In this paper1 I will discuss a framework for semantics which allows us to record truth-conditional and compositional analyses as dependency-style corpus annotations in a direct and fine-grained fashion. This method eliminates the need for a semantic representation formalism by decomposing semantic information into simple statements about (word or morpheme) tokens. A collection of such data would form a new kind of linguistic treebank. The main purpose of this article is to show that the present approach makes it possible to combine formal semantics and corpus-oriented study of language use in new and interesting ways. The methodology of this framework, which I call Token Dependency Semantics (TDS, Dahllöf [4]), is in several respects different from the common one(s) in traditional formal semantics. TDS nevertheless delivers a fairly conventional (but ontologically restrained) analysis of truth-conditional meaning. Currently, there is a detailed TDS account for a sample fragment of English. A system based on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) implements the description of this fragment. The HPSG system, which runs on a computer (Dahllöf [5]), shows that it is possible to apply the TDS semantics according to a conventional method in computational semantics, viz. integrated as a component of a grammar. The TDS idea is however independent from HPSG and in important respects different from all other HPSG-based proposals on semantics. The plan of the paper is as follows: Section 2 explains the basic ideas behind TDS and their background. In section 3, I take a more general look at the metho-
[1]
Dan Flickinger,et al.
Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction
,
2005
.
[2]
Ivan A. Sag,et al.
Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction
,
1999,
Computational Linguistics.
[3]
Martha Palmer,et al.
Adding predicate argument structure to the Penn TreeBank
,
2002
.
[4]
Max J. Cresswell,et al.
Formal philosophy, selected papers of richard montague
,
1976
.
[5]
Alex Lascarides,et al.
An Algebra for Semantic Construction in Constraint-based Grammars
,
2001,
ACL.
[6]
Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.
Adding Semantic Annotation to the Penn TreeBank
,
1998
.
[7]
Mats Dahllöf.
An Implementation of Token Dependency Semantics for a Fragment of English
,
2003
.
[8]
Johan Bos,et al.
Semantic-Head Based Resolution of Scopal Ambiguities
,
1998,
ACL.
[9]
Rens Bod,et al.
A Data-Oriented Approach to Semantic Interpretation
,
1996,
ArXiv.
[10]
David R. Dowty,et al.
Introduction to Montague semantics
,
1980
.
[11]
J. Lowe,et al.
A Frame-Semantic Approach to Semantic Annotation
,
1997
.
[12]
D. Davidson.
Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation
,
1984
.
[13]
Mats Dahllöf.
Token Dependency Semantics and the Paratactic Analysis of Intensional Constructions
,
2002,
J. Semant..
[14]
Elisabeth Villalta,et al.
The Role of Context in the Resolution of Quantifier Scope Ambiguities
,
2003,
J. Semant..
[15]
Martha Palmer,et al.
From TreeBank to PropBank
,
2002,
LREC.