Abstract
In this paper I introduce a formalism for natural language understandingbased on a computational implementation of Discourse RepresentationTheory. The formalism covers a wide variety of semantic phenomena(including scope and lexical ambiguities, anaphora and presupposition),is computationally attractive, and has a genuine inference component. Itcombines a well-established linguistic formalism (DRT) with advancedtechniques to deal with ambiguity (underspecification), and isinnovative in the use of first-order theorem proving techniques.
The architecture of the formalism for natural language understandingthat I advocate consists of three levels of processing:underspecification, resolution, andinference. Each of these levels has a distinct function andtherefore employs a different kind of semantic representation. Themappings between these different representations define the interfacesbetween the levels.
I show how underspecified semantic representations can be built in acompositional way (for a fragment of English Grammar) using standardtechniques borrowed from the λ-calculus, how inferences can becarried out on discourse representations using a translation tofirst-order logic, and how existing research prototypes (discourseprocessing and spoken-dialogue systems) implement the formalism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Backofen, R., Rogers, J., and Vijay-Shanker, K., 1995, “A first-order axiomatization of the theory of finite trees,” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 4, 5-39.
Baumgartner, P., 2000, “FDPLL-A first-order Davis-Putnam-Logeman-Loveland procedure,” pp. 200-219 in CADE-17-The 17th International Conference on Automated Deduction, D. McAllester, ed., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1831, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Blackburn, P., 2000, “Representation, reasoning, and relational structures: A hybrid logic manifesto,” Logic Journal of the IGPL 8, 339-365.
Blackburn, P., Bos, J., Kohlhase, M., and de Nivelle, H., 2001, “Inference and computational semantics,” pp. 11-28 in Computing Meaning, Vol. 2, H. Bunt, R. Muskens, and E. Thijsse, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bos, J., 1996, “Predicate logic unplugged,” pp. 133-143 in Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.
Bos, J. and Oka, T., 2002, “An inference-based approach to dialogue system design,” pp. 113-119 in COLING 2002. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Taipei, Taiwan, Shu-Chuan Tseng, ed., San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Bos, J., Gambäck, B., Lieske, C., Mori, Y., Pinkal, M., and Worm, K., 1996, “Compositional semantics in verbmobil,” pp. 131-136 in The 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen, Denmark, J. Tsujii, ed., Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi.
Cheyer, A. and Martin, D., 2001, “The open agent architecture,” Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 4, 143-148.
Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Malouf, R., Riehemann, S., and Sag, I., 1995, “Translation using Minimal Recursion Semantics,” pp. 15-32 in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation, University of Leuven, Belgium, G. Ariaens and F. van Eynde, eds., Leuven: Centre for Computational Linguistics.
De Nivelle, H., 1998, “A resolution decision procedure for the guarded fragment,” pp. 191-204 in Automated Deduction-CADE-15. 15th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Deemter, K. v., 1998, “Ambiguity and idiosyncratic interpretation,” Journal of Semantics 15, 5-36.
Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic,” Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39-100.
Jaspars, J. and Van Eijck, J., 1998, “Ambiguity and reasoning,” unpublished.
Kamp, H., 1981, “A theory of truth and semantic representation,” pp. 277-322 in Formal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk, T.M. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic; An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and DRT, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Kohlhase, M., Kuschert, S., and Pinkal, M., 1996, “A type-theoretic semantics for ?-DRT,” pp. 479-498 in Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.
Kuschert, S., 1999, “Dynamic meaning and accommodation,” Ph.D. Thesis, Universität des Saarlandes.
Lauria, S., Bugmann, G., Kyriacou, T., Bos, J., and Klein, E., 2001, “Training personal robots using natural language instruction,” IEEE Intelligent Systems 16, 38-45.
McCune, W., 1998, “Automatic proofs and counterexamples for some ortholattice identities,” Information Processing Letters 65, 285-291.
McCune, W. and Padmanabhan, R., 1996, Automated Deduction in Equational Logic and Cubic Curves, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (AI subseries), Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Moore, R.C., 1980, “Reasoning about knowledge and action,” Technical Report 181, Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Muskens, R., 1996, “Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation,” Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 143-186.
Muskens, R., 1997, “Underspecified representations,” Technical Report 95, CLAUS.
Reyle, U., 1993, “Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction,” Journal of Semantics 10, 123-179.
Reyle, U., 1995, “On reasoning with ambiguities,” pp. 1-8 in Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, S.P. Abney and E.W. Hinrichs, eds., Association for Computational Linguistics.
Schiehlen, M., 1999, “Semantikkonstruktion,” Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Stuttgart.
Van der Sandt, R.A. 1992, “Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution,” Journal of Semantics 9, 333-377.
Van Eijck, J. and Kamp, H., 1997, “Representing discourse in context,” pp. 179-240 in Handbook of Logic and Language, J. Van Benthem and A. Ter Meulen, eds., Amsterdam/Cambridge, MA: Elsevier/MIT.
Weidenbach, C., Afshordel, B., Brahm, U., Cohrs, C., Engel, T., Keen, E., Theobalt, C., and Topic, D., 1999, “System description: SPASS version 1.0.0,” pp. 314-318 in 16th International Conference on Automated Deduction, CADE-16, H. Ganzinger, ed., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1632, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Zimmer, J. and Kohlhase, M., 2002, “System description: The Math Web Software Bus for distributed mathematical reasoning,” pp. 139-143 in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Automated Deduction, A. Voronkov, ed., Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bos, J. Computational Semantics in Discourse: Underspecification, Resolution, and Inference. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13, 139–157 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JLLI.0000024731.26883.86
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JLLI.0000024731.26883.86