Information States in Situation Theory

  • László Polós
  • Michael Masuch
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 247)

Abstract

We want to contribute to the development of a logical machinery for processing structurally opaque languages (e.g., natural languages) by refining the instruments of Situation Theory (Barwise and Perry, 1983; Barwise and Cooper, 1994). We think that previous ventures, such as Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) (Kamp, 1981), and File Change Semantics (Heim, 1982; 1983), have certain shortcomings that Situation Theory may overcome.

Keywords

Information State Lexical Item Information Type Lexical Information Atomic Sentence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aczel, P.: 1989, Non-well Founded Sets, CSLI Lecture Notes 1Google Scholar
  2. Aczel, P. and Lunnon R.: 1991, “Universes with Parameters”, in: Barwise et al. (eds), Sitation Theory and Its Applications. Vol 2. CLSIGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher, N.: 1986, “Belief Sentences in Discourse Representation Theory”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 pp. 127–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asher, N. and Kamp, H.: 1988, “Self-Reference, Attitudes and Paradox”, in: G. Chirechia et al. (eds), Properties, Types and Meaning vol 1, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 85–159Google Scholar
  5. Asher, N.: 1993, Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Dordrecht: KluwerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barwise, J.: 1983, Situation in Logic 1, CSLI reportGoogle Scholar
  7. Barwise, J.: 1985, Situation in Logic 2: Conditionals and Conditional Information, CSLI reportGoogle Scholar
  8. Barwise, J.: 1985, Situation in Logic 3: Situations Sets and Axiom of Foundation, CSLI reportGoogle Scholar
  9. Barwise, J.: 1988, Situation in Logic 4, CSLI reportGoogle Scholar
  10. Barwise, J. and Cooper, R.: 1991, “Simple Situation Theory and its Graphical Representation”, DYANA delivearable R2.1C Google Scholar
  11. Barwise,J. and Etchemendy, J.: 1986, The Liar, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Barwise, J. and Moss, L.: 1991, Situation Theory, Saarbrücken Lecture NotesGoogle Scholar
  13. Barwise, J. and Perry, J.: 1983, Situations And Attitudes, MIT Press, A Bradford BookGoogle Scholar
  14. Devlin, K.: 1991, Logic and Information, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldberg, J., Kaiman, L. and Szabó, Z.: 1991, Presentation on the Dyana Workshop on Presuppositions in Nijmegen Google Scholar
  16. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: 1988, “Dynamic Predicate Logic”, Linguistics and Philosophy 14 , pp. 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: 1990, “Dynamic Montague Grammar” in: Kaiman, L, and Polos, L. (eds), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Budapest: Akademiai Kiadö, pp. 3–48Google Scholar
  18. Heim, I.: 1982, The semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, PhD. diss. UMassGoogle Scholar
  19. Heim, I.: 1983, “File Change Semantics and the familiarity theory of definites”, in: Buerle, R. et. al., Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, Berlin: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamp, H.: 1981, “A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation”, in: Groenendijk, J. et al., Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322Google Scholar
  21. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U.: 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: KluwerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Káimán, L. and Pólos L. and Szabó, Z.: 1989, Can Representations Solve Problems?, ALL Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  23. Káimán, L. and Pólos L. (eds): 1990, Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Budapest: Akademiai KiadóGoogle Scholar
  24. Landman, F.: 1986, “On Pegs and Alecs”, in: Landman, F. , Towards a Theory of Information, PhD. Diss. Universiteit van AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  25. Landman, F.: 1987, A Handful versions of DRT, ms. Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Lunnon, R.: 1991, Generalized Universes, PhD. Diss. University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  27. Partee, B.: 1984, “Nominal and Temporal Anaphora”, Linguistics and Philosophy 7 pp. 243–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Polos, L.: 1987, “Structured Domains in DRT (Typed or type free?)” in: Ruzsa I. and Szabolcsi A., Proceedings of Symposion on Logic and Language, Budapest: Akademiai KiadóGoogle Scholar
  29. Polos, L. and Masuch, M.: 1993, Updated Situation Semantics. Amsterdam: CCSOM, Working Paper 93–109Google Scholar
  30. Tarski, A.: 1956, Logic, Semantics Metamathematics, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. van Eijck, J.: 1985, Quantification in Natural Language, PhD. Diss. Rijkuniversiteit GroningenGoogle Scholar
  32. Veltman, F.: 1989, Update Semantics, ms. Universiteit van AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Veltman, F.: 1994, “Defaults in Update Semantics”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, forthcomingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • László Polós
    • 1
  • Michael Masuch
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Computer Science in Organization and ManagementUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations