A Type Reduction from Proof-conditional to Dynamic Semantics

Fernando, Tim

doi:10.1023/a:1017541301458

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been often stated that these two kinds of semantic frameworks, DRT and those based on Dependent Type Theory, are equivalent and mutually exchangeable (Ahn and Kolb 1990;Fernando 2001); despite the difference in emphasis between the two frameworks, model-theoretic and proof-theoretic ones, a level of representations, i.e., DRS and dependent types, play an essential role in interpretation and there is a certain correspondence between them: see Ahn and Kolb (1990), Fernando (2001) for more details.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variable Handling and Compositionality: Comparing DRT and DTS

Yana

Mineshima

Bekki

2019

J of Log Lang and Inf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a detailed comparison between discourse representation theory (DRT) and dependent type semantics (DTS), two frameworks for discourse semantics. Although it is often stated that DRT and those frameworks based on dependent types are mutually exchangeable, we argue that they differ with respect to variable handling, more specifically, how substitution and other operations on variables are defined. This manifests itself in two recalcitrant problems posed for DRT; namely, the overwrite problem and the duplication problem. We will see that these problems still pose a challenge for various extended compositional systems based on DRT, while they do not arise in a framework of DTS where substitution and other operations are defined in the standard type-theoretic manner without stipulating any additional constraints. We also compare the notions of contexts underlying these two kinds of frameworks, namely, contexts represented as assignment functions and contexts represented as proof terms, and see what different predictions they make for some linguistic examples.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variable Handling and Compositionality: Comparing DRT and DTS

Yana

Mineshima

Bekki

2019

J of Log Lang and Inf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Discourse Representation Theory

Kamp

Genabith

Reyle

2010

Handbook of Philosophical Logic

274

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discourse Representation Theory is a specific name for the work of Hans Kamp in the area of dynamic interpretation of natural language. Also, it has gradually become a generic term for proposals for dynamic interpretation of natural language in the same spirit. These proposals have in common that each new sentence is interpreted in terms of the contribution it makes to an existing piece of interpreted discourse. The interpretation conditions for sentences are given as instructions for updating the representation of the discourse.This article first introduces the problem that discourse representation theory, in its specific sense, sets out to solve. Then the basic ideas of the theory are listed, various extensions of the basic theory are discussed, the relation to partial interpretation of language is sketched, and proof theory for discourse representation structures is presented. The paper ends with a brief account of the use of 'unresolved' discourse representation structures for the representation of ambiguities.

show abstract

Three processes in natural language interpretation

Fernando¹

2017

Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address complications involving ambiguity, presupposition and implicature, three processes underlying natural language interpretation are isolated: translation, entailment and attunement. A metalanguage integrating these processes is outlined, elaborating on a proof-theoretic approach to presupposition. To appear: Festschrift for Solomon Feferman (ASL Lecture Notes series) x1. Introduction. However outrageous Montague's slogan \English as a formal language" 24] may sound, the pressure to push the claim as far as it can go is, for many, irresistible. Basic to Montague's understanding of a formal language is the possibility of a model-theoretic interpretation | of obvious interest in various applications (e.g. databases) that employ models. But formulas of predicate logic (rst-order or higher-order, modal or otherwise) di er signi cantly from English sentences marked with ambiguity and presupposition. Consider, for instance, (s) If Sylvester gets holds of a canary, the bird will perish. A very rough translation of (s) that falls short of predicate logic is (9y)(canary(y)^SylvesterGets(y)) willPerish(the bird) ; from which we might expect to extract various readings of (s), depending on how we treat the ill-formed expression the bird. For now, let us focus on the reading that construes the bird anaphorically as any canary Sylvester gets hold of. The obvious rendering in predicate logic, (8y) (canary(y)^SylvesterGets(y)) willPerish(y) ; As wide ranging as Solomon Feferman's work on logic is, natural language is not among his driving concerns. Nevertheless, I would like to think that studying papers such as Feferman 8, 9, 10] has helped me draw certain conceptual distinctions useful in natural language interpretation. And, as a grateful student of his, I want to try to say why. I am indebted to two anonymous referees for helpful comments, and to the Feferfest committee for the opportunity of contributing to this volume. How I regret that I could not properly thank Jon Barwise.

show abstract

A Type Reduction from Proof-conditional to Dynamic Semantics

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Variable Handling and Compositionality: Comparing DRT and DTS

Variable Handling and Compositionality: Comparing DRT and DTS

Discourse Representation Theory

Three processes in natural language interpretation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About