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.

.... 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.

First 50 documents

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