Discourse Representation Theory is a specific name for the work of Hans Kamp in the area of dynamic interpretation of natural language. Also, it has gradually become a generic term for proposals for dynamic interpretation of natural language in the same spirit. These proposals have in common that each new sentence is interpreted in terms of the contribution it makes to an existing piece of interpreted discourse. The interpretation conditions for sentences are given as instructions for updating the representation of (...) the discourse. (shrink)

A new system of dynamic logic is introduced and motivated, witha novel approach to variable binding for incremental interpretation. Thesystem is shown to be equivalent to first order logic and complete.The new logic combines the dynamic binding idea from DynamicPredicate Logic with De Bruijn style variable free indexing. Quantifiersbind the next available variable register; the indexing mechanismguarantees that active registers are never overwritten by newquantifiers actions. Apart from its interest in its own right, theresulting system has certain advantages over Dynamic (...) Predicate Logic orDiscourse Representation Theory. It comes with a more well behaved(i.e., transitive) consequence relation, it gives a more explicitaccount of how anaphoric context grows as text gets processed, and ityields new insight into the dynamics of anaphoric linking in reasoning.Incremental dynamics also points to a new way of handling contextdynamically in Montague grammar. (shrink)

This paper embeds the core part of Discourse Representation Theory in the classical theory of types plus a few simple axioms that allow the theory to express key facts about variables and assignments on the object level of the logic. It is shown how the embedding can be used to combine core analyses of natural language phenomena in Discourse Representation Theory with analyses that can be obtained in Montague Semantics.

Semantic analysis, – inference on the basis of semantic information and world knowledge – still is largely uncharted territory in dy- (3) namic semantics. It is needed, among other things, for the reconstruction of linguistically unspecified parts of the discourse or for restricting ambiguities introduced by prior analysis processes, i.e.

This paper presents a sound and complete proof system for the first order fragment of Discourse Representation Theory. Since the inferences that human language users draw from the verbal input they receive for the most transcend the capacities of such a system, it can be no more than a basis on which more powerful systems, which are capable of producing those inferences, may then be built. Nevertheless, even within the general setting of first order logic the structure of the formulas (...) of DRS-languages, i.e. of the Discourse Representation Structures suggest for the components of such a system inference rules that differ somewhat from those usually found in proof systems for the first order predicate calculus and which are, we believe, more in keeping with inference patterns that are actually employed in common sense reasoning.This is why we have decided to publish the present exercise, in spite of the fact that it is not one for which a great deal of originality could be claimed. In fact, it could be argued that the problem addressed in this paper was solved when Gödel first established the completeness of the system of Principia Mathematica for first order logic. For the DRS-languages we consider here are straightforwardly intertranslatable with standard formulations of the predicate calculus; in fact the translations are so straightforward that any sound and complete proof system for first order logic can be used as a sound and complete proof system for DRSs: simply translate the DRSs into formulas of predicate logic and then proceed as usual. As a matter of fact, this is how one has chosen to proceed in some implementations of DRT, which involve inferencing as well as semantic representation; an example is the Lex system developed jointly by IBM and the University of Tübingen ). (shrink)

(2012). Reasoning without believing: on the mechanisation of presuppositions and partiality. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics: Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 295-317. doi: 10.1080/11663081.2012.705962.