Talk:Discourse representation theory

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
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)