From 91adc86eb17a5e49311592c59d8a31f779aab6d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Martens Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:40:55 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Prosem:=20Formulierungen=20verst=C3=A4ndlicher?= =?UTF-8?q?=20gemacht.?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- prosem/prosempaper.tex | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/prosem/prosempaper.tex b/prosem/prosempaper.tex index b68c525..69e0de3 100755 --- a/prosem/prosempaper.tex +++ b/prosem/prosempaper.tex @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ \forall x \,Restaurant(x) \Rightarrow \exists e \,Closed(e) \wedge ClosedThing(e,x) \end{equation} - The first step is to determine what the meaning representation of \textit{Every restaurant} should be. \textit{Every} is responsible for the $\forall$ quantifier and \textit{restaurant} specifies the category over which is quantified. This is called the ``restriction''\cite[p.~622]{Jurafsky2009} of the noun phrase. The meaning representation could be $\forall x\,Restaurant(x)$. It is a valid logical formula but it doesn't make much sense. ``It says that everything is a restaurant.''\cite[p.~622]{Jurafsky2009} ``Noun phrases like [this] are [usually] embedded in expressions that [say] something about the universally quantified variable. That is, we're probably trying to \textit{say something} about all restaurants. This notion is traditionally referred to as the \textit{NP}'s nuclear scope''\cite[p.~622]{Jurafsky2009}. In the given example, the nuclear scope is \textit{closed}. To represent this notion in the target representation, a dummy predicate $Q$ is added, which results in this expression: + The first step is to determine what the meaning representation of \textit{Every restaurant} should be. \textit{Every} is responsible for the $\forall$ quantifier and \textit{restaurant} specifies the category over which is quantified. This is called the ``restriction''\cite[p.~622]{Jurafsky2009} of the noun phrase. The meaning representation could be $\forall x\,Restaurant(x)$. It is a valid logical formula but it doesn't make much sense. ``It says that everything is a restaurant.''\cite[p.~622]{Jurafsky2009} But our goal is to say \textit{something} about all the restaurants. That something is that every restaurant closed. ``This notion is traditionally referred to as the [noun phrase's] nuclear scope''\cite[p.~622]{Jurafsky2009}. In our example the nuclear scope is \textit{closed}. To represent this in the target representation, a dummy predicate $Q$ is added, which results in this expression: \[ \forall x\,Restaurant(x) \Rightarrow Q(x) \] @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ \[ \lambda P.\lambda Q.\forall x\,P(x) \Rightarrow Q(x) \] - What happened? The descriptor \textit{every} gets this last expression as semantic attachment. The noun \textit{restaurant} gets $\lambda x.Restaurant(x)$. When combined, the second expression is the result. The verb is still missing. Therefore the verb \textit{closed} gets the following expression. + What happened? $Restaurant$ was replaced with $P$ and $\lambda P$ was added to the beginning of the previous expression. The verb is still missing though. Therefore the verb \textit{closed} gets the following expression. \[ \lambda x.\exists e\,Closed(e) \wedge ClosedThing(e,x) \]