Formal Grammar pp 114-129 | Cite as

Hyperintensional Dynamic Semantics

Analyzing Definiteness with Enriched Contexts
  • Scott Martin
  • Carl Pollard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7395)

Abstract

We present a dynamic semantic theory formalized in higher order logic that synthesizes aspects of de Groote’s continuation-based dynamics and Pollard’s hyperintensional semantics. In this theory, we rely on an enriched notion of discourse context inspired by the work of Heim and Roberts. We show how to use this enriched context to improve on de Groote’s treatment of English definite anaphora by modeling it as presupposition fulfillment.

Keywords

discourse context presupposition definite anaphora higher order logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Church, A.: A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5, 56–68 (1940)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gallin, D.: Intensional and Higher Order Modal Logic. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1975)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Groote, P.: Towards abstract categorial grammars. In: 39th Annual Meeting and 10th Conference of the European Chapter, Proceedings of the Conference on Association for Computational Linguistics (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Groote, P.: Towards a Montagovian account of dynamics. In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 16 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Groote, P.: Typing binding and anaphora: Dynamic contexts as λμ-terms. Presented at the ESSLLI Workshop on Symmetric Calculi and Ludics for Semantic Interpretation (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heim, I.: The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1982)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heim, I.: File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In: Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henkin, L.: Completeness in the theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 15, 81–91 (1950)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kamp, H.: A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T., Stokhof, M. (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam (1981)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lambek, J., Scott, P.: Introduction to Higher-Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis, D.: Scorekeeping in a language game. In: Baüerle, R., Egli, U., von Stechow, A. (eds.) Semantics from a Different Point of View. Springer, Berlin (1979)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montague, R.: The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka, K., Moravcsik, J., Suppes, P. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1973)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muskens, R.: Categorial grammar and discourse representation theory. In: Proceedings of COLING (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muskens, R.: Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 143–186 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muskens, R.: Separating syntax and combinatorics in categorial grammar. Research on Language and Computation 5, 267–285 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oehrle, R.T.: Term-labeled categorial type systems. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(6), 633–678 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pollard, C.: Hyperintensional Questions. In: Hodges, W., de Queiroz, R. (eds.) WoLLic 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5110, pp. 272–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pollard, C.: Hyperintensions. Journal of Logic and Computation 18(2), 257–282 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roberts, C.: Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In: Papers in Semantics. Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 49, Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roberts, C.: Pronouns as definites. In: Reimer, M., Bezuidenhout, A. (eds.) Descriptions and Beyond, pp. 503–543. Oxford University Press (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roberts, C., Simons, M., Beaver, D., Tonhauser, J.: Presupposition, conventional implicature, and beyond: A unified account of projection. In: Klinedinst, N., Rothschild, D. (eds.) Proceedings of New Directions in the Theory of Presupposition. ESSLLI workshop (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rooth, M.: NP interpretation in Montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Generalized Quantifiers. Reidel, Dordrecht (1987)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith, E.A.: Correlational Comparison in English. Ph.D. thesis. Ohio State University (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stalnaker, R.: Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4) (1973)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stalnaker, R.: Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315–332 (1978)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strachey, C., Wadsworth, C.P.: Continuations: A mathematical semantics for handling full jumps. Programming Research Group Technical Monograph PRG-11, Oxford University Computing Lab (1974)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thomason, R.: A model theory for propositional attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 47–70 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Martin
    • 1
  • Carl Pollard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations