Philosophy of Logical Practice: a Case Study in Formal Semantics

Philosophy of logical practice: a case study in formal semantics nikhil maddirala www.nikhilmaddirala.com Philosophy of logical practice: a case study in formal semantics MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Nikhil Maddirala (born February 17th, 1989 in Hyderabad, India) under the supervision of Benedikt Löwe, and submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Logic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Date of the public defense: Members of the Thesis Committee: July 28th, 2014 Ronald de Wolf Benedikt Löwe Arianna Betti Michael Franke Gert-Jan Munneke Abstract This thesis attempts to delineate the contours of a nascent domain of inquiry which shall be known as \philosophy of logical practice" and to make a modest contribution to this field, by way of a case study in formal semantics. Over the past few decades, logic has spawned a lively scientific community with its own social norms, rules of behavior and procedures for generating new results. Consequently, I believe that an adequate philosophy of logic needs to account for logical practice and provide an explanation for the practices and procedures of the logical community. Philosophy of logical practice seeks to do so by combining historical, philosophical and social scientific studies of logic. In this thesis I demonstrate one possible approach to philosophy of logical practice by way of a case study in formal semantics, which is a particular form of logical practice. The case study seeks to discuss the question \is formal semantics a failed discipline?" by drawing primarily on two methodological frameworks: (1) qualitative research in the social sciences | in particular, this case study is structured as an interview study featuring interviews with critics, insiders and outsiders of formal semantics | and (2) Thomas Kuhn's framework for the understanding the history and philosophy of science. Major themes that emerge in the case study are: (1) the tension between the scientific and philosophical aspirations of formal semantics as a discipline, (2) the putative rivalry between formal semantics (based on mathematical logic) and computational linguistics (based on machine learning and stochastic processes), and (3) the trend towards empirical, data-driven research in the larger field of linguistics. i Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my thesis supervisor and academic mentor, Benedikt Löwe, whose guidance was a sine qua non to the conception and production of this thesis. I am greatly indebted to my con- versations with him for much of the stimulation of my thoughts relating not only to this thesis, but also to logic, philosophy, mathematics and academia in general. For enthusiastically participating in my research, by allowing me to interview them and permitting me to publish the interview transcripts, I would like to thank the interviewees: Martin Stokhof, Michiel van Lambalgen, Jeroen Groenendijk, Floris Roelofsen, Frank Veltman, Katrin Schulz, Khalil Sima'an, Ivan Titov, Philip Schulz and Remko Scha; needless to say, such a thesis would not have been possible without their cooperation. For carefully reading my thesis and for providing me with valuable feedback, comments and questions, I am grateful to the members of my thesis committee: Ronald de Wolf, Benedikt Löwe, Arianna Betti, Michael Franke and Gert-Jan Munneke. The two years that I have spent as a Master of Logic student at the Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC) in Amsterdam have undoubtedly been the most intellectually stimulating and inspiring years of my life. Although I am beholden to the entire ILLC community for this experience, I would like to acknowledge in particular Ulle Endriss, for being the meticulous curator and custodian of the ILLC's Master of Logic program, and Tanja Kassenaar, for the indefatigable administrative services that she provides for this community. I would also like to acknowledge my undergraduate institution (or in American parlance, my alma mater), The University of Chicago, for initiating me into \the life of the mind" and for nurturing in me the intellectual curiosity and scholarly inclination without which I never would have embarked upon this academic trajectory. Lastly (but by no means least), I would like to express the deepest gratitude to my parents | Subrahmanyam Maddirala and Pranathi Reddy | for their unconditional love and support throughout all of my life's endeavors thus far. ii \The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term." Wilfrid Sellars(1963) Contents Abstracti Acknowledgements ii Contents iv 1 Executive summary1 2 Introducing philosophy of logical practice7 2.1 Philosophy of mathematical practice...............8 2.2 Philosophy of logical practice................... 15 3 Introducing the case study in formal semantics 21 3.1 Setting the context......................... 22 3.1.1 Formal semantics as a discipline............. 22 3.1.2 A debate in theoretical linguistics............. 25 3.2 Research design and methodology................. 28 3.2.1 A Kuhnian revolution................... 29 3.2.2 Qualitative research in the social sciences........ 32 3.2.3 Implementation and execution.............. 34 3.3 Disclaimers............................. 37 4 The critics: Stokhof and van Lambalgen 39 4.1 On the nature and goals of formal semantics........... 40 4.2 On the role of modeling in formal semantics........... 43 4.3 On the success or failure of formal semantics.......... 47 4.4 Conclusions............................. 49 5 The insiders: formal semanticists 52 5.1 On the criticism of formal semantics: reaction to the critics.. 53 5.2 On the role of modeling in formal semantics........... 57 iv Contents v 5.3 On the success or failure of formal semantics.......... 60 5.4 Conclusions............................. 65 6 The outsiders: computational linguists 68 6.1 Computational linguistics vs. formal semantics......... 69 6.2 From the point of view of formal semanticists.......... 71 6.3 From the point of view of computational linguists........ 74 6.4 A dissenting voice......................... 77 6.5 Conclusions............................. 79 7 Conclusion: towards a philosophy of logical practice 81 7.1 Concluding the case study..................... 81 7.2 Towards a philosophy of logical practice............. 83 A Interviews with the critics: Stokhof and van Lambalgen 85 A.1 Interview with a critic....................... 86 A.2 Interview with a critic....................... 100 B Interviews with the insiders: formal semanticists 111 B.1 Interview with a formal semanticist................ 112 B.2 Interview with a formal semanticist................ 128 B.3 Interview with a formal semanticist................ 140 B.4 Interview with a formal semanticist................ 154 C Interviews with the outsiders: computational linguists 165 C.1 Interview with a computational linguist............. 166 C.2 Interview with a computational linguist............. 179 C.3 Interview with a computational linguist............. 191 C.4 Interview with a computational linguist............. 210 Bibliography 224 Chapter 1 Executive summary This thesis attempts to broadly delineate the contours of a nascent and almost altogether uncharted domain of inquiry which shall be known as \philosophy of logical practice" (PLP) and to make a modest contribution to this field, by way of a case study in formal semantics, which is a particular form of logical practice. PLP is fundamentally motivated by the following consideration: over the past few decades, logic has spawned a lively scientific community with its own social norms, rules of behavior and procedures for generating new results; therefore an adequate philosophy of logic needs to account for logical practice and to provide an explanation for the procedures and practices of the logical community. PLP seeks to do so by combining historical, philosophical, and social scientific studies of logic. Although PLP is a nascent and almost altogether uncharted domain of inquiry, there is a closely related and reasonably well charted domain of inquiry known as \philosophy of mathematical practice" (PMP) from which I draw inspiration and guidance. PMP is an interdisciplinary approach to philosophy of mathematics that focuses on mathematical practice, i.e. the scientific practice of mathematics, rather than on abstract philosophical and mathematical models of mathematics that have been the focus of traditional philosophy of mathematics. Similarly PLP is an interdisciplinary approach to philosophy of logic that focuses on logical practice. PLP can be described by the following key characteristics: 1 Chapter 1. Executive summary 2 1. Critical attitude towards logic. Traditional philosophy of logic usually as- sumes that logic is a special science (and a special human activity) and that logical knowledge enjoys a special kind of objectivity and certainty. PLP maintains a critical attitude towards logic by treating it as an ordinary (as opposed to special) scientific practice and as an ordinary human activity. 2. Focus on logical practice. Traditional philosophy of logic is inadequate for modern logical practice, because it typically pays attention to only a few key areas of logic and to the products or results of those areas, but it ignores the actual practice of logic. PLP on the other hand seeks to take into account various forms of

Load more