Ontology and Formal Semantics - Integration Overdue

Saba, Walid (2007) Ontology and Formal Semantics - Integration Overdue. (Unpublished)

This is the latest version of this eprint.

Full text available as:

PDF (25 pages (PDF))


In this note we suggest that difficulties encountered in natural language semantics are, for the most part, due to the use of mere symbol manipulation systems that are devoid of any content. In such systems, where there is hardly any link with our common-sense view of the world, and it is quite difficult to envision how one can formally account for the considerable amount of content that is often implicit, but almost never explicitly stated in our everyday discourse. The solution, in our opinion, is a compositional semantics grounded in an ontology that reflects our commonsense view of the world and the way we talk about it in ordinary language. In the compositional logic we envision there are ontological (or first-intension) concepts, and logical (or second-intension) concepts, and where the ontological concepts include not only Davidsonian events, but other abstract objects as well (e.g., states, processes, properties, activities, attributes, etc.) It will be demonstrated here that in such a framework, a number of challenges in the semantics of natural language (e.g., metonymy, intensionality, metaphor, etc.) can be properly and uniformly addressed.

Item Type:Other
Keywords:Ontology, Compositional Semantics
Subjects:Linguistics > Computational Linguistics
Linguistics > Semantics
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
ID Code:5876
Deposited By: Saba, Walid
Deposited On:19 Dec 2007 03:04
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:57

Available Versions of this Item

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

1. Asher, N. and Pustejovsky, J. (2005), Word Meaning and Common-sense Metaphysics, available from

2. Bateman, J. A. (1995), On the Relationship between Ontology Con-struction and Natural Language: A Socio-Semiotic View, Interna-tional Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, pp. 929-944.

3. Borschev, V. and Partee, B. H. (2001), Genitive Modifiers, Sorts, and Metonymy, Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24 (2).

4. Cocchiarella, N. B. (2001), Logic and Ontology, Axiomathes, 12, pp. 117-150.

5. Davidson, D. (1980), Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford.

6. Dummett. M. (1991), The Logical Basis of Metaphysics, Duckworth, London.

7. Fass, D. (1988), Metonymy and Metaphor: What is the Difference? Proc. 12th Conf. on Computational Linguistics, Vol 1, pp. 177-181.

8. Gaskin, R. (1995), Bradley’s Regress, the Copula, and the Unity of the Proposition, The Philosophical Quarterly, 45 (179), pp. 161-180.

9. Givon, T. (1984), Deductive vs. Pragmatic Processing in Natural Language, In W. Kintsch, J. R. Miller & P. G. Polson (Eds.), Meth-ods & Tactics in Cognitive Science, pp. 137-189, LEA Associates: NJ

10. Guarino, N. (1995), Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43 (5/6), Academic Press.

11. Hirst, G. (1991), Existence Assumptions in Knowledge Representa-tion, Artificial Intelligence, 49 (3), pp. 199-242.

12. Hobbs, J. (1985), Ontological Promiscuity, In Proc. of the 23rd An-nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 61-69, Chicago, Illinois, 1985.

13. Johnston, M. and F. Busa (1999). The compositional interpretation of compounds, In E. Viegas (Ed.), Breadth and Depth of Semantics Lexicons. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. pp. 167-87.

14. Larson, R. (1995), Olga is a Beautiful Dancer, 1995 Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans.

15. Lenat, D. B. & Guha, R. V., 1990. Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems: Representation and Inference in the CYC Project. Addison-Wesley.

16. Levin, B. (1993), English Verb Classes and Alterations, The Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

17. Montague, R. (1973), The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English, In Hintikka, K. J. J., Moravcsik, J. M. E. & Sup-pes, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Natural Language, Dordrecht: Reidel.

18. Montague, R. (1960), On the Nature of certain Philosophical Enti-ties, The Monist, 53, pp. 159-194.

19. Oliver, A. (1996), The Metaphysics of Properties, Mind, 105 (417), pp. 1-80.

20. Rais-Ghasem, M. and Coriveaue, J.-P. (1998), Exemplar-Based Sense Modulation, In Proceedings of COLING-ACL '98 Workshop on the Computational Treatment of Nominals.

21. Saba, W. W. (2007), Language, Logic and Ontology – Uncovering the Structure of Commonsense Knowledge, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65 (7), pp. 610-623.

22. Santyana, G. (1915), Some Meanings of the Word Is, Journal of Phi-losophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 12 (3), pp. 66-68. (avail-able on

23. Smith, B. (2005), Against Fantology, In M. E. Reicher & J.C. Marek (Eds.), Experience & Analysis, pp. 153-170, Vienna: HPT & OBV.

24. Sowa, J.F., 1995. Knowledge Representation: Logical Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. PWS Publishing Company, Boston.

25. van Deemter, K., Peters, S. 1996. (Eds.), Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. CSLI, Stanford, CA


Repository Staff Only: item control page