Muskens (1996): Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation #
[Mus96] shows that DRT embeds in classical type theory once states are
atomic and discourse referents are functions from states — the Dynamic Ty2
substrate at DynamicSemantics. This study covers the paper's two
worked developments over that substrate:
- The compositional fragment (§III.4, §IV): lexical translations T₀ for a fragment of English, generalized coordination at every category, and the paper's derivations (cross-sentential anaphora, the donkey sentence, VP coordination with cross-conjunct anaphora).
- The weakest precondition calculus (§III.6): compositional extraction of
first-order truth conditions from
Updatemeanings —wp, its compositional rules, Propositions 2–3, and semantic properness.
Semantic types (Table 2) #
| Muskens type | Lean type | Description |
|---|---|---|
et | E → Prop | static predicate |
s(st) | Update S | dynamic proposition |
[π] | Dref S E → Update S | dynamic predicate (DynPred) |
[[π]] | DynPred S E → Update S | dynamic quantifier (DynQuant) |
Composition rules T₁–T₅ need no special formalization: they are function
application, seq, and λ-abstraction.
Semantic types #
Dynamic one-place predicate: type [π] in [Mus96].
Equations
- Muskens1996.DynPred S E = (DynamicSemantics.Dref S E → DynamicSemantics.Update S)
Instances For
Dynamic generalized quantifier: type [[π]] in [Mus96].
Equations
- Muskens1996.DynQuant S E = (Muskens1996.DynPred S E → DynamicSemantics.Update S)
Instances For
T₀ basic translations #
Common noun: farmer ↝ λv[|farmer v]. Type [π].
Equations
Instances For
Intransitive verb: stink ↝ λv[|stinks v]. Type [π].
Equations
Instances For
Transitive verb: love ↝ λQλv(Q(λv'[|v loves v'])).
Type [[π]] → [π]: takes an NP (object) and produces a VP.
Equations
- Muskens1996.tv R Q u = Q fun (v : DynamicSemantics.Dref S E) => DynamicSemantics.Update.test (DynamicSemantics.atom2 R u v)
Instances For
Indefinite determiner: aⁿ ↝ λP'λP([uₙ]; P'(uₙ); P(uₙ)).
Type [π] → [[π]]; introduces discourse referent u.
Equations
- Muskens1996.detA u noun vp = (DynamicSemantics.RegisterStructure.randomAssign u).seq ((noun (DynamicSemantics.RegisterStructure.val u)).seq (vp (DynamicSemantics.RegisterStructure.val u)))
Instances For
Universal determiner: everyⁿ ↝ λP'λP(([uₙ]; P'(uₙ)) ⇒ P(uₙ)).
Dynamic implication gives universal force.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Negative determiner: noⁿ ↝ λP'λP[|not([uₙ]; P'(uₙ); P(uₙ))].
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Proper name NP: Maryⁿ ↝ λP.P(Mary). Type [[π]].
Equations
- Muskens1996.properNP name P = P name
Instances For
Pronoun NP: heₙ ↝ λP.P(uₙ) — picks up the dref from the antecedent.
Equations
- Muskens1996.pro u P = P u
Instances For
Conditional: if ↝ λpq[|p ⇒ q].
Equations
- Muskens1996.cond p q = DynamicSemantics.Update.test (p.impl q)
Instances For
Auxiliary negation: doesn't ↝ λPλQ[|not Q(P)] — takes VP (P) then
subject NP (Q), matching [Mus96]'s argument order.
Equations
- Muskens1996.auxNeg P Q = DynamicSemantics.Update.test (Q P).neg
Instances For
Generalized coordination (§IV) #
and = sequencing applied pointwise; or = Update disjunction applied
pointwise. The same schema works at every syntactic category.
Sentence-level or: K₁ or K₂ = [K₁ or K₂] (disjunction test).
Equations
- Muskens1996.orS D₁ D₂ = DynamicSemantics.Update.test