A (Hybrid) Logical Approach to Frame...

A (Hybrid) Logical Approach to Frame Semantics

Sylvain Pogodalla1

(joint work with Laura Kallmeyer2 and Rainer Osswald2)

1LORIA–INRIA, Nancy, France2Heinrich Heine Universtitat, Dusseldorf, Germany

October 9–10, 2019, Gothenburg

S. Pogodalla (with L. Kallmeyer and R. Osswald) A (Hybrid) Logical Approach to Frame Semantics Oct. 9–10, 2019 1 / 30

Outline

1 Frame SemanticsThe Frame HypothesisFrames and Logic

2 Hybrid LogicReminder on Modal LogicHybrid Logic

3 Compositional Frame SemanticsQuantificationFrame Decomposition

Frame Semantics The Frame Hypothesis

Frame Semantics

A (cognitive or linguistic) structure that represents a situation.

A frame is a data-structure representing a stereotyped situation (Minsky 1974, p.1)

I thought of each case frame as characterizing a small abstract ‘scene’ or ‘situation’,so that to understand the semantic structure of the verb it was necessary tounderstand the properties of such schematized scenes (Fillmore 1982, p.115)

I propose that frames provide the fundamental representation of knowledge inhuman cognition (Barsalou 1992)

Frame Semantics

The Frame Hypothesis (Lobner 2014)

H1 The human cognitive system operates with a single general format ofrepresentations

H2 If the human cognitive system operates with one general format ofrepresentations, this format is essentially Barsalou’s frames

Representation as frames in the human mind of:§ lexical linguistic expressions and their meanings§ complex linguistic expressions and their meanings

Verb meaning frames go beyond “case frames”. For instance§ Aspectual characteristics of the situation§ Structured relations between semantic arguments

Decompositional approach to meaning (Osswald and Van Valin 2014)

Frame ExampleThe man walked into the house

motionl1

walking

pathmanner

endp at-regionpart-of

Frame Semantics Frames and Logic

Formal Representation of FramesFrames as base-labelled feature structures with types and relations (Kallmeyer and Osswald 2013)

motionl1

walking

pathmanner

motion

agent 1

mover 1

goal 2

at-region w

endp v

manner”

walkingı

part-of ( v , w )

Labelled attribute-value description (LAVD) language

0 : motion ^0 ¨ agent fi 1 ^0 ¨ agent “ 0 ¨ mover ^0 ¨ goal fi 2 ^0 ¨ path : path^0 ¨ manner : walking ^ 1 : man2 : house ^x 0 ¨ path ¨ endp, 2 ¨ at-regiony : part-of

motionl1

walking

pathmanner

motion

agent 1

mover 1

goal 2

at-region w

endp v

manner”

walkingı

part-of ( v , w )

motionl1

walking

pathmanner

motion

agent 1

mover 1

goal 2

at-region w

endp v

manner”

walkingı

part-of ( v , w )

Base-Labelled Feature Structures and LAVD LanguageProperties:

A frame is represented as a base-labelled feature structure

It is specified using the LAVD language

It is the most general base-labelled feature structures that satisfy the given LAVDformula (minimal first-order model)

Suitable to frame decomposition and composition

Variable free

We take the semantic structures associated with the syntactic structures as genuinesemantic representations, not as some kind of yet to be interpreted logicalexpressions (Kallmeyer and Osswald 2013)

However:

No means for explicit quantification

Referential entities are treated as definites (reflected by the naming of nodes)

Similar to other “framish” formalisms, e.g., AMR, dependency structures. . .

Proposal

Frames are considered as relational models Ñ modal logic

Feature structures specification require the hybrid logic language extension

Use hybrid logic binders to quantify

Variable free

However:

Proposal

Variable free

However:

Proposal

Hybrid Logic Reminder on Modal Logic

Modal Logic (Blackburn 1993; Areces and ten Cate 2007)Formulas

Rel “ FuncY PropRel is a set of functional and non-functional relational symbols,

Prop a set of propositional variables

Nom a set of nominals (node names),

Svar a set of state variables

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Definition (Formulas)

The language of formulas Forms is defined as:

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ | s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

where p P Prop, φ, φ1, φ2 P Forms, R P Rel, s P Stat, x P Svar.

Moreover, we define:

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J

| p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ | s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p

| φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ | s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

where p P Prop

, φ, φ1, φ2 P Forms, R P Rel, s P Stat, x P Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2

| xRyφ | s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

where p P Prop, φ, φ1, φ2 P Forms

, R P Rel, s P Stat, x P Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ

| s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

where p P Prop, φ, φ1, φ2 P Forms, R P Rel

, s P Stat, x P Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ

| s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ

| s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Modal Logic (Blackburn 1993; Areces and ten Cate 2007)Models

Definition (Model)

A model M is a triple xM, pRMqRPRel,V y such that:

M is a non-empty set,

each RM is a binary relation on M,

V : Prop

ÝÑ ℘pMq is a valuation

such that if i P Nom then V piq is asingleton.

An assignment g is a mapping g : Svar ÝÑ M.g xm is an assignment that differs from g at most on x and such that g x

mpxq “ m.For s P Stat, we also define rssM,g to be the only m such that V psq “ tmu if s P Nomand rssM,g

“ gpsq if s P Svar.

Definition (Model)

V : Prop

Definition (Model)

V : Prop

Definition (Model)

V : Prop

Modal Logic (Blackburn 1993; Areces and ten Cate 2007)Satisfaction Relation

Definition (Satisfaction relation)

Let M be a model, w P M

, and g an assignment for M.

The satisfaction relation ( is defined as follows:

w ( p iff w P V ppq for p P PropM,

w ( φ iff M,

w * φM,

w ( φ1 ^ φ2 iff M,

w ( φ1 and M,

w ( φ2

w ( xRyφ iff there is a w 1P M such that RM

pw ,w 1q and M,

w 1( φ

M, g ,w ( s iff w “ rssM,g for s P StatM, g ,w ( @sφ iff M, g , rssM,g

( φ for s P StatM, g ,w (Óx .φ iff M, g x

w ,w ( φM, g ,w ( Eφ iff there is a w 1

P M such that M, g ,w 1( φ

M, g ,w ( Dx .φ iff there is a w 1P M such that M, g x

w 1 ,w ( φ

w ( JM,

w ( p iff w P V ppq for p P Prop

w ( φ iff M,

w * φM,

w ( φ1 ^ φ2 iff M,

w ( φ1 and M,

w ( φ2

pw ,w 1q and M,

w 1( φ

w 1 ,w ( φ

w ( JM,

w ( φ iff M,

w * φ

w ( φ1 ^ φ2 iff M,

w ( φ1 and M,

w ( φ2

pw ,w 1q and M,

w 1( φ

w 1 ,w ( φ

w ( JM,

w ( φ iff M,

w * φM,

w ( φ1 ^ φ2 iff M,

w ( φ1 and M,

w ( φ2

pw ,w 1q and M,

w 1( φ

w 1 ,w ( φ

w ( JM,

w ( φ iff M,

w * φM,

w ( φ1 ^ φ2 iff M,

w ( φ1 and M,

w ( φ2

pw ,w 1q and M,

w 1( φ

w 1 ,w ( φ

Hybrid Logic Hybrid Logic

Stat “ NomY Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ

| s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Hybrid Logic (Blackburn 1993; Areces and ten Cate 2007)Formulas

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ

| s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ

| s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ

| s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ | s

| @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

where p P Prop, φ, φ1, φ2 P Forms, R P Rel, s P Stat

, x P Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ | s | @sφ

| Óx .φ | Eφ | Dx .φ

where p P Prop, φ, φ1, φ2 P Forms, R P Rel, s P Stat

, x P Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ | s | @sφ | Óx .φ

| Eφ | Dx .φ

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

Forms ::“ J | p | φ | φ1 ^ φ2 | xRyφ | s | @sφ | Óx .φ | Eφ

| Dx .φ

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Stat “ NomY Svar.

φñ ψ ” φ_ ψ

rRsφ ” xRy φ

φ ” E φ

Definition (Model)

V : Prop

Hybrid Logic (Blackburn 1993; Areces and ten Cate 2007)Models

Definition (Model)

V : PropY Nom ÝÑ ℘pMq is a valuation

Definition (Model)

V : PropY Nom ÝÑ ℘pMq is a valuation such that if i P Nom then V piq is asingleton.

Definition (Model)

An assignment g is a mapping g : Svar ÝÑ M.

g xm is an assignment that differs from g at most on x and such that g x

Definition (Model)

mpxq “ m.

For s P Stat, we also define rssM,g to be the only m such that V psq “ tmu if s P Nomand rssM,g

Definition (Model)

w ( JM,

w ( φ iff M,

w * φM,

w ( φ1 ^ φ2 iff M,

w ( φ1 and M,

w ( φ2

pw ,w 1q and M,

w 1( φ

w 1 ,w ( φ

Hybrid Logic (Blackburn 1993; Areces and ten Cate 2007)Satisfaction Relation

Let M be a model, w P M, and g an assignment for M.The satisfaction relation ( is defined as follows:

w ( JM,

w ( φ iff M,

w * φM,

w ( φ1 ^ φ2 iff M,

w ( φ1 and M,

w ( φ2

pw ,w 1q and M,

w 1( φ

w 1 ,w ( φ

M, g ,w ( JM, g ,w ( p iff w P V ppq for p P PropM, g ,w ( φ iff M, g ,w * φM, g ,w ( φ1 ^ φ2 iff M, g ,w ( φ1 and M, g ,w ( φ2

M, g ,w ( xRyφ iff there is a w 1P M such that RM

pw ,w 1q and M, g ,w 1

w 1 ,w ( φ

( φM, g ,w ( s iff w “ rssM,g for s P Stat

M, g ,w ( @sφ iff M, g , rssM,g( φ for s P Stat

M, g ,w (Óx .φ iff M, g xw ,w ( φ

M, g ,w ( Eφ iff there is a w 1P M such that M, g ,w 1

( φM, g ,w ( Dx .φ iff there is a w 1

P M such that M, g xw 1 ,w ( φ

( φM, g ,w ( s iff w “ rssM,g for s P StatM, g ,w ( @sφ iff M, g , rssM,g

( φ for s P Stat

M, g ,w (Óx .φ iff M, g xw ,w ( φ

w ,w ( φ

w 1 ,w ( φ

Example

motionl1

walking

pathmanner

l0 ^motion ^ xagentypl1 ^manq ^ xmoveryl1 ^ xgoalypl2 ^ houseq^

xmannerywalking ^ pDv w .xpathyppath^ xendpyvq^

@l2pxat-regionywq ^ @v pxpart-of ywqq

Example

motionl1

walking

pathmanner

l0 ^motion ^ xagentypl1 ^manq ^ xmoveryl1 ^ xgoalypl2 ^ houseq^

xmannerywalking ^ pDv w .xpathyppath^ xendpyvq^

@l2pxat-regionywq ^ @v pxpart-of ywqq

Compositional Frame Semantics Quantification

Quantification

theme name

agent nametheme

agenttheme theme

kissing

womanMary

kissing man Peter

kissing woman

kissing

Quantification

theme name

agent nametheme

agenttheme theme

kissing

womanMary

kissing man Peter

kissing woman

kissing

(1) a. John kisses Mary

Quantification

theme name

agent nametheme

agenttheme theme

kissing

womanMary

kissing man Peter

kissing woman

kissing

(1) a. John kisses Mary

b. Epkissing^ xagentypxnameyJohnq ^ xthemeypxnameyMaryqq

Quantification

theme name

agent nametheme

agenttheme theme

kissing

womanMary

kissing man Peter

kissing woman

kissing

(2) a. Every man kisses Mary

Quantification

theme name

agent nametheme

agenttheme theme

kissing

womanMary

kissing man Peter

kissing woman

kissing

(2) a. Every man kisses Mary

pÓ i .man ñ Epkissing^ xagentyi ^ xthemeypxnameyMaryqqq

Quantification

theme name

agent nametheme

agenttheme theme

kissing

womanMary

kissing man Peter

kissing woman

kissing

(3) a. Every man kisses some woman

Quantification

theme name

agent nametheme

agenttheme theme

kissing

womanMary

kissing man Peter

kissing woman

kissing

pÓ i .man ñ EpÓ i 1.woman^ Epkissing^ xagentyi ^ xthemeyi 1qqq

Quantification

theme name

agent nametheme

agenttheme theme

kissing

womanMary

kissing man Peter

kissing woman

kissing

c. EpÓ i .woman^

pÓ i 1.man ñ Epkissing^ xagentyi 1^ xthemeyiqqq

Example

mannerat-region

movername

pathmannermover

motion

path v1

walking

housew

manJohn

motion

pathwalking

man Peter

-of part-of

Example

mannerat-region

movername

pathmannermover

motion

path v1

walking

housew

manJohn

motion

pathwalking

man Peter

-of part-of

(4) a. Every man walked to some house

Example

mannerat-region

movername

pathmannermover

motion

path v1

walking

housew

manJohn

motion

pathwalking

man Peter

-of part-of

pÓ i .man ñ p EpÓ i 1.house^ pDa g . Epmotion^ xagentya^ xmoverya^xgoalyg ^ xpathypath^ xmannerywalking^ @ai ^ pDr v w .event^xpathyppath^ xendpyvq ^ @r pxat-regionywq ^ @v pxpart-of ywq ^ @r pg ^ i 1

qqqqqqq

Example

mannerat-region

movername

pathmannermover

motion

path v1

walking

housew

manJohn

motion

pathwalking

man Peter

-of part-of

b. EpÓ i 1.house^ p

pÓ i .man ñ pDa g . Epmotion^ xagentya^ xmoverya^xgoalyg ^ xpathypath^ xmannerywalking^ @ai ^ pDr v w .event^xpathyppath^ xendpyvq ^ @r pxat-regionywq ^ @v pxpart-of ywq ^ @r pg ^ i 1

qqqqqqq

Compositional Frame Semantics

Semantic types and constants

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

event, kissing,motion, John, . . . : t # : s Ñ txagenty, xthemey, xmovery, xpart-of y, . . . : t Ñ t @ : s Ñ t Ñ t^,ñ : t Ñ t Ñ t E,

: t Ñ t Ó, D : ps Ñ tq Ñ t

Lexical Semantics

JJohnK “ John JsomeK “ λP Q. EpÓ i .P ^ pQ p# iqqqJMaryK “ Mary JeveryK “ λP Q.

pÓ i .P ñ pQ p# iqqqJmanK “ man JkissesK “ λo s. Epkissing^ xagentys ^ xthemeyoqJwomanK “ woman

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

event, kissing,motion, John, . . . : t

# : s Ñ txagenty, xthemey, xmovery, xpart-of y, . . . : t Ñ t @ : s Ñ t Ñ t^,ñ : t Ñ t Ñ t E,

Lexical Semantics

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

event, kissing,motion, John, . . . : t # : s Ñ t

xagenty, xthemey, xmovery, xpart-of y, . . . : t Ñ t @ : s Ñ t Ñ t^,ñ : t Ñ t Ñ t E,

Lexical Semantics

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

event, kissing,motion, John, . . . : t # : s Ñ txagenty, xthemey, xmovery, xpart-of y, . . . : t Ñ t

@ : s Ñ t Ñ t^,ñ : t Ñ t Ñ t E,

Lexical Semantics

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

event, kissing,motion, John, . . . : t # : s Ñ txagenty, xthemey, xmovery, xpart-of y, . . . : t Ñ t @ : s Ñ t Ñ t

^,ñ : t Ñ t Ñ t E,

Lexical Semantics

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

event, kissing,motion, John, . . . : t # : s Ñ txagenty, xthemey, xmovery, xpart-of y, . . . : t Ñ t @ : s Ñ t Ñ t^,ñ : t Ñ t Ñ t

Lexical Semantics

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

: t Ñ t

Ó, D : ps Ñ tq Ñ t

Lexical Semantics

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

Lexical Semantics

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

Lexical Semantics

JJohnK “ John

JsomeK “ λP Q. EpÓ i .P ^ pQ p# iqqq

JMaryK “ Mary

JeveryK “ λP Q.

pÓ i .P ñ pQ p# iqqq

JmanK “ man

JkissesK “ λo s. Epkissing^ xagentys ^ xthemeyoq

JwomanK “ woman

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

Lexical Semantics

pÓ i .P ñ pQ p# iqqqJmanK “ man

JkissesK “ λo s. Epkissing^ xagentys ^ xthemeyoq

JwomanK “ woman

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

Lexical Semantics

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

Lexical Semantics

JkissesK JMaryK JJohnK “Epkissing^ xagentypxnameyJohnq ^ xthemeypxnameyMaryqq

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

Lexical Semantics

pJeveryK JmanKq pλx .JkissesK JMaryK xq “

pÓ i .man ñ Epkissing^ xagentyi ^ xthemeypxnameyMaryqqq

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

Lexical Semantics

pJeveryK JmanKq pλx .pJsomeK JwomanKq pλy .JkissesK y xqq “

Types: e, s, t

Constants:

Lexical Semantics

pJsomeK JwomanKq pλy .pJeveryK JmanKq pλx .JkissesK y xqq “

EpÓ i .woman^

pÓ i 1.man ñ Epkissing^ xagentyi 1^ xthemeyiqqq

Compositional Frame Semantics (cont’d)

Lexical Semantics

walked “ λpp s.Da g . Epmotion^ xagentyp# aq ^ xmoveryp# aq^xgoalyp# gq ^ xpathypath^ xmannerywalking^ @as ^ ppp p# gqqq

to “ λn g .Dr v w .event^ xpathyppath^ xendpyp# vqq^@rxat-regionyp#wq ^ @vxpart-of yp#wq ^ @r pg ^ nq

Lexical Semantics

Jpevery manq pλx .psome houseqpλy .walked pto yq xqqK

pÓ i .man ñ p EpÓ i 1.house^ pDa g . Epmotion^ xagentya^ xmoverya^

xgoalyg ^ xpathypath^ xmannerywalking^ @ai ^ pDr v w .event^

xpathyppath^ xendpyvq ^ @r pxat-regionywq^

@v pxpart-of ywq ^ @r pg ^ i 1qqqqqqq

Lexical Semantics

Jpsome houseqpλy .pevery manq pλx .walked pto yq xqqK

“ EpÓ i 1.house^ p

pÓ i .man ñ pDa g . Epmotion^ xagentya^ xmoverya^

xgoalyg ^ xpathypath^ xmannerywalking^ @ai ^ pDr v w .event^

xpathyppath^ xendpyvq ^ @r pxat-regionywq^

@v pxpart-of ywq ^ @r pg ^ i 1qqqqqqq

Compositional Frame Semantics Frame Decomposition

Frame Decomposition and FrameNet (Osswald and Van Valin 2014)

Definitions of FN 1.5 frames of drying

Being dry: An [Item] is in a state of dryness (dehydrated, desiccated, dry, . . . )

Becoming dry: An [Entity] loses moisture with the outcome of being in a dry state(dehydrate, dry up, dry, . . . )

Cause to be dry: an [Agent] causes a [Dryee] (. . . ) to become dry (anhydrate, dehumidify,dehydrate, . . . )

Dry state

patient 2

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Causation

Activity

effector 1

effect

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Dry state

patient 2

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Causation

Activity

effector 1

effect

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Dry state

patient 2

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Causation

Activity

effector 1

effect

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Dry state

patient 2

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Causation

Activity

effector 1

effect

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Dry state

patient 2

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Causation

Activity

effector 1

effect

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Dry state

patient 2

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Causation

Activity

effector 1

effect

Inchoation

result

Dry state

patient 2

Conclusion

Frame as a data-structure representing a situation

The semantic structure associated to a syntactic structure is a hybrid logicalformula that need to be further interpreted

Quantification does not belong to the frame language (contrary to Baldridge andKruijff 2002 or Kallmeyer and Richter 2014)

Inference

Link between dependency structures and logical representation (AMR,ECL—I. A. Mel’cuk, Clas, and Polguere 1995; I. Mel’cuk and Polguere 2018—, etc.)

Not variable free. . . But discourse referents are now made available!

Conclusion

Bibliographie I

Areces, Carlos and Balder ten Cate (2007). “Hybrid logics”. In: Handbook ofModal Logic. Ed. by Patrick Blackburn, Johan Van Benthem, and Frank Wolter.Vol. 3. Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning. Elsevier. Chap. 14, pp. 821–868.doi: 10.1016/S1570-2464(07)80017-6.

Baldridge, Jason and Geert-Jan Kruijff (2002). “Coupling CCG and Hybrid LogicDependency Semantics”. In: Proceedings of 40th Annual Meeting of theAssociation for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2002). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 319–326. doi:10.3115/1073083.1073137. ACL anthology: P02-1041.

Barsalou, Lawrence (1992). “Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields”. In:Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization.Ed. by Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittey. Hillsdale: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, pp. 21–74.

Blackburn, Patrick (1993). “Modal Logic and Attribute Value Structures”. In:Diamonds and Defaults. Ed. by Maarten de Rijke. Vol. 229. Synthese Library.Springer Netherlands, pp. 19–65. isbn: 978-90-481-4286-6. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8242-1_2.

Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). “Frame semantics”. In: Linguistics in the MorningCalm. Seoul, South Korea: Hanshin Publishing Co., pp. 111–137.

Conclusion

Bibliographie II

Gamerschlag, Thomas et al., eds. (2014). Frames and Concept Types. Vol. 94.Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5.

Kallmeyer, Laura and Rainer Osswald (2013). “Syntax-Driven Semantic FrameComposition in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars”. In: Journal of LanguageModelling 1.2, pp. 267–330. doi: 10.15398/jlm.v1i2.61.

Kallmeyer, Laura and Frank Richter (2014). “Quantifiers in Frame Semantics”. In:Formal Grammar. Ed. by Glyn Morrill et al. Vol. 8612. Lecture Notes in ComputerScience. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 69–85. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44121-3_5.

Lobner, Sebastian (2014). “Evidence for frames from human language”. In:Frames and Concept Types. Applications in Language and Philosophy. Ed. byThomas Gamerschlag et al. Vol. 94. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 94.Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing. Chap. 2, pp. 23–67. isbn:978-3-319-01540-8. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_2.

Mel’cuk, Igor A., Andre Clas, and Alain Polguere (1995). Introduction a la

lexicologie explicative et combinatoire. Louvain-la-Neuve: Editions Duculot.

Conclusion

Bibliographie III

Mel’cuk, Igor and Alain Polguere (2018). “Theory and Practice of LexicographicDefinition”. In: Journal of Cognitive Science 19.4, pp. 417–470. hal open archive:halshs-02089593. url:http://cogsci.snu.ac.kr/jcs/index.php/issues/?uid=263&mod=document.

Minsky, Marvin (1974). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. Tech. rep. 306.MIT, AI Laboratory Memo. url: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/6089.

Osswald, Rainer and Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (2014). “FrameNet, FrameStructure, and the Syntax-Semantics Interface”. In: Frames and Concept Types.Ed. by Thomas Gamerschlag et al. Vol. 94. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy.Springer International Publishing. Chap. 6, pp. 125–156. isbn: 978-3-319-01540-8.doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_6.

A (Hybrid) Logical Approach to Frame...

Documents

Transcript of A (Hybrid) Logical Approach to Frame...

Climate change frames and frame formation - DiVA portalliu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:712700/FULLTEXT01.pdf · Climate change frames and frame formation: ... climate change are

Frames - Aztec Import · Frames A2994GD Frame /2 Gold A2994WN Frame /2 ... Dreamcatcher TIN2009 Firestarter TIN2016 Heidi ... To Garden TIN2064 Tennis Book 1924 Edition

Fillmore-Scenes and Frames Semantics

Fillmore 1982 - Frame Semantics

Frame Semantics and Presidential Debates

Fillmore 1982 cropped - brenoconbrenocon.com/Fillmore 1982_2up.pdf · Frame Semantics Charles J. Fillmore University Of California, Berkeley 1. Introduction With the term 'frame semantics'

LEXICAL SEMANTICS & COGNITION fileSemantic Frames Frame elements are the things that are worth talking about when a frame has been activated by a word: verbs of buying and selling

Frame Semantics in the Development of Multilingual …...Frame Semantics / Semántica de Marcos •Marco (Frame): Sistema de conceptos relacionados de una manera tal que para comprender

Frame Semantics, Constructions, and the FrameNet Lexical Database

Timber Frame Home Plans - Goshen Timber Frames

Waspmote Data Frame - Libelium · -4- v4.1 Frame Structure 2. Frame Structure There are two kind of frames: ASCII and Binary. 2.1. ASCII Frame These frames are supposed to facilitate

Door Frame Options - MasoniteDoor Frame Options. 2 Masonite Confidential & Proprietary–Not to be distributed beyond intended parties Entry Door Frames ... Steel Split frames (R Frame)-Fire

Frames Overview What are frames? What is the frame class? The test_frame example.

Lexical relations between verbs L113 Word Meaning and ... · Phenomenology: Aspects of similarity in verbs Selectional Restrictions and Subcategorisation Frames Frame Semantics Semantic

and Thematic Frames Investigating Frame Strength: The Case ...

Medical Event Extraction using Frame Semantics ... · Medical Event Extraction using Frame Semantics — Challenges and Opportunities DIMITRIOS KOKKINAKIS University of Gothenburg,

Fillmore - Discussing frame semantics interview 2010.pdf

From Theory to Practice: Frame Semantics and the Design of ...sites.la.utexas.edu/hcb/files/2011/02/Boas_2005_FromTheoryToPractice.pdfFrom Theory to Practice: Frame Semantics and the

On Deﬁnability in Multimodal Logicbetween syntax and semantics by going beyond frames to (modal) algebras [Blackburn et al. 2001; Kracht 1999]. Although each frame for KD45 be-lief

The Frame Semantics of ‘Communication Manner’ in English ...