Advertisement

Semantic Underspecification: Which Technique For What Purpose?

  • Harry Bunt
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 83)

Keywords

Noun Phrase Semantic Representation Lexical Ambiguity Unknown Word Syntactic Ambiguity 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, J.: 1995, ‘Natural Language Understanding’. Redwood City, California: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  2. Alshawi, H.: 1990, ‘Resolving Quasi Logical Form.’ Computational Linguistics 16:133–144.Google Scholar
  3. Alshawi, H.: 1992, ‘The Core Language Engine’. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Alshawi, H. and J. van Eijck: 1992, ‘Logical Forms in the Core Language Engine’. In Proceedings ACL’87.Google Scholar
  5. Alshawi, H. and D. Crouch: 1992, ‘Monotonic semantic interpretations’. In Proceedings ACL’92, pp. 33–39.Google Scholar
  6. Bos, J.: 1995, ‘Predicate Logic Unplugged’. In Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam: ILLC, pp. 133–142.Google Scholar
  7. Bos, J.: 2002, ‘Underspecification and resolution in discourse semantics’. Ph.D. Thesis, Saarland University, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  8. Bronnenberg, W., H. Bunt, J. Landsbergen, R. Scha, W. Schoenmakers & E. van Utteren: 1979, The question answering system Phliqa1. In L. Bolc (ed.) Natural language question answering systems. London: McMillan, pp. 217–305.Google Scholar
  9. Bunt, H.: 1984, ‘The resolution of quantificational ambiguity in the Tendum system.’ Proceedings COLING 1984 , Stanford University, pp. 130–133.Google Scholar
  10. Bunt, H.: 1985, ‘Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics.’ Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bunt, H.: 1995, ‘Semantics and Pragmatics in the ΔELTA Project.’ In: L. Dybkjaer, editor, Proceedings of the Second Spoken Dialogue and Discoure Workshop, Topics in Cognitive Science and HCI, Vol.8. Roskilde: Centre for Cognitive Science, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  12. Bunt, H.: 2005, ‘Quantification and modification as Feature Structures’. In Proceedings of the Sixth Internationanl Workshop on Computational Semantics IWCS-6, Tilburg, pp. 54–65.Google Scholar
  13. Bunt, H.: 2006: ‘Mass expressions’. In K.Brown, editor, Encyclopedia of Language and Liguistics, Second Edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 5757–5760.Google Scholar
  14. Bunt, H., R.J. Beun, F. Dols, J.v.d. Linden & G. Schwartzenberg: 1984, ‘The Tendum dialogue system and its theoretical foundations.’ IPO Annual Progress Report 19, 105–113, Eindhoven: IPO.Google Scholar
  15. Bunt, H. & R. Muskens: 1999, ‘Computational Semantics’. In H. Bunt & R. Muskens (eds.) Computing Meaning, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–32.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, R.: 1983, ‘Quantification and Syntactic Theory.’ Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  17. Copestake, A., D. Flickinger, R. Malouf, I. Sag & S. Riehemann: 1995, ‘Minimal Recursion Semantics’. Unpublished ms., CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  18. Copestake, A. and D. Flickinger: 2000, ‘An Open Source Grammar Development Environment and Broad-coverage English Grammar Using HPSG’. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  19. Dalrymple, M.: 2001. ‘Lexical-Functional Grammar’. San Diego, Calif.; London : Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Davidson, D.: 1967, ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’. In: N. Rescher (ed.): The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 81–95.Google Scholar
  21. Deemter, K. van: 1996, ‘Towards a logic of Ambiguous Expressions’. In S. Peters and K. van Deemter, editors, Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 203–237.Google Scholar
  22. Deemter, K. van, G. Brockhoff, H. Bunt, M. Meya and J. de Vet: 1985 ‘From Tendum to spicos, or: How flexible is the Tendum approach to question answering?’ IPO Annual Progress Report 20, 83–90.Google Scholar
  23. Ebert, C.: 2005, Formal Investigations of Underspecified Representations. Ph.D. Thesis, King’s College, University of London.Google Scholar
  24. Egg, M., A. Koller and J. Niehren: 2001, ‘The constraint language for lambda structures’. Journal for Logic, Language, and Information 10, 457–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fenstad, J.E., P. Halvorsen, T. Langholm, and van Benthem: 1987, ‘Situations, Language and Logic’. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 34, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  26. Fraassen, B. van: 1966, ‘Singular terms, truth-values gaps, and free logic’. Journal of Philosophy 63.17: 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gardent, C. and B. Webber: 1998, ‘Describing discourse semantics.’ In Proceedings of the 4 th TAG+ Workshop, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  28. Geurts, B. & G. Rentier: 1991, ‘Quasi logical form in PLUS’. Esprit project P5254 (PLUS) internal report, Tilburg: Institute for Language Technology and Artificial Intelligence ITK.Google Scholar
