H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, volume 42 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, student edition, 1993.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... in a combined DRT situation theoretic formalism, employing the Extended Kamp Notation (EKN) developed in (Barwise and Cooper, forthcoming) These authors use a box notation for situation theoretic objects such as infons, situations and propositions, based upon the graphical notation of DRT (Kamp and Reyle, forthcoming) However, in EKN the boxes directly repre sent semantic objects, in contrast to DRT where the discourse representation structures (DRSs) are ex pressions of a language which require interpretation in a model. Nevertheless, EKN boxes look rather like DRSs. One important difference, however, is ....

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dord[echt, 1993.

....choice, etc) are supplemented with superposition of strings automata languages, realized model theoretically as conjunction. 1. Introduction Due in no small measure to [2] events of some form or another have become a common tool for semantically analyzing expressions of change in English (e.g. [15, 6, 9]) Under this approach, a sentence such as (1) is taken to describe an event of Mary swimming a mile, culminating in the past. 1) Mary swam a mile. Such events are formulated below as runs of machines that collectively constitute a causal order around which to explain temporality in natural ....

.... as it were, semantically redundant) or, focusing on 0 E , the lack of progress from 0 E (insofar as 0 E = 1 E ) Pushing this line further, let p E = 0 E for achievements E such as win and begin, reducing the difference between achievements and accomplishments mentioned, for example, in [6], pp 560 561, to whether or not pE = 0 E (p E = 1 E holding in neither case) Path(E) Vendler class(E) pE = 1 E pE = 0 E activity 0p 1 accomplishment stative [0 = 1] 0 1 achievement Table 1. A first stab. Is Table 1 faithful to a reading of 0 E and 1 E as the ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....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 ....

....[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 has also been previously proposed [8, 2, 18, 11]. However, they are not conservative extensions of DPL and not compatible with the standard static semantics of plurals, Logic of Plurals and Mass Terms (LPM) proposed by Gerhard Link [15] Although DRT [8] and TAI (the Theory of Anaphoric Information) 2] exploit Link s semilattice semantics ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

..... x n be a set of individual variables and #D M , #R M i i#I , #q M j j#J be a model of a first order langauge with binary generalized quantifiers, where D M is the domain of a set of individuals, R M i D M#(i) #(i) is the arity of R) a relation on D M , and q M j Kamp[21, 22] s Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) and Gabbay[7] s Labelled Deductive Systems (LDS) can also be considered as Dynamic Semantics, but in the sense that dynamic semantics regards meaning as state transitions, they are not dynamic semantics, but rather Procedural Semantics as well as ....

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....some, but if this an appears after the nn, it means none . We express this with: algum# an algum[nn an ] f an (algum) and algum# an algum: g an (algum) The next example shows how this formalism allows dispensing with labels. Consider the sentence (Jones) nn (owns) vn (Ulysses) nn from [7]. If we decide that our surface structure only has nuclear phrases, we obtain the two nn at the same level. Nevertheless, the first nn is the subject, and the second the object , and we want to be able to distinguish them, as this will have obvious influence in the semantic results. So, if we ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 93.

....treats events as the primary abstraction. Uniquely identified referents may be participants in events such as classification events (specifying the type or class of the referent) normarive events (specifying what the referent can and must do) and other (e.g. domain specific) events. Referents [9] are entities denoted (or denotable) by a unique identifier, and may be things, places, concepts, roles, or other events. Referents are participants in the event and are bound to the event in roles. Roles may be: event specific roles, which depend on the nature of the event itself. For example, ....

Kamp H, and Reyle U. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1993.

....the localization of states and events is discussed, too. For these questions the theory of tense and aspect in Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) is closely investigated, as far as relevant for single sentence discourses. The answers given here are mainly inspired by DRT as presented in [KR93]. We show that the way eventualities are localized in time in that book contains some inconsistencies. In particular there is a mathematical problem concerning the localization function and a linguistic problem concerning the basic aspectual schema with culmination point. We propose a remedy ....

....of this paper, we concentrate on eventualities, rather than drawing a distinction between states and events. These parts are more mathematically than linguistically oriented. Our goal is to investigate the localizations of eventualities in time. The general strategy we use is the one chosen in [KR93], namely the following. We start from a structured set of eventualities so that we can talk about an eventuality preceding some eventuality or about its overlapping some eventuality. This structure we call a pre eventuality structure; it is nothing else than the event structure defined by Kamp and ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1993.

....it should be possible to be used for the annotatation of dialogues in any language. Linguistic information is encoded in an abstract data type, the so called VIT (verbmobil Interface Term, 6, 10] A VIT is a semantic representation formalism following the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) of [13]. A VIT consists of a set of semantic conditions (i.e. predicates, roles, operators and quantifiers) and allows for underspecifications with respect to scope and subordination or inherent underspecifications. Each discourse individual is formally represented by a discourse referent (also called ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, volume 42 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....and modal action operators, we need an intensional dimension. So we make contexts a world assignment pair (w; f ) Thus the truth de nition of a formula K will de ne exactly when K relates an input context (w; f) to an output context (w 0 ; g) In Discourse Representation Theory (drt, Kamp and Reyle 1993), a discourse is represented by a discourse representation structure or drs, which is a pair consisting of a set of discourse 4 referents (i.e. the individuals and events that the discourse is about) and a set of drs conditions (these convey properties and relations among the discourse ....

....undesirable alternative is to generate several drss when updating the context with an imperative, one for each possible semantic contribution to the discourse. But proliferating ambiguity is undesirable. These problems are in fact similar to the problems with drt s analysis of temporal discourse. Kamp and Reyle (1993) note that their rules for drs construction handle only those simple pasttensed discourses where event sentences move the time line forward (e.g. 1.1cd) But not all discourses behave this way (e.g. 1.10b) Here, we see that the drt semantics of imperatives handles just those discourses ....

Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. [1993] From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

....constitutes one possible semantics for the given informal proof. 3.1 The Parser Module We have written a de nite clause grammar that covers the rst proofs of [11] and the proof we discussed above. For semantics construction, our starting point was Kamp s Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [13]. To deal with particular syntactic 6 Towards the Mechanical Veri cation of Textbook Proofs constructions that occur in mathematical proofs, we modi ed and added a number of DRT construction rules. For example, one characteristic of mathematical discourse is that mathematicians themselves ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....assumes that an input sequence e 1 e 2 Delta Delta Delta e n is processed incrementally, beginning with sentence e 1 , and then e 2 , and so on up to e n . This assumption holds for a good deal of work on discourse interpretation, including Discourse Representation Theory (DRT, Kamp and Reyle [8]) 3 Without insisting that every input output set Stage S n0 (E n Theta Phi n ) arise in such a manner, let us carve out, for every expression e 2 E, a binary relation [ei Stage 2 containing all transitions triggered by the input e in which the previous translations persist: e; ....

.... all transitions triggered by the input e in which the previous translations persist: e; ei ( e 0 ; 0 ) iff e 0 = ee and 0 = for some 3 The logical forms in DRT are called discourse representation structures (DRSs) and are constructed in Kamp and Reyle [8] by an algorithm that translates e i into a DRS i incorporating the translations 1 Delta Delta Delta i Gamma1 of the previous inputs e1 Delta Delta Delta e i Gamma1 . More recent formulations of DRT (e.g. Groenendijk and Stokhof [5] feature an explicit merge operation (e.g. relational ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....treatment of subtypes, without any need for type coercion. 1 1.2. From entailment to translation and attunement. Turning to the main part of the paper, an approach to natural language semantics that motivates a good deal of xx3 and 4 is Discourse Representation Theory (DRT, Kamp and Reyle [16]) addressing, as it does, the nagging question behind (Q3) of just how logical forms (or discourse representations) are to be derived from natural language text. The elusive answer is referred to in DRT as the construction algorithm. In an early paper, Hans Kamp writes it seems to me that the ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle, From discourse to logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....contexts are defined relative to a signature and instantiated model theoretically, subject to change. 1 Introduction Among the formal approaches to discourse semantics that have attracted some attention are dynamic formalisms such as Discourse Representation Theory (DRT, Kamp and Reyle [14]) and proof conditional programs such as TypeTheoretical Grammar (TTG, Ranta [24] Stretching traditions in formal logic, the former suggest (D) a shift from truth to input output interpretations and the latter (P) the insertion of proofs into well formed formulas. The present paper focuses on ....

....feature of various accounts of discourse interpretation (e.g. Asher and Lascarides [3] Nevertheless, there is a widespread feeling that persistence has its place, immune from counter examples of the kind just mentioned. Some such space is afforded by the distinction drawn in Kamp and Reyle [14] between (i) an algorithm translating English sentences (or some syntactic analyses thereof) into well formed formulas and (ii) a scheme (e.g. jj Delta jj M ) interpreting such well formed formulas modeltheoretically. Persistence may find a home in (ii) if not in (i) Now, the trouble with ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993. 28

....example, the parser returns the fully speci ed DRS for (2a) 8 : a; C : 1ja 1] jprod primes(a) For a slightly di erent formulation of (2a) If a 1, then a 6 The L A T E X input has been tokenized by hand. Sentence boundaries have been marked. 7 This is a di erence to standard DRT [KR93] where discourse entities introduced in the premise of a conditional get a universal reading. 6 can be represented as a product of one or more primes. we obtain [ U : a; C : 1ja 1] jprod primes(a) The status of a has to be determined from the context. Anaphoric references. For ....

....can be either assumptions or conclusions, the former are pre xed by assume. Each conclusion can be accompanied by a justi cation list which is a list of numbers, each of which refers to 8 Albeit the missing box like appearance, PRSs are an extension of Kamp s discourse representation structures [KR93]. PRSs are also similar in many respects to Lamport style proof presentations [Lam93] 7 the condition it pre xes. Instead of boxes, in PRS, accessibility is imposed by a numbering scheme. For example, take the condition labelled 2.2.6. It contains the terms b and a. Their quanti cation is ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....semantic representation and construction account for the aspectual type begin is thus apposite. We develop the semantic representation and construction of the aspectual type begin along the general lines of accounts of temporal reference of Discourse Representation Theory ( Kamp, 1979 ] Kamp and Reyle, 1993 ] We extend the DRT analysis of tense and aspect in postulating a three layered formal representation for aspect, which gives a unified account to cope with single expressions and entire texts. We define abstract modification classes, which apply to basic predicates and derive representations ....

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....the pragmatic context of the situation in which the texts are uttered. The literature has known an extensive list of theoretical accounts about how to formalise and compute these components for various applications like text representation, interpretation, generation ( Kamp, 1979] Kamp, 1981] [Kamp and Reyle, 1993], Lascarides and Asher, 1993] Lascarides and Oberlander, 1993] Hobbs, 1985] The most prominent approaches all assume the presence of logical semantic representations, derived from the syntactic structures of single sentences which are to be connected with their theories on pragmatics and ....

....structure of texts. The ways natural languages reflect the possible conceptualisations of entities which have a crucial temporal dimension (such as events, and the like) are referred to in the literature as states of affairs or as eventualities ( Bach, 1986] Moens and Steedman, 1988] [Kamp and Reyle, 1993] , etc. States of affairs or eventualities are typically categorised according to different intrinsic temporal parameters characterising them. For example, states of affairs described by the verbs to run or to work convey temporal extendedness (usually called processes ) whereas states of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

.... (CCP) i.e. a binary relation [ on (the set of) contexts, or states, s and s 0 specifying the input output behavior of s[ s 0 iff on input s, can return output s 0 : 1) A paradigmatic example of dynamic semantics is Discourse Representation Theory (DRT, Kamp and Reyle [13]) central to which is an algorithm constructing discourse representation structures (DRS s) from syntactic analyses of natural language expressions. That algorithm is studied in a much simplified form below, with both DRS s and syntactic analyses of natural language expressions replaced by ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....of the natural language description, we select the quantifier which is valid for the longest continuous period. SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION The data structures, on which the generation of quantified occurrences is performed, are based on the Discourse Representation Theorie (DRT) developed by [10]. In their research, these authors define special logic structures (Discourse Representation Structures, DRSs) in order to represent the semantics of natural language, and a set of construction rules to automatically transform natural language sentences into DRSs. A DRS consists of a set of ....

....of natural language, and a set of construction rules to automatically transform natural language sentences into DRSs. A DRS consists of a set of Discourse Referents (DR) and a set of DRSconditions. There is a close affinity between DRSs and First Order Predicate Calculus. For details on DRT, see [10]. We use the DRT to transform the generated conceptual descriptions into logic structures representing their natural language semantics. This is possible because the generated occurrences are very similar to natural language. The agent can be conceived as the subject of a virtual sentence, the ....

H. Kamp, U. Reyle, From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston/MA, London 1993.

....squeezed the trigger to mean that Vincent accidentally squeezed the trigger at, or just after, the time of the unexpected jolt. For a good introduction to tense, temporal reference, and their interaction, couched in terms of Kamp s Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) see Kamp and Reyle [36]. 7 Saussurean) intuition that I m going to cartoon in tense logic. Sorted rst order languages are well understood, but what on earth is a sorted modal language Let s consider the matter. Like most modal languages, Priorean tense logic lets us build information representations using Boolean ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....semantics can help. In dynamic semantics, computing discourse content isn t equated with cognitive effects. Rather, one de nes discourse update, i.e. the way the current utterance updates a representation of the meaning of the discourse context (e.g. dpl (Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1991) drt (Kamp and Reyle, 1993) and sdrt (Asher 1993, Lascarides and Asher 1993) Unlike Hobbs et al. 1993) discourse content is represented at an intermediate level between compositional semantics and the attitudes: it expresses more content than compositional semantics since discourse update may resolve underspeci ed ....

....modelling isn t traditionally addressed within dynamic semantics at all. Dynamic semantics provides the basis for analysing (1) The di erence in scope between the quanti er someone and the modality can in (1b) vs (1b 0 ) yields, monotonically, the di erences between (1abc) and (1ab 0 c) (Kamp and Reyle, 1993). Moreover, one di erence between (1ab 0 c) vs. 1ab 0 c 0 ) is that there s a Contrast between (1c 0 ) and (1b 0 ) which is lacking in (1b 0 c) note that intuitively, inserting but in (1c 0 ) doesn t a ect its semantic con2 tribution to the dialogue) This rhetorical di erence ....

Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. [1993] From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

.... no change in context (typically identified, for simplicity and concreteness, with the common ground ) Insofar as disambiguation is one of the effects that asserting an expression can have, it is natural to study ambiguity within (so called) dynamic semantics (e.g. Heim [10] and Kamp and Reyle [12]) central to which is a binary merge operation on formulas and such that represents the context obtained by asserting the second argument at a(n initial) context represented by . 1 The present paper is an attempt to provide an analysis of expressions given at the level of ....

....precious little about is said anywhere above, other than it being some binary operation on Phi. We have been quite vague, for instance, about whether or not is (like ) one of the connectives fl of Phi mentioned in Definitions 1 and 3. In Discourse Representation Theory (DRT, Kamp and Reyle [12]) is not even under a loose reading of connective allowing for the division between so called discourse representations structures and conditions. It will be convenient in what follows, however, to construe as a binary connective not only of Phi but also of E; that is, let us assume ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....referring expressions have been used in the monologue to describe a certain object are recorded in dyd s so called discourse model. As is argued in (van Deemter and Odijk 1997) a discourse model can be viewed as a highly simplified version of a discourse representation structure (Kamp 1981) (Kamp and Reyle 1993): K547 Mon(x 1) Par(x 2) Sen(x 3) Word(x 4) d 708 this composition Mon(y 1) Par(y 2) Sen(y 3) Word(y 4) d 708 it Mon(z 1) Par(z 2) Sen(z 3) Word(z 4) d 708 K547 Mon(u 1) Par(u 2) Sen(u 3) Word(u 4) d 708 The same discourse model is also used in rules that legislate whether a referring ....

H.Kamp and U.Reyle, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1993.

....is about are quantified at the point when any tPPs apply, and are not visible to those tPPs. To be sure, we are not the first to have considered tPPs with universally quantified complements. Kamp and Reyle, who discuss the semantics of tPPs within the context of discourse representation theory ([10] chapter 5) do consider such examples, always giving the correct quantifier scoping. Unfortunately, although they provide detailed truth conditions for a range of sentences involving tPPs, we are not told enough to understand precisely how this correct scoping is determined. In particular, the ....

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic publishers, 1993.

....7 7 7 7 5 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 Figure 3: A chart representation of a phrase structure tree and an application of the above PATR 2 rule to a pair of feature structures. Description of the Semantics DRT [Fis93, Pin93] is a combination of Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) KR93] 8 It is based on partial and predicative discourse representation structures (DRS) which are combined along the constituent structure 9 by conversion in a typed calculus, grounding on lexical entries. See figure 4 for an example. R x y dog(x) bone(y) with(x,y) R(x) P P P P i i i i S ....

....to the semantics of the attached constituents, and (2) additional constraints between states of modules. See figure 5 for an example. Within this framework a solution can be defined as a inactive edge that spans the whole utterance and has the expected category. 8 For similar approaches see [KR93, Ash93, Kas92] 9 Other approaches (e.g. Kas92] construct along the f structure. S NP V P (NP cat) np (VP cat) vp (S cat) s (NP head agr) VP head agr) S head) VP head) S head subj) NP head) compose NP VP) SYN: S arg1) S subj) SEM: arg1 = pred agent) Rating = 0:9 ....

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, Part I & II, volume 42 of Studies in Linguistic and Philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NL, 1993.

.... that hold between propositional discourse referents; ffl have a deductive component, modeling mathematical reasoning, allowing to compute discourse relations between given propositions, or verifying if a given discourse relations really holds; We believe that Discourse Representation Theory [10, 20] can be adapted to fit our requirements. In the remainder of the paper, however, we will focus on the use of proof plans that are highly valuable for structuring discourse. 3 The use of proof plans Our approach is characterized by the use of discourse plans (better: discourse plan schemas) ....

....Since it is shown in (7a) that 2 is a product of primes, it is not necessary to assume it in (7b) 6 To only justify this for constants: in the mathematical domain, a proper name picks out at least one thing, and at most one thing. If we handle constants like proper names in a standard DRT way [10], semantics construction for the sentence 2 is prime would yield the DRS x x = 2 prime(2) which translates into the logical form 9x : x = 2 prime(x) We believe this representational result unsatisfactory for several reasons. Most of all, we believe the logical form unnatural, and the ....

H. KAMP AND U. REYLE, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....use of terms and formulae would be quite unreadable. For Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) this means that these explicit naming actions must be taken into account in order to obtain natural representations. This means to rewrite a considerable number of DRS construction rules (as given in [KR93]) A typical example is the sentence there is a x and a y. Genericness. In mathematical writing, in the case of definitional constructs, one often encounters generic statements. For these sentences, the DRT view that indefinite noun phrases introduce existentially quantified discourse referents, ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....r i is asserted, but where g j is asserted along only one path from the root. Along which paths should g i be activated We solve these problems through the use of DRT, presented in Sec. 2, and a restriction on the generated formulae, explained in Sec. 4.2. 2 Discourse Representation Theory DRT [8, 9, 10] is a linguistic theory of the semantic content of general NL, which studies discourses. It combines a static logical view of meaning with a dynamic cognitive view. DRSs are defined as formulae of a formal language L consisting of: 1. an infinite set R of typed markers: x y z for signals, s; s 1 ; ....

....partial models. A DRS is verified by a model 6 M , iff it may be embedded in it as follows: Definition2. A model for L is M = hUM ; EV; IN; P redM i where: 1. UM is a non empty set. 6 In Sec. 4.2, we make some changes in the following definition of a model. 2. EV is an event structure (see [10]) 3. IN is the set of natural numbers. 4. P redM maps each n place predicate of L onto an n place relation over UM . Definition3. Let K be a DRS, fl a DRS condition, and let f be an embedding from some subset of V into M , i.e. f : R 0 UM , where R 0 R. 1. f verifies the DRS K in M (M ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, volume 42 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....devices in written text, intonation in speech but punctuation marks can also be seen within this enlarged view. Our aim is to be able to capture the effects of punctuation within a suitable framework. A suitable choice looks like the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) by Kamp and Reyle [6] which integrates current approaches in a semantic theory. Asher [1] has developed a theory within DRT taking discourse relations into account which will be relevant for some usages. As an example to discourse effects of punctuation, consider the following pair of discourse fragments: Jane, and ....

Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, Parts 1 and 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1993.

....appropriate to say that RMs are a computational tool for modeling the meaning of sentences, and that they do not seem to suffer from any intrinsic limitation for being used at the level of discourse. RMs are also comparable to DRS (Discourse Representation Structures) the models used in DRT [26], but here also there are some differences. First of all, Kamp and Reyle themselves say in their book on DRT [26, page 627] that they don t tackle the problems I have analyzed here: There exists the possibility of using beforephrases in a kind of virtual sense which is not possible for ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.

....once the blackmailer has given up. When prompted with the above scenario, they said that the intended reading was simply not available. 4.32) a. Kim didn t reply until the blackmailer gave up his evil plans. b. Kim didn t reply to the blackmailer until he gave up his evil plans. Kamp and Reyle [KR93, p.491] also develop a treatment of until based on inferences. Until is a tense operators of their tense logic. They start from a definition of the semantics of operator U as shown in (4.33) slightly simplified. 4.33) p Uq(t) 9t 0 [t t 0 q(t 0 ) 8t 00 [t t 00 t 0 p(t ....

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From discourse to logic. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....Signaling logical structure In this section, we list a few common words and phrases that are typically used by mathematicians to express the logical structure of their arguments. Some of these have multiple meanings and others have meanings that di#er from common English usage. The texts [4] and [10] are essentially attempts at providing a theoretical basis for the analogous problem of discovering the logical structure of discourse in ordinary English rather than in mathematical writing, and many of the problems discussed here are also described there. a, an In mathematical writing, the ....

....usage of the indefinite article is deprecated by Gillman [7, page 7] We recommend that mathematical authors write, Every positive integer is the sum of four squares . See also the discussion under any below. This usage occurs outside mathematics as well and is given a theoretical treatment in [10], section 3.7.4. In ordinary English sentences, such as A wolf takes a mate for life. 10] page 294) the meaning is that the statement is true for a typical individual (typical wolf in this case) In mathematics, however, the statement is required to be true without exception. The idea that ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle.<F4.745e+05> From Discourse to Logic, Parts I and<F4.948e+05> II. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. 4, 4, 4, 2

....every q is a p (line 13) and Similarly b i a yields a contradiction (line 17 18) are elliptic. In the phrase every p is a q (line 13) p ranges over p 1 ; p 2 ; p k and q ranges over q 1 ; q 2 ; q j . 3 A DRT approach We propose a DRT based approach for semantics construction [KR93]. The basic questions in DRT are: which kind of linguistic structures (i) introduce new discourse referents (ii) refer to already introduced referents For our domain, it shows that the nature of terms is at least twofold: i) they are itself anaphoric expressions (ii) they serve as antecedents ....

....3 ; left hand side(y1) right hand side(y2) solution(y 3 ) has(x,y 3 ) R(x) Figure 2: Some lexical entries for terms and formulae. In order to have proper semantics for phrases like every p is prime or every p is a q, it is necessary to adapt the DRS construction rules as given in [KR93]. For anaphora resolution, the suitability of discourse referents can be restricted by semantic and pragmatic constraints due to the restricted domain and in addition to linguistic clues. If a definite description cannot be linked to a suitable antecedent which was introduced earlier into the ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....Signaling logical structure In this section, we list a few common words and phrases that are typically used by mathematicians to express the logical structure of their arguments. Some of these have multiple meanings and others have meanings that differ from common English usage. The texts [4] and [10] are essentially attempts at providing a theoretical basis for the analogous problem of discovering the logical structure of discourse in ordinary English rather than in mathematical writing, and many of the problems discussed here are also described there. a, an In mathematical writing, the ....

....usage of the indefinite article is deprecated by Gillman [7, page 7] We recommend that mathematical authors write, Every positive integer is the sum of four squares . See also the discussion under any below. This usage occurs outside mathematics as well and is given a theoretical treatment in [10], section 3.7.4. In ordinary English sentences, such as A wolf takes a mate for life. 10] page 294) the meaning is that the statement is true for a typical individual (typical wolf in this case) In mathematics, however, the statement is required to be true without exception. The idea that ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, Parts I and II. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

....appropriate to say that RMs are a computational tool for modeling the meaning of utterances, and that they do not seem to suffer from any intrinsic limitation for being used at the level of discourse. RMs are also comparable to DRS (Discourse Representation Structures) the models used in DRT [12], but also here there are some differences. First of all, Kamp and Reyle themselves say in their book on DRT [12, page 627] that they do not consider the phenomena of temporal presupposition and counterfactuals, on which basis the RMs have been designed and implemented: There exists the ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.

.... schemes of discourse (referred to generically as Discourse Representation Structures (DRSs) following [5] the nomenclature of which we will use and extend) The reader is assumed to be familiar with [5] or with the presentation of DRT in [1] A comprehensive treatment of DRT can be found in [7]. Dept. of Computer Science, Technion (francez cs.technion.ac.il) y Dept. of Philosophy, University of Haifa (j.berg uvm.haifa.ac.il) International Workshop on Computational Semantics As we show in this study, there are some problems that such an extension has to face, which were not ....

....terms of embedding, we have implicitly made two important choices: 1. Indefinite NPs are not treated as referring (i.e. what is known as their specific reading is not treated here) They can be incorporated into this framework in a rather simple way, by using the anchoring feature of DRT (see [6, 7]) This feature allows the direct connection of a discourse marker to an entity 1 That is, under their role of discourse participants. Of course, they may be mentioned explicitly in the discourse, thereby becoming discourse entities not under that role. 2 We use p to denote the predicate ....

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic publishers, 1993.

....The Stuttgart System is an attempt to integrate the phonological analysis of German intonation done by C. Fery [6] and the ToBI labelling conventions [2, 8] The system was developed as a tool within our overall aim which is to create a prosodic module for Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [9]. DRT is a model theoretic approach to discourse semantics which describes the interpretation of discourses as a dynamic two level process. Hence, since our inventory of symbols is primarily motivated by phonological analysis and since the domain of processing these symbols is DRT, the criterion ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From discourse to logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

....consider one way of formalising this idea, viz. dynamic predicate logic; here we ll simply remark that the key idea of adding a procedural dimension to logical semantics underlies other important approaches to Natural Language Semantics, including Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp and Reyle [22]) and File Change Semantics (Heim [19] The reason for the widespread acceptance of such systems of dynamic semantics is their intuitive appeal combined with their applicability to many important semantic phenomena, such as the interaction of tense and temporal reference. Dynamic semantics has ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, 1993.

....things simple, we do not employ any preference order of the readings, although this may be desirable in the long run. 2 Some Linguistic Background In this section we quickly review some basic facts and intuitions from natural language semantics as they pertain to pronoun resolution. Refer to [KR93] for further details. If a sentence contains a pronoun, the hearer has to identify it with some person or thing that has been mentioned earlier to understand this sentence. Roughly, one can identify context with what has been said earlier. Of course, this blends out other contextual information ....

.... 2 (b) 8x b( 2 ) if 1 = 9x (c) b 1 b 2 otherwise Re bracketing can be applied, because pronoun variables are always substituted by quantified variables that are accessible in the sense of Definition 3. 2, which is based on the notion of accessibility in dynamic semantics, see e.g. [KR93, GS91]. Then, a closed tableau for 1 , n , in T pro gives rise to a closed tableau for 0 1 , 0 n , 0 in T class , by the soundness of T class , where 0 1 , 0 n is the result of applying and re bracketing to 1 , n , and : 0 ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

.... plans (e.g. for handling similarly constructs) and a theorem prover (which gets a first order representation of the DRS, some additional axioms on number theory and a query) 3 A DRT approach Our starting point, in order to represent textbook proofs, is the Discourse Representation Theory ([KR93]) During semantics construction, we build a discourse representation structure (DRS) The construction of a DRS proceeds sentence by sentence. A sentence may consist of only a formula. Each sentence should enrichen a given DRS with its information. A DRS consists of two components: i) a set of ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, volume 1 and 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

.... g and fx : g of and . Such a scheme would appear inadequate for many , however, as illustrated by the aforementioned pair (1) and even earlier by the pair (2) from Keenan and Stavi [9] which argues for non extensionality at the first argument of many) and (3) from x4:4:4 of Kamp and Reyle [8] (which argues for non extensionality at many s second argument) 2) a. Many lawyers attended the meeting this year. b. Many doctors attended the meeting this year. 3) a. Many houses in X burned down last year. b. Many houses in X were insured against fire last year. In all these examples, ....

....extensional. And even there we have failed. fernando ims.uni stuttgart.de hans ims.uni stuttgart.de Endnotes Many thanks to Cleo Condoravdi for helpful discussions. 1 In any case, neither of us currently believes that the extensionality claim is correct. 2 As argued in Kamp and Reyle [8], NPs beginning with many do not introduce set discourse referents directly, but only via Abstraction, as in X X = P x. student(x) arr today(x) Many(X) This is to make sure that the many phrase receives a distributive interpretation. For the discussions in this paper, the difference is of ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, volume 42 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, student edition, 1993.

No context found.

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

H. Kamp and U. Reyle, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Mass., 1993.

No context found.

Hans Kamp & Uwe Reyle [1993], From Discourse to Logic (part I and part II), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

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