Mats Rooth. Noun phrase interpretation in montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In P. Gardenfors, editor, Generalized Quantifiers, pages 237--269. Dordrecht: Riedel, 1987.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....have also been coalesced with well developed linguistic theories such as lexical functional grammar [45] and led to rigorous formalisms [31] On the other hand, situation semantics has been compared to other influential mathematical approaches to the theory of meaning, viz. Montague Grammar [21, 26, 42] and DRT [37] 6 Concluding Remarks Serious thinking about the computational aspects of the situation theory is just starting. There have been only a few proposals [16, 40, 43] which mainly offer a Prolog or Lisp like programming environment with varying degrees of divergence from the ontology ....

M. Rooth. Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics, Report No. CSLI--86--51, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, Calif., 1986.

....Semantics of Plurals Norihiro Ogata Faculty of Language and Culture ogata lang.osaka u. ac.jp 1 Introduction Dynamic semantics of natural and logical languages such as Discourse Representation Theory (DRT ) 8] Dynamic interpretation [1, 16], and Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL) 5] which is regarded as the most logically sophisticated system since it is equivalent to a first order dynamic logic with a poor test [5, 6] has been developed since the early 80 s. Dynamic semantics of plurals, plural quantifiers, and plural anaphoras ....

....no benefit adopting assignment sets as states. As a matter of fact, Krifka s dynamic semantics [11] uses predicate sing(x) and adopts a single assignment as a state, and it works well. On the other hand, Krifka [11] introduces parametrized sum individuals based on the idea of Barwise [1] and Rooth [16] instead of semilattice. His system s variables are also plural and the singularity is expressed by a unary predicate. See section 3.3 for more detail. Link [15] proposes a formal semantics of plurals based on join semilattice, i.e. an algebraic structure In this paper, I will propose Dynamic ....

Mats Rooth. Noun phrase interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics. In Peter Gardenfors, editor, Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, pages 237--268. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1987.

....programs or actions. Therefore, I will propose Dynamic Logic of Motions from Private Viewpoints, Dynamic Logic of Cogintion, and Dynamic Logic of Empathy, based on this idea. 2 A Short Introduction to Dynamic Semantics Dynamic Semantics is a framework of semantics of logical languages developed by [3, 39, 13, 35, 14, 15, 44, 43, 23, 50, 4, 51, 45, 30, 36] and others, exploiting Heim s [19] idea of File Change Semantics of English. Theories of Dynamic Semantics can be classified into at least following classes Literatures Langaguage Model Interpretation Dynamic Interpretations [3, 39, 14, 23] LQ (#) W = g g D [ Extensions of Dynamic ....

....by [3, 39, 13, 35, 14, 15, 44, 43, 23, 50, 4, 51, 45, 30, 36] and others, exploiting Heim s [19] idea of File Change Semantics of English. Theories of Dynamic Semantics can be classified into at least following classes Literatures Langaguage Model Interpretation Dynamic Interpretations [3, 39, 14, 23] LQ (#) W = g g D [ Extensions of Dynamic Logics [49, 10, 9, 2, 48] L(#, #) #W, #[ #] # # = Dynamic Modal Logics [43, 5, 45] L(#, #, #, #) #W, #, # = Dynamic Intensional Logics [13, 35, 4] # D # (# #) # D # where # is a set of atomic sentences, # a set of atomic ....

Mats Rooth. Noun phrase interpretation in montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In Peter Gardenfors, editor, Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, pages 237--268. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1987.

....d controls(d; y) fbind(y; indef; jet)g) close(x; y) and after capture : 8 jet y) 8 driverj d controls(d; y) x)close(x; y) 12) In this case the polyadic quantifier reduces to two nested universal quantifiers. However, this interpretation of (11) is not without difficulties, as noted by Rooth [36] and Heim [21] among others. Furthermore, it will not generalize to the interpretation of sentences with a different generalized quantifier, for instance most , instead of every , since : 8 jet y) most driverj d controls(d; y) x)close(x; y) 13) is not an acceptable interpretation of (14) ....

M. Rooth. Noun phrase interpretation in Montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In P. Gardenfors, editor, Generalized Quantifiers, pages 237-- 268. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1987.

....leads to the weak reading for most men who own a car wash it on Sunday : the cars owners need not wash all of their cars in order to make it true. In the literature, the strong reading, where all cars have to be washed, is also suggested. The problem of weak and strong readings is discussed in Rooth (1987), Chierchia (1992) and Dekker (1993) among many others, and studied in depth by Kanazawa (1993) Notice, however, that Kadmon s suggestion still leaves the problem whether there is a uniform way in which it can be made to work for all quantifiers. For dpl, such a method exists (cf. Does (1993, ....

Rooth, M.: 1987, Noun phrase interpretation in montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics, in P. Gardenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical approaches, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 237--268.

....resource situation of each definite. It is assumed in Episodic Logic, as in DRT, that certain NP s introduce discourse referents in the current discourse state. The approach taken in Episodic Logic is however inspired by the work in Dynamic Semantics [Barwise, 1987; Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1990; Rooth, 1987] the semantic valuation procedure takes an additional parameter, called the state, and existentials and definite descriptions are treated as quantifiers, but they result in the addition of a new discourse referent to the state. This treatment of discourse referents needs to be revised in order ....

