Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compositional Natural Language Semantics using Independence Friendly Logic or Dependence Logic

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Independence Friendly Logic, introduced by Hintikka, is a logic in which a quantifier can be marked for being independent of other quantifiers. Dependence logic, introduced by Väänänen, is a logic with the complementary approach: for a quantifier it can be indicated on which quantifiers it depends. These logics are claimed to be useful for many phenomena, for instance natural language semantics. In this contribution we will compare these two logics by investigating their application in a compositional analysis of the de dicto - de re ambiguity in natural language. It will be argued that Independence Friendly logic is suitable, whereas Dependence Logic is not.

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

  1. Barker, C., and P. Jacobson, Direct Compositionality, no. 14 in Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.

  2. Brasoveanu, A., and D. Farkas, Scope and the grammar of choice, in Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Logic and Language (LoLa 10), Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 2009. http://www.nytud.hu/lola10/proceedings/.

  3. Brasoveanu A., Farkas D.F.: Scope and the grammar of choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 34, 1–55 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Caicedo X., Dechesne F., Janssen T.M.V.: Equivalence and quantifier rules for logics with imperfect information. Logic Journal of the IGPL 17, 91–129 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooper, R., Quantification and Syntactic Theory, no. 21 in Synthese Language Library, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983.

  6. Dever, J., Compositionality, in E. Lepore, and B. C. Smith, (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, chap. 26, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 633–666.

  7. van Ditmarsch, H., W. van der Hoek, and B. Kooi, Dynamic Epistemic Logic, no. 337 in Synthese Library, Springer, Berlin, 2007.

  8. Dowty, D., R. Wall, and S. Peters, Introduction to Montague semantics, no. 11 in Synthese Language Library, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981.

  9. van Eijck, J., and H. Kamp, Representing discourse in context, in J. van Benthem, and A. ter Meulen, (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, chap. 3, Elsevier, Amsterdam and The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1997, pp. 179–237.

  10. Gamut L., Logic T.F.: Language and Meaning II: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hendriks H.: Compositionality and model-theoretic interpretation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10(1), 29–48 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hintikka J.: Quantifiers vs. quantification theory. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 153–177 (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hintikka J.: The principles of mathematics revisited. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Hintikka, J., Knowledge and Belief. An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions, King College, 2005. Prepared by V. F. Hendricks and J. Symons, Extended version of Hintikka’s 1962 book.

  15. Hintikka, J., and G. Sandu, Game-theoretical semantics, in J. van Benthem, and A. ter Meulen, (eds.), Handbook of logic and language. Second edition, chap. 8, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2011, pp. 415–466.

  16. Hodges W.: Compositional semantics for a language of imperfect information. Logic Journal of the IGPL 5(4), 539–563 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hodges W.: Formal features of compositionality. Journal for Logic Language and Computation 10, 7–28 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Janssen, T. M. V., Compositionality (with an appendix by B. Partee), in J. van Benthem, and A. ter Meulen, (eds.), Handbook of logic and language. Second edition, chap. 10, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2011, pp. 495–554.

  19. Kontinnen J., Väänänen J.: A remark on negation in dependence logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal logic 52(1), 55–64 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mann A.L.: Independence-friendly cylindric set algebras. Logic Journal of the IGPL 17(6), 719–754 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McKay, T., and M. Nelson, Propositional attitude reports, in E. N. Zalta, (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopy, CSLI, Stanford, Summer 2011. http://plato.stanford.edu

  22. Montague, R., English as a formal language, in B. Visentini et al., (eds.), Linguaggi nella Societa et nella Technica, Edizioni di Communita, Milan, 1970, pp. 188–221. Distributed by the Olivetti Corporation, Milan, reprinted in [29], pp. 188–221.

  23. Montague, R., Universal grammar, Theoria 36:373–398, 1970. Reprinted in [29], pp. 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Montague, R., The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English, in K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes, (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language, no. 49 in Synthese Library, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973, pp. 221–242. Reprinted in [29]., pp. 247–270, and in [28], pp. 17–35.

  25. Partee, B. H., Compositionality, in F. Landman, and F. Veltman, (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, no. 3 in GRASS, Foris, Dordrecht, 1984, pp. 281–311. Reprinted in 26., pp. 153–181.

  26. Partee, B. H., Compositionality in Formal Semantics. Selected papers by Barbara H. Partee, no. 1 in Explorations in Semantics, Blackwell, Malden, USA, 2004.

  27. Peters S., Westerståhl D.: Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxfors (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Portner, P., and B. Partee, (eds.), Formal Semantics: the Essential Readings, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2002.

  29. Thomason, R.H.: (ed.), Formal Philosophy. Yale University Press, New Haven (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Väänänen, J., Dependence Logic: A New Approach to Independence Friendly Logic, vol. 70 of London Mathematical Society Student Texts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.

  31. Werning, M., W. Hinzen,, and E. Machery, (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Oxford University Press, 2012.

  32. Werning, M., E. Machery, and G. Schurz, (eds.), The Compositionality of Meaning and Content, vol. I: Foundational Issues, Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2005.

  33. Winter, Y., Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics: Coordination, Plurality and Scope in Natural Language, no. 37 in Current Studies in Linguistics, The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 2001.

  34. Zadrozny, W., From compositional to systematic semantics, Linguistics and Philosophy 17:329–342, 1994.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FNWI, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94242, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Theo M. V. Janssen

Authors
  1. Theo M. V. Janssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theo M. V. Janssen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janssen, T.M.V. Compositional Natural Language Semantics using Independence Friendly Logic or Dependence Logic. Stud Logica 101, 453–466 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-013-9480-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-013-9480-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation