Search results for 'Joroen Groenendijk' (try it on Scholar)

54 found
Order:
  1.  36
    Joroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof (1982). Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5 (2):175 - 233.
  2. Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof (1991). Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14 (1):39-100.
    This paper is devoted to the formulation and investigation of a dynamic semantic interpretation of the language of first-order predicate logic. The resulting system, which will be referred to as ‘dynamic predicate logic’, is intended as a first step towards a compositional, non-representational theory of discourse semantics. In the last decade, various theories of discourse semantics have emerged within the paradigm of model-theoretic semantics. A common feature of these theories is a tendency to do away with the principle of compositionality, (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   103 citations  
  3.  8
    Dennis Schulting, Mark Koster & Jappe Groenendijk (2016). De zelfgenoegzaamheid van de linkse academici. Interview met Richard Rorty. Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy 28 (1):60-65.
    Interview with Richard Rorty, April 1997, Amsterdam. Occasion for the interview was Rorty being the occupant of the Spinoza Chair in 1997. The interview is mostly about Rorty's paper 'The Intellectuals and the Poor', in which he criticises the politics of left-wing academics.
    Translate
      Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  21
    Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen (2015). On the Semantics and Logic of Declaratives and Interrogatives. Synthese 192 (6):1689-1728.
    In many natural languages, there are clear syntactic and/or intonational differences between declarative sentences, which are primarily used to provide information, and interrogative sentences, which are primarily used to request information. Most logical frameworks restrict their attention to the former. Those that are concerned with both usually assume a logical language that makes a clear syntactic distinction between declaratives and interrogatives, and usually assign different types of semantic values to these two types of sentences. A different approach has been taken (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  5. Martin Stokhof, Jeroen Groenendijk & Frank Veltman (1996). Coreference and Modality. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell 179-216.
    Of course, although this view on meaning was the prevailing one for almost a century, many of the people who initiated the enterprise of logical semantics, including people like Frege and Wittgenstein, had an open eye for all that it did not catch. However, the logical means which Frege, Wittgenstein, Russell, and the generation that succeeded them, had at their disposal were those of classical mathematical logic and set-theory, and these indeed are not very suited for an analysis of other (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   17 citations  
  6. Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof, Interrogatives and Adverbs of Quantification.
    This paper is about a topic in the semantics of interrogatives.1 In what follows a number of assumptions figure at the background which, though intuitively appealing, have not gone unchallenged, and it seems therefore only fair to draw the reader’s attention to them at the outset. The first assumption concerns a very global intuition about the kind of semantic objects that we associate with interrogatives. The intuition is that there is an intimate relationship between interrogatives and their answers: an interrogative (...)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  7. Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof, Partitioning Logical Space.
    In the present version of these lecture notes only a number of typos and a few glaring mistakes have been corrected. Thanks to Paul Dekker for his help in this respect. No attempt has been been made to update the original text or to incorporate new insights and approaches. For a more recent overview, see our ‘Questions’ in the Handbook of Logic and Language (edited by Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, Elsevier, 1997).
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8. Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof (2005). Why Compositionality? In Greg N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Csli 83--106.
    The paper identifies some background assumptions of compositionality in formal semantics and investigates how they shape formal semantics as a scientific discipline.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  97
    Frank Veltman, Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof (1996). This Might Be It. In Dag Westerstahl & Jeremy Seligman (eds.), Language, Logic, and Computation: the 1994 Moraga Proceedings. CSLI 255--70.
    Discussions often end before the issues that started them have been resolved. For example, in the late sixties and early seventies, a hot topic in philosophical logic was the development of an adequate semantics for the language of modal predicate logic. However, the result of this discussion was not one single system that met with general agreement, but a collection of alternative systems, each defended most ably by its proponents.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Jeroen Groenendijk (ed.) (1981). Formal Methods in the Study of Language. U of Amsterdam.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  11. Jeroen Groenendijk & Marting Stokhof (1998). Betekenis in Beweging. Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 90:26-53.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  18
    Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof (2000). Meaning in Motion. In Klaus von Heusinger & Urs Egli (eds.), Reference and Anaphoric Relations. Kluwer 47--78.
