Merging without mystery or: Variables in dynamics semantics

Vermeulen, C. F. M.

doi:10.1007/bf01048354

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is far from innocent. (Vermeulen 1995) identified a very important deficit of Dynamic Semantics (DS). Like Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) in (Kamp and Reyle 1993), DS had to rely on an external demon to insert the correct variable names.…”

Section: Towards a New Beginningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compositionality: The Very Idea

Kracht

2007

Res on Lang and Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compositionality is often considered a fundamental principle of semantics for natural language. Yet only fairly recently has there been something of a theory of compositionality which allows to prove actual results. Basically, the lack of progress has been due to an improper understanding of what syntactic and semantic structures actually are. Many linguistic theories in one way or another confuse them by importing semantic notions into syntax or-conversely-adding syntactic detail to semantic structures. In this paper I shall outline a theory of semantic and syntactic structures and show how it avoids the problems that beset the previous theories. A particular benefit of this approach is that it allows to show results on sentential structure.

show abstract

Section: Towards a New Beginningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compositionality: The Very Idea

Kracht

2007

Res on Lang and Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Additional motivations for maintaining anaphoric potential alongside classical content are discussed extensively in Charlow 2014; cf. also Zeevat 1989 andVermeulen 1995. ) Of course, the reader is encouraged to recast the analysis in whatever dynamic terms he or she prefers.…”

Section: Universal Quantification As Iterated Dynamic Conjunctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incremental quantification and the dynamics of pair-list phenomena

Bumford

2015

S&P

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distributive universals are unique among natural language quantifiers in the following three ways: (i) matrix interrogatives that contain them accept pair-list answers; (ii) indefinites and disjunctions in their scope may assume arbitrary functional readings; and (iii) they permit sentence-internal interpretations of a wide range of comparative adjectives, like new and different. Because other quantifiers in the same environments do not give rise to these interpretations, the constructions provide a window into the semantic processes that underlie quantificational distributivity. In fact, both pair-list and internal readings have been independently argued to expose some of the compositional clockwork behind universal quantification, but the mechanisms they have been taken to reveal are entirely distinct. In contrast, I propose to explain pair-list phenomena, including a class of functional readings not previously recognized as such, and internal readings of comparative adjectives as two sides of the same coin; they are both side effects of incremental quantification. To make this precise, I analyze distributive universal quantifiers in terms of iterated, incremental update, in effect generalizing the sequential conjunction operator of standard dynamic semantics. I argue that this approach captures the tight empirical connection between pair-lists and internal adjectives, and at the same time provides a simpler and more robust account of the data than the specialized alternatives.

show abstract

“…A related approach replaces assignments with sequences of individuals, updated via a monotonic operation like sequence extension, as in (11), where 'e y' is the sequence e extended with the individual y. Proposals along these lines have been discussed by Vermeulen (1993Vermeulen ( , 1995, Dekker (1994), Groenendijk, Stokhof & Veltman (1996), Bittner (2001), van Eijck (2001), de Groote (2006, Nouwen (2007), Brasoveanu (2007), Charlow (2014, Bumford (2015), Nouwen et al (2016), and others. 3 λe.…”

Section: Destructive Updatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In case the notation is unfamiliar, (10) is a function defined only for g's which assign no value to 6. 3 In the 'referent systems' ofVermeulen (1995), the link between a variable and its value can be destroyed or overwritten, but the value itself is retained within the referent system. SeeGroenendijk, Stokhof & Veltman …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%