16.3414, Review: Semantics/Pragmatics: Peregrin (2003)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3414. Tue Nov 29 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.3414, Review: Semantics/Pragmatics: Peregrin (2003)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 27-Nov-2005
From: Eduard Barbu < eduard_barbu at yahoo.com >
Subject: Meaning: The Dynamic turn 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:52:51
From: Eduard Barbu < eduard_barbu at yahoo.com >
Subject: Meaning: The Dynamic turn 
 

EDITOR: Peregrin, Jaroslav
TITLE: Meaning
SUBTITLE: The Dynamic Turn
SERIES: Current Research in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
PUBLISHER: Elsevier Ltd.
YEAR 2003
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-3018.html 

Eduard Barbu, Researcher, Graphitech Italy

INTRODUCTION

The volume to be reviewed consists of contributions of a symposium 
held in Prague in September 2001. The main theme of the symposium 
was the dynamic turn in the study of meaning. My review has the 
following structure: In the rest of the introduction I survey the field of 
Dynamic Semantics and introduce its main paradigms. Then I give the 
gist of each paper. Two papers are not presented: The introduction 
written by Peregrin (Chapter 1) and van Benthem's very technical 
paper (Chapter 2) that characterizes the structural properties of 
dynamic inference. The reason I do not present van Benthem's paper 
is that would be odd to verbalize some logical proofs. I conclude with 
some final remarks.

The name Dynamic Semantics is given to a bunch of theories that 
depart from Montagovian paradigm of meaning, emphasizing that 
sentence meanings are dependent on the discourse they are part of. 
The general point is that the meaning of a sentence is not given 
(only) by its Truth conditions as we know from Montague. The 
theoretical unity of the diversity of approaches that are known as 
dynamic semantics is given by the acceptance of the following points:
1. The meaning of a sentence is always interpreted in a certain 
context. The context includes the hearer's beliefs and intentions and 
the meaning of previous sentences.
2. Each sentence has a context change potential. The sentences are 
thus not only context consumers, but are also context producers.
3. Moreover, the meaning of a sentence is its context change 
potential. Formally the meaning of a sentence is a function that maps 
contexts to contexts.
The concept of dynamicity becomes clearer if we explain it using the 
non-accidental analogy between the denotational semantics of 
programming languages (PL) and the dynamic approaches to 
discourse. An extensive discussion on these lines and a sound 
comparison of discourse interpretation with the execution of a 
computer program can be found in J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof 
(1991) and R. Muskens, A. Visser & J. van Benthem (1997). 

The denotational approach to the semantics of PL is concerned with 
the mathematical models of PL. Each part of a computer program is 
given a denotation (let's call it [[D]]) that is a mathematical object and 
represents the contribution of the part of program to any complete 
program. Further the denotation of a part of a program is a partial 
function that links states to states. This analogy helps us to easily 
understand many discourse features. For example, the order 
sensitivity of sentences has a parallel with the fact that the result of 
the execution of two programs is in general dependent on their order 
of execution.

The most famous systems of dynamic semantics are (the order is 
chronological):
1. Heim's File Change Semantics (FCS). FCS attempts to model a 
reader's understanding of text by using the concept of File of cards, 
when a new referent is introduced in discourse a new empty card is 
filled in. For every indefinite noun phrase that is found a new card is 
set up and for each definite noun phrase the information on the 
corresponding card is updated. The theory is dynamic in that it 
conceives the meaning of a text as being its file change potential.
2. Kamp's Discourse Representation Theory (DRT). Elaborated in 
approximately the same period, FCS and DRT have many points in 
common. The information available in the discourse is represented in 
DRT by a DRS (Discourse Representation Structure). The DRSs are 
built by a construction algorithm. Each sentence in the discourse is 
interpreted as an instruction of the construction algorithm.
3. Groenendijk and Stokhof's (GS) Dynamic Predicate Logic (DPL) is a 
dynamic system that borrows many ideas from DRT, but departs from it 
in original ways. 
Like DRT, DPL treats the discourse information that has no potential 
role in anaphora in a static way. However the differences between 
DPL and DRS languages have semantic significance. But probably the 
most original departure of DPL from DRS is that it aims at developing 
a compositional and nonrepresentational theory of meaning. It 
deviates from DRT in that it rejects the contention that the 
interpretation of a text is a two-phase process: Building a 
representation of the discourse and building an interpretation. In the 
first chapter of the book, ''Introduction'', Peregrin gives a more 
extensive coverage of the field of dynamic semantics. 

The papers in the book are grouped into three sections: Part I, 
Foundations; Part II, Syntax, Semantics and Discourse; Part III, 
Semantic Games.

CONTENTS
Part I. Foundations
3. Construction by description in discourse representation, by Noor 
van Leusen and Reinhard Muskens

The conventional wisdom in the linguistic community is that the role of 
a language's syntax is to be associated with proof theory and its 
semantics with model theory. This idea is exploited by Montague who 
gave the semantics of a small fragment of the English language in this way. 
However this is not the only way to proceed and in the literature there 
were proposed different alternatives: Blackburn (1993) proposed a 
model theoretic syntax and Ranta (1994) proposed a proof theoretic 
account of natural language semantics. The main purpose of the 
paper is to emphasis the duality of procedural and declarative aspects 
of language. The paper shows a way to construct in a purely 
declarative way important parts of DRT. It is exposed how 
presuppositions or the introduction of a new referent in discourse can 
have elegant logical formulations in Muskens's framework Logical 
Description Grammars (LDG). What is interesting about Muskens 
approach is that it uses a logic theory for formulation of both syntax 
and semantics. The paper introduces LDG then presents a 
formalization of DRS in type logic framework. Finally, it is shown how 
some important features of DRT can be formalized in a declarative 
way. The appendix of the paper gives the formalization of a fragment 
of English.

4. On the dynamic turn in the study of meaning and interpretation, by 
Richard Breheny 
Breheny's paper is the first paper that provides an in depth critical 
analysis of the foundations of dynamic semantics. He argues that the 
theoretical agreement of dynamic theories of meaning is very low. 
Nevertheless, he claims that the common characteristic of all dynamic 
theories of meaning is a focus on process. According to the author the 
field of dynamic semantics is shaped by two approaches: one 
conservative and the other one radical. After the assumptions of 
dynamic semantics are presented and the empirical motivations for 
adopting this new framework introduced the author criticizes both 
approaches. The problem that neither the conservative nor the radical 
view solves is that of underdetermination of content by linguistic 
meaning (ironically this problem of was one of the empirical 
motivations for the dynamic approach to meaning). The conservative 
view fails because it cannot provide an adequate analysis of natural 
language conjunction. The radical view failure is due to the fact that 
an operational distinction between updating process relevant to 
content and updating processes not relevant to content is missing. 
Breheny does not limit to criticize the dynamic theories of meaning but 
also makes a proposal of how the compositionality problem can be 
adequately handled inside the static framework. 

5. Real dynamics, by Wolfram Hinzen
Hinzen' s paper illustrates a Chomskyan's point of view. On the 
surface the answer that Hinzen and dynamic theories of meaning give 
to the question about the nature of meaning are the same: Meaning is 
Dynamic. For Hinzen the dynamicity of meaning means that the 
meaning derives solely from the internal working of the mind. The 
meaning is dynamic because it is the result of a set of syntactic (non 
semantic) transformations. So the dynamicity of meaning is seen in a 
purely syntactic way. Besides arguing extensively for this conclusion, 
the paper presents some problems that dynamic conception of 
meaning has. The targeted conception of dynamic meaning is mainly 
that of GS. The most interesting point and in the same time a 
challenge to the fundaments of dynamic semantics is a question: What 
is the cognitive mechanism by which a new sentence updates the 
information state of the hearer?

Part II. Syntax, Semantics and Discourse
6. Growth of logical form: The dynamics of syntax, by Ruth Kempson, 
Wilfried Meyer Viol and Masayuki Otsuka
This paper discusses the dynamicity of syntax. The central question of 
the paper is: ''Do we need any mode of representation other than 
growth of logical form in order to express generalizations about 
natural language syntax?'' The authors show the interdependence 
between the phenomenon of context dependence which is considered 
to be a purely semantic problem and long-distance dependency which 
is usually considered a syntactic problem. They treat anaphora, 
relative clauses and long-distance dependencies as processes of 
structural growth. The framework in which all the problems are solved 
is Dynamic Syntax (DS). DS is a formal model of the process of how 
humans build incrementally from left to right an interpretation from the 
words they encounter. The interpretation is a computational process, 
goal driven that involves a level of syntactic representation. The 
authors claim that they can elegantly solve two problems that in other 
frameworks are problematic: ''The distinctive properties of 
nonrestrictive relative clauses in English and the notorious head-
internal relative clauses of verb final language.''

7. The double dynamic of definite descriptions, by Klaus von Heusinger
In his paper von Heusinger discusses the dynamicity of definite 
descriptions (DD). In the first part a recap of the Russell's classical 
theory of definite descriptions is presented. Following Peregrin (2000), 
he argues that Russell misunderstood the ''unique availability'' of the 
referent of a definite description and built it as a part of its lexical 
meaning. Instead the uniqueness of DD is to be determined by both 
their lexical material and their function. The two components of the 
function of DD are: the situational component and the anaphoric use. 
A formalism for capturing the meaning of DD is proposed. It relies on 
Hilbert's concept of epsilon term and the Lewis's concept of salience 
structure . The author contrasts his approach not only with Russell's 
classical approach but also with dynamic approaches. The theories of 
Dynamic semantics treat the DD as being static, that is they are 
considered not to change the context and their interpretation is context-
independent. Instead, the author shows that the DD have a double 
dynamic aspect: they are dependent on context and they are 
changing the context.

8. Dynamics in the meaning of the sentence and of discourse, by Petr 
Sgall
Petr Sgall tries to integrate into the dynamic conception of meaning 
the insights of classical Prague School. The Prague School represents 
sentence structure at level of tecto-grammatics (a kind of predicate 
argument structure). The tectogramatical representation (TR) has two 
important characteristics: 
1. The sentence structure is based on dependency relations.
2. The topic and the focus (TFA) of the sentence are explicitly 
represented and seen as an aspect of its syntactic structure 
The difference between linguistic meaning and cognitive content is 
discussed, and it is stated that the linguist's task is not to check 
the ''conditions under which a sentence can carry a true assertion''. 
His task is passed to the semantic-pragmatic interpretation. Also 
discussed is the impact of TFA on the semantic pragmatic 
interpretation. According to Sgall, the identification of Discourse 
Referents by the hearer is based on Lewis's degree of salience. This 
point nicely links the paper with the previous one. Finally the author 
proposes a set of rules for modeling the hearer's capacity to identify 
the right referents in the discourse.

9. On the meaning of prescriptions, by Timothy Childers and Vladimir 
Svoboda
The paper aims at capturing the meaning of prescriptive language. 
According to the authors the best way to do it is to specify the role 
prescriptive expressions play in the language games of commanding 
and permitting. The paper has two main parts: in the first part it is 
argued that the best way to study the kinematics of permissions is to 
use the insights of dynamic semantics. It is claimed that we cannot 
understand the meaning of a prescriptive sentence unless we account 
for the way it is working in various language games. In the second part 
of the paper a formal procedure for understanding different kinds of 
prescriptions is given and a solution of the Cornides problem is 
proposed. 

10. Imperative negation and dynamic semantics, by Berislav Zarnic
The paper focuses on the informational content of imperatives. It is 
concerned with three problems:
1. What is the informational content of an affirmative imperative?
2. What is the informational content of a negative imperative?
3. How are they related?
Firstly, some approaches on the semantics of imperatives are 
presented and are all criticized. Lemmon's approach is criticized on 
the ground that it seems to over-evaluate the expressive power of 
natural language imperatives. Chellas's modal treatment of the 
negation of an imperative is found to be faulty because the negation 
of a imperative does not necessarily imply bringing about the situation 
that is the negation of the situation affirmed by the positive imperative. 
Belnap's and Sergerberg's proposals receive negative evaluations as 
well. In the second part a positive proposal in the framework of 
dynamic semantics is made that is claimed to overcome all the 
problems that the other approaches failed to solve. 

Part III. Subgames in Discourse
11. Dynamic game semantics, by Tapio Janasik and Gabriel Sandu
The paper is a study of the recent extension of Game Theoretical 
Semantics (GTS). It aims at formalizing the notion of subgame and in 
the same time at making clearer the dynamic fundaments of GTS. 
After stressing that the motivation for the introduction of the concept of 
game was the intention of capturing the true semantics of conditionals, 
a comparison between DRT and GTS is done. It is shown how the 
notion of subgame finds a very nice place in the analysis of the 
discourse. The first part of the paper introduces a more convenient 
formulation of DRT in the perspective of comparing its structure and 
predictions with GTS approach to discourse. The second section 
gives a thorough formal exposure of semantic games and shows the 
link of the notion of game with the developments in dynamic logics. 
The last but one section argues for a theoretical change in the 
apparatus of GTS. The last section compares the GTS framework with 
dynamic semantics, dynamic choice function theory and shows that 
the GTS successfully overcomes some hard problems in discourse 
processing.

