BibSonomy publications for /user/diego_ma/semanticsTue Jan 29 09:03:11 CET 2008Germersheim, GermanyProc. 34. Linguistisches {K}olloquiumInkrementelle Minimale Logische {F}ormen f{\"u}r die {A}ntwortextraktion1999answer_extraction semantics ExtrAns molla_publication Fri Dec 14 02:49:43 CET 2007Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by {John} {McCarthy}1990semantics Fri Dec 14 02:49:20 CET 2007DordrechtComputing Meaning1999semantics Fri Dec 14 02:48:04 CET 2007IBM J. Res. Develop.3435-468Use of Natural Language for Knowledge Acquisition: Strategies to cope with semantic and pragmatic variation361992NLP semantics pragmatics Fri Dec 14 02:46:30 CET 2007Proc. 7th ESSLLI Student SessionThe Partition Semantics of Questions, Syntactically2002semantics questions Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984, 1996; Groenendijk 1999) provide a logically attractive theory of the semantics of natural language questions, commonly referred to as the partition theory. Two central notions in this theory are entailment between questions and answerhood. For example, the question ``Who is going to the party?'' entails the question ``Is John going to the party?'', and ``John is going to the party'' counts as an answer to both. Groenendijk and Stokhof define these two notions in terms of partitions of a set of possible worlds. We provide a syntactic characterization of entailment between questions and answerhood . We show that answers are, in some sense, exactly those formulas that are built up from instances of the question. This result lets us compare the partition theory with other approaches to interrogation -- both linguistic analyses, such as Hamblin's and Karttunen's semantics, and computational systems, such as Prolog. Our comparison separates a notion of answerhood into three aspects: equivalence (when two questions or answers are interchangeable), atomic answers (what instances of a question count as answers), and compound answers (how answers compose).Fri Dec 14 02:45:39 CET 2007IRCS Report 93-42Selection and Information: A Class-Based Approach to Lexical Relationships1993semantics Fri Dec 14 02:45:26 CET 2007Semantic Information Processing216-270Semantic Memory1968graphs semantics Fri Dec 14 02:45:01 CET 2007BerlinProc. of the Fifth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL)On the Syntactic-Semantic Analysis of Bound Anaphora1991quantification anaphora syntax semantics Fri Dec 14 02:44:48 CET 2007OxfordActions and Events: Perspectives on the philosophy of {Donald} {Davidson}235-267Underlying Events in the Logical Analysis of {E}nglish1985events semantics philosophy Fri Dec 14 02:44:47 CET 2007Cambridge, MAEvents in the Semantics of {English}: A study in subatomic semantics1990events semantics Fri Dec 14 02:44:46 CET 2007Prepared for UCLA's Linguistics 125 --- "Semantics" courseA Primer in the Semantics of English: Nuts and Bolts2000semantics This is a beginning text on the semantics of English, intended for readers who have some prior acquaintance with theories of the syntax of English in the generative tradition. The book assumes no other background than this.Fri Dec 14 02:43:20 CET 2007OnlineLast visited 1 April 2005Pie in the Sky Description2005semantics annotation Beginning September, 2004, several researchers have been collaborating to produce detailed semantic annotation of two difficult sentences. The effort aims to produce a single unified representation that goes beyond what may currently be feasible to annotate consistantly or to generate automatically. Rather this ``pie in the sky'' annotation effort is an attempt at defining a future goal for semantic analysis.Fri Dec 14 02:43:06 CET 2007Machine IntelligenceReprinted in~\cite{ZZZ-Lifschitz:1990}First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions91979semantics We discuss first order theories in which \emph{individual concepts} are admitted as mathematical objects along with the things that \emph{reify} them. This allows very straightforward formalizations of knowledge, belief, wanting, and necessity in ordinary first order logic without modal operators. Applications are given in philosophy and in artificial intelligence. We do not treat general concepts, and we do not present any full axiomatizations but rather show how various facts can be expressed.Fri Dec 14 02:42:35 CET 2007BerlinMeaning, Use and Interpretation of Language250-209The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: a lattice-theoretical approach1983semantics lattice plural Fri Dec 14 02:42:03 CET 2007To appear in: Jurgen Allgayer (ed), Proc. of the Workshop on Plurals and Quantifiers, GWAISyntactic and Semantic Conditions for Quantifier Scope1990quantification syntax semantics anaphora AI Fri Dec 14 02:42:02 CET 2007\myurl{http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222}Resource Description Framework ({RDF}) Model and Syntax Specification1999XML semantics Fri Dec 14 02:41:54 CET 2007DordrechtStructures for Semantics1991semantics mathematics Fri Dec 14 02:40:25 CET 2007Computing, Philosophy, and Cognitive ScienceViews of Text-Meaning in Computational Linguistics: Past, present, and future2006NLP semantics Three views of text-meaning compete in the philosophy of language: objective, subjective, and authorial --- ``in'' the text, or ``in'' the reader, or ``in'' the writer. Computational linguistics has ignored the competition and implicitly embraced all three, and rightly so; but different views have predominated at different times and in different applications. Contemporary applications mostly take the crudest view: meaning is objectively ``in'' a text. The more-sophisticated applications now on the horizon, however, demand the other two views: as the computer takes on the user's purpose, it must also take on the user's subjective views; but sometimes, the user's purpose is to determine the author's intent. Accomplishing this requires, among other things, an ability to determine what could have been said but wasn't, and hence a sensitivity to linguistic nuance. It is therefore necessary to develop computational mechanisms for this sensitivity.Fri Dec 14 02:38:53 CET 2007Mass Terms and Plurals in Property Theory468-73Propositions, Properties, and Truth1993semantics Fri Dec 14 02:38:30 CET 2007Cambridge, MassachusettsThe Core Language Engine11-39Logical Forms1992semantics CLE