Advertisement

Predicate logic with flexibly binding operators and natural language semantics

  • Peter Pagin
  • Dag Westerståhl
Article

Abstract

A new formalism for predicate logic is introduced, with a non-standard method of binding variables, which allows a compositional formalization of certain anaphoric constructions, including ‘donkey sentences’ and cross-sentential anaphora. A proof system in natural deduction format is provided, and the formalism is compared with other accounts of this type of anaphora, in particular Dynamic Predicate Logic.

Key words

anaphora compositionality DPL dynamic semantics variable-binding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. van Benthem, J., 1991, “Logic and the flow of information”, to appear in D. Prawitzet al., Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, North-Holland, Amsterdam. [Preprint as CSLI Report No. 91-160, Stanford University.]Google Scholar
  2. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic”,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.Google Scholar
  3. Heim, I., 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Hopcroft, J. and Ullman, J., 1979,Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison Wesley, Reading.Google Scholar
  5. Kamp, H., 1981, “A theory of truth and semantic representation”, in J. Groenendijket al. (eds.),Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Math. Centre, Amsterdam, 277–322. [Reprinted in J. Groenendijket al. (eds.), 1984,Truth, Interpretation and Information, Foris, Dordrecht, 1–41.]Google Scholar
  6. Lewis, D., 1975, “Adverbs of quantification”, in E. Keenan (ed.),Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 3–15.Google Scholar
  7. Marsh, W., and Partee, B., 1984, “How non-context free is variable binding?”, in M. Cobleret al. (eds.),Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 3, 179–190.Google Scholar
  8. Montague, R., 1974,Formal Philosophy, ed. R. M. Thomason, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  9. Prawitz, D., 1965,Natural Deduction, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  10. Sowa, J., 1984,Conceptual Structures. Information Processing in Man and Machine, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  11. Zeevat, H., 1989, “A compositional approach to discourse representation theory”,Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 95–131.Google Scholar
  12. Zeman, J., 1967, “A system of implicit quantification”,The Journal of Symbolic Logic 32, 480–504.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Pagin
    • 1
  • Dag Westerståhl
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of PhilosophyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations