A Tableaux Calculus for Ambiguous Quantifiation

  • Christof Monz
  • Maarten de Rijke
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1397)


Coping with ambiguity has recently received a lot of attention in natural language processing. Most work focuses on the semantic representation of ambiguous expressions. In this paper we complement this work in two ways. First, we provide an entailment relation for a language with ambiguous expressions. Second, we give a sound and complete tableaux calculus for reasoning with statements involving ambiguous quantification. The calculus interleaves partial disambiguation steps with steps in a traditional deductive process, so as to minimize and postpone branching in the proof process, and thereby increases its efficiency.


Semantic Representation Logical Connective Ambiguous Sentence Proof Tree Entailment Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Bos95]
    J. Bos. Predicate logic unplugged. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors, Proc. 10th Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [Dee96]
    K. van Deemter. Towards a logic of ambiguous expressions. In S. Peters, editors. Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. CSLI Publications, 1996 Peters and Deemter [DP96].Google Scholar
  3. [DP96]
    K. van Deemter and S. Peters, editors. Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. CSLI Publications, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [EJ96]
    J. van Eijck and J. Jaspars. Ambiguity and reasoning. Technical Report CS-R9616, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. [Fit96]
    M. Fitting. First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer-Verlag New York, 2nd edition, 1996.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [Jas97]
    J. Jaspars. Minimal logics for reasoning with ambiguous expressions. CLAUS-Report 94, University of Saarbrücken, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. [KM93]
    H. S. Kurtzman and M. C. MacDonald. Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48:243–279, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Kön94]
    E. König. A study in grammar design. Arbeitspapier des Sonderforschungsbereich 340 no. 54, Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [KR96]
    E. König and U. Reyle. A general reasoning scheme for underspecified representations. In H.-J. Ohlbach and U. Reyle, editors, Logic and Its Applications. Festschrift for Dov Gabbay. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [MR98]
    C. Monz and M. de Rijke. Reasoning with ambiguous expressions. Unpublished manuscript, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. [Rey93]
    U. Reyle. Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation, and deduction. Journal of Semantics, 10(2):123–179, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [TS96]
    A. S. Troelstra and H. Schwichtenberg. Basic Proof Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christof Monz
    • 1
  • Maarten de Rijke
    • 1
  1. 1.ILLCUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations