Factivity and presupposition in Dependent Type Semantics

• Autorzy: Tanaka R. , Mineshima K. , Bekki D.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v5i2.153

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Dependent type theory has been applied to natural language semantics to provide a formally precise and computationally adequate account of dynamic aspects of meaning. One of the frameworks of natural language semantics based on dependent type theory is Dependent Type Semantics (DTS), which focuses on the compositional interpretations of anaphoric expressions. In this paper, we extend the framework of DTS with a mechanism to handle logical entailment and presupposition associated with factive verbs such as know. Using the notion of proof objects as first-class objects, we provide a compositional account of presuppositional inferences triggered by factive verbs. The proposal also gives a formal reconstruction of the type-distinction between propositions and facts, and thereby accounts for the lexical semantic differences between factive and non-factive verbs in a typetheoretical setting.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

dependent type; anaphora; presupposition; proof object; factive verb

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: Vol. 5, No. 2
• Strony: 385--420
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 52 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Tanaka R.

• Ochanomizu University, Japan

autor

Mineshima K.

• Ochanomizu University, Japan
• CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency, Japan

autor

Bekki D.

• Ochanomizu University, Japan
• CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency, Japan

Bibliografia

• [1] Nicholas Asher (2011), Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [2] Nicholas Asher and Zhaohui Luo (2012), Formalisation of coercions in lexical semantics, in E. Chemla, V. Homer, and G. Winterstein, editors, Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, pp. 63-80, Paris, http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/.
• [3] David I. Beaver (2001), Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics, CSLI Publications, Stanford.
• [4] Daisuke Bekki (2014), Representing anaphora with dependent types, in N. Asher and S. Soloviev, editors, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: 8th International Conference, LACL 2014, Proceedings, volume 8535 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 14-29, Springer, Heidelberg.
• [5] Daisuke Bekki and Nicholas Asher (2013), Logical polysemy and subtyping, in Y. Motomura, A. Butler, and D. Bekki, editors, New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI-isAI 2012 Workshops, Revised Selected Papers, volume 7856 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 17-24, Springer, Heidelberg.
• [6] Daisuke Bekki and Koji Mineshima (2017), Context-passing and underspecification in Dependent Type Semantics, in S. Chatzikyriakidis and Z. Luo, editors, Modern Perspectives in Type-Theoretical Semantics, volume 98 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 11-41, Springer, Heidelberg.
• [7] Daisuke Bekki and Miho Satoh (2015), Calculating projections via type checking, in R. Cooper and C. Retoré, editors, ESSLLI proceedings of the TYTLES workshop on Type Theory and Lexical Semantics ESSLLI2015, Barcelona.
• [8] Stergios Chatzikyriakidis and Zhaohui Luo (2014), Natural language inference in Coq, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 23 (4): 441-480.
• [9] Robin Cooper (1983), Quantification and Syntactic Theory, Reidel, Dordrecht.
• [10] Rogelio Dávila-Pérez (1995), Semantics and Parsing in Intuitionistic Categorial Grammar, Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex.
• [11] Paul Egré (2008), Question-embedding and factivity, Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77 (1): 85-125.
• [12] Delia Graff Fara (2001), Descriptions as predicates, Philosophical Studies, 102: 1-42, originally published under the name “Delia Graff”.
• [13] Chris Fox and Shalom Lappin (2005), Foundations of Intensional Semantics, Blackwell, Oxford.
• [14] Jonathan Ginzburg (1995a), Resolving questions, I, Linguistics and Philosophy, 18 (5): 459-527.
• [15] Jonathan Ginzburg (1995b), Resolving questions, II, Linguistics and Philosophy, 18 (6): 567-609.
• [16] Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof (1991), Dynamic predicate logic, Linguistics and Philosophy, 14 (1): 39-100.
• [17] Irene Heim (1982), The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• [18] Irene Heim (1983), On the projection problem for presuppositions, in M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and M. Wescoat, editors, Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 114-125, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
• [19] Jaakko Hintikka (1962), Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
• [20] Jaakko Hintikka (1969), Semantics for propositional attitudes, in J. W. Davis, D. J. Hockney, and W. K. Wilson, editors, Philosophical Logic, volume 20 of Synthese Library, pp. 21-45, Reidel, Dordrecht.
• [21] William Alvin Howard (1980), The formulae-as-types notion of construction, in J. P. Seldin and J. R. Hindley, editors, To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, pp. 480-490, Academic Press, London.
• [22] Hans Kamp, Josef van Genabith, and Uwe Reyle (2011), Discourse Representation Theory, in D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 15, pp. 125-394, Springer, Heidelberg.
• [23] Lauri Karttunen (1971), Implicative verbs, Language, 47 (2): 340-358.
• [24] Lauri Karttunen and Stanley Peters (1979), Conventional implicatures, in C. K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen, editors, Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, pp. 1-56, Academic Press, New York, NY.
• [25] Jeffrey C. King (2002), Designating propositions, The Philosophical Review, 111 (3): 341-371.
• [26] Eriko Kinoshita, Koji Mineshima, and Daisuke Bekki (2016), An analysis of selectional restrictions with Dependent Type Semantics, in Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics (LENLS13), pp. 100-113, Kanagawa.
• [27] Paul Kiparsky and Carol Kiparsky (1970), Fact, in M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph, editors, Progress in Linguistics, pp. 143-173, de Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.
• [28] Emiel Krahmer and Paul Piwek (1999), Presupposition projection as proof construction, in H. Bunt and R. Muskens, editors, Computing Meaning: Volume 1, volume 73 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 281-300, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
• [29] Yusuke Kubota and Robert Levine (2017), Scope parallelism in coordination in Dependent Type Semantics, in M. Otake, S. Kurahashi, Y. Ota, K. Satoh, and D. Bekki, editors, New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI-isAI 2015 Workshops, Revised Selected Papers, volume 10091 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 149-162, Springer, Heidelberg.
• [30] Susumu Kuno (1970), Some properties of non-referential noun phrases, in R. Jakobson and S. Kawamoto, editors, Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics. Presented to S. Hattori on Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, pp. 348-373, TEC, Tokyo.
• [31] Zhaohui Luo (2012a), Common nouns as types, in D. Béchet and A. Dikovsky, editors, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: 7th International Conference, LACL 2012, Proceedings, volume 7351 of Theoretical Computer Science and General Issues, pp. 173-185, Springer, Heidelberg.
• [32] Zhaohui Luo (2012b), Formal semantics in modern type theories with coercive subtyping, Linguistics and Philosophy, 35 (6): 491-513.
• [33] Per Martin-Löf (1984), Intuitionistic Type Theory. Notes by G. Sambin, Bibliopolis, Naples.
• [34] John-Jules Ch Meyer and Wiebe van der Hoek (2004), Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [35] Line Mikkelsen (2005), Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
• [36] Line Mikkelsen (2011), Copular clauses, in C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, editors, Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, volume 2, pp. 1805-1829, de Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.
• [37] Richard Montague (1973), The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English, in P. Suppes, J. Moravcsik, and J. Hintikka, editors, Approaches to Natural Language, pp. 221-242, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
• [38] Bengt Nordström, Kent Petersson, and Jan M. Smith (1990), Programming in Martin-Löf’s Type Theory: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [39] Terence Parsons (1993), On denoting propositions and facts, Philosophical Perspectives, 7: 441-460.
• [40] Paul Piwek and Emiel Krahmer (2000), Presuppositions in context: constructing bridges, in P. Bonzon, M. Cavalcanti, and R. Nossum, editors, Formal Aspects of Context, volume 20 of Applied Logic Series, pp. 85-106, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
• [41] Aarne Ranta (1994), Type-Theoretical Grammar, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [42] Christian Retoré (2014), The Montagovian generative lexicon ΛT yn: a type theoretical framework for natural language semantics, in R. Matthes and A. Schubert, editors, 19th International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2013), volume 26 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, pp. 202-229, Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2014/4633/.
• [43] Bertrand Russell (1919), Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin, London.
• [44] Mark Steedman (2000), The Syntactic Process, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [45] Göran Sundholm (1986), Proof Theory and Meaning, in D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 3, pp. 471-506, Reidel, Dordrecht.
• [46] Göran Sundholm (1989), Constructive generalized quantifiers, Synthese, 79 (1): 1-12.
• [47] Ribeka Tanaka (2014), A proof-theoretic approach to generalized quantifiers in dependent type semantics, in R. de Haan, editor, Proceedings of the ESSLLI2014 Student Session, pp. 140-151, Tübingen, http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/drm/dehaan/stus2014/proceedings.pdf.
• [48] Ribeka Tanaka, Koji Mineshima, and Daisuke Bekki (2015), Resolving modal anaphora in Dependent Type Semantics, in T. Murata, K. Mineshima, and D. Bekki, editors, New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI-isAI 2014 Workshops, Revised Selected Papers, pp. 83-98, Springer, Heidelberg.
• [49] Ribeka Tanaka, Yuki Nakano, and Daisuke Bekki (2014), Constructive generalized quantifiers revisited, in Y. Nakano, K. Satoh, and D. Bekki, editors, New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI-isAI 2013 Workshops, Revised Selected Papers, volume 8417 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 115-124, Springer, Heidelberg.
• [50] Wataru Uegaki (2016), Content nouns and the semantics of question-embedding, Journal of Semantics, 33 (4): 623-660.
• [51] Rob A. van der Sandt (1992), Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution, Journal of Semantics, 9: 333-377.
• [52] Zeno Vendler (1972), Res Cogitans: An Essay in Rational Psychology, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.