Incremental semantics for propositional texts.

Vermeulen, C. F. M.

doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1094061863

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present article proposed a Neo-Davidsonian event semantics and spelled out left to right semantic analyses for a number of phenomena ranging from thematic processing over relative scope to aspectual interpretation and the interpretation of adverbial modification. For the most part, we were able to derive surface compositional analyses satisfying three principles for text comprehension put forward in Vermeulen (1994) for propositional logic and Brasoveanu & Dotlacil (2015) for a recent extension to first-order predicate logic:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

OUP accepted manuscript

Bott

Sternefeld

2016

Journal of Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a method to construct event semantic representations incrementally from left to right. The proposed theory focusses on the interaction between events and other scope taking expressions, in particular quantificational DPs and adverbials that are sensitive to aspect. Psycholinguistic experiments have revealed that semantic mismatches can be detected as early as their lexical triggers are encountered, without waiting for a complete semantic or syntactic representation. Our theory thus provides for "incomplete" representations that nonetheless allow for an immediate explanation of such mismatches, right at the point where left to right parsing detects the offending triggers. Viewed from a broader perspective, our framework can be seen as a logical background for theories of semantic parsing in general. In contrast to existing implementations of incremental interpretation, we only employ a single compositional processing rule, namely functional composition of only one logical type of expressions. On the other hand, for this (otherwise unmatched) uniformity to work, we rely on advanced semantic techniques like continuations, dynamic binding, and unrestricted β-reduction (cf. Barker 2002, Gronendijk & Stokhof 1991, Klein & Sternefeld 2013, respectively). In the context of adverbials, these methods can be shown to interact in a non-trivial way with the mereology of events as proposed in Krifka (1992).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

OUP accepted manuscript

Bott

Sternefeld

2016

Journal of Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Incremental Dynamic Predicate Logic (IDPL) extends the incremental semantics for Dynamic Propositional Logic (DPropL) in Vermeulen (1994) to Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL; Groenendijk & Stokhof 1991). We only give here a brief outline of how a left-to-right incremental dynamic semantics can be provided -we will just discuss the basics of DPropL.…”

Section: Incremental Dynamic Predicate Logic (Idpl)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some highlights: we formalize DPropL models as extended monoids in the sense of Visser 2002;Vermeulen (1994) takes them to be Heyting algebras, but extended monoids are more general (useful when we move to DPL), and more directly related to the relational models used in DPL, where formulas denote binary relations between variable assignments. The elements in the extended monoid are updates / formula denotations.…”

Section: Incremental Dynamic Predicate Logic (Idpl)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incremental and predictive interpretation: Experimental evidence and possible accounts

Brașoveanu¹,

Dotlačil²

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main question we investigate is whether meaning representations of the kind that are pervasive in formal semantics are built up incrementally and predictively when language is used in real time, in much the same way that the realtime construction of syntactic representations has been argued to be. The interaction of presupposition resolution with conjunctions vs. conditionals with a sentence-final antecedent promises to provide us with the right kind of evidence. Consider the following 'cataphoric' example and the contrast between AND and IF: Tina will have coffee with Alex again AND/ IF she had coffee with him at the local café. We expect the second clause to be more difficult after AND than after IF: the conjunction AND signals that an antecedent that could resolve the again presupposition is unlikely to come after this point (the second conjunct is interpreted relative to the context provided by the first conjunct), while the conditional IF leaves open the possibility that a suitable resolution for the again presupposition is forthcoming (the first clause is interpreted relative to the context provided by the second clause). We present experimental evidence supporting these predictions and discuss two approaches to analyze this kind of data.

show abstract

Arguing About Dynamic Meaning

Stokhof

2014

Outstanding Contributions to Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incremental semantics for propositional texts.

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

OUP accepted manuscript

OUP accepted manuscript

Incremental and predictive interpretation: Experimental evidence and possible accounts

Arguing About Dynamic Meaning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About