<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C00-1067">
  <Title>On Underspecified Processing of Dynamic Semantics</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="464" end_page="465" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
6 Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper, we have shown how a sl)ecific type of local anti)|gully, which is produced by the interaction of intersentential anaphora and scope ambiguities, can l)e processed ell|clearly ill the framework of underspecification. We h~ve defined \])PL structures, which can be used to model fonmflas of DPL, and proper DPL structures, ill which w~riable binding must obey the accessibility conditions of DPL. Finally, we have shown how an underspecified description can be narrowed to a description of its proper solutions, sometimes without even partial enumeration of readings, and integrated this operation into all implelnentation of dominance constraints which is based on tin|re set constraints.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Se, en from the perspective of DPL, our definition of tlrot)ern(;ss is tmrely syntactic and technically has nothing to do with dynamic semantics. We could state such a definition t/ecause the expli(;it variable binding flmctions gave us a structure-in(let)endear handle on variable binding that excluded all tbnns of capturing. This deviates from the standard perspective of indef- null inites changing the context, but has the advantage of being extremely modular in that the accessibility conditions are factorized out explicitly. For instance, it is simple to represent the meaning of &amp;quot;Bach-Peters sentences&amp;quot; by relaxing these conditions; it should also be easy to adapt our tbrmalism to other frameworks of dynamic semantics. Of course, the question of how to interpret a DPL structure remains open.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Another open question is how the approach presented here can be extended to higher-order systems of dynamic semantics (e.g. Dynanfic Lambda Calculus (Kuschert, 1999)). In this context, it could be worthwhile to restore tim distinction of variable binding and anaphoric linking from CLLS.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Finally, it should be interesting to find other classes of local ambiguity that lend themselves to a treatment as presented here. So far, there are not many related examples; one is lexical ambiguity in parsing of dependency grammar, as presented in (Duchier, 1999). However, we believe that the work presented here provides further illustration that underspecified processing can go a long way towards efficient processing of local ambiguities.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the l)eutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in the SFB 378. As always, we thank all members of the SFB 378 project CHORUS at the University of the Saarland. We are also grateful to the participants at the Dagstuhl workshop on Dynamic Semantics in February 1999 for comments and discussions on an earlier version of this paper.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>