Talk:Discourse representation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Discourse representation theory:

The article's last sentence "DRT is now the main framework used for the formal treatment of natural language in semantics." is not accurate. While it is true that DRT is a framework that is "alive", it is not true that it is the main framework used for the formal treatment of natural language in semantics. Arguably that would be a Montague-style semantics.


Edit: Though Montague-style semantics are still used and are a rather prominent way to capture natural language in a formal way, DRT is the by far more sufficient method. Thinking of the famous donkey-pronouns there is no way we can deal with these cases in a real (hardcore) Montague framework. Nevertheless, this shouldn't result in a ideological debate about whose theory/method/... is the nicest, ...

- **

For readers who have studied predicate logic but not DRT, could it be good to explain what is the difference between introducing a new Discourse Referent and introducing a new existentially quantified variable? CathyLegg (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Insufficient context" tag[edit]

Can it now be removed? -- UKoch (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it--it was introduced in April 2006, and the article (including the lead section) has changed considerably since then. -- UKoch (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)