Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

The development of the dynamic semantics of natural languagehas put issues of variable control on the agenda of formal semantics. Inthis paper we regard variables as names for stacks of values and makeexplicit several control actions as push and pop actions on stacks. Weapply this idea both to static and dynamic languages and compare theirfinite variable hierarchies, i.e., the relation between the number ofvariable stacks that is available and the expressivity of the language.This can be compared in natural languages with relating the number ofpronouns available to the expressivity of the language.

The results are obtained using techniques from static and dynamic modeltheory: model theoretic games, transition systems and bisimulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Doets, K., 1997, Basic Model Theory, SiLLI, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernando, T., 1991, “Transition systems and dynamic semantics,” Technical Report CS-R9217, Amsterdam: CWI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flum, J. and Ebbinghaus, H., 1995, Finite Model Theory, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic,” Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39-100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, W., 1993, Model Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenberg, M. and Vermeulen, C., 1996, “Counting variables in a dynamic setting,” Journal of Logic and Computation 6, 725-744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Immermann, N. and Kozen, D., 1987, “Definability with bounded number of bound variables,” pp. 236-244 in Proceedings of IEEE 1987, A. Selman, ed., New York, NY: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponse, A., Venema, Y., and de Rijke, M., 1995, Modal Logic and Process Algebra, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Benthem, J., 1993, Language in Action, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Benthem, J., 1994, “Program constructs that are safe for bisimulation,” pp. 37-52 in Proceedings of the Logic Colloquium, Clermont Ferrant, J.-Y. Girard, ed., ASL.

  • Van Benthem, J., 1996, Exploring Logical Dynamics, SiLLI, Stanford, CA: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltman, F., 1996, “Defaults in update semantics,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 221-261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, C., 1993, “Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2, 217-254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, C., 1994, “Explorations of the dynamic environment,” Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht University.

  • Visser, A., 1997, “Dynamic relation logic is the logic of DPL-relations,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6, 441-452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, A., 1998, “Contexts in dynamic predicate logic”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 21-52.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vermeulen, C. Variables as Stacks. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9, 143–167 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008332604642

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008332604642

Navigation