Abstract
I present an analysis of the interpretation of anaphora that takes concepts from type-theoretic semantics, in particular the use of the \(\varSigma \) and \(\varPi \) dependent type constructors, and incorporates them into a model-theoretic framework. The analysis makes use of (parametrically) polymorphic lexical entries. The key ideas are that, in the simplest case, eventualities can play the role that proof objects do in type-theoretic semantics; that more complex, compositionally-defined, structures can play that role in other cases; and that pronouns can be modelled by context-dependent functions from proof objects of the preceding discourse (in this sense) to entities.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
\(\varSigma \) can also be used to give the meaning of conjunction, and \(\varPi \) implication; this is reflected in the lexical entries given in Fig. 1. Limitations of space prevent any further consideration of these connections here.
- 2.
Here and throughout the paper, a dot following a variable binder will often be used instead of parentheses to indicate unbounded scope to the right.
- 3.
- 4.
By this, I mean that meanings will be given as expressions of a logical language, which are taken to be dispensable in favour of their interpretations in a model (as in [16]), which is where the ‘real’ semantics is. Expressions of the language of type theory are not understood this way in TTS; see [14] and [18], Sect. 2.27.
- 5.
In the type annotations, here and throughout the rest of the paper, brackets are omitted where possible, on the understanding that both \(\times \) and associate to the right and that \(\times \) binds more tightly than .
- 6.
The same issue prompted [2] to switch from treating common nouns as type-denoting to predicate-denoting.
- 7.
In the rest of the paper this will be referred to as ‘the null context’, and will generally be assumed.
- 8.
This corresponds closely to the truth definition for DRT proposed in [12], p. 149.
- 9.
Some speakers may allow an interpretation of (24) on which a donkey takes wider scope than negation. In that case, the pronoun could anaphorically refer back to the donkey.
- 10.
Figure 1 defines VP negation, which is derived from sentential negation in the obvious way. The VP formulation is more transparent in terms of compositional semantics, and also makes Giles available for anaphoric reference.
- 11.
As stated, \(\lambda b.[[b]_1]_0\) is also a possible resolution function, which would have it varying with farmers rather than donkeys, which is obviously not a possible reading of (25). This reading could be ruled out by tweaking the lexical entry for every, but only at the cost of ruling out interpretations that we do want when we have an embedded clause. The mechanism for ruling out violations of ‘Principle B’ must come from somewhere else.
References
Barwise, J., Cooper, R.: Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguist. Philos. 4(2), 159–219 (1981)
Bekki, D.: Representing anaphora with dependent types. In: Asher, N., Soloviev, S. (eds.) LACL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8535, pp. 14–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43742-1_2
Dekker, P.: Predicate logic with anaphora. In: Harvey, M., Samelmann, L. (eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 4, pp. 79–95 (1994)
van Eijck, J.: Incremental dynamics. J. Logic Lang. Inf. 10, 319–351 (2001)
Emms, M.: Polymorphic quantifiers. In: Stokhof, M., Torenvliet, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium. Institute for Language, Logic and Information, Amsterdam (1989)
Geach, P.T.: Reference and Generality. Contemporary Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1962)
Girard, J.Y.: The system \(F\) of variable types, fifteen years later. Theor. Comput. Sci. 45, 159–192 (1986)
Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Dynamic predicate logic. Linguist. Philos. 14(1), 39–100 (1991)
de Groote, P.: Towards a Montagovian account of dynamics. In: Gibson, M., Howell, J. (eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 16, pp. 1–16 (2006)
Heim, I.: The semantics of definite and indefinite nouns phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachussetts, Amherst (1982)
Jacobson, P.: Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguist. Philos. 22(2), 117–184 (1999)
Kamp, H., van Genabith, J., Reyle, U.: Discourse representation theory. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 15, 2nd edn, pp. 125–394. Springer, Dordrecht (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0485-5_3
Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 42. Springer, Dordrecht (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1616-1
Luo, Z.: Formal semantics in modern type theories: is it model-theoretic, proof-theoretic, or both? In: Asher, N., Soloviev, S. (eds.) LACL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8535, pp. 177–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43742-1_14
Martin-Löf, P.: An intuitionistic theory of types: predicative part. In: Rose, H., Shepherdson, J. (eds.) Logic Colloquium 1973. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 80, pp. 73–118. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1975)
Montague, R.: The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Suppes, P., Moravcsik, J., Hintikka, J. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language, pp. 221–242. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1973)
Nouwen, R.: On dependent pronouns and dynamic semantics. J. Philos. Logic 36(2), 123–154 (2007)
Ranta, A.: Type-Theoretical Grammar. Indices, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)
Reynolds, J.C.: Polymorphism is not set-theoretic. In: Kahn, G., MacQueen, D.B., Plotkin, G. (eds.) SDT 1984. LNCS, vol. 173, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-13346-1_7
Steedman, M.: Taking Scope. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)
Sundholm, G.: Proof theory and meaning. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 3, pp. 471–506. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1986)
Tanaka, R., Nakano, Y., Bekki, D.: Constructive generalized quantifiers revisited. In: Nakano, Y., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8417, pp. 115–124. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6_8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gotham, M. (2018). A Model-Theoretic Reconstruction of Type-Theoretic Semantics for Anaphora. In: Foret, A., Muskens, R., Pogodalla, S. (eds) Formal Grammar . FG 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10686. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56343-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56343-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-56342-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-56343-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)