Partial Dynamic Semantics for Anaphora: Compositionality without Syntactic Coindexation

Haug, Dag

doi:10.1093/jos/fft008

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order that we can analyze presuppositions in a fully compositional grammar fragment, the logic defined in the appendix includes undefined entities of every type. We say, following Haug (2013), that an entity is defined if it is not an undefined object and is not a function whose range includes an undefined object. We can then explicate classical equivalence as follows: (70 27 A reviewer points to a class of web examples of an only where weak uniqueness might be argued to be satisfied, including: (i) In this book, the author will share with you an only system that is based on his 7 years of researching, helping you cure your heartburn for good.…”

Section: Predicative a And How The Can Block Itmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We denote the undefined individual using = || e , in the style of Haug (2013). 31 (86) Semantic interpretation rule: ι ιuφ = d if {x : φ M,w,g[u→x] = T} = {d}; = || e otherwise.…”

Section: Two Sources Of Existential Importmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have followed Haug's (2013) semantics for the universal quantifier, which effectively implements an existential presupposition, as suggested by Beaver (1994). This has the ugly consequence that the universal quantifier is not the natural generalization of conjunction.…”

Section: A41 Quantification and Presuppositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Definiteness and determinacy

Coppock

Beaver

2015

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper distinguishes between definiteness and determinacy. Definiteness is seen as a morphological category which, in English, marks a (weak) uniqueness presupposition, while determinacy consists in denoting an individual. Definite descriptions are argued to be fundamentally predicative, presupposing uniqueness but not existence, and to acquire existential import through general type-shifting operations that apply not only to definites, but also indefinites and possessives. Through these shifts, argumental definite descriptions may become either determinate (and thus denote an individual) or indeterminate (functioning as an existential quantifier). The latter option is observed in examples like 'Anna didn't give the only invited talk at the conference', which, on its indeterminate reading, implies that there is nothing in the extension of 'only invited talk at the conference'. The paper also offers a resolution of the issue of whether possessives are inherently indefinite or definite, suggesting that, like indefinites, they do not mark definiteness lexically, but like definites, they typically yield determinate readings due to a general preference for the shifting operation that produces them.

show abstract

Section: Predicative a And How The Can Block Itmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We denote the undefined individual using = || e , in the style of Haug (2013). 31 (86) Semantic interpretation rule: ι ιuφ = d if {x : φ M,w,g[u→x] = T} = {d}; = || e otherwise.…”

Section: Two Sources Of Existential Importmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Definiteness and determinacy

Coppock

Beaver

2015

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is one of the causes of the overwrite problem. A reviewer suggested that the problem could be avoided if one extends the RDRS approach with post-interpretational indexing along the lines proposed in classical DRT or Partial CDRT(Haug 2013). This would make a radical departure from the original proposal, though we find no difficulty in principle.…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Zamparelli 2011), would be problematic to such a view. (i) Bill and possibly Sue own a donkey.5 This problem was first pointed out for Partial CDRT,(Haug 2013). In contrast to CDRT, Partial CDRT puts off anaphora resolution until completing constructing DRS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variable Handling and Compositionality: Comparing DRT and DTS

Yana

Mineshima

Bekki

2019

J of Log Lang and Inf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a detailed comparison between discourse representation theory (DRT) and dependent type semantics (DTS), two frameworks for discourse semantics. Although it is often stated that DRT and those frameworks based on dependent types are mutually exchangeable, we argue that they differ with respect to variable handling, more specifically, how substitution and other operations on variables are defined. This manifests itself in two recalcitrant problems posed for DRT; namely, the overwrite problem and the duplication problem. We will see that these problems still pose a challenge for various extended compositional systems based on DRT, while they do not arise in a framework of DTS where substitution and other operations are defined in the standard type-theoretic manner without stipulating any additional constraints. We also compare the notions of contexts underlying these two kinds of frameworks, namely, contexts represented as assignment functions and contexts represented as proof terms, and see what different predictions they make for some linguistic examples.

show abstract

Quantificational Subordination as Anaphora to a Function

Gotham

2019

Formal Grammar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Partial Dynamic Semantics for Anaphora: Compositionality without Syntactic Coindexation

Cited by 16 publications

References 14 publications

Definiteness and determinacy

Definiteness and determinacy

Variable Handling and Compositionality: Comparing DRT and DTS

Quantificational Subordination as Anaphora to a Function

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About