.... a truth value as its denotation, and there is a fair amount of consensus that even in those cases in which this is possible (e.g. in the case of assertions) it is a much better strategy to assign an utterance a value which reflects its potential for context change [Heim, 1982; Barwise, 1987; Rooth, 1987; Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1990] Different systems have been proposed, which I am currently considering. The simplest possibility would be to treat LF expressions as relations from situations to situations, as in the system proposed by Barwise and Rooth. Each utterance is represented by a pair ....

Rooth, Mats 1987. Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics. In Gardenfors [1987] . 237--268.

....the same meaning as their antecedents. 1 The antecedent for a proform is displayed in bold; for convenience, I will often indicate the intended interpretation for a proform in brackets. 2 The dynamic view of meaning is developed in theories such as [Kamp, 1980; Heim, 1982; Barwise, 1987; Rooth, 1987; Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1992] One might instead argue that the identity here is not one of meaning but rather of uninterpreted syntactic form. For example (1) the elliptical VP can be thought of as identical to the syntactic object walk , which is then interpreted again as denoting the ....

Mats Rooth. Noun phrase interpretation in montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In P. Gardenfors, editor, Generalized Quantifiers, pages 237--269. Dordrecht: Riedel, 1987.

....large a number to be actually considered. And yet, people do understand (5b) and (6b) The aim of this article is to show that a fairly simple solution to the two problems just presented is possible within the relational semantic framework developed in [ Barwise and Perry, 1983; Barwise, 1987; Rooth, 1987 ] The basic idea of relational semantics is that certain expressions change the conditions of interpretation, represented by the variable assignments. For example, after the sentence A man came in has been added to a discourse, every variable assignment f which satisfies the new discourse has ....

.... of pairs of assignments, where the first element of each pair will be a variable assignment which satisfies the discourse prior to the addition of the expression, and the second element will be a variable assignment which satisfies the discourse after the sentence has been added [ Barwise, 1987; Rooth, 1987 ] My solution will be to give to the unscoped expressions proposed in the NLP literature a denotation which is the union of the denotations of the disambiguated interpretations, and to use semantically justified inference rules to derive from the unscoped representation a new representation ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Rooth, M. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics. In G¨ardenfors [ 1987 ] . 237--268.

....that appear only in the matrix are bound by existential closure. Using the above framework, Krifka represents the (a) and (b) readings of (1) as below. We give here his preliminary definition, which he refines later in his paper to accommodate a dynamic framework of interpretation based on (Rooth 1987) and the alternative semantics of (Rooth 1985) We give the earlier version for clarity, as it does not affect the point we wish to make. Reading (a) GEN[x; s; x = Mary after dinner(s) in(x; s) smoke(x; s) The convention is that those variables to the left of ; in the first argument ....

Rooth, M. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation in Montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In P. Gardenfors (Ed.), Generalized Quantifiers. Reidel, Dordrecht.

....theory is sufficient to allow detailed comparison. In order to compare DRT and DPL we first chose a simple syntactic grammar which was sufficient to include utterances that displayed the semantic phenomena that were considered interesting. Specifically the following simple grammar was taken from [Rooth 87] S NP; V P: V P V; NP: NP Det; N: N N; PP: PP P; NP: D S: D D; S: This grammar (with an appropriate lexicon) allows simple sentences (and discourses) of the form Hanako sings. A man walks. He talks. Every man with a donkey beats it. That is the grammar admits examples of simple ....

M. Rooth. Noun phrase interpretation in Montague Grammar, file change semantics and situation semantics. In P. Gardenfors, editor, Generalised Quantifiers, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 31. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987.

....semantics have been coalesced with well developed linguistic theories such as lexical functional grammar and led to rigorous formalisms [16] On the other hand, situation semantics has been compared to other influential mathematical approaches to the theory of meaning, viz. Montague Grammar [10, 13, 24] and Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) 19] 4 Why Compute with Situations A computational formulation of situation theory may generate interest among artificial intelligence and natural language processing researchers. The theory claims that its model theory is more amenable to a ....

M. Rooth. Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics, Report No. CSLI--86--51, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA, 1986.

....be available at the level of the participle, assuming a syntactic structure [an [unidentified [Hollywood agent] one might suppose that the discourse referent is introduced by the article, and that the argument of the noun Hollywood agent is simply an individual. This is the choice made in Rooth (1987), for instance. However, certain compositional DRT theories such as Asher (1993) and Muskens (1996) propose type raised denotations for nouns which take discourse referents rather than individuals as arguments. In Muskens system, a raised noun denotation has the type [p] characterizing a ....

Rooth, M.: 1987, 'Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics and Situation Semantics', in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantification: Linguistics and Logical Approaches, pp. 237-268.

No context found.

Mats Rooth. Noun phrase interpretation in montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In P. Gardenfors, editor, Generalized Quantifiers, pages 237--269. Dordrecht: Riedel, 1987.

No context found.

Rooth, M.: 1987, Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics, in P. Gardenfors (ed.), Generalized Quanti ers, Reidel, Dordrecht, 237-268. 23

No context found.

Rooth, Mats. Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics, in P. Gaerdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers. Reidel, Dordrecht, 237-268, 1987.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC