Advertisement

On Semantic Underspecification

  • Manfred Pinkal
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 73)

Abstract

Scope, especially quantifier scope, is the first and best investigated phenomenon in the field of underspecification research. The use of logic representation languages in natural language semantics often requires a choice between alternative scopings in the interpretation process, where this choice seems to be premature or unnecessarily fine-grained. An example is (la), which can be assigned either (lb) or (1c) as logical representation, although in many cases the relative scope of universal and existential operator may be unclear, or irrelevant, or both.

Keywords

Semantic Ambiguity Meaning Description Generative Lexicon Dominance Constraint Scope 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. Alshawi, H. and Crouch, R. (1992) Monotonic semantic interpretation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACL, 32–39.Google Scholar
  2. Bos, J. (1996) Predicate logic unplugged. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors, Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam. ILLC.Google Scholar
  3. Bronnenberg, W.J., Bunt, H.C., Landsbergen, J., Scha, R., Schoenmakers, W.J. and Utteren, E. van (1979) The question answering system phliqa 1. In L. Bolc (ed.) Natural communication with computers. MacMillan, London.Google Scholar
  4. Bunt, H.C. (1984) The resolution of quantificational ambiguity in the tendum system. Proc. COLING’84, Stanford University, 130–133.Google Scholar
  5. Bunt, H.C. (1985) Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Copestake, A., Flickinger, D. and Sag, I. (1997) Minimal recursion semantics. An introduction. CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  7. Deemter, K. van (1996) Towards a logic of ambiguous expressions. In K. van Deemter and S. Peters, editors, Semantic ambiguity and underspecification, pages 203–237. CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  8. Eijck, J. van (1996) The logic of ambiguation. In The FraCas Consortium, editor, Building the Framework, FraCas Deliverable 15.Google Scholar
  9. Egg, M. and Lebeth, K (1996) Semantic interpretation in HPSG. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference on HPSG, Marseilles.Google Scholar
  10. Fine, K. (1975) Vagueness, truth, and logic. Synthese, 30:265–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics & Philosophy, 14:39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirschbühler, P. (1982) VP deletion and across the board quantifier scope. In Proceedings of NELS 12.Google Scholar
  13. Kamp, H, and Reyle, U. (1993) From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Landsbergen, J. and Scha, R. (1979) Formal languages for semantic representation. In. S. All’en and J. Petöfi (eds.) Aspects of automatized text processing. Buske, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  15. Muskens, R. (1997) Order-independence and underspecification. Proceedings of the Workshops in Prague (Feb 1995) and Bad Teinach (May 1995), Vol. 2: Comments and Replies, 155–166, Arbeitspapier des IMS, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  16. Niehren, J., Pinkal, M. and Ruhrberg, P. (1997) On equality up-to constraints over finite trees, context unification and one-step rewriting. In Proceedings of CADE’97.Google Scholar
  17. Niehren, J., Pinkal, M. and Ruhrberg, P. (1997) A uniform approach to underspecification and parallelism. In Proceedings of ACL’97, 410–417, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  18. Pinkal, M. (1995) Logic and Lexicon. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Pinkal, M. (1996) Radical underspecification. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors, Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, 587–606, Amsterdam, ILLC.Google Scholar
  20. Poesio, M. (1996) Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. CSLI-Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Pustejovsky, J. (1991) The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17:409–441.Google Scholar
  22. Pustejovsky, J. (1995) The generative lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. Reyle, U. (1993) Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: construction, representation, and deduction. Journal of Semantics, 10:123–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reyle, U. (1996) Co-indexing labeled DRSs to represent and reason with ambiguities. In Deemter, K. van and S. Peters, S. eds, Semantic ambiguity and underspecification, 239–268. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Sag, I. (1976) Deletion and logical form. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA..Google Scholar
  26. Wahlster, W. (1993) Verbmobil: Translation of face-to-face dialogues. In Proceedings of the 3 rd European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, pages 29–38, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  27. Worm, K. (1997) Robuste semantische Verarbeitung. Verbmobil-Report 200, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, December 1997. Available from http://www.dfki.de/verbmobil/.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Pinkal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations