Titlebook: Computing Meaning; Volume 2 Harry Bunt,Reinhard Muskens,Elias Thijsse Book 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001 communicatio

譏諷

https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-150-4 meaning remains generic or vague and may vary depending on other constituents in the sentence. Meaning specializations and variations introduced by arguments and modifiers are particularly complex and very frequent for predicative terms, especially for verbs (.; .; .). The meaning of a predicate in

清晰

https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-150-4 meaning. Given a sentence displaying quantifier scope ambiguity, such as ., part of the problem of representing the sentence’s meaning is to distinguish between the two possible meanings, (1a), where every man loves a (possibly) different woman, or (1b), where a single woman is loved by every man:

abnegate

Externalize

母豬

有其法作用

Gentry

新奇

https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-150-4A well-known problem in the semantic interpretation of natural language is presented by the use of referring expressions to not directly point at their intended referents, but at some associated object. Examples are:

SHOCK

名次后綴

Equations of motion for the earth,Lexicalized grammars. such as TAG (.; .) and CCG (.) have been very successful in showing how clauselevel syntax and semantics project from the lexicon. What drives the current enterprise is the hypothesis that the same can be shown true, at some level, for discourse syntax and semantics. Here we demonstrate our initial effort to