, Dr. Selker has conducted research at Xerox PARC, Atari, and the Robotics Laboratory at Stanford University.
____________
LOGIC LUNCH on Friday, 6 May 12:30 p.m., Building 380, Room 383-N Discovering Needed Reductions Using Type Theory Philippa Gardner Edinburgh University
The identification of needed redexes of a lambda-term is a well-known undecidable problem. In this talk I will introduce a (partially decidable) type assignment system, which distinguishes certain redexes called allowable redexes. For a well-typed term, every allowable redex is a needed redex. In addition, with principal typing, all the needed redexes of a normalizable term are allowable. I will briefly mention two possible applications of these results: an analysis of strictness and sharing for functional programming languages, and an optimal reduction strategy for well-typed terms, which combines this identification of needed redexes with the standard sharing mechanisms of graph reduction.
____________
PHILOSOPHY COLLOQUIUM on Friday, 6 May 3:15 p.m., Building 90, Room 91-A Hilbert's Program and the Substitution Method Grigori Mints Stanford Philosophy mints@csli.stanford.edu
The epsilon substitution method was introduced by David Hilbert to provide the concluding step of his formalist program in the foundations of mathematics. We trace the development of the method from its origin to the present moment.
____________
LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM on Friday, 6 May 3:30 p.m., Ventura Hall, Room 17 The Role of the Segment in American Sign Language Phonology Diane Brentari UC-Davis Linguistics dkbrentari@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
This paper examines the extent to which segmental units are needed to account for morphophonemic processes in American Sign Language, and, if segments are needed, what segmental proposal covers the broadest range of forms. (Perlmutter 1992, 1993; Sandler 1989, 1992; Liddell and Johnson 1989). Recent accounts of phonological and morphophonemic processes using syllables and other prosodic units, such as the mora and the phonological word, have significantly reduced the range of cases that require segments in their analysis; however, there is a set of aspectual forms in ASL that provides evidence that segments are needed in the affixation of a 'trilled internal movement' (TIM) to a verb stem. I conclude that a segmental unit is necessary to express this aspectual category in the most economical manner, and that this segment is a derivative notion, such as the segment proposed in Archangeli and Pulleyblank (in press), that is most effective in handling these forms. Further, this account is consistent with a model containing unordered levels of constraints, such as Optimality Theory (Smolensky and Prince 1993) and Harmonic Phonology (Goldsmith 1991).
This aspectual class has not been discussed in the literature before. I call it 'protracted / inceptive' aspect (PI) because the meaning associated to this structure is 'extend the duration of the onset of 'x.'' The input verb stem must contain an implicit or explicit punctual meaning; for example, the verb FALL-ASLEEP allows protracted/inceptive affixation, but the verb SLEEP does not, and there is also a particular phonological shape to which input stem must conform; namely, they must be monosyllabic forms without a TIM in the stem. Syllable accounts of TIM affixation in other polymorphemic forms predict that all TIM features should associate to the most dynamic property of the syllable; however, PI affixation presents a large set of counter- examples to this prediction since the TIM feature associates to the leftmost static properties of the stem, namely the leftmost place of articulation and the leftmost handshape. Furthermore, in a non- segmental model of ASL structure, the place of articulation features and the handshape features are on separate autosegmental tiers. PI affixation accesses both of these tiers at once.
After examining the PI aspect forms I take up each of the traditional segmental models of ASL structure (Liddell and Johnson 1989; Sandler 1989; Sandler 1993; Perlmutter 1992, 1993) to ascertain which model can best handle the PI forms. I conclude that the segmental unit necessary to express this process has two paradoxical properties: it must be visible to the morphology, and it must contain redundant features. This analysis resolves this paradox and presents new forms justifying the segmental units proposed by Liddell and Johnson (1989) and by Sandler (1993), rather than the segmental units proposed in Perlmutter (1992, 1993).
