Discourse Representation Theory

  • Hans Kamp
  • Josef Van Genabith
  • Uwe Reyle
Part of the Handbook of Philosophical Logic book series (HALO, volume 15)


Discourse Representation Theory, or DRT, is one of a number of theories of dynamic semantics, which have come upon the scene in the course of the past twenty years. The central concern of these theories is to account for the context dependence of meaning. It is a ubiquitous feature of natural languages that utterances are interpretable only when the interpreter takes account of the contexts in which they are made – utterance meaning depends on context. Moreover, the interaction between context and utterance is reciprocal.


Propositional Attitude Belief Attribution Utterance Time Discourse Referent Attitude Attribution 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Abusch, 2004]
    D. Abusch. On the temporal composition of infinitives. In J.Gueron and J. Lecarme, editors, The Syntax of Time. MIT Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. [Ahn and Kolb, 1990]
    R. Ahn and H.-P. Kolb. Discourse representation meets constructive mathematics. In L. Kalman and L. Polos, editors, Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, pages 105–124. Akademiai Kiadoo, Budapest, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [Asher and H.Kamp, 1989]
    N. Asher and H.Kamp. Self-reference, attitudes and paradox. In Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Partee, and Raymond Turner, editors, Properties, Types and Meaning, volume 1. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [Asher and Lascarides, 1998]
    N. Asher and A. Lascarides. Bridging. Journal of Semantics, pages 83–113, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. [Asher and Lascarides, 2003]
    Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. [Asher et al.,]
    Nicholas Asher, Daniel Hardt, and Joan Busquets. Discourse parallelism, scope, and ellipsis.Google Scholar
  7. [Asher, 1986]
    N. Asher. Belief in discourse representation theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 15:127–189, 1986.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [Asher, 1993]
    N. Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Dordrecht, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [Bach, 1981]
    E. Bach. On time, tense and aspect: An essay in english metaphysics. In P. Cole, editor, Radical Pragmatics, pages 62–81. Academic Press, New York, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. [Barwise and Cooper, 1993]
    J. Barwise and R. Cooper. Extended Kamp notation. In P. Aczel, D. Israel, Y. Katagiri, and S. Peters, editors, Situation Theory and its Applications, Volume III,  chapter 2, pages 29–54. CSLI, 1993.
  11. [Barwise et al., 1991]
    J. Barwise, J. M. Gawron, G. Plotkin, and S. Tutiya. Situation Theory and its Applications, volume II. CSLI and University of Chicago, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [Beaver, 1997]
    David Ian Beaver. Presupposition. In Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 939–1008. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. [Beaver, 2004]
    David Ian Beaver. Accomodating topics. In H. Kamp and B. H. Partee, editors, Context-Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning, pages 79–90. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. [Benthem, 1983]
    J.F.A.K. van Benthem. The Logic of Time. Reidel, Dordrecht, Dordrecht, 1983.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [Berman and Hestvik, 1994]
    S. Berman and A. Hestvik. Principle b, drt and plural pronouns. to appear in: Arbeitspapiere des sonderforschungsbereichs 340, IMS Stuttgart, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. [Bierwisch, 1983]
    M. Bierwisch. Semantische und konzeptuelle repräsentationen lexikalischer einheiten. In R. Ruzicka and W. Motsch, editors, Untersuchungen zur Semantik, Studia Grammatika 22, pages 61–99. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. [Bonevac, 1987]
    Daniel Bonevac. Deduction. Mayfield, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. [Bos et al., 1994]
    J. Bos, E. Mastenbroek, S. McGlashan, S. Millies, and M. Pinkal. A compositional DRS-based formalism for NLP-applications. In International Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tilburg, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. [Bos et al., 1995]
