Skip to main content
Log in

Merging without mystery or: Variables in dynamics semantics

Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the treatment of variables in dynamic semantics. Referent systems are introduced as a flexible mechanism for working with variables. In a referent system we carefully distinguish the variables themselves both from the machinery by which we manipulate them — their names — and from the information that we store in them — their values. It is shown that the referent systems provide a natural basis for dynamic semantics. The semantics with referent systems is compared with the familiar formalisms in dynamic semantics,DRT andDPL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. van Benthem, J.: 1989, ‘Semantic parallels in natural language and computation’, inLogic Colloquium '87, H. Ebbinghauset al. (eds.), North-Holland.

  2. van Benthem, J.: 1991, ‘General Dynamics’,Theoretical Linguistics, pp. 159–201.

  3. van Benthem, J.: 1991,Language in Action, North-Holland.

  4. Blackburn, P. and Venema, Y.: 1993,Dynamic squares, in Logic Group Preprint Series, no. 92, Utrecht University (Heidelberglaan 8, 3584 CS Utrecht, Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dekker, P.: 1992, ‘An update semantics for dynamic predicate logic’, inProceedings of the 8th Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker, M. Stokhof (eds.), University of Amsterdam (Nieuwe Doelenstraat 15, Amsterdam, Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  6. van Eijck, D.J.N.: 1991,The dynamics of description, Report CS-R9143, CWI (Kruislaan 413, Amsterdam, Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  7. van Eijck, D.J.N. and deVries, F.-J.: 1991,Dynamic interpretation and Hoare deduction, Report CS-R9115, CWI (Kruislaan 413, Amsterdam, Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fernando, T.: 1992, ‘Transition Systems’, inLogics in AIEuropean Workshop JELIA 1992, D. Pearce and G. Wagner (eds.), LNCS 633, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fine, K.: 1985,Reasoning with Arbitrary Objects, Aristotelian Society Series, 3, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Frege, G.: 1969, ‘Logische Mängel in der Mathematik’, inNachgelassene Schriften, H. Hermes,et al. (eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: 1991, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, pp. 39–100.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: 1991, ‘Two theories of dynamic semantics’, inLogics in AI — European Workshop JELIA '90, J. van Eijck (ed.), pp. 55–64, LNCS 478, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harel, D.: 1984, ‘Dynamic Logic’, inHandbook of Philosophical Logic, D. Gabbay and H. Günthner (eds.), Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Heim, I.: 1982,The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases, dissertation, University of Massachusets, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, inFormal Methods in the Study of Language, Groenendijket al, (eds.), CWI (Kruislaan 413, Amsterdam, Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U.: 1993,From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kaplan, D.: 1979, ‘On the logic of demonstratives’, inContemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, French, Uehling and Wettstein (eds.), pp. 401–412, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Montague, R.: 1970, ‘Universal Grammar’, inTheoria 36, pp. 373–398.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pratt, V.: 1991, ‘Action Logic and Pure Induction’, inLogics in AI — European Workshop JELIA '90, J. van Eijck (ed.), pp. 97–120, LNCS 478, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  20. de Rijke, M: 1992,A system of dynamic modal logic, ILLC-prepublication LP-92–08, University of Amsterdam (Plantage Muidergracht 24, Amsterdam, Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stalnaker, R.: 1978, ‘Pragmatics’, inSemantics of natural language, P. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stalnaker, R.: 1978, ‘Assertion’, inSyntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Veltman, R.: 1990,Defaults in update semantics, inConditionals, Defaults and Belief Revision, H. Kamp (ed.), Edinburgh, Dyana deliverable R.2.5.A.

  24. Vermeulen, C.F.M.: 1991, ‘Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic’Journal of Logic Language and Information 2, pp. 217–254.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vermeulen, C.F.M.: 1994, in:Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,35, pp. 243–271.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Visser, A.: 1994,Actions under Presupposition, in Logic and Information Flow, J. van Eijck and A. Visser (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Visser, A.: 1992,Lazy and Quarrelsome Brackets in Logic Group Preprint Series no. 82, Utrecht University (Heidelberglaan 8, 3584 CS Utrecht, Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Visser, A.: 1991, Meanings in Time, manuscript (Heidelberglaan 8, 3584 CS Utrecht, Holland).

  29. Zeevat, H.: 1989, ‘A Compositional Approach to Discourse Representation Theory’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12, pp. 95–131.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zeevat, H.: 1991,Aspects of discourse semantics and unification grammar, PhD. thesis, University of Amsterdam (Nieuwe Doelenstraat 15, Amsterdam, Holland).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vermeulen, C.F.M. Merging without mystery or: Variables in dynamics semantics. J Philos Logic 24, 405–450 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048354

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048354

Keywords

Navigation