  29. Hobbs, J.: 1985, ‘Ontological Promiscuity.’ In Proc. 23rd Annual meeting of the ACL, Chicago, 61–69.Google Scholar
  30. Hobbs, J. and S. Shieber: 1987, ‘An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings’. Computational Linguistics 13 (1–2):47–63.Google Scholar
  31. Hobbs, J., M. Stickel, D. Appelt & P. Martin: 1993, ‘Interpretation as Abduction’. Artificial Intelligence 63: 69–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keller, W.: 1998, ‘Nested Cooper Storage: The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary Noun Phrases’. In: U. Reyle & C. Rohrer (eds.) Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic theories. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
  33. Kievit, L.: 1998, ‘Context-driven natural language interpretation’. Ph.D. Thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  34. Kievit, L., P. Piwek, R.J. Beun & H. Bunt: 2001, ‘Multimodal Cooperative Resolution of Referential Expressions in the DenK system.’ In H. Bunt & R.J. Beun (eds) Cooperative Multimodal Communication. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koller, A., J. Niehren, and S. Thater: 2003, ‘Bridging the gap between underspecification formalisms: Hole semantics as dominance constraints.’ Proceedings of the 11 th EACL, Budapest, pp. 195–202.Google Scholar
  36. Koller, A.: 2004, ‘Constraint-Based and Graph-Based Resolution of Ambiguities in Natural Language’. Ph.D. Thesis, Saarland University, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  37. König, E. & Reyle, U.: 1996, ‘A General Reasoning Scheme for Underspecified Representations.’ In: H.J. Ohlbach & U. Reyle (eds.) Logic and its Applications. Festschrift for Dov Gabbay. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  38. Medema, P., W. Bronnenberg, H. Bunt, J. Landsbergen, W, Schoenmakers and E. van Utteren: 1975, ‘Phliqa1: ‘Multilevel semantics in question answering.’ American Journal of Computational Linguistics microfiche 32.Google Scholar
  39. Molla, D.: 1999, ‘Ontologically Promiscuous Flat Logical Forms for NLP’. In Proceedings 4 th International Workshop on Computational Semantics IWCS-4, Tilburg University, pp. 249–265.Google Scholar
  40. Muskens, R.: 2001, ‘Talking about Trees and Truth-Conditions.’ Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 417–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pinkal, M.: 1999, ‘On semantic underspecification.’ In H. Bunt & R. Muskens (eds.) Computing Meaning, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 33–55.Google Scholar
  42. Pulman, S.: 2000, ‘Bidirectional Contextual resolution.’ Computational Linguistics 26:4. 497–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reyle, U.: 1993, ‘Dealing with Ambiguities by Underspecification’. Journal of Semantics 10 (2), 123–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reyle, U.: 1996, ‘Co-indexing labelled DRSs to represent and reason with ambiguities’. In S. Peters and K. van Deemter, editors, Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 239–268.Google Scholar
  45. Scha, R.: 1981, ‘Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification’. In J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof, editors, Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
  46. Schiehlen, M., Bos, J. & Dorna, M.: 2000, ‘Verbmobil Interface Terms (VITs).’ In W. Wahlster (ed.) Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation. Berlin: Springer, pp. 183–199.Google Scholar
  47. Schubert, L.K. and F.J. Pelletier: 1982, ‘From English to Logic: Contextfree computation of conventional logical translation’. American Journal of Computational Linguistics 8 (1): 165–176.Google Scholar
  48. Willis, A. & S. Manandhar: 2001, ‘The Availability of Partial Scopings in an Underspecified Semantic Representation’. In H. Bunt, R. Muskens & E. Thijsse (eds.) Computing Meaning, Vol. 2 , Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 129–145.Google Scholar
  49. Woods, W.: 1978, ‘Semantics and quantification in question answering/. In M. Yovits (ed.) Advances in Computers. New York: Academic Press, pp. 2–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry Bunt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations