<< Prev | - Up - | Next >> |
The formal, recursive definition of DRSs and DRS-Conditions.
If are discourse referents (
) and
(
) are DRS-conditions then the following is a DRS:
If is a relation symbol of arity
(
), and
are some discourse referents, then
is a DRS-Condition;
If and
are first-order terms, then
is a DRS-Condition;
If and
are DRSs, then
and
are DRS-Conditions;
If is a DRS, then
is a DRS-Condition;
Nothing is a DRS or DRS-Condition unless it can be shown to be so using clauses 1-5.
Here, first-order terms (clause 3) denote either discourse referents or constants. We sometimes refer to DRS-Conditions of the form licensed by clauses 2-3 as ``basic'' conditions, while those licensed by clauses 3-5 are called complex conditions. Note that, in a way, DRSs bear a lot of similarities with the first-order logic formula syntax. As in first-order logic, we have the boolean connectors (,
,
) to create nested boxes and express implication, disjunction, and negation. But unlike first-order logic, we don't have explicit conjunction, and we don't have explicit quantifiers. With a formal definition of the syntax of DRSs at our disposal, we are now in a good position to define subordination (a relation between DRSs), which then opens the way to define accessibility.
<< Prev | - Up - | Next >> |