PL EN


2011 | 7 | 2 | 259-279
Article title

Nonindexical Context-Dependence and the Interpretation as Abduction Approach

Authors
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Inclusive nonindexical context-dependence occurs when the preferred interpretation of an utterance implies its lexically-derived meaning. It is argued that the corresponding processes of free or lexically mandated enrichment can be modeled as abductive inference. A form of abduction is implemented in Simple Type Theory on the basis of a notion of plausibility, which is in turn regarded a preference relation over possible worlds. Since a preordering of doxastic alternatives taken for itself only amounts to a relatively vacuous ad hoc model, it needs to be combined with a rational way of learning from new evidence. Lexicographic upgrade is implemented as an example of how an agent might revise his plausibility ordering in light of new evidence. Various examples are given how this apparatus may be used to model the contextual resolution of context-dependent or semantically incomplete utterances. The described form of abduction is limited and merely serves as a proof of concept, but the idea in general has good potential as one among many ways to build a bridge between semantics and pragmatics since inclusive context-dependence is ubiquitous.
Publisher
Year
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
259-279
Physical description
Dates
published
2011-01-01
online
2012-01-05
Contributors
author
  • New University of Lisbon
References
  • Alchourrón, Carlos E., Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2): 510-530.
  • Aliseda-Llera, Atocha. 1997. Seeking Explanations: Abduction in Logic, Philosophy of Science and Artificial Intelligence. ILLC dissertation series 1997-4, Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computationss.
  • Allen, James F. 1983. Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals. Communications of the ACM 26(11): 832-843.[Crossref]
  • Bach, Kent. 2004. Minding the gap. In: Claudia Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 27-43.
  • Bach, Kent. 2005. Context ex machina. In: Zoltán G. Szabó (ed.), Semantics versus Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16-44.
  • Bach, Kent. 2007a. From the strange to the bizarre: Another reply to Cappelen and Lepore. Manuscript. URL:
  • Bach, Kent. 2007b. Minimal semantics. Philosophical Review 116(2): 303-306.
  • Bach, Kent. 2007c. Minimalism for dummies: Reply to Cappelen and Lepore. Manuscript. URL:
  • Baltag, Aexandru and Sonja Smets. 2006. Conditional doxastic models: A qualitative approach to dynamic belief revision. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 165: 5-21.
  • Baltag, Aexandru and Sonja Smets. 2011. Keep changing your beliefs and aiming for the truth. Erkenntnis 75(2): 255-270.[Crossref][WoS]
  • Baptista, Luiz and Erich H. Rast. (eds.). 2010. Meaning and Context. Volume 2 of Lisbon Studies in Philosophy. New York, Berlin, Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Benzmüller, Christoph, Chad E. Brown, Jörg Siekmann and Richard Stratman. (eds.). 2008. Reasoning in Simple Type Theory. London: College Publications.
  • Cappelen, Herman and Ernest Lepore. 2005. Insensitive Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Carpenter, Bob. 1997. Type-Logical Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Church, Alonzo 1940. A formulation of the simple theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(2): 56-68.
  • Copestake, Anne, Alex Lascarides and Dan Flickinger. 2001. An algebra for semantic construction in constraint-based grammars. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2001). (ACL, 2001), 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Toulouse, France.
  • Egg, Markus, Joachim Niehren, Peter Ruhrberg and Feiyu Xu. 1998. Constraints over lambda-structures in semantic underspecification. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Montreal, Canada.: COLING/ACL, 353-359.
  • Farmer, William M. 2008. Andrew's type theory with undefinedness. In: Dov Gabbay (ed.), Reasoning in Simple Type Theory, London: College Publications, 223-242.
  • Gabbay, Dov and John Woods. 2005. The Reach of Abduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Gärdenfors, Peter. 1988. Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gärdenfors, Peter. and Hans Rott. 1995. Belief revision. In: Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming. Volume 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 35-132.
  • Hansson, Sven O. 1999a. A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis 50: 413-427.[Crossref]
  • Hansson, Sven O. 1999b. A Textbook of Belief Dynamics: Theory Change and Database Updating. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer.
  • Henkin, Leon A. 1950. Completeness in the theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 15(2): 81-91.
  • Hobbs, Jerry R., Mark Stickel, Douglas Appelt and Paul Martin. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63(1-2): 69-142.
  • Lang, Jérôme and Leendert van der Torre. 2007. From belief change to preference change. In: Giacomo Bonanno, James Delgrande, Jérôme Lang, and Hans Rott (eds.), Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents. Number 07351 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Dagstuhl, Germany.
  • Liu, Fenrong. 2008. Changing for the Better. Number DS-2008-02 in ILLC Dissertation Series. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation.
  • Makinson, David. 1997. Screened revision. Theoria 63: 14-23.
  • Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal Philosophy. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
  • Montague, Richard. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague-Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  • Morrill, Glynn. 1994. Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Muskens, Reinhard. 1995. Meaning and Partiality. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • Norvig, Peter and Robert Wilensky. 1990. A critical evaluation of commensurable abduction models for semantic interpretation. In: Hans Kalrgren (ed.), COLING 13 - Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics. Volume 3. Helsinki. University of Helsinki, Helsinki: International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 225-230.
  • Pollock, John L. 2008. Defeasible reasoning. In: Jonathan E. Adler and Lance J. Rips, (eds.), Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and Its Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 451-470.
  • Preyer, Gerhard and Peter Georg (eds.). 2005. Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Preyer, Gerhard and Peter Georg (eds). 2007. Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Rast, Erich H. 2009. Context and interpretation. In: Jesus M. Larrazaball and Larraitz Zubeldia (eds.), Meaning, Content, and Argument. Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Rhetoric, San Sebastian: University of the Basque Country Press, 515-534.
  • Rast, Erich H. 2010. Plausibility revision in higher-order logic with an application in two-dimensional semantics. In: Xabier Arrazola and Maria Ponte (eds.), logKCA-10 - Proceedings of the Second ILCLI International Workshop on Logic and Philosophy of Knowledge, Communication and Action, San Sebastian: University of the Basque Country Press, 387-403.
  • Recanati, François. 2004. Deixis and Anaphora. In: Zoltan G. Szabó (ed.), Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stanley, Jason. 2002. Nominal restriction. In: Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (eds.). Logical Form and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 365-388.
  • Stanley, Jason. and Zoltán G. Szabó. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15(2/3): 219-261.
  • Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Steedman, Mark. 2000. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • van Benthem, Johan. 1991. The Logic of Time. Dordrecht: Kluwer. (2nd ed.; first ed. publ. 1983).
  • van Benthem, Johan. 1995. Language in Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • van Benthem, Johan. and Fenrong Liu. 2005. Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. ILLC Tech Report PP-2005-29, University of Amsterdam, Institute for Logic, Language & Computation.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.doi-10_2478_v10016-011-0014-5
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.