Maria Bittner, Rutgers http://www.users.cloud9.net/~mbittner NASSLLI 2016 Rutgers, New Brunswick NJ q introduction to dynamic semantics, which seeks to explicate the idea that saying something changes the context for what follows (in contrast to static semantics, which ignores context change, viewing it as irrelevant to truth conditions.) q core questions ! § What kinds of phenomena in natural languages motivate dynamic semantics? § Based on cross-linguistic evidence, how should we implement the key concepts- esp. information state, update, discourse referent-to represent such phenomena? q topics ! § M: Overview § T: Anaphora § W: Indexicality § Th: Temporality § F: Quantification q course page: http://www.users.cloud9.net/~mbittner/nasslli-2016.html

q Basic paradigm Montague Grammar (MG, Montague 1970, 1973) § directly compositional fragment of English, including proper and common nouns, (in)definite and quantificational determiners, pronouns, assorted verbs, tenses, conjunctions, complementizers, negation, ... § formally explicit rules build English phrases (including sentences) and assign meaning representations in static Intensional Logic (which can represent context dependence, but not context change) q Basic ideas! § To know the meaning of a sentence is to know its truth conditions (paraphrase of Davidson 1967, p. 310) § "Syntax studies sentences, semantics studies propositions. Pragmatics is the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed" (Stalnaker 1970, p. 275).

Additional English phenomena analyzed, e.g. (non-exhaustive list):! q transformations: reflexive, passive, tough-movement, subject raising, object raising (Partee 1973) q questions (Hamblin 1973, Karttunen 1977)

q tense and aspect (Bennet & Partee 1972, Bennet 1974, Dowty 1979) q bare plurals, genericity (Carlson 1977) q control verbs: persuade, try, promise, ... (Bach 1979b)

q presupposition (Karttunen & Peters 1979) q indexicality (Kaplan 1979: logical representation, compatible with compositionality)

q presupposition projection (Karttunen 1973, 1974), e.g. (1) #Sue passed. (presupposition failure)

(2) Sue took a test and she passed.

(3) If Sue took a test, she passed. q accommodation (Lewis 1979)

"If at time t something is said that requires presupposition P to be acceptable, if P is

not presupposed just before t, then - ceteris paribus and within certain limits -

presupposition P comes into existence at t."

e.g.

(4) I'm sorry I'm late. My car broke down.

(üaccommodation: the speaker has a car)

(5) I'm sorry I'm late. ?My space ship broke down.

(?accommodation: the speaker has a space ship)

q assertion: 'commonplace' v. 'essential' effect (Stalnaker 1978) "...when I speak I presuppose that others know I am speaking. [...] This fact too can

be exploited in the conversation, as when Daniels says I am bald, taking it for granted

that his audience can figure out who is being said to be bald. I mention this

commonplace way that assertions change the context in order to make clear that the

context on which assertion has its essential effect is not defined by what it

presupposed before the speaker begins to speak, but will include any information

which the speaker assumes his audience can infer from the performance of the

speech act." q nominal reference (Karttunen 1976) § "Consider a device designed to read a text in some natural language, interpret it, and store the content in some manner, say, for the purpose of being able to answer questions about it. To accomplish this task, the machine will have to [...] be able to build a file that consists of records of all the individuals, that is, events, objects, etc., mentioned in the text and, for each individual, record whatever is said about it." (Karttunen 1976, p. 364) § "Let us say that the appearance of an indefinite noun phrase establishes a 'discourse referent' just in case it justifies the occurrence of a coreferential pronoun or a definite noun phrase later in the text." (Karttunen 1976, p. 366, MB emphasis)

(6) Al has a dog. It's black.

(7) Al doesn't have a dog. #It's black.

(8) It's not true that Al doesn't have a dog. It's black.

(9) Al is a dog owner. #It's black.

(10) Once upon a time, a witch had a dog. It was black and it had magical powers.

q centering (Lewis 1979) § "It is not true that a definite description "the F" denotes x if and only if x is the one and only F in existence. Neither is it true that "the F" denotes x if and only if x is the one and only F in some contextually determined domain of discourse." (Lewis 1979 p. 348, see e.g. McCawley's (11))

(11) The dog got in a fight with another dog. § "The proper treatment of descriptions must be more like this: "the F" denotes x if and only if x is the most salient F in the domain of discourse, according to some contextually determined salience ranking. [...] There are various ways for something to gain salience. Some have to do with the course of conversation, others do not." (Lewis 1979, p. 348, see e.g. Lewis's (12)) (12) The cat is in the carton. The cat will never meet our other cat, because our other cat lives in New Zealand. Our New Zealand cat lives with the Cresswells. And there he'll stay, because Miriam would be sad if the cat went away. q temporal reference (Kamp 1979) § French Passé Simple v. Imparfait ~ English Simple Past (13) v. Progressive (14):

(13) John looked at Ann. She smiled. ~ Passé Simple

(14) John looked at Ann. She was smiling. ~ Imparfait § "The claim I wish to make is that what distinguishes Imparfait and Passé Simple does not so much lie in the contribution they make to the truth conditions of the sentences in which they occur, but rather in the different directives they convey to the addressee concerning how he is to represent to himself the contents of the sentences which these tenses mark." (Kamp 1979, p. 401) § Kamp proposes that: o Passé Simple introduces a point event after or before the last mentioned event

(temporal progression) o Imparfait introduces a state that holds at the time of last mentioned event (elaboration) q Kalaallisut (Eskimo-Aleut: Greenland)

polysynthetic, ergative, both passive and antipassive constructions, no (in)definite

articles, no scope ambiguities (Bittner 1988) q Japanese (lg. isolate: Japan) temporal reference in complex sentences, no sequence of tense (Ogihara 1989) q (many more developments in 1990s and 2000s)

q Basic paradigm § Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) o temporal reference (Kamp 1981a), indefinites & anaphora (Kamp 1981b) o In DRT, a discourse referent (dref) is a variable,

an info-state is a Discourse Representation Structure (DRS)

update is a relation between DRSs § File Change Semantics (FCS) o (in)definiteness and anaphora (Heim 1982), presupposition projection (Heim1983) o In FCS,

a dref is a variable,

an info-state is a file,

update is a function from file to file

q Basic ideas! § "You know the meaning of a sentence if you know the change it brings about in the information state of anyone who accepts the news conveyed by it" (Veltman 1990, p. 1) § Context change is interleaved with context dependence (e.g. anaphora in (17)–(19)) and thereby, crucially bears on the truth conditions.

e.g.

(17) A man married a woman. He gave her a ring.

(18) When a man marries a woman, he gives her a ring.

(19) When a man marries a woman, he {usually, never, sometimes} gives her a ring.

DRT-style logics Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL) § Groenendijk & Stokhof (1991) § deviation from Predicate Logic (same syntax, different semantics) § in DPL representations,

drefs (discourse referents) are variables

info-state is an assignment

update relation between info-states § phenomena analyzed DPL analysis of indefinites & anaphora ~ DRT analysis in Kamp 1981b

FCS-style logics Update Semantics (US) § Veltman (1990, 1996) § deviation from Propositional Logic

(same syntax, different semantics) § in US representations, there are no individual-valued drefs info-state is a set of worlds update function fr info-state to info-state § phenomena analyzed epistemic modals (e.g. It might rain), default reasoning

DRT-style logics Dynamic Plural Logic (DPlL) § van den Berg (1993, 1994) § deviation from, and extension of DPL (extended syntax, different semantics) § in DPlL representations, drefs are variables info-state is a set of assignments update relation between info-states § phenomena analyzed plurality, quantification & anaphora, e.g. (20) Al invited some friends. Most people came, and they all had a good time. One girl had a prior engagement.

FCS-style logics Kinematic Predicate Logic (KPL) § Beaver (1992) § combines US with DPL

§ in KPL representations, drefs are variables info-state is a set of world-assign. pairs update function fr info-state to info-state § phenomena analyzed quantification & presupposition, e.g.

(21) No nation cherishes its king. (22) A fat man was pushing his bicycle.

DRT-style logics Compositional DRT (CDRT) § Muskens (1995, 1996) § DPL embedded in Type Logic § objects CDRT type individuals δ

info-states s ('assignment')

individual-drefs sδ

update relations sst § applications type-driven compositional analysis of nominal reference (Muskens 1996), temporal reference (Muskens 1995)

FCS-style logics Predicate Logic with Anaphora (PLA) § Dekker (1994, 2002) § PL with sequence-based anaphora, can be embedded in Type Logic (CPLA)

§ objects CPLA type individuals δ

sequences s

individual-drefs sδ (projection fnc.)

update functions (st)st § applications PLA analysis of indefinites & anaphora ~ DRT analysis of Kamp 1981b (compositional implementation in CPLA)

Additional phenomena analyzed compositionally in typed dynamic logics, e.g. q modals & conditionals as modal reference (Stone 1997, applying Muskens 1995)

(23) a. Pedro owns a donkey. He beats it. b. If the railroads merged, the line would face bankruptcy.

(24) a. Pedro owns a donkey. #She beats it.

b. #If the railroads merged, the line will face bankruptcy. q 'sloppy identity' as center-sensitive anaphora with center-shift (Stone & Hardt 1999,

applying Muskens 1995)

(25) a. Susan likes her cat. Jane does too. (= loves the central individual's cat)

b. John will use slides if he presents. Bill will just use the chalkboard (= will if the central individual presents).

q resultatives as centeringand aspect-sensitive type lifting (Bittner 1999, applying

Dekker 1994 and Muskens 1995)

(26) a. John shot Ann dead. b. John wiped [[few tables clean] and [no glasses completely dry]]

DRT-style logics Plural CDRT (PCDRT) § Brasoveanu (2007ff) § DPlL embedded in Type Logic, extensions with other types of drefs § e.g.

objects PCDRT type individuals, events, ... δ, ε, ...

'assignments' s

drefs sδ, sε, ...

(pl.) info-states st

update relations (st)(st)t

FCS-style logics Update with Centering (UC) § Bittner (2001ff) § PLA with centering-based anaphora

(to drefs in center v. background of

attention) embedded in Type Logic,

extensions with other types of drefs § e.g.

objects UC type individuals, events, ... δ, ε, ...

structured sequences s

drefs sδ, sε, ...

(pl.) info-states st update functions (st)st q English quantificational and modal subordination as structured anaphora to quantifier domains (Brasoveanu 2007)

(27) a. Harvey courts a girl at every convention. She always comes to the banquet with him. (Karttunen 1976) b. A wolf might come in. It would attack Harvey first. (Roberts 1987) q Comparative correlatives (e.g. Romanian 'the more ... the better') as structured anaphora to differentials (Brasoveanu 2008) q Dependent indefinites (e.g. English The kids got an apple each) as structured discourse reference (Henderson 2014)

q modification in polysynthetic Kalaallisut as background-elaboration sequencing, where parts of Kalaallisut words introduce background drefs of various types, which external modifiers (MOD) can elaborate (Bittner 2001a)

(28) Sukkasuu-mik qiturna-n-nik anura-liu-us-si-vu-nga nutaa-mik. quick-MOD child-1SG-MOD anorak-make-for-antip-DEC-1SG new-MOD

I quickly made a new anorack for my child.

q Warlpiri and Hindi correlatives as topic-comment sequencing, where the topic is a topical dref (i.e. top-ranked in the center of attention) for an individual, proposition, or other type of object (Bittner 2001b) q Cheyenne evidentials as not-at-issue content; comparison with English evidential parentheticals (Murray 2010, 2014) q grammatical categories (tense, aspect, mood, person) as centering systems, i.e. grammatical systems that keep track of top-ranked drefs (universal proposal based on English, Polish, Mandarin, and Kalaallisut) (Bittner 2014)

q Basic ideas! § Cross-linguistic evidence shows that default anaphors (e.g. English pronouns, Kalaallisut pronominal inflections, Mandarin 'zero anaphors') refer to top-ranked individuals (Kalaallisut, Mandarin) or are shallow anaphors (English), which can also refer just demoted individuals. § Simple Update with Centering (UC0) for representing centering-based anaphora q Suggested readings § Dekker, P. 1994. Predicate Logic with Anaphora. SALT IV: Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV, pp. 79–95. § Grosz, B. Joshi, A., and Weinstein, S. 1995. Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12:175–204. § Kehler, A. 1997. Current theories of centering for pronoun interpretation. A critical evaluation. Computational Linguistics 23:467–475.

Bittner, M. 2014. Temporality: Universals and Variation. Wiley-Blackwell. Bittner, M. 2011. Time and modality without tenses or modals. Tense across Languages

(Rathert, M. and Musan, R, eds.), 147–188. Niemeyer. Bittner, M. 2001. Surface composition as bridging. Journal of Semantics18:127–177. Brennan, S. et al. 1987. A centering approach to pronouns. ACL-87. [BFP] Chu, C. 1998. A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. P. Lang: New York Dekker, P. 1994. Predicate Logic with Anaphora. SALT IV. Groenendijk, J. et al. 1995. Coreference and contextually restricted quantification.

SALT V. Grosz, B. et al. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of

discourse. Computational Linguistics 21:203–225. [GJW] Hobbs, J. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3:67–90. Kameyama, M. 1986. A property-sharing constraint in centering. ACL-86. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

Kehler, A. 1997. Current theories of centering for pronoun interpretation: A critical

evaluation. Computational Linguistics 23:467–475. Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI. Li, W. 2005. Topic Chains in Chinese. Lincom: München. Sidner, C. 1983. Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. American Journal

of Computational Linguistics 7:217–231. Tsao, F. 1979. A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese. Student Book: Taiwan Veltman. F. 1990. Defaults in update semantics. In: Conditionals, Defaults and Belief

Revision (H. Kamp, ed.), pp. 28–64. DYANA Report R2.5.A. Centre for Cognitive

Science, University of Edinburgh. Veltman, F. 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25:221–