Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:13:45.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXCLUSIVELY INDEXICAL DEDUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2016

PAUL DEKKER
PAUL DEKKER*
Affiliation:
ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam
*
*ILLC/DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM THE NETHERLANDS E-mail: P.J.E.Dekker@uva.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a proof system for discourse representation theoretic reasoning and dynamic predicate logical inference. It gives a sound and complete characterization of the dynamic declaration of discourse referents and the essentially indexical means to refer back to them. The indexical outlook upon discourse reference is argued to further our understanding of some issues deemed relevant both theoretically (philo-logically) and practically (computationally).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 603 - 637
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (2002). Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics, 10(3), 211–42.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2001). Surface composition as bridging. Journal of Semantics, 18, 127–177.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2014a). Perspectival discourse referents for indexicals. In Greene, H., editor. Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas (SULA 7, 2012). Massachusetts, GLSA, Amherst, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2014b). Temporality: Universals and Variation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C. & Lauer, S. (2011). Performative verbs and performative acts. In Reich, I., Horch, E., and Pauly, D., editors. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
de Bruijn, N. G. (1972). Lambda calculus notation with nameless dummies: A tool for automatic formula manipulation, with application to the Church-Rosser theorem. Indagationes Mathematicae, 34, 381–392.Google Scholar
de Groote, P. (2006). Towards a Montagovian account of dynamics. In Gibson, M. and Howell, J., editors. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVI. CLC Publications, Ithaca, New York, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Dekker, P. (1994). Predicate logic with anaphora (seven inch version). In Santelmann, L. & Harvey, M., editors. Proceedings of SALT IV. DMLL Publications, Cornell University, pp. 79–95.Google Scholar
Dekker, P. (2012). Dynamic Semantics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Eckardt, R. (2012). Hereby explained: An event-based account of performative utterances. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35, 21–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, F. B. (1952). Symbolic Logic. New York: Roland Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1918). Der Gedanke. Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 2 1, 58–77.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. (1990). Dynamic Montague grammar. In Kálmán, L. and Pólos, L., editors. Papers from The Second Symposium on Logic and Language. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 3–48.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1989 (1982)). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ithaca: Garland. Originally appeared, 1982, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1971). Formal properties of ‘now’. Theoria, 37, 227–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H. (1984 (1981)). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T. and Stokhof, M., editors. Truth, Interpretation and Information. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 1–41. Originally appeared in Groenendijk, J. et al. (1981). Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., van Genabith, J. & Reyle, U. (2011). Discourse Representation Theory. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., editors. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 15. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 125–394.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1979). On the logic of demonstratives. In French, P. A., Uehling, T. E. and Wettstein, H. K., editors. Contemporary Perspectives on the Philosophy of Language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 401–412.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1976 (1969/71)). Discourse referents. In McCawley, J., editor. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7. Notes from the Linguistic Underground. New York: Academic Press, pp. 363–85. Originally appeared in the Proceedings of Coling 1969, reproduced by the RAND Corporation in 1971, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, M. (2012). Interpreting Imperatives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513–45.Google Scholar
Močnik, M. (2015). Slovenian perfective and imperfective explicit performative utterances. Master’s thesis, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Muskens, R. (1996). Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(2), 143–186.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1933 (1880)). A boolian algebra with one constant. In Charles Hartshorne, P. W. and Burks, A., editors. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. §12–20.Google Scholar
Perry, J. (1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. N. (1967). Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Reyle, U. (1993). Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction. Journal of Semantics, 10, 123–179.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 535–558.Google Scholar
Sheffer, H. M. (1913). A set of five independent postulates for boolean algebras, with application to logical constants. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 14(4), 481–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staudacher, P. (1987). Zur Semantik indefiniter Nominalphrasen. In Asbach-Schnitker, B. and Roggenhofer, J., editors. Neuere Forschungen zur Wortbildung und Historiographie der Linguistik. Festgabe für Herbert E. Brekle. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 239–258.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, R. A. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9(4), 333–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Eijck, J. (2001). Incremental dynamics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 11(3), 319–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veltman, F. (2000). Proof systems for Dynamic Predicate Logic. Handout, available from http://philpapers.org/rec/VELPSF.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, C. F. (1993). Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2, 217–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, B. L. (1978). A formal approach to discourse anaphora. BBN Report No. 3761, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Oxford: Routledge and Kegan. Originally appeared in 1921 as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung” in the Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 14.Google Scholar