%
% GENERATED FROM https://www.coli.uni-saarland.de
%    by   : anonymous
%    IP   : coli2006.lst.uni-saarland.de
%    at   : Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:42:43 +0100 GMT
%    
% Selection : Author: Reinhard_Muskens
%




@InCollection{Blackburn_et_al:2001,
      AUTHOR = {Blackburn, Patrick and Bos, Johan and Kohlhase, Michael and de Nivelle, Hans},
      TITLE = {Inference and Computational Semantics},
      YEAR = {2001},
      BOOKTITLE = {Computing Meaning},
      VOLUME = {2},
      NUMBER = {77},
      PAGES = {11-28},
      EDITOR = {Bunt, Harry and Muskens, Reinhard and Thijsse, Elias},
      SERIES = {Studies in Linguistics and Philosophie},
      ADDRESS = {Dordrecht},
      PUBLISHER = {Kluwer Academic Publishers}
}

@InCollection{Duchier_Gardent:2001,
      AUTHOR = {Duchier, Denys and Gardent, Claire},
      TITLE = {Tree Descriptions, Constraints and Incrementality},
      YEAR = {2001},
      BOOKTITLE = {Computing Meaning, Volume 2},
      VOLUME = {77},
      PAGES = {205-227},
      EDITOR = {Bunt, Harry and Muskens, Reinhard and Thijsse, Elias},
      SERIES = {Studies In Linguistics And Philosophy},
      ADDRESS = {Dordrecht},
      PUBLISHER = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},
      URL = {ftp://ftp.ps.uni-sb.de/pub/papers/ProgrammingSysLab/iwcs3-book.ps.gz},
      ABSTRACT = {In 	extitA Constraint-Based Treatment of Descriptions, we presented a constraint-based method for enumerating the models satisfying a given tree description and described its application to the underspecified semantic representation of discourse advocated by Gardent \& Webber (1998). In this paper, we indicate how the approach may be further extended to support discourse level 	extitincremental processing. 	extbfKeywords: incremental processing, underspecified representations, tree descriptions, dominance constraints, constraint programming, discourse semantics.},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Duchier:2001:TDC.pdf Duchier:2001:TDC.ps}
}

@Article{Muskens:1996,
      AUTHOR = {Muskens, Reinhard},
      TITLE = {Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation},
      YEAR = {1996},
      JOURNAL = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
      VOLUME = {19},
      PAGES = {143-186}
}

@TechReport{Muskens:1997,
      AUTHOR = {Muskens, Reinhard},
      TITLE = {Program Semantics and Classical Logic},
      YEAR = {1997},
      MONTH = {January},
      NUMBER = {86},
      PAGES = {29},
      ADDRESS = {Saarbrücken},
      TYPE = {CLAUS-Report},
      INSTITUTION = {Universität des Saarlandes},
      URL = {ftp://ftp.coli.uni-sb.de/pub/coli/claus/claus86.ps ftp://ftp.coli.uni-sb.de/pub/coli/claus/claus86.dvi},
      ABSTRACT = {In the tradition of Denotational Semantics one usually lets program constructs take their denotations in reflexive domains, i.e. in domains where self-application is possible. For the bulk of programming constructs, however, working with reflexive domains is an unnecessary complication. In this paper we shall use the domains of ordinary classical type logic to provide the semantics of a simple programming language containing choice and recursion. We prove that the rule of Scott Induction holds in this new setting, prove soundness of a Hoare calculus relative to our semantics, give a direct calculus C on programs, and prove that the denotation of any program P in our semantics is equal to the union of the denotations of all those programs L such that P follows from L in our calculus and L does not contain recursion or choice.},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Muskens:1997:PSC.pdf Muskens:1997:PSC.ps}
}

@InCollection{Muskens:1999,
      AUTHOR = {Muskens, Reinhard},
      TITLE = {Underspecified Semantics},
      YEAR = {1999},
      BOOKTITLE = {Reference and Anaphoric Relations},
      VOLUME = {72},
      PAGES = {311--338},
      EDITOR = {Egli, U. and Heusinger, K.},
      SERIES = {Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy},
      ADDRESS = {Dordrecht},
      PUBLISHER = {Kluwer Academic Publishers}
}

@InCollection{Muskens_et_al:1996,
      AUTHOR = {Muskens, Reinhard and Van Benthem, Johan F. and Visser, Alber},
      TITLE = {Dynamics},
      YEAR = {1996},
      BOOKTITLE = {Handbook of Logic and Language},
      PAGES = {587-648},
      EDITOR = {Van Benthem, Johan F. and Ter Meulen, A.},
      ADDRESS = {Amsterdam},
      PUBLISHER = {Elsevier}
}

@InProceedings{Pinkal:1999,
      AUTHOR = {Pinkal, Manfred},
      TITLE = {On semantic underspecification},
      YEAR = {1999},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2), January 13-15},
      EDITOR = {Bunt, Harry and Muskens, Reinhard},
      ADDRESS = {Tilburg University, The Netherlands},
      ABSTRACT = {Underspecification has become fashionable in computational semantics. In this chapter, I will try to give an idea of what semantic underspecification is, what it has been good for, and what the perspective for future application are. I will start with the inspection of specific phenomena and techniques which are usually associated with the notion of underspecification (in Section 1 and 2, respectively). In Sect. 3, I will try to indicate the main motivations for using underspecification techniques. Then, I will point out one important use of the concept in some detail, i.e., direct reasoning with incomplete semantic information, discussing first the appropriate truth-conditional basis (Sect. 4), and second perspectives on efficient reasonig systems (Sect. 5). I will conclude with some remarks about the general status of the semantic underspecification concept, in Sect. 6..}
}

@InBook{KrWe2007,
      AUTHOR = {Kruijff-Korbayova, Ivana and Webber, Bonnie},
      TITLE = {Interpreting concession statements in light of information structure},
      YEAR = {2007},
      BOOKTITLE = {Computing Meaning},
      VOLUME = {3},
      EDITOR = {Bunt, Harry and Muskens, Reinhard},
      PUBLISHER = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},
      NOTE = {MP},
      ANNOTE = {volume 3,}
}