bases for a dynamic turn in linguisticsgrupo.us.es/ghum609/php/system/files/bases for a dynamic turn...

IntroductionWhat language is and is not

Grammar and codeStatic grammar vs. dynamic grammar

References

Bases for a dynamic turn in linguistics

Francisco J. Salguero-Lamillar

Grupo de Investigación en Lógica,Lenguaje e Información (GILLIUS)

Universidad de [email protected]

Francisco J. Salguero-Lamillar Bases for a dynamic turn in linguistics



References

Introduction

What is and what is not Human Natural Language?

Grammar and code

The static point of view of Grammar

The dynamic point of view of Grammar




References

Language as a code

Human Natural Language can be seen as a code containingthousands of signs

Each sign is an arbitrary symbol composed of the signi�er (theacoustic part of the sign) and the signi�ed (the meaningfulpart of the sign)

Every sign is semantically stable and its meaning is clear forthe speaker/hearer




References

Grammar

Symbols can be combined to obtain complex signs called�phrases�

Phrases can be combined to obtain complex signs called�sentences�

Sentences can be combined to obtain complex signs called�texts�




References

Grammar as a faculty

So, any human natural language is a code

But no human natural language is just a code

Every known language contains a code and a set of recursiverules to generate, modify and combine the signs of the code toget more complex signs: grammar

Human Natural Language is also a faculty of the mind,capable of create new signs (simple or complex) from thepreviously acquired grammar




References

The morphosyntactic conception of language

The traditional conception of natural language sees it as a code inwhich some rules are de�nedThese rules are:

1 Structural sign rules that describe well formed words2 Categorial rules that assign a syntactic category to each word3 Combinatorial rules that allow to construct phrases and

sentences in a correct word order




References

The compositional conception of semantics

Words, phrases and sentences are simple or complex signs

The meaning of a complex sign is a function on the meaningsof the simpler signs that are involved and the combinatorialrules used to construct the complex sign

So we can de�ne signs meaning on a truth-value basis,exclusively depending on their (arbitrary) meaning and thecombinatorial structural rules of grammar




References

Dynamic Semantics

But:1 There are very important linguistic expressions without a

referential or a truth-value based meaning: conjunctions,prepositions

2 There are many expressions in discourse that acquire theirmeaning from other expressions in discourse: anaphoricexpressions (inde�nite or de�nite noun phrases, pronouns,tense and aspectual marks)

3 There are many expressions in discourse that acquire theirmeaning from the context or the situation: deictic expressions




References

Some examples

John wants to visit Malaga and Mary prefers Seville

John wants to visit Malaga but Mary prefers Seville

John wants to visit Malaga although Mary prefers Seville

Everybody loves somebody sometime

The cat entered the room through the window. John closed it

The cat entered the room through the window. John chased it

Max fell. John helped him up

Max fell. John pushed him




References

Inference and semantic enrichment

Dynamic semantics of natural language implies:1 Giving account of context in the interpretation of deixis and

anaphora2 Interpreting conjunctions and discourse connectors in a

�discourse frame�, not as isolated signs (words) by themselves3 De�ning kinds of �natural inference� in discourse, not

necessarily based on the classical theory of implication(deduction): implicatures, contextual logics, abduction...

4 Giving account of presuppositions and their mechanisms




References

Dynamic Syntax

�Dynamic Syntax is a formal model of utterance description whichtries to articulate and substantiate the claim that humans'knowledge of language is essentially their ability to parse spokenlanguage in context. DS provides an explicit model of how hearersbuild incrementally (that is, from `left to right') a semanticrepresentation (an interpretation) from the information provided bythe words they encounter and from contextual information. Fromthis perspective, knowledge of language is not so much `knowingthat' (`competence') but `knowing how' (`performance'), whichleads to a number of challenges to current thinking about syntax�.(Lutz Marten)




References

A dynamic model for natural language semantics andsyntax: (S)DRT

Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) is a frame where wecan �t dynamic semantics and enrichment processes indiscourse as well as a �natural� conception of syntax as amodel of utterance description to be parsed in contextThe fundamentals of DRT are described by Hans Kamp andUwe Reyle (1993)Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) is anextension of DRT that deals with contextual and rethoricalaspects of discourse interpretationSDRT was originally proposed by Nicholas Asher and AlexLascarides and its fundamentals can be found in (Asher &Lascarides 2003)




References

DRT and Montague Grammar compared I

MG DRT

Intensional Logic (IL) is represented

by means of linear structures

The Discourse Representations

Structures (DRSs) are bidimensional

graphic representations of semantic

and grammatical relations

MG generates models for the

interpretation of isolated sentences

DRT generates models for the

interpretation of discourse fragments

The Compositionality Principle

(Frege's Principle) rules

The Compositionality Principle

(Frege's Principle) does not

necessarily rule




References

DRT and Montague Grammar compared II

MG DRT

The Logical Form of a sentence is

not necessary for its interpretation

The DRS of an utterance is

necessary for its interpretation

Inde�nite Noun Phrases are

interpreted as existential

quanti�cations

Inde�nites are not related with a

concrete kind of quanti�cation

MG involves a static semantic theoryDRT involves a dynamic semantic

theory




References

Other dynamic models for natural language analysis

Dynamic Predicate Logic as it was de�ned by JeroenGroenendijk y Martin Stokhof in their seminal work (1991)

Dynamic Applications of MG as in Richard Muskens (1996)

Segmented Discourse Representation Theory deals withdiscourse and dialogue interpretation in a DRT and HPSGbasis (Asher & Lascarides 2003)

Abduction as the main inference scheme for contextellaboration in discourse analysis, as in Francisco J. Salgueroand Fernando Soler (2010)

Contextual Logic, work in progress by GILLIUS, as de�ned byÁngel Nepomuceno (2011)




References

References

1 Asher, N. and A. Lascarides (2003). Logics of Conversation. CambridgeUniversity Press.

2 Cann, R., R. M. Kempson and L. Marten (2006). The dynamics of language.

An Introduction. Academic Press.3 Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1991). �Dynamic Predicate Logic�. Linguistics

and Philosophy, 14: 39�100.

4 Kamp, H. and U. Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer.

5 Montague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard

Montague. Yale University Press.

6 Muskens, R. (1996). �Combining montague semantics and discourserepresentation�. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 143�186.

7 Nepomuceno, Á. (2012). �Lógica de Contextos�. In Fernández-Moreno, Salgueroand Barés (eds.): Ensayos sobre lógica, lenguaje, mente y ciencia, Alfar.

8 Salguero, F. J. and F. Soler (2010). �Resolución abductiva de anáforaspronominales�. In Fernández-Duque, Gómez-Caminero and Hernández-Antón(eds.): Estudios de lógica, lenguaje y epistemología, Fénix Editora.


bases for a dynamic turn in linguisticsgrupo.us.es/ghum609/php/system/files/bases for a dynamic turn...

Documents