____________
SEMINAR ON COMPUTATIONAL LEARNING AND ADAPTATION on Tuesday, 10 May 3:00 p.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100 From Correlations to Structure in Biological Sequences Tod M. Klingler Stanford Biochemistry klingler@cmgm.stanford.edu
We have developed a probabilistic representation for structural and functional motifs in nucleic acids and proteins based on correlations between specific sequence positions. Biological sequence information is relatively easy to obtain compared to the more meaningful and useful details of structure and function. A major computational challenge exists in developing automated tools for extracting aspects of structure and function from biological sequences. Existing methods for representing and analyzing biological sequences have traditionally assumed strict conditional independence of sequence building blocks. However, it is widely understood that both structure and function is conferred largely through interactions between bases in nucleic acids and amino acids in proteins. We will present a representation using Bayesian networks for sequence correlations indicative of functional and structural interactions. We will also demonstrate a classical statistical algorithm for learning such correlations and present results on their biological relevance and use. The goal of this seminar is to increase communication among local researchers with interests in computational approaches to learning and adaptation. If you would like to be added to (or removed from) the mailing list, or if you are interested in giving a talk in the seminar, please send email to langley@cs.stanford.edu.
____________
DISCOURSE STRUCTURE DISCUSSION GROUP on Wednesday, 11 May 7:00 p.m., Ventura Hall, Room 17 Topic to be announced
____________
STASS SEMINAR on Thursday, 12 May 10:00 a.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100 Understanding Reciprocals Stanley Peters Stanford Linguistics peters@csli.stanford.edu
The meaning of the English reciprocal phrases "each other" and "one another" is a situated generalized quantifier of type (1,2). Sentences like
(1) Willow School's fifth-graders know each other.
are understood to claim that each student knows every other one, while other sentences, for example,
(2) (a) Five Boston pitchers sat alongside each other.
are understood quite differently. Sentence (2a) can be expanded without contradiction upon by adding
(2) (b) Larry Anderson and Tom Bolton were sitting on the ends, separated by Jeff Reardon, Jeff Gray, and Dennis Lamp.
because it is understood as claiming that any two of the five are connected by a chain each member of which is sitting alongside the next. Other reciprocal propositions are true even though no member of the domain is related back to anyone related to them. For instance,
(3) Mrs. Smith's third-grade students gave each other measles
can be true despite the impossibility of getting measles twice, which prevents any student from giving measles to whoever gave it to him or her.
A number of the factors influencing the conditions under which a reciprocal statement is understood to be true will be discussed, and a partial theory of the situated interpretation of reciprocals will be presented.
____________
CSLI TINLUNCH on Thursday, 12 May 12:00 noon, Cordura Hall, Room 100 From Folk Philosophy to Folk Psychology Eros Corazza CSLI eros@csli.stanford.edu
In this talk I will present a picture of attitude reports which accords with folk psychology in a straightforward way. This picture is folk-psychological insofar as it accommodates our pretheoretical intuitions about attitude reports. It does so because it takes an attitude ascription to be a triadic relation among a subject, a proposition, and the way he or she takes the proposition. I spell out the way someone believes a proposition in terms of a notion of accepting a sentence. In accepting a sentence, someone is in a particular type of mental state, and this is all we need in order to deal with several puzzles inspired by Frege's classical work (such as Kripke's Pierre/London example and the Paderewsky cases). In the course of the talk I will discuss some recent discussions of these issues (Schiffer, Salmon) and show how they may undermine the so called hidden-indexical theory (e.g., Crimmins/Perry) but do not affect the picture I have in mind.
____________ CSLI SEMINAR on Thursday, 12 May 2:30 p.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100 Levels of Meaning Francois Recanati Ecole Polytechnique/CNRS recanati@cogsci.berkeley.edu
The distinction between sentence meaning and speaker's meaning has played a central role in semantics in the last twenty years; yet it can be understood and elaborated in several, mutually incompatible ways. Different manners of factoring out the meaning of an utterance will be considered in this talk, with special attention to the 'non-minimalist' approach which has recently gained prominence within pragmatics.
FRANCOIS RECANATI is Visiting Mills Professor in the Department of Philosophy, UC Berkeley, and Senior Researcher at CREA (Ecole Polytechnique/CNRS), Paris. His last book, Direct Reference: From Language to Thought, was published by Blackwell in 1993.
____________
ETHICS IN SOCIETY LECTURE on Thursday, 12 May 4:15 p.m., Building 160, Room 163-F Health Care Reform: Can We Change our Values? Daniel Callahan Hastings Center
____________ PHONOLOGY WORKSHOP on Thursday, 12 May 7:30 p.m., Ventura Hall, Room 17 Alignment Effects in Mandarin Tone Sandhi Domains Vivienne Fong Stanford Linguistics fong@csli.stanford.edu This is yet another take on the problem of defining the domain where the third tone sandhi occurs in Mandarin. Past work on tone sandhi at the level of the sentence has been concerned with how phonological structure may be built from syntactic structure (e.g., Kaisse 1985; Cheng 1971), with even the suggestion that phonological structure is built from semantic units (Hung 1989; also Chen 1990). Both Hung and Chen have argued that the mapping of immediate syntactic constituents into feet is problematic, and have rejected the building of phonological structure from syntax (at least for Mandarin). But Hung's proposal of having the Sense Unit Condition (following Selkirk 1984) determine the formation of prosodic units is also problematic, since syntactic structure still has to be invoked to resolve any clash between the sense-unit and the preferred prosodic pattern. In addition, the motivation for the semantic-based approach can be undermined with alternative syntactic analyses of the crucial examples.
It seems that a more productive way of looking at the phenomenon is to turn away from the concerns of building such representations, and instead to consider any given sandhi domain as the optimal phonological representation that is the output of a set of ranked constraints, which include constraints of the Generalized Alignment variety (McCarthy & Prince 1993).
In particular, I will suggest that tone sandhi (usually represented as in (1)) is one way the language has of simplifying the complexity of the 3rd tone (its complexity is manifested in the tone having 3 allotones).
(1) 3 --> 2 / ___ 3
That being the case, sandhi is obligatory within a given phonological domain, which is aligned with some syntactic domain. In (2), for example, the optimal representation would be (2a), where the phonological phrase (in brackets) is aligned perfectly with the syntactic (noun) phrase:
(2) [liang wan mi]NP 3 3 3 two bowl rice 'two bowls of rice'
a. --> (2 2 3) b. * (2 3) (3) c. * (3) (2 3)
As for a case such as (3) where two third tones may be adjacent, and yet sandhi does not occur, the proposed representation is (3a), which again satisfies alignment constraints:
(3) [[gong- chang]NP li- mian]PP 1 3 3 4 factory inside 'inside the factory'
a. --> (1 3) (3 4)
The focus on evaluating the phonological structure output has the advantage of predicting a variant of (3a), where sandhi does occur. In (3b), the phonological domain coincides with the larger syntactic (PP) domain, and sandhi is observed:
(3) [[gong- chang]NP li- mian]PP 1 3 3 4 factory inside 'inside the factory'
b. --> (1 2 3 4)
Another advantage of this approach is that the appeal to cyclicity, which was necessary in past analyses, is made obsolete. In addition, the framework of Optimality Theory allows for the violation of alignment of phonological and syntactic structures, but only if some higher-ranked constraint is met -- a strategy that was unavailable for previous accounts of the sandhi phenomena.
____________
SEMINAR ON HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION on Friday, 13 May 12:30 p.m., Skilling Auditorium Managing Metaphors in Advanced User Interfaces Aaron Marcus Aaron Marcus and Associates marcus.1@applelink.apple.com ____________
PHILOSOPHY COLLOQUIUM on Friday, 13 May 3:15 p.m., Building 90, Room 91-A Deciding the Undecidable: Wrestling with Hilbert's Problems Solomon Feferman Stanford Mathematics and Philosophy sf@csli.stanford.edu
Solomon Feferman, Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy at Stanford, will give his inaugural lecture as Patrick Suppes Family Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences at 3:15 p.m. Friday, May 13, in History Corner, Building 200, Room 2. The title of his lecture is "Deciding the Undecidable: Wrestling with Hilbert's Problems."
Feferman, an expert in mathematical logic and the foundations of mathematics, has published close to 100 papers in all areas of these subjects, but especially in the theory of proofs, systems of constructive and semi-constructive mathematics and, more recently, applications of logic to computer science. He is editor-in-chief of the multi-volume Collected Works of Kurt Godel, and has written a number of articles on various aspects of 20th century logic and the foundations of mathematics.
In the May 13th lecture, which is intended for a general audience, Feferman will give an overview of the known results and ongoing struggles by logicians with three problems, from the famous list of twenty-three, proposed by David Hilbert in the year 1900.
Following the talk, which is sponsored by the Departments of Philosophy and Mathematics, there will be a reception in the Philosophy Courtyard.
____________
LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM on Friday, 13 May 3:30 p.m., Cordura Hall, Room 100 Prosodic Constituents in Compounds Eunjoo Han Stanford Linguistics eunjoo@csli.stanford.edu Recent versions of the Prosodic Hierarchy Theory have argued for the existence of lexical prosodic structure which is formed largely on the basis of morphological structure but not necessarily coextensive with it (Cohn 1989, Inkelas 1989, Zsiga 1992). This talk provides an argument in favor of this view of Prosodic Hierarchy Theory. In particular, I focus on the derivation of prosodic domains in compounds. It has been noted that there are two types of compounds: those which correspond to one rule domain and those which correspond to two rule domains (Mohanan 1986, Sproat 1986, Wiltshire 1992). Inkelas (1989) argues that this split is due to the fact that one type of compounding places constraints on the prosodic constituency of its output whereas the other type of compounding does not. Departing from her analysis, I propose that both types of compounding must be accompanied by specific prosodic requirements. Evidence for this comes from a comparison of prosodic constituent formation in Malayalam, Vedic, and Japanese compounds.
The examination is based on phonological phenomena such as accentuation that apply within compounds. The three languages pattern together with respect to two-word compounds; however, they exhibit systematic differences concerning more complex compounds. I suggest that these differences emerge from two simple factors: (i) the sort of prosodic constituency required of the output of compounding and (ii) the way prosodically unlicensed material is treated. In addition, I examine whether the same facts can be handled in an end-based framework of prosodic phonology (Selkirk 1986, Cohn 1989, Selkirk and Shen 1990) and show difficulties facing any end-based approach attempting to account for the facts.
____________
WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT Third CSLI Workshop on Logic, Language, and Computation on Friday--Sunday, 3--5 June Cordura Hall, Room 100 {atocha,nino}@csli.stanford.edu
The Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University, will host the Third Workshop on Logic, Language, and Computation on June 3--5. The workshop will take place in the large conference room in Cordura Hall (Room 100). Registration is free and open.
This meeting is a follow-up to similar ones held on the previous two years. This annual event brings together philosophers, linguists and computer scientists with an interest in logic, with the overall aim of facilitating interdisciplinary interaction.
The organizers of the workshop are Johan van Benthem, Stanley Peters, Atocha Aliseda (atocha@csli.stanford.edu), and Maria-Eugenia Nino (nino@csli.stanford.edu).
Schedule of Sessions:
Friday, June 3 Morning I Process Logics and Proof Theory Afternoon II Multimodal and Visual Reasoning Saturday, June 4 Morning III Knowledge Representation and Context Change Afternoon IV Dynamic Interpretation of Natural Language Sunday, June 5 Morning and Afternoon V Quantifiers, Anaphora and Discourse
____________ ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.