Лучшие публикации::
  • From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. To do so, one has to show that permissible dynamic interpretations of dhnamic share certain properties. Alternatively, it could be a relation that expresses the kind of information change that the meaning brings about. While this translation captures or approximates the truth conditions of the natural language sentences, its relationship to the syntactic form of the sentence is puzzling in two ways. It changes the value of some variable and until a further change to that variable occurs, any subsequent test accesses the dynamic semantic matchmaking value that was set. For the case of anaphora, this theoretical understanding embodies the combination of two hypotheses: i pronouns correspond to variables; ii indefinites are non-quantificational, they simply contribute a dynamic variable assignment update. We now analyze the meaning of the incoming items as their contribution to the change of the information state of senantic receiver. In this way, information change becomes an integral part of the interpretation process. Below, we see how such relations are put to work in a dynamicised version of first order predicate logic. Before we turn to defining dynamic predicate logic, we should note that the route dynamic semantics takes to account for anaphora is by no means the only one to be found in the literature. Visser phil. Encoding Dynamics in Typed Logic Compositionality has always been an semanti concern in the use of logical systems in dynamic semantic matchmaking language semantics see the entry on compositionality. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Namespaces Article Talk. A key operation on contexts is extension with an element. To see that a dynamic higher order system is expressible in ITL, it is enough to show dynamic semantic matchmaking to define the appropriate dynamic operations. First, we need to represent what a speaker assumes about what her audience knows or believes in a multi-agent belief or knowledge state, then we need to model the effect of the communicative action on the belief state. Thesis, Rutgers University. There are two kinds of actions. The first distinction is between context and that which modifies the context.

    More
  • Dynamic semantic matchmaking, UCLA. He wrote a research proposal too. These sentences have been argued to be bona fide logical contradictions, unlike superficially similar examples such as Moore sentences which can be given a pragmatic explanation. The most widely adopted semantic entry for modals in update semantics is the test semantics proposed by Frank Veltman. The ideas of AnderBois et al. Download as PDF Printable version. Stack-valued assignments assign to each variable a stack of values, the top of the stack being the current value. A sentence like 19 can then be used in dynamic semantic matchmaking distinct ways. Assuming a domain of entities, contexts are finite lists of entities. Unger eds. Each of them submitted it to a journal. These structures are a type of database that contains specific pieces of information. Dekker ed. A textbook treatment of dynamic epistemic logic is given in Ditmarsch dynamic semantic matchmaking al.

    More
  • Thus, meanings are often called context change potentials in the dynamic tradition. In particular, the following is valid in dynamic predicate logic:. In contrast, dynamic semantic matchmaking output context resulting from an update with a test is always a subset of the input context and can therefore never contain anything new relative to the input context. The context modifier is the meaning of the received informational item. While this translation captures or dynamuc the truth conditions of the natural language sentences, its relationship to dynamic semantic matchmaking syntactic form of the sentence is puzzling in two ways. Retrieved First, we need to represent what a speaker assumes about what her audience knows or believes in a multi-agent belief or knowledge state, then we need to model the effect of the communicative action on the belief state. We know what the individual sentences in 1 mean and dynamic semantic matchmaking would like to capture the potential these meanings have in combining with other meanings to form a meaningful whole, one which corresponds to a sequence of sentences. Unger eds. Such relations can be seen as synamic resetting actions.

    More
  • The framework of dynamic semantics i provides a direction of thinking and ii allows us to import methods from the mathematical study of the framework. Cases of modal subordination Roberts, like the famous 12can receive a parallel treatment. Our translation is compositional. One approach to dynamic semantics is discourse representation theory DRT, Kamp Context plays an important role in presupposition. The notion of intersectivity can be decomposed into the two properties known as eliminativity and distributivity. If the input context passes the test, it remains unchanged. Second, the syntactic position of the donkey pronoun would not normally allow it to be bound by the indefinite. The set of assignment functions that is the output of the update contributed by the first sentence in 12 will therefore store a set of possible worlds contributed by might that are epistemically possible relative to the actual world, and a set of wolves that come dynamic semantic matchmaking in these epistemically accessible worlds. These structures are a type of database that contains specific pieces of information. Dynamic semantics is a suitable framework for analyzing what goes on when such sentences are interpreted, since it naturally allows the modeling of separate streams of information. How to cite this entry. We cannot define a set that we cannot also define in FOL. Here dynamic semantic matchmaking context is the information state or a suitable abstraction thereof compare the entry on semantic conceptions of information. Ras eds.

    More
  • The nonintersectivity of epistemic modals can be seen in the infelicity of epistemic contradictions. Eliminativity says that an update can only ever remove worlds from the context—it can't add them. See Nouwen forthcoming for discussion. To dynamic semantic matchmaking the empirically observed truth conditions of such sentences in first order logicdynamic semantic matchmaking would need to translate dynamid indefinite noun phrase "a donkey" as a universal quantifier scoping over the dynamic semantic matchmaking corresponding to the pronoun "it". Sandt, Rob A. These structures are a type of database that contains specific pieces of information. In the product perspective, one dynamic semantic matchmaking on the notion of truth in a given situation. That is, a test is an update that takes an input context and outputs a context that is a subset of the input context. It could for instance be ssmantic function that maps an old information state to one which has been updated with the information that the meaning embodies. These sentences cannot be analysed as logical contradictions within purely intersective frameworks such as the relational semantics for modal logic.

    More
  • In contrast, 14 lacks such a requirement simply because the first conjunct in 14 asserts what the second conjunct takes for granted. In particular, it allows information sensitive semantic entries, in which the information contributed by updating with some formula can depend on the information already present in the context. Kalman and L. A key operation on contexts is extension with an element. In a nutshell, the problem for 5 in a classical analysis is that such an analysis gives us two choices, which taken together do not cover the possible meanings of 5. Thomason ed. This is an instance of an admittedly simplistic but well-known and useful way of modeling actions: an action is viewed as a relation between the states of the world before the action and the corresponding states after the action. The motivation for a dynamic semantic framework for natural language comes first and foremost from potential dynamic semantic matchmaking between the reference of a personal pronoun and that of an indefinite noun phrase. The updated set can be seen as a potential candidate for updating the common ground with. In this kind of dynamic semantics for natural language, the meaning of a sentence does not correspond to a set of truth-conditions, but rather to an action performed on a context. Such relations can be seen as modeling dynamic semantic matchmaking actions. Unger eds. The universal quantifier requires such collections to include all possible values for the predicate boy. Cases like 11 could be described as cases of quantificational subordination, and the structured context approach can be seen as designed to offer a window into the mechanism behind subordination. The first distinction is between context and that which modifies the context. The first systems of dynamic semantics were the closely related File Change Semantics and discourse representation theorydeveloped simultaneously and independently by Irene Heim and Hans Kamp. We will have to assume that the discourse in 1 is interpreted as a whole.

    More
  • Here is an example to illustrate the distinctions. A key operation on contexts is extension with an element. Baltag, Alexandru and Lawrence S. The previous subsection gave a first glimpse into the basic aim of a dynamic semantic framework, which is to define a logical semantics in which statements express dynamic semantic matchmaking and specifically, in which existential quantification has the potential to reset variables, thus changing the context. Kalman and L. Linguistic Society of America. Right now, two senses of dynamic semantic matchmaking term dynamic semantics as applied to natural language emerge. The next question is then what kind of interpretation is dynamic semantic matchmaking, and how this interpretation can distinguish the infelicitous case of anaphora in 9 from the case in Barker assumes that contexts contain precise standards for vague adjectives like tall. So the problem is not that predicate logic cannot express the truth-conditions of donkey conditionals but that sentences like 8 are unlikely to be the end product of a compositional interpretation process but see Barker and Shan In fact, as this entry will soon make clear, what dynamic semantics provides is a generalization of truth conditional semantics rather than a radically different alternative.

    More
  • Semantics and Linguistic Theory. In a nutshell, the problem for 5 in a classical analysis is that such an analysis gives us two choices, which taken together do not cover the possible meanings of 5. Retrieved See Milner Dynamic semantic matchmaking translate as follows:. Dordrecht: Reidel. Emrich, M. We get our clue about how to do this by examining the definition of existential quantification in ordinary predicate logic. Third revised edition: In this kind of dynamic semantics for natural language, the meaning of a sentence does not correspond to a set of truth-conditions, but rather to an action performed on a context. The link between dynamic semantics and type theory is more like a liaison than a stable marriage: there is no intrinsic need for the connection. The proper analogues in classical static predicate logic compare the entries on classical logic and first-order model theory are as follows: the information state is an assignment environment or a set of assignments, and the received information is a set of assignments. The notion of intersectivity can be decomposed into the two properties known as eliminativity and distributivity. The leading idea in dynamic treatments of generalized quantification and plural anaphora is to represent plural values not by assigning pluralities to variables, but rather to adopt a notion of context that allows for pluralities e. It does so by guaranteeing that in contrast to classical predicate logic, 3 and 4 are equivalent in a dynamic interpretation of classical predicate logic syntax. These structures are a type of database that contains specific pieces of information. See below for a similar take on dynamic semantics with respect to presupposition. The framework of dynamic semantics i provides a direction of thinking and ii allows us to import methods from the mathematical study of the framework. Karttunen distinguishes global contextswhich are contexts relative to which the current sentence is evaluated, from local contextswhich are contexts relative to dynamic semantic matchmaking the current clause or potentially some sub-clausal entity is interpreted. The content is the factual, truth conditional information that is stored.

    More
  • Best Video This Week

    Dynamic Semantic Social Network Analysis with Condor