David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Semantics 1 (1):3-20 (1982)
In current semantic theory compositional interpretations are assumed to go from linguistic items to their denotations in some model. This perspective still leaves room for a more dynamical account of how such interpretations are actually created. One natural idea is to assume that each sentence in a discourse is understood through some representation, ‘mediating’ between the language and its models. Thus, the old relation of interpretation splits up into two new ones, viz. that between linguistic items and their representations, and that between these representations and actual models. Now, at the Cleves conference it was clear that discourse representations are many things to many people. Some view them as syntactic constructs, some as psychological ones (yet others prefer to remain confused over this issue). Again, one popular metaphor is that of the partial picture of reality, another that of a procedural recipe for verification. Finally, these representations are supposed to explain such diverse phenomena as anaphora and progressive discourse information. It is not obvious that one coherent notion could do all these fobs. On the other hand, it is not obvious either that one need not try. The purpose of this paper is to clarify some logical issues concerning discourse representations, while trying to bring together two of the main themes at the Cleves conference, viz. representation proper and the topic of partial information. General considerations will be found in section 1; section 2 contains applications and illustrations drawn from the two best-developed formal paradigms of discourse semantics (cf. Hintikkn (1979), Hintikka & Carlson (1979). Kamp (1981)). It is our contention that more clarity as to the nature and the purpose of discourse representation will unite, rather than divide the various currents in this developing area
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Franz Guenthner (1987). Linguistic Meaning in Discourse Representation Theory. Synthese 73 (3):569 - 598.
Similar books and articles
Laura Ruetsche (2003). Modal Semantics, Modal Dynamics and the Problem of State Preparation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (1):25 – 41.
Jan van Eijck & Fer-Jan de Vries (1995). Reasoning About Update Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24 (1):19-45.
Lawrence S. Moss (2000). Exploring Logical Dynamics, Johan Van Benthem. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (2):261-263.
Jan van Eijck (2001). Incremental Dynamics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (3):319-351.
Oliver Pooley & Harvey R. Brown (2002). Relationalism Rehabilitated? I: Classical Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (2):183--204.
Johan van Benthem & Eric Pacuit, Toward a Theory of Play: A Logical Perspective on Games and Interaction.
Johan van Benthem (2011). Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Johan van Benthem (2003). Logic and the Dynamics of Information. Minds and Machines 13 (4):503-519.
Jeffrey Bub (1994). How to Interpret Quantum Mechanics. Erkenntnis 41 (2):253 - 273.
Jan Van Eijck & Fer-Jan De Vries (1995). Reasoning About Update Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24 (1):19 - 45.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads14 ( #264,769 of 1,911,774 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,986 of 1,911,774 )
How can I increase my downloads?