Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 3, Issue 2–3, pp 333–362 | Cite as

Austinian Truth, Attitudes and Type Theory

Article

Abstract

This paper is part of a broader project whose aim is to present a coherent unified approach to natural language dialogue semantics using tools from type theory. Here we explore aspects of our approach which relate to situation theory and situation semantics. We first point out a relationship between type theory and the Austinian notion of truth. We then consider how records in type theory might be used to represent situations and how dependent record types can be used to model constraints on situations. We then sketch treatments of attitude phenomena for which Barwise and Perry proposed situation semantic analyses (perception complements, belief, the Pierre puzzle) as well as two other intensional phenomena (intensional verbs and intentional identity). Finally we give a characterisation of the type theory used and a small illustrative fragment of English.

Keywords

attitudes intensionality records situation semantics situation theory type theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, J.L. 1961

    Truth, in Urmson and Warnock

    Urmson, J.O.Warnock, G.J. eds. Philosophical Papers.Oxford University PressOxford117133
    Google Scholar
  2. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1991) Simple Situation Theory and its Graphical Representation. In: Seligman J. (ed.), Partial and Dynamic Semantics III, DYANA Deliverable R2.1.C. Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh (Indiana University Logic Group Preprint No. IULG-91-8).Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J., Perry, J. 1983Situations and AttitudesMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Barwise J., Seligman J. (1997) Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems. Vol. 44, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, R. 2005Records and Record Types in Sematic TheoryJournal of Logic and Computation1599111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper, R. 1996

    The Role of Situations in Generalized Quantifiers

    Lappin, S. eds. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory.BlackwellOxford
    Google Scholar
  7. Cooper R. (2004) Dynamic Generalised Quantifiers and Hypothetical Contexts. In: Ursus Philosophicus, A Festschrift for Björn Haglund. Department of Philosophy, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper R., Ginzburg J. (1996) A Compositional Situation Semantics for Attitude Reports. In: Seligman J., Westerståhl D. (eds), Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. 1. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Coquand, T., Pollack, R., Takeyama, M. 2004A Logical Framework with Dependently Typed RecordsFundamenta Informaticae20122Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, D. 1980Essays on Actions and EventsClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. van Eijck J., Kamp H. (1997) Representing Discourse in Context. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds), Handbook of Logic and Language. North Holland, Amsterdam and MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Fauconnier, G. 1985Mental SpacesMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Geach, P.T. 1967Intentional IdentityJournal of Philosophy64627632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kamp, H., Reyle, U. 1993From Discourse to LogicKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaplan, D. 1989

    Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals

    Almog, J.Perry, J.Wettstein, H.K. eds. Themes from Kaplan.Oxford University PressOxford
    Google Scholar
  16. Kohlhase, M., Kuschert, D., Pinkal, M. 1996

    A Type-Theoretic Semantics for λ-DRT

    Dekker, P.Stokhof, M. eds. Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium.ILLCAmsterdam479498
    Google Scholar
  17. Kripke, S. 1979

    A Puzzle about Belief

    Margalit, A. eds. Meaning and Use.ReidelDordrecht239283
    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larsson S. (2002) Issue-Based Dialogue Management. PhD thesis, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
  19. Montague R. (1974) Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, and with an introduction by R. H. Thomason (ed.), Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  20. Muskens, R. 1995Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse RepresentationLinguistics and Philosophy19143186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ranta, A. 1991Constructing Possible WorldsTheoria577799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ranta, A. 1994Type-Theoretical GrammarClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Roberts, C. 1989Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in DiscourseLinguistics and Philosophy12683721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sag, I., Wasow, T., Bender, E. 2003Syntactic Theory2CSLI PublicationsStanfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Sundholm, G. 1986

    Proof Theory and Meaning

    Gabbay, D.Guenthner, F. eds. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.III.ReidelDordrecht
    Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsGöteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations