perm filename CH4[E,ALS] blob
sn#159786 filedate 1975-05-17 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00030 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00004 00002 .chapt "CHAPTER 4: FOR"
C00008 00003 %24.2 TASK: SETTING UP CATEGORIES AND PROCEDURES FOR DISAMBIGUATION%1
C00011 00004 %24.3 IDIOMATIC USES OF "FOR"%1
C00013 00005 %24.4 "FOR" WHICH IS PART OF A VERB%1
C00017 00006 %24.5 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EACH CATEGORY%1
C00021 00007 %2CATEGORY 3:##TO GIVE TO:##Object is to be TRANSed to Person(Y)%1
C00029 00008 %2CATEGORY 9:##FUNCTION:
C00032 00009 %2CATEGORY 10:##BE FOR:##This is an idiom which means "be in favor of"%1
C00038 00010 %2CATEGORY 16:##OBJECT SUBSTITUTION IN THE INSTUMENTAL CONCEPTUALIZATION
C00043 00011 %24.6##∪THE ∪DETAILED ∪PRESENTATION ∪OF ∪CATEGORIES IN SECTIONS 4.7 THROUGH 4.25:##
C00046 00012 .POINTS(6)
C00054 00013 ∪CONCEPTUAL ∪FORMATS ∪OF ∪CATEGORIES ∪1,#∪7, ∪AND ∪3.
C00060 00014 .continue
C00069 00015 The following rules are those given to our understanding system for the
C00073 00016 Rule 4, which deals principally with category 2 of the next section, is
C00076 00017 ∪CONTEXT
C00087 00018 %24.8###CATEGORY 2:##TO GET:##Actor receives Object%1
C00091 00019 As we stated in the last section, there is a conceptual structure underlying
C00099 00020 %24.9##CATEGORY 4:##"ITEM(X)##COMPARED##TO##SET(Y)"
C00105 00021 %2CATEGORY 4(a):
C00114 00022 %2
C00129 00023 %24.11##CATEGORY 5:###DURATION
C00136 00024 .SKIP 2
C00150 00025 The reasons that it becomes very difficult to strictly delimit into
C00158 00026 %24.13##CATEGORY 9,##FUNCTION OBJECT, CASE A%1
C00167 00027 The tense on the conceptualization of example (1) is future, but category 9
C00186 00028 Other examples of category 9 show that the function object and Y must be in
C00236 00029 .POINTS(6)
C00250 00030 The tense on the conceptulazation of example 1 is future, but category 9
C00251 ENDMK
C⊗;
.chapt "CHAPTER 4: FOR"
%24.1 INTRODUCTION%1
.skip 1
In this chapter we present more than twenty meanings that "for" can have,
together with the rules for deciding which sense of "for" is present in a
given sentence. A "category" is all the instances of "for" which have the
same meaning. That is, if a "for" occurs in such and such environment, then
it means X; if it appears in another given linguistic environment, then it
means Y. It is useful to talk about all the instances of "for" with meaning X as belonging to
a single category X, because there are relationships which exist between
the different meanings of "for". For example, one meaning of "for" implies another meaning
of "for", e.g., a category 9 meaning of "for" (a FUNCTION-FOR) implies a
category 3 meaning (a possession "for"): a person cannot use an object (category 9
example-"This box is for the apples", where "box" is used as a "container"
for "apples"), unless that person, in some sense, possesses that object (category 3-
"I got this box `for-to give to' John to use for (category 9: FUNCTION) the apples").
We shall discuss these inter-category relationships in the detailed analysis
later in this chapter.
Because a "category" is all the instances of "for" which have the same meaning,
each occurrence of that for-category has ∪the ∪same conceptual representation.
This allows us to make generalizations concerning all the examples of a category.
With each category of "for", we give the %4Conceptual Format%1 that is common
to all the instances of that category. We also give its distinguishing features,
information that is necessary in the memory model for disambiguation of the category,
and the rules that an understanding system needs for deciding whether a "for"
has the meaning of the category. These rules are the means by which a particular
"for" is %4disambiguated%1. By the "disambiguation of a particular `for'", we
mean the process by which an instance of "for" is determined to have the meaning
of a particular category.
.next page
%24.2 TASK: SETTING UP CATEGORIES AND PROCEDURES FOR DISAMBIGUATION%1
.SKIP 1
The first step taken was to sit and think of different meanings that "for"
can have and list an example of each.
Then a search was made through books, newspapers, magazines, etc.; and
every time another meaning of "for" occurred, it was categorized. Many
other "for" examples were offered by colleagues and friends. After having categorized
about twenty different meanings that "for" can realize, Jespersen(4) was consulted
and the "for" paraphraseable by "to be" was added to the list. Jespersen stated
that this use of "for" with a predicate means practically the same thing as "as".
An example given was "I knowe you for a trewe wyf".
Next the task was undertaken to set up procedures which a computer understanding
system could follow to assign the correct meaning interpretation to "for" in
a given linguistic input. This task made it necessary to posit certain features
that a memory model must assign in order to disambiguate "for". These features
are usually presented in capital letters, e.g., ANIMATE. We also discovered the
importance of the interaction of what we term "Expectancy Rules" in the language
understanding process. Chapter 5 is a discussion of these rules, what types of
rules they are, and how they interact in the understanding process, with special
reference to "for". In this chapter, we do not get into a discussion of the Expectancy
Rules themselves; we merely point out, in several instances, where they must play
a part in the understanding of "for".
.skip 2
%24.3 IDIOMATIC USES OF "FOR"%1
.skip 1
Most idiomatic uses of "for" are excluded from this study UNLESS the
idiom can be conflated into "for". For example, "in order for" in
(a) conflates into "for" in (b) below; "in exchange for" in (c),
into "for" in (d).
.points(6)
(a).\In order for me to get up at 9 a.m., I have to set the alarm for 8 a.m..
(b).\For me to get up at 9 a.m., I have to set the alarm for 8 a.m..
(c).\John gave George his knife in exchange for a football.
(d).\John gave George his knife for a football.
.ENDPOINTS
If a certain idiom (a) can be conflated into "for" (b),
then the rules that pertain to the disambiguation of that "for" (b) also
pertain to the understanding of that "for"-idiom (a).
We present several categories which are idiomatic. Some of the idiomatic
categories have surface ambiguities with certain non-idiomatic uses of "for",
e.g., John is for McGovern, idiom-BE FOR; This spoon is for the gravy, the
functional use of "for" of category 9. The reason why we chose to present
certain for-idioms is explained in the detailed analysis later in this chapter.
.skip 2
%24.4 "FOR" WHICH IS PART OF A VERB%1
.SKIP 1
"For" is either always explicitly stated or implicit with certain verbs.
We only include one example of this type of "for" usage in our analysis,
and that is the verb "substitute for" (cateoowyJq↓α←*β∨'[*βS#'~↓ [↔⊗⊃7≠?∩⊂4+ ␈#!βπ~βπ9β/Cπ7Cf)1βπv!βπ3≡yβ ↔≡ WO∃π##↔K*β'Mβ∞qβ';&+K↔O&K;≥β≡{7Cπ⊗KO?9ε∪↔S←.+9β'"4+πv!βπ;␈##↔Iεs?97N#'?7∂#'
β≡ S↔∨␈∪eβ?2↓ ≠?∩⊃9↓α>C↔9β&C↔O∃π3↔K ~β?→β>C'∂!α∪≠?I⊂h+'Mε βCπ↔!β?∂∨+Iβ'rβπ9βNsCWQb↓ ≠?∩⊃β←?.c⊃β *βCK↔&K∂S↔"β eβ&C∃β[/∪ β∪N≠S'?v Kd4W;'S!π##∃β.s∪↔K∨#π;∪Ns≥βOO≠S↔5ε ;⊃β>{W3⊃ε∪∃β∪O≠π7 N;WπS.!β←'&AβK↔∨β↔∂Qπ#=βSF Q4WβπKSN≠W3π∩β[↔K∩q↓α≠␈⊃β↔c∞kC3∃bβS#∃π3↔K α∪∂K'&K∂'k*⊃βπ3> gMβF Mβ↔O##↔Iε 9β↔Gβ3'∂O 4+?∩βπ9βNkC3'≡KQ↓ 6{I β6{33?>K;≥βO!mβ?v)β∂πvs?Qβ∨∪'S'≡Kk∃β≡{7↔?v)β←'&C?WQh+∂KO#'∂'VK;≥βFK5↓ 6{I β≡{7∃β⊗+πO?rq↓αSF+K↔≠␈∪∃1β/β?9β&C∃β?≡≠WKK.s∂∃β}1β∂↔↔#π'8hS[↔K↔→βπ9ε+cC↔∨#π;∂Jβ≠?Iα∪≠?I∩β←?Wf!β ∃ε;↔;↔⊗ S↔⊃r↓α'9π##∃β≡ O∃β}1↓ ∂⊗KS'∂OS∀4+6{I 1α∪≠?I∩β'Mβε KπCG∪πO↔∞∪3∃β↔I↓ .≠πWO*β?→ ph); .;'9↓α↓↓↓hQ;CK.3π∂∃β↓l4*V{#9β> Mβ∂⊗KS'∂OS↔⊃β6{Iβ#O→β3?v9β#πO⊃84(hR+?#rβ←πMε≠K'SN≠'k↔"β ↔∂∂+O∃β}1β#'~β3?;:β#π'∩p4);.s⊃↓↓α↓↓↓↓h)
≠␈⊃β'Mε 3O=ε+cC↔∨#↔⊃β∞3S↔Iπ3↔K ~βOW∂BβπM↓⊗ C?3};'k∃∩a↓ ←O≠! 1α∪ ↔≥∩aβ↔S~q1βπv 4+SF)β7↔∞s';≥ε{→↓ 6{I βO→β∪↔&+K7'v+⊃β JβS#∃ε+cC↔∨#π;∂Jβ←#'≡Aβ'Mπ≠↔Qβ/↓β dhSS#π"βCπK&K∂W3∂⊃β[↔⊗⊃84)v∪↔∨'r↓↓↓↓h);C⊗+≠π∂*↓Al4UIβπC}c?∨'V)βS=¬Qα~>∩αamαJβπC?f{∨'k*βS=αRβ ↔∂∂+O∃β}1αa8hP4*eε≠K'SN≠'k∃¬Qα~>∩αamαJβ∂K'&K∂'k*αiβ .≠πWO*β?→αBp4(4UIβ ↔?→αiα4zIαaZαeβ .;Mαiπ#=βK.≠↔'[*αa84Rs↔;⊃α↓↓↓↓α4*←F+9βSF+O∃β6+K Mπ;'S!ε 9β'oβ3'∂O!↓ ≠␈⊃ βππβ↔πIεK9βπrβ';C/!1βπrβ↔cC.≠SπSN{9β?0h+S#*βW;∪/∪OSπv#';≥π≠gOS.iβ←?.c⊃β *βS#π"↓ ≠?∩⊃β7πJβπCC. I1β∞s⊃β'2↓ ≠?∩⊃βπCε+πKM`h+S#.qβ'QεCπMβ&C∃β≠}c3?←Ns≥βO.sO∃1π;#'∂Bβ'Mβ&+S↔KnK;↔⊃ε∪eβSF)βCπ↔#'∂Wf Iβ[/∪ 84Ts?S∃π##πQα∩
∃ εKMβ¬π≠SKW∨#WK∃π;?K⊃ε ;⊃βv{Qβ¬π∪↔π1π3↔K εK9βSF)βO↔w≠∃βSF Qβ'"β'L4Vs?Qβ&C∃βK. 3'k∂#'?9ε{→β¬ε≠?;∂/βSWπbαε∞Qr↓α←∃π≠#π3bβ∪'O∨+OM↓∀∩∃ β∂→β'Qπ∪↔3π&+L4+&y↓ ≠␈⊃ β3∂#↔IβNqβS#*β∂#ππ#↔I↓FK9β∂∂#↔∨?↔I↓ei∧≠πO∃∧ %84RsO/'α↓I↓↓α4(1∃I"qU↓α∃∩&⊗→∧"⊗N∞∀JBR&|qα>→∧*ε∞!∧~εR⊗<zJe∃λh):N\JA↓DhR'9β&C'Mβ≡+∂S'}qβ←∃εk↔K↔gIβ3'∨!βS#*α~>Iε≠πS↔>{K'↔~βπ;⊃ε;'[∃ε β KN+_4+&+O∂KOβS'?rβ?→β. ∂!9αα¬β∪/#π'3.!β∪↔≡≠K'C&K?9β␈→β↔π≡Aβ∂π&+∨?KJβ≠?3f{←L4W##'Mπ≠↔∂SN{99↓∧K9βSFKMβO.≠S'?raβ↔π≡Aβ∂π&+∨?KJβ'Mβ>K[↔9ε 9βπ⊗∪K↔[N S↔⊂hS;π7*q↓αSFKMβ;∞k∃β∪}+Mβ;␈!β∪↔≡≠K' *βS#∃π∪↔3π&K?;OFKAβK. 3'k.!β eα∪≠?I⊂h+'9π##πQε≠πS↔>{Ke1π≠';∂*βS#∃π∪↔3π&K?;OFKAβW∨+π33JβSπ//→β7?⊗)βS#∞qβ¬β6+\4+>{K∪Mπ#=β∪/≠∂K'⊗)9↓α&C∃β∂∂#↔∨?↔Iβ;πn)β'Mεk↔K↔gIβ¬βεs↔W7}s'
β&+['∂*p4*πrβ↔cπoβ3∃β≡+;S↔v≠∃β≠␈⊃β↔π≡Aβ∂π&+∨?KJβ'Mβ∞cO=β>K[↔9r↓αO?n)β?→π##∃β/Cπ7Cf+L4+∂∪∃βπn∪'∨W␈+Mβπv!β∂πrβ∨π[*β7?K*βS#πrβ?;∃α∪≠?I∩β';S/∪CK↔& S'?rq↓α'rβS#∃ε#↔SπNc↔⊂4V ;π3O≠'Mβ}1βS#*β∂πS.;?K'/→β'9π##∃β≡+∂S'}sMβ≠}c3?←Ns≥↓Qs)1βSF+K∃β∂∪∃βC⊗{∂↔∪/∪↔L4V QβSF)β↔;"β?→β. ∂!β≡ S↔∨␈∪eβSF QβK/≠?3[*βS#'~βπ7 N;W'SJβ ↔S>+↔9β&K≠≠↔⊗+;P4R∪≠?K~⊃9↓αNqβS#O→β KN+→β∪/≠∂K'π#'?9bβS#∃πβK↔O.sSπSN{9β?2β∂πS.;?K'/→β'Mπ+;?K&+K↔⊂hS←'SBβK↔Oε+∂Qβ&yβ';&+K∂π&+∨?KJβK↔3∂#'?;≡C'CMph);O↑KA↓DhQ;;↔G!βCπ>(4)∃∀~εR⊗<zJe↓ Q
∞&rαB2ε≤)α>→R→∞π∂&{IαO.∪OS''+S'?rβ'9α∞≠S'?rBi%∃λh(4*&+O∂KOβS'?sQ
∞C/∪O?9EA%α∩zαπ∂SN{9"iJα&9α∧bε∞∃∧z→↓"4zI%αε+KO?rBe%1π;#↔K(h*eβ>{W3⊃εs?K7∞c3e↓F{Iβ#∞∪'SW∞c3e%∧"=απ∨#'?9EQ%9↓α↓
≠?∩⊃β'MπβπKπεCKπO. 3∀hS e↓⊗K9βCf ∂∃β}1 9↓∧K9β?&C↔Iβ>{K∪Mbβ'9β&C'Mβ≡ S↔∨␈∪eβO}k↔?;*βC↔K6{K7Mελ4+≠.s∂S'}qβS#∂!β←?.c⊃β;␈∪7π3gIβ ∃πβ↔K≠␈∪7↔⊃ε∪eβO}k↔?;*β↔3O*↓#?IεKMβ#∞∪'SW∞c3d4Wβ↔K≠␈∪7↔⊃ε∪eβO}k↔?;*β↔3O*I84)v∪↔∨'ph);C⊗+≠π∂*↓Al4T+cπ7εc∃i↓∧Iβ←↔w!βS=π##∃β∨#?K∃ε3?Iαn{S#↔∩p4(4UβπKπεCKπO+Q↓α%π;↔;Qπ#=βSF)βOS␈∪∃β'rα7?SF+I∨Mπβ3π∂*↓#S=ε∪Weβ≡{7∃β&C';∨~I84)v+;⊂4RsO/'α↓D4)+∩∞εR,:>Jeβ⊃i
∞$yα≡⊗#Q
∞π∨#?Iβ⊗+∂↔'6+Mα?⊗S↔∂Q+λ4(4T#↔O∂⊗KCS'}qi
∞∞≠S?Iε;?↔Mπ#=βSF)α3?≡ S'?rβ?→α}∪+↔∂"Bi%βNqβ?K&+IβSzαRJεu→α? V+∂Q"RH4+Szβ#'7≡+3→9α↓↓
≠␈⊃ β'w#K?∪.≠↔Mβ&C∃β?⊗S↔∂Qε∪↔';:αRJεu~⊗⊃↓F≠π9β⊗)αBR∀
:M1∧jRJεu→3?HhS'9β≡{7∃β≡ O↔M∧
RJεu~yKi) to the actor of the conceptualization. The action of the
conceptualization is one by which the actor goes to the location of the object.
This action is a necessary condition for either the PTRANSing or MTRANSing of the object
to the actor. "For" is paraphraseable by "to get".
.skip 1
.begin
.preface 0;
ATRANS example: Tom went to the bank for money.
Paraphrase: Tom went to the bank to get money.
MTRANS example: Bob telephoned Bill for advice.
Paraphrase: Bob did an action to put himself in mental proximity with Bill in
order to get a mental object(s)-certain conceptualization(s)- from Bill's head.
PTRANS example: Jane went to the store for Mother.
Paraphrase: Jane went to the store to get Mother.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 3:##TO GIVE TO:##Object is to be TRANSed to Person(Y)%1
Description:##In this category which has the form:##Object "for" Person(Y), the
Object is to be given to Person(Y). "For" is paraphraseable by "to give to".
.begin
.preface 0;
Example: I brought this book for you
Paraphrase: I brought this book to give to you.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 4:##ITEM IS COMPARED TO SET ON SCALE%1
Description:##The value of item(X) is compared to the norm value of a set(Y)
on scale(Z), where item(X) is a member of set(Y). "For" is paraphraseable by
"compared to the norm of" or "relative to".
.points(6)
Example: George is smart for a truck driver.
\Item(X) = George
\Set Y = set of all truck drivers in the memory model.
\Scale(Z) = Intelligence Scale
\EVALUATION term = "smart", which is George's evaluation on scale Z ∪relative
∪to the evaluated norm on scale Z of set Y (or relative to the range of values
on scale Z of set Y).
.endpoints
The EVALUATION term gives the value of X on scale Z, and in that manner reveals
what scale Z measures.
Paraphrase: Compared to most truck drivers, George is smart.
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 4(a):##"too" INTERJECTED BEFORE EVALUATION TERM%1
Description:##In this special case of category 4 where "too" is interjected
before the EVALUATION term, the inference is that item X does not lie within
the range of values of set Y on scale Z, and cannot, therefore, be a member
of set Y.
.begin
.preface 0;
Example: George is too smart for a truck driver.
.end
The value of item X (George) on the Intelligence scale is greater than that of
any member of set Y (truck drivers). The inference from the example is that
"George cannot be a truck driver" or "George should not be a truck driver".
.next page
%2CATEGORY 5:## DURATION%1
Description:##"For" introduces the duration in time and/or distance of a
conceptualization. "For" is paraphraseable by "a duration of".
.begin
.preface 0
Example (time duration): He shouted for a few minutes.
Paraphase: His shouting lasted a few minutes.
Example (distance duration): Mike ran for two miles.
Paraphrase: Mike ran a distance of two miles.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 6:## EVALUATION OF ACTION(Z) TO ACTOR(X)%1
Description:## In these examples of "for" usage, the speaker is evaluating
an action(Z) relative to a particular person(X) as actor in action(Z).%1
"For" precedes the actor and can be paraphrased as "relative to"-actor(X),
this action has this evaluation.
.begin
.preface 0
Example: It is bad for Mary to eat candy.
Paraphrase: Mary shouldn't eat candy.
Example: For me to leave is hard.
Paraphrase: My leaving is a hard thing.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 7:##TO PLEASE:##The Intention of Person(X) is to Please Person(Y).%1
Description:##Person(X) does Action(Z) in order to please or benefit on
some level Person(Y), where person(Y) does not have the ability to do (Z).%1
"For" means to please or benefit on some level.
.begin
.preface 0
Example: George joined the fraternity for his father.
Paraphrase: George joined the fraternity to please his father.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 8A:##FOR NEGATIVE STATE%1
Description:##The form of this category is "Conceptualization(Y) FOR NEGATIVE
STATE(Z)", where the actor(Y) of conceptualization(Y) is in state(Z). The
conceptualization(Y)-action or state-change-which precedes the "FOR NEGATIVE
STATE(Z)" is intended to be a CURATIVE measure regarding the NEGATIVE STATE(Z).
(CURATIVE is another feature that would be assigned to certain actions in memory
in regard to specific NEGATIVE STATES.) The NEGATIVE State(Z) can be either
PHYSICAL, MENTAL, or EMOTIONAL. This is a category of "for" which requires the
interaction of Self-Oriented Expectancy Rule II (see Chapter 5, section 5) for
its meaning interpretation. "For" is paraphraseable by "to cure" or "to improve".
.begin
.preface 0
Example (PHYSICAL NEGATIVE STATE): Mary took an aspirin for her headache.
Paraphrase: Mary took an aspirin to get rid of her headache.
Example (EMOTIONAL NEGATIVE STATE): Susan drinks milk for her nerves.
Paraphrase: Susan drinks milk to calm her nerves.
Example (MENTAL NEGATIVE STATE): What do you do for depression?
Paraphrase: What do you do to get rid of depression?
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 8B:##PREVENTIVE FOR%1
Description:##The use of "for" in this category is closely related to that of
Category 8A (FOR NEGATIVE STATE). The form of this category is "ACTION(Y)
FOR NEGATIVE PHYSICAL HEALTH STATE(Z), where the Object(ANIMATE) of action(Y)
is %4not%2 in state(Z) at the time that action(Y) occurs. Action(Y) is to
prevent the Object(ANIMATE) from going to state(Z).%1 "For" is paraphraseable
by "to prevent" or "to cause (object) not to go to the state of".
.begin
.preface 0
Example: Joey was vaccinated for polio.
Paraphrase: Joey was vaccinated to prevent his getting polio.
Example: Our dog got shots for rabies.
Paraphrase: Our dog got shots to protect him from getting rabies.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 9:##FUNCTION:
.begin
.preface 0
\\X## "FOR"##Y,### X## FUNCTIONS## RELATIVE## TO## Y.%1
.end
Description:##A particular Object(X) is related by its Functional Definition
to that which follows "for", Y.
.points(6)
\FORM (1): Object(X) "BE form" FOR Y.
\FORM (2): Object(X) FOR Y.
.endpoints
.points(6)
CASE A: The function object(X) is inanimate.
\Examples:
\FORM (1) This spoon is for the gravy.
\FORM (2) I brought this spoon for the gravy.
\Paraphrases:
\FORM (1) This spoon is to be used to serve the gravy, or This spoon is to serve the gravy.
\FORM (2) I brought this spoon to be used for the gravy.
.endpoints
.points(6)
CASE B: The function object(X) is a person, and Y is a person.
\Only Form (2) is possible: Object(X) FOR Y.
\Example: That's the girl for me.
\Paraphrase: That's the girl I want to be my wife. (one possible meaning)
\In Case B, person(X) functions relative to person(Y).
.endpoints
.points(6)
CASE C: Object(X) is the name of a profession.
\Only Form 2 is possible: "Profession" FOR Y.
\"For" relates the function of the profession to Y.
\Example: John took his car to the mechanic for a tune-up.
\Paraphrase: John took his car to the mechanic so that the mechanic could
tune it up.
.endpoints
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 10:##BE FOR:##This is an idiom which means "be in favor of"%1
Description:##Person(X) BE FOR Y. Person(X) believes that Y will benefit Person(X)
on some level. "For" is paraphraseable by "be in favor of".
.begin
.preface 0
Example: Mary is for women's lib.
Paraphrase: Mary believes that women's lib. is a good thing.
.end
.skip 1
.POINTS(12)
%2CATEGORY 11:## CONDITIONAL FOR (IDIOMATIC)%2
\(A) IF NOT FOR X, (THEN) Y; or
\(B) BUT FOR X, (THEN) Y
.ENDPOINTS
%1Description: "IF NOT FOR"(A) OR "BUT FOR"(B) introduces conceptualization(X),
where "NOT X" is a %4necessary condition%1 for conceptualization(Y).
.begin
.preface 0
Example (A):##If it weren't for John's coming, I could go on the trip.
Paraphrase:##If John weren't coming, then I could go on the trip.
Example (B):##But for John's coming, I could go on the trip.
Paraphrase:##If John weren't coming, then I could go on the trip.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 12:##RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY%1
Description:##"For" realizes the RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY relationship.
RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY is where two conceptualizations "CAUSE" each other,
(and, in this case of "for", at least one of the conceptualizations is an ATRANS,) i.e.,
the two events are mutually dependent; the occurrence of one is the REASON for
the occurrence of the other. "For" can be paraphrased by "in exchange for".
In this category, objects are "exchanged for" objects, and actions are
"exchanged for" objects.
.begin
.preface 0
Example: Mary will do it for five dollars. (action-object exchange)
Paraphrase: If someone gives Mary five dollars to do it, she will.
Example: Robert traded George his bat for a football. (object-object exchange)
Paraphrase: Robert gave his bat to George so that George would give his football
to Robert, and vice-versa.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 13A:##FOR POSITIVE EMOTIONAL STATE
%1Description:##Person(X) engaging in Action(Z) from time(i) to time(f)
causes Person(X)'s state to change to a more POSITIVE state on some level,
usually the EMOTIONAL LEVEL, and this more POSITIVE state lasts from time(i)
to time(f).%1 "For" introduces the term indicating the positive state-change
of Actor(X). "For" can be paraphrased by "to cause himself to become".
.begin
.preface 0
EXample: Harry shoots rabbits for fun.
Paraphrase: Harry shoots rabbits because he enjoys it.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 13B:##HABITUAL ACTION(Z) FOR POSITIVE STATE(Y)%1
Description:##Person(X) does Action(Z) habitually in order to attain and/or
maintain State(Y).%1 "For" introduces the desired result of the Action(Z), State(Y).
.begin
.preface 0
Example: Mike runs for his health.
Paraphrase: Mike runs to stay healthy (or to become healthier).
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 14:##STATE(X) IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ACTION(Z)%1
Description:##A state conceptualization is followed by a "for" which is followed
by an action conceptualization, where the first conceptualization is a necessary
condition of the second.%1 "For" is paraphraseab;e by "in order for" or "to enable".
.begin
.preface 0
Example: The snow has to be deep for skiing.
Paraphrase: The snow has to be deep or people can't ski.
.end
.skip 1
%2 CATEGORY 15:##PERSONS X AND Y ARE EMOTIONALLY RELATED%1
Description:##A change of state of one person(X) causes an emotional change
of state in another person(Y).%1 "For" introduces the change of state of
person(X). "For" is paraphraseable by "because of".
.begin
.preface 0
Example: She grieved for him.
Paraphrase: His misfortune caused her grief.
Example: I am happy for your good fortune.
Paraphrase: I am happy because of your good fortune.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 16:##OBJECT SUBSTITUTION IN THE INSTUMENTAL CONCEPTUALIZATION
%1Description:##In this category the more accepted instrumental object is
replaced by another object.%1 "For" is part of the verb "substitute for",
or "use"-in certain cases.
.begin
.preface 0
Example: Mary substitutes honey for sugar in that cake recipe.
Paraphrase: Instead of sugar Mary uses honey in that cake recipe.
.end
%2CATEGORY 17:##EVALUATION OF ACTION(Z) TO ACTOR(X) WITH ATTRIBUTE(Y)%1
Description:##"For" has the meaning of category 6, "relative to".
The only difference between the two categories is that in 6, in evaluating
action(Z) relative to actor(X), no attempt is made to give a reason for
the evaluation; while in 17, the reason for the evaluation is given: attribute(Y)
of actor(X).
Example:##It was a difficult dilemma for a man whose life had been lived
exclusively in the company of men.
.points(6)
\Action(Z):##A man must choose between two alternatives
\Attribute(Y) of Actor(X):##had lived exclusively in the presence of men
\Evaluation of Action(Z) relative to Actor(X) with Attribute(Y):##Difficult
Paraphrase:##He had a difficult choice to make because he had lived
exclusively in the company of men.
.endpoints
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 18:##BECAUSE%1
Description:##Conceptualization(X) FOR Conceptualization(Y), where Conceptualization(Y)
is an explanation for Conceptualization(X).%1"For" is paraphraseable by "because".
.begin
.preface 0
Example: Mary wants to go to London for England is beautiful this time of year.
Paraphrase: Mary wants to go to London because England is beautiful this time
of the year.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 19:###TO BE%1
Description:##X "for" Z, where some object(X) is placed in the category of Z.
This meaning of "for" only occurs with a certain set of verbs. "For" is paraphraseable
by "to be".
.begin
.preface 0
Example: It was taken for a miracle.
Paraphrase: It was taken to be a miracle.
Example: I have you for a friend.
Paraphrase: You are my friend.
.end
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 20:###FOR A VERB%1
Description:##This use of "for" occurs with only certain types of verbs,
which we discuss in section 15. The form of this category is (A) or (B):
.points(6)
\(A) Object(animate) TO GO FOR A VERB(Z)
\(B) Object(Y)(Animate) TAKE Object(X)(animate) FOR A VERB(Z)
which can be paraphrased by
\(A1) Object(animate) GO VERB(Z)+"ing"
\(B1) Object(Y)(animate) TAKE Object(X)(animate) VERB(Z)+"ing"
.endpoints
.continue
.begin
.preface 0
Example: John went for a walk.
Paraphrase: John went walking.
Example: John took the dog for a walk.
Paraphrase: John took the dog walking.
.end
.skip 2
%24.6##∪THE ∪DETAILED ∪PRESENTATION ∪OF ∪CATEGORIES IN SECTIONS 4.7 THROUGH 4.25:##
INTRODUCTION
%1Categories are presented together if they are so similar as to make disambiguation
seem difficult, or if their meanings are interrelated, e.g., one category
implies the meaning of "for" in another category, or an inference from one
meaning of "for" is another meaning of "for", etc.. Otherwise, each section
presents a different category.
.skip 2
%2 4.7###FOR CATEGORIES 1-IN PLACE OF, 7-TO PLEASE, AND 3-TO GIVE TO
These three categories are presented together because of their close surface
similarity. In one context a particular sentence has the "for" meaning of category 1,
while in another context the same sentence has the "for" meaning of category 7, or
of category 3. Below we briefly describe each of these three categories, and for
each, give three examples that ∪can have that category interpretation. The examples
can usually have other interpretations as well.
.points(6)
\CATEGORY:##IN PLACE OF
\Person(X) DO Action(Z)##IN PLACE OF (FOR)##Person(Y),#where Person(Y) would
normally do Action(Z).
(1).\I went to the store for Mother.
(2).\Mary cooked dinner for her mother.
(3).\George went to the conference for his boss.
.endpoints
.points(6)
\CATEGORY 7:##TO PLEASE
\Person(X) does Action(Z) in order TO PLEASE or benefit on some level (FOR)
Person(Y), where person(Y) does not have the ability to do action(Z).
(4).\I will go for John's sake.
(5).\George joined the fraternity for his father.
(6).\I went to the party for Mother.
\Note:##We name this category "to please"; however, we use "please" in the broad
sense of "benefit on some level".
.endpoints
.POINTS(6)
\CATEGORY 3:###TO GIVE TO
\Object(X) is to be TRANSED to Person(Y):##Object(X) FOR Person(Y).
(7).\Mary cooked dinner for her Mother.
(8).\This book is for you.
(9).\Barbara brought a cake for Mike.
.endpoints
The problem is:##how can a natural language analysis program determine
which sense of "for" is present when faced with sentences (1) through (9).
Notice that (2), "Mary cooked dinner for her mother"; can have either the
"for"#-#"to give to" interpretation, or the "for"#-#"in place of" interpretation.
Almost all of the nine examples can have more than one of these three meanings.
The difference between category 1 and category 7 is that in category 1, a person(X)
does an action "in place of" person(Y), where person(Y) would "normally" be the
actor, e.g.,
.points(6)
\Mother habitually cooks dinner every night, she was busy tonight, so "Mary
cooked dinner for her";
.endpoints
.continue
while in category 7, the action person(X) does is not "in place of" person(Y),
only person(X) may perform the action, e.g.,
.points(6)
\"George joined the fraternity for his father", only George can join the fraternity,
his father cannot.
.endpoints
.continue
In the case of "for"#-#"to please", person(X) believes that person(Y) wants person(X)
to do action(Z). It is important that a particular person do a particular action,
not just that the action gets done. George's father wants George to join the fraternity,
neither the father nor anyone else can take George's place in joining the fraternity
and end up with the same result, which is, "George's father is pleased".
It is true that an inference from a "for-in place of" (category 1) interpretation
is that person(X) wants to please or benefit on some level person(Y), which
is a category 7-"for"; e.g., from example (2), "Mary cooked dinner for-in place of
her mother", an inference is that "Mary wished to please or benefit her mother
by cooking dinner in her place". This is discussed in great detail in
Chapter 5, as it relates to Social-Interaction Expectancy Rules. However,
notice too that in "Mary cooked dinner `for-in place of' her mother", the
inference that Mary did the action to please or benefit her mother is not always
true. Mary's mother may be away and never know who cooked dinner in her place on
that particular night. In that case, the action of "Mary's cooking dinner" benefitted
those who ate the dinner, but not Mary's mother. An even better example is
"Joe went to bat `for-in place of' John". Joe's intention in "Joe went to
bat for John" is most likely NOT "to please John (a category 7 interpretation)".
So, when we have an example of category 1: for-in place of, an inference
which may or may not be true about X does Z in place of Y, is that X wishes
to please Y (category 7); but we do not wish to include this inference as part of the meaning
of "for-in place of" examples. In category 7: to please, person(X)'s primary
∪intention is to please person(Y) by doing an action(Z). The focus is not placed
on the action(Z) being accomplished, but rather on the good effects that action will
have on person(Y)'s state. In category 1: in place of, the focus is on action(Z)'s
getting done and the benefitting of person(Y) who habitually does the action is
secondary, if indeed it is true.
There are sentences with "for-to please" interpretations where person(X) ∪is
person(Y):
.points(6)
(10).\ Run for your life.
(11).\I did it for my own good.
.endpoints
In category 3, "for-to give to" examples, the form is "Object(X) FOR Person(Y)".
Object(X) may or may not be the resultant object of action(Z) which precedes the
"for". In example 7, "Mary cooked dinner for(to give to) her mother", the
resultant object is "dinner" in action(Z)-"cook". A case where the object
is not the result of an action(Z) preceding "for" is (8), "this book is
for(to give to) you". The "to give to" meaning of "for" is discussed in great
detail when we present category 9, "Function-for", where "for" is paraphraseable
by "to be used for". This is because the "Function" meaning includes the "to give to"
meaning. That is, in order to use an object (Function-for), a person must in some
sense have "possession" of that object (to give to-for). Thereis also the problem
of when to infer a "Function" interpretation when we have a "to give to" meaning of
"for". For example, from "this book is for(to give to) you", do we wish to infer
"to read", i.e., "this book is to give to you to read", ("read" would be in
the memory of the understanding model as the function of a "book"). These are
questions that we examine in section 13.
∪CONCEPTUAL ∪FORMATS ∪OF ∪CATEGORIES ∪1,#∪7, ∪AND ∪3.
All the instances of "for" which have the same meaning(X) are placed in
category(X). Thus, each and every "for" in category(X) realizes a particular
conceptual relationship(X), which corresponds to that shared meaning(X). Now
we shall give the conceptual relationships indicated by the "fors" in categories
1, 7, and 3, and an example of each.
.skip to column 1
.group skip 26
The occurrence of "store(1)" triggers the inference in the box found in
the conceptual diagram. The double causality arrow,
.skip 2
means that the two conceptualizations cause each other, in the sense that one
occurs only if the other occurs, (see section 18, category 12: RECIPROCAL
CAUSALITY). The inference says that a "store" is where a person gets objects
(particular objects(Z), depending on the nature of the store(Z)), in return for
giving the store "money".
∪CONCEPTUAL ∪RELATIONSHIP ∪INDICATED ∪BY ∪"FOR" ∪IN ∪CATEGORY ∪1:
.GROUP SKIP 12
.GROUP SKIP 24
.group skip 20
.group skip 30
.NEXT PAGE
.group skip 25
In category 1, where person(X) does an action "in place of-for" person(Y),
it is the action that is focused upon. This kind of action is often a
%4necessary%1 action in regard to a person(Y)'s daily living, e.g., cooking
dinner, walking the dog, buying groceries, making beds, mowing the lawn. In
these "in place of" examples, the person(Y) who normally does that "necessary"
action cannot for some reason. Since it is a "necessary" action, someone else
takes person(Y)'s place and does the action. In these examples, the primary
concern is over an action being done, and this is because of the nature
of the action. It is an action that is part of the normal routine of someone's
life in our culture, i.e., person(Y) habitually does action(Z), for example,
Mother cooks dinner every night, Johnny walks the dog every day. If person(Y)
cannot do this action(Z), the proof that it is a "necesary" action is that person(X)
does action(Z) in his place. These are actions which result in a %4necessary%1
state, e.g., dinner must be ready, the dog must get exercise, the house must
have groceries. These "necessary" actions will vary from family to family.
In not all cultures does a person go to the store to obtain the "necessary"
state of having food. In a tribal situation, a "necesary" action to obtain
the "necessary" state of having food may be "go fishing" or "go hunting", instead
of "go to the store". Our language understanding model would be an American-
culture idiosyncratic model, so it is not necessary for it to recognize another culture's
"necessary" actions, only American ones which are characteristic of a typical
middle-class American.
%4Necessary Actions%1 are those which result in a %4Necessary State%1 being
fulfilled. A %4Necessary State%1 is defined as being when a particular
need has been fulfilled. In category 1 examples, this need is usually
fulfilled by a person(Y), who cannot at that particular time do the necessary
action resulting in the necessary state, so person(X) does it. %4Needs%1
are usually assigned to particular people to fulfill and are contextually defined,
for example,
.begin
.preface 0
Family Context: (a particular family(Z))
Necessary State:##Dinner ready
Necessary Action:##Cook
Actor:##Mother(Z)
.skip 1
Necessary State:##Dog(Z) exercised
Necessary Action:##Walk dog(Z)
Actor:##Johnny(Z)
.skip 1
Necessary State:##Dishes washed
Necessary Action:##Wash dishes
Actor:##Joan(Z)
.end
This type of information about NEEDS in a particular situation, ACTIONS
to fulfill those needs, and particular ACTORS who usually fulfill those needs
in that situation must be in the memory model.
.continue
This is, as has been said before, an idiosyncratic model, a model of
one person's memory. It must have the information about all the general needs
that most people have, e.g., meals prepared, groceries, money. If the system
were given the input:
.begin
.preface 0
John went to the store for Mary.
.end
.continue
"GO TO THE STORE" would be analyzed as a Necessary Action to fulfill the need
of "having particular things" (depending on the kind of store, "having
groceries", if the store is a "grocery store"). (This sentence has another
interpretation, for-to get, which we discuss in the next section.)
Implicit information is that Mary would %4normally%1 have gone to the store, but
she did not for some reason, so John went to the store FOR her, i.e., he
replaced her as the Actor in this Necessary Action. Other information that must be in the
memory for these examples is discussed shortly.
If the understanding system is given the following two sentences we want
it to interpret the "for" in (1) as "in place of" and in (6) as "to please",
without further contextual information.
.points(6)
(1).\ I went to the store for Mother.
(6).\I went to the party for Mother.
.endpoints
.continue
Since in (1) and (6) only one item varies, "store" and "party", in the two
sentences; these must be the clues that give us the two different interpretations.
A person can go to the store in place of someone else, but a person does not
usually go to a party in place of someone else. A party is where particular
persons are invited; while "going to the store" is performing a function,
basically, and it does not usually matter who performs the function.
This kind of information about "party" and "store" must be in the memory
structure of the understanding system. If the sentence "I went to the store"
is being parsed, from "store" the inference would be made that person(X) needed
objects from the store, and person(X) went to the store ("given" information
in the sentence) and bought these objects (inference). That is what a person
usually means when he says "I went to the store", unless he specifies, or
the situation specifies, otherwise, e.g., "I went to the store, but they
didn't have what I needed". The definition of "party" would include the information
that "party" is a location where "invited", or in other words "particular",
people go to do various activities together, for the purpose of enjoying themselves
usually, e.g., dance, listen to music, talk. This would exclude the possibilty
of someone being able to go to a party "in place of" someone else.
Let's look at two more examples.
.points(6)
(2).\Mary cooked dinner for her mother.(category 6-"in place of")
(12).\ I wore a hat for Mother. (category 7-"to please")
.endpoints
.continue
The fact that one can cook dinner in place of someone else, but one cannot
wear a hat in place of someone else must be in our model of understanding.
Therefore, we must have a way to distinguish between the type of action
which can take actor substitution, and the type of action which cannot, in
order to correctly interpret "for" in certain situations. The former is
exemplified by Type A actions, and the latter, by Type B actions, below.
TYPE #A actions:
.begin
.preface 0
-going to the store
-cooking meals
-buying groceries
-walking the dog
.end
TYPE #B actions:
.begin
.preface 0
-going to a party
-joining a fraternity
-wearing a hat
.end
The most important difference between A and B type actions is that actor-substitution
is not allowed in B type actions while it is in A type. One cannot wear a hat
"for-in place of" another person, or join a fraternity "for-in place of" another
person. We shall call these type B actions "%4Exclusive Actor Actions"%1, because
of the necessary exclusiveness of the actor. The "EXCLUSIVE-ACTOR" feature would
be indicatd in the memory model for certain actions, and the understanding model would
use this feature in order to give the interpretation to sentences containing "for"
which are of the category 7 type, i.e., Person(X) Action(Z) FOR Person(Y), where
"for" means "to please"; in order to distinguish them from category 1 or 3 interpretations
(also from category 2 interpretations which we describe shortly). Note that someone
can cook dinner in place of someone else, but someone cannot eat dinner in place of someone
else, "eating" is another "exclusive-actor" action.
Other EXCLUSIVE-ACTOR ACTION:
.BEGIN
.PREFACE 0
-wear "clothes" (things of the "clothes" category)
-join a group,##e.g., a fraternity, an encounter group, a club
-live
-die
-breathe
.end
etc.. Any sentence of the form Person(X) DO(Z) FOR Person(Y), where Z is one of the
"exclusive-actor" actions, would have to have the category 7 interpretation:##Person(X)
DO(Z) to please or benefit Person(Y).
Type A actions are the actions which fulfill a ∪need and are not "exclusive-actor"
actions. That is, "John's breathing" is fulfilling John's need for oxygen, but no
one can take John's place as actor in fulfilling that need, or we could never have
a sentence such as "Mary breathes for(in place of) John". "Breathing" is an Exclusive-
Actor action (type B). Type A actions are ∪Need-∪fulfilling actions, which are not
∪Exclusive-∪Actor actions. Type A actions can occur with the "for-in place of"
interpretation.
The following rules are those given to our understanding system for the
disambiguation of Categories 1,#3,# and 7:
.skip 1
.points(6)
If we have the form:
\Person(X) ##Action(Z)## FOR##Person(Y)
(1).\ If Action(Z) is NOT an Exclusive-Actor Action, and NO Object is
present, then FOR has the "in place of" interpretation of Category 1.
Example:##I cooked for Mother.
.skip 1
(2).\If Object(Z) which is the ∪result of Action(Z) is present, then FOR is
ambiguous between "for-to give to" and "for-in place of".
\Example:##I cooked dinner for Mother.
(For an explanation of Rules 2a and 2b see section 13:##FUNCTION OBJECT,#CASE A.)
(2a).\If we have the form "Person(X) Action(Z) FOR Person(Y)"
where Action(Z) results in Person(X) in possession of Object(Z)-INANIMATE, and
Object(Z) is %4not%1 classified as a Function Object in memory and context has
defined Object(Z) as a Function Object, then FOR is ambiguous
between "to give to" and "in place of", and the "to give to" interpretation
is made unless previous context has set up the conceptual format of the
"in place of" interpretation.
\Example:##John found a pretty shell for me.
(2b).\If we have the form "Object(Z) `BE form' FOR Person(Y)" or the form
"Object(Z) FOR Person(Y)", where Object(Z)-INANIMATE is %4not%1 classified
as a Function Object in memory and context has not defined Object(Z) as
a Function Object, then FOR is paraphraseable by "to give to".
\Example:##These flowers are for Mother.
.skip 1
(3a).\If we have the form "Person(X) ##Action(Z)## FOR##Person(Y)", and
If Action(Z) is an "Exclusive-Actor" action (a feature specified in the memory
model), then FOR is interpreted as "to please (or benefit on some level)".
\Example:##John joined the fraternity for his father.
(3b).\If we have the form "Person(X)##Action(Z)##FOR##Person(Y)", and If
Person(Y) is followed by a "POSITIVE STATE INDICATOR"(feature), e.g.,
"'s sake", "'s benefit", "'s good"; then FOR has the "to please or benefit
on some level" interpretation.
\Example:##I went for Mother's sake.
.endpoints
Rule 4, which deals principally with category 2 of the next section, is
presented here because some "for" examples are ambiguous between a category
2-"for-to get" and a category 7-"to please" interpretation. If we have
the form "Person(X) Action(Z) FOR Person(Y), where action(Z) has the
feature in memory "LOCOMOTIVE ACTION", e.g., "going", "driving", "walking";
then FOR can mean "to get". This is a special case of category 2 which
has the form "Person(X) PTRANS Person(X) TO the Location of Object(Y) in
order TO GET (ATRANS, PTRANS, OR MTRANS) Object(Y). An example can have
"for" ambiguous between "to get" or "to please" if Action(Z) is "Locomotive"
and if Object(Y) is a person, e.g., "I went to the party for Mother", where
"party" is the "location of Mother" in the "to get" interpretation.
.skip 1
.points
RULE##4:
\IF we have the form:##Person(X)##Action(Z)##FOR##Person(Y); AND
IF action(Z) is LOCOMOTIVE, THEN check in memory to see if Person(Y) is
located at the direction of the "Locomotive", IF SO, THEN
(a).\If Action(Z) is also a NEED-FULFILLING ACTION (feature in memory), then
the interpretation of FOR is "to get" (category 2).
\Example:##I went to the store for Mother. "Mother" is located at the store,
and "go to the store" is a "Need-Fulfilling " action, therefore, the interpretation
is "I went to the store to pick Mother up".
(b).\If Action(Z) is an EXCLUSIVE-ACTOR ACTION, then the interpretation of FOR
is ambiguous between "to get" and "to please".
\Example: I went to the party for Mother. "Mother" is located at the party.
The example can still mean either "I went to the party to get Mother" or "I
went to the party to please Mother".
.endpoints
The rationale behind Rule 4(a) is given in the next section.
∪CONTEXT
We have just given rules that our understanding system would follow in order
to correctly interpret "for" in certain sentences. However, among the possible
interpretations of a sentence, %4 context%1 can sometimes make the least likely
interpretation the correct one.
If the question were asked to someone- "Where" were you?", and the answer were-
"I went to the store for Mother"; the two most likely interpretations are a
category 1-"I went to the store in place of Mother, to buy some things", or
a category 2 interpretation- "I went to the store to pick Mother up". We would probably
find the first inteerpretation made more frequently than the second given no further
information (see Rule 1). If we had been given the information that "Mother was
located at the store" before the answer-"I went to the store for Mother"; we would
make the second interpretation, since the first has been ruled out, i.e., one
cannot go to the store in place of Mother if she is already there (see Rule 4a).
The third possible interpretation is "I went to the store for Mother's sake, to
please or benefit her in some way". Quite a bit of previous information would
have to be present to make this third interpretation the correct one. We construct
such a context below:
.skip 1
.points(6)
I.\ My mother's brother, George, owns and runs a store. George and I do not
get along at all. George gets sick. There is no one to temporarily take over
the store for him. Mother asks me if I will do it as a favor to her. I went
to the store for Mother.
.endpoints
The important contextual feature that makes the "to please"
interpretation the correct one in "I went to the store for Mother",
is that Person(Y), "Mother", has told Person(X), "I", that it would
please Person(Y) is Person(X) did a particular action(Z), "go to the
store"; and Person(X) does action(Z). Action(Z) does not have the
NEED-FULFILLING function (go to the store to buy objects); it is an
action by which Person(X) intends to please Person(Y). This is
precisely the conceptual format that underlies category 7, "for-to
please",( see page ).
In example 6, "I went to the party for Mother", the interpretation
that our understanding model would make is "I went to the party to
please Mother" (category 7, see Rule 3), because "go to the party" is an
"Exclusive-Actor" action. If the information that "Mother was at the party"
were in the memory before the utterance, then the interpretation could be that of "for-to get"
(category 2), "I went to the party to get Mother", or still that of category 7-
"I went to the party to please Mother", see Rule 4b. The interpretation that
would need the most supporting context would be "I went to the party in place
of Mother"-category 1. Below we construct such a context:
.skip 1
.points(6)
II.\Mother's best friend is going to have a baby. Mother organized a baby
shower for her at a nearby country club. At the last minute Mother gets
sick and cannot attend the shower. She asks me to go in her place. So, I
went to the party for Mother.
.endpoints
In Case II, Person(Y), "Mother", had intended to do action(Z), but could not at
time(X), and so Person(X), "I", did action(Z) in her place. This context describes
the conceptual format underlying category 1, "for-in place of", (see page ).
In both contexts I and II, the most unlikely possible interpretation is made:
.points(6)
\I went to the store "for-to please" Mother.
\I went to the party "for-in place of" Mother.
.endpoints
.continue
The reason we say "unlikely" is that the interpretation violates some feature
of the for-sentence itself. In case I, "go to the store" has the feature,
NEED-FULFILLING ACTION, with the "in place of" interpretation being primary
(see Rule 1); and the "to please" interpretation being an inference of the action.
However, since in case I, we have the information from context that this action has
the features:
.points(6)
(1).\Person(Y) tells Person(X) that it would please Person(Y) if Person(X)
DO Action(Z)
(2).\Person(X) DO Action(Z)
.endpoints
.continue
then according to the conceptual format this is a category 7, for-to please,
example (see page ), and the "for-to please" interpretation is chosen. In case II,
("I went to the party for Mother"), since the action has the features "Exclusive-Actor"
and "Locomotive", the interpretation is ambiguous between "to get" and "to please",
by Rule 4b. However, the interpretation based on sentence-feature rules
(e.g., action features) can be invalidated by contextual features. In context II,
the analysis of the context gives the conceptual format (see page ) of an
"in place of" interpretation of "for", i.e., "Mother" would normally do Action(Z),
she cannot at a particular time, so "I" do Action(Z) in her place.
Context, rather than the "sentence", rules the interpretation that the understanding
system makes. If the context sets up the conceptual format of a "for" interpretation
(as in I and II), then ∪that ∪is the interpretation we want the system to make,
and rules based on the for-sentence itself, e.g., rules based on action features,
such as "Exclusive-Actor", do not apply. The understanding model
must have access to a memory which has been continually updated as the "conversation"
proceeds. The understanding system must be able to check whether or not context
context has provided information that would make a more unlikely interpretation
of "for" in a sentence the correct one. As in cases I and II,
.points(6)
\∪The ∪information ∪needed ∪for ∪an ∪unlikely ∪interpretation ∪of ∪"for" ∪is ∪the
∪conceptual ∪format ∪underlying ∪that ∪interpretation ∪to ∪have ∪been ∪given
∪in ∪previous ∪context.
.endpoints
As we have seen in this section, it is important to be able to recognize features
within the for-sentence in order to be able to disambiguate "for" (Rules 1-4).
However, this is meaningless unless we have contextual representation as well, since
contextual features take precedence over rules based on sentence features in
determining the meaning of "for", as in Cases I and II, amd also because these
sentential rules must interact with context. For example, in Rule 4, which is
based on particular action features, the system must check in memory to see if
previous context has given the location of Person(Y) for a correct interpretation
of "for" to be made.
.skip 2
%24.8###CATEGORY 2:##TO GET:##Actor receives Object%1
In this section we continue our discussion of Category 2; where "for"
introduces the object being TRANSed (ATRANS, PTRANS, or MTRANS) to the
actor of the conceptualization. The action of the conceptualization is
one by which the actor goes to the location of the object. This action is
a %4Necessary Condition%1 (see section 18) for either the PTRANSing or MTRANSing
of the object to the actor. Form of category 2:
.begin
.preface 0
X(ANIMATE)###"LOCOMOTIVE" ACTION(Z)##(to) LOCATION OF OBJECT(Y)###FOR-TO GET###OBJECT(Y)
#########(Physical or Mental Locomotive Action)
.end
.continue
The person(X) goes to the location of an object in order to get that object.
.skip 1
.points(6)
PTRANS Example:
(1).\The dog ran to Mother for a bone.
ATRANS Example:
(2).\Tom went to the bank for money.
MTRANS Examples:
(3).\Bob telephoned Bill for advice.
(4).\Mary went to the encyclopedia for information.
.endpoints
In other words
.points(6)
(1).\The dog ran (PTRANSed himself) to Mother (LOCATION of object(Y)) FOR-TO GET
a bone(object(Y)).
(2).\Tom went (PTRANSed himself) to the bank (LOCATION of object(Y)) FOR-TO GET
money (object(Y)).
(3).\Bob telephoned (TRANSed himself mentally) (to) Bill (LOCATION of object(Y))
FOR-TO GET advice(mental object(Y)).
(4).\Mary went (TRANSed herself mentally by TRANSing herself physically) to the
encyclopedia (LOCATION of Y) FOR-TO GET information (mental object Y).
.endpoints
In the PTRANS and ATRANS examples, X is animate, Y may be an animate or an
inanimate object, and the location of Y may be animate or inanimate.
In the MTRANS examples, X is animate, Y is a mental object, and the location
of Y may be animate or inanimate (e.g., encyclopedia). Note, however, that
a mental object (i.e., conceptualizations) must always be MTRANSed between
animate beings, even if indirectly as in the "encyclopedia" example.
As we stated in the last section, there is a conceptual structure underlying
each meaning of "for". The conceptual structure underlying examples
with the "for-to get" meaning:
.group skip 20
English explanation of conceptual diagram:##
Person(X) goes to the location of object(Y) in order to get object(Y). In the 2↑[nd]
conceptualization, in most cases, the PTRANS also implies an ATRANS, i.e., the object
is now in the control of Person(X). The exception to this is where the object(Y)
is human, e.g., I went to the store for-to get Mother, and in that case there is
only a PTRANS (physical transfer) of "Mother" to "I".
.group skip 15
English:##In this case as well, Person(X) goes to the location of object(Y) in order
to get object(Y). However, since object(Y) is "Mental", it is only the "Mental"
Person(X) that needs to go to the locatoon of object(Y)-thus the possibility of
action(Z) being "telephone", "write", etc., in order to MTRANS Y to Person(X).
In all the examples 1 through 4 of this category, the actions realized by "ran",
"went", "telephoned", have the feature that we term "LOCOMOTIVE". By "Locomotive"
action, we mean an action by which the actor moves himself from one location to another.
With a "∪Physical ∪Locomotive Action", a person(X) moves himself physically to
another location (as well as mentally). In a "∪Mental ∪Locomotive Action", a person(X)
moves himself "mentally" to another location. Conceptually the "Physical Locomotive"
is represented by
.group skip 3
e.g., walk, run, drive, etc.; and the "Mental Locomotive" feature is represented
conceptually by
.group skip 3
Telephone, telegraph, write, all have this feature. All the actions in examples
of this "for-to get" category have the feature "Locomotive".
A necessary condition for Person(X) to PTRANS Object(Y) to himself is that
Person(X) is at the location of Object(Y), and so the "Locomotive" action enables
or is a necessary condition for the transfer of Object(Y) to Person(X), whether
that object be physical or mental. The following three sentences present methods
by which Mary can be in mental proximity to John, and the actions have the "Mental
Locomotive" feature. "Advice" is a mental object, and an MTRANS is the desired
result of Mary's action, i.e., that the "advice" goes from John's head to Mary's
head:
.points(6)
(5).\Mary asked John for advice.
(6).\Mary telephoned John for advice.
(7).\Mary wrote John for advice.
.endpoints
We have already mentioned in section 4.7 that a for-sentence can be ambiguous
between a "for-to get", "for-to please", or "for-in place of" interpretation, when
the action(Z) is a "Locomotive" action (a feature that is imposed by the for-to get
interpretation) and Object(Y) is a person (a feature imposed by the "to please"
and "in place of" interpretations, see Rule 4). An example of such a sentence is
"I went to the store for Mother". By Rule 4, if Action(Z) is "Locomotive"
(Person(X) Action(Z) FOR Person(Y)), then the location of Person(Y) is checked
by the system to find if Person(Y) is located at the direction of the "locomotive".
If so, and if Action(Z) is a "Need-Fulfilling" action (action feature in memory), then
"for" means "to get". In the sentence "I went to the store for Mother", if "Mother"
is located at the store, the "in place of" interpretation is ruled out because
"I" would not go to the store "in place of" Mother, if she is already there.
The "to please" interpretation is ruled out because "go to the store" is a
Need-Fulfilling action, which normally takes an "in place of" interpretation, but
that was ruled out because "Mother" is located at the store, and context has not
provided the conceptual format underlying "for-to please", that is, context has
not given the information that "Mother" would be pleased if "I" went to the store
for some purpose other than that of "buying objects", which is the inference from
"go to the store". In "I went to the party for Mother"; by Rule 4, since "go to
the party" is an Exclusive-Actor action (as well as "Locomotive"), the "to please"
interpretation has priority over the "in place of" meaning (see section 7).
But if "Mother" is found to be located at the party by checking memory, a "to get"
interpretation is also possible because "go to the party" is a "Locomotive"
action, (see Rule 4b).
∪RULES ∪FOR ∪DISAMBIGUATION ∪OF ∪CATEGORY ∪2: ∪FOR-∪TO ∪GET
.SKIP 1
.POINTS(6)
∪RULE ∪5:##If we have the form:
\Person(X)##PHYSICAL and/or MENTAL LOCOMOTIVE Action(Z)##LOCATION of Object(Y)
##FOR##Object(Y)
∪and
\(a): If Object(Y) is HUMAN, THEN "FOR" is ambiguous between category 1, for-
in place of; category 7, for-to please; and category 2, for-to get (PTRANS);
and therefore, go to Rules 4a and 4b in section 7.
\(b):##If Object(Y) is not HUMAN, then "FOR" is interpreted as "to get",
conceptually:
.endpoints
.group skip 15
%24.9##CATEGORY 4:##"ITEM(X)##COMPARED##TO##SET(Y)"
%1The value of item X is compared to the NORM value of set Y on scale Z,
where item X is a member of set Y. (See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the
"scale" notion.) "For" is paraphraseable by "relative to" or "compared to".
The surface manifestation of this category is
.begin
.preface 0
Object(X)##"BE form"##"EVALUATION term"##FOR##(a)##Y(set of objects),
where X is a member of set Y.
.end
Examples of this category:
.points(6)
(1).\George is smart for a truck driver.
(2).\ Bob is short for boys his age.
(3).\A Mercedes is big for a foreign car.
.endpoints
.continue
In the above examples:
.points(6)
\(a). X is always the first object of the sentence.
\(B). The EVALUATION term gives a value on scale Z for X, and in that way
tells us what scale Z is measuring.
\(c). FOR follows the EVALUATION, then an optional "a" may follow.
\(d). Y is a set of objects, of which X is a member.
.endpoints
EVALUATION is a feature given to terms like "big", "smart", "little",
"short" etc.. The EVALUATION term(Z) followed by "for-relative to"
indicates that a comparison is being made between two or more things
along a particular dimension; and term(Z) gives the value of item X on
that dimension. Term(Z)-the value of item X on Scale(Z)- is being compared to
the NORM value of set Y on Scale(Z); and item X is a member of set Y.
We shall examine the following example of this category in detail:
.begin
.preface 0
(1).\George is smart for a truck driver.
Item X = George
Z = (EVALUATION term) "smart" = ">NORM"
Scale Z = INTELLIGENCE
Y = Set of truck drivers
.end
.group skip 10
The sentence, "George is smart for a truck driver", says that George's value
on the intelligence scale is greater than the norm value for truck drivers.
"George is dumb (even) for a truck driver", says that George's value is less than
the norm or toward the lower bound of the range of truck driver intelligence,
"even" implies that the range of intelligence of truck drivers is toward the
bottom of the intelligence scale.
"NORM" is really the value that the memory gives an "average" member of set Y.
Two persons may have different norms assigned to a particular set Y on a particular
scale in their respective memories; but if Person(1) says "George is smart for a
truck driver"; Person(2) understands "Person(1) thinks that George is more
intelligent than the average truck driver (George's value is compared to the NORM)",
or "Person(1) thinks that George is more intelligent than most truck drivers (George's
value is compared to the range of truck driver intelligence)".
It is not important for the two persons, (1) and (2), to assign the ∪same range
of intelligence to truck drivers in order for person(2) to understand person(1)
when he says example 1; or likewise, for person(1) to understand person(2) saying
example 1; or likewise, for our understanding system to understand person(1) or
person(2) saying example 1.
The EVALUATION terms that appear in these for-examples, e.g., "big", "little", "nice",
"short", etc., are defined in the memory of the speaker as pointing to a particular
value on a scale (or dimension) "for-relative to" the range of values of a whole
set of objects. The set of objects might be "all men", "boys that are Bob's age",
"foreign cars", etc.. For the set there is a particular range of possible values
that we give the set in our heads, however vague that range might be. The
EVALUATION term describes where item X's value lies within that range.
.skip 1
%2CATEGORY 4(a):
%1Category 4(a) is a special case of category 4, where "too" is
interjected before the EVALUATION term. For example, "George is too
smart for a truck driver". This example states that the value of
item X (George) on the Intelligence Scale is greater than that of any
member of set Y (truck drivers); the inference is that "George cannot
be a truck driver" or that "George should not be a truck driver".
In this special case of category 4 where "too" is interjected before
the EVALUATION term, the inference is that since item X does not lie
within the range of values of set Y on scale Z, it cannot, therefore,
be a member of set Y.
.points(6)
(4).\John is too short for a Swede.
(5).\Mary is too nice for a librarian.
.endpoints
.continue
Example 4 claims that John cannot be member of the set of "Swedes",
because his value on the height dimension is less than the lower bound
of the range of the set.
If we examine sentences (1), "George is smart for truck driver", and
(2), "Miss Jones is nice for a librarian"; we notice that these sentences
reflect "beliefs" of the speaker. The type of belief expressed by (1) and
(2) can be idiosyncratic, or it may belong to the beliefs of a particular
social group, or of a particular culture (see Chapter 5). The type of "belief"
we are mainly concerned with in the language understanding process is a type
which everyone in the language community shares. This type is what we call
the "Expectancy Rule", which is of the form: If X is true, then Expect Y to
be true. People use this type of rule extensively in understanding what is said
to them (as well as in "for" understanding). The interaction of Expectancy
Rules in the language understanding process is a topic we reserve for Chapter 5.
In category 4, the speaker is making a subjective evaluation, along a certain
dimension, of an object ∪relative ∪to a set including that object. "Subjective"
is used to describe this judgment because concepts like "nice", "sweet", "smart",
are not defined in the same manner by everyone. There is no really precise
definition for "nice" or "smart"; the concepts are vague and may vary quite a bit
from person to person. In (1), "George is smart for a truck driver"; the speaker
is stating that truck drivers have a certain range of intelligence, and we
infer from the statement that this range is not very high on the scale.
A necessary condition for a person to be a truck driver is for him to lie
within that range, e.g., from "George is too smart for a truck driver", the
inference is that "George is not a truck driver", or that "George should not
be a truck driver"-since it is inconsistent with the speaker's view of the world.
In example 2, "Miss Jones is nice for a librarian"; the hearer infers that
the speaker believes "librarians, in general, are not very nice"; just as
from example 1, he infers that "truck drivers usually are not very smart" is
a belief of the speaker. So we see that in these "for" examples, something
is not only being said about item X, but also a belief is being stated about
set Y and the range it has on a particular dimension. For example,
.begin
.preface 0
Inferences from example (3), "A Mercedes is big for a foreign car", and
(4), "John is too short for a Swede", are (respectively)
"foreign cars are smaller in general than American cars", and
"Swedes in general are taller than most people".
.end
.continue
This is demonstrated also by the fact that we can say "John is tall even for a
Swede", which also states that Swedes in general are taller than most nationalities;
and "George is dumb even for a truck driver" which says that the range of intelligence
of truck drivers is toward the lower end of the Intelligence scale.
Category 4, where "for" indicates that an item X is being compared to the NORM
of a set Y of which X is a member, is similar to category 6, which we present
in the next section. In category 6, a speaker is evaluating an action, and
his evaluation is the result of certain beliefs that he holds.
∪RULES ∪FOR ∪THE ∪DISAMBIGUATION ∪OF ∪CATEGORY ∪4:##"FOR" indicates
a comparison between item X and set Y.
.skip 1
.points(6)
∪RULE ∪6∪(a)
\If we have the form:##Object(X)##"BE form"##"EVALUATION term" (a feature in
memory)##FOR#(a)#SET Y;
\∪then the value of Object(X) is being compared to the NORM value of Set Y
on Scale Z (in the speaker's memory), where Object(X) is a member of Set Y;
and the EVALUATION term, by indicating the value of Object(X) on Scale(Z)
tells what Scale Z measures.
\CONCEPTUALLY:
.endpoints
.group skip 15
where term(Z1) indicates a value greater than the NORM of Set Y, e.g.,
"smart" in "George is smart for a truck driver"; and term(Z2) is a
value less than the NORM of Set Y, e.g., "dumb for" in "George is dumb for a
truck driver".
.skip 1
.points(6)
∪RULE ∪6∪(b)
\If "too" is interjected between the "BE form" and the "EVALUATION term"
in 6(a); then the value of Object(X) does not
lie within the range of Set Y on Scale Z (in the mind of the speaker), i.e.,
the value of Object(X) is greater than or less than the range of Set Y on Scale Z:
\if the EVALUATION term indicates a value greater than NORM, then Object(X)'s
value is greater than the range of Set Y,
\if the EVALUATION term indicates a value lower than NORM, then
Object(X)'s value is lower than the range of the set on that dimension, e.g.,
"George is too dumb for a truck driver".
.endpoints
.skip 2
%2
.POINTS(6)
4.10\CATEGORY 6:##EVALUATION OF ACTION(Z) TO ACTOR(X)
\CATEGORY 17:##EVALUATION OF ACTION(Z) TO ACTOR(X) WITH ATTRIBUTE(Y)
.ENDPOINTS
We present category 17 with category 6 because it may be that 17 is only
a minor variation of category 6. In both categories "for" has the meaning
paraphrased by "relative to". In categories 6 and 17, the speaker
is evaluating an action(Z) "relative to" (for) a particular Person(X) as
actor in Action(Z). In 17, an attribute of Person(X) is given as the reason
for the evaluation.
FORMS OF CATEGORY 6:
.points(6)
(1)\"It"##"BE form"##EVALUATION##FOR##Actor(X)##Action(Z)
\where Action(Z) is realized in the infinitive form
(2)\FOR##Actor(X)##Action(Z)##"BE form"##EVALUATION
\where Action(Z) is usually realized in the infinitive form, but can be in
the "-ing" form
(3)\Action(Z)##"BE form" ##EVALUATION##FOR##Actor(X)
\where Action(Z) in realized in the "-ing" form or the infinitive form
EXAMPLES:
(1).\It is bad for Mary to eat candy.
(2).\For me to leave is very hard.
(3).\Lying is easy for Mike.
.endpoints
FORMS OF CATEGORY 17:
The forms of this category are the same as those of category 6, except that
an "ATTRIBUTE Y" of Actor(X) occurs immediately after Actor(X) in forms (1),
(2), and (3) above. This attribute Y is the %4reason%1 that the speaker
has made this evaluation of this action to this particular actor.
.points(6)
EXAMPLES:
(4).\The bus depot was a long way from the train station for a traveller
encumbered with heavy baggage.
(5).\It is a difficult choice for Mary who is a widow.
.endpoints
Whereas in category 4, the speaker is making subjective evaluations of an
object relative to a set including that object along certain dimensions
(e.g., Intelligence, Physical Height, Size, etc.); in categories 6 and 17,
actions are classified by evaluating them along certain dimensions (relative to
an actor). There
is the scale of "Facility" of Action(Z) relative to Actor(X), with values
such as "easy", "hard", "difficult"; the scale of "Desirability" of Action(Z)
to Actor(X), with values like "good", "bad", "foolish", etc., (see Chapter 3
for a discussion of the scales which describe actions).
This classification of an action relative to a certain actor takes place in
the speaker's head, and it is his criteria that are being used for classifying
an action as "bad", "easy", etc., and not necessarily the actor of the action's
criteria. The criteria that the speaker uses in the classification of an action
on the "Desirability" Scale are certain of his beliefs.
The speaker believes that certain things are "good" for people (or a particular
person), and that certain things are "bad" for people (or a particular person).
An action is judged primarily good or bad relative to some person or people
in general, and the criteria used to judge are in the form of beliefs on how
things should be. This is discussed in great detail in Chapter 5, "Should"
Rules.
Whereas in category 6, Evaluation of Action(Z) to Actor(X), an evaluation
is made without the criteria for the evaluation being given;
in category 17, the speaker is
giving a reason for a particular evaluation that he is making. This "reason"
is information which he hopes will justify (or clarify) the evaluation; it
is an attribute of Actor(X) who engages in the action. Examples of category 6
can become category 17 examples simply by the speaker giving explanatory information
as to his evaluation:
.points(6)
(6).\It is a difficult choice for Mary. (category 6)
(5).\It is a difficult choice for Mary who is a widow. (category 17)
.endpoints
If we examine example 4, "the bus depot was a long way from the train station
for a traveller encumbered with heavy baggage", we have
.begin
.preface 0
Action(Z):##Actor go from bus depot to train station
Actor(X):##a traveller
Attribute(Y) of Actor(X):##encumbered with heavy baggage
Evaluation of Action(Z) relative to (FOR) Actor(X) with Attribute(Y):##"long"
.end
.continue
In the conceptual analysis of category 17 examples, we have a judgment being
placed on a conceptualization(Z), with the reason for that judgment being
an attribute of the actor in conceptualization(Z). Let us examine example 5
conceptually, "It is a difficult choice for Mary who is a widow":
.group skip 20
.begin
.preface 0
ENGLISH EXPLANATION FOR CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM:
Mary is choosing (MBUILD) one of two or more possibilities, and the fact
that she is a widow makes that choosing process difficult.
.end
The evaluation("Difficult") of action(MBUILD) relative to Actor(Mary) with
attribute("widow") is a subjective evaluation of the action by the speaker.
The "widow" which appears in the conceptual diagram is, in reality, a
pointer to a complex definition in the memory structure on the understanding
model of all those things that define the notion of "widow". The obvious
definition of "widow" is "a woman whose husband has died", but this may not
be the reason that "It was a difficult choice for Mary". It may have been
because she was left penniless with two children to support. The hearer
could know from previous context which aspect of being a widow made it a
difficult choice for Mary, or he might ask the speaker.
Conceptually category 6 looks like category 17, except tht the REASON for
the speaker's judgment is not given. Below is the conceptual structure
underlying two category 6 examples.
(1).###It is bad for Mary to eat candy.
.group skip 20
We must emphasize again that these scales (e.g., Desirability) have nothing
to do with external reality themselves, but they are classifications of
that reality by the speaker (some actions are "good", others are "bad", "easy", etc.).
.BEGIN
.PREFACE 0
∪CONCEPTUAL ∪FORMATS ∪FOR ∪CATEGORY ∪6-"FOR-RELATIVE TO" AND
\\∪CATEGORY ∪17-"FOR-RELATIVE TO X WITH ATTRIBUTE Y"
.end
.GROUP SKIP 15
The evaluation of a given action can vary quite a bit relative to different
actors and also relative to the person making the evaluation; the former
because people are in very different circumstances, and the latter because
jit is the idiosyncratic way that the person, who is making the judgment,
looks at the world that is the basis for his judgment. Our idiosyncratic
understanding model will have both information about particular people,
and it will also have its idiosyncratic view of how the world operates
(Chapter 5, Expectancy Rules). This would enable the system to understand
a judgment given to it as input, e.g., "Eating candy is bad for Mary", without
having to accept that judgment as truth, since the judgment is speaker-idiosyncratic.
Because the system would have its own idiosyncratic view of how the world
should operate ("should"-because the world would be conforming to the system's
Expectancy Rules), the system could generate judgments of its own, if motivated.
If the understanding model has the axiom that "It is bad to be overweight", and
it is given the information that "Mary is overweight and "Mary wants some candy"
(information about a particular person); then it ∪could generate "Candy is bad
for Mary" (after a few intermediate steps), although this judgment is not
an absolute one to be generated by the system.
∪RULES ∪FOR ∪DISAMBIGUATION OF
∪CATEGORY ∪6-"FOR-RELATIVE TO" AND
∪CATEGORY ∪17-"FOR-RELATIVE TO X WITH ATTRIBUTE Y"
.SKIP 1
∪RULE ∪7:##If any of the forms (a), (b), or (c) appear
.points(6)
(a).\"It"##"BE form"##EVALUATION(E) on Action-Scale(A)##FOR##Actor(X)##Action(Z),
\where Action(Z) is realized in the "infinitive" form. (Note that EVALUATION
is another feature of certain terms in memory.)
(b).\FOR##Actor(X)##Action(Z)##"BE form"##EVALUATION(E) on Action-Scale(A).
\Action(Z) is usually realized in the "infinitive" form, but can be in the
"-ing" form.
(c).\Action(Z)##"BE form"##EVALUATION(E) on Action-Scale(A)##FOR##Actor(X).
\Action(Z) is usually realized in the "-ing" form.
.endpoints
.continue
∪THEN:
the conceptualization of Actor(X)<====>Action(Z) is given the value(E),
by the speaker,on the Action-Scale(A) indicated by the evaluatory term(E).
(As in category 4:##Item Compared to a Set, the evaluatory term indicates
the scale on which the evaluation is being made.)
.skip 1
.BEGIN
.PREFACE 0
(CATEGORY 17)
∪RULE ∪8: If Attribute(Y) of Actor(X) follows Actor(X) in forms (a), (b),
or (c) of Rule 7, or if form (d) appears:
(d).##"BE-ing"##Attribute(Y)##"makes it"##EVALUATION(E)##FOR##Actor(X),
#################################"IT BE"###on Action-Scale(A)
\where the third term in the form is an "IT BE" construction.
∪THEN:
the Attribute(Y)-a state description- is the REASON given by the
speaker for the value(E) of Actor(X)<======>Action(Z) on the
Action-Scale(A).
.end
Examples of form(d):
.points(6)
(8).\Being rich makes it easy for John to travel.
(9).\Being rich it is easy for John to travel.
.endpoints
%24.11##CATEGORY 5:###DURATION
%1In this section we discuss "for" constructions which indicate DURATION
OF CONCEPTUALIZATION:
.POINTS(6)
(A).\Action Conceptualization ##FOR##Time or Distance units.
(B).\State Conceptualization##FOR##Time units.
EXAMPLES:
(1).\He shouted for a few minutes.
(2).\I have not heard from him for two years.
(3).\Mike ran for two miles.
(4).\He left for good.
.endpoints
In these examples, we have a "conceptualization" FOR "unit of time/distance".
The conceptualization is being measured along the time dimension or the space
dimension. The conceptualization, "He shouted for a few minutes", is a block
on the time continuum somewhere in the past:
t(X).............../He shouted/.............t(present)
"I saw him for a few seconds" describes a much shorter block of time
in the past in which the conceptualization takes place than example 1. The
idiomatic (4), "He left for good", says that at some point in the past,
he left Location(X), and "his being absent at Location(X)" is a state which
is claimed to be infinite:
.begin
.preface 0
##########################(Action of "leaving" occurs)
###....."He" at LOCATION(X) ...."He" NOT BE AT LOC(X) ...t(present) ...∞
.end
The t(present) means the time of the statement (4).
In category 5, for-duration, the conceptualization can be either an action
or state conceptualization. The "FOR units of time/distance" can occur
either before or after the conceptualization. Notice that "FOR" is not
obligatory for the notion of duration, it is a marker for duration which
is optional. (3), "Mike ran for two miles", can be paraphrased by "Mike
ran two miles". (1), "He shouted for a few minutes", can be paraphrased
by "He shouted a few minutes".
Even though this "for" adds no new meaning to the utterance, i.e., it is a
redundant marker of duration, it must also be subjected to the FOR-Rules,
because there is no way, a priori, to separate the "meaningful" "fors"
from the "fors" that are not essential to meaning. After the "for" there
is a time or distance unit phrase if it is an action conceptualization,
or a time unit phrase if it is a state conceptualization.
The duration in time or distance is represented conceptually as a range
on a scale, which modifies the two-way dependency link. For example,
the conceptual representation of (3), "Mike ran for two miles", is
.group skip 10
Of course, LOCATION(N) and LOCATION(M) might coincide. That is, Mike could
be running around a track and end up at the same point. However, unlike
distance,
time is linear, and there is no way to end up at the same point:
(5).##Jim spoke to the audience for ten minutes.
.group skip 15
The preceding conceptual diagram says that Jim communicated (MTRANS)
information(conceptualizations, C1,C2..) to the audience(actually to their Conscious
Processors) by speaking to them (I-instrumental) ∪for ten minutes.
The clearest way to express time or distance parameters of a conceptualization
is on a graph, and that is why we have chosen to represent these parameters
as graphs modifying the conceptualization.
"For", as it appears in category 5, always marks a duration of time or distance
in which the conceptualization takes place, rather than a point in time or space.
A conceptualization occurring at a point in time/space is usually indicated by
"at". For example,
.begin
.preface 0
(6).##He stopped#/at five o'clock/.
#################a point on the time continuum
.skip 1
(7).##He waited#/at that bench/##/for five minutes/.
##############a point in space###a time duration.
.end
∪RULES ∪FOR ∪DISAMBIGUATION ∪OF ∪CATEGORY ∪5:
.POINTS(6)
RULE 9:##If (A) or (B) appear
\(A). Action Conceptualization(Z)##FOR##(c) phrase of time units /or (d) phrase of
distance units;
\OR:##∪FOR (c)/(d)##Action Conceptualization(Z).
\(B).##State Conceptualization(Z)##∪FOR##(c) phrase of time units;
\OR:##∪FOR (c)##State Conceptualization(Z).
THEN:##∪FOR introduces the duration in (c)-time or (d)-distance of the
conceptualization(Z).
.endpoints
.SKIP 2
.points(10)
%24.12\CATEGORY##8A:##FOR "NEGATIVE STATE"
\CATEGORY##8B:##"PREVENTIVE" FOR
\CATEGORY 13A:##FOR "POSITIVE EMOTIONAL STATE"
\CATEGORY 13B:##HABITUAL ACTION(Z) FOR POSITIVE STATE
.ENDPOINTS
The rules for the disambiguation of category 8A, FOR "NEGATIVE STATE", are
really special cases of the Self-Oriented Expectancy Rule II (Chapter 5,
section 5). We shall discuss this later in the section. The form of category 8A
is
.begin
.preface 0
Conceptualization(Y) FOR NEGATIVE STATE(Z), where Actor(X) of (Y) is in
State(Z).
.end
The conceptualization(Y)-action or state- which precedes the "FOR NEGATIVE
STATE(Z)" is intended by Actor(X) of (Y) to be a curative measure regarding
the negative state(Z) of Actor(X). "For" is paraphraseable by "to cure",
"to get rid of", or "to improve" in some cases. Examples:
.points(6)
(1).\Mary took an aspirin for her headache. ##(Negative Physical State)
(2).\What does John do for boredom?##(Negative Mental State)
(3).\Susan drinks milk for her nervousness.##(Negative Emotional State)
.endpoints
The category 8B meaning of "for", "to prevent" or "to cause not to go to
the state of", is present when there is the form
.begin
.preface 0
Action(Y)## FOR##NEGATIVE STATE(Z), and the Object(ANIMATE) of action(Y) is not in
state(Z), which is a NEGATIVE PHYSICAL HEALTH STATE, at the time of action(Y).
.end
Action(Y) is to prevent Object(ANIMATE) from going to state(Z). Implicit in this category
meaning is that the actor(X) of action(Y) thinks tht there is a greater or lesser
possibility that the animate object will go to state(Z) if action(Y) is not performed.
This use of "for" requires the interaction of PREVENTIVE SOCIAL-INTERACTION Rule 1
(see Chapter 5, section 6). This use of "for" only occurs with certain VERB-FOR
constructions (see section 4 for a discussion of the VERB-FOR). Examples:
.points(6)
(4).\Joey was vaccinated for polio.
(5).\The vet gave our dog shots for rabies.
(6).\Did you get shots for small pox before you went to Europe?
.endpoints
.continue
Notice that the action in examples (4) through (6) is the same, i.e., someone
giving some object injections (for-to prevent-some negative physical health state).
The "for" in these three cases could also be paraphrased by "against".
∪CONCEPTUAL ∪FORMAT ∪FOR ∪CATEGORY ∪8∪B:
.group skip 20
Person(X) can be Object(1) incertin cases, and in those cases PREVENTIVE SELF-ORIENTED
Rule 1 interacts in the disambiguation process (see Chapter 5, section 6).
The meaning of "for" of "FOR NEGATIVE STATE", category 8A, seems to be an
antonym of the "for" of category 13A: "FOR POSITIVE EMOTIONAL STATE". In
category 13A, "for" introduces a positive state(Z), and the conceptualization(Y)-action
or state- preceding "for" is the manner by which the actor attains that positive
state(Z).
.points (6)
Examples of category 13A:
(7).\John races cars for excitement.
(8).\George shoots rabbits for fun.
(9).\Mary reads for enjoyment.
(10).\Jane listens to music for relaxation.
.endpoints
In category 13A, the actor(X) engages in a particular action(Z) which causes
his state to change to a particular positive state(Q) while he is doing action(Z).
State(Q) is usually a positive emotional state. Since state(Q) only lasts
while actor(X) is doing action(Z), it has the feature of being a relatively
short-term state. (POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, EMOTIONAL, PHYSICAL, MENTAL, are
features that must be assigned to certain states in the memory of our
understanding system, see Chapter 3.)
It could be argued that these two categories, 8A and 13A, have the same
general meaning of "for", with the form of the general category being
"Conceptualization(Y) FOR State(Z), where the actor of (Y) is in state(Z)";
and when state(Z) is a negative state, then conceptualization(Y) is an action
intended to improve the negative state; and when state(Z) is positive, then
conceptualization(Y) is the means by which the actor(of conceptualization(Y))
attains state(Z). We have chosen not to treat 8A and 13A in this way for several
reasons. First of all, the two uses of "for" cannot be paraphrased in the same
manner:
.begin
.preface 0
(1).##Mary took an aspirin to get rid of her headache; but not
(7).##John races cars to get rid of excitement.
.end
.continue
The second reason has to do with the nature of the states themselves. In category 13A,
Conceptualization(Y) FOR Positive State(Z), the positive state(Z) of the actor
in (Y) lasts only as long as conceptualization(Y). In (7), "John races cars for
excitement", "John" is excited during the action of racing cars. In (9),
"Mary reads for enjoyment", Mary is in a state of enjoyment ∪while she is reading.
The positive state in category 13A is a temporary state which the actor attains by
doing action(Y), and which has the same duration as the action(Y). In contrast,
Conceptualization(Y) in category 8A is a measure to end a state; it is the ∪result
of conceptualization(Y) that is focused upon. In (1), Mary takes the aspirin with
the hope that it will result in her headache disappearing. In (3), the intended
result of drinking milk is that Susan's nervousness is gone. The ∪duration
of these curative actions is not directly related to the negative states, but the
∪duration of the action is directly related to the positive state of 13A: FOR
POSITIVE STATE(Z). As regards the FOR NEGATIVE STATE(Z) of 8A, the state might
improve while conceptualization(Y) is occurring, immediately after (Y), a long
time after (Y), or the state may never improve, since conceptualization(Y) is an
intended cure and may not be successful.
Below are the conceptual representations of two of the examples.
.group skip 20
.group skip 20
.group skip 15
.group skip 15
It could be argued that category 13A, FOR POSITIVE EMOTIONAL STATE, is really
a special case of category 7 (Person(X) Action(Z) FOR-to benefit on some
level-Person(Y), where Person(X) ∪is Person(Y), and the level is emotional.
The "fors" of 7 and 13A are paraphraseable:
.points(12)
Category 13A:\Jim gambles for excitement.
\Jim gambles to cause himself to become excited.
Category 7:\George joined the fraternity for his father.
\George joined the fraternity to cause his father to become pleased.
.endpoints
.continue
But there enough differences between the two uses of "for" to warrant
separate categories:
.points(6)
(1).\The particular positive state is named in 13A, and it is an emotional
state, usually. Rarely is the positive state named in category 7, and the
level on which person(X) wishes to benefit person(Y) is usually not given, e.g.,
\George shoots rabbits for fun. (category 13A)
\I went to the party for Mother. (category 7)
(2).\While the positive state of person(Y) in category 7 can be short or
long-term, the positive state of person(X) in 13A lasts only as long as the
action(Z):
\John moved to Arizona for his wife's health. (Physical benefit to his
wife's health which, we assume, is relatively long-term.)-category 7
\George flys a glider for the thrill of it. (Emotional state which
lasts as long as the action, even though the experiencing of the state might
have positive aftereffects.)-category 13A
(3).\The third difference we cite between 7 and 13A is that the surface
forms of the two categories are quite different, as we see in difference (1).
Thus, we need different recognition rules.
.endpoints
In some abstract sense 13A, where Actor(X) does Action(Z)##FOR-to cause##
Actor(X) to become POSITIVE STATE(Q), while he is doing Action(Z), is a
a special case of category 7, where Actor(X) does Action(Z) to cause Person(Y)'s
state to beome more positive on some level. Category 13B is also related to category 7.
CATEGORY 13B:##Person(X) wishes to attain and maintain a positive state(Q)
by doing Action(Z) habitually. The positive state(Q) is usually on the
Physical Health Scale. Action(Z) has the feature HABITUAL action relative to
Person(X). Examples of 13B:
.points(6)
(11).\John runs for his health.
\Paraphrase:##John does an action ("run") to improve his state on the Physical
Health Scale, and this is an habitual action of John's, which is to bring about
a long-term benefit.
(12).\Fred swims for muscle tone.
(13).\George meditates for his nervous system.
.endpoints
Category 13B is a borderling case between 13A (FOR-Positive state-change of Actor(X)
while doing action(Z)), 7 (FOR-Person(X) DO(Z) to benefit Person(Y) on some
scale), and category 8A (FOR-where Action(Z) is to improve the NEGATIVE state of
Actor(X)). The above example 11 can be reinterpreted as "John runs to improve
his health", and this accounts for the similarity between 13B and 8A.
∪CONCEPTUAL ∪FORMAT ∪OF ∪CATEGORY ∪13B:
.group skip 10
The reasons that it becomes very difficult to strictly delimit into
different categories these uses of "for" that have to do with state
change are best explained in Chapter 5, Expectancy Rules: Social-Interaction
Rules and Self-Oriented Rules. Sometimes the motive behind a FOR Rule is
an Expectancy Rule. The disambiguation rules of "FOR(to cure a) NEGATIVE
STATE" are simply a special case of a Self-Oriented Expectancy Rule, which
says that if a person is in a negative state, then expect him to do
things that he believes will improve his state. (This is an Expectancy
Rule that we want our idiosyncratic understanding system to have in order
to be able to give the correct interpretation to certain input. We do
not claim that every human has this particular rule, but that every
human has this type of rule.) Another reason that it is difficult to
delimit these uses of "for" that deal with state change is the interrelationship
between emotional and physical changes in an individual. We have given the states:
"excitement", "enjoyment", "pleasure", "thrill", the feature POSITIVE
EMOTIONAL State in the examples of category 13A; but these positive emotional
states certainly have corresponding positive physical effects, and one does
not occur without the other. However, in examples (7) through (10) of
13A, it is the emotional state-change that is being focused upon.
.skip 1
If we look at the disambiguation of "for" in a larger context, as rules
which relate not only to "for" disambiguation, but to the more general
problem of understanding, as do the Expectancy Rules; then some of the
FOR Rules may be eliminated altogether, because they are applications of
these more general Expectancy Rules. For now, we give these FOR Rules,
and we hope to explain in Chapter 5 their relationship to the Expectancy
Rules, and how that accounts for some of the difficulty in isolating
different uses of "for" that deal with a person's change of state.
∪RULES ∪FOR ∪THE ∪DISAMBIGUATION ∪OF ∪CATEGORIES ∪8A, ∪8B, ∪13A, and ∪13B.
CATEGORY 8A:## FOR NEGATIVE STATE
.points(6)
∪RULE ∪10:##If we have the form:##Conceptualization(Z) FOR NEGATIVE STATE(Y),
where (Y) is the state of Actor(X) of (Z) on the PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, OR MENTAL
LEVEL(L).
AND\(A).##Conceptualization(Z) is an action conceptualization,
\THEN:##Actor(X) is doing Action(Z) to improve his NEGATIVE STATE(Y).
OR\(B). Conceptualization(Z) is a state-change conceptualization of Actor(X),
\THEN:##Actor(X) is causing his state to change on one level with the
belief that it will improve his NEGATIVE STATE(Y) on the PHYSICAL, MENTAL,
or EMOTIONAL LEVEL.
.ENDPOINTS
CONCEPTUALLY:
.GROUP SKIP 25
(Some of the "curative" measures that Person(X) engages in FOR NEGATIVE STATE(Y)
may be a change of state (B to D) rather than an Action(Z), e.g., "Mary went to
bed for her headache", the curative measure is "rest" or "sleep" which is
a change of state that Mary makes for the purpose of improving her headache.)
.skip 1
CATEGORY 8B:##PREVENTIVE FOR
.POINTS(6)
∪RULE ∪10B:##If we have the form:##Action(Y)##FOR##NEGATIVE STATE(Z), where
Action(Y) is
\#################O##########R
\<=====>PROPEL <----needle<----INSIDE/Object(ANIMATE)bodypart;
\and Object(ANIMATE) is not in state(Z)-a NEGATIVE PHYSICAL HEALTH STATE-
at the time of Action(Y); then Action(Y) is a PREVENTIVE (feature in memory)
measure against state(Z). "For" is paraphraseable by "to prevent" or
"to cause not to go to the state of". CONCEPTUALLY:
.endpoints
.GROUP SKIP 30
An inference is that object(1) will not go to state(Z). PROBABILITY(P)
is judged sufficiently high enough by person(X) to warrant action(Y). In some
cases, person(X) is object(1).
.skip 1
CATEGORY 13A:##FOR POSITIVE EMOTIONAL STATE
.POINTS(6)
∪RULE ∪11:##If we have the form:##Person(X)##ACTION(Z)##FOR#(a particular)
POSITIVE STATE(Y), where Y is an EMOTIONAL state, and Action(Z) has the feature
HABITUAL relative to Person(X);
THEN:\When person(X) engages in Action(Z) from time(i) to time(f), this
CAUSES Person(X)'s state to change to a more POSITIVE state, State(Y),
which has the duration time(i) to time(f), which is the REASON that
Person(X) does Action(Z).
CONCEPTUALLY:
.endpoints
.group skip 15
CATEGORY 13B:##HABITUAL ACTION(Z) FOR POSITIVE STATE(Y)
.points(6)
∪RULE ∪12:##If we have the form:##Person(X)##HABITUAL ACTION(Z)##FOR POSITIVE STATE(Y),
where State(Y) is usually a POSITIVE PHYSICAL HEALTH STATE,
\THEN:##Person(X) does Action(Z) habitually in order to attain and maintain
State(Y).
.endpoints
.group skip 12
%24.13##CATEGORY 9,##FUNCTION OBJECT, CASE A%1
In category 9 examples we have "X" FOR "Y", where X functions relative
to Y. "For" in this category relates a "function" object to a variable Y.
∪CASE ∪A: The function object(X) is inanimate. This case has two forms:
.points(6)
\FORM 1:##Object(X) "BE form" FOR Y.
\FORM 2:##Object(X) FOR Y.
.endpoints
This function object is inanimate, often man-made, and it's reason for being,
at least according to man, is to be used for some function. "For" in this
case can be paraphrased by "to be used for", unless Y is a person, in which
case "for" can be paraphrased by "to be used by". Therefore, the rules pertaining
to "for/"to be used for" will also be the disambiguation rules of the for-idiom
"to be used for", and likewise, the rules of "for" where it can be paraphrased
by "to be used by" are the rules which underly the understanding of that expression.
It is extremely important to recognize that we have an instance of this category
quickly, because the functional definition of Object(X) is very often going
to provide the skeletal conceptual structure for the entire sentence. Before
we go any further, we should look at some examples.
FORM 1:
.POINTS(6)
(1).\This spoon is for the gravy.
(2).\That bed is for the guest.
(3).\That box is for the apples.
(4).\The slide rule is for fast calculation.
(5).\These aspirin are for my cold.
FORM 2:
.POINTS(6)
(6).\I borrowed that bed for the guest.
(7).\John brought that box for the apples.
.endpoints
If we accept that this "for" can be paraphrased by (or is an abbreviated form of)
"to be used for/by"; it gives us a clue as to what this category is all about.
If Object(X) is used for something, it is an instrumental object, or as we have
chosen to call it, a "function object". These function objects must have a
functional definition as well as their physical definition in memory.
Many of these function objects are man-made, simply because man had a need and
has developed a particular object to fulfill that need, e.g., "beds" were
developed to sleep on, "utensils" were made to eat with,
"slide rules" were developed to help man calculate more quickly. There are
also natural function objects that occur in man's environment, e.g., "apple"
or anything with the FOOD feature, is a function object- it functions to satiate
hunger. When the system has as input a sentence with Object(X)-INANIMATE, CONCRETE,
followed by a form of "BE" and "for" with a variable Y after the "for"; it will
have the rule to use the functional definition of Object(X). The key to understanding
the sentence is the function object; it often supplies the skeletal conceptual
structure for the entire sentence. The variable Y that follows "for" will often
fit into one of the slots of the object(X)'s functional conceptual representation.
"Be" is the only surface verb allowed with this meaning of "for" (Form 1), because
it is a dummy verb. In other words, there is no conceptual manifestation for "Be";
it has structural meaning, it has no meaning of its own, it only serves to relate
certain structures in certain ways. The fact that only a dummy BE is allowed
as surface verb in this category makes the alternate form that this category
can take quite natural, i.e., Form 2:##Object(X) "for" Y.
.points(6)
(8).\I bought these aspirin for my cold.
(9).\George Swartz developed the slide rule for fast calculation.
.endpoints
Example 6, "that bed for the guest" and example 2, "that bed is for the guest"
would both be analyzed as meaning the same thing. There is simply the additional
information in (6) as to how "I" got the bed. The same is true in (8), "these
aspirin for my cold" is analyzed in the same manner as "these aspirin are for
my cold"-(5); but in example 8, we have the additional information of how the
person came to possess the aspirin. In Form 2, the action that precedes the
function-object(X) is the action by which the user of object(X) came into
possession of object(X). In (6), I borrowed the bed with the intention
that the guest was to sleep on it; in (7), John brought that box
to function as a container for the apples.
The following examples show how our understanding system would analyze certain
instances of category 9, Case A.
.begin
.preface 0
(1).##This spoon is for the gravy.
.end
.continue
"Spoon" is recognized by the system as an inanimate concrete (man-made) object
which has a functional definition as well as a physical description in
the memory. Since a form of "BE" and "for" follow the object(X), the system
has a rule to take the functional definition of object(X), and try to relate
Y, that which follows "for", to the functional definition. The functional
definition of "spoon" is
.group skip 15
The system now has part of the meaning representation underlying example 1,
the question is to see where Y, in this case, "gravy", fits into this
conceptualization. The definition above says that "spoon" is the object in an instrumental
conceptualization where usually a LIQUID (feature) or LIQUID-LIKE substance
is being PTRANSed from one container to another. Since "gravy" is a liquid,
it must be the thing being PTRANSed by the "spoon". So the conceptual
representation for "this spoon is for the gravy" is
.group skip 20
The tense on the conceptualization of example (1) is future, but category 9
examples do not always have future tense. We stated before that in this
category, Case A, "for" can be paraphrased by "to be used for/by". If Y is
a SPECIFIC object, then the tense on the conceptualization is future; unless
the BE form has a tense; e.g., "This spoon was for the gravy, but you can use
it for the applesauce", "was" marks past intention. If Y is a generic object,
or a nominalized verb form, or anything besides a specific object, then the
statement is timeless, or it might make more sense to call it an all-time
statement; e.g., "This slide rule is for chemists(generic)," is a timeless
statement.
It might be said that "for" in this Case A must be paraphrased by "intended
to be used for/by". "This bed is for the guest"(2) can be paraphrased by "this
bed is intended to be used by the guest"; "this spoon was for the gravy", by
"this spoon was for the gravy", by "this spoon was intended to be used for
the gravy", "this slide rule is for chemists", by "this slide rule is
intended to be used by chemists (that's why it was designed in such and such
a manner)". However, since in this environment "to be used for/by" can be
paraphrased by "intended for", e.g., "this bed if intended for the guest";
"this slide rule is intended for chemists"; "to be used for/by" is more
explicit. "This box is for the apples" and "this box is intended for the
apples" are the same conceptually, "intention" is an implicit part of the
former, therefore, no information is gained by explicitly stating "intention"
in the latter.
Before we examine other examples of Case A, Category 9; we give the rules
for the disambiguation of Case A.
∪RULE 13:∪
∪RULES ∪FOR ∪THE ∪DISAMBIGUATION ∪OF ∪CATEGORY ∪9, ∪CASE A:##If we have
Form 1 or Form 2,
.POINTS(6)
\Form 1:##FUNCTION OBJECT(X)-INANIMATE "BE FORM" FOR Y
\FORM 2:##FUNCTION OBJECT(X)-INANIMATE FOR Y
.END POINTS
.CONTINUE
THEN relate the functional definition of Object(X) to Y in the following manner:
.POINTS(6)
(1).\If Y is human, then Y is the Actor in the functionsl definition of Object(X).
(2).\If Y is an ACT conceptually, the Y ∪IS the functional defition of Object(X).
(3).\If Y is an inanimate object, then Y is in an Object slot of the functional
definition of Object(X).
(4).\If Y is a NEGATIVE state on the PHYSICAL, MENTAL, or EMOTIONAL Level of
Person(Z) then the functional definition of Object(X) is intended as a curative
measure for the NEGATIVE state. This is a special case of Rule 10, Category 8A:##FOR
NEGATIVE STATE, see page .
.END POINTS
It will be helpful to analyze example 4 or 9, where Y is not an object or a person,
but is an act conceptually.
.BEGIN
.PREFACE 0
(4).##The slide rule is for fast calculation.
.END
.CONTINUE
"Slide rule" is classified as a "function object", followed by a "BE form" for Y, so
the rule that applies is Rule 13; and since Y is an ACT conceptually, part (2) of
Rule 13 applies, and Y is the functional definition of Object(X). "Fast calculation"
is essentially the functional definition of slide rule. A statement like (4) would
be made by someone who know the function of Object(X) to someone who did not have the
functional definition for that object(X) in his memory structure. All the cases
where Y is a conceptual action in category 9 will be in this "teaching" context,
where someone is learning the function of an object. We would not expect (4)
or (9) type utterances except in "learning" contexts.
This is a very important category of "for" because it occurs so frequently in
language. For that reason we examine and discuss several more examples of
category 9, Case A.
.BEGIN
.PREFACE 0
(3). This box is for the apples.
.END
.CONTINUE
"Box" will be categorized by the system as a function object. It is followed by
"BE form" FOR Y; so by Rule 13 the system takes the conceptual structure of the
functional definition as being part of the conceptual structure of the entire
sentence(3).
Functional definition of "box":
.GROUP SKIP 5
But we also recognize this as the functional definition of a whole class of objects,
"containers". Y is an inanimate object, "apples", and by part (3) of Rule 13,
Y is in an Object slot of the functional definition of "box"; thus for example(3),
the conceptual representation if
.GROUP SKIP 15
There are other function-objects which belong to a class of objects all of which
have the same functional definition. One other example which we discuss in detail
later is :##(5). These aspirin are for my code; in which the function object,
"aspirin", is a member of the class of "internal medication". We should not also
point out the fact that both "spoon" p"this spoon is for the gravy"), and "box"
"(this box is for the apples") function as CONTAINERS. The main difference between
spoon and box is that there are contianers that are used primarily for PTRANSing
or moving objects, and containers primarily used for holding objects. Examples of
the former are spoon, fork, and other utensils; examples of the latter are box,
crib, and vase. If we look at spoon and box and in this manner, the question if why
do their functional definitions look so different. Spoon is a container that moves
its contents as it is being moved by a person. Box is a container that may remain
stationary and never be moved by anyone, or it can also be used as a carrying
container. The fact that spoon and box are both containers must be information
in the memory model, as well as the fact that the two differ in that spoon is
always a container used to move its contents and box can simply be a container,
and remain stationary. That is, spoon is always in INSTRUMENTAL container- it
is always the object in an instrumental conceptualization, and it is moved so
that something else can be moved; box is not alwyas "Instrumental".
There is a continuum of "container" objects going from the purely stationary
containers which are never used to move their contents, e.g., a reservoir tank,
to those which are almost never used to move their contents, e.g., a bed,
exception- crib with wheels; to containers like "box" which may or may not be used
to move their contents; and to the other extreme, "utensils" which are alwyas
"instrumental" containers. This type of information about a "container" object
must be in the memory model.
The examples we have looked at thus far in Category 9 have emphasized the part
that the functional definition of the function object plays in finding the
conceptual representation of the sentence, with that which follows the "for",
(Y), simply fitting into a slot of the functional definition. Y does not always
play such a minor role in discovering the conceptual representation underlying
a sentence. Take example (5), "These aspirin are for my cold"; this sentence
is in fact an example of two categories:##the FOR NEGATIVE STATE(CATEGORY 8A),
and FUNCTION(CATEGORY 9). We know by rule 10(A) of category 8A that since "Y-for
my cold"-is "FOR NEGATIVE STATE of Person(X) on the PHYSICAL HEALTH SCALE" (a
particular "negative state", "cold"), that the conceptualization which precedes
"for" is a curative measure by which Person(X) intends to improve his cold.
Since example (5) is of the Form(1):##Function Object BE FOR Y, by Rule 13
or category 9, the system takes the functional definition of "aspirin" and from
rule 10(A) of category 8A, the system has the information that the functional
definition of "aspirin" relates to "("my cold") as a curative measure. (Note
that Rule 13, part (4) is really superfluous and can be deleted)
.BEGIN
PREFACE 0
FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION OF "ASPIRIN":
.END
.CONTINUE
(Aspirin is a member of a broad class of function objects called "Internal
Medication", just as "box" was a member of a broader class- "Containers/stationary
and-or movable".)
.GROUP SKIP 18
.POINTS (10)
English:\Person(Z) takes aspirin to improve a negative physical or emotional
health state.
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
Y, "my cold", is represented conceptually as Person(1) has the negative physical
health state "cold". "Cold" has the illness interpretation since, in English,
we do not specify our body temperature with the possessive. "My" is specified
by the system as Person(1):
.GROUP SKIP 5
by Rule 10(A), the functional definition of "aspirin" relates to Y("my cold") as
a curative measure. The NEGATIVE state "m" of the functional definition is
matched with "cold", and we have the following conceptual representation for the
sentence:##These aspirin are for my cold":
.GROUP SKIP 20
.POINTS (10)
ENGLISH:\Person(1) gets a cold, which causes him to think of taking aspirin- a
measure he has in his memory for improving a "cold"-, and so he takes these
aspirin.
.ENDPOINTS
We mentioned in the discussion of category 8A (FOR NEGATIVE STATE) that the
motivation behind the FOR-rules in that category is actually a Self-Oriented
Expectancy Rule which says that if a Person(X) is in a negative state on
the Health Scale, then Person(X) will do N(one or a set of actions) that he
has in his memory to make his state move to a more positive health state. We
have just analyzed "These aspirin as for my cold" using FOR-rules, and we
did not need to reference the Expectancy Rule for the understanding of the
sentence. In Chapter 5, we shall explain why it is necessary for the system
to reference this Expectancy Rule in the analysis where a negative health state
is involved.
We shall now discuss how the system would interpret certain ambiguous sentences
as belonging to category 9(Function) Case A, rather than to Category 3,10, or
12. These latter three categories are similar, on the surface, to category 9.
CATEGORY 3 COMPARED TO CATEGORY 9
The ambibuity between category 3(to give to) and category 9, Case A, is when the
form Object(X) FOR Person(Y), or Object(X) BE FOR Person(Y), appears and
Object(X) is classified as a function object. The question is :##if an object
is given to a person, and that object is a function object, do we always want
the system to analyze this input as the object is being given to the person for
him to use. An inference that we want the system to make if someone receives
a function object is that the object was given with the intention that this
someone will use it; but is that inference really part of the meaning of the
"to give to"-FOR whenever the object is a function object, i.e., does the
"to give to"-FOR always imply the "FUNCTION"-FOR. Example:
.POINTS (6)
(10).\This medicine is for Mother.
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
Paraphrase(Category 3):##This medicine is to give to Mother(PTRANS TO Mother).
Paraphrase(Category 9):##This medicine is for Mother to take(INGEST).
The form of example (10) is "Function Object `BE form' FOR Person(Y).
The category 9, FUNCTION, meaning of "for" always includes the category 3, TO
GIVE TO, meaning; the question that is more difficult is does the category 3
meaning include the category 9, FUNCTION, meaning when the object is a function
object. Category 9, FUNCTION, always includes the "to give to" meaning
implicitly, because in order for Person(") to be the user of the function
object. If some object is to be used by a Person(Y), and if the information
is not explicitly given that Person(Y) has or will have possession of the
function Object(X), because that is a NECESSARY CONDITION for Y to use Object(X).
In the situation where "Mother" is sick" and John says "This medicine is for
Mother"; it is assumed that John is going to PTRANS this medicine to Mother(category
3), because she has to have possession of the medicine before she can take it-
category 9: FUNCTION).
Other examples of category 9 show that the function object and Y must be in
physical proximity for object(X) to function relative to Y, when Y is not a
person (as it was in example (10)). For example, (1) This spoon
is for the gravy; means
that "this spoon is to be used for PTRANSing the gravy". It is understood that
a necessary condition for (1) is "someone has to put the spoon in the gravey".
The system must have the following rules:
∪RULE ∪13(5):##If we have form(1) or form(2) of RULE 13, AND conditions (1) OR
(3) hold, i.e.,
.POINTS(6)
\form(1):##Function Object(X) "BE form" FOR Y;
\form(2):##Function Object(X) FOR Y;
where in forms (1) and (2), Function Object(X) is INANIMATE;
\condition(1):##Y is HUMAN, and thus the ACTOR in the functional definition of
Object(X).
\condition(3):##Y is an INANIMATE object, and thus Y is in an OBJECT slot of the
functional definition of Object(X).
∪THEN
Function Object(X) and Y must be in PHYSICAL PROXIMITY. PHYSICAL PROXIMITY is
defined as either
\Object(X)'s LOCATION BE AT Y's LOCATION, or
\PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS exist BETWEEN Object(X) and Y.
.ENDPOINTS
∪Rule ∪13(6):##If we have form(2) of RULE 13: Function Object(X)-INANIMATE FOR Y;
.POINTS(6)
∪THEN
\the Conceptualization(A) preceding form(2) is the manner by which the ACTOR
in the functional definition of Object(X) came into PHYSICAL PROXIMITY of
Object(X), if Y is HUMAN(condition 1); ∪or
\the INANIMATE Object(Y) came into PHYSICAL PROXIMITY with the Function Object(X),
if Y is an INANIMATE object (condition(3) of RULE 13).
.ENDPOINTS
Rule 13(6) applies to examples (6) and (7):
.POINTS(6)
(6).\I borrowned that bed for the gust.
(7).\John brought that box for the apples.
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
In example (6), the "bed"(function object(X)) is available to the "guest"(Y-HUMAN),
because "I borrowed that bed"(Conceptualization(A)). In (7), the
"box"(function object(X)) is in PHYSICAL PROXIMITY to "the apples"(Y-INANIMATE
object), because "John brought that box"(Conceptualization A). In examples (6)
and (7), Conceptualization(A) ENABLES the function object(X) to function relative
to Y, by placing them in PHYSICAL PROXIMITY.
If "Function Object(X) (BE) FOR Y", the "Object(X) BE IN PHYSICAL PROXIMITY TO Y"
is a necessary condition for Object(X) to function relative to Y. We emphasize
that "Function Object(X) in PHYSICAL PROXIMITY to Y" does not have to be expressed
overtly in the sentence; it is information that we already know - a NECESSARY CONDITION
of the action.
.POINTS(6)
(1).\This spoon is for the gravy:
\In order for spoons to function relative to gravy, they must be at the location of
the gravy.
(5).\These aspirin are for my cold:##In order for me to take these aspirin for my
cold, I must have possession of the aspirin.
(3).\That box is for the apples:##In order for the box to function as container
for the apples, the apples must be brought to the box, or vice-versa.
.ENDPOINTS
Whether function Object(X) and Y must be at the same location for Object(X) to
function relative to Y depends on the nature of Object(X). If Y is an actor
relative to Object(X)'s function, then the function object must be at the
location of Y (whether Y PTRANSes Y to Object(X), or Object(X) is PTRANSed to
Y is irrelevant), in order for Y to use Object(X).
.BEGIN
.PREFACE 0
(11).##This reservoir is for the whole city.
.END
.CONTINUE
Notice that in example (11) of Category 9 (Case A), that "reservoir"
functions relative to "city", but the "reservoir" does not have to go to the
"city", or vice-versa.
The sentence of the Form 1 and Form 2, Function Object (BE form) FOR Y, does
not have to express the necessary conditions for Object(X) to function relative
to Y, because this is knowledge that must already be in the memory model of the
understanding system. If we, as hearer, do not have this "world knowledge" in our
memory structure, then we request it from the speaker. For example, a child
hears "this slide rule is for you", and says "What is a slide rule for?". Then
the child is given a functional definition of the slide rule, which goes into
his memory. All the necessary conditions of an action do not need to be
expressed because they are generally assumed to be known by the hearer. For
that reason, a (unstated) necessary condition is not part of the conceptual
structure of a sentence:##(a) This spoon is for the gravey", does not have as part
of its analysis "(b) Take this spoon to the location of the gravy", although
the information that "spoon" must be at the location of "gravy" in order to function
relative to the "gravy" (Rule 13(5)) is implicit, and the hearer knows that (b)
must occur for the realization of (a), and the hearer says to himself "he must
want me to put the spoon in the gravy". In another context the speaker says (a)
and he does not mean for the hearer to interpret (a) as a command to do (b):##the
speaker is packing a picnic basket, and says "this spoon is for the gravy" in
a mere fact of the matter way. It is not yet time for the spoon to function
relative to the gravy in that case. It depends upon context as to whether a
statement is meant to be interpreted literally or as a command to the hearer.
We have established that category 9, Case A, examples require an implicit
PTRANS(Category 3), which results in Object(X) and Y being in physical proximity,
in order for Object(X) to function relative to Y. Some examples which we have
analyzed as category 3(to give to-for) can be interpreted as category 9(Function-for);
however, we do not want to risk reading more into the example than is really
there. For example,
.BEGIN
.PREFACE 0
(12).##Barbara baked a cake for Mike. (Category 3, see page )
.END
.CONTINUE
If we interpret this sentence to mean that Barbara baked a cake to give to Mike, it
could be argued that part of the meaning of this sentence is that "cake" is a
function item to be interpreted relative to "Mike", and since the function of
"cake"(FOOD category) is to be eaten, the "Barbara must be giving the cake to
Mike to eat". This is probably true, but there are cases where it would not
be true:
.POINTS(6)
\Mike is in the third grade. His class is having a party; everyone has to bring
something. Mike's sister Barbara baked a cake for him (to take)-Form 2 of category
9.
.ENDPOINTS
If a setence is a category 9 type; then if Y is a person, he relates as actor
to the functional definition (Rule 13(1)). The functional definition of cake
is to be eaten; so if (12) is a category 9 example, then the sentence if
paraphraseable as "Barbara baked a cake for Mike to eat". In the hypothetical
situation set up above, this paraphrase is not correct. In most situations
"Barbara baked a cake for Mike to eat" would be the correct paraphrase of
"Barbara baked a cake for Mike", because "cake" is a function object. The
context above set up another function for "cake" - it is the think that Mike is
to take to the party, so even in the above context the function object(cake) is
to be used by Mike.
Another questionable example of category 3 is
.BEGIN PREFACE 0
(13).##John cooked dinner for Janice.
.END
.CONTINUE
This example can mean "John cooked dinner to give to Janice"(Category 3). There
are also two other interpretations possible:##"In place of"-category 1, and "to
benefit on some level"-category 7; but these were discussed in section 4.7 and do
not concern us here. This is even a stronger case for a category 9 interpretation.
If someone is given dinner, it is always implied that he eats.
.BEGIN PREFACE 0
(13 b).##John cooked dinner for Janice, but she would not touch it.
.END
.CONTINUE
The fact that Janice did not eat had to be explicitly stated, otherwise it is
assumed that she did eat. "Dinner" is a complex function object; it can almost
be thought of as a ceremony which John prepared for Janice to participate in.
We do not wish to interpret all "to give to" FORs which involve a function object
as "Function"-FORs. Example:
.BEGIN PREFACE 0
(14).##John got this Japanese vase for Mother.
.END
.CONTINUE
John ATRANSed this Japanese vase to himself with the intention of ATRANSing the
vase to Mother. "Mother" may never use the vase as a function object to put
flowers in; she may put it on a shelf and look at it occasionally. John's
INTENTION was not to give her the vase to use; it was to give her the vase to
enjoy for its beauty. We only want to interpret a sentence as FUNCTION-FOR if
the INTENTION of the giver is that the object be used by Person(Y).
It is usually the case that if a function object is given to Person(Y), then
the INTENTION of the giver is that Person(Y) use the function item. It is not
always the case the Y will be the actor in the functional definition of
Object(X), e.t., "This medicine is for Mother" interpreted as a category 9 example
means that "Mother is sick and is going to take this medicine"; a category 3
interpretation could be that "This medicine is ∪to ∪give ∪to Mother, who is going
to give it to sick little brother" - who will be the one to INGEST the
aspirin(Functional definition).
Whether a sentence is a category 9 or a category 3 type depends on the speaker. If
the postman says "This letter is for Mrs. Jones", then he means "the letter is to
be PTRANSed to Mrs. Jones"; his INTENTION is to PTRANS the physical letter(category
3). the INTENTION of the sender, nowever, is to MTRANS conceptualizations by
PTRANSing the letter to Mrs. Jones. So if the sender says "This letter is for
Mrs. Jones", he means a FUNCTION-FOR interpretation, that the letter is to be
PTRANSed to Mrs. Jones for its ∪function of MTRANsing information to Mrs. Jones
(category 9).
For the understanding system to choose the correct "for" interpretation when the
"for" is ambiguous between a simple "to give to" and a "Function-for", the
rule is
.POINTS(6)
∪13(1)(A):\If a person(Y) is given a function object(X), then it is the INTENTION
of the giver that the person(Y) use object(X) in its usual function capacity (its
Functional Definition in memory) UNLESS some other function has been given
object(X) by CONTEXT, (as in (12) "Barbara baked a cake for Mike (to take to the
party".)).
.ENDPOINTS
The only "pure" to give to-fors" are when a person(Y) is given an object(X) that
is not classified as a function object. For example:##"David got these flowers
for-to give to Mother". "Flowers" are not classified as "function object". The
fact that their beauty pleases mankind is incidental and not their function.
Since in (14), "John got his Japanese vase for Mother", context defines the vase
as an object of beauty rather than of function, the "for" is a "to give to"
interpretation with the intention of the giver to please person(Y). Thus, we need
Rule 2(B) that we presented in section 7 but did not justify until now:
.POINTS(6)
(2a).\∪If we have the form "Person(X) Action(Z) FOR Person(Y)",
where Action(Z) results in Person(X) in possession of Object(Z)-INANIMATE,
and Object(Z) is not classified as a Function Object in memory and context has
not defined Object(Z) as a Function Object, ∪then FOR is ambiguous between
"to give to" and "in place of", and the "to give to" interpretation is made
unless previous context has set up the conceptual format of the "in place of"
interpretation.
\Example:##John found a pretty shell for me.
(2b).\If we have the form "Object(Z) `BE form' FOR Person(Y)" or the form
"Object(Z) FOR Person(Y)", where Object(Z)-INANIMATE is not classified as
a Function Object in memory and context has not defined Object(Z) as a
Function Object, ∪then FOR is paraphraseable by "to give to".
\Example:##These flowers are for Mother.
.ENDPOINTS
CATEGORY 10 COMPARED TO CATEGORY 9(CASE A), CATEGORY 10:##BE FOR
Surface ambiguity between category 9(case A) and category 10 is easily resolved.
Category 10 is of the surface form:##Person(X) BE FOR Y, which is similar to
Form(1) of category 9:##Object(X) BE FOR Y. In 10, (X) is always a person, and
in category 9 Form(1), (X) is always non-human. (Note that in Category 9, Case
B, (X) is human, but only Form(2) is allowed:##(X) FOR Y.)
An example of category 10 is
.POINTS(6)
(15).\Mary is for women's lib.
.ENDPOINTS
CATEGORY 12 COMPARED TO CATEGORY 9(CASE A), CATEGORY 12:##RECIPROCAL CAUSALITY
An example of category 12 that might possibly be confused on the surface as a
category 9, Form(2), construct:
.POINTS(6)
(16).\Robert traded George his bat for a football.
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
"Bat" is a functionn object. But the system would not be able to relate the
function of "bat" and Y-"football", at least in normal circumstances. There are
more compelling reasons why examples of these two categories are easily
disambiguated which have to do with the ACTs involved; this will be apparent in
the discussion of category 12.
.SKIP 2
%24.14##CATEGORY 9##FUNCTION OBJECT, CASE B%1
In Case B, the function object(X) is a person, and Y is a person. Only form(2)
of category 9 is possible:
BEGIN PREFACE 0
form(2):##Object(X) FOR Y.
.END
If we have the form:##Person(X) BE FOR Person(Y), a form(1) example, then it
is a category 10 "for" interpretation, where "for" is paraphraseable by "be in
favor of". We examine this case in section 4.16.
In Case B, category 9: FUNCTION-FOR, the form is Person (X) FOR Person(Y); and
Person(X) has a functional capacity relative to Person(Y).
Examples of Case B:
.POINTS(6)
(1).\That's the girl for me.
\Paraphrase:##That's the girl that I want to be my wife. (One possible meaning)
(2).\It's Mary for John.
\Paraphrase:##Mary is John's choice (in some capacity).
(3).\This is the boy for you.
\Paraphrase:##This is the boy you want.
.ENDPOINTS
In Case B, category 9, Person(X) is the preference of Person(Y) to function in
some capacity. Unless the way Person(Y) wants Person(X) to function relative to
Person(Y) is given by context, we do not know the particular function that
Person(X) is to perform. This is because "person" does not have a functional-definition
in memory; "peron" would not be classified as a "function-object".
The surface form of this category is almost idiomatic, the Person(X) is preceded by
some form of demonstrative pronoun plus a "BE form":##"That is the", or "This is
the", or "It is", etc.; and the Person(X) is followed by "FOR Person(Y)". We shall
now give the rule for the disambiguation of Case B, category 9.
∪Rule ∪14:##DISAMBIGUATION OF FUNCTION-FOR, where Object(X) and (Y) are HUMAN
.POINTS(6)
If we have form(2) of category 9:
\(2)##OBJECT(X)##FOR##Y, preceded by SPECIFIC-OBJECT-INDICATOR (e.g. "That",
"this")+BE form", where Object(X) and (Y) have the feature HUMAN;
∪THEN
.ENDPOINTS
.GROUP SKIP 15
An example where DO(F) is defined by context:
.POINTS(6)
(3).\This is the boy for you.
CONTEXT:
\Person(Y), "you" is looking for someone to tutor his 6th grade son in math, so
Person(Y) goes to the high-school math teacher. The math teacher, after hearing
your request for a student tutor, sees one of his brighter students and says
"this is the boy for you".
Conceptually:
ENDPOINTS
.GROUP SKIP 15
(Actually, "boy(1)" and "boy(2)" are Person(1) and Person(2) respectively, on the
conceptual level, with the feature: MALE, GREATER THAN AGE ∪# and LESS THAN AGE ∪#).
The function that boy(1) will perform relative to Person(Y), "tutor Person(Y)'s
son", is given by context. It is also true that boy(2), or Person(Y)'s son, is
benefitted primarily by the tutoring, and Person(Y) is pleased because he wants
his son to do better; but this is discussed in the Social-Interaction Rules in
Chapter 5.
.SKIP 2
%24.15##category 9:##function object, case C%1
In category 9, Case C##PROFESSION(X)##FOR##Y; we are given the manner in which
Person(X) is going to function relative to Person(Y), if (Y) is a person; see
category 9, Case B.
In Case C, "for" relates the function of Profession(X) to (Y). PROFESSION is
another feature necessary in the memory model. Examples:
.POINTS(6)
(1).\John took his car to the mechanic for a tune-up.
\Paraphase:##John took his car to the mechanic so the mechanic could tune it up.
(2).\George went to the banker for a loan.
\Paraphrase:##George went to the banker to try to get a loan.
(3).\John went to the doctor for his cold.
(4).\Mary went to the hairdresser for a haircut.
.ENDPOINTS
∪RULE ∪15:##THE DISAMBIGUATON OF CATEGORY 9, CASE C: PROFESSION(X) FOR Y.
If we have the following form:
.POINTS(6)
\Person(Z) PTRANS Object(A) ("to") PROFESSION(X') FOR Y,
\where Object(A) CAN BE Person(Z), and (X') is an instance of PROFESSION(X);
∪THEN
\Person(Z) PTRANS Object(A) to PROFESSION(X') ∪IN ∪ORDER ∪TO ∪ENABLE
Object(A) to be related to the functional-definition of PRFOESSION(X) ∪BY Y.
"For" expresses the ENABLE Causation, i.e., a relationship between a NECESSARY
CONDITION (e.g., the PTRANSing of Object(A) to PROFESSION(X)) and a
conceptualization (e.g., the functional definition of PROFESSION(X) relating
to Object(A) by Y).
.ENDPOINTS
We now show how this rule applies to example (2), "George went to the bank for
a loan". In example (2) we have the form:
.BEGIN PREFACE 0
Person(Z) PTRANS PERSON(Z) ("to") PROFESSION(X') FOR Y;
.END
.CONTINUE
which is an instance of the form of Rule 15, where Person(Z) if Object(A).
∪THEN by Rule 15, Person(Z) is PTRANSing Person(Z) to PROFESSION(X') ∪IN ∪ORDER
∪TO ∪ENABLE Person(Z) to be related to the functional definition of PROFESSION(X)
BY Y:
.GROUP SKIP 10
the functional definition of "Banker" is related by "loan"-(Y) to "George". One
of the functions of a "banker" in the memory system would be to "give loans to
people"; therefore, since "George" is related by "loany to "banker(X')", the
PTRANSing of "George" is to ENABLE the banker(X') to give "George" a loan. So
we have
.GROUP SKIP 20
whew Person(X') is an instance of BANKER(X) at BANK(X'). M(DOLLARS) is INTEREST
on the loan. t(3) is greater than t(2) which is greater than t(1).
Note that in example (3), "John went to the doctor for his cold", we have both
"FOR NEGATIVE STATE" of category 8, and by Rule 10, the action "John went to
the doctor" is a curative measure (see section 4.12); and we also have
"PROFESSION(X) FOR Y", which by Rule 15, says that the functional definition of
PROFESSION(X) - in this case "DOCTOR" - is related BY Y - in this case "cold" to
"John". The functional definition of "DOCTOR" is, briefly, a person who
diagnoses and treats illnesses. Since Y, "cold", is an illness, by Rule 10 of
"FOR NEGATIVE STATE (category 8)", "John went to the doctor" is a curative
measure; and the ∪kind of curative measure is given by Rule 15(category 9, Case C):
John s going to a person(X) who diagnoses and treats illnesses IN ORDER FOR that
person(X) to treat John's cold.
.SKIP 2
%24.16##CATEGORY 10:##BE FOR(OR "BE IN FAVOR OF") - IDIOMATIC%2
In this category "BE FOR" can be paraphrased as "be in favor of".
Examples:
.POINTS(6)
(1).\Paul was for McGovern.
(2).\Mary is for women's lib.
(3).\Ralph is for the Yankees.
(4).\Jane is for birth control.
.ENDPOINTS
An example of category 10, "be in favor of", has the following characteristics:
.POINTS(6)
(1).\The form of the sentence is Person(X) "BE form" FOR Y.
(2).\"BE" is the surface verb of the sentence and gives the tense of the
conceptualization. "BE" is a dummy verb, (it does not realize an ACT
conceptually), and it is the only surface verb allowed in this category.
(3).\"Y" can be any number of things of the surface. On the conceptual level
it may be a very complex structure. Take example (1), "Paul was for McGovern";
in the sentence, "Y" is "McGovern". But if one is for McGovern for president,
which is the context in which "Paul is for McGovern", then one is not so much
for McGovern, the person, but for those things that McGovern espouses, e.g.,
getting out of Vietnam, guranteed annual income, etc.. What "Y" is conceptually
is both determined by the memory model of the speaker, as well as the contextual
situation. For instance, in the context of (1), it is the "position of president"
that is being discussed; and we know that "McGovern" means "McGovern relative to
the position of president".
This is an idiomatic FOR-category; "for" is always part of a "BE FOR" expression.
In category 9, "for" is very often part of a "BE FOR" expression (form 1), but
can occur without the "BE" (form 2). We present this idiomatic use of "for"
("BE FOR") because of its surface similarity to other non-idiomatic uses of
"for".
In category 10, Person(X) is making some sort of value judgement on "Y", and if
Person(X) BE FOR Y, the "Y" has received a positive value. This is the result
of an MBUILD on the part of Person(X), (MBUILD is a MENTAL ACT, which can be
described, roughly, as examinig the issues and coming to a conclusion, the
"conclusion" or "solution" is the OBJECT of the MBUILD), and the reasons that
"Person(X) is for Y" are the conceptualizations that were instrumental in the
MBUILD. These conceptualizations are the basis for Person(X)'s value
judgement of "Y", and these "reasons" will vary from Person(1) to Person(2) to
Person(3), etc., to a certain extent, but each of the Persons(1, 2, ...) who
is FOR "Y", has come to a positive evaluation of Y in relaion to himself. If
Person(X) had come to a negative evaluation of Y, then this would be expressed
by "Person(X) `BE form' AGAINST Y".
If Person(X) is for Y, we might want the system to infer that Y is also beneficial
to others besides Person(X), but that is only an eference and not necessarily
true. When someone makes a category 10 statement, he is telling the hearer about
his belief that some "Y" has a positive value. He may have come to this
conclusion through first hand experiences, or he may have been given this value
judgement from some authority figure, e.g., "Mother", the "Catholic Church", or
just someone that Person(X) has respect for. Person(X) might be for a
political candidate because the Church is for that candidate, but for no personal
reasons of his own aside from that.
The conceptual analysis of some category 10 examples follow.
.POINTS(6)
(1).\Paul is for McGovern.
.ENDPOINTS
.GROUP SKIP 15
∪English:
Paul thinks that if McGovern becomes president, it will be beneficial to Paul on
some level.
.POINTS(6)
(2).\Mary is for women's lib.
.ENDPOINTS
.GROUP SKIP 15
This conceptual diagram is rather vague perhaps, but we cannot be any more specific
with just the statement "Mary is for women's lib". We do not know why Mary is
for women's lib, unless she tells us, and then we could fill in the dummy
"women's lib". But if we try to fill in the "women's lib." from our own individual
memories, we run the risk of putting more or less into women's lib and what it
stands for, than Mary would. One might argue that everyone would agree that
there are certain things women's lib stands for, such as:
.POINTS(6)
\(1) equal pay for equal work
\(2) child day care centers
\(3) no discrimination by law between sexes
\etc..
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
The list can go on and on, and the question is what part of it is in Mary's
conception of what women's lib stands for. We want our understanding system
to have in its memory structure under "women's lib" a list of generally
accepted principles of that movement. In a case like example (2), the system
will analyze it as "Mary probably believes in one or more of these principles"
(which it has listed under "women's lib"(; though to really know Mary's reasons
the system will have to ask her.
∪CONCPTUAL ∪FORMAT ∪OF ∪CATEGORY ∪10:
.GROUP SKIP 15
∪RULES ∪FOR ∪THE ∪DISAMBIGUATION ∪OF ∪CATEGORY ∪10: ∪BE ∪FOR(BE IN FAVOR OF)
.POINTS(6)
RULE 16:##If we have the form:##Person(X) "BE form" FOR Y, ∪and
\(A). Y is a person, ∪THEN
Person(X) believes that a positive change in the state of Person(Y) will cause
some positive change in Person(X)'s state. (For example, in (1), George
believes that if McGovern becomes president (a state that is desirable to
McGovern) that George will be benefitted. The positive change in Person(X)'s
state can be on more than one level.
The conceptual representation of (A):
.ENDPOINTS
.GROUP SKIP 15
.POINTS(6)
\(B). If Y is a conceptualization, or a complex of conceptualizations,
∪THEN
Person(X) believes that if Y occurs, then a positive change in the state of
Person(X) on one or more levels will result. The conceptual representation of
(B):
.GROUP SKIP 10
\An example of (B) where Y is a complex of conceptualizations is "Mary is for
killing the dog."
.ENDPOINTS
.GROUP SKIP 20
In both (A) and (B), the time of the "MBUILD conceptualization" is the same as
that of the "BE form".
.SKIP 2
%4.17##CATEGORY 11:##CONDITIONAL FOR (IDIOMATIC)%1
This category is of the form (1) or (2):
.POINTS(6)
(1)\If it weren't FOR X, (then) Y
(2)\But FOR X, (then) Y
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
where X and Y are conceptualizations, Examples of this category:
(Note that "then" can be deleted without changing the meaning of the example.
Also, the Y conceptualization may precede the X conceptulization without
altering the meaning, e.g., "I would go on the trip if it weren't for John's
coming", is a paraphrase of example (1) below.)
.POINTS(6)
(1).\If it weren't for John's coming, then I would go on the trip.
Paraphrase:\If John weren't coming, the I would go on the trip.
(2).\If it weren't for liking beer, I could go on a diet.
Paraphrase:\If I didn't like beer, then I could go on a diet.
(3).\But for Tom's mother being there, Tom would have hit is sister.
Paraphrase:\If Tom's mother hadn't been there, Tom would have hit is siste.
Let us also examine the following three sentences:
(4).\John is coming, so I can't go.
(5).\I like beer, so I can't go on a diet.
(6).\Tom's mother was there, so he didn't hit his sister.
.ENDPOINTS
There is a bisc difference between (1) and (4), (2) and (5), (3) and (6); even
though they look very similar. Example (1) is stating that all the requirements
for "my going on a trip" have been met, except for one, and that is "John's
not coming". In other words, all the ∪necessary ∪conditions except for one
have been met for the action "I go on a trip" - including the necessary
condition of "intention of actor"; the one condition not met is "John not
come". The negation of this necessary condition, i.e., NEGATION(John not come) =
John come, CAUSES the action not to occur. Example (4), which looks similar
to (1), is saying that among the things that can keep me from going on a trip
is "John's coming", and "John is coming"; therefore, "I cannot go". But example
(4) says nothing about the conditions necessary for the action of "I go on a trip"
that are not satisfied in (4), but the speaker sees no need to go into them,
since the negation of one necessary condition for the action suffices to explain
why "I cannot go on the trip". In example (4), "John is coming" does NOT cause
that "I cannot go on the trip", there may be other necessary conditions that
are negated which contribute to causing "I not go on a trip", e.g., "John is
coming, so I can't go, besides I don't have any money anyway".
In a category 11 example, all the ∪necessary ∪conditions for an action (see
section 4.18) have been met except for one, and the negation of this remaining
necessary condition CAUSES the action not to occur. In examples (4), (5), and (6),
which are not paraphrases of category 11 examples, one of the necessary
conditions of an action is negated, but nothing can be stated about the status
of the other necessary conditions; they may or may not be fulfilled.
If we consider that one of the necessary conditions of an action is the INTENTION
of the actor to do the action in question, then in category 11 CONDITIONAL-FOR
examples, this necessary condition is met if the conditional in the Y
conceptualization is a "would". In the case where the conditional is a "could",
the necessary condition of "Intention of actor to do action" in Y is unstated.
Example:
.POINTS(6)
(7).\If Mother weren't coming, I could go to the bank.
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
In (7), the necessary condition of "actor's intention" for the action to occur
is unstated in Y. In (8), the necessary condition of actor's intention to
do action("go to the bank") is present.
.POINTS(6)
(8).\If Mother Weren't coming, I would go to the bank.
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
Sometimes, however, "could" also seems to imply the necessary condition of
INTENTION of actor to do the action. Let us look at example (2),
"If it weren't for liking beer, I could go on a diet". This "could" does say
that "liking beer" is the only thing standing between me and a diet. A statement like
example (2) makes no sense unless the speaker wants to go on a diet, or feels
he should. Of course, the speaker can use conceptualization X as an excuse
(X-"he likes beer"), whereas the real reason is that he does not INTEND to
go on a diet, but feels like he SHOULD INTEND, so he makes another excuse, namely
conceptualization X. So we differentiate between category 11 examples which have
a "would" and those which have a "could" in the conditional statement Y. The "wouldy
examples imply that the INTENTION of the actor to do the action in conceptualization
Y is present, and only condition X is negated; and "could" examples say that the
only external condition being negated is X, but the internal condition of
INTENTION of actor in Y is also in question.
∪CONCEPTUAL ∪FORMAT ∪OF ∪CATEGORY ∪11: CONDITION ∪FOR
with forms(1), "If it weren't for X, (then) Y"; and (2), "But FOR X, (then) Y".
.GROUP SKIP 10
The conceptual format of this for-category is the same conceptual structure as
that underlying the verb "prevent", where all conditions are present for
Y(action or state change) to occur, but X(action or state change) "prevents"
Y from occurring. In this case, NOT(X) is necessary for Y to occur, and for
that reason NOT(X) is a necessary condition of Y.
.POINTS(6)
(1).\If it weren't for John's coming, I could go on the trip.
(7).\John's coming prevents me from going on the trip.
.ENDPOINTS
We claim that (1) and (7) are paraphrases of each other; conceptually they are
represented in the same manner.
We now examine the conceptual structures underlying some CONDITIONAL FOR examples.
.POINTS(6)
(1).\If it weren't for John's coming, then I would go on the trip.
ENDPOINTS
.GROUP SKIP 20
All the necessary conditions of an action CAUSE the action to occur. This is
including INTENTION of the actor to do the action among the necessary conditions.
It would not be correct to say that one necessary condition of an action (John
isn't coming) CAUSES the action to occur (I go on a trip); however, the negation
of one of the necessary conditions (NEGATION OF "John isn't coming" IS "John's
coming") does CAUSE the action NOT to occur, if all the other necessary conditions
for the action have been met.
.POINTS(6)
(8).\If it weren't for the rescue team, the skiers would have died.
.ENDPOINTS
.GROUP SKIP 25
What the above conceptualization says is that "a necessary coneition for the
skiers to NOT die, is that help does come". It does not say that the rescue
team by not coming has killed the skiers. It says that is (DO(Z)) does not
occur, then the skiers will die. This DO may include getting the skiers warm,
feeding them, etc.; and if these actions do not occur, then the skiers will
die. The rescue team by its absence would not be the cause of death of
the skiers; the lack of warmth, food, or other physical necessitites would
be the cause of death. So what we actually have is the following diagram:
.GROUP SKIP 35
If these change of states of the skiers had not occurred (which were a result
of the rescue team's efforst), then the skiers would have died. Behind this
example like the belief that the skiers would do these things for themselves
if the could, i.e., satiate their own physical needs; but it is inferred that
the skiers cannot do these things for themselves; so someone else must provide
the means for the skiers to satiate their basic physical needs. We shall
discuss this rule in more detail in the chapter on Expectancy rules; but
briefly, it says that if an organism cannot satiate its basic physical needs,
some external force must provde the things needed to satiate the organism's
physical needs, or the organism will go toward the negative end of the
LIFE-DEATH scale, and death will result. This Expectancy rule is also
reflected in the sentences below:
POINTS(6)
(9).\If it weren't for the mother, the newborn infant would die.
(10).\That man would die if it weren't for the artificial respirator.
.ENDPOINTS
∪RULES ∪FOR ∪DISAMBIGUATION ∪OF ∪CATEGORY ∪11:
∪RULE ∪17:##If we have the form (1) or (2):
POINTS(6)
\(1).##If it weren't FOR X, (then) Y
Y, if it weren't for X
\(2).##But FOR X, (then) Y
Y, but FOR X
where X and Y are conceptualizations (either action or state-change).
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
∪THEN
X negates a necessary condition FOO Y, where all the other "external" NECESSARY
CONDITIONS have been met ("external" are all those escluding "INTENTION OF ACTOR")
This is represented conceptually as
.GROUP SKIP 10
∪RULE ∪17(a):##INTENTION OF ACTOR AS NECESSARY CONDITION (see pages ).
.POINTS(6)
\(1) If Rule 17 applies, and the CONDITIONAL in conceptualization(Y) is a
"would",
\THEN the INTENTION of the ACTOR in (Y) to do(Y) is present.
\(2) If Rule 17 applies, and the CONDITIONAL in conceptualization(Y) is a
"could",
\THEN the INTENTION of the ACTOR in (Y) to do (Y) is unstated. (see page )
.ENDPOINTS
.SKIP 1
%24.18##NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR AN ACTION TO OCCUR%1
Since in category 11 we talked about the notion of "necessary condition" for
a state change or action conceptualization of occur (as well as in other
sections), in this section we shall elaborate on what we mean by "necessary
condition".
The notion of ∪what ∪is a Necessary Condition for an action or state change is
hard to define in an absolute sense. For the most part, our model of language
understanding does not need to deal with the ∪objective ∪absolute ∪Necessary
∪Condition of an action or state change. The system must have rules which
enable it to recognize when a speaker(Z) has declared conceptualization(X) as
being a Necessary Condition for conceptualization(Y), in order to represent
the relationship between X and Y meant by the speaker, i.e., in order to ∪understand
what speaker(Z) has said about X and Y. But to represent this, the understanding
system does not have to judge whether X ∪is a Necessary Condition of Y in any
∪absolute sense. For example, in the FOR-sentence "If it weren't for the rain, we
would go picnicking"(Category 11, section 4.17); the speaker has stated that "no
rain" is a Necessary Condition for "we go picnicking". To judge the truth
value of the stated relationship between "no rain" and "we go picnicking" is not
a concern of the understanding system, i.e., whether "no rain" is an ∪absolute
Necessary Condition for the action "picknicking". Some people do picnic in
the rain at times. The system must analyze the utterance into the meaning
representation intended by the speaker, which is, in this case, that X,
"no rain", is a Necessary Condition for Y, "pickncking", relative to this
speaker(Z) at time(t).
If we want our understanding model to be able to ∪generate language as well
as assign a meaning representation to language input, ∪then it becomes
necessary for the system to have in it memory model its own idiosyncratic
"necessary conditions" for certain actons or state changes.
We mentioned earlier that it is hard to define a "necessary condition" in any
absolute sense. If an event allows the possibility of another event, then the
first event is one of the necessary conditions of the second. However, different
sets of things can cause the same result, and not all these things are necessary
for that result to occur, just one set of "necessary conditions" out of many
possible sets is necessary in order for something to occur. We do claim,
however, that in all these sets of necessary conditions for one action (or a
state-change), that there exists a common core of NECESSARY META-CONDITIONS.
Take the example:
.POINTS(6)
(1).\John Murdered George.
.ENDPOINTS
.CONTINUE
For John to murder George, he must choose a weapon, e.g., a knife, a gun, his
firsts, etc.. The choice of weapon will dictate certain other necessary
conditions. If John chosses a knife, then he and George must be spatially and
temporally prixmate; that is, if John is the one to use the knife. If a gun
is chosen, the same condition is imposed, except that there could be greater
distance between John and George. If John chooses his hands as the weapon, then
the distance between the two men is the least distance required by the three
weapons, i.e., the two men must contact physically. Then there is the question
of "will" or "intention" of the actor to perform the action, which must
be present in all cases of "murder". A person must INTEND to kill another
person for "murder" to be used to describe the event. So far the Necessary
Meta-Conditions for the action "murder" include (1) INTENTION OF ACTOR,
(2) WEAPON, (3) SPACIAL AND TEMPORAL PROXIMITY OF WEAPON AND VICTIM, (4) VICTIM
IS ALIVE BEFORE ACTION, and (5) VITAL ORGAN OF VICTIM IS IRREPARABLY DAMAGED BY
ACTION. There may be other conditions necessary for John to murder George,
but certainly the five above are all necessary conditions for the action of
"murdering". If even one of these necessary conditions is not met, then John
cannot murder George. The variety of ways that John can murder George lies within
these major categories, e.g., the weapons can vary. John may even use another
person to kill George. For example, "The mafia ordered Jones murdered", or
"The mafia murdered Jones". That is the reason that condition (3) states that
the weapon, not John, must be spatially and temporally proximate to George(the
victim). The condition of being alive before the action must be met by the
victim, in example (1), "George", but this is not a condition that must be met
by the person who intends to kill the victim, in example (1), "John". John
can hire a "gun"(weapon=person), just before he dies to murder George; and John
can die in the meantime, before George is killed.
For an event to occur, all the Necessary Meta-Conditions for that event must
be met. A Necessary Meta-Condition can consist of a category of conceptualizations,
each of which will fulfill that condition. If a particular action is to be
performed, and one of the conditions is specified, then this may set up
restrictions on the other conditions for that action, e.g., the choice of
weapon in example (1) determines to a degree the spacial and temporal
proximity of weapon and victim, conditions (2) and (3) respectively.
If the system were motivated for some reason to respond with example (1),
"John murdered George", then a Necessary Condition for the system to generate
"murder" to describe the event rather than "kill", for example, is that the
INTENTION of the ACTOR(John) to cause George's death is information preset
within the system's memory, because INTENTION of ACTOR is one of the Necessary
Conditions for an event described as "murder".
.SKIP 2
The tense on the conceptulazation of example 1 is future, but category 9
examples do not always have future tense. We stated before that in this
category, Case A, "for" can be paraphrased by "to be used for/by". If Y
is a SPECIFIC object, then the tense on the conceptualization is future;
unless the BE form has a tense; e.g., "This spoon was for the gravy, but