Weak Lexical Semantics and Multiple Views

  • Allan Ramsay
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 77)


Most formal/computational treatments of natural language semantics discuss the production of formal paraphrases in some suitable language. There is some debate as to whether this can be done strictly compositionally, e.g. by function application and composition, as proposed in Montague grammar and its descendants (Dowty et al., 1981; Kohlhase et al., 1996), or by simple structure sharing (Pollard and Sag, 1988; Pollard and Sag, 1994; Fenstad et al., 1987); or whether some more indirect construction process is involved (Dalrymple et al., 1996; van Genabith and Crouch, 1997). In nearly every case, however, the goal of the process is a formal paraphrase that ‘means the same as the original’.


Theorem Prover Multiple View Temporal Entity Natural Language Semantic Lexical Semantic 
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. Barwise, J. and J. Perry (1983) Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  2. Copestake, A. and E. Briscoe (1996) Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. In: J. Pustejovsky and B. Boguraev (eds.) Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 15–67.Google Scholar
  3. Cruse, D. A. (1986) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cryan, M. and A. M. Ramsay (1997) A Normal Form for Property Theory. In: Proc. 14th Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Vol. 1249. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 237–251.Google Scholar
  5. Dalrymple, M., J. Lamping, F. C. N. Pereira, and V. Saraswat (1996) A deductive account of quantification in LFG. In: M. Kanazawa, C. Piñon, and H. de Swart (eds.) Quantifiers, deduction and context. Stanford: CSLI, 33–58.Google Scholar
  6. Dowty, D. R. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dowty, D.R. (1991) Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection. Language 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
  8. Dowty, D. R., R. E. Wall, and S. Peters (1981) Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Fenstad, J. E., P.-K. Halvorsen, T. Langholm, and J. van Benthem (1987) Situations, Language and Logic. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 34. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Jackendoff, R. S. (1983) Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983) Mental Models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kohlhase, M., S. Kuschert, and M. Pinkal (1996) A type-theoretic semantics for λ-DRT. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  13. Manthey, R. and E Bry (1988) SATCHMO: a Theorem Prover in Prolog. In: Proc. 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Vol. 310. Berlin:Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  14. Moens, M. and M. Steedman (1988) Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2), 15–28.Google Scholar
  15. Pollard, C. J. and I. A. Sag (1988) An Information Based Approach to Syntax and Semantics: Vol 1, Fundamentals. CSLI Lecture Notes 13. Chicago:Chicago University Press, 415–4Google Scholar
  16. Pollard, C. J. and I. A. Sag (1994) Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Pustejovsky, J. (1991) The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4), 409–441.Google Scholar
  18. Ramsay, A. M. (1995) A Theorem Prover for an Intensional Logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning 14, 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramsay, A. M. (1996) Aspect and Aktionsart: fighting or cooperating? In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-96), Copenhagen, 889–894.Google Scholar
  20. Ramsay, A. M. (1999) Dynamic and Underspecified Semantics without Dynamic and Underspecified Logic. In: H. Bunt, L. Kievit, R. Muskens, and M. Verlinden (eds.) Computing Meaning, Vol. 1. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 73. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 208–220.Google Scholar
  21. Turner, R. (1987) A Theory of Properties. Journal of Symbolic Logic 52(2), 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Genabith, J. and R. Crouch (1997) How to glue a donkey to an f-structure. In: H. Bunt, L. Kievit, R. Muskens, and M. Verlinden (eds.) 2nd International Workshop on Computational Semantics. Tilburg: Tilburg University, 52–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan Ramsay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Language EngineeringUMISTUK

Personalised recommendations