Cross-speaker anaphora in dynamic semantics

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-129
Author(s):  
Jae-Il Yeom
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Semantics

scholarly journals A Computational Treatment of Anaphora and Its Algorithmic Implementation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Philippe Bernardy ◽  
Stergios Chatzikyriakidis ◽  
Aleksandre Maskharashvili
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Test Suite ◽  
Abstract Syntax ◽  
Computational Approaches ◽  
Complex Cases

AbstractIn this paper, we propose a framework capable of dealing with anaphora and ellipsis which is both general and algorithmic. This generality is ensured by the compination of two general ideas. First, we use a dynamic semantics which reperent effects using a monad structure. Second we treat scopes flexibly, extending them as needed. We additionally implement this framework as an algorithm which translates abstract syntax to logical formulas. We argue that this framework can provide a unified account of a large number of anaphoric phenomena. Specifically, we show its effectiveness in dealing with pronominal and VP-anaphora, strict and lazy pronouns, lazy identity, bound variable anaphora, e-type pronouns, and cataphora. This means that in particular we can handle complex cases like Bach–Peters sentences, which require an account dealing simultaneously with several phenomena. We use Haskell as a meta-language to present the theory, which also consitutes an implementation of all the phenomena discussed in the paper. To demonstrate coverage, we propose a test suite that can be used to evaluate computational approaches to anaphora.

scholarly journals Self-organising Logic of Structures as a Basis for a Dependency-based Dynamic Semantics Model

2015 ◽  
pp. 25-55
Author(s):  
Maciej Piasecki
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Expressive Power ◽  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Huge Number ◽  
Language Data ◽  
Polish Language ◽  
Representation Language ◽  
Local Range

Self-organising Logic of Structures as a Basis for a Dependency-based Dynamic Semantics ModelWe present Self-organising Logic of Structures (SLS), a semantic representation language of high expressive power, which was designed for a fully compositional representation of discourse anaphora following the Dynamic Semantics paradigm. The application of SLS to the description of possible meanings of Polish multiple quantifier sentences is discussed. Special attention is paid to the phenomena of: cardinality dependency/independency of Noun Phrase quantifiers and variety of quantification. Semantic representation based on several formal operators is proposed. They can be combined in many different ways, if one takes a purely theoretical perspective. However, in the paper we show that this huge number is practically reduced in the language use and is governed by several constraints motivated by the analysis of Polish language data. The Hypothesis of Local Range of Cardinality Dependency is formulated as an alternative to representations based on quantifier rising technique. SLS provides a multi-layered language description of inter-linked representation of sever antification, reference, presupposition and anaphora.

scholarly journals Polymorphic subtyping for effect analysis: The dynamic semantics

1997 ◽  
pp. 172-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torben Amtoft ◽  
Flemming Nielson ◽  
Hanne Riis Nielson ◽  
Jürgen Ammann
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Effect Analysis

scholarly journals Task model simulators: a review

2015 ◽  
Vol Volume 3, Issue 3, Special... (Special issue on Task Models) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Lachaume ◽  
Laurent Guittet ◽  
Patrick Girard ◽  
Allan Fousse
Keyword(s):  
Human Activity ◽  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Task Model ◽  
Long Time ◽  
International Audience ◽  
Pencil And Paper

International audience La description de l’activité humain-système par des modèles de tâches existe depuis plusieurs années. Après l’époque papier-crayon, les outils d’édition des modèles de tâches ont permis la conception et l’archivage des modèles selon une notation rigoureuse, et la vérification de leur cohérence. Mais la compréhension de la dynamique est restée affaire de spécialiste jusqu’à l’apparition des simulateurs de modèles. Une simulation permet d’appréhender les enchaînements réels de tâches - décrits implicitement par les opérateurs temporels - et de valider les scénarios ainsi réalisés. Cet article décrit et compare les simulateurs actuellement disponibles et maintenus, et explique leurs différents usages en fonction des buts et niveaux d’expertise des utilisateurs. De nouvelles perspectives d’évolutions de ces modèles et outils sont alors définies dans le but d’améliorer leur sémantique. Task modelling has enabled the building of models of human activity for a long time. In the early years, pencil and paper where the only means available to build task models from task model notations. Because of the lack of computed constraints, task models often did not conform to the notation. To solve this problem, some tools were designed by authors in order to help users create, modify and save correct models that conform to the notation syntactic rules. However, understanding the full semantics of task models appeared difficult for practitioners. The dynamic aspects of task models could only be understood "in the user's head". New tools, named simulators, emerged to solve this problem. They allow to "run" or to "simulate" task models and to record scenarios. This execution fulfils the semantics of task model operators, which define the task dynamic semantics. Simulators can be used in many ways such as understanding model semantics, verifying or validating models, building valid scenarios, etc. In this article, we describe and compare currently available and maintained task model simulators, and explain the different usages of these tools, according to user goals and qualifications. Then, we explore the different challenges for these tools to exploit the complete semantics of task models.

scholarly journals I Do Not Exist. Problems for Dynamic Semantics

2018 ◽  
pp. 393-414
Author(s):  
Eduardo García Ramírez
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Recent Proposal ◽  
Static Semantics ◽  
What Is Said ◽  
Existential Constructions ◽  
The Common

According to dynamic semantics, what is said by an utterance of a sentence is determined by how the common ground is affected by the acceptance of such utterance. It has been claimed that dynamic semantics offers an account of what is said by an utterance in a context that excels that of traditional static semantics. Assertions of negative existential constructions, of the form ‘X does not exist’, are a case in point. These assertions traditionally pose a problem for philosophers of language. A recent proposal, owed to Clapp (2008), argues that static semantics is unable to solve the problem and offers a dynamic semantics account that promises to succeed. In this paper I want to challenge this account and, more generally, the scope of the dynamic semantics framework. I will offer a counterexample, inspired by “answering machine” uses of indexical and demonstrative expressions, to show how dynamic semantics fails.  I conclude by considering the merits of both static and dynamic accounts.

An Alleged Ambiguity and the Dynamics of Context-Change

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-39
Author(s):  
Una Stojnić
Keyword(s):  
Logical Form ◽  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Context Change ◽  
Demonstrative Pronouns ◽  
Preceding Discourse ◽  
The Way

The observation that demonstrative expressions allow for both bound and referential readings, and can be bound across sentence boundaries, provides independent motivation for a shifty account of context. Dynamic semantics offers an elegant model of shiftiness, in treating the context as a running record of potential interpretive dependencies, and utterances as instructions to update and possibly change extant dependencies. Such an account advances over the static Kaplanean model insofar as it allows for the interpretation to be dynamically affected by the linguistic elements in the preceding discourse. However, due to the way it represents linguistic dependencies, and due to its reliance on both linguistic and non-linguistic effects of context to determine interpretation, the account still makes demonstrative pronouns indefinitely ambiguous at the level of logical form, thus inheriting some of the theoretical problems of the static account.

Semantic realism, rigid designation, and dynamic semantics

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-86
Author(s):  
Alice G. B. ter Meulen
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Logical Necessity ◽  
Human Communication ◽  
Information Theoretic ◽  
Kind Terms ◽  
Semantic Realism ◽  
Rigid Designation

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document