Introduction to Montague semantics

By David R. Dowty, R. Wall, S. Peters. 1980

Subfields: Computational Linguistics & Semantics

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computational Linguistics & Semantics

Citations in the corpus

From image descriptions to visual denotations: New similarity metrics for semantic inference over event descriptions (2014, methodology): “Our approach is inspired by truth-conditional semantic theories in which the denotation of a declarative sentence is assumed to be the set of all situations or possible worlds in which the sentence is true (Montague, 1974; Dowty et al., 1981; Barwise and Perry, 1980).”
Natural language interfaces to databases – an introduction (1995, methodology): “nsforms the parse tree to the intermediate logic query, using semantic rules similar to the mapping rules of section 5.2. Some systems (e.g. Janus [59]) build on the Montague-semantics tradition [71] [38], and carry out the semantic interpretation in a compositional, rule-to-rule manner. Each syntax”
Mathematical Foundations for a Compositional Distributional Model of Meaning (2010, background): “The symbolic [13] and distributional [36] theories of meaning are somewhat orthogonal with competing pros and cons: the former is compositional but only qualitative, the latter is non-compositional but quantitative.”
Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction (1999, background): “An elementary presentation of his theory is given by Dowty et al. (1981). General introductory texts in semantics include Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet 1990, Gamut 1991, and de Swart 1998.”
Sentiment Composition (2007, background): “…argue that it is possible to calculate in a systematic way the polarity values of larger syntactic constituents as some function of the polarities of their subconstituents, in a way almost exactly analogous to the ‘principle of compositionality’ familiar from the formal semantics literature ([2]).”
Learning with Compositional Semantics as Structural Inference for Subsentential Sentiment Analysis (2008, unknown): “, Montague (1974), Dowty et al. (1981)).”
Formal Distributional Semantics: Introduction to the Special Issue (2016, methodology): “Relying on a well-honed logical apparatus, FS has developed prominent models of many linguistic phenomena, from quantiﬁcation to modality (see Dowty, Wall, and Peters 1981 and Cann 1993 for overviews).”
Book Review: Ontological Semantics, by Sergei Nirenburg and Victor Raskin (2004, background): “Practically any book or article on formal semantics has been devoted to a subset of this inventory (see Montague 1974; Dowty 1979; Dowty et al. 1981; Partee 1973, 1976; Hornstein 1984; Bach 1989; Chierchia and McConnel-Ginet 1990; Frawley 1992; Cann 1993; Chierchia 1995; Heim and Kratzer 1998).”
Combining Symbolic and Distributional Models of Meaning (2007, methodology): “There have been two distinct approaches to the representation of meaning in NLP.The first, the symbolic approach, follows the tradition of Montague in using a logic to express the meanings of sentences ( Dowty, Wall, & Peters 1981 ).”