English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In [HKL00] (henceforth HKL), Hamm, Kamp and van Lambalgen declare “there is no opposition between formal and cognitive semantics,” notwithstanding the realist/mentalist divide. That divide separates two sides Jackendoff has (in [Jac96], following Chomsky) labeled  E(xternalized)-semantics , relating language to a reality independent of speakers, and  I(nternalized)-semantics , revolving around mental representations and thought. Although formal semanticists have (following David Lewis) traditionally leaned towards E-semantics, it is reasonable to apply formal methods also to I-semantics. This point is made clear in HKL via two computational approaches to natural language semantics,  Discourse Representation Theory  (DRT, [KR93]) and the  Event Calculus  (EC) presented in [LH05]. In this short note, I wish to raise certain questions about EC that can be traced to the applicability of formal methods to E-semantics and I-semantics alike. These opposing orientations suggest different notions of time, event and representation.

Representing events and discourse; comments on Hamm, Kamp and van Lambalgen