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.

....its parts (compositionality) iii) the structure of the semantic representation determines its meaning (intensionality) These assumptions are not unusual since they have been adopted, for example, by R. Montague in his intensional logic IL for a proper treatment of quantification of English (Dowty et al. 1981). As it turns out, the search space of allowable solutions is drastically reduced through the use of the simply typed calculus. The compositionality principle effectively means that the grammatical structure constrains the allowable semantics, and the intensionality principle allows us to ....

Dowty, David R., Wall, Robert E. and Peters, Stanley (1981) "Introduction to Montague Semantics," Dordrecht, Holland; Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co.; Hingham, MA.

....(NL) text. There is thus, a necessity for catching the semantics of text in order to fill the gap between the informal representation and the formal model of use cases. The Case Grammar, unlike other representations of the semantics such as Sowa s graphs 2 [43] or Montague s grammar 3 [10] focuses on the notion of action which is central in our use case model. The case grammar, which intends to represent a universal semantics is a convenient way to do it, in the sense that it permits us to catch both the semantics of NL and the semantics of the use case model. Fillmore [13] has ....

Dowty, Walls, Peters, Introduction to Montague Semantics, Reidel-Klawer, 1981.

....be initial in VPs, determiners will be initial in NPs, and so on. In our learning system, any putative rule that violates an LP rule is rejected. ffl We construct our syntax and semantics in tandem, adhering to the principle of compositionality, and pair a semantic rule to each syntactic rule [16]. Our semantics uses the typed calculus with extensional typing. For example, the syntactic rule: S NP VP is paired with the following semantic rule: VP(NP) which should be read as the functor VP takes the argument NP 1 . The functor VP is of type 2 : e; t ; t ; t 1 ....

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

....the deduction on the underspecified formulas can be merged with disambiguation steps, it is named cu deductive. Table 1 gives a classification of some underspecified formalisms according to these properties. LFG stands for the linear logic approach to LFG semantics [7] MG means Montague Grammar [8]. MRS is the Minimal Recursion Semantics of [5] Quasi Logical Forms QLF and underspecification has been explored in [2] For Underspecified Discourse Representation Structures UDRS see [15] USDL is one of the formalisms which have been described in the section on underspecification in [3] UL ....

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

....to any mind. 3 However, a more careful examination leads to the conclusion that the needed referents cannot be provided by the world per se. Expressions of fictitious things show us one argument against this objectivist view of the reference relationship: there 2 cf. Sch90b] 3 e.g. cf. DWP81] 2 are no unicorns in the real world, hence no objectively given referents for the expression The last unicorn went back into the silent forest. Is it possible that we can understand this expression even without referents There are other simpler disadvantages of the objectivist view. Imagine ....

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

....be initial in VPs, determiners will be initial in NPs, and so on. In our learning system, any putative rule that violates an LP rule is rejected. ffl We construct our syntax and semantics in tandem, adhering to the principle of compositionality, and pair a semantic rule to each syntactic rule (Dowty, Wall, Peters 1981). Our semantics uses the typed calculus with extensional typing. For example, the syntactic rule: S NP VP is paired with the following semantic rule: VP(NP) which should be read as the functor VP takes the argument NP 2 . The functor VP is of type 3 : e; t ; t ; t and the ....

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

....has evidence for, and (iii) what the speaker doesn t have evidence for the presuppositions of the utterance, its contents and its implicatures. Gazdar suggests that you can deal with (i) and (iii) in two stages. You compute, using compositional rules similar to those of Montague grammar (Dowty et al. 1981), expressions which describe the potential presuppositions and implicatures, which Gazdar refers to as pre suppositions and im plicatures, as well as the content. These can be seen as constituting the meaning of the sentence (Gazdar does not put it quite like this, but it seems reasonable that ....

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

....of type ff is indicated by ME ff . The set of non logical constant expressions of type ff is indicated as CE ff ME ff . The semantics of LSUL is based on the same idea as the semantics of LXUL. Natural language expressions are assigned objects of the same type that they would receive in Dowty et al. 1981 (as revised by Partee and Rooth 1983) with the difference that, when I talk about meaningful expressions of type below, therefore, I am really talking about expressions that denote sets of functions from the set of situations S to elements of D (the domain of type ) Thus for example, ....

.... forms is specified using the storage method, developed by Robin Cooper as a way around a problem with Montague s quantifying in technique, namely, the fact that in order to get al..l the readings of a scopally ambiguous sentence, one has to stipulate that the sentence is syntactically ambiguous (see Dowty et al. 1981). Cooper proposed that the value of a syntactic tree is a set of sequences, each sequence representing a distinct order of application of the operators that may result in a admissible interpretation of a sentence. For example, the quantifier a frog can enter the derivation of the VP saw a ....

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

....between these two kinds of analyses by considering an example of determining pronoun reference. 2. Higher Order Logic The higher order logic we study here, called T , can be thought of as being a subsystem of either Church s Simple Theory of Types [5] or of Montague s intensional logic IL [6]. Unlike Church s or Montague s logics, T is very weak because it assumes no axioms regarding 2 extensionality, definite descriptions, infinity, choice, or possible worlds. T encompasses only the most primitive logical notions, and generalizes first order logic by introducing stronger notions of ....

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

.... meaning of a compound expression is a function of the meaning of its parts and of the syntactic rules by which they are combined ( Partee 90] It has been the basis of several formal theories in computational linguistics, among which the best known may be Montague s semantics ( Montague 74] Dowty 81] If the parts mentioned in the definition are assimilated with morphemes (or, to simplify, with words) and the compound expressions with phrases (which is the usual interpretation) this formulation implies that : words have individual meanings ; the meaning of a phrase (and thus of ....

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

....how much a semantic representation can be considered meaningful . However much efforts has been spent in computing sentence meaning in a compositional way, that is composing elementary word meanings into larger structures (e.g. lambda terms) following suitable strategies (see [Mon73, Fre92, GM89, DWP81] An alternative approach to compositional semantics that uses linear logic as the underlying logical framework is proposed in [DLPS97] Usually there is an intermediate structure: the syntactic structure. Whether this intermediate structure is really sufficient for the meaning construction is ....

David R. Dowty, Wall, and P. Stanley Peters. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Reidel: Dordrecht, 1981.

....with respect to the modelling of information flow. 4.2 Semantics based frameworks These frameworks are somewhat concerned with a trade off between truth and information. They aim to represent the meaning of information. I have studied the following: intensional logic [PtMW90] Montague semantics [DWP81], and data semantics [Lan86] These frameworks can be used to develop a model of IR systems, but only if the main objective is to model the meaning of information. Intensional logic allows the incorporation of contexts (intensional expressions) however, it does not capture the flow of ....

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

....has evidence for, and (iii) what the speaker doesn t have evidence for the presuppositions of the utterance, its contents and its implicatures. Gazdar suggests that you can deal with (i) and (iii) in two stages. You compute, using compositional rules similar to those of Montague grammar (Dowty, Wall, and Peters 1981), expressions which describe the potential presuppositions and implicatures, which Gazdar refers to as pre suppositions and im plicatures, as well as the content. These can be seen as constituting the meaning of the sentence (Gazdar does not put it quite like this, but it seems reasonable that ....

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

.... further motivates the approach on methodological grounds (see the discussion of model theoretic semantics below) In this way, we attempt to consolidate the seminal insights of Lambek and Montague [15] 16] Montague s program for model theoretic semantics is an active area of investigation ([7] is an introduction) The work described here was done in 1986, inspired by the early ideas of Lambek on categorial grammar [9] 10] and the resurrection and development of these ideas by van Benthem ( 5] for example) but independently of [13] the record of a 1985 conference) in which ....

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

....of Natural Language Instructions In our approach, there is an isomorphism between syntax and formal semantics. We designed the semantic representation to be constructed recursively in correspondence to the syntactic tree. In linguistics, such isomorphisms are commonly employed in Montague grammar [8, 3], and are used in a similar fashion to our proposed formulation. Applying this idea to our approach, we can translate spatial expressions into our semantic representation. Although we mention here only the case of Japanese, the proposed method can be also applied readily to English. For example, ....

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

....how much a semantic representation can be considered meaningful . However much efforts has been spent in computing sentence meaning in a compositional way, that is composing elementary word meanings into larger structures (e.g. lambda terms) following suitable strategies (see [Mon73, Fre92, GM89, DWP81] An alternative approach to compositional semantics that uses linear logic as the underlying logical framework is proposed in [DLPS97] Usually there is an intermediate structure: the syntactic structure. Whether this intermediate structure is really sufficient for the meaning construction is ....

David R. Dowty, Wall, and P. Stanley Peters. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Reidel:Dordrecht, 1981.

.... when executed in Prolog (Zelle Mooney, 1993, 1994, 1996; Zelle, 1995; Mooney, 1997; Thompson Mooney, 1999; Thompson, 1998; Thompson, Califf, Mooney, 1999) There is a long tradition of representing the meaning of natural language statements and queries in first order logic (Allen, 1995; Dowty, Wall, Peters, 1981; Woods, 1978) However, we know of no other recent research specifically on learning to map language into logical form. Nevertheless, we believe this is the most suitable NLP task for ILP, since the desired output is a logical representation that is best processed using logic based methods. This ....

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

....Kuschert, 1995 ] Compositional DRT A variant of a compositional DRT by [ Muskens, 1994 ] Gen. Quantifier Language of Generalised Quantifiers Intensional Logic intensional Montagovian style fragment based on [ Montague, 1973 ] Lambda Language extensional Montagovian style fragment based on [ Dowty et al. 1981 ] Situation Semantics based on the fragment described in D15 D16 Grammar lets you choose a grammar. Grammar 1 is a very simple DCG grammar Grammar 2 is a DCG style grammar with features DRT Grammar is a GPSG style Grammar according to chapter 0 of [ Kamp and Reyle, 1993 ] Lexicon lets ....

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

....notion of compositionality has recently been challenged, the preciseness of the translation was original enough to subsequently form a school of thought in the area. The paper is considered theoretically dense, especially due to the treatment of intensionality, and is reviewed in a great detail in Dowty, Wall, and Peters (1981). The focus of this section is on introducing part of the theory for the express purpose of examining the nature of quantifying in that Montague proposed to address quantifier scope ambiguity and making materials available for the exposition of future developments of the theory. 132) a) e and t ....

....chose the latter option, by introducing meaning postulates. The relevant meaning postulate is shown below. 138) 9S8x8P2[ffi(x; P) Pfy[Sfx; yg]g] where ffi translates find, lose, etc. For the proof that (b) and (c) are equivalent under the meaning postulate (138) the reader is referred to Dowty, Wall, and Peters (1981), pp. 226 227. Although it appears that (137) b) is the correct translation of (137) a) we can expect that the use of quantifying in in the process will be overgenerating. The reason is that whereas quantifying in is the only way of making syntactically embedded NPs, such as English object ....

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

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.

No context found.

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

No context found.

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

No context found.

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

No context found.

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

No context found.

David R. Dowty, Robert E. Wall, Stanley Peters. 1985. Introduction to Montague Semantics. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.

No context found.

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

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