    J. Bos, A.-M. Mineur, and P. Buitelaar. Bridging as coercive accommodation. In CLNLP, Edinburgh, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. [Briscoe et al., 1993]
    E. Briscoe, V. de Paiva, and A. Copestake, editors. Inheritance, Defaults and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. [Caenepeel, 1989]
    Mimo Caenepeel. Aspect, Temporal Ordering and Perspective in Narrative Fiction. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. [Chierchia, 1991]
    G. Chierchia. Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15(2):111–183, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [Chierchia, 1993]
    G. Chierchia. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 1:181–234, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [Chomsky, 1981]
    N. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.Google Scholar
  25. [Clark, 1997]
    H. Clark. Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird and P. C. Wason, editors, Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, pages 411–420. Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. [Cooper et al., 1990]
    R. Cooper, K. Mukai, and J. Perry. Situation Theory and its Applications, volume I. CSLI and University of Chicago, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. [Cooper, 1975]
    R. Cooper. Montague’s Semantic Theory and Transformational Syntax. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1975.Google Scholar
  28. [de Swart, 1999]
    H. de Swart. Negation and the temporal structure of narrative discourse. Journal of Semantics, pages 1–42, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. [Dekker, 1993]
    P. Dekker. Transsentential Meditations. PhD thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. [Gabbay and Finger, 2000]
    Mark Reynolds Dov Gabbay and Marcelo Finger. Temporal Logic, Volume II. Oxford, 2000.Google Scholar
  31. [Gabbay and Reynolds, 1994]
    Ian Hodkinson Dov Gabbay and Mark Reynolds. Temporal Logic, Volume I. Oxford, 1994.Google Scholar
  32. [Dowty, 1979]
    D.R Dowty. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht, Dordrecht, 1979.Google Scholar
  33. [Eberle, 1997]
    Kurt Eberle. Flat underspecified representation and its meaning for a fragment of german. Technical report, Sonderforschungsbereich 340, Report, 1997.Google Scholar
  34. [Eijck and Kamp, 1997]
    J. van Eijck and H. Kamp. Representing discourse in context. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic an Language, pages 179–237. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. [Engdahl, 1980]
    E. Engdahl. The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Swedish. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1980. Distributed by the GLSA, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  36. [Fabricius-Hansen, 1980]
    Catherine Fabricius-Hansen. Lexikalische Dekomposition, Bedeutungspostulate und wieder. Ein Beitrag zu einer Montague- Grammatik des Deutschen. In Dieter Katovsky, editor, Perspektiven der lexikalischen Semantik, pages 26 – 40. Kohlhammer, 1980.Google Scholar
  37. [Fabricius-Hansen, 1983]
    Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen. Wieder ein wieder? Zur Semantik von wieder. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Scharze, and Arnim von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 97–120. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1983.Google Scholar
  38. [Fernando, 1992]
    Tim Fernando. Transition systems and dynamic semantics. In Logics in AI, LNCS 633. Springer-Berlin, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  39. [Fernando, 1994]
    Tim Fernando. What is a drs? In First International Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tilburg, The Netherlands, 1994.Google Scholar
  40. [Fernando, 2001a]
    Tim Fernando. Conservative generalized quantifiers and presupposition. In Proceedings, Eleventh Semantic and Linguistic Theory conference (SALT XI), pages 172–191, New York University, 2001.Google Scholar
  41. [Fernando, 2001b]
    Tim Fernando. A type reduction from proof-conditional to dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 30(2):121–153, 2001.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. [Fodor, 1975]
    J. Fodor. The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  43. [Frank and Reyle, 1995]
    A. Frank and U. Reyle. Principle based semantics for hpsg. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the EACL, March 27-31, Dublin, pages 9–16, 1995.Google Scholar
  44. [Gallin, 1975]
    D. Gallin. Intensional and Higher Order Logic; with Applications to Montague Semantics. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1975.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. [Gamut, 1991]
    L.T.F. Gamut. Language, Logic and Meaning, Part 2. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1991.Google Scholar
  46. [G¨ardenfors, 1988]
    P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, 1988.Google Scholar
  47. [Geach, 1962 (Third revised edition: 1980)]
    P.T. Geach. Reference and Generality : An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1962 (Third revised edition: 1980).Google Scholar
  48. [Genabith and Crouch, 1999]
    J. van Genabith and R. Crouch. Dynamic and underspecified semantics for lfg. In Mary Dalrymple, editor, Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach, pages 209–260. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999.Google Scholar
  49. [Geurts and van der Sandt, 1999]
    Bart Geurts and Rob van der Sandt. Presuppositions and backgrounds. In Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium. University of Amsterdam, 1999.Google Scholar
  50. [Geurts, 1997]
    B. Geurts. Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of Semantics, 14:319–348, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [Geurts, 1999]
    Bart Geurts. Presuppositions and Pronouns. Elsevier Science, 1999.Google Scholar
  52. [Goldblatt, 1992 (first edition 1987)]
    R. Goldblatt. Logics of Time and Computation, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, volume 7 of CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI, Stanford, 1992 (first edition 1987). Distributed by University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. [Grice, 1961]
    P. Grice. The causal theory of perception. Aristotelian Society Proceedings, Supplementary Volume, 35, 1961. Reprinted in: P. Grice: Studies in theWay of Words.Google Scholar
  54. [Grimm and Merrill, 1988]
    R. Grimm and D. Merrill, editors. Contents of Thought. University of Arizona Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  55. [Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1990]
    J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof. Dynamic montague grammar. In L. Kalman and L. Polos, editors, Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, pages 3–48. Akademiai Kiadoo, Budapest, 1990.Google Scholar
  56. [Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1991]
    J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14:39–100, 1991.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. [Hans and Reyle, ]
    Kamp Hans and Uwe Reyle. From discourse to logic. Volume II.Google Scholar
  58. [Hardt, 1992]
    D. Hardt. An algorithm for vp ellipsis. In Proceedings 30th ACL, Newark, pages 9–14, 1992.Google Scholar
  59. [Harel, 1984]
    D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pages 497–604. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984. Volume II.Google Scholar
  60. [Heim, 1982]
    I. Heim. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1982.Google Scholar
  61. [Heim, 1983]
    I. Heim. On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 2:114–126, 1983.Google Scholar
  62. [Hinrichs, 1986]
    E. Hinrichs. Temporal anaphora in discourses of english. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(1):63–81, 1986.Google Scholar
  63. [Hobbs, 1990]
    Jerry R Hobbs. The coherence and structure of discourse. In Literature and cognition. CSLI, 1990. CSLI Lecture notes, 21.Google Scholar
  64. [Hodges, 2001]
    Wilfrid Hodges. Elementary predicate logic. In Dov Gabbay, editor, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume I. Reidel, second edition, 2001.Google Scholar
  65. [Kadmon, 1987]
    N. Kadmon. On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1987.Google Scholar
  66. [Kalish and Montague, 1964]
    Kalish and Montague. Logic. Techniques of Formal Reasoning. Harcourt, Bran & World, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
  67. [Kamp and Reyle, 1991]
    H. Kamp and U. Reyle. A calculus for first order discourse representation structures. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 16, IMS Stuttgart, Germany, 1991.Google Scholar
  68. [Kamp and Reyle, 1993]
    H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.Google Scholar
  69. [Kamp and Rohrer, 1983a]
    H. Kamp and C. Rohrer. Tense in texts. In Bäuerle, Schwarze, and Von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 250–269. De Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.Google Scholar
  70. [Kamp and Rohrer, 1983b]
    Hans Kamp and Christian Rohrer. Temporal Reference in French. ms. Stuttgart, 1983.Google Scholar
  71. [Kamp and Roßdeutscher, 1994]
    H. Kamp and A. Roßdeutscher. Remarks on lexical structure and drs-construction. (ed) H. Schnelle, Lexical Semantics, special issue of Theoretical Linguistics, 1994.Google Scholar
  72. [Kamp and Schiehlen, 2002]
    Hans Kamp and Michael Schiehlen. How to say WHEN it happens, chapter Temporal Location in Natural Language. Niemeyer, 2002.Google Scholar
  73. [Kamp, 1971]
    Hans Kamp. Formal properties of “NOW”. Theoria, 37:227 – 273, 1971.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  74. [Kamp, 1979]
    H. Kamp. Events, instants and temporal reference. In Bäuerle, Egli, and Von Stechow, editors, Semantics from Different Points of View. Springer, Berlin, 1979.Google Scholar
  75. [Kamp, 1981a]
    H. Kamp. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk et al., editors, Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1981.Google Scholar
  76. [Kamp, 1981b]
    Hans Kamp. Evénements, representation discursive et reference temporelle. Langages, 64:39–64, 1981.Google Scholar
  77. [Kamp, 1988]
    H. Kamp. Comments on stalnaker, belief attribution and context. In R. Grimm and D. Merrill, editors, Contents of Thought. University of Arizona Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  78. [Kamp, 1990]
    H. Kamp. Prolegomena to a structural account of belief and other attitudes. In C. A. Anderson and J. Owens, editors, Propositional Attitudes—The Role of Content in Logic, Language, and Mind,  chapter 2, pages 27–90. University of Chicago Press and CSLI, Stanford, 1990.Google Scholar
  79. [Kamp, 1999]
    Hans Kamp. The representation of attitudes and their causal connections. ms. university of Stuttgart, 1999.Google Scholar
  80. [Kamp, 2001a]
    Hans Kamp. The importance of presupposition. In Christian Rohrer, Antje Rossdeutscher, and Hans Kamp, editors, Liguistic Form and its Computation. CSLI-Publications, Standord, 2001.Google Scholar
  81. [Kamp, 2001b]
    Hans Kamp. Presupposition computation and presupposition justification. In Myriam Bras and Laure Vie, editors, Pragmatic and Semantic Issues in Discourse and Dialogue. Elsevier, 2001.Google Scholar
  82. [Kamp, 2003]
    H. Kamp. Einstellungszustände und -zuschreibungen in der drt. In Ulrike Haas-Spohn, editor, Intentionalit¨at zwischen Subjektivit”at und Weltbezug, pages 209–289. mentis, Paderborn, 2003.Google Scholar
  83. [Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982]
    R.M. Kaplan and J. Bresnan. Lexical functional grammar. In J. Bresnan, editor, The mental representation of grammatical relations, pages 173–281. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, 1982.Google Scholar
  84. [Kaplan, 1969]
    D. Kaplan. Quantifying in. In D. Davidson and J. Hintikka, editors, Words and Objections: Essays on the Work of W. V. Quine. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1969.Google Scholar
  85. [Kaplan, 1989]
    D. Kaplan. Demonstratives. In H. Wettstein J. Almog, J Perry, editor, Themes form Kaplan. Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  86. [Karttunen, 1976]
    L. Karttunen. Discourse referents. In J. McCawley, editor, Syntax and Semantics 7, pages 363–385. Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  87. [Keenan and Westerstahl, 1997]
    E. Keenan and D. Westerstahl. Generalized quantifiers in liguistics and logic. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Language and Logic, pages 837–893. Elsevier, 1997.Google Scholar
  88. [Keenan, 1992]
    E. Keenan. Beyond the frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy, pages 199–221, 1992.Google Scholar
  89. [Keisler, 1970]
    H. Jerome Keisler. Logic with the quantifier ’there exist uncoutably many’. Annals of Mathematical Logic, 1:1–93, 1970.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  90. [Kohlhase et al., 1996]
    M. Kohlhase, S. Kuschert, and M. Pinkal. A type-theoretic semantics for λ-drt. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 1996.Google Scholar
  91. [Koons, 1988]
    Koons. Deduction system for drt. (ms.) Austin, Texas, 1988.Google Scholar
  92. [Krause, 2001]
    Peter Krause. Topics in Presupposition Theory. PhD thesis, Universit¨at Stuttgart, 2001.Google Scholar
  93. [Kripke, ]
    S.A. Kripke. Presuppositions and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Princeton University.Google Scholar
  94. [Kripke, 1972]
    S.A. Kripke. Naming and necessity. In D. Davidson and G. Harman, editors, Semantics of Natural Language, pages 253–355. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1972.Google Scholar
  95. [Kripke, 1979]
    S. Kripke. A puzzle about belief. In A. Margalit, editor, Meaning and Use. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.Google Scholar
  96. [Lascarides and Asher, 1993]
    Alex Lascarides and Nicholas Asher. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations, and common sense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16:437–49, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. [Lascarides and Copestake, 1999]
    Alex Lascarides and Ann Copestake. Default representation in constraint-based frameworks. Computational Linguistics, 1999.Google Scholar
  98. [Lasersohn, 1995]
    Peter Lasersohn. Plurality, Conjunction and Events. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  99. [Lasnik, 2003]
    H. Lasnik. Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory. Routledge Ltd, 2003.Google Scholar
  100. [Lewis, 1975]
    D. K. Lewis. Adverbs of quantification. In E. Keenan, editor, Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975.Google Scholar
  101. [Link, 1983]
    G. Link. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 303–323. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.Google Scholar
  102. [Loar, 1987]
    B. Loar. Subjective intentionality. Philosophical topics, 15:89–124, 1987.Google Scholar
  103. [Loar, 1988]
    B. Loar. Social content and psychological content. In R. Grimm and D. Merill, editors, Contents of Thought, pages 99–110. University of Arizona Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  104. [Martin-Löf, 1984]
    P. Martin-Löf. Intuitionistic Type Theory. Bibliopolis, 1984.Google Scholar
  105. [Moens and Steedman, 1988]
    M. Moens and M. Steedman. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):15–28, 1988.Google Scholar
  106. [Montague, 1973]
    R. Montague. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary english. In J. Hintikka e.a., editor, Approaches to Natural Language, pages 221–242. Reidel, 1973.Google Scholar
  107. [Muskens et al., 1997]
    R. Muskens, J. van Benthem, and A. Visser. Dynamics. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic an Language, pages 587–648. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. [Muskens, 1996]
    R. Muskens. Combining montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19:143–186, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. [Ogihara, 1999]
    T. Ogihara. Double-access sentences generalized. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IX (SALT9). CLC Publications, 1999.Google Scholar
  110. [Partee, 1984]
    B.H. Partee. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 1984.Google Scholar
  111. [Pollard and Sag, 1994]
    C. Pollard and I. Sag. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI, Stanford, 1994. Distributed by University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  112. [Pratt, 1976]
    V. Pratt. Semantical considerations on Floyd–Hoare logic. Proceedings 17th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 109–121, 1976.Google Scholar
  113. [Quine, 1956]
    W.V.O Quine. Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 1956.Google Scholar
  114. [Quine, 1961]
    W.V.O Quine. Reference and modality. In From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper and Row, 1961. Reprinted in Linsky: Reference and Modality, London: Oxford University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  115. [Ranta, 1995]
    Aarne Ranta. Type-theoretical Grammar. Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  116. [Reichenbach, 1947]
    H. Reichenbach. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Macmillan, London, 1947.Google Scholar
  117. [Reinhard, 1989]
    Reinhard. Deduktionen auf diskursrepräsentationsstrukturen. Studienarbeit, IMS Stuttgart, Germany, 1989.Google Scholar
  118. [Reyle and Frey, 1983]
    U. Reyle and W. Frey. A prolog implementation of lexical functional grammar. In IJCAI 83, Karlsruhe, Germany, pages 693–695, 1983.Google Scholar
  119. [Reyle and Gabbay, 1994]
    U. Reyle and D. Gabbay. Direct deductive computation on discourse represenation structures. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17:343–390, 1994.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  120. [Reyle and Rossdeutscher, 2001]
    Uwe Reyle and Antje Rossdeutscher. Temporal underspecification in discourse. In Christian Rohrer, Antje Rossdeutscher, and Hans Kamp, editors, Linguistic Form and its Computation. CSLI, 2001.Google Scholar
  121. [Reyle et al., 2000]
    Uwe Reyle, Antje Rossdeutscher, and Hans Kamp. Ups and downs in the theory of temporal reference. In Uwe Reyle, editor, Presuppositions and Underspecificationin the Computation of Temporal and other Relations in Discourse. Arbeitsberichte des Sonderfoschungsbereichs 340, Stuttgart/Tübingen, Nr.164, 2000.Google Scholar
  122. [Reyle et al., 2003]
    Uwe Reyle, Antje Rossdeutscher, and Hans Kamp. Ups and downs in the theory of temporal reference. ms. University of Stuttgart, 2003.Google Scholar
  123. [Reyle, 1993]
    U. Reyle. Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction. Journal of Semantics, 10:123–179, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. [Rooth, 1992]
    Mats Rooth. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1:75–116, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. [Rooth, 2005]
    Mats Rooth. Topic accents on quantifiers. In Greg Carlson and Jeffrey Pelletier, editors, Reference and Quantification: the Partee Effect. CSLI Publications, 2005.Google Scholar
  126. [Rooy, 1997]
    Robert Van Rooy. Attitudesw and Changing Contexts. PhD thesis, IMS, University of Stuttgart, 1997.Google Scholar
  127. [Roßdeutscher and Reyle, 2000]
    Antje Roßdeutscher and Uwe Reyle. Constraint-based bottom up discourse interpretation. In Uwe Reyle, editor, Presuppositions and Underspecification in the Computation of Temporal and other Relations in Discourse. Arbeitsberichte des Sonderfoschungsbereichs 340, Stuttgart/Tübingen, Nr.164, 2000.Google Scholar
  128. [Roßdeutscher, 2000]
    Antje Roßdeutscher. Lexikalisch gesttzte formale Textinterpretation. Arbeitsberichte des Sonderfoschungsbereichs 340, Stuttgart/Tübingen, Nr.157, 2000.Google Scholar
  129. [Russell, 1905]
    B. Russell. On denoting. Mind, 14:479–493, 1905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. [Sandström, 1993]
    Gorel Sandström. When-Clauses and the Temporal Interpretation of Narrative Discourse. PhD thesis, University of Umea, 1993.Google Scholar
  131. [Saurer, 1993]
    W. Saurer. A natural deduction system of discourse representation theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22(3):249–302, 1993.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  132. [Schiehlen, 1999]
    Michael Schiehlen. Semantikkonstruktion. PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart, 1999.Google Scholar
  133. [Schiehlen, July 2002]
    Michael Schiehlen. Ellipsis resolution with scope underspecification. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,, Philadelphia PA, July 2002.Google Scholar
  134. [Sedogbo, 1988]
    C. Sedogbo. Sylog: A drt system in prolog. In V. Dahl and P. Saint-Dizier, editors, Natural Language Understanding and Logical Programming II, pages 185–201. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
  135. [Seizmair, 1996]
    Michael Seizmair. Nicht-fregeische quantifikation und dynamik. Diplomarbeit, University of Stuttgart, 1996.Google Scholar
  136. [Seuren, 1986]
    P. Seuren. Discourse Semantics. Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.Google Scholar
  137. [Soames, 1984]
    S. Soames. Presupposition. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pages 553–616. Reidel, 1984. Volume IV.Google Scholar
  138. [Stalnaker, 1972]
    R. Stalnaker. Pragmatics. In D. Davidson and G. Harman, editors, Semantics of Natural Language, pages 380–397. Reidel, 1972.Google Scholar
  139. [Stalnaker, 1974]
    R. Stalnaker. Pragmatic presuppositions. In M.K. Munitz and P.K. Unger, editors, Semantics and Philosophy. New York University Press,, 1974.Google Scholar
  140. [Stalnaker, 1979]
    R. Stalnaker. Assertion. In P. Cole, editor, Syntax and Semantics Vol.9: Pragmatics, pages 315–332. Academic Press, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  141. [Stalnaker, 1988]
    R. Stalnaker. Belief attribution and context. In R. Grimm and D. Merrill, editors, Contents of Thought. University of Arizona Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  142. [Stalnaker, 1990]
    R. Stalnaker. Narrow content. In C. Antony Anderson and joseph Owens, editors, Propositional Attitudes: the Role of Content in Logic, Language and Mind. CSLI, 1990. Reprinted in: R. C. Stalnaker (1999): Context and Content.Google Scholar
  143. [Stechow, 1996]
    Arnim von Stechow. The different readings of “wieder” (again): A structural account. Journal of Semantics, 1996.Google Scholar
  144. [Steedman, 2001]
    M. Steedman. The Syntactic Process. Bradford Books, MIT Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  145. [Stone, 1998]
    Matthiew Stone. Modality in Dialogue: Planning, Pragmatics and Computation. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1998.Google Scholar
  146. [Strawson, 1950]
    P.F. Strawson. On referring. Mind, 59:320–344, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. [Strawson, 1964]
    Strawson. Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review, 1964.Google Scholar
  148. [Sundholm, 1986]
    G. Sundholm. Proof theory and meaning. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic III, pages 471–506. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1986.Google Scholar
  149. [Sundholm, 2001]
    G. Sundholm. Systems of deduction. In D. Gabbay, editor, Handbook of Philosophical Logic II. Second Edition. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001.Google Scholar
  150. [Thomason, 2002]
    R. Thomason. Combinations of tense and modality. In D. Gabbay, editor, Handbook of Philosophical Logic VII. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002.Google Scholar
  151. [Turner, 1988]
    R. Turner. A theory of properties. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 54, 1988.Google Scholar
  152. [van der Does and van Eijck (eds.), 1991]
    J. van der Does and J. van Eijck (eds.). Generalized Quantifier Theory and Applications. Dutch Network for Language, Logic and Information, 1991.Google Scholar
  153. [van der Sandt, 1992]
    R.A. van der Sandt. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9:333–377, 1992. Special Issue: Presupposition, Part 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. [Vermeulen, 1995]
    C.F.M. Vermeulen. Merging without mystery, or: Variables in dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35:405–450, 1995.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  155. [von Fintel, 1994]
    Kai von Fintel. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. PhD thesis, GLSA, UMass Amherst, 1994.Google Scholar
  156. [Webber, 1988]
    B.L. Webber. Tense as discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):61–73, 1988.Google Scholar
  157. [Westerstahl, 1989a]
    D. Westerstahl. Quantifiers in formal and natural languages. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume IV, pages 1–131. Reidel, 1989.Google Scholar
  158. [Westerstahl, 1989b]
    D. Westerstahl. Topics in generalized quantifiers. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume IV, pages 1–131. Reidel, 1989.Google Scholar
  159. [Winter, 2002]
    Yoad Winter. Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics. The Interpretation of Coordination, Plurality, and Scope in Natural Language. The MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  160. [Zeevat et al., 1987]
    H. Zeevat, E. Klein, and J. Calder. Unification categorial grammar. In N. Haddock, E. Klein, and G. Morrill, editors, Categorial Grammar, Unification Grammar and Parsing, pages 195–222. Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, 1987.Google Scholar
  161. [Zeevat, 1989]
    H. Zeevat. A compositional approach to discourse representation theory. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12:95–131, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. [Zeevat, 1992]
    H. Zeevat. Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics. Journal of Semantics, 9(4):379–412, 1992. Special Issue: Presupposition, Part 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations