DOCSLIB.ORG

Presupposition-And-Anaphora-Book

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presupposition-And-Anaphora-Book Tilburg University Presupposition and anaphora Krahmer, E.J. Publication date: 1998 Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Krahmer, E. J. (1998). Presupposition and anaphora. (CSLI lecture note series; No. 89). CSLI. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 25. sep. 2021 Presupposition and Anaphora Emiel Krahmer IPO, Center for Research on User-System Interaction CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE AND INFORMATION Chapter 3 is based on Negation and Disjunction in Discourse Repres- entation Theory, Emiel Krahmer and Reinhard Muskens, Journal of Semantics 12 (4), 357–376. Copyright !c Oxford University Press 1995. Used here by kind permission. voor Daan en Bas Contents Acknowledgements xi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.1.1 Anaphora 1 1.1.2 Presupposition 3 1.1.3 Anaphora and Presupposition 13 1.2 About this Book 19 1.2.1 Anaphora 19 1.2.2 Presupposition 20 1.2.3 Anaphora and Presupposition 22 1.3 Overview 24 2 Anaphora and Discourse Semantics 27 2.1 Introduction 27 2.2 Representational Theories of Discourse 30 2.2.1 File Change Semantics 30 2.2.2 Discourse Representation Theory 35 2.2.3 From fcs to drt 42 2.2.4 drt Interpretation Using Total Assignments 43 2.2.5 From drt to Predicate Logic 44 2.3 Non-representational Theories of Discourse 46 2.3.1 Quantificational Dynamic Logic 46 2.3.2 Dynamic Predicate Logic 49 2.3.3 A Dynamic Version of Montague Grammar 52 2.4 Discussion: The Quest for the Theory of Discourse 58 2.4.1 The Dynamic Cube 58 2.4.2 Extensions and Modifications 61 3 Negation and Disjunction in drt 65 3.1 Introduction 65 vii viii / Contents 3.2 Two Problems for drt, and a Reduction 65 3.2.1 The Double Negation Problem 65 3.2.2 The Disjunction Problem 68 3.3 Double Negation drt 74 3.4 Applications 76 3.5 The Relation with Standard drt 80 3.6 Discussion: Uniqueness, Inference 83 4 Presupposition and Partiality 87 4.1 Introduction 87 4.2 Partial Predicate Logic 94 4.2.1 Strong Kleene ppl 95 4.2.2 Middle Kleene ppl 98 4.2.3 Weak Kleene ppl 100 4.3 Presuppositions and ppl 100 4.3.1 Determining Presuppositions 101 4.3.2 Predictions 103 4.4 Flexibility: The Floating A Theory 110 4.5 Discussion 118 4.5.1 Karttunen and Peters Revisited 118 4.5.2 A Note on the Logic of Conventional Implicature 119 Appendix 122 5 Presupposition and Montague Grammar 125 5.1 Introduction 125 5.2 Partial Type Theory 127 5.3 Presuppositional Montague Grammar 130 5.4 Discussion: Extending the Fragment 137 5.4.1 Additional Presuppositions 137 5.4.2 Note 140 5.4.3 Dynamifying Presuppositional Montague Grammar 141 5.4.4 Implicatures and Dynamics 143 Appendix: The Fragment 144 6 Presupposition and Discourse Semantics 149 6.1 Introduction 149 6.2 Presuppositions-as-Anaphors 151 6.2.1 Resolving Presuppositions 152 6.2.2 What is a Presuppositional drs? 156 6.2.3 Procedural vs. Declarative 156 6.2.4 Accommodating Failing Presuppositions 157 Contents / ix 6.2.5 Disjunctions 159 6.2.6 Presupposition-Quantification Interaction 161 6.3 Presuppositional drt 162 6.4 Applications 167 6.5 Determining Semantic Presuppositions 171 6.6 Again: Presuppositions-as-Anaphors 176 6.7 Discussion: Comparing the Two Approaches 180 6.7.1 Does Binding Preserve Meaning? 181 6.7.2 Does Accommodation Preserve Meaning? 183 6.7.3 An Alternative Interpretation 184 6.7.4 Presupposition Projection as Proof Construction 187 Appendix 190 7 Presupposition and Determinedness 193 7.1 Introduction 193 7.2 Is Determinedness Uniqueness? 200 7.2.1 Restricting the Uniqueness Prediction 201 7.3 Is Determinedness Anaphoricity? 