Abstract
Layered Discourse Representation Theory (LDRT) is a general framework for representing linguistic content. Different types of content (e.g. asserted, presupposed, or implicated information) are separated by putting them on different layers, all of which have a model-theoretic interpretation, although not all layers are interpreted uniformly. It is shown how LDRT solves so-called `binding problems’, which tend to arise whenever different kinds of content are separated too strictly. The power of the framework is further illustrated by showing how various kinds of contextual information may be accommodated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Actually, there are two issues here. First, presuppositional material has to be separated from other types of content in order for the projection mechanism to perform its function. Secondly, once the presupposition has been processed, it must remain separated, as we have just argued. In the following, we confine our attention to the second issue. Whether or not presuppositions in preliminary DRSs must be interpreted, too, is a different matter, which we will not take a stance on here.
- 2.
We’re cutting a few corners here for dramatic effect. See Geurts (2010) for extensive discussion.
- 3.
Cf. Maier (2006, 2009) for a modification of the current version of LDRT, in which discourse referents are never labeled (except in preliminary DRS structures, where labels indicate layered resolution restrictions, which we will not discuss here). In the terms of this paper, Maier assumes that every discourse referent carries all available labels. Intuitively, this may seem to give rise to unwanted existence claims, but in fact these are quite harmless, as long as conditions are sensibly labeled.
- 4.
Incidentally, such a notion of context seems extremely useful for the study of signed languages, where discourse referents correspond to actual, visible points in the signing space, which signers point to and keep track of in a discourse. Cf. Schlenker (2010) for a discussion of DRT discourse referents in the analysis of sign language.
References
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI.
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
Geurts, B. (1997). Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of semantics, 14, 319–348.
Geurts, B. (1999). Presuppositions and pronouns. Oxford: Elsevier.
Geurts, B. (2006). Implicature as a discourse phenomenon. In E. Puig-Waldmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, (pp. 261–275). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity implicatures. Cambridge University Press.
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts 135.
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In C. Oh & D. A. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.
Krahmer, E. (1998). Presupposition and anaphora. Stanford: CSLI.
Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In G. Harman & D. Davidson (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 253–355). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Maier, E. (2006). Belief in context: Towards a unified semantics of de re and de se attitude reports. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Maier, E. (2009). Proper names and indexicals trigger rigid presuppositions. Journal of semantics, 26, 253–315.
Maier, E. & van der Sandt, R. (2003). Denial and correction in layered DRT. In Proceedings of DiaBruck 2003. http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/diabruck/.
Schlenker, P. (2010). Donkey anaphora in sign language I: E-type vs. dynamic accounts. In M. Aloni (Ed.), Logic, language and meaning: Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 2009, (pp. 405–415).
Tasmowski-De Ryck, L., & Verluyten, P. (1982). Linguistic control of pronouns. Journal of semantics, 1, 323–346.
van der Sandt, R. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of semantics, 9, 333–377.
von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In M. Reimer, & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond, (pp. 269–296). Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Rob van der Sandt for discussion. Emar Maier is supported by the EU under FP7 (ERC Starting Grant 263890-BLENDS). Bart Geurts’s research is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Geurts, B., Maier, E. (2013). Layered Discourse Representation Theory. In: Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., Carapezza, M. (eds) Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01013-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01014-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)