Advertisement

How to Glue a Donkey to an F-Structure: Porting a ‘Dynamic’ Meaning Representation Language into LFG’s Linear Logic Glue-Language Semantics

  • Josef Van Genabith
  • Richard Crouch
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 73)

Abstract

In the present chapter we port a ‘dynamic’1 meaning representation language (Muskens, 1994b; Muskens, 1994a; Muskens, 1996) into the meaning representation slots in the linear logic based glue language semantics developed by (Dalrymple et al., 1993b; Dalrymple et al., 1993a; Dalrymple et al., 1995b; Dalrymple et al., 1997; Dalrymple et al, 1996). In the original proposals the meaning representation language slots are occupied by expressions in a standard, static higher order logic with generalized quantifiers. The revised approach extends the original approach to discourse phenomena and can be combined with the approach to underspecification developed in (Crouch & Genabith, 1996). On the other hand it makes available linear logic based approaches to quantifier scope and underspecification to dynamic semantics. The chapter is structured as follows: first, we give brief introductions to the original LFG glue language semantics and the new ‘dynamic’ meaning representation language CDRT; we then port the latter into the former; finally we compare the results with some approaches discussed in the literature and sketch QLF (Alshawi & Crouch, 1992) and UDRS (Reyle, 1995) style interpretations for sets of linear logic premises obtained.

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 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asher, N. (1993) Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bos, J.; Mastenbroek, E.; McGlashan, S.; Millies, S.; and Pinkal, M. (1994) A compositional DRS-based formalism for NLP-applications. In International Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G. (1991) Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(2):111–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crouch, R. and Genabith, J. van (1996) Context change and underspecification in glue language semantics. In Butt, M. and King, T.H., editors, Proceedings of the First LFG Conference, RANK Xerox Research Center, Grenoble, France. 133–147.Google Scholar
  6. Dalrymple, M.; Hinrichs, A.; Lamping, J.; and Saraswat, V. (1993a) The resource logic of complex predicate interpretation. In Proceedings of the 1993 Republic of China Computational Linguistics Conference (ROCLING). Also Xerox Technical Report ISTL-NLTT-1993-08-03.Google Scholar
  7. Dalrymple, M.; Lamping, J.; and Saraswat, V. (1993b) Lfg semantics via constraints. In Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the European ACL (EACL), Utrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Dalrymple, M.; Kaplan, R.M.; Maxwell, J.T.; and Zaenen, A., editors (1995a) Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. CSLI lecture notes; no.47. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Dalrymple, M.; Kehler, A.; Lamping, J.; and Saraswat, V. (1995b) The semantics of resource sharing in lexical-functional grammar. In Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the European ACL (EACL). 31–38.Google Scholar
  10. Dalrymple, M.; Lamping, J.; Pereira, F.C.N; and Saraswat, V. (1996) A deductive account of quantification in LFG. In Kanazawa, M.; Pinon, C; and Swart, H.de, editors, Quantifiers, Deduction and Context. CSLI Publications, No. 57. 33–57.Google Scholar
  11. Dalrymple, M.; Lamping, J.; Pereira, F.C.N; and Saraswat, V. (1997) Quantifiers, anaphora, and intensionality. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 6(3):219–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalrymple, M. (1993) The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Declerck, T (1996) Modelling information passing with the LFG workbench. In Butt, M. and King, T.H., editors, Proceedings of the First LFG Conference, RANK Xerox Research Center, Grenoble, France.Google Scholar
  14. Eijck, J. van and Kamp, H. (1997) Representing discourse in context. In Benthem, J. van and Meulen, A.ter, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 179–237.Google Scholar
  15. Genabith, J. van and Crouch, R. (1996a) Direct and underspecified interpretations of LFG f-structures. In COLING 96, Copenhagen, Denmark. 262–267.Google Scholar
  16. Genabith, J. van and Crouch, R. (1996b) F-structures, qlfs and udrss. In Butt, M. and King, T.H., editors, Proceedings of the First LFG Conference, RANK Xerox Research Center, Grenoble, France. 190–205.Google Scholar
  17. Genabith, J. van and Crouch, R. (1997) On interpreting f-structures as udrss. In ACL-EACL-97, Madrid, Spain. 402–409.Google Scholar
  18. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. (1990) Dynamic montague grammar. In Kalman, L. and Polos, L., editors, Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language. Akademiai Kiadoo, Budapest. 3–48.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14:39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. (1993) From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. (1996) A calculus for first order discourse representation structures. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 5(3–4):297–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kamp, H. (1981) A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J. and editors, Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Kaplan, R.M. and Bresnan, J. (1982) Lexical functional grammar. In Bresnan, J., editor (1982, The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. 173–281.Google Scholar
  24. Kohlhase, M.; Kuschert, S.; and Pinkal, M. (1996) A type-theoretic semantics for λ-DRT. In Dekker, P. and Stokhof, M., editors, Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. König, E. and Reyle, U. (1996) A general reasoning scheme for underspecified representations. In Ohlbach, H.-J. and Reyle, U., editors, Logic and its Applications. Festschrift for Dov Gabbay. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, D.A. (1990) A logic programming language with lambda abstraction, function variables and simple unification. In Schroeder-Heister, P., editor, Extensions of Logic Programming. Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Muskens, R. (1994a) Categorial grammar and discourse representation theory. In COLING 94, Kyoto, Japan. 508–514.Google Scholar
  28. Muskens, R. (1994b) A compositional discourse representation theory. In Proceedings 9th Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, Amsterdam. 467–486.Google Scholar
  29. Muskens, R. (1995) Order-independence and underspecification. In Dyana-2 Deliverable R2.2.C “Illipsis, Underspecification, Events and More in Dynamic Semantics”. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  30. Muskens, R. (1996) Combining montague semantics and discourse representation theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 19:143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pinkal, M. (1996) Radical underspecification. In Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  32. Reyle, U. (1993) Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction. Journal of Semantics 10:123–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reyle, U. (1995) On reasoning with ambiguities. In Seventh Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics — Proceedings of the Conference, Dublin. ACL. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Troelstra, A.S. (1992) Lecture Notes on Linear Logic. CSLI Lecture Notes, 29. CSLI, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Van Genabith
  • Richard Crouch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations