Refine
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Formale Semantik (2) (remove)
Institute
- Informatik (1)
- Neuere Philologien (1)
If we want to develop a semantic analysis for explicit performatives such as I promise you to free Willy, we are faced with the following puzzle: In order to account for the speech act expressed by the performative verb, one can assume that the so-called performative clause is purely performative and provides the illocutionary force of the speech act whose content is given by the semantic object denoted by the complement clause. Yet under this perspective, the performative clause that is, next to the performative verb, the indexicals I and you that refer to the speaker and to the addressee of the utterance context is semantically invisible and does not contribute compositionally its meaning to the meaning of the entire explicit performative sentence. Conversely, if we account for the truth conditional contribution of the performative clause and deny that the meaning of the performative verb is purely performative, then we have to find a way to account for the speech act expressed by the performative verb. Of course, there is already the widely accepted and very appealing indirectness account for explicit performative utterances developed by Bach & Harnish (1979). Roughly, Bach and Harnish solve this puzzle in deriving the performativity by means of a pragmatic inference process. According to them, the important speech act performed by means of the utterance of the explicit performative sentence is a kind of the conventionalized indirect speech act. However, the boundary between semantics and pragmatics can be drawn in many various ways. Therefore, I think there could be other perspectives regarding the interface between the truth-functional treatment of the declarative explicit performative sentences and the speech acts performed with their utterances and which are expressed by the performative verbs. Hence, this thesis consists in the experiment to develop a further analysis and to check out its consequences with respect to the semantics and pragmatics of explicit performative utterances and the new interface emerged. Briefly, the experiment runs as follows: First, I develop an analysis for explicit performative sentences framed by parenthetical structures such as in (1)(a). In a second step, this parenthetical analysis is applied to the proper Austinian explicit performative sentences in (1)(b). (1) a. Tomorrow, I promise you this, I will teach them Tyrolean songs. b. I promise you that I will teach them Tyrolean songs. To analyze at first explicit performatives framed by parenthetical structures bears the convenience that we are faced with two utterances of two main clauses. In (1)(a) there is the utterance of the host sentence Tomorrow I will teach them Tyrolean songs, and the utterance of the explicit parenthetical I promise you this, where the demonstrative this refers to the utterance of Tomorrow I will teach them Tyrolean songs. Since speakers perform speech acts with utterances of main clauses, I assume that the meaning of the explicit parenthetical I promise you this specifies that the actual illocutionary force of the utterance of Tomorrow I will teach them Tyrolean songs is the illocutionary force of a promise. Hence, instead of deriving an indirect illocutionary force by means of a pragmatic inference schema, we can deal with an ordinary direct speech act that is performed with the utterance of the host sentence. This kind of analysis stresses the particular discourse function of explicit performative utterances. Performative verbs are used whenever the contextual information is not sufficient to determine the illocutionary force of the corresponding implicit speech act. The resulting consequences of the parenthetical analysis are interesting since they cast a different light on performative verbs. Surprisingly, the performative verbs are not performative at all. They do not constitute the execution of a speech act, but are execution supporting. Instead of constituting the particular illocutionary force, they merely specify the illocutionary force of the utterance of the host sentence. For instance, the speaker utters the explicit parenthetical I promise you this for specifying what he is simultaneously doing. Hence the speaker does not succeed in performing the promise simply because he is uttering I promise you this. Rather, by means of the information conveyed by the utterance of I promise you this, the potential illocutionary forces of the utterance of the host sentence are disambiguated. Thus, it is not the case that explicit parentheticals are trivially true when uttered. Their function is more complex. Their self-verifying property (‘saying so makes it so’) is explained by means of disambiguation. Furthermore, according to the parenthetical analysis, instead of being purely performative, the performative verbs contribute compositionally their meanings to the truth conditions of the entire explicit performative sentence. Together with its consequences, this analysis is applied to the proper Austinian performatives, which display subordination. I assume that regardless of their structure, explicit performatives always semantically and pragmatically behave as the parenthetical analysis predicts.
Relational data exchange deals with translating relational data according to a given specification. This problem is one of the many tasks that arise in data integration, for example, in data restructuring, in ETL (Extract-Transform-Load) processes used for updating data warehouses, or in data exchange between different, possibly independently created, applications. Systems for relational data exchange exist for several decades now. Motivated by their experiences with one of those systems, Fagin, Kolaitis, Miller, and Popa (2003) studied fundamental and algorithmic issues arising in relational data exchange. One of these issues is how to answer queries that are posed against the target schema (i.e., against the result of the data exchange) so that the answers are consistent with the source data. For monotonic queries, the certain answers semantics proposed by Fagin, Kolaitis, Miller, and Popa (2003) is appropriate. For many non-monotonic queries, however, the certain answers semantics was shown to yield counter-intuitive results. This thesis deals with computing the certain answers for monotonic queries on the one hand, and on the other hand, it deals with the issue of which semantics are appropriate for answering non-monotonic queries, and how hard it is to evaluate non-monotonic queries under these semantics. As shown by Fagin, Kolaitis, Miller, and Popa (2003), computing the certain answers for unions of conjunctive queries - a subclass of the monotonic queries - basically reduces to computing universal solutions, provided the data transformation is specified by a set of tgds (tuple-generating dependencies) and egds (equality-generating dependencies). If M is such a specification and S is a source database, then T is called a solution for S under M if T is a possible result of translating S according to M. Intuitively, universal solutions are most general solutions. Since the above-mentioned work by Fagin, Kolaitis, Miller, and Popa it was unknown whether it is decidable if a source database has a universal solution under a given data exchange specification. In this thesis, we show that this problem is undecidable. More precisely, we construct a specification M that consists of tgds only so that it is undecidable whether a given source database has a universal solution under M. From the proof it also follows that it is undecidable whether the chase procedure - by which universal models can be obtained - terminates on a given source database and the set of tgds in M. The above results in particular strengthen results of Deutsch, Nash, and Remmel (2008). Concerning the issue of which semantics are appropriate for answering non-monotonic queries, we study several semantics for answering such queries. All of these semantics are based on the closed world assumption (CWA). First, the CWA-semantics of Libkin (2006) are extended so that they can be applied to specifications consisting of tgds and egds. The key is to extend the concept of CWA-solution, on which the CWA-semantics are based. CWA-solutions are characterized as universal solutions that are derivable from the source database using a suitably controlled version of the chase procedure. In particular, if CWA-solutions exist, then there is a minimal CWA-solution that is unique up to isomorphism: the core of the universal solutions introduced by Fagin, Kolaitis, and Popa (2003). We show that evaluation of a query under some of the CWA-semantics reduces to computing the certain answers to the query on the minimal CWA-solution. The CWA-semantics resolve some the known problems with answering non-monotonic queries. There are, however, two natural properties that are not possessed by the CWA-semantics. On the one hand, queries may be answered differently with respect to data exchange specifications that are logically equivalent. On the other hand, there are queries whose answer under the CWA-semantics intuitively contradicts the information derivable from the source database and the data exchange specification. To find an alternative semantics, we first test several CWA-based semantics from the area of deductive databases for their suitability regarding non-monotonic query answering in relational data exchange. More precisely, we focus on the CWA-semantics by Reiter (1978), the GCWA-semantics (Minker 1982), the EGCWA-semantics (Yahya, Henschen 1985) and the PWS-semantics (Chan 1993). It turns out that these semantics are either too weak or too strong, or do not possess the desired properties. Finally, based on the GCWA-semantics we develop the GCWA*-semantics which intuitively possesses the desired properties. For monotonic queries, some of the CWA-semantics as well as the GCWA*-semantics coincide with the certain answers semantics, that is, results obtained for the certain answers semantics carry over to those semantics. When studying the complexity of evaluating non-monotonic queries under the above-mentioned semantics, we focus on the data complexity, that is, the complexity when the data exchange specification and the query are fixed. We show that in many cases, evaluating non-monotonic queries is hard: co-NP- or NP-complete, or even undecidable. For example, evaluating conjunctive queries with at least one negative literal under simple specifications may be co-NP-hard. Notice, however, that this result only says that there is such a query and such a specification for which the problem is hard, but not that the problem is hard for all such queries and specifications. On the other hand, we identify a broad class of queries - the class of universal queries - which can be evaluated in polynomial time under the GCWA*-semantics, provided the data exchange specification is suitably restricted. More precisely, we show that universal queries can be evaluated on the core of the universal solutions, independent of the source database and the specification.