Acceso formal a la vivienda y factores que inciden en el lugar de residencia

The previous sections have presented until now how filmic discourse seg- ments can be transferred into a logical form and how these logical forms are intended to be combined into SFDRS. The language for the transfer into logical forms has been provided mainly by the logic of information content, although section 2.2.4 additionally gave a view of the default axioms which are needed for inferring film discourse relations. These ax- ioms are already part of the logic of information packaging and discourse update which outlines the concrete interpretational process and which will now be elucidated in detail.

The second logic of film discourse interpretation generally consists of two parts: the glue logic and discourse update. Whereas the glue logic mainly provides the processes needed for building the logical forms of discourse segments, discourse update computes the process of binding together different information sources with a rhetorical relation. According to Asher and Lascarides, the interpretation of the logical forms of discourse segments is definitely a more comprehensive process than that of building these forms (cf. Asher and Lascarides 2003: 183), since it includes diverse interpretation patterns.

For the interpretation of filmic discourse, the following two features represent the most decisive patterns involved: the Principle of Nonmono- tonic, Defeasible Reasoning and the MDC principle. Both principles will be described in detail in the following.

The Principle of Nonmonotonic, Defeasible Reasoning In order to

construct film discourse structure in terms of S(F)DRS, inference processes have to operate on two different choices: on the one hand, a decision has to be made concerning which discourse segments will be connected by a rhetorical relation; on the other hand, it also has to be chosen which relation holds between the elements. As Eickmann (2003) points out, these processes are a matter of pragmatic reasoning, since the semantic informa- tion provided by the discourse segments is often not very rich and has to be combined with world knowledge and further information sources. This is notably the case in multimodal, filmic discourse which in most cases does not provide explicit semantic content, but instead needs additional information for the interpretation of its meaning-making potential (see section 1.1 for further information).

Defeasible reasoning in film interpretation is thus a matter of finding arguments for meaning that can normally be constructed by combining the semantic information provided by the discourse segments with world knowledge and further information sources such as film knowledge. How- ever, this combination of different information sources is nevertheless

constrained by default axioms, as explained in the following essential conclusion of Asher and Lascarides:

“Computing rhetorical connections is a nonmonotonic process (making discourse update nonmonotonic), based on axioms in a glue logic that encapsulate information from several know- ledge resources: lexical and compositional semantics; domain knowledge; and cognitive states, among others.” (Asher and Lascarides 2003: 246)

Gluing together the different knowledge sources thus represents the pro- cess of reasoning for normally concluded consequences based on the default axioms. For instance, in the example of the short film WORDS, it is necessary to know that the fish which is shown in shot 16 is called a blowfish and therefore can be associated with the dominant predicate ‘blow’ in its context; see table 2.15.

# shot shot description audio track music 15. 2 men boxing sound of a blow against the head- gear calm pi- ano and guitar music 16. a blow fish sound of bubbling water calm pi- ano and guitar music 17. a bulb with a blowout clicking calm pi- ano and guitar music Table 2.15: Shots 15–17 of the short film WORDS (Everynone, 2010) A Parallel-relation is thus inferred due to the semantic similarity which can be seen in the inferred eventualities of the discourse segments and which is the default axiom needed for the rhetorical relation. As already outlined within the description of the default axioms for inferring rhetor- ical relations in filmic discourse, these defaults use the nonmonotonic conditional operator >. The underlying logic for the process of binding together the logical forms is thus a nonmonotonic logic relying on defea- sible reasoning which translates the formula A > B as if A then normally

B. It is therefore assumed that the coherence of this excerpt is normally inferred by the recipient knowing that the fish is called a blowfish and this is then a parallel eventuality to the predicates given in the shots be- fore. This inference would naturally not be possible if the recipient did not know this fact, which could be the case for example if the recipient’s native language is not English.

The principle thus follows the principle of abductive interpretation taken as the main basis for the interpretation of multimodal discourse. Following Peirce, abduction as the third principle of reasoning is most notably a matter of forming hypotheses because of a certain knowledge the interpreter already has (cf. Peirce et al. 1979: 5.171; see section 1.1). This can for example also be hypotheses about how segments in a discourse can be related to each other. Within the interpretation process this hypo- thesis construction is regulated by the process of discourse update, which is defined as a sequence of update operations depicted as +. + directly relates to the constraints given within the glue logic. Operating a simple update means that a set σ of S(F)DRS is combined with a new piece of information, for example Kβ. The output is a new set of discourse

structures, depicted as σ0_{, which combines old and new information with}

each other.

A sequence of such updates is then the updateSDRT which in-

terrelates the different simple updates (cf. Asher and Lascarides 2003: 218): ΣX(σ, Kβ)is the sequence of updates:

σ + Kβ + ?(α1, β, λ1) + . . . + ?(αi, β, λi) + . . .

where hαi, λii ∈ X is the ithelement of X and X ∈ Sσ as the set of all

possible sequences of all possible subsets of avail-pairs (σ).

This shows that it is not necessarily an already defined discourse struc- ture in terms of Knwhich is related to σ. Further assumptions depicted as

?(α, β, λ)can be added as well.

However, the update mechanism itself does not give any indication of which discourse segment or structure is actually preferred and will therefore be attached to σ. Although the different default axioms described within the glue logic initially constrain the relational connections and determine the inference process, discourse update is also profoundly effected by the second principle, which will now be described.

The Principle of Maximise Discourse Coherence (MDC) Asher and

Lascarides note that “there is as yet no systematic way of choosing among the available labels those that the new information should actually attach to [. . . ]” (Asher and Lascarides 2003: 213). It is thus not possible to give clear and largely universally valid mechanisms for the process of gluing

together the segments and constructing the final discourse structure. In- stead, this is in each case a distinct and independent process guided by the principle of finding the best and most preferable structure. This is the MDC principle (see section 2.2.2). According to Prevot and Vieu, this can be defined as follows:

“MDC is based on a coherence partial order on discourse structures. Maximizing coherence amounts to prefer discourse structures with the smallest number of nodes, the fewest se- mantic and pragmatic clashes, the largest number of rhetorical relations and the fewest number of specifications.” (Prevot and Vieu 2008: 57f.)

A pragmatically preferred discourse structure is for example the one de- picted in the graphical representation given in section 2.1. As described in the example analysis, the structure does not contain the Contrast-relation given in the first graphical representation. Instead, the pragmatic clash between the eventualities π7and π8is resolved in favour of inferring a

Parallel-relation due to the context which follows. Consequently, and be- cause of the number of similar relations, this structure is then preferred to the one which includes the Contrast-relation. It enables a more simple and counterbalanced interpretation of the discourse and therefore maximises its coherence. It is then the conceivably best update which can be given for this excerpt.

According to Asher and Lascarides (2003: 234), the MDC-principle can formally be expressed as given in the following equation:

• Maximise Discourse Coherence (MDC) Best-update_SDRT(σ, Kβ) =

{τ ∈ updateSDRT(σ, Kβ) : τis ≤σ,β -maximal}

(2.45)

σstands for the discourse context which is updated with the new infor- mation β or, as a DRS, Kβ. The Best-updateSDRT of this context and the

new information is then given by the generated context in which it would be preferable to interpret the respective relation. In the example given in table 2.15, this context is the one in which a Parallel-relation is preferred to a Contrast-relation. ≤ therefore specifies the so-called partial order on discourse structures in that it has maximal elements which define this order. For the current example, τ : P arallel ≺ Contrast is valid, since the Parallel-relation is the preferred relation in this context. Concrete analysis in the following chapter will outline other descriptions of pragmatically preferred discourse structures in which, for example, labels are minimised or stronger relations between discourse segments can be found. It will

then be possible to elucidate different values for the relations depending on their respective context.

The two principles depicted in this chapter give a general overview of how the interpretation process of film discourse interpretation is in- fluenced. The overall aim is to generate logical forms of the discourse which outline its well-formedness in terms of its structure and its co- herence, which is established through a number of rhetorical relations between the discourse segments. Meaning postulates and default axioms constrain this process of logical construction. However, the multitude of different information sources often leads to conflicting clues about the discourse update (cf. Asher and Lascarides 2003: 247). Since the second logic of film discourse interpretation depends on much more information than the first logic of information content, various knowledge sources cooperate in reasoning about the interpretation preferred. Asher and Las- carides do not go into detail in their description of these resources and only enumerate references such as lexical and compositional semantics, domain knowledge and cognitive states (cf. Asher and Lascarides 2003: 246). These resources for verbal discourse do not account fully for filmic discourse. Examining the semantic representation of the film discourse context already displays in most cases an inferential process which then has to be updated again with new information brought into the context. This incoming information is bound to the existing content by discourse relations which act as mediators that guide hypothesis construction by filling in gaps of under-specified information (cf. Bateman and Schmidt 2011: 42).

It is thus the role of film discourse relations to constrain and guide meaning construction within the process of discourse interpretation. Asher and Lascarides emphasise that this interpretation results “from several interacting but separate logics [. . . ]” (Asher and Lascarides 2003: 430; see section 2.2.2) which undertake the task of filling in the different semantic holes raised within the discourse. For filmic as well as verbal discourse, these holes cannot only be filled with linguistic information, but have to be enriched with knowledge about the world, about films and narrative texts, etc. Whereas the glue logic for verbal discourse mainly combines a number of logics that concentrate on linguistic information (i.e., the logic of information content and of (partial) description of content), the logic of film discourse interpretation has to concentrate on those parts of the logics which mainly refer to pragmatically derived information. These are for example the logics of world knowledge and cognitive modelling (see figure 2.2 in section 2.2.2 for more information on the logics that contribute to verbal discourse interpretation).

Since film discourse relations generally refer to a wide range of commu- nicative purposes, it is assumed that the relations represent a selection of alternatives from different levels of meaning which can be optionally

associated within a variety of structures. Within these structures, their use can be elucidated further from a functional perspective which tries to work out the different functions the relations fulfil in their respective contexts. This book will therefore combine the formal framework that has now been described in detail with a functional consideration of the relations’ respective use within the extracts and their discourse structure. Therefore, it will use functional accounts to discourse in order to elaborate on the communicative purposes the relations can be associated with (see chapter 4 for more information).

According to Bateman and Rondhuis (1997), for example, the discourse relations provided within the SDRT-framework are to be classified within an abstract stratum because of the high level macro organisation they provide for a text or discourse. Since the axioms given for each discourse relation describe relatively neutral and mainly nonhierarchical relation- ships, they can be ranked as relations that attach communicative purposes to their definition, but are not directly related to the stratum of lexicogram- mar. This is true as well, and particularly for the choice of film discourse relations that have been described above.

Since these relations combine discourse segments which are already a product of the recipient’s inference process, they are abstract constructions with a considerable distance from concrete filmic phenomena. However, they are assumed to fulfil different functions in different contexts. Their syntagmatic use in a concrete discourse structure gives evidence for these different functions. A commonly attributed organisation of semiotic sys- tems is that of metafunctions (cf. Halliday 2004). Tseng emphasises that a “systematic modelling of metafunctions both within (intrinsic) and be- yond (contextual) language systems [. . . ] can lead us to a consideration of how intrinsic filmic discourse patterns directly reflect contextual (generic, historical, stylistic, etc.) conventions” (Tseng 2009: 56). This aspect of reflecting contextual conventions is a crucial factor within the SFDRS- framework as well. With regard to the pragmatic preferences which influ- ence for example the choice of relations within a particular structure, a metafunctional organisation of these mechanisms may at the same time of- fer a better insight into the semantic circumstances. This will be elucidated in subsequent chapters.