    The paper sketches the place of dynamic semantics within a broader picture of developments in philosophical and linguistic theories of meaning. Some basic concepts of dynamic semantics are illustrated by means of a detailed analysis of anaphoric definite and indefinite descriptions, which are treated as contextually dependent quantificational expressions. It is shown how a dynamic view sheds new light on the contextual nature of interpretation, on the difference between monologue and dialogue, and on the interplay between direct and indirect information.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13.  12
    J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen & M. J. B. Stokhof (eds.) (1984). Truth, Interpretation, and Information: Selected Papers From the Third Amsterdam Colloquium. Foris Publications.
    A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation Hans Kamp. INTRODUCTION Two conceptions of meaning have dominated formal semantics of natural language. ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  14.  36
    Doret J. de Ruyter & Leendert F. Groenendijk (2010). Learning From Seneca: A Stoic Perspective on the Art of Living and Education. Ethics and Education 4 (1):81-92.
    There is an increasing interest in publications about the sources of meaning in life; books about the art of living are immensely popular. This article discusses whether one of the ancient predecessors of current 'art of living' theories, the Stoa and more particularly Seneca, can be of interest to educators today. Seneca's explicit writings on education are relatively few, but in his letters to his friend Lucilius we find several ideas as to how educators can assist students to become wise (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  18
    Doret J. de Ruyter & Leendert F. Groenendijk (2010). Learning From Seneca: A Stoic Perspective on the Art of Living and Education. Ethics and Education 4 (1):81-92.
    There is an increasing interest in publications about the sources of meaning in life; books about the art of living are immensely popular. This article discusses whether one of the ancient predecessors of current 'art of living' theories, the Stoa and more particularly Seneca, can be of interest to educators today. Seneca's explicit writings on education are relatively few, but in his letters to his friend Lucilius we find several ideas as to how educators can assist students to become wise (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  1
    J. A. G. Groenendijk & M. J. B. Stokhof (1981). Semantics of Wh-Complements. In Jeroen Groenendijk (ed.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. U of Amsterdam 153-181.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  2
    B. Spiecker & L. F. Groenendijk (1985). Fantasies in Recent Historiography of Childhood. British Journal of Educational Studies 33 (1):5 - 19.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof & Frank Veltman (1997). Coreference and Modality in Multi-Speaker Discourse. In Hans Kamp & Barbara Partee (eds.), Context-Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning. Ims 195--217.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. J. A. G. Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & M. J. B. Stokhof (eds.) (1986/1987). Foundations of Pragmatics and Lexical Semantics. Providence, Ri, Usa,Foris Publications ;.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. J. Groenendijk, F. Veltman & M. Stokhof (eds.) (1987). Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium Proceedings. Univ of Amserdam.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  10
    J. A. G. Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & M. J. B. Stokhof (eds.) (1986/1987). Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers. Foris Publications.
    Semantic Automata Johan van Ben them. INTRODUCTION An attractive, but never very central idea in modern semantics has been to regard linguistic expressions ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. B. Spiecker & L. F. Groenendijk (1985). Fantasies in Recent Historiography of Childhood. British Journal of Educational Studies 33 (1):5-19.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Jfak van Benthem, J. A. G. Groenendijk, M. J. B. Stokhof & Fjmm Veltman (1998). Logische Dynamiek: Een Inleiding. Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 90 (1):3-25.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. H. Kamp (1981). A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation, 277-322, JAG Groenendijk, TMV Janssen and MBJ Stokhof, Eds. In Jeroen Groenendijk (ed.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. U of Amsterdam
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   67 citations  
  25.  29
    Thomas Ede Zimmermann (1985). Remarks on Groenendijk and Stokhof's Theory of Indirect Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 8 (4):431 - 448.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  1
    John Griffiths (1977). De Weg Naar Het Recht (The Road to Justice) By K. Schuyt, K. Groenendijk and B. Sloot (Deventer: Kluwer 1976, 387+ X Pp. Hfl. 32.50). The Distribution of Legal Services in the Netherlands. Book Reviews. [REVIEW] In Vincent Stuart (ed.), Order. Distributed by Random House 501--5415.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  53
    Adrian Brasoveanu & Anna Szabolcsi, Presuppositional TOO, Postsuppositional TOO. The Dynamic, Inquisitive, and Visionary Life of Φ, ?Φ, and ◊Φ Subtitle: A Festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman.
    One of the insights of dynamic semantics in its various guises (Kamp 1981, Heim 1982, Groenendijk & Stokhof 1991, Kamp & Reyle 1993 among many others) is that interpretation is sensitive to left-to-right order. Is order sensitivity, particularly the default left-to-right order of evaluation, a property of particular meanings of certain lexical items (e.g., dynamically interpreted conjunction) or is it a more general feature of meaning composition? If it is a more general feature of meaning composition, is it a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28.  26
    Robert van Rooij & Katrin Schulz (2004). Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (4):491-519.
    In terms of Groenendijk and Stokhofs (1984) formalization of exhaustive interpretation, many conversational implicatures can be accounted for. In this paper we justify and generalize this approach. Our justification proceeds by relating their account via Halpern and Moses (1984) non-monotonic theory of only knowing to the Gricean maxims of Quality and the first sub-maxim of Quantity. The approach of Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984) is generalized such that it can also account for implicatures that are triggered in subclauses not (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   17 citations  
  29.  24
    Elena Guerzoni & Yael Sharvit (2007). A Question of Strength: On NPIs in Interrogative Clauses. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):361 - 391.
    We observe that the facts pertaining to the acceptability of negative polarity items (henceforth, NPIs) in interrogative environments complex than previously noted. Since Klima [Klima, E. (1964). In J. Fodor & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language. Prentice-Hall], it has been typically assumed that NPIs are grammatical in both matrix and embedded questions, however, on closer scrutiny it turns out that there are differences between root and embedded environments, and between question nucleus and wh-restrictor. While NPIs are always licensed (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  30.  15
    Sigrid Beck & Hotze Rullmann (1999). A Flexible Approach to Exhaustivity in Questions. Natural Language Semantics 7 (3):249-298.
    A semantics for interrogatives is presented which is based on Karttunen's theory, but in a flexible manner incorporates both weak and strong exhaustivity. The paper starts out by considering degree questions, which often require an answer picking out the maximal degree from a certain set. However, in some cases, depending on the semantic properties of the question predicate, reference to the minimal degree is required, or neither specifying the maximum nor the minimum is sufficient. What is needed is an operation (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  31.  26
    Katrin Schulz & Robert Van Rooij (2006). Pragmatic Meaning and Non-Monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (2):205-250.
    In this paper an approach to the exhaustive interpretation of answers is developed. It builds on a proposal brought forward by Groenendijk and Stokhof. We will use the close connection between their approach and McCarthy ’s predicate circumscription and describe exhaustive interpretation as an instance of interpretation in minimal models, well-known from work on counterfactuals ). It is shown that by combining this approach with independent developments in semantics/pragmatics one can overcome certain limitations of Groenenedijk and Stokhof’s proposal. In (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  32.  25
    Anna Szabolcsi, Can Questions Be Directly Disjoined? (2015).
    Observe that complement questions can be either directly or indirectly conjoined, but they can only be indirectly disjoined. • What theories of questions and coordination predict this difference? • Look at Partition theory (Groenendijk & Stokhof 1984) and Inquisitive Semantics (Groenendijk & Roelofsen 2009, Ciardelli et al. 2012).
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  3
    Katrin Schulz & Robert van Rooij (2006). Pragmatic Meaning and Non-Monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (2):205 - 250.
    In this paper an approach to the exhaustive interpretation of answers is developed. It builds on a proposal brought forward by Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984). We will use the close connection between their approach and McCarthy's (1980, 1986) predicate circumscription and describe exhaustive interpretation as an instance of interpretation in minimal models, well-known from work on counterfactuals (see for instance Lewis (1973)). It is shown that by combining this approach with independent developments in semantics/pragmatics one can overcome certain limitations (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  34.  39
    Reinhard Muskens (2011). A Squib on Anaphora and Coindexing. Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (1):85-89.
    There are two kinds of semantic theories of anaphora. Some, such as Heim’s File Change Semantics, Groenendijk and Stokhof’s Dynamic Predicate Logic, or Muskens’ Compositional DRT (CDRT), seem to require full coindexing of anaphora and their antecedents prior to interpretation. Others, such as Kamp’s Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), do not require this coindexing and seem to have an important advantage here. In this squib I will sketch a procedure that the first group of theories may help themselves to so (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  35.  37
    Manfred Krifka (2001). For a Structured Meaning Account of Questions and Answers. In Audiatur Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Academie Verlag 287-320.
    In the logical, philosophical and linguistic literature, a number of theoretical frameworks have been proposed for the meaning of questions (see Ginzburg (1995), Groenendijk & Stokhof (1997) for recent overviews). I will concentrate on two general approaches that figured prominently in linguistic semantics, which I will call the proposition set approach and the structured meaning approach (sometimes called the “propositional” and the “categorial” or “functional” approach). I will show that the proposition set approach runs into three problems: It does (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  36.  14
    Jaroslav Peregrin (1996). Dynamická sémantika a dynamická logika. Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu 3 (4):333-348.
    The “dynamic turn” in semantic theory of natural language, which has been taking place roughly during the last decade, has resulted into seeing the meaning of a sentence as a “context-change-potential”, as a function which maps the set of possible contexts on itself. The development of theories of this kind has been stimulated especially by the effort to semantically cope with the anaphoric items of natural language . The most significant species of dynamic semantic theories are represented by Kamp´s “discourse (...)
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  81
    Rani Nelken & Chung-Chieh Shan (2006). A Modal Interpretation of the Logic of Interrogation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15 (3):251-271.
    We propose a novel interpretation of natural-language questions using a modal predicate logic of knowledge. Our approach brings standard model-theoretic and proof-theoretic techniques from modal logic to bear on questions. Using the former, we show that our interpretation preserves Groenendijk and Stokhof's answerhood relation, yet allows an extensional interpretation. Using the latter, we get a sound and complete proof procedure for the logic for free. Our approach is more expressive; for example, it easily treats complex questions with operators that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38.  22
    R. Nelken & N. Francez (2002). Bilattices and the Semantics of Natural Language Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (1):37-64.
    In this paper we reexamine the question of whether questions areinherently intensional entities. We do so by proposing a novelextensional theory of questions, based on a re-interpretation of thedomain of t as a bilattice rather than the usual booleaninterpretation. We discuss the adequacy of our theory with respect tothe adequacy criteria imposed on the semantics of questionsby (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1997). We show that the theory is able to account in astraightforward manner for some complex issues in the semantics (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  39.  11
    Matthew D. Stone, Or and Anaphora.
    The meanings of donkey sentences cannot be captured using a procedure which, like Montague’s, uses the existential quantifiers of classical logic to translate indefinites and the variables to translate pronouns. The treatment of these examples requires meanings which depend on the context in which sentences appear, and thus necessitates a logic which models this context to some extent. If context is represented as the information conveyed in discourse, and the meanings of pronouns are enriched to depend on this information, the (...)
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40. Christopher Gauker, Comments on Dynamic Semantics.
    [Note 2015: Much of the content of these remarks has now been published in my paper "Presuppositions as Anaphoric Duality Enablers", Topoi.] This is the text of my comments on the project of dynamic semantics for the session on that topic at the Central Division APA meeting on April 21, 2007. The other speakers were Jeroen Groenendijk, Frank Veltman and Thony Gillies. I question the philosophical basis for dynamic semantics. My doubts have to do with the nature of information (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  30
    Albert Visser (1998). Contexts in Dynamic Predicate Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (1):21-52.
    In this paper we introduce a notion of context for Groenendijk & Stokhof's Dynamic Predicate Logic DPL. We use these contexts to give a characterization of the relations on assignments that can be generated by composition from tests and random resettings in the case that we are working over an infinite domain. These relations are precisely the ones expressible in DPL if we allow ourselves arbitrary tests as a starting point. We discuss some possible extensions of DPL and the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42.  43
    Jan van Eijck, A Conversation with Wittgenstein.
    Thinking about Martin Stokhof as a philosopher and colleague, his formal analysis (together with Jeroen Groenendijk) of questions and question answering is the first thing that comes to mind. This work is part of a fruitful tradition that has recently spawned inquisitive semantics, and the focus on question answering in dynamic epistemic logic. The theme is still very much alive at ILLC today. Next, I am reminded of the dynamic turn in natural language semantics, of the way he and (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  18
    Sarah E. Murray (2010). Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne. In Suzi Lima (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 5: Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas (2009). GLSA Publications 139--155.
