scholarly journals Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic

1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. M. Vermeulen
Keyword(s):  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Dynamic Predicate Logic

scholarly journals Evidentiality and temporal distance learning

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todor Koev
Keyword(s):  
Distance Learning ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Temporal Distance ◽  
Grammatical Category ◽  
Dynamic Predicate Logic ◽  
Evidence Type ◽  
Topic Time

The grammatical category of evidentiality is traditionally defined as marking evidence type or related concepts (Anderson 1986, Willett 1988, Aikhenvald 2004). I argue against this received view as I show that evidential morphemes in Bulgarian mark the temporal distance between the time at which the speaker learned the described proposition and the topic time. I also demonstrate that Bulgarian evidentials represent projective/backgrounded content that is informative but does not affect the described proposition, which is plainly entailed. The latter fact especially has important typological and theoretical consequences. The proposal is formalized in a logic that extends Dynamic Predicate Logic by adding propositional variables (cf. AnderBois et al. 2010).

scholarly journals Predicate Logic with Anaphora

1994 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Dekker
Keyword(s):  
Type Theory ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Discourse Representation ◽  
Dynamic Predicate Logic ◽  
Proper Extension ◽  
Update Semantics ◽  
Anaphoric Pronouns ◽  
Separate Treatment

In this paper I make a case for a separate treatment of (singular) anaphoric pronouns within a predicate logic with anaphora (PLA). Discourse representation theoretic results (from Kamp 1981) can be formulated in a compositional way, without fid­dling with orthodox notions of scope and binding. In contrast with its predecessor dynamic predicate logic (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1991), the system of PLA is a proper extension of ordinary predicate logic and it has a genuine update semantics. Moreover, in contrast with other compositional reformulations of DRT, the seman­tics of PLA remains well within the bounds of ordinary, extensional type theory.

scholarly journals Ambiguity and Anaphora with Plurals in Discourse

2015 ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Nicholas Asher ◽  
Linton Wang
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Semantics ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Dynamic Predicate Logic ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Dynamic Transitions ◽  
Inputs And Outputs

We provide examples of plurals related to ambiguity and anaphora that pose problems or are counterexamples for current approaches to plurals. We then propose a dynamic semantics based on an extension of dynamic predicate logic (DPL<sup>+</sup>) to handle these examples. On our theory, different readings of sentences or discourses containing plu­rals don't arise from a postulated ambiguity of plural terms or predicates applying to plural DPs, but follow rather from different types of dynamic transitions that manip­ulate inputs and outputs from formulas or discourse constituents. Many aspects of meaning can affect the type dynamic transitions : the lexical semantics of predicates to the left and right of a transition, and number features of DPs and discourse constraints like parallelism.

scholarly journals Dynamic predicate logic

1991 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Groenendijk ◽  
Martin Stokhof
Keyword(s):  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Dynamic Predicate Logic

Predicate Logic with Anaphora

2015 ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Paul Dekker
Keyword(s):  
Type Theory ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Discourse Representation ◽  
Dynamic Predicate Logic ◽  
Proper Extension ◽  
Update Semantics ◽  
Anaphoric Pronouns ◽  
Separate Treatment

In this paper I make a case for a separate treatment of (singular) anaphoric pronouns within a predicate logic with anaphora (PLA). Discourse representation theoretic results (from Kamp 1981) can be formulated in a compositional way, without fid­dling with orthodox notions of scope and binding. In contrast with its predecessor dynamic predicate logic (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1991), the system of PLA is a proper extension of ordinary predicate logic and it has a genuine update semantics. Moreover, in contrast with other compositional reformulations of DRT, the seman­tics of PLA remains well within the bounds of ordinary, extensional type theory.

scholarly journals Evidentiality and temporal distance learning

2015 ◽  
pp. 115
Author(s):  
Todor Koev
Keyword(s):  
Distance Learning ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Temporal Distance ◽  
Grammatical Category ◽  
Dynamic Predicate Logic ◽  
Evidence Type ◽  
Topic Time

The grammatical category of evidentiality is traditionally defined as marking evidence type or related concepts (Anderson 1986, Willett 1988, Aikhenvald 2004). I argue against this received view as I show that evidential morphemes in Bulgarian mark the temporal distance between the time at which the speaker learned the described proposition and the topic time. I also demonstrate that Bulgarian evidentials represent projective/backgrounded content that is informative but does not affect the described proposition, which is plainly entailed. The latter fact especially has important typological and theoretical consequences. The proposal is formalized in a logic that extends Dynamic Predicate Logic by adding propositional variables (cf. AnderBois et al. 2010).

scholarly journals Ambiguity and Anaphora with Plurals in Discourse

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Asher ◽  
Linton Wang
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Semantics ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Dynamic Predicate Logic ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Dynamic Transitions ◽  
Inputs And Outputs

We provide examples of plurals related to ambiguity and anaphora that pose problems or are counterexamples for current approaches to plurals. We then propose a dynamic semantics based on an extension of dynamic predicate logic (DPL<sup>+</sup>) to handle these examples. On our theory, different readings of sentences or discourses containing plu­rals don't arise from a postulated ambiguity of plural terms or predicates applying to plural DPs, but follow rather from different types of dynamic transitions that manip­ulate inputs and outputs from formulas or discourse constituents. Many aspects of meaning can affect the type dynamic transitions : the lexical semantics of predicates to the left and right of a transition, and number features of DPs and discourse constraints like parallelism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document