We then go on to compare the current approach with that of some other theories with similar aims : the `` standard '' version of quasi-logical form implemented in the Core Language Engine , as rationally reconstructed by Alshawi and Crouch ( 1992 ) and Crouch and Pulman ( 1994 ) ; underspecified Discourse Representation Theory ( Reyle 1993 ) ; and the `` glue language '' approach of Dalrymple et al. ( 1996 ) .
monotonic semantic interpretation
Hiyan Alshawi Richard Crouch
The aim is merely to show that we can , to a first approximation , provide a reasonably fully worked out description of these phenomena in a truly bidirectional way . We then go on to compare the current approach with that of some other theories with similar aims : the `` standard '' version of quasi-logical form implemented in the Core Language Engine , as rationally reconstructed by Alshawi and Crouch ( 1992 ) and Crouch and Pulman ( 1994 ) ; underspecified Discourse Representation Theory ( Reyle 1993 ) ; and the `` glue language '' approach of Dalrymple et al. ( 1996 ) . Finally , we discuss some of the semantic and logical issues raised by the approach described here , in particular the extent to which the theory meets the desiderata for accounts of underspecification outlined by van Eijck and Jaspars ( 1996 ) , and the extent to which the theory supplies a methodologically satisfactory account of truth and interpretation for sentences involving contextually dependent constructs .
We then go on to compare the current approach with that of some other theories with similar aims : the `` standard '' version of quasi-logical form implemented in the Core Language Engine , as rationally reconstructed by @@CITATION and Crouch and Pulman ( 1994 ) ; underspecified Discourse Representation Theory ( Reyle 1993 ) ; and the `` glue language '' approach of Dalrymple et al. ( 1996 ) .