Studia Logica

, Volume 100, Issue 4, pp 815–853 | Cite as

A Constructive Type-Theoretical Formalism for the Interpretation of Subatomically Sensitive Natural Language Constructions

  • Bartosz WięckowskiEmail author


The analysis of atomic sentences and their subatomic components poses a special problem for proof-theoretic approaches to natural language semantics, as it is far from clear how their semantics could be explained by means of proofs rather than denotations. The paper develops a proof-theoretic semantics for a fragment of English within a type-theoretical formalism that combines subatomic systems for natural deduction [20] with constructive (or Martin-Löf) type theory [8, 9] by stating rules for the formation, introduction, elimination and equality of atomic propositions understood as types (or sets) of subatomic proof-objects. The formalism is extended with dependent types to admit an interpretation of non-atomic sentences. The paper concludes with applications to natural language including internally nested proper names, anaphoric pronouns, simple identity sentences, and intensional transitive verbs.


Constructive type theory Proof-theoretic semantics of natural language Subatomic semantics Type-theoretical grammar 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boldini, P., Vagueness and type theory, in C. Retoréd.), Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, LNCS 1328, Springer, 1997, pp. 134–148.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernando, T., Conservative generalized quantifiers and presupposition, in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI,Cornell University, 2001, pp. 172–191.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fernando T.: Situations as strings. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 165, 23–36 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Francez, N., and R. Dyckhoff, Proof-theoretic semantics for a natural language fragment, in C. Ebert, G. Jäger, and J. Michaelis (eds.), Mathematics of Language 10/11,LNAI 6149, Springer, 2010, pp. 56–71.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Francez N., Dyckhoff R.: Proof-theoretic semantics for a natural language fragment. Linguistics and Philosophy 33, 447–477 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Francez N., Dyckhoff R., Ben-Avi G.: Proof-theoretic semantics for subsentential phrases. Studia Logica 94, 381–401 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krahmer, E., and P. Piwek, Presupposition projection as proof construction, in H. Bunt, and R. Muskens (eds.), Computing Meaning,Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999, pp. 281–300.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martin-Löf, P., Intuitionistic Type Theory, Bibliopolis, 1984Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nordström, B., K. Petersson, and J. M. Smith, Programming in Martin-Löf’s Type Theory, Clarendon Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prawitz, D., Ideas and results in proof theory, in J.E. Fenstad (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium (Oslo 1970), North-Holland, 1971, pp. 235–309.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prawitz, D., Towards a foundation of a general proof theory, in P. Suppes et al. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science IV, North-Holland, 1973, pp. 225–250.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prawitz, D., Meaning approached via proofs, Synthese 148:1–12. Special issue on Proof-Theoretic Semantics edited by R. Kahle, and P. Schroeder-Heister, 2006.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Primiero, G., and B. Jespersen, Two kinds of procedural semantics for privative modification, in K. Nakakoji, Y. Murakami, and E.McCready (eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 6284, Springer, 2010, pp. 252–271.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ranta A.: Intuitionistic categorial grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 203–239 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ranta, A., Type-Theoretical Grammar, Clarendon Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rathjen M.: The constructive Hilbert program and the limits of Martin-Löf Type Theory. Synthese 147, 81–120 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sundholm, G., Proof-theory and meaning, in D. M. Gabbay, and F.Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd Edition, Vol. 9, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, pp. 165–198. (First published in 1984.)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sundholm G.: Constructive generalized quantifiers. Synthese 79, 1–12 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Więckowski B. (2010) Associative substitutional semantics and quantified modal logic. Studia Logica 94:105–138Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Więckowski B. (2011) Rules for subatomic derivation, The Review of Symbolic Logic 4:219–236Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zimmermann T. E.: On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1, 149–179 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zimmermann T. E.: Monotonicity in opaque verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 715–761 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PhilosophieUniversität GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations