The Semantics of Grammatical Dependencies

Butler, Alastair

doi:10.1163/9789004253186

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4, we introduce a minimal version of Scope Control Theory (SCT) from Butler (2010). 4, we introduce a minimal version of Scope Control Theory (SCT) from Butler (2010).…”

Section: (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Section 2 gives our starting point in formulating an account by presenting Predicate Logic with Anaphora (PLA) from Dekker (2002). Section 5 offers yet another system, a minimal version of the Scope Control Theory of Butler (2010), which brings together insights gained from the other systems. Section 3 looks at a system built from the parts of PLA that are not predicate logic, offering a way to derive subordinating and coordinating binding dependencies with a single mechanism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics

McCready¹,

Yabushita²,

Yoshimoto³

2014

Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…4, we introduce a minimal version of Scope Control Theory (SCT) from Butler (2010). 4, we introduce a minimal version of Scope Control Theory (SCT) from Butler (2010).…”

Section: (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics

McCready¹,

Yabushita²,

Yoshimoto³

2014

Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Pronouns are able to link to " * " bindings, which are accessible bindings that have reached the discourse context because of prior indefinites, while indefinites take bindings from ".e", which is a source for fresh bindings. This approach gives a handle on discourse, and more generally governs the interaction of quantification to capture the empirical results of accessibility from Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp and Reyle, 1993), as well as intra-sentential binding conditions (Butler, 2010).…”

Section: Obtaining Semantic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

DynamicPower at SemEval-2016 Task 8: Processing syntactic parse trees with a Dynamic Semantics core

Butler

2016

Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a system description paper for a submission to Task 8 of SemEval-2016: Meaning Representation Parsing. No use was made of the training data provided by the task. Instead existing components were combined to form a pipeline able to take raw sentences as input and output meaning representations. Components are a part-of-speech tagger and parser trained on the Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English to produce syntactic parse trees, a semantic role labeller and a named entity recogniser to supplement obtained parse trees with word sense, functional and named entity information, followed by an adapted Tarskian satisfaction relation for a Dynamic Semantics that is used to transform a syntactic parse into a predicate logic based meaning representation, followed by conversion to penman/AMR notation required for the task appraisal.

show abstract

“…The current work builds on Butler (2010) where it was shown how limits from evaluation can match a wide range of valid dependency patterns, including locality effects, accessibility of anaphoric referents, intervention effects and circumstances for long-distance dependencies. With the application of this theory the constraints from evaluation are themselves employed to assist evaluation when structural information is missing from a parsed input.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Banking Meaning Representations from Treebanks

Butler

Yoshimoto

2012

LiLT

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a method to convert existing treebanks with syntactic information into banks of meaning representations. The central component is a system of evaluation for a small formal language with respect to an information state. Inputs to the evaluation system are formal language expressions obtained from the conversion of parsed representations conforming to (Penn Treebank Project) guidelines. Outputs from the evaluation system are Davidsonian (higher-order) predicate logic meaning representations. Having a system of evaluation as the basis for generating meaning representations makes possible accepting input with minimal conversion from existing treebanks and from the tools used to construct treebanks. Results of having built corresponding banks of meaning representations from available treebanks are discussed.

show abstract

The Semantics of Grammatical Dependencies

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics

Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics

DynamicPower at SemEval-2016 Task 8: Processing syntactic parse trees with a Dynamic Semantics core

Banking Meaning Representations from Treebanks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About