202 7.3.1 Accommodating Missing Antecedents 204 7.4 Determinedness is Familiarity 205 7.5 Determinedness is Salience 210 7.6 Discussion: Extending the Analysis 216 7.6.1 Dependencies and Non-identity Anaphora 217 7.6.2 Definites and Salience 220 7.6.3 Surroundings: The Dynamics of Pointing 221 8 Concluding Remarks 225 8.1 Summary 226 8.1.1 Anaphora 226 8.1.2 Presupposition 227 8.1.3 Anaphora and Presupposition 230 8.2 Discussion: Rounding Off233 Bibliography 235 Subject Index 249 Name Index 253 Acknowledgements This book was written in two phases. The first phase started in the summer of 1994 and ended in the summer of 1995 when I submitted the fruits of my labour as a doctoral dissertation entitled Discourse and Presupposition. The second phase started in the summer of 1997 and ended in the early spring of 1998 with the book you are now holding. The foundation was laid during the time (1991–1995) I was a Ph.D. student at the Computational Linguistics Department of the University of Tilburg, with Harry Bunt and Reinhard Muskens as supervisors. As my daily supervisor in this period, Reinhard made innumerable valuable suggestions which greatly have helped shape the contents of this book. The second phase took place at ipo, Center for Research on User-System Interaction at the Eindhoven University of Technology. It was initiated by Kees van Deemter, who suggested I should write an updated version of the aforementioned doctoral dissertation. The stimulating discussions we had actually made me feel like doing just that, and I have greatly benefitted from Kees’ accurate criticism. One of the things I have learned in the past years is that doing research is even more fun if you do it together. Therefore I consider myself lucky for having had the opportunity of collaborating with, in more or less chronological order, Reinhard Muskens, David Beaver, Jan Jaspars, Kees van Deemter and Paul Piwek, and I thank each of my confr`eres for the highly pleasurable and educational experience. The reader will encounter some of the results of some of the cooperations in the pages to follow. In particular, sections 4.4 and 4.5.2 are based on joined work with David Beaver, while chapter 3 is an updated version of an article written in tandem with Reinhard Muskens. I should add that none of my collaborators necessarily agrees with my view of things in this book. Furthermore, I am grateful to those who made useful comments on xi xii / Presupposition and Anaphora drafts of various chapters: David Beaver, Paul Dekker, Bart Geurts, Hans Kamp, Jan Landsbergen, Leo Noordman, Paul Piwek, Gerrit Ren- tier, Elias Thijsse, Rob van der Sandt, Jan van Eijck, Robert van Rooij and Kees Vermeulen. Special thanks to David for setting me on the track for chapter 5. Over the past years a great number of colleagues and friends have made comments and suggestions which somehow found their way into these pages. To all those —mentioned and unmentioned— I want to say, paraphrasing Sam & Dave just a little bit: You didn’t have to help me like you did but you did but you did and I thank you! Let me end on a more personal note. Without the support and trust of Annemarie it would have been a lot more difficult to finish the two versions of this work. By a fortunate coincidence, the inceptions of the two phases of writing this book were marked by the respective births of our first and second son. This made the years of writing very pleasant and it is only fitting then, that this book is dedicated to the two of them. March 1998 Eindhoven 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 Anaphora For a long time the study of meaning has been concerned with single sentences. However, sentences seldom come in isolation. For one thing, they tend to be sandwiched in between other sentences, thus forming a text, or discourse. In the early eighties the question arose how to determine the meaning of a discourse and, somewhat surprisingly, it turned out that this is not an easy question to answer. By and large, one could say that the main problem is not so much that sentences never come in isolation, but that sequences of sentences are sequences of sentences for an interesting reason: they are ‘connected’, as it were, for instance, by cross-sentential anaphors. Consider the following sentence. (1) She kissed it. We could say that the meaning of (1) is that some female person happened to kiss something, but then we would be missing the point. Sentence (1) may be preceded by (2) or (3) —to give but two possibilities— and the meaning is rather different in each case. (2) Louis XIV solemnly offered his hand to a new chambermaid. (3) Yesterday, a beautiful princess saw a regal green frog near the creek. Sentences like (1) cannot be interpreted correctly without taking the context into account. Problems such as these led Karttunen to the introduction of discourse referents.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mass Moment: Part 23 the EUCHARISTIC PRAYER (Anaphora)
    5 Mass Moment: Part 23 THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER (Anaphora). After the acclamation (the Holy, Holy, Holy), the congregation kneels while the priest, standing with arms outstretched, offers up the prayer (Anaphora) directly addressed to God the Father. This indicates even more clearly that the whole body directs its prayer to the Father only through its head, Christ. The Anaphora is the most solemn part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, during which the offerings of bread and wine are consecrated as the body and blood of Christ. There are four main Eucharistic Prayers, also called Canon (I, II, III, IV). However, there are also four for Masses for Various Needs (I, II, III, IV) and two for Reconciliation (I, II). They are purely biblical in theology and in language, they possess a rich overtone from its Latin origins. It is important to note the elements that are central and uniform all through the various Eucharistic Prayers: the praise of God, thanksgiving, invocation of the Holy Spirit (also known as Epiclesis), the that is the up Christ our oblation to the Father through the Holy Spirit, then the doxology The first Canon is the longest and it includes the special communicates offering in union with the whole Church. The second Canon is the shortest and often used for daily Masses. It is said to be the oldest of the four Anaphoras by St. Hippolytus around 215 A.D. It has its own preface, but it also adapts and uses other prefaces too. The third Eucharistic Prayer is said to be based on the ancient Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Maronite Anaphoras, rich in sacrificial theology.
    [Show full text]
  • Presupposition As Investigator Certainty in a Police Interrogation: the Case of Lorenzo Montoya’S False Confession
    Presupposition as investigator certainty in a police interrogation: The case of Lorenzo Montoya’s false confession Author: Philip Gaines This is a postprint of an article that originally appeared in Discourse & Society on July 2018. The final version can be found at https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926518754417. Gaines, Philip. "Presupposition as investigator certainty in a police interrogation: The case of Lorenzo Montoya's false confession." Discourse & Society 29, no. 4 (July 2018): 399-419. DOI:10.1177/0957926518754417. Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks scholarworks.montana.edu Presupposition as investigator certainty in a police interrogation: The case of Lorenzo Montoya’s false confession Philip Gaines Montana State University, USA Abstract This article presents an analysis of the use by police investigators of presupposition-bearing questions (PBQs) in interrogation as a process for communicating certainty of guilt. Among the techniques of interrogational maximization employed by police is the communication to the suspect of the interrogators’ certainty of the suspect’s guilt. While social science research notes that such communication of certainty is given directly, for example by statements that they ‘know’ the suspect is guilty or by direct accusations such as ‘you did it’, this analysis shows that certainty of guilt can also be communicated by presuppositions embedded in interrogation questions. Discourse analysis of the complete transcript of the interrogation of a 14-year-old suspect reveals further that through the use of 177 PBQs, interrogators are able to accrue inadvertent admissions to three crucial global ‘facts’ about the suspect’s involvement in the crime – each of which is composed of multiple subsidiary ‘facts’.
