Context and The Composition Of Meaning

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


Word List Relative Clause Lexical Entry Common Noun Context Transition 
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. P. Blackburn and J. Bos: 2005. Representation and Inference for Natural Language; A First Course in Computational Semantics — Two Volumes. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  2. D. Bekki: 2000. Typed dynamic logic for E-type link. In Proceedings for Third International Conference on Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution (DAARC2000), pp. 39–48. Lancaster University, U.K.Google Scholar
  3. G. Chierchia: 1992. Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15(2):111–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. M.J. Cresswell: 1973. Logics and Languages. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  5. P. Dekker: 1994. Predicate logic with anaphora. In L. Santelmann and M. Harvey, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, page 17 vv, Cornell University. DMML Publications.Google Scholar
  6. P. Dekker: 1996. Representation and information in dynamic semantics. In Jerry Seligman and Dag Westerståhl, editors, Language, Logic and Computation, pp. 183–197. CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  7. J. van Eijck: 1997. Typed logics with states. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 5(5):623–645, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. J. van Eijck. Incremental dynamics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10:319–351.Google Scholar
  9. J. van Eijck: 2002. Reference resolution in context. In M. Theune, A. Nijholt, and H. Hondorp, editors, Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001 Selected Papers from the 12th CLIN Meeting, pp. 89–103. Amsertdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  10. J. van Eijck and H. Kamp: 1997. Representing discourse in context. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pp. 179–237. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. B. Grosz, A. Joshi, and S. Weinstein: 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21:203–226.Google Scholar
  12. B.J. Grosz and C.L. Sidner: 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12:175–204.Google Scholar
  13. J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof: 1990. Dynamic Montague Grammar. In L. Kalman and L. Polos, editors, Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, pp. 3–48. Budapest: Akademiai Kiadoo.Google Scholar
  14. J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof: 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14:39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. I. Heim: 1991. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. J. Roger Hindley: 1997. Basic Simple Type Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. The Haskell Team. The Haskell homepage. Scholar
  18. Martin Jansche: 1998. Dynamic Montague Grammar lite. Dept of Linguistics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  19. H. Kamp: 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk et al., editors, Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. M. Kohlhase, S. Kuschert, and M. Pinkal: 1996. A type-theoretic semantics for λ-DRT. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  21. H. Kamp and U. Reyle: 1983. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  22. S. Kuschert: 2000. Dynamic Meaning and Accommodation. PhD thesis, Universität des Saarlandes, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. R. Milner: 1978. A theory of type polymorphism in programming. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 17.Google Scholar
  24. R. Montague: 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In J. Hintikka e.a., editor, Approaches to Natural Language, pp. 221–242. Reidel.Google Scholar
  25. R. Muskens: 1984. A compositional representation theory. In pp. 467–486. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  26. R. Muskens: 1995. Tense and the logic of change. In U. Egli et al., editor, Lexical Knowledge in the Organization Benjamins of Language, pp. 147–183. W. Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. R. Muskens: 1996. Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation, Linguistics and Philosophy, 19:143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R. Muskens: 2002. Language, lambdas and logic. Manuscript, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  29. R. Muskens: 2003. Language, lambdas and logic. In G.J. Kruijff and R. Oehrle, editors, Resource Sensitivity in Binding and Anaphora, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 23–54. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. R. Oehrle: 1994. Term-labeled categorial type systems. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17:633–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. S. Orey: 1959. Model theory for the higher order predicate calculus. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 92:72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. C.F.M. Vermeulen: 1993. Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 2:217–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. C.F.M. Vermeulen: 1995. Merging without mystery. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24:405–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. H. Wada and N. Asher: 1986. BUILDRS: An implementation of DR theory and LFG. In 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Proceedings of Coling ’86, University of Bonn.Google Scholar
  35. M. Walker, A. Joshi, and E. Prince, editors: 1998. Centering Theory in Discourse. Clarendon Press,.Google Scholar
  36. H. Zeevat: 1989. A compositional approach to discourse representation theory. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12:95–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations


There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations