David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
An essential ingredient of language use is our ability to reason about utterances as intentional actions. Linguistic representations are the natural substrate for such reasoning, and models from computational semantics can often be seen as providing an infrastructure to carry out such inferences from rich and accurate grammatical descriptions. Exploring such inferences offers a productive pragmatic perspective on problems of interpretation, and promises to leverage semantic representations in more flexible and more general tools that compute with meaning.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
William J. Clancey (1994). Situated Cognition: How Representations Are Created and Given Meaning. In [Book Chapter].
Peter Gärdenfors (1990). Induction, Conceptual Spaces and AI. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):78-95.
Robyn Carston (1999). The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction: A View From Relevance Theory. In Ken Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface From Different Points of View. Elsevier. 85125.
Johan Bos (2004). Computational Semantics in Discourse: Underspecification, Resolution, and Inference. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (2):139-157.
Maxwell J. Roberts, Stephen E. Newstead & Richard A. Griggs (2001). Quantifier Interpretation and Syllogistic Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 7 (2):173 – 204.
Patrick Blackburn (2005). Representation and Inference for Natural Language: A First Course in Computational Semantics. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Matthew Stone, Communicative Intentions and Conversational Processes in Human-Human and Human-Computer Dialogue.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #84,493 of 1,008,729 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,702 of 1,008,729 )
How can I increase my downloads?