12. About games and substitution, by Manuel Rebuschi
The purpose of the paper is to question Hintikka and Sandu's 
statement that Kripke's substitutional interpretation of quantifiers is 
unsuited for Independence-Friendly languages (IF). In the first part 
Hintikka and Sandu's argument is presented and found to be dubious 
on the grounds that Kripke's theory was not intended to deal with IF 
languages. In the next sections a extension of Kripke's theory is 
constructed and is claimed to overcome the objection. The last part of 
the paper argues extensively that a substitutional interpretation of 
quantifiers is suited for dynamic theories of meaning. The author also 
pleas for the idea in Peregrin (2000) that the concept of reference 
should be seen as parasitic to the concept of inference and not vice 
versa and that dynamic semantics should be conceived rather in a 
syntactic manner .

13. In defense of some verificationism, by Louise Vigean
The author warns us that an attempt to make GTS theory more 
dynamic than it is compromises the explanatory power of the theory. 
What gives uniqueness and great explanatory potential to GTS is the 
incorporation of the principles of verificationism. Hintinka's particular 
verificationist approach is compared with both Logical Positivism and 
Dummet's verificationist theory. The author identifies the dynamic turn 
in the GTS in Hodges's results who developed a computational 
semantics for ''games of imperfect information''. The change of focus 
in the theory that came with Hodges's discovery will weaken the 
theory because it will dilute the solid verificationism principles that are at 
the core of the theory. For proving that an important result is shown: 
the presuppositional effect of strong determiners that was obtained in 
the framework before dynamic change is no longer obtained in the 
framework after the change.

FINAL REMARKS

The book presents a collection of high quality papers that deal with a 
fundamental turn in the treatment of meaning. Different points of view 
that deal with logical, syntactical, and pragmatic implication of this 
change of perspective in the study of meaning are presented. From 
an editorial point a view the materials are soundly organized by the 
editor Jaroslav Peregrin. 
As a personal note I should add that I felt the absence of a chapter 
that discusses the cognitive significance of this dynamic turn. What is 
the nature of informational states that are updated or changed by the 
utterances? Have they any ontological significance? Are they states of 
the mind or just convenient devices for capturing the meaning? My 
last remark does not mean that this problem is not touched on in the 
book: the authors that put it explicitly being Hinzen and Breheny. 
Breheny's answer is not surprising given that he sympathizes with 
Chomsky's theory. Breheny's paper, however, touches on too many 
problems for an in depth discussion of this question. 

The heterogeneity of opinions in the book shows that the dynamic 
theories of meaning are both strong and weak: they are strong 
because the logical apparatus that supports them is well studied and 
understood (see van Benthem paper in the volume for details), they 
are weak because, despite some achievements in understanding the 
natural language semantics, they are still far away from explaining the 
true nature of meaning. Another problem that they have is that it is not 
at all clear (at least to me) if they should fall into the province of 
semantics or into that of pragmatics. The problem is apparent also in 
one of the papers in this volume (Childers and Svoboda) in which the 
authors claim that: ''we find it useful to conceive semantics studies as 
those that concentrate on the meaning of the expressions rather than 
the meaning of utterances'' (p. 188). However they do not offer any 
relevant criteria for separating the meaning of the expressions from 
the meaning of an utterance.

REFERENCES

Blackburn, P. (1993) Modal logic and attribute value structures. In: 
Diamonds and Defaults (M de Rijke, ed.), 19-65. Dordrecht: Kluwer,.

Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. 
Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1):39-100.

Muskens, R., A. Visser & J. van Benthem (1997) Dynamics. In: 
Handbook of Logic and Language (J van Benthem & A. ter Meulen, 
eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Peregrin, J. (2000) Reference and inference: The case of anaphora. 
In: Reference and Anaphoric Relations (K. von Heusinger and U Egli, 
eds.), 269-286. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Ranta , A. (1994) Type Theoretical Grammar. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Eduard Barbu is researcher at Graphitech Italy and presently involved 
in the AMI-SME European project. Previously he was a researcher at 
the Romanian Academy Institute for Artificial Intelligence. His main 
interests are: Cognitive Science and Natural Language Processing.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3414