Dowty, D., R. Wall, and S. Peters (1981) Introduction to Montague Semantics. D. Reidel Pub. Cy., Dordrecht.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....objects which describe parts of the real world. Information flow is made possible by a network of abstract links between high order uniformities, viz. situation types. One of the distinguishing characteristics of situation theory vis a vis another influential semantic and logical tradition [26] is that information content is context dependent (where a context is a situation) All these features may be cast in a rich formalism for a computational framework based on situation theory. Yet, there have been few attempts to investigate this [16, 40, 43] Questions of what it means to do ....

....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 ....

D. Dowty, R. Wall, and S. Peters. Introduction to Montague Semantics, Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1981.

....isomorphy is then defined for M grammars. In section 4 the design of the Rosetta translation system, based on this approach, is outlined, followed by a brief discussion in section 5. 2. LOGICALLY ISOMORPHIC MONTAGUE GRAMMARS I will first introduce a few concepts of Montague grammar (cf. 2] [3]) in an informal way. A Montague grammar defines a language by specifying (i) a set of basic expressions and their syntactic categories, ii) a set of syntactic rules. Each rule specifies the categories of the expressions to which it is applicable, prescribes how these expressions must be ....

Dowty, D.R., Introduction to Montague semantics (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981).

....and semantics, suspected of being ad hoc ( Pinker 79] On the other hand, the best known and admitted description of the articulation between syntax and semantics is called the Principle of Compositionality. Attributed to Frege and intensively used and studied by Montague ( Montague 74] Dowty 81] and his inheritors (for example [Kamp 93] Muskens 93] this Principle has recently received a precise and universal formulation ( Janssen 97] The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the consequences of this formulation on the conditions of natural language learning by linking learning and ....

: D. R. Dowty, R. E. Wall, S. Peters, Introduction to Montague Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1989.

....indications about their meaning found in the stone, hieroglyphs would probably still remain mysterious. This paper can be interpreted as a tentative explanation of how semantics can help syntax learning. Categorial Grammars are well known for their formalized connection with semantics ( Mon74] [DWP81]) They provide a good compromise between formalism and linguistic expressivity ( OBW88] Previous works have studied the learnability of such grammars ( Adr92] Kan98] MO98] but neither of them uses the syntax semantics interface to help the syntactic learning process. Links between ....

....Examples, i.e. sequences of types. Types will be associated with words and can be interpreted as semantic information. 3 Semantic information 3.1 A typing system A well known interest of Categorial Grammars is their connection with semantics. This connection, rst formalized by Montague ([Mon74,DWP81]) is inspired by the Principle of Compositionality ( Jan97] One of its consequences is a strong correspondence between syntactic categories and semantic types. These types are what we propose to use in the learning process. We will not de ne here a full semantic language, as types can be ....

D. R. Dowty, R. E. Wall, and S. Peters. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy. Reidel, 1981.

....sequences of words) but is also intractable. We believe that one cannot avoid giving more knowledge to a learning process to get practical learning algorithms. In the meantime we should emphasize that Categorial Grammars are well known for their formalized connection with semantics [Mon74] [DWP81], providing a good compromise between formalism and linguistic expressivity [OBW88] The idea of semantic bootstrapping [Bre96] semantic information inserted to help syntax reconstruction) seems a path not yet exploited enough in formal learnability researches. Links between Kanazawa s learning ....

D. R. Dowty, R. E. Wall, and S. Peters. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy. Reidel, 1981.

....is an object of the world, the thing to be represented, while the latter is a linguistic object, the thing doing the representation. To capture the systematic relations between representing and represented objects we use the semantic framework introduced by Montague, as presented by Dowty et al. [5]. We define the semantic interpretation of the language G in relation to a model. A model M for G is an order tuple hG, I, Fi, where G = G s s S is an S indexed family of non empty sets (i.e. the sets of graphical symbols of different kinds belong to this family) I is a set of states i 1 ; ....

Dowty, A. D. R., Wall, A. R. E., Peters, P. S., Introduction to Montague Semantics (Reidel Publishing Company, 1981, Dordrecht, Holland).

....a set of rules to construct wellformed expressions. We refer to the expressions of the language that denote individuals of different geometrical kinds as graphical terms, or simply terms. The interpretation of a composite expressions is computed according to Frege s Principle of Compositionality [Dowty81]. This principle states that the interpretation of a composite expression depends on the interpretations of its constituting parts and their 1 Thick lines represent the edges referred to by the condition. a) invalid for condition (i) c) invalid for condition (iii) d) invalid for condition ....

....syntactic elements of a language are: A. A set of sorts, B. A set of basic expressions or symbols for each sort. C. A set of syntactic rules to construct well formed expressions of the language. We define the syntax of a language with a notation based on a combination of those in [Goguen78] and [Dowty81], augmented with graphical considerations as shown in [Pineda89] We distinguish basic and composite sorts. A composite sort is formed by others sorts and has the form s 1 s 2 . s n ,s where s 1 , s 2 , s n , s are sorts. The interpretation of an expression of a basic sort s is an object ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. R. Dowty, R. E. Wall, S. Peters. "Introduction to Montague Semantics". D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1981.

....process based on the proposal of [dG et al..96] for semantic proof nets. The main features of this paper consist in the use of proof nets for lambek calculus, of the Curry Howard isomorphism [Howard80, Girard et al..88] of semantic proof nets with semantic expressions a la Montague [Montague74, Dowty et al..81] and in an algorithm for proof search with a target proof net. In this work, we do not consider the choice of lexical items from a given semantic expression the syntactic realization of which we want to generate, but rather the way we can associate given lexical entries to fit with the given ....

D. R. Dowty, R. E. Wall et S. Peters. -- Introduction to Montague Semantics. -- Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1981.

....details are given on how scoping mechanisms can be incorporated in large scale natural language systems. 27 10 Further Reading Lewis [11] gives a good introduction to the process of building meanings in a compositional way. Excellent introductions to Montague grammar are Dowty, Wall and Peters [4] and Gamut [7] The viewpoint that the real mystery in the understanding of natural language lies in the way human beings grasp meanings of single words can be found in Plato s dialogue Cratylus. See also Percy [13] Helen Keller [10] gives a moving account of the process of awakening by grasping ....

D.R. Dowty, R.E. Wall, and S. Peters. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Reidel, Dordrecht, Dordrecht, 1981.

....two levels. In compositional semantics there is a semantic rule corresponding to every syntactic rule (this is the rule torule correspondence in Montague s PTQ) This tandem between syntax and semantics meant that quantifier scope ambiguity had to be translated into a derivational ambiguity (see Dowty et al. 1981), as Montague s invention of the quantifying in rule had done. Quantifier scope ambiguity also presented a challenge to compositional semantics at the pragmatic level. In particular, computational systems were still faced with the problem of deciding on the most plausible scope ordering. In ....

Dowty, D., Wall, R. and Peters, S. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics, Netherlands: D. Reidel.

....the response, we have to tell which discourse referent of the key corresponds to which discourse referent of the response, and vice versa. 2 Y stands for key , as we will consider this interpretation of the text as the key against which a response Z will be evaluated. 3 We are paraphrasing Dowty (1981). In order to figure out what the correspondence between the discourse referents of the key and the discourse referents of the response is, we will take advantage of the fact that discourse referents originate in discourse itself. However, before we come to that point, let us set a constraint on ....

Dowty, D., R. Wall, and S. Peters, 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

....process based on the proposal of [dG et al..96] for semantic proof nets. The main features of this paper consist in the use of proof nets for lambek calculus, of the Curry Howard isomorphism [Howard80, Girard et al..88] of semantic proof nets with semantic expressions alaMontague [Montague74, Dowty et al..81] and in an algorithm for proof search with a target proof net. In this work, we do not consider the choice of lexical items from a given semantic expression the syntactic realization of which we want to generate, but rather the way we can associate given lexical entries to fit with the given ....

D. R. Dowty, R. E. Wall et S. Peters. -- Introduction to Montague Semantics. -- Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1981.

.... contextual information to develop the ultimate contribution of the phrase to the interpretation A minimalist answer to the above questions is the compositional approach to interpreta Pereira and Pollack 4 tion, arising from the philosophy of language [29, 25] and widely explored in linguistic [11, 7] and in computational settings [38, 37] Compositional interpretation assigns to each phrase a denotation, a set theoretic object characterizing the contribution of the phrase to the truth conditions of sentences containing it, and makes the denotation of a complex phrase a function of the ....

D. R. Dowty, R. E. Wall, and S. Peters. Introduction to Montague Semantics. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1981.

....88) Clifford s work constitutes the most significant previous approach to nltdbs. Clifford defines formally a temporal version of the relational database model, and a fragment of English that can be used to query databases structured according to his model. Following the Montague tradition (Dowty et al. 81) Clifford employs an intensional higher order language (called il s ) to represent the semantics of the English questions, and a temporally enhanced version of Montague s ptq grammar to 6 The ale grammar of the prototype nltdb is based on previous ale encodings of hpsg grammars by Penn and ....

D.R. Dowty, R.E. Wall, and S. Peters. Introduction to Montague Semantics. D.Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1981.

....in the fields of reference semantics (e.g. van Eijck and Kamp, 1997) Kamp and Reyle, 1993) Kamp, 1981, 1988) Barwise and Perry, 1983) or knowledge representation. These fields have predecessors in model theoretic semantics (e.g. Russell, 1908) Montague, 1970, 1973) for a survey cf. (Dowty , Wall and Peters, 1981), Gamut, 1991) with different foci and different grades of explicitness. The conception of referential unit used here corresponds to the notion of nexus in KL ONE (Brachman and Schmolze, 1985) which is a representative of a discourse world item. A referential unit differs from a nexus in ....

Dowty, David, R.; Wall, Robert; Peters, Stanley (1981): Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.

....and a variable length list containing all recorded VALUES. ffl The above point raises the question of how functionvalue relations are to be characterised in a way which is semantically respectable and can be straightforwardly explained to annotators. A strategy which would be consistent with (Dowty et al. 1981)) based on an analysis in (Frege, 1892 1960) would be to say that The stock price refers to a Montague type individual concept, that is, a function from times to numbers. It would have followed that The stock price does not corefer with either 4.02 or 3.85 and no problem would have arisen. ....

Dowty, David, Robert Wall, and Stanley Peters, 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

....quantifiers into an intentional logic would give us a way to represent natural language sentences. With this in mind, we can analyse (5) as showed in (6) and (7) where we have assumed that and and but are truth conditionally identical and also an intentional framework along (the Montagovian) Dowty, Wall and Peters (1981) line. Also, when possible, we present a pc truth conditionally equivalent formula. 5) a Most but not all men snore. b Not all but some men snore. 6) a Most but not all men snore. b [most 0 [ every 0 ] man 0 ) snore 0 ) c [most 0 (man 0 ) every 0 ] man 0 ....

Dowty, D., Wall, R. and Peters, S.: 1981, Introduction to Montague Semantics, Vol. 11 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publishers. formerly Synthese Language Library.

No context found.

Dowty, D., R. Wall, and S. Peters (1981) Introduction to Montague Semantics. D. Reidel Pub. Cy., Dordrecht.

No context found.

Dowty, D. R., Wall, R. E., and Peters, S. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1981.

No context found.

Dowty, D.R. and Wall, R.E. and Peters, S.: Introduction to Montague Semantics. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Boston. (1981)

No context found.

Dowty, D. R., Wall, R. E. and Peters, S. (1981) Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.

No context found.

Dowty, D. R., Wall, R. E. and Peters, S. [1981] Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

No context found.

Dowty, Wall, Peters. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Reidel. Dordrecht.

No context found.

Dowty, David R., Robert E. Wall and Stanley Peters: 1981, Introduction to Montague Semantics, D. Reidel.

No context found.

Dowty,David. R., Robert E. Wall, and Stanley Peters. 1980. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

First 50 documents  Next 50

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