More or less final version. To appear in Natural Language Semantics. According to the alternative semantics for focus, the semantic reflex of intonational focus is a second semantic value, which in the case of a sentence is a set of propositions. We examine a range of semantic and pragmatic applications of the theory, and extract a unitary principle specifying how the focus semantic value interacts with semantic and pragmatic processes. A strong version of the theory has the effect of making lexical or construction-specific stipulation of a focus-related effect in association with focus constructions impossible. Furthermore, while focus has a uniform import, the sources of meaning differences in association with focus are various.

This paper proposes a new theory of the relationship between the sentence processing mechanism and the available computational resources. This theory -- the Syntactic Prediction Locality Theory (SPLT) -- has two components: an integration cost component and a component for the memory cost associated with keeping track of obligatory syntactic requirements. Memory cost is

We present an algorithm for anaphora resolution which is a modified and extended version of that developed by (Lappin and Leass, 1994). In contrast to that work, our algorithm does not require in-depth, full, syntactic parsing of text. Instead, with minimal compromise in output quality, the modifications enable the resolution process to work from the output of a part of speech tagger, enriched only with annotations of grammatical function of lexical items in the input text stream. Evaluation of the results of our implementation demonstrates that accurate anaphora resolution can be realized within natural language processing frameworks which do not—or cannot—employ robust and reliable parsing components. 1

We present a new method for characterizing the interpretive possibilities generated by elliptical constructions in natural language. Unlike previous analyses, which postulate ambiguity of interpretation or derivation in the full clause source of the ellipsis, our analysis requires no such hidden ambiguity. Further, the analysis follows relatively directly from an abstract statement of the ellipsis interpretation problem. It predicts correctly a wide range of interactions between ellipsis and other semantic phenomena such as quantifier scope and bound anaphora. Finally, although the analysis itself is stated nonprocedurally, it admits of a direct computational method for generating interpretations. This article is available through the Computation and Language E-Print Archive as cmp-lg/9503008, and also appears in Linguistics and Philosophy 14(4):399–452. cmp-lg/9503008 Ellipsis and Higher-Order Unification 1

In a series of papers, Petra Hendriks, Helen de Hoop and Henritte de Swart have applied optimality theory (OT) to semantics. These authors argue that there is a fundamental difference between the form of OT as used in phonology, morphology and syntax on the one hand and its form as used in semantics on the other hand. Whereas in the first case OT takes the point of view of the speaker, in the second case the point of view of the hearer is taken. The aim of this paper is to argue that the proper treatment of OT in natural language interpretation has to take both perspectives at the same time. A conceptual framework is established that realizes the integration of both perspectives. It will be argued that this framework captures the essence of the Gricean maxims and gives a precise explication of Atlas & Levinson`s (1981) idea of balancing between informativeness and efficiency in natural language processing. The ideas are then applied to resolve some puzzles in natural language interpret...

Abstract not found

3.672> X with the complex term 1 + 1, not with 2, which, for people unused to Prolog's little ways, tends to come as a bit of a surprise. If we want to carry out the actual arithmetic involved, we have to explicitly force evaluation by making use of the very special inbuilt `operator' is/2. This calls an inbuilt mechanism which carries out the arithmetic evaluation of its second argument, and then unication plays no role here!). On the other hand, \== checks whether its argument are not identical. Arithmetic Prolog contains some built-in operators for handling integer arithmetic. These include *, / +, - (for multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction, respectively) and >, < for comparing numbers. These symbols, however, are just ordinary Prolog operators. That is, they are just a user friendly notation for writing

this paper, I consider a range of English expressions and show that their context-dependency can be characterized in terms of two properties: 1. They specify entities in an evolving model of the discourse that the listener is constructing; 2. The particular entity specified depends on another entity in that part of the evolving "discourse model" that the listener is currently attending to

Contents 1. Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2. The Problem of Anaphoric Linking in Context : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 3. Basic Ideas of Discourse Representation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5 4. Discourse Representation Structures : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 14 5. The Static and Dynamic Meaning of Representation Structures : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 17 6. Sequential Composition of Representation Structures : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 21 7. Strategies for Merging Representation Structures : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 27 8. Disjoint Mer

For many linguists interested in pragmatics, including the Prague School theorists,