Nonindexical Context-Dependence and the Interpretation as Abduction Approach
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.
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): 510-530.10.2307/2274239Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Allen, James F. 1983. Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals. Communications of the ACM 26(11): 832-843.10.1145/182.358434Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2004. Minding the gap. In: Claudia Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 27-43.Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2005. Context ex machina. In: Zoltán G. Szabó (ed.), Semantics versus Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16-44.Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2007a. From the strange to the bizarre: Another reply to Cappelen and Lepore. Manuscript. URL: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2007b. Minimal semantics. Philosophical Review 116(2): 303-306.10.1215/00318108-2006-045Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2007c. Minimalism for dummies: Reply to Cappelen and Lepore. Manuscript. URL: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/Search in Google Scholar
Baltag, Aexandru and Sonja Smets. 2006. Conditional doxastic models: A qualitative approach to dynamic belief revision. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 165: 5-21.10.1016/j.entcs.2006.05.034Search in Google Scholar
Baltag, Aexandru and Sonja Smets. 2011. Keep changing your beliefs and aiming for the truth. Erkenntnis 75(2): 255-270.10.1007/s10670-011-9294-ySearch in Google Scholar
Baptista, Luiz and Erich H. Rast. (eds.). 2010. Meaning and Context. Volume 2 of Lisbon Studies in Philosophy. New York, Berlin, Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Benzmüller, Christoph, Chad E. Brown, Jörg Siekmann and Richard Stratman. (eds.). 2008. Reasoning in Simple Type Theory. London: College Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Ernest Lepore. 2005. Insensitive Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755792Search in Google Scholar
Carpenter, Bob. 1997. Type-Logical Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6945.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Church, Alonzo 1940. A formulation of the simple theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(2): 56-68.10.2307/2266170Search in Google Scholar
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.10.3115/1073012.1073031Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Farmer, William M. 2008. Andrew's type theory with undefinedness. In: Dov Gabbay (ed.), Reasoning in Simple Type Theory, London: College Publications, 223-242.Search in Google Scholar
Gabbay, Dov and John Woods. 2005. The Reach of Abduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/S1874-5075(05)80021-XSearch in Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter. 1988. Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Hansson, Sven O. 1999a. A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis 50: 413-427.10.1023/A:1005534223776Search in Google Scholar
Hansson, Sven O. 1999b. A Textbook of Belief Dynamics: Theory Change and Database Updating. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
Henkin, Leon A. 1950. Completeness in the theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 15(2): 81-91.10.2307/2266967Search in Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R., Mark Stickel, Douglas Appelt and Paul Martin. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63(1-2): 69-142.10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Fenrong. 2008. Changing for the Better. Number DS-2008-02 in ILLC Dissertation Series. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation.Search in Google Scholar
Makinson, David. 1997. Screened revision. Theoria 63: 14-23.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1997.tb00737.xSearch in Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal Philosophy. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Morrill, Glynn. 1994. Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-011-1042-6Search in Google Scholar
Muskens, Reinhard. 1995. Meaning and Partiality. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Preyer, Gerhard and Peter Georg (eds.). 2005. Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Preyer, Gerhard and Peter Georg (eds). 2007. Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Deixis and Anaphora. In: Zoltan G. Szabó (ed.), Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2002. Nominal restriction. In: Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (eds.). Logical Form and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 365-388.Search in Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. and Zoltán G. Szabó. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15(2/3): 219-261.Search in Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6591.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
van Benthem, Johan. 1991. The Logic of Time. Dordrecht: Kluwer. (2nd ed.; first ed. publ. 1983).10.1007/978-94-015-7947-6Search in Google Scholar
van Benthem, Johan. 1995. Language in Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
This content is open access.