    [Show full text]
  • Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'brien
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1994 The tS ylistic Mechanics of Implicitness: Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'Brien. Donna Glee Williams Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Williams, Donna Glee, "The tS ylistic Mechanics of Implicitness: Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'Brien." (1994). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 5768. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/5768 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough,m asubstandard r gins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY of AMERICA the Missa Chrismatis: a Liturgical Theology a DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the S
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA The Missa Chrismatis: A Liturgical Theology A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Sacred Theology © Copyright All rights reserved By Seth Nater Arwo-Doqu Washington, DC 2013 The Missa Chrismatis: A Liturgical Theology Seth Nater Arwo-Doqu, S.T.D. Director: Kevin W. Irwin, S.T.D. The Missa Chrismatis (“Chrism Mass”), the annual ritual Mass that celebrates the blessing of the sacramental oils ordinarily held on Holy Thursday morning, was revised in accordance with the decrees of Vatican II and promulgated by the authority of Pope Paul VI and inserted in the newly promulgated Missale Romanum in 1970. Also revised, in tandem with the Missa Chrismatis, is the Ordo Benedicendi Oleum Catechumenorum et Infirmorum et Conficiendi Chrisma (Ordo), and promulgated editio typica on December 3, 1970. Based upon the scholarly consensus of liturgical theologians that liturgical events are acts of theology, this study seeks to delineate the liturgical theology of the Missa Chrismatis by applying the method of liturgical theology proposed by Kevin Irwin in Context and Text. A critical study of the prayers, both ancient and new, for the consecration of Chrism and the blessing of the oils of the sick and of catechumens reveals rich theological data. In general it can be said that the fundamental theological principle of the Missa Chrismatis is initiatory and consecratory. The study delves into the history of the chrismal liturgy from its earliest foundations as a Mass in the Gelasianum Vetus, including the chrismal consecration and blessing of the oils during the missa in cena domini, recorded in the Hadrianum, Ordines Romani, and Pontificales Romani of the Middle Ages, through the reforms of 1955-56, 1965 and, finally, 1970.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anaphora of the Apostles: Implications of the Mar Ε§Αύα Text Emmanuel J
    THE ANAPHORA OF THE APOSTLES: IMPLICATIONS OF THE MAR Ε§ΑΎΑ TEXT EMMANUEL J. CUTRONE Quincy College, Illinois ike Russia, the East Syrian anaphora of the apostles Addai and Mari IJ qualifies as both mystery and enigma. The research done on the many mysteries of this third-eentury East Syrian anaphora usually clarifies all too sharply the many enigmas that still remain.1 Unlike other anaphoras which share its antiquity—Hippolytus, Apostolic Constitutions 8, Serapion, or the earlier witness of Justin—Addai and Mari is not a prototype academic exercise of a typical Eucharistie prayer.2 This anaphora was, and continues to be, an actual prayer of a worshiping community. Bouyer feels that "everything leads us to believe that this prayer is the most ancient christian eucharistie com- 1 Here is a listing of the major studies done on the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari: Bernard Botte, "L'Anaphore chaldéenne des apôtres," Orientalin Christiana periodica 15 (1949) 259-76; Β. Botte, "L'Epielèse dans les liturgies syriennes orientales," Sacris erudiri 6 (1954) 48-72; B. Botte, "Problème de l'anaphore syrienne des apôtres Addai et Mari," L'Orient syrien 10 (1965) 89-106; Louis Bouyer, Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistie Prayer, tr. Charles Quinn (Notre Dame, Ind., 1966) pp. 146-57; Hieronymus Engberding, "Zum anaphorischen Fürbittgebet des ostsyrischen Liturgie Addaj und Mar(j)," Oriens christianus 41 (1957) 102-24; S. H. Jammo, "Gabriel Qatraya et son commentaire sur la liturgie chaldéenne," Orientalia Christiana periodica 32 (1966) 39-52; William F. Macomber, "The Oldest Known Text of the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari," ibid.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasoning with Ambiguity
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Reasoning with Ambiguity Christian Wurm the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract We treat the problem of reasoning with ambiguous propositions. Even though ambiguity is obviously problematic for reasoning, it is no less ob- vious that ambiguous propositions entail other propositions (both ambiguous and unambiguous), and are entailed by other propositions. This article gives a formal analysis of the underlying mechanisms, both from an algebraic and a logical point of view. The main result can be summarized as follows: sound (and complete) reasoning with ambiguity requires a distinction between equivalence on the one and congruence on the other side: the fact that α entails β does not imply β can be substituted for α in all contexts preserving truth. With- out this distinction, we will always run into paradoxical results. We present the (cut-free) sequent calculus ALcf , which we conjecture implements sound and complete propositional reasoning with ambiguity, and provide it with a language-theoretic semantics, where letters represent unambiguous meanings and concatenation represents ambiguity. Keywords Ambiguity, reasoning, proof theory, algebra, Computational Linguistics Acknowledgements Thanks to Timm Lichte, Roland Eibers, Roussanka Loukanova and Gerhard Schurz for helpful discussions; also I want to thank two anonymous reviewers for their many excellent remarks! 1 Introduction This article gives an extensive treatment of reasoning with ambiguity, more precisely with ambiguous propositions. We approach the problem from an Universit¨atD¨usseldorf,Germany Universit¨atsstr.1 40225 D¨usseldorf Germany E-mail: [email protected] 2 Christian Wurm algebraic and a logical perspective and show some interesting surprising results on both ends, which lead up to some interesting philosophical questions, which we address in a preliminary fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Presupposition Accommodation?
    Draft version from July 2000 What is Presupposition Accommodation? Kai von Fintel MIT In his paper “What is a Context of Utterance?”, Christopher Gauker (1998) argues that the phenomenon of informative presuppositions is incompatible with the “pragmatic” view of presuppositions as involving requirements on the common ground, the body of shared assumptions of the participants in a conversation. This is a surprising claim since most proponents of this view have in fact dealt with informative presuppositions by appealing to a process called presupposition accommodation. Gauker’s attack shows the need to clarify the nature of this process. Introduction: The Common Ground Theory of Presuppositions Here is a stylized version of the picture of information-gathering discourse developed by Stalnaker.1 The common ground of a conversation at a particular time is the set of propositions that the participants in that conversation at that time mutually assume to be taken for granted and not subject to (further) discussion. The common ground describes a set of worlds, the context set, which are those worlds in which all of the propositions in the common ground are true. The context set is the set of worlds that for all that is currently assumed to be taken for granted, could be the actual world. 1 Stalnaker (1972, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1988, 1998). Other important work in this tradition includes Karttunen (1974), Lewis (1979), Heim (1982, 1983, 1992), and Thomason (1990). When uttered assertively, sentences are meant to update the common ground. If the sentence is accepted by the participants, the proposition it expresses is added to the common ground.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computer-Verified Monadic Functional Implementation of the Integral
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Theoretical Computer Science 411 (2010) 3386–3402 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Theoretical Computer Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tcs A computer-verified monadic functional implementation of the integral Russell O'Connor, Bas Spitters ∗ Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands article info a b s t r a c t Article history: We provide a computer-verified exact monadic functional implementation of the Riemann Received 10 September 2008 integral in type theory. Together with previous work by O'Connor, this may be seen as Received in revised form 13 January 2010 the beginning of the realization of Bishop's vision to use constructive mathematics as a Accepted 23 May 2010 programming language for exact analysis. Communicated by G.D. Plotkin ' 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Type theory Functional programming Exact real analysis Monads 1. Introduction Integration is one of the fundamental techniques in numerical computation. However, its implementation using floating- point numbers requires continuous effort on the part of the user in order to ensure that the results are correct. This burden can be shifted away from the end-user by providing a library of exact analysis in which the computer handles the error estimates. For high assurance we use computer-verified proofs that the implementation is actually correct; see [21] for an overview. It has long been suggested that, by using constructive mathematics, exact analysis and provable correctness can be unified [7,8]. Constructive mathematics provides a high-level framework for specifying computations (Section 2.1).
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Presupposition Triggers in Hilary Clinton's First
    International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 6, No. 5; 2016 ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education An Analysis of Presupposition Triggers in Hilary Clinton’s First Campaign Speech Ruiqing Liang1 & Yabin Liu1 1 School of Foreign Studies, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Correspondence: Yabin Liu, School of Foreign Studies, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China. E-mail: [email protected] Received: July 19, 2016 Accepted: August 9, 2016 Online Published: September 23, 2016 doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n5p68 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n5p68 This paper is supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities” (grant no.: 15JNYH007) and “the National Social Science Foundation of China” (grant no.:12BYY119). Abstract Presupposition triggers play a vital role in verbal communication. Based on Hilary Clinton’s first campaign speech, this paper intends to analyze the presupposition triggers at both lexical and syntactic levels, for the purpose of figuring out how Hilary succeeds in achieving her political intentions through the use of presupposition triggers, hoping to contribute to the composition and understanding of political speeches. Keywords: presupposition triggers, presupposition, Hilary Clinton, political speech 1. Introduction Presupposition, first put forward by German philosopher Gottlob Frege in 1892, was originally studied in philosophy of language and later introduced to the field of linguistics. As the study of presupposition continues, it has been found that presuppositions are typically generated by the use of lexical items or linguistic constructions. These lexical items and linguistic constructions are called presupposition triggers (Levinson, 1983; Huang, 2007). Presupposition has long been used as a property of language to mold the audience’s ideology.
    [Show full text]
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Propositions as Types Citation for published version: Wadler, P 2015, 'Propositions as Types', Communications of the ACM, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1145/2699407 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1145/2699407 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Communications of the ACM General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 Propositions as Types ∗ Philip Wadler University of Edinburgh [email protected] 1. Introduction cluding Agda, Automath, Coq, Epigram, F#,F?, Haskell, LF, ML, Powerful insights arise from linking two fields of study previously NuPRL, Scala, Singularity, and Trellys. thought separate. Examples include Descartes’s coordinates, which Propositions as Types is a notion with mystery. Why should it links geometry to algebra, Planck’s Quantum Theory, which links be the case that intuitionistic natural deduction, as developed by particles to waves, and Shannon’s Information Theory, which links Gentzen in the 1930s, and simply-typed lambda calculus, as devel- thermodynamics to communication.
    [Show full text]
  • A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 5 Issue 2 Current Work in Linguistics Article 2 1998 A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis Gerhard Jaeger Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Jaeger, Gerhard (1998) "A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol5/iss2/2 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol5/iss2/2 For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol5/iss2/2 A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis Gerhard J¨ager 1. Introduction The aim of the present paper is to outline a unified account of anaphora and ellipsis phenomena within the framework of Type Logical Categorial Gram- mar.1 There is at least one conceptual and one empirical reason to pursue such a goal. Firstly, both phenomena are characterized by the fact that they re-use semantic resources that are also used elsewhere. This issue is discussed in detail in section 2. Secondly, they show a striking similarity in displaying the characteristic ambiguity between strict and sloppy readings. This supports the assumption that in fact the same mechanisms are at work in both cases. (1) a. John washed his car, and Bill did, too. b. John washed his car, and Bill waxed it.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentential Negativity and Polarity-Sensitive Anaphora a Hyperintensional Account
    Sentential negativity and polarity-sensitive anaphora A hyperintensional account Lisa Hofmann University of California Santa Cruz 1 Introduction This paper is concerned with an asymmetry between positive and negative sen- tences in discourse.1 The licensing of certain propositional anaphora is contin- gent on the polarity of their antecedent clause. I call them Polarity-Sensitive Anaphora (PSAs). Among these are polar additives (Klima (1964)) and polarity particles (Farkas and Bruce (2010); Roelofsen and Farkas (2015)). (1) Polar additives (2) Agreement with polarity particles a. Mary slept. a. Mary slept. (i) So did Dalia. (i) Yes, she slept. (ii) #Neither did Dalia. (ii) #No, she slept. b. Mary didn’t sleep. b. Mary didn’t sleep. (i) #So did Dalia. (i) Yes, she didn’t sleep. (ii) Neither did Dalia. (ii) No, she didn’t sleep. Polar additives are polarity-sensitive in their licensing: Positive polar ad- ditives with so are available with a positive antecedent (1-a), but not with a negative one (1-b), whereas neither shows the opposite pattern. Polarity parti- cles (PolPs) are polarity-sensitive in their interpretation. In a positive context (2-a), only yes, but not no can be used to agree with the antecedent. In the negative context, this contrast is neutralized (Ginzburg and Sag (2000); Roelof- sen and Farkas (2015)) and either polarity particle can be used to agree. These asymmetries lead me to two questions: 1. How can the polarity-sensitivity of PSAs be accounted for? 2. What renders a sentence positive/negative for the purposes of discourse and how might that be captured theoretically? 1.
    [Show full text]