    On one view, the point of an assertion is to update the common ground (Stalnaker 1978, Karttunen 1974). On another, the point of an assertion is to propose an update to the com- mon ground (Groenendijk 2009, Mascarenhas 2009, and related work on the structure of discourse, e.g., Ginzburg 1996, Roberts 1996, Gunlogson 2001). In Murray (to appear), I merge these two views. I argue based on evidence from declarative sentences with eviden- tials that assertion has two components: what (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Martin Stokhof, Changing the Context. Dynamic Semantics and Discourse.
    This paper is an informal introduction to some aspects of dynamic semantics. It is a compilation of earlier reports on joint work with Frank Veltman. The opening section can also be found in Groenendijk et al. 1996a. Section 3 is drawn from Groenendijk et al. 1995a. Some of the discussion in section 4 derives from Groenendijk et al. 1996c.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  16
    Marco Hollenberg (1997). An Equational Axiomatization of Dynamic Negation and Relational Composition. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6 (4):381-401.
    We consider algebras on binary relations with two main operators: relational composition and dynamic negation. Relational composition has its standard interpretation, while dynamic negation is an operator familiar to students of Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL) (Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1991): given a relation R its dynamic negation R is a test that contains precisely those pairs (s,s) for which s is not in the domain of R. These two operators comprise precisely the propositional part of DPL.This paper contains a finite (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  46.  10
    Yael Sharvit (2007). A Question of Strength: On NPIs in Interrogative Clauses. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):361 - 391.
    We observe that the facts pertaining to the acceptability of negative polarity items (henceforth, NPIs) in interrogative environments are more complex than previously noted. Since Klima [Klima, E. (1964). In J. Fodor & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language. Prentice-Hall], it has been typically assumed that NPIs are grammatical in both matrix and embedded questions, however, on closer scrutiny it turns out that there are differences between root and embedded environments, and between question nucleus and wh-restrictor. While NPIs are (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. Martin Stokhof, Dynamic Montague Grammar.
    In Groenendijk & Stokhof [1989] a system of dynamic predicate logic (DPL) was developed, as a compositional alternative for classical discourse representation theory (DRT ). DPL shares with DRT the restriction of being a first-order system. In the present paper, we are mainly concerned with overcoming this limitation. We shall define a dynamic semantics for a typed language with λ-abstraction which is compatible with the semantics DPL specifies for the language of first-order predicate logic. We shall propose to use (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  18
    Jaroslav Peregrin, Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, Eds.
    The relationships between logic and natural language are multiverse. On the one hand, logic is a theory of argumentation, proving and giving reasons, and such activities are primarily carried out in natural language. This means that logic is, in a certain loose sense, about natural language. On the other hand, logic has found it useful to develop its own linguistic means which sometimes in a sense compete with those of natural language. This has led to the situation where the systems (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  22
    Albert Visser (2002). The Donkey and the Monoid. Dynamic Semantics with Control Elements. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (1):107-131.
    Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL) is a variant of Predicate Logic introduced by Groenendijk and Stokhof. One rationale behind the introduction of DPL is that it is closer to Natural Language than ordinary Predicate Logic in the way it treats scope. In this paper I develop some variants of DPL that can more easily approximate Natural Language in some further aspects. Specifically I add flexibility in the treatment of polarity and and some further flexibility in the treatment of scope.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  13
    Reinhard Blutner (1993). Dynamic Generalized Quantifiers and Existential Sentences in Natural Languages. Journal of Semantics 10 (1):33-64.
    The central topic to be discussed in this paper is the definiteness restriction in there-insertion contexts. Various attempts to explain this definiteness restriction using the standard algebraic framework are discussed (Barwise & Cooper 1981; Keenan 1978; Milsark 1974; Higginbortham 1987; Lappin 1988) and the shortcomings of these attempts are demonstrated. Finally, a new approach to the interpretation of existential there be-sentences is developed within the framework of Groenendijk & Stokhof's (1990) Dynamic Montague Grammar. This approach makes use of a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 54