Formal pragmatics

Harry Bunt
Table of contents

Formal pragmatics is an emerging approach to language, which is best discussed in comparison with the more established formal semantics. Formal semantics is concerned with the study of the meanings of linguistic expressions, using formal methods. The use of formal methods in semantics represents a respectable tradition thanks to the attention which ‘meaning’ has traditionally received from philosophers, including logically oriented philosophers such as Aristotle, Frege, Wittgenstein, and Carnap, and in recent times Montague, Kamp, Barwise, and van Benthem. The impressive developments in formal logic in this century (partly due to the influence of linguistic semantics), have resulted in powerful logical instruments for the analysis and description of meaning. As a result, the philosophers’ contributions to semantics have created a strong and fruitful tradition in the use of formal methods.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Alshawi, H.
1992 The core language engine. MIT Press. Google Scholar
Beun, R.J.
1989 The recognition of declarative questions on information dialogues. PhD. Diss., Tilburg University. Google Scholar
Black, W.J
et al. 1991 A pragmatics-based language understanding system. In Information processing systems and software: 454–463. Commission of the European Communities. Google Scholar
Bos, J. , E. Mastenbroek , S. Mcglashan , S. Millies & M. Pinkal
1994 A compositional DRS-based formalism for NLP applications. In H. Bunt , R. Muskens & G. Rentier (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tilburg, December 1994: 21–30. Tilburg ITK. Google Scholar
Bunt, H.
1989 Information dialogues as communicative action in relation to partner modelling and information processing. In M. Taylor , F. Néel & D. Bouwhuis (eds.) The structure of multimodal dialogue: 47–73. North-Holland. Google Scholar
1993 Formal representations with ambiguity and vagueness. Project DELTA working paper, Institute for Language Technology and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg. Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J
. & M. Stokhof 1984 Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answer. PhD. Diss., University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J.
1988 Context and information in dynamic semantics. In H. Bouma & B. Elsendoorn (eds.) Working models of human perception. Academic Press. Google Scholar
Montague, R.
1968 Pragmatics. In R. Klibansky (ed.) Contemporary philosophy. La Nuova Italia Editrice.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1973 The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary language. In J. Hintikka , J. Moravcsik & P. Puppes (eds.) Approaches to natural language: 221–242. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1974 Formal philosophy. Yale University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Perrault, S.R.
1989 The application of default logic to speech act theory. In M. Taylor , F. Néel & D. Bouwhuis (eds.) The structure of multimodal dialogue. North-Holland. Google Scholar
Pollard, C.H. & I.A. Sag
1987 Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. 1. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford. Google Scholar
1994 Head-driven phrase structure grammar. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Rentier, G.
1993 Underspecified logical forms. Project DELTA working paper, Institute for Language Technology and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg. Google Scholar
Sag, I.
1991 Linguistic theory and natural language processing. In E. Klein & F. Veltman (eds.) Natural language and speech: 69–83. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Der Sandt, R.
1992 Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar