Advertisement

Dependent Event Types

  • Zhaohui LuoEmail author
  • Sergei Soloviev
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10388)

Abstract

This paper studies how dependent types can be employed for a refined treatment of event types, offering a nice improvement to Davidson’s event semantics. We consider dependent event types indexed by thematic roles and illustrate how, in the presence of refined event types, subtyping plays an essential role in semantic interpretations. We consider two extensions with dependent event types: first, the extension of Church’s simple type theory as employed in Montague semantics that is familiar with many linguistic semanticists and, secondly, the extension of a modern type theory as employed in MTT-semantics. The former uses subsumptive subtyping, while the latter uses coercive subtyping, to capture the subtyping relationships between dependent event types. Both of these extensions have nice meta-theoretic properties such as normalisation and logical consistency; in particular, we shall show that the former can be faithfully embedded into the latter and hence has expected meta-theoretic properties. As an example of applications, it is shown that dependent event types give a natural solution to the incompatibility problem (sometimes called the event quantification problem) in combining event semantics with the traditional compositional semantics, both in the Montagovian setting with the simple type theory and in the setting of MTT-semantics.

Notes

Acknowledgement

Thanks go to Stergios Chatzikyriakidis, David Corfield, Koji Mineshima and Christian Retoré for helpful comments on this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Asher, N., Luo, Z.: Formalisation of coercions in lexical semantics. In: Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 17, Paris (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Champollion, L.: The interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics. Linguist. Philos. 38, 31–66 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chatzikyriakidis, S., Luo, Z. (eds.): Modern Perspectives in Type-Theoretical Semantics. Springer, Heidelberg (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chatzikyriakidis, S., Luo, Z.: Formal Semantics in Modern Type Theories. ISTE/Wiley (2018, to appear)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Church, A.: A formulation of the simple theory of types. J. Symb. Log. 5(1), 56–68 (1940)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davidson, D.: The logical form of action sentences. In: Rothstein, S. (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (1967)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Groote, P., Winter, Y.: A type-logical account of quantification in event semantics. In: Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics, vol. 11 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goguen, H.: A typed operational semantics for type theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Landman, F.: Plurality. In: Lappin, S. (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luo, Z.: A problem of adequacy: conservativity of calculus of constructions over higher-order logic. Technical report, LFCS report series ECS-LFCS-90-121, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luo, Z.: Computation and Reasoning: A Type Theory for Computer Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luo, Z.: Coercive subtyping in type theory. In: Dalen, D., Bezem, M. (eds.) CSL 1996. LNCS, vol. 1258, pp. 275–296. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). doi: 10.1007/3-540-63172-0_45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luo, Z.: Formal semantics in modern type theories with coercive subtyping. Linguist. Philos. 35(6), 491–513 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luo, Z., Soloviev, S., Xue, T.: Coercive subtyping: theory and implementation. Inf. Comput. 223, 18–42 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin-Löf, P.: Intuitionistic Type Theory. Bibliopolis, Berkeley (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montague, R.: Formal Philosophy. Yale University Press, New Haven (1974). Collected papers Ed. by R. ThomasonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parsons, T.: Events in the Semantics of English. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ranta, A.: Type-Theoretical Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams, A.: Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winter, Y., Zwarts, J.: Event semantics and abstract categorial grammar. In: Kanazawa, M., Kornai, A., Kracht, M., Seki, H. (eds.) MOL 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6878, pp. 174–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23211-4_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xue, T.: Theory and implementation of coercive subtyping. Ph.D. thesis, Royal Holloway, University of London (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Holloway, University of LondonEgham, SurreyUK
  2. 2.IRITToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations