Knowledge, Causality and Temporal Representation

In this paper, a formal semantic framework is developed in order to account for the temporal semantics of text. The theory is able to represent and reason about both semantic issues, which are independent of world knowledge (wk), and pragmatic issues, which are not, within a single logical framework. The theory will allow a text's semantic entailments to differ from its pragmatic ones, even though they are all derived within the same logic. I demonstrate that this feature of the theory gives rise to solutions to several puzzles concerning the temporal structure of text. 1 The Problem The purpose of this paper is to provide a formal account of the temporal semantics of text. The chief goal is to explain when a text is temporally coherent: it should not mislead the reader as to the order of the events reported. If John hits Max, causing Max to turn round (to face John), then text (1) reflects this while (2) distorts it: (1) John hit Max. Max turned round. (2) Max turned roun..

A semantics and pragmatics for the pluperfect

We offer a semantics and pragmatics of the pluperfect in narrative discourse. We examine in a formal model of implicature, how the reader's knowledge about the discourse, Gricean-maxims and causation contribute to the meaning of the pluperfect. By placin

The Pragmatics of Word Meaning

In this paper, we explore the interaction between lexical semantics and pragmat­ics. Linguistic processing is nformationally encapsulated and utilises relatively simple 'taxonomic' lexical semantic knowledge. On this basis, defeasible lexical generalisations deliver defeasible parts of logical form. In contrast, pragmatics is open-ended and involves arbitrary knowledge. Two axioms specify when pragmatic defaults override lexical ones. We demonstrate that modelling this interaction al­lows us to achieve a more refined interpretation of words in a discourse context than either the lexicon or pragmatics could do on their own

Dynamic Semantics

This article focuses on foundational issues in dynamic and static semantics, specifically on what is conceptually at stake between the dynamic framework and the truth-conditional framework, and consequently what kinds of evidence support each framework. The article examines two questions. First, it explores the consequences of taking the proposition as central semantic notion as characteristic of static semantics, and argues that this is not as limiting in accounting for discourse dynamics as many think. Specifically, it explores what it means for a static semantics to incorporate the notion of context change potential in a dynamic pragmatics and denies that this conception of static semantics requires that all updates to the context be eliminative and distributive. Second, it argues that the central difference between the two frameworks is whether semantics or pragmatics accounts for dynamics, and explores what this means for the oft-heard claim that dynamic semantics blurs the semantics/pragmatics distinction

Discourse relations and defeasible knowledge

This paper presents a formal account of the temporal interpretation of text. The distinct nat- ural interpretations of texts with similar syntax are explained in terms of defeasible rules charac- tcrising causal laws and Gricean-style pragmatic maxims. Intuitively compelling patterns of defea. sible entaJlment that are supported by the logic in which the theory is expressed are shown to underly temporal interpretation