Computational Semantics Requires Computation

The paper argues, briefly, that much work in formal Computational Semantics (alias CompSem ) is not computational at all, and does not attempt to be; there is some mis-description going on here on a large and long-term scale. Moreover, the examples used to support its value for the representation of the meaning of language strings have no place in normal English usage, or their corpora, and this should be better understood. The recent large-scale developments in Natural Language Processing (NLP), such as machine translation or question answering, which are quite successful and undeniably semantic and computational, have made no use of such techniques. Most importantly, the Semantic Web (and Information Extraction techniques generally) now offer the possibility of large scale use of language data so as to achieve concrete results achieved by methods deemed impossible in formal semantics, namely annotation methods that are fundamentally forms of Lewis’ (1970) “markerese.”

[1]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  The Interaction of Knowledge Sources in Word Sense Disambiguation , 2001, CL.

[2]  Harry Halpin,et al.  Sense and Reference on the Web , 2011, Minds and Machines.

[3]  C. J. Rupp Situation Semantics And Machine Translation , 1989, EACL.

[4]  John D. Lafferty,et al.  Computation of the Probability of Initial Substring Generation by Stochastic Context-Free Grammars , 1991, Comput. Linguistics.

[5]  Yorick Wilks One small head: models and theories , 1990 .

[6]  Steven E. Stern,et al.  Computer Synthesized Speech Technologies: Tools for Aiding Impairment , 2010 .

[7]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Representing Discourse in Context , 1997, Handbook of Logic and Language.

[8]  Eduard Hovy,et al.  Towards terascale knowledge acquisition , 2004, COLING 2004.

[9]  Philip M. McCarthy,et al.  Cross-Disciplinary Advances in Applied Natural Language Processing: Issues and Approaches , 2011 .

[10]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  What would a Wittgensteinian computational linguistics be like , 2008, AISB Convention.

[11]  Peter J. Clarke,et al.  Towards Dynamic Semantics for Synthesizing Interpreted DSMLs , 2013 .

[12]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  Named Entity Recognition from Diverse Text Types , 2001 .

[13]  Yorick Wilks Form and Content in Semantics , 1990 .

[14]  J. Nordby Bootstrapping while barefoot (crime models vs. theoretical models in the hunt for serial killers) , 1989, Synthese.

[15]  Jan Landsbergen Machine Translation Based On Logically Isomorphic Montague Grammars , 1982, COLING.

[16]  A. Graesser,et al.  Text-Based Affect Detection in Intelligent Tutors , 2012 .

[17]  Bernd Carsten Stahl,et al.  Information, Ethics, and Computers: The Problem of Autonomous Moral Agents , 2004, Minds and Machines.

[18]  Jerry R. Hobbs,et al.  Interpretation as Abduction , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Patrick Hanks,et al.  Contextual dependency and lexical sets , 1996 .

[20]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Practical Reasoning for Very Expressive Description Logics , 2000, Log. J. IGPL.