Information Update and Support

  • Paul J. E. Dekker
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 91)


In the third chapter the results from the second chapter are lifted to an intensional setting. It is shown that notions of informational content, information update and speaker support can be defined interchangeably, and independently. The chapter ends with a discussion of the contextualist debate, and the books agrees with (almost of) the contextualist findings, but not the contextualists' conclusions.


Coreference and modality  Intensionality Informational content Information update Speaker support Conceptual covers  Cross-speaker anaphora Ambiguity Contextualism 


  1. Aloni, Maria. (2000). Conceptual Covers in Dynamic Semantics. In Nick Braisby Lawrence Cavedon, Patrick Blackburn, & Atsushi Shimojima (Eds.), Logic (pp. 23–48). CSLI: Language and Computation, Vol III, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni, Maria. (2005). Individual Concepts in Modal Predicate Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aloni, Maria. (1998). Quantification in Dynamic Semantics. In Jerry Seligman & Patrick Blackburn (Eds.), Proceedings of ITALLC’98 (pp. 82–92). Chiayi, Taiwan: National Chung Cheng University.Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. (1971). Out of the pragmatic waste-basket. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 401–07.Google Scholar
  5. Barwise, Jon, & Cooper, Robin. (1981). Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 159–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaver, David 1995. Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, CCS, Edinburgh. Published in 2001 by CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  7. Bezuidenhout, Anne. (2002). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Philosophical Perspectives, 16, 105–34.Google Scholar
  8. Borg, Emma. (2007). Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (Eds.), Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brasoveanu, Adrian. (2010). Decomposing Modal Quantification. Journal of Semantics, 27, 437–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brasoveanu, Adrian. (2008). Donkey pluralities: plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 129–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cappelen, Herman, & Lepore, Ernie. (2005). Insensitive Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chastain, Charles. (1975). Reference and Context. In Keith Gunderson (Ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge (pp. 194–269). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chierchia, Gennaro 1995. Dynamics of Meaning. Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cresswell, Max J. (2002). Static Semantics for Dynamic Discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 545–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donnellan, Keith. (1978). Speaker Reference, Descriptions and Anaphora. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 47–68). Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Donnellan, Keith. (1966). Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review, 75, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Eijck, Jan, & Cepparello, Giovanna. (1994). Dynamic Modal Predicate Logic. In Makoto Kanazawa & Chris Piñon (Eds.), Dynamics (pp. 251–276). CSLI: Polarity and Quantification, Stanford.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, Gareth. (1982). The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Edited by John McDowell.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk, Jeroen, & Stokhof, Martin. (1991). Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groenendijk, Jeroen, Stokhof, Martin, & Veltman, Frank. (1996). Coreference and Modality. In Shalom Lappin (Ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 179–213). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Groenendijk, Jeroen 2007. The Logic of Interrogation. In: Maria Aloni, Alastair Butler & Paul Dekker (eds.) Questions in Dynamic Semantics. CRiSPI 17, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 43–62. Also appeared in T. Matthews and D. Strolovitch (eds.), 1999, Proceedings of SALT IX, CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Heim, Irene 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1988 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Heim, Irene, 1991. On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions. In: Steven Davis (ed.) Pragmatics: A Reader, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 397–405. Also appeared in Barlow, M. and D. Flickinger and M. Wescoat, (Eds.). (1983). Proceedings of WCCFL II. Stanford: CA.Google Scholar
  24. Hendriks, Herman 1993. Studied Flexibility. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Kamp, Hans, & Reyle, Uwe. (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kamp, Hans 1990. Prolegomena to a Structural Theory of Belief and Other Attitudes. In: C. Anthony Anderson & Joseph Owens (eds.) Propositional Attitudes, Stanford: CSLI. pp. 27–90.Google Scholar
  27. Keenan, Ed. (1992). Beyond the Frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kripke, Saul 1972. Naming and Necessity. In: Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds.) Semantics of Natural Languages, Dordrecht: Reidel. pp. 254–355, 763–769.Google Scholar
  29. Kripke, Saul 1979b. Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference. In: Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling & Howard K. Wettstein (eds.) Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 6–27.Google Scholar
  30. Moltmann, Friederike. (2006). Unbound anaphoric pronouns: E-type, dynamic, and structured-propositions approaches. Synthese, 153, 199–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nouwen, Rick 2003. Plural pronominal anaphora in context: dynamic aspects of quantification. Ph.D. thesis, UiL-OTS, Utrecht. LOT dissertation series, No. 84.Google Scholar
  32. Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3, 143–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pagin, Peter, & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. (2007). Content, context, and composition. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (Eds.), Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism (pp. 25–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Read, Stephen. (1992). Conditionals are not truth-functional: an argument from Peirce. Analysis, 52, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Recanati, François. (2005). Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth (pp. 171–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Recanati, François. (1994). Contextualism and Anti-Contextualism in the Philosophy of Language. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 156–66). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Recanati, François. (2006). Crazy Minimalism. Mind and Language, 21(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scha, Remko J.H. 1984. Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification. In: Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M.V. Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.) Truth, Interpretation and Information, Dordrecht: Foris. pp. 131–158.Google Scholar
  39. Stalnaker, Robert. (1978). Syntax and Semantics 9—Pragmatics (p. 332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stalnaker, Robert. (1998). On the Representation of Context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanley, Jason. (2005). Semantics in context. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth (pp. 221–253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Strawson, Peter F. (1952). Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
  43. van den Berg, Martin H. 1996. The Internal Structure of Discourse. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. van Rooy, Robert 1997. Attitudes and Changing Contexts. Ph.D. thesis, IMS, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  45. Veltman, Frank. (1996). Defaults in Update Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(3), 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vermeulen, Cornelis F. M. (1996). Merging Without Mystery or: Variables in Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(4), 405–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953). Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Translation by G.E.M. Anscombe.Google Scholar
  48. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Oxford: Routledge and Kegan. Originally appeared in 1921 as Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung in the Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 14.Google Scholar
  49. Zimmermann, Ede. (1999). Remarks on the Epistemic Rôle of Discourse Referents. In Lawrence S. Moss, Jonathan Ginzburg, & Maarten de Rijke (Eds.), Logic, Language and Computation (Vol. II, pp. 346–368). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. E. Dekker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations