Computing The Semantic Information In An Utterance

  • Harry Bunt
  • Reinhard Muskens
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 83)

Keywords

Dick Concession 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bunt, H.: 1989. Dynamic Interpretation in Text and Dialogue. In H. Bouma and B. Elsendoorn, editors Working Models of Human Perception. New York: Academic Press. pp. 81–150.Google Scholar
  2. Bunt, H.: 2000. Dialogue pragmatics and context specification. In H. Bunt and W. Black, editors Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue. Studies in Computational Pragmatics. Benjamins, Amsterdam. pp. 419–455.Google Scholar
  3. Cahill, A., M. McCarthy, J. van Genabith and A. Way: 2002a. Automatic Annotation of the Penn Treebank with LFG F-Structure Information. In Proc.LREC Workshop on Linguistic Knowledge Acquisition and Representation. Google Scholar
  4. Cahill, A., M. McCarthy, J. van Genabith and A. Way: 2002b. Evaluating Automatic F-Structure Annotation for the Penn-II Treebank in Proceedings of the Treebanks and Linguistic Theories Workshop, Sozopol, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  5. Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira, F.C.N. and Saraswat, V.: 1996. Quantification, anaphora, and intensionality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information6(3) 219–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frazier, L. and K. Rayner: 1990. Taking on Semantic Commitments: Processing Multiple Meanings vs. Multiple Senses. Journal of Memory and Language29, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Genabith, J. van, and D. Crouch: 1996. Direct and Underspecified Interpretations of LFG f-Structures. In Proceedings COLING 96, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 262–267.Google Scholar
  8. Genabith, J. van, Frank, A. and Dorna, M.: 1998. Transfer constructors. In Butt, M. and King, T. H., editors, Proceedings of the LFG’98, Conference Brisbane, Australia. CSLI Publications, pp. 190–205.Google Scholar
  9. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof: 1985. Dynamic Predicate Logic. ITLI Report, Amsterdam: ITLI.Google Scholar
  10. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof: 1989. Context and Information in Dynamic Semantics. In H. Bouma and B. Elsendoorn, editors Working Models of Human Perception. New York: Academic Press. pp. 457–486.Google Scholar
  11. Liakata, M. and S. Pulman: 2002. From trees to predicate-argument structures. COLING’02, Proceedings of the Conference, Taipei.Google Scholar
  12. Lambalgen, M. van, and F. Hamm: 2003. Moschovakis’ notion of meaning as applied to linguistics. In M. Baaz and J. Krajicek, editors, Logic Colloquium ’01. ASL Lecture Notes in Logic, Wellesley, MA.: A.K. Peters.Google Scholar
  13. Shanahan, M.P.: 1997. Solving the frame problem. The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, R. and J. van Kuppevelt editors: 2003. Current and new Directions in Discourse and Dialogue. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Traum, D., and S. Larsson: 2003. The Information State Approach to Dialogue Management. In R. Smith and J. van Kuppevelt, editors,: 2003, Current and new Directions in Discourse and Dialogue. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 325–353.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry Bunt
    • 1
  • Reinhard Muskens
    • 1
  1. 1.Tilburg UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations