Advertisement

Update Semantics for Propositional Texts

  • Cees Vermeulen
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 247)

Abstract

In recent years, the attention in formal semantics has shifted from the interpretation of sentences to the semantics of texts. In Montague’s program the meaning of a sentence is derived from the meanings of the components of the sentence. The syntactic form of the sentence tells us how we have to combine the meanings of the components to get the interpretation of the sentence as a whole. This program has been applied succesfully to a wide range of phenomena in sentential semantics.

Keywords

Atomic Proposition Interpretation Process Dynamic Semantic Compositional Semantic Final Segment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. van Benthem, J.: 1991, Language in Action. North HollandGoogle Scholar
  2. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: 1990, “Dynamic Montague Grammar”, in: L. Kaiman and L. Polos (eds), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Information. Akademiai Kiado, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  3. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M.: 1991, “Dynamic Predicate Logic”, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, pp. 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heim, I.: 1983, “File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Defi-nites”, in: Bauerle et al. (eds), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. De GruyterGoogle Scholar
  5. Kamp, H.: 1981, “A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation”, in: J. Groenendijk et al. (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch CentrumGoogle Scholar
  6. Kaplan, D.: 1979, “On the Logic of Demonstratives”, in: Uehling French and Wettstein (eds), Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. University of Minnesota Press, pp. 401–412Google Scholar
  7. Muskens, R.: 1991, “Anaphora and the Logic of Change”, in: J. Van Eijck (ed.), JELIA’90, European Workshop on Logics in AI. Berlin: Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in AI 478Google Scholar
  8. Stalnaker, R.: 1978, “Pragmatics”, in: P. Davidson and G. Harman (eds), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar
  9. Veltman, F.: 1991, Defaults in Update Semantics. Technical Report LP-91–02, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam. To appear in Journal of Philosophical Logic Google Scholar
  10. Vermeulen, C: 1993, “Incremental Semantics for Propositional Texts”, Logic Group Preprint Series 85, Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University. To appear in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Google Scholar
  11. Zeevat, H.: 1989, “A Compositional Version of Discourse Representation Theory”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, pp. 95–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cees Vermeulen
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute for Language and Speech (O.T.S.), Arts DepartmentUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations