Discourse Representation Theory

Kamp, Hans; Genabith, Josef van; Reyle, Uwe

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0485-5_3

Cited by 274 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most successful attempts to deal with anaphoric resolution, especially across sentences, have been developed within the tradition of dynamic semantics. We follow that tradition here, in particular the version developed by Kamp and Reyle (1993) and Kamp et al (2011), Discourse Representation Theory (DRT). 5 In dynamic semantics, the meaning of a sentence is not its truth conditions, but its context change potential, made precise as a relation between assignments of individuals to discourse referents at different points in the discourse.…”

Section: Formalising Anaphoric Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating LFG’s binding theory with PCDRT

Dalrymple

Haug

Lowe

2018

JLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We provide a formal model for the interaction of syntax and pragmatics in the interpretation of anaphoric binding constraints on personal and reflexive pronouns. We assume a dynamic semantics, where e-type expressions introduce discourse referents, and contexts are assignments of individuals to discourse referents. We adopt the Partial Compositional Discourse Representation Theory (PCDRT) of Haug(2014b),which models anaphoric resolution in terms of a pragmatically-established relation between discourse referents. We integrate PCDRT into the constraint-based grammatical framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), and show how it is possible to state syntactic constraints on the pragmatic resolution of singular and plural anaphora within this framework.

show abstract

Section: Formalising Anaphoric Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating LFG’s binding theory with PCDRT

Dalrymple

Haug

Lowe

2018

JLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These are called rhetoric relations. In addition to simply taking over similar structures of earlier discourse-representation schools [7], we improve them slightly. First, they are not necessarily independent, so we are using a minimal/canonical set of rhetoric relations.…”

Section: Applying Contralog For Realis Natural Language Parsingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• λ: the level relation that relates rhetorical contexts and/or modal logic relationships [7]. The level structure shows a self-embedding nature, and it also specifies the availability scope of discourse object references.…”

Section: Applying Contralog For Realis Natural Language Parsingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contralog: a Prolog conform forward-chaining environment and its application for dynamic programming and natural language parsing

Kilián

2016

Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Informatica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The backward-chaining inference strategy of Prolog is inefficient for a number of problems. The article proposes Contralog: a Prologconform, forward-chaining language and an inference engine that is implemented as a preprocessor-compiler to Prolog. The target model is Prolog, which ensures mutual switching from Contralog to Prolog and back. The Contralog compiler is implemented using Prolog's de facto standardized macro expansion capability. The article goes into details regarding the target model.We introduce first a simple application example for Contralog. Then the next section shows how a recursive definition of some problems is executed by their Contralog definition automatically in a dynamic programming way. Two examples, the well-known matrix chain multiplication problem and the Warshall algorithm are shown here. After this, the inferential target model of Prolog/Contralog programs is introduced, and the possibility for implementing the ReALIS natural language parsing technology is described relying heavily on Contralog's forward chaining inference engine. Finally the article also discusses some practical questions of Contralog program development.

show abstract

“…On the one extreme there is Asher (1986) who assumes that mental states just are DRS-like syntactic structures. By contrast, Kamp et al (2003) offer so-called "Information State Based Attitudinal States (ISBAS)", which are still highly structured but more genuinely semantic entities (in the sense of involving possible worlds and individuals rather than formulas). I adopt a simpler and more traditional view, based on the idea that an agent's beliefs correspond to a set of possible worlds (Hintikka 1962;Stalnaker 1984).…”

Section: Interpreting Mental State Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parasitic attitudes

Maier

2015

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Karttunen observes that a presupposition triggered inside an attitude ascription, can be filtered out by a seemingly inaccessible antecedent under the scope of a preceding belief ascription. This poses a major challenge for presupposition theory and the semantics of attitude ascriptions. I solve the problem by enriching the semantics of attitude ascriptions with some independently argued assumptions on the structure and interpretation of mental states. In particular, I propose a DRT-based representation of mental states with a global belief-layer and a variety of labeled attitude compartments embedded within it. Hence, desires and other non-doxastic attitudes are asymmetrically dependent on beliefs. I integrate these mental state representations into a general semantic account of attitude ascriptions which relies on the parasitic nature of nondoxastic attitudes to solve Karttunen's puzzle.

show abstract

Discourse Representation Theory

Cited by 274 publications

References 69 publications

Integrating LFG’s binding theory with PCDRT

Integrating LFG’s binding theory with PCDRT

Contralog: a Prolog conform forward-chaining environment and its application for dynamic programming and natural language parsing

Parasitic attitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About