Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ambiguous Discourse in a Compositional Context. An Operational Perspective

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The processing of sequences of (English) sentences is analyzedcompositionally through transitions that merge sentences, rather thandecomposing them. Transitions that are in a precise senseinertial are related to disjunctive and non-deterministic approaches toambiguity. Modal interpretations are investigated, inducing variousequivalences on sequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Fernando, T., 1997, “Ambiguity under changing contexts,” Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 575–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernando, T., 1999, “A modal logic for non-deterministic discourse processing,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8, 445–468. Corrigendum: the axiom scheme (ϕ ⊃ ψ) ≡ (ϕ > ψ ) in Section 6 (p. 465) should be weakened to (ϕ > ψ) ≡ (ϕ ≡ ψ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic,” Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, W., 2001, “Formal features of compositionality,” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 10, 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopcroft, J.E. and Ullman, J.D., 1979, Introduction to Automata Theory, Language and Computation, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., and Gabbay, D., 2001, Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding, Oxford: Blackwell, to be published.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klop, J.W., 1988, “Bisimulation semantics,” Lectures given at the REXWorkshop, Noordwijkerhout, May 1988.

  • Marx, M. and Venema, Y., 1997, Multi-Dimensional Modal Logic, Applied Logic Series, Vol. 4, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, D., 1981, “Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences,” pp. 167–183 in Proceedings 5 th GI Conference, P. Deussen, ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 104, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin, G.D., 1981, “A structural approach to operational semantics,” Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University.

  • van Benthem, J., 1996, Exploring Logical Dynamics, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Deemter, K., 1996, “Towards a logic of ambiguous expressions,” pp. 203–238 in Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification, K. van Deemter and S. Peters, eds., CSLI Lecture Notes, Vol. 55, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, A. and Vermeulen, C.F.M., 1996, “Dynamic bracketing and discourse representation,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37, 321–365.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, 2, Ireland

    Tim Fernando

Authors
  1. Tim Fernando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fernando, T. Ambiguous Discourse in a Compositional Context. An Operational Perspective. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 63–86 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026550126421

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026550126421

Search

Navigation