Search results for 'dynamic semantics' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
See also:
  1.  52
    Maria Bittner, NASSLLI 2016 Dynamic Semantics (2): Anaphora.
    Featured course on "Dynamic Semantics" at NASSLLI 2016. Day 2: Anaphora. Abstract: Cross-linguistic evidence shows that anaphora crucially involves context change. The logical representation system must be able to represent rank-based anaphora, because in every language the favorite anaphors -- e.g. Mandarin zeros, Kalaallisut inflections, English pronouns -- are restricted to refer to top-ranked antecedents (top-level anaphors, like Mandarin zeros or Kalaallisut inflections) or top- or 2nd-ranked antecedents (shallow anaphors, like English pronouns).
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  51
    Maria Bittner, NASSLLI 2016 Dynamic Semantics (1): Introduction.
    Featured course on "Dynamic Semantics" at NASSLLI 2016. Day 1: Introduction. Abstract: Dynamic semantics is a family of semantic theories that seek to explicate the intuition that saying something changes the context for what follows. We survey the development of formal semantics from static to dynamic formalisms since 1970s. Throughout, we highlight natural language phenomena that motivate dynamic semantics, and the key pre-theoretical concepts -- information state, update, and discourse referent -- which (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  42
    Maria Bittner, NASSLLI 2016 Dynamic Semantics (3): Indexicality.
    Featured course on "Dynamic Semantics" at NASSLLI 2016. Day 3: Indexicality. Abstract: Cross-linguistic evidence shows that indexicality, too, crucially involves context change. Speaking up focuses attention on that event and thereby makes it available for discourse reference (by "i", "you", etc). In Kalaallisut, this explains parallel grammatical marking of indexical reference and topic-oriented anaphora. Moreover, shiftable indexicals in Slavey show that certain expressions, e.g. attitude verbs, may update the top perspectival discourse referent from the speech event to an (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  38
    Philippe Schlenker (2007). Anti-Dynamics: Presupposition Projection Without Dynamic Semantics. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (3):325--356.
    Heim 1983 suggested that the analysis of presupposition projection requires that the classical notion of meanings as truth conditions be replaced with a dynamic notion of meanings as Context Change Potentials. But as several researchers (including Heim herself) later noted, the dynamic framework is insufficiently predictive: although it allows one to state that, say, the dynamic effect of F and G is to first update a Context Set C with F and then with G (i.e., C[F and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  5.  24
    Rick Nouwen (2007). On Dependent Pronouns and Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2):123 - 154.
    Within natural language semantics, pronouns are often thought to correspond to variables whose values are contributed by contextual assignment functions. This paper concerns the application of this idea to cases where the antecedent of a pronoun is a plural quantifiers. The paper discusses the modelling of accessibility patterns of quantifier antecedents in a dynamic theory of interpretation. The goal is to reach a semantics of quantificational dependency which yields a fully semantic notion of pronominal accessibility. I argue (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  6.  27
    Peter Beim Graben (2014). Order Effects in Dynamic Semantics. Topics in Cognitive Science 6 (1):67-73.
    In their target article, Wang and Busemeyer (2013) discuss question order effects in terms of incompatible projectors on a Hilbert space. In a similar vein, Blutner recently presented an orthoalgebraic query language essentially relying on dynamic update semantics. Here, I shall comment on some interesting analogies between the different variants of dynamic semantics and generalized quantum theory to illustrate other kinds of order effects in human cognition, such as belief revision, the resolution of anaphors, and default (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  64
    Tim Fernando (2001). A Type Reduction From Proof-Conditional to Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (2):121-153.
    Dynamic and proof-conditional approaches to discourse (exemplified by Discourse Representation Theory and Type-Theoretical Grammar, respectively) are related through translations and transitions labeled by first-order formulas with anaphoric twists. Type-theoretic contexts are defined relative to a signature and instantiated modeltheoretically, subject to change.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  39
    C. F. M. Vermeulen (1993). Sequence Semantics for Dynamic Predicate Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2 (3):217-254.
    In this paper a semantics for dynamic predicate logic is developed that uses sequence valued assignments. This semantics is compared with the usual relational semantics for dynamic predicate logic: it is shown that the most important intuitions of the usual semantics are preserved. Then it is shown that the refined semantics reflects out intuitions about information growth. Some other issues in dynamic semantics are formulated and discussed in terms of the new (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  9.  46
    Maria Bittner, NASSLLI 2016 Dynamic Semantics (4): Temporality.
    Featured course on "Dynamic Semantics" at NASSLLI 2016. Day 4: Temporality. Abstract: Cross-linguistic evidence shows that temporal reference likewise involves context change. In every language, temporal reference is similar to top-level nominal reference, except that instead of updating or referring to top-ranked individuals, temporal grammatical systems update or refer to top-ranked temporal referents (events, states, or times). We discuss and compare temporal reference in two sample languages: tense-based English and tenseless aspect-based Mandarin.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  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  
  11.  50
    Maria Bittner, NASSLLI 2016 Dynamic Semantics (5): Quantification.
    Featured course on "Dynamic Semantics" at NASSLLI 2016. Day 5: Quantification. Abstract: In discourse, quantifiers can function as antecedents or anaphors. We analyze a sample discourse in Dynamic Plural Logic (DPlL, van den Berg 1993, 1994), which represents not only current discourse referents, but also current relations by means of plural information states. This makes it possible to analyze quantification as structured discourse reference. Finally, the DPlL analysis is transposed into Update with Centering, to simplify the formalism (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  30
    Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621-657.
    In this paper I argue that anaphoric pronouns should always be interpreted exhaustively. I propose that pronouns are either used referentially and refer to the speaker's referents of their antecedent indefinites, or descriptively and go proxy for the description recoverable from its antecedent clause. I show how this view can be implemented within a dynamic semantics, and how it can account for various examples that seemed to be problematic for the view that for all unbound pronouns there always (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13.  48
    Daniel Rothschild (2011). Explaining Presupposition Projection with Dynamic Semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics 4 (3):1-43.
    Presents a version of dynamic semantics for a language with presuppositions that predicts basic facts about presupposition projection in a non-stipulative way.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  14. David I. Beaver (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Csli Publications.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   50 citations  
  15.  42
    Peter beim Graben (2006). Pragmatic Information in Dynamic Semantics. Mind and Matter 4 (2):169-193.
    In 1972,Ernst Ulrich and Christine von Weizs ¨acker introduced the concept of pragmatic information with three desiderata:(i) Pragmatic information should assess the impact of a message upon its receiver;(ii)Pragmatic information should vanish in the limits of complete (non-interpretable)'novelty 'and complete 'confirmation';(iii)Pragmatic information should exhibit non-classical properties since novelty and confirmation behave similarly to Fourier pairs of complementary operators in quantum mechanics. It will be shown how these three desiderata can be naturally fulfilled within the framework of Gardenfors' dynamic (...) of Bayesian belief models.(i)The meaning of a message is its impact upon the epistemic states of a cognitive agent. A pragmatic information measure can then be quanti .ed by the average information gain for the transition from a prior to a posterior state.(ii)Total novelty can be represented by the identical proposition, total con- .rmation by the logical consequence of propositions. In both cases, pragmatic information vanishes.(iii)For operators that are neither idempotent nor commuting, novelty and confirmation relative to a message sequence can be defined within Gardenfors' theory of belief revisions.The proposed approach is consistent with measures of relevance derived from statistical decision theory and it contains Bar-Hillel 's and Carnap's theory of semantic information as a special case. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16. 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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  40
    Lenny Clapp (2009). The Problem of Negative Existentials Does Not Exist: A Case for Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (7):1422-1434.
    The problem of negative existentials arises because utterances of such sentences have the paradoxical feature of denying what they presuppose, thus undermining their own truth. There are only two general strategies for solving the problem within the constraints traditional static semantics, and both strategies attempt to explain away this paradoxical feature. I argue that both strategies are fundamentally flawed, and that an adequate account of negative existentials must countenance, and not explain away, this paradoxical feature. Moreover, I argue that (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Peter Beim Graben (2006). Pragmatic Information in Dynamic Semantics. Mind and Matter 4 (2):169-193.
    In 1972,Ernst Ulrich and Christine von Weizs ¨acker introduced the concept of pragmatic information with three desiderata: Pragmatic information should assess the impact of a message upon its receiver;Pragmatic information should vanish in the limits of complete 'novelty 'and complete 'confirmation';Pragmatic information should exhibit non-classical properties since novelty and confirmation behave similarly to Fourier pairs of complementary operators in quantum mechanics. It will be shown how these three desiderata can be naturally fulfilled within the framework of Gardenfors' dynamic (...) of Bayesian belief models.The meaning of a message is its impact upon the epistemic states of a cognitive agent. A pragmatic information measure can then be quanti .ed by the average information gain for the transition from a prior to a posterior state.Total novelty can be represented by the identical proposition, total con- .rmation by the logical consequence of propositions. In both cases, pragmatic information vanishes.For operators that are neither idempotent nor commuting, novelty and confirmation relative to a message sequence can be defined within Gardenfors' theory of belief revisions.The proposed approach is consistent with measures of relevance derived from statistical decision theory and it contains Bar-Hillel 's and Carnap's theory of semantic information as a special case. (shrink)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19. 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  
  20.  17
    Alice G. B. ter Meulen (1998). Semantic Realism, Rigid Designation, and Dynamic Semantics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):85-86.
    Semantic realism fits Millikan's account of kind terms in its focus on information-theoretic abilities and strategic ways of gathering information in human communication. Instead of the traditional logical necessity, we should interpret rigid designation in a dynamic semantics as a legislative act to constrain possible ways in which our belief may change.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  7
    Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621 - 657.
    In this paper I argue that anaphoric pronouns should always be interpreted exhaustively. I propose that pronouns are either used referentially and refer to the speaker's referents of their antecedent indefinites, or descriptively and go proxy for the description recoverable from its antecedent clause. I show how this view can be implemented within a dynamic semantics, and how it can account for various examples that seemed to be problematic for the view that for all unbound pronouns there always (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  1
    Alice G. B. ter Meulen (1998). Semantic Realism, Rigid Designation, and Dynamic Semantics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):85-86.
    Semantic realism fits Millikan's account of kind terms in its focus on information-theoretic abilities and strategic ways of gathering information in human communication. Instead of the traditional logical necessity, we should interpret rigid designation in a dynamic semantics as a legislative act to constrain possible ways in which our belief may change.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  1
    Eric Gillet Paul Gochet (1999). Quantified Modal Logic, Dynamic Semantics and S 5. Dialectica 53 (3-4):243-251.
    Prof. Ruth Barcan Marcus created quantified modal logic in 1946. She extended the Lewis calculus S2 to cover quantification. Quantified modal logic became an essential tool for the rigorous study of natural language in the hands of R. Montague in the late sixties. Some complex phenomena cannot be properly handled at the level of sentences. Recent researches in formal semantics have concentrated on discourse and led to a rich amount of results. Logical theories introduced for the logical study of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  7
    Dag Trygve Truslew Haug (2013). Partial Dynamic Semantics for Anaphora: Compositionality Without Syntactic Coindexation. Journal of Semantics 31 (4):fft008.
    This article points out problems in current dynamic treatments of anaphora and provides a new account that solves these by grafting Muskens' Compositional Discourse Representation Theory onto a partial theory of types. Partiality is exploited to keep track of which discourse referents have been introduced in the text (thus avoiding the overwrite problem) and to account for cases of anaphoric failure. Another key assumption is that the set of discourse referents is well-ordered, so that we can keep track of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  25.  68
    S. J. Barker (1997). E-Type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic Semantics and the Quantifier/Variable-Binding Model. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (2):195-228.
  26.  9
    Yde Venema (1997). Editorial: Modal Logic and Dynamic Semantics. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6 (4):357-360.
  27. Josh Dever, Three Modes of, and Five Morals Regarding, Displaced Semantic Processing, with Special Attention to the Role of Variables (and a Final Plug for Dynamic Semantics).
    There is a puzzle regarding the semantics of quantification that is well-known among linguists and formal semanticists, but which has received relatively little attention from philosophers. The puzzle emerges most naturally if our semantic theory is categorical, satisfying two mutually supporting requirements.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  23
    J. Peregrin & K. von Heusinger, Dynamic Semantics with Choice Functions.
    Over the last two decades, semantic theory has been marked by a continuing shift from a static view of meaning to a dynamic one. The increasing interest in extending semantic analysis from isolated sentences to larger units of discourse has fostered the intensive study of anaphora and coreference, and this has engendered a shift from viewing meaning as truth conditions to viewing it as the potential to change the "informational context".
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  62
    Berislav Žarnić (2002). Dynamic Semantics, Imperative Logic and Propositional Attitudes. Uppsala Universitet.
  30. Paul Dekker (2004). Grounding Dynamic Semantics. In Anne Bezuidenhout & Marga Reimer (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford University Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  31.  9
    Akihiro Yoshimitsu (2004). A Dynamic Semantics for Vague Predicates. Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 12 (2):109-128.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32. Richard Breheny (2004). Indefinites and Anaphoric Dependence: A Case for Dynamic Semantics or Pragmatics? In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond. Clarendon Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  33.  13
    Yasuo Nakayama (1999). Mereological Ontology and Dynamic Semantics. Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 9 (4):29-42.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  8
    Craige Roberts (1995). Domain Restriction in Dynamic Semantics. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer 661--700.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  35.  35
    Willem Groeneveld (1994). Dynamic Semantics and Circular Propositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (3):267 - 306.
  36.  15
    R. Naumann (2001). Aspects of Changes: A Dynamic Event Semantics. Journal of Semantics 18 (1):27-81.
    In this paper Dynamic Event Semantics, DES, is presented. DES is based on the intuition that non-stative verbs express changes. The notion of change can be made precise in at least two different, yet complementary ways. It is either an object (event, action) or a transformation of state: a state s at which a result Q does not hold is transformed into a state s′ at which Q holds. An event can bring about more than one result. Each (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37.  55
    Paul Dekker (1996). The Values of Variables in Dynamic Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 19 (3):211 - 257.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  12
    Ágnes Bende-Farkas (2007). Resultatives and Dynamic Semantics. In Dekker Aloni (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  12
    Diderik Batens (1998). A Dynamic Semantics for Inconsistency-Adaptive Logics. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 27 (15-8):5l.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  8
    Joeri Engelfriet, Catholijn M. Jonker & Jan Treur (2002). Antonio Moreno-Sandoval and José Miguel Goñi-Menoyo/Spanish Inflectional Morphology in Datr 79–105 Albert Visser/the Donkey and the Monoid. Dynamic Semantics with Control Elements 107–131 Instructions for Authors 133–139. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11:521-522.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  25
    Paul Gochet Et Eric Gillet (1999). Quantified Modal Logic, Dynamic Semantics and S 5. Dialectica 53 (3-4):243–251.
  42.  7
    R. Naumann (2003). Constraining the Combinatorial Patterns of Japanese V-V Compounds: An Analysis in Dynamic Event Semantics. Journal of Semantics 20 (3):275-296.
    In this article we investigate the argument structure of Japanese V–V compounds from the perspective of Dynamic Event Semantics (Naumann 2001). The argument structure of a verb is defined as a linearly ordered set of so‐called dynamic roles. Dynamic roles differ from thematic relations in characterizing participants in terms of sets of results that are brought about in the course of an event. The patterns of argument sharing found in Japanese V–V compounds are shown to derive (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  3
    Norihiro Ogata (2008). Dynamic Semantics of Quantified Modal Mu-Calculi and Its Applications to Modelling Public Referents, Speaker's Referents, and Semantic Referents. In Satoh (ed.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Springer 109--122.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  1
    Rick Nouwen (2007). On Dependent Pronouns and Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2):123-154.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Paul Gochet & Eric Gillet (1999). Quantified Modal Logic, Dynamic Semantics and S 5. Dialectica 53 (3‐4):243-251.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  92
    Guillermo Del Pinal (2015). Dual Content Semantics, Privative Adjectives and Dynamic Compositionality. Semantics and Pragmatics 8 (7):1-53.
    This paper defends the view that common nouns have a dual semantic structure that includes extension-determining and non-extension-determining components. I argue that the non-extension-determining components are part of linguistic meaning because they play a key compositional role in certain constructions, especially in privative noun phrases such as "fake gun" and "counterfeit document". Furthermore, I show that if we modify the compositional interpretation rules in certain simple ways, this dual content account of noun phrase modification can be implemented in a type-driven (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47.  40
    José Júlio Alferes, Federico Banti, Antonio Brogi & João Alexandre Leite (2005). The Refined Extension Principle for Semantics of Dynamic Logic Programming. Studia Logica 79 (1):7 - 32.
    Over recent years, various semantics have been proposed for dealing with updates in the setting of logic programs. The availability of different semantics naturally raises the question of which are most adequate to model updates. A systematic approach to face this question is to identify general principles against which such semantics could be evaluated. In this paper we motivate and introduce a new such principle the refined extension principle. Such principle is complied with by the stable model (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. David Fernández (2009). Non-Deterministic Semantics for Dynamic Topological Logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 157 (2):110-121.
    Dynamic Topological Logic () is a combination of , under its topological interpretation, and the temporal logic interpreted over the natural numbers. is used to reason about properties of dynamical systems based on topological spaces. Semantics are given by dynamic topological models, which are tuples , where is a topological space, f a function on X and V a truth valuation assigning subsets of X to propositional variables. Our main result is that the set of valid formulas (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  47
    M. J. Cresswell (2002). Static Semantics for Dynamic Discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):545-571.
  50.  35
    Gabriel Sandu (1997). On the Theory of Anaphora: Dynamic Predicate Logic Vs. Game-Theoretical Semantics. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (2):147-174.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000