KAMP, H. AND REYLE, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....plausible way. Introduction Anaphoric expressions are traditionally viewed as substitutes for more complex linguistic expressions which have already occurred earlier in the text. Anaphora has proven difficult to analyze at a purely syntactic level, so that structural approaches like DRT [10] or semantic ones like Dynamic Semantics [4] cope with this problem by enriching the formal language used to build or to represent the meaning of sentences. We believe that the limit of these approaches is that they have chosen the wrong level of representation for dealing with anaphora: we will ....

....a subset of tokens which are unrelated: t 2 3 rel, A, x , x ( 541 t67 98: rel, A, x 6 . x , A ; R) then only the former set can be considered by the uni Note that John does not love a girl in his office where the indefinite is a specific one (see [10]) and the speaker could identify a unique referent for it, is not covered by this rule. This treatment of indefinites is justified also from a linguistic point of view. As [10] notice, the negation of a verb must be interpreted as having an inner scope which does not include the subject of the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

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

....complex planning tasks. Recent literature on discourse theory reveals many structural aspects that serve to describe the semantics of an utterance in terms of how information states are modified ( 12] In addition, 24] extend the classical Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) introduced by [16] by incorporating so called conversational events as discourse referents. All these efforts are done in order to model conversational actions, cognitive states, and discourse structure which have been found indispensable in the literature (e.g. 17] 9] or [21] for the analysis of dialogues. ....

....(cf. coherence in sec. 4.2. 1) Reasoning in a DL domain model can be employed immediately for discourse interpretation because the semantics of utterances are mapped into extensional formulae for concepts within Discourse Representation Structures (DRS) known from Discourse Representation Theory [16]. For example, in U 9 , the noun phrase the popular film has got the following formal representation in terms of a DL A Box statement: 9i; f; r : AvEvent(f) TimeInt(i) date(f; i) 1) AvEventLocation(BR3) location(f; BR3) title(f; Otto Der Liebesfilm ) Feature(com) genre(f; ....

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

....other on a DPL style treatment of register change [27] and they all inherit the main flaw of this approach: the destructive assignment problem. Interestingly, discourse representation theory itself did not su#er from this problem: the discourse representation construction algorithms of [35] and [36] are stated in terms of functions with finite domains, and carefully talk about 13 Figure 3: Code of an implementation of context logic for NL in Haskell. type Context = Entity] type Prop = Context] type Trans = Context Prop type Idx = Int neg : Trans Trans neg = phi c if phi ....

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

....semantics pragmatics interface. 1 Introduction There is a bizarre assumption made in Groenendijk and Stokhof s Dynamic Predicate Logic [GS91a] and Dynamic Montague Grammar [GS91b] and Heim s File Change Semantics [He82] an assumption that is not made in Kamp s Discourse Representation Theory [KR93]. This is the assumption that anaphorantecedent relationships are presented gift wrapped to the semantics in the form of pre indexed NPs. Who or what is supposed to do the wrapping is unclear. Perhaps syntax does the job of pre indexation Yet syntax seems unlikely to do more than provide a ....

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

....paper, we address in detail the issue of semantics construction during parsing natural language input . As will be shown in section 3, the backbone of our incremental approach to composing semantic representations is # DRT [Fis96] The parser builds Discourse Representation Structures (DRS) [KaR93] incrementally, and after each composition step, the satisfiability with respect to a given knowledge base is verified by an ABox consistency test. For this purpose, we exploit the fact that DRSs can be mapped onto ABoxes. In order to carry out all tasks necessary for semantics composition, we ....

....DRSs representing the di#erent readings. The evaluation of particular natural language quantifiers as at least n will result in number restrictions. Furthermore, some This step is performed by a chart parser with a chunk grammar, working primarily with a head driven bottom up strategy. cf. [KaR93] for an introduction to Discourse Representation Theory For a general theoretical introduction with a similar computational solution, which covers also presupposition resolution, cf. vol. II of [Bla99] generic computations like temporal and calendrical calculations to determine precise time ....

H. Kamp, U. Reyle, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993.

....(see Figure 1; this Figure only shows the upper part of the network) there is a node (v 1 ) representing the scene itself. The scene has three attributes with the following values: 1. the set of persons characters who are participants in the scene, 2. a Discourse Representation Structure (DRS; [11]) which represents Figure 1 Graphical depiction of a network representation of a scene the common ground amongst the interlocutors at the start of the conversation, and 3. a history which consists of a set of temporal relation statements and a set of acts. Scene Descriptions are the input of ....

Kamp, H. & U. Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

....above. All of these reconstructions are based in some way or other on DPL [13] and they all inherit the main flaw of this approach: the destructive assignment problem. Interestingly, DRT itself did not su#er from this problem: the discourse representation construction algorithms of [21] and [22] are stated in terms of functions with finite domains, and carefully talk about taking a fresh discourse referent to extend the domain of a verifying function, for each new NP to be processed. The present approach, based on ID rather than DPL, makes clear how the instruction to take fresh ....

....Strictly speaking, quantificational sentences are dynamic in two ways. First of all they output the intersection of restrictor and scope and second they make the restrictor itself available for future anaphoric reference. The status of this latter kind of reference is unclear. Kamp and Reyle [22] analyse the possibility of this kind of reference as reference to some sort of genus introduced by the quantification, but a more specific interpretation seems to be available as well. In (4) the plural pronoun can both refer to students in general and to the specific set of students quantified ....

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

....detailed; often it s not even clear what these researchers intend as a model. There is, however, a discourse interpretation procedure that is speci fied in detail and has some of the characteristics of the model construction procedure I have in mind; I m thinking of the DRS construction algorithm [23, 24]. The DRS construction algorithm consists of a set of rules that map discourses belonging to the language into certain interpretive structures . The output structures are called Discourse Representation Structures or DRSs. A DRS is a pair consisting of a set of discourse referents and a set ....

....a lot of data about disambiguation preferences can be explained without any further machinery. The Scope Constraint, for example, is embedded in the very semantics of DRT; and one can build in the construction rules principles such as the c command principle. Kamp and Reyle do just that in [24]. The limitations of this approach are shown by examples in which the choice of an interpretation does not depend on the structure, like (12) Also, the role for alefinites as just formulated is too restrictire: in cases like (18) for example, predicts the correct reading for the definite NP the ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From discourse to logic. To appear., 1993.

....pair (a,b) we can always find a y as defined in (8) S) ae [Y]b x y A z)a A y a A y b Definable relations are never empty. Barriers are preserved in the upward direction of the ancestor line: 9) y]Ry (10) z y A (10) is less innocent than it looks. I give a revealing binding example from Kamp and Reyle [1993]. If [cv= Cv=v he sees Mary] and she smiles] John is happy. C =z [Cr=y He sees Mary ] and John is happy] 3 Barrier Definitions 3.1 Adjunction Adjunction rules raise a problem for algebraic in vestigations of barriers theory (e.g. Kracht, 1992] They insert material into a tree but ....

....(VP above) Thus CP shields PRO but remains open for government of NP. This state of affairs can be caught in the present framework by a negative inheritance clause. Similar cases arise with negation. Again, the literature adopts different lines of argument to account for the phenomenon. Kamp and Reyle [1993] handle the binding case below with a rule of double negation elimination, an operation that deletes structure. Either hei owns a Porsche or Johni hides it. Either hei does not own a Porsche or Johnl hides it. Mfi ler and Sternereld [1991] propose to treat this construction within the ....

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, Vol I. to appear: Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.

....discourse. A number of factors affect the interpretation as to whether successive past tenses are anaphorically related, and if they are, what the relative order of the associated events is. The determinant factors have been argued to be discourse struc ture ( 27] 14] aspectual type ( 6] 121 [17]) sur face structure ( 7] 14] and commonsense knowledge ( 19] 27] 13] However, no account has ad equately addressed all four factors. The problem in tense interpretation that we address is illustrated with Example (2) from [27] 2)a. John went over (tl) to Mary s house. b. On the way, ....

....processing a text a reader maintains a list of potential loci ordered by their relative salience, instead only one temporal focus, as in Webber s account. Further evidence in favor of the analogy was obtained by examining a random sample of dis 4A similar proposal is made by Kamp and Reyle [17], where they argue for the separation of the temporal perspective point ( TPpt) that is relatively fixed and the reference point (Rpt) that moves with narra tive progression. course sequences from the Brown corpus [8] a heterogeneous corpus that should yield unbiased data. Each multi sentence ....

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic, Vol. I. Kluwer.

....to be used for the annotation of dialogues in any language. Linguistic information is encoded in an abstract data type, the so called VIT (VERBMOBIL Interface Term, Bos et al. 1996, Dorna 1996] A VIT is a semantic representation formalism following the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) of [Kamp and Reyle 1993]: A VIT consists of a set of semantic conditions (i.e. predicates, roles, operators and quantifiers) and allows for under specifications with respect to scope and subordination or inherent under specifications. Each discourse individual is formally represented by a discourse referent (also called ....

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

....Archimedes was drawing a circle when a Roman soldier killed him. accomplishments) In (29 a) 29 b) and (29 d) the time introduced by the when clause overlaps We cannot discuss Reichenbach s suggestion and its development in modern semantics in detail here. The interested reader is refered to [12] and [24] for a more elaborate exposition. 32 the time of the main clause. In (29 c) however, Bill is absent after the entering of John. Standardly it is assumed that the when clause introduces the reference time in Reichenbach s sense which then serves as a temporal anchor for the time of the ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1993. 35

....item relates to the current generated discourse context. It could be entailed in the context already, it could be new i.e. informative or at least partly so. Blackburn et al. 1999] provide the theoretical framework to do this in terms of DRT Discourse Representation Theory as developed in [Kamp and Reyle, 1993]. Gardent and Webber, 2000] show how semantic entailment relations can help disambiguate certain types of noun noun compounds. More generally, some kind of entailment wizard could rule out unwanted models generated by a model builder. A model builder for NLP takes a set of natural language ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle, "From Discourse to Logic", Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993.

....Marc Schr0der DFKI, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3 D 66123 SaarbrOcken, Germany 49 (0) 681 302 5303 Marc. Schroeder dfki.de Martine Grice IPUS, Institute for Phonetics, University of the Saarland Building 17.2, Postfach 151150 66041 Saarbr0cken 49 (0) 681 302 4696 mgrice coli.uni sb.de Stefan Baumann IPUS, Institute for Phonetics, University of the Saarland Building 17.2, Postfach 151150 66041 SaarbrfJcken 49 (0) 681 302 4244 baumann coli.uni sb.de Hannes Pirker 0FAI, Austrian Institute for Artificial ....

....Marc. Schroeder dfki.de Martine Grice IPUS, Institute for Phonetics, University of the Saarland Building 17.2, Postfach 151150 66041 Saarbr0cken 49 (0) 681 302 4696 mgrice coli.uni sb.de Stefan Baumann IPUS, Institute for Phonetics, University of the Saarland Building 17.2, Postfach 151150 66041 SaarbrfJcken 49 (0) 681 302 4244 baumann coli.uni sb.de Hannes Pirker 0FAI, Austrian Institute for Artificial Intelligence Schottengasse 3, A 1010 Vienna, Austria ( 43 1) 5324621 3 hannes ai.univie.ac.at ABSTRACT In this paper, we describe the Rich Representation Language ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Kamp, H. & U. Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

....on their complement sets. Moreover, when a complement set is focused, an explanation is wanted why the VP (the scope) is true of D(A) only. 2.3 The reality of compset (8) A]pparently, subtracting one set from another is not a permissible operation for the formation of pronominal antecedents. [KR93]:307 (9) Eight of the ten balls are in the bag. #They are under the sofa. Pseudo reference: Reference to compset is really reference to maxset. Generalization of the maximal set is allowed due to the inferiority of refet expressed by the antecedent sentence. Cor96b] Cor96a] 10) Counterexample: ....

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

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

No context found.

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

KAMP, H. AND REYLE, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

No context found.

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and DRT. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

No context found.

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

No context found.

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle, 1993. From Discourse to Logic, chapter 5, Tense and Aspect, pages 483--546. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Lauri Karttunen. 1971. Some Observations on Factivity. In Papers in Linguistics, volume 4, pages 55--69.

No context found.

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

No context found.

Kamp,H. & Reyle,U., (1993) From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Model theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory, Dordrecht ,Kluwer Academic Publishers.

No context found.

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

No context found.

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

No context found.

Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Kluwer Acedemic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

No context found.

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and DRT. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

No context found.

H. Kamp, U. Reyle, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993

No context found.

Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

No context found.

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

No context found.

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

No context found.

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1993.

No context found.

H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From discourse to Logic. Kluwer, 1993.

No context found.

H. Kamp, U. Reyle, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993.

No context found.

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

No context found.

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

No context found.

H. Kamp, U. Reyle, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993

No context found.

H. Kamp, U. Reyle, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993

No context found.

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and DRT. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

No context found.

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

No context found.

Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and DRT. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

No context found.

Kamp, H., and U. Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory . Kluwer, Dordrecht.

No context found.

H. Kamp, U. Reyle, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993.

No context found.

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

No context found.

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

No context found.

H. Kamp, U. Reyle, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993

No context found.

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

No context found.

Kamp, H. 85 Reyle, U. (1993) From Discourse to Logic. Dor- drecht: Kluwer.

No context found.

Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

No context found.

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