Variable Handling and Compositionality: Comparing DRT and DTS

This paper provides a detailed comparison between discourse representation theory (DRT) and dependent type semantics (DTS), two frameworks for discourse semantics. Although it is often stated that DRT and those frameworks based on dependent types are mutually exchangeable, we argue that they differ with respect to variable handling, more specifically, how substitution and other operations on variables are defined. This manifests itself in two recalcitrant problems posed for DRT; namely, the overwrite problem and the duplication problem. We will see that these problems still pose a challenge for various extended compositional systems based on DRT, while they do not arise in a framework of DTS where substitution and other operations are defined in the standard type-theoretic manner without stipulating any additional constraints. We also compare the notions of contexts underlying these two kinds of frameworks, namely, contexts represented as assignment functions and contexts represented as proof terms, and see what different predictions they make for some linguistic examples.

[1]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From Discourse to Logic - Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory , 1993, Studies in linguistics and philosophy.

[2]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The syntactic process , 2004, Language, speech, and communication.

[3]  Per Martin-Löf,et al.  Intuitionistic type theory , 1984, Studies in proof theory.

[4]  R. Cooper.  Type Theory and Semantics in Flux , 2012 .

[5]  Aarne Ranta.  Type-Theoretical Grammar , 1995 .

[6]  Philippe de Groote,et al.  Towards a Montagovian Account of Dynamics , 2006 .

[7]  Philippe de Groote,et al.  Towards Abstract Categorial Grammars , 2001, ACL.

[8]  Zhaohui Luo,et al.  Formal semantics in modern type theories with coercive subtyping , 2012, Linguistics and Philosophy.

[9]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  A calculus for first order Discourse Representation Structures , 1996, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[10]  Dag Trygve Truslew Haug,et al.  Partial Dynamic Semantics for Anaphora: Compositionality without Syntactic Coindexation , 2014, J. Semant..

[11]  R. Ahn,et al.  Discourse representation meets constructive mathematics , 1990 .

[12]  Reinhard Muskens,et al.  Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation , 1996 .

[13]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Dynamic predicate logic , 1991 .

[14]  Ai Kawazoe,et al.  Implementing Variable Vectors in a CCG Parser , 2016, LACL.

[15]  Josef van Genabith,et al.  Discourse representation theory , 1988 .

[16]  Carl Pollard,et al.  A Dynamic Categorial Grammar , 2014, FG.

[17]  C. F. M. Vermeulen,et al.  Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic , 1993, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[18]  Yusuke Kubota,et al.  Scope Parallelism in Coordination in Dependent Type Semantics , 2015, JSAI-isAI Workshops.

[19]  Daisuke Bekki.  Representing Anaphora with Dependent Types , 2014, LACL.

[20]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  A compositional approach to discourse representation theory , 1989 .

[21]  Rick Nouwen,et al.  On Dependent Pronouns and Dynamic Semantics , 2007, J. Philos. Log..

[22]  Scott Martin,et al.  The Dynamics of Sense and Implicature , 2013 .

[23]  Matthew Gotham,et al.  A Model-Theoretic Reconstruction of Type-Theoretic Semantics for Anaphora , 2017, FG.

[24]  Tim Fernando,et al.  A Type Reduction from Proof-conditional to Dynamic Semantics , 2001, J. Philos. Log..

[25]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Incremental Dynamics , 2001, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[26]  P. Dekker.  Predicate logic with anaphora , 1994 .

[27]  Reinhard Muskens,et al.  Language, Lambdas, and Logic , 2003 .

[28]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Representing Discourse in Context , 1997, Handbook of Logic and Language.

[29]  Koji Mineshima,et al.  Context-Passing and Underspecification in Dependent Type Semantics , 2017 .

[30]  Stergios Chatzikyriakidis,et al.  On the Interpretation of Common Nouns: Types Versus Predicates , 2017 .

[31]  Johan Bos,et al.  A compositional DRS-based formalism for NLP applications , 1994 .