A compositional approach to discourse representation theory

Zeevat, Henk

doi:10.1007/bf00627399

Cited by 79 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The insertion of this level, however, has given rise to a double problem of compositionality (language → DRS, DRS → world model), at least according to the very strict sense of the Fregean principle of compositionality introduced by Montague [8]. As for the DRS → world model transition Zeevat [2] has provided a compositional solution, which could successfully be built in the new version of DRT [4]. As for the language → DRS transition, however, the authors admit (p195) that no (properly) compositional solution could be found in the last two decades.…”

Section: Drt Ucg and Total Lexicalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9], [5]) with the basically unordered DRSs. Nowadays [2], [4] some kind of Categorial Grammar (CG) is held to promise the best chance for capturing the language → DRS transition in a properly compositional manner. The reason lies in the fact that, in a CG system, language-specific information (about how words can combine to form constituents, and then sentences), stored in PS rules in the transformational generative theory, is stored in the Lexicon; the reduced syntax only "concatenates": it permits the words with compatible lexical information to combine (this operation of concatenation is referred to as Function Application).…”

Section: Drt Ucg and Total Lexicalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A new sort of generative grammar (Sec2) will be demonstrated which is more radically "lexicalist" than any earlier one (Sec1). It is a modified Unification Categorial Grammar [1][2][3][4] from which even the principal syntactic "weapon" of CGs, Function Application, has been omitted. What has remained is lexical sign and the mere technique of unification as the engine of combining signs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Total Lexicalism and GASGrammars: A Direct Way to Semantics

Alberti

Balogh

Kleiber

et al. 2003

Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A new sort of generative grammar (Sec2) will be demonstrated which is more radically "lexicalist" than any earlier one (Sec1). It is a modified Unification Categorial Grammar [1][2][3][4] from which even the principal syntactic "weapon" of CGs, Function Application, has been omitted. What has remained is lexical sign and the mere technique of unification as the engine of combining signs. The computation thus requires no usual linguistic technique (e.g. Move, Merge, traces [5], Function Application [6]); which promises a straightforward implementation of GASG in Prolog. Our parser decides whether a Hungarian sentence is grammatical and creates its (practically English) DRS (Sec3). DRT, UCG and Total LexicalismA "totally lexicalist" generative grammar will be demonstrated in this paper. The first motivation of the enterprise was the stubborn problem of compositionality in DRT (Discourse Representation Theory; e.g. [7], [4]).DRT is a successful attempt to extend the sentence-level Montagovian modeltheoretic semantics to the discourse level. Its crucial proposal is that a level of discourse representation must be inserted in between the language to be interpreted and the world model serving as the context of interpretation. The insertion of this level, however, has given rise to a double problem of compositionality (language → DRS, DRS → world model), at least according to the very strict sense of the Fregean principle of compositionality introduced by Montague [8]. As for the DRS → world model transition Zeevat [2] has provided a compositional solution, which could successfully be built in the new version of DRT [4]. As for the language → DRS transition, however, the authors admit (p195) that no (properly) compositional solution could be found in the last two decades.The failure of elaborating a properly compositional solution to the language → DRS transition arises from the fundamental incompatibility of the strictly hierarchically organized generative syntactic phrase structures (PS; e.g. [9], [5]) with the basically unordered DRSs. Nowadays [2], [4] some kind of Categorial Grammar (CG) is held to promise the best chance for capturing the language → DRS transition in a properly compositional manner. The reason lies in the fact that, in a CG system, language-specific information (about how words can combine to form constituents, and then sentences), stored in PS rules in the

show abstract

Section: Drt Ucg and Total Lexicalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Drt Ucg and Total Lexicalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Total Lexicalism and GASGrammars: A Direct Way to Semantics

Alberti

Balogh

Kleiber

et al. 2003

Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…' Groenendijk and Stokhof (1991: 93). For a discussion of compositionality of semantics see Zeevat 1989 andDekker 2000. 20 See e.g.…”

Section: Merger Representations For the Three Readings Of Belief Repomentioning

confidence: 99%

Variadic function and pragmatics-rich representations of belief reports

Jaszczolt

2007

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…6 The side condition NVC � above ensures that as a function from Tm • [�] to Var, · • � is 1-1, and therefore has an inverse. 7 Diffferences between these and definitions in, for example, Zeevat [29], Dekker [4] and Vermeulen [27] are largely inessential -at least for the translations A • � considered below.…”

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%