Talk:Discourse representation theory
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Discourse representation theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)