Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic

Vermeulen, C. F. M.

doi:10.1007/bf01050788

Cited by 48 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For current purposes, Charlow's (2014) recent grammar offers two advantages: (i) input and output contexts are modeled by simple lists of discourse referents, rather than total assignment functions (see also Vermeulen 1993, Dekker 1994, Eijck 2001, de Groote 2006; and (ii) the semantics keeps track of both truth-conditional content and context-change potential, instead of attempting to recover the former from the latter. The first feature protects against destructive updates, and sets the incremental accumulation of pairs in dramatic relief.…”

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

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

show abstract

“…Deterministic Merge With Substitution The sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic defined in Vermeulen [67] can be used as a semantics for a language of unreduced DRSs:…”

Section: It Should Avoid Fix(d)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A version of DRT called incremental dynamics is presented in [23]. This framework can be viewed as the one-variable version of sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic, as proposed in [67]. Incremental dynamics is described in terms of polymorphic type theory in [22].…”

Section: E Further Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discourse Representation in Context

Eijck

Kamp

2011

Handbook of Logic and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse representation in context is the attempt to capture certain aspects of the interpretation of natural language texts that are beyond the mere truth conditions of the text. Prime examples are interpretation of indefinites and pronouns in context, and interpretation of tenses, in French and other languages.One of the debates surrounding the advent of discourse representation theory (DRT, [37]) and file change semantics (FCS,[35]) had to do with the issue of representationalism. Should we assume the representation structures to say something about what goes on in the mind of the interpreter, or not. On this issue, the followers of the Montague tradition tend to have strongly antimentalist views. Semantics, in the Montagovian perspective, is not about what goes on in the mind, but about how language relates to reality.Montague tried to settle the issue of representation languages ('logical form') once and for all by means of a careful demonstration that immediate interpretation of natural language fragments in appropriate models, without an intervening logical form, was possible. DRT and FSC, in their original presentations, re-introduced logical forms into the picture. The first attempts at rational reconstruction of DRT and FCS were geared at showing that the representation language (the boxes of DRT) could be eliminated again. This led to the development of compositional versions of DRT such as dynamic predicate logic (DPL), and dynamic versions of Montague grammar based on DPL. The snag was that these rational reconstructions were not quite faithful to the original enterprise. See [25] for a detailed account of the relationship between DRT and DPL, in the context of a historical study 1

show abstract

“…We h a ve used both the =-statements of DPLE and the program negation to de ne these important procedures. 10 It would be interesting to nd out what happens if we remove (one of) these connectives from our language: what happens to the nite variable fragments in DPLE without = and/or program negation? From the examples above w e already know that some of the nite variable fragments of DPLE without negation will still be a bit more expressive than the corresponding fragments of PRED, but we suspect that in absence of identity statements (or rather: in absence of move x y programs) limiting the number of variables will amount to a serious restriction of the expressive p o wer.…”

Section: Conclusion and Further Workmentioning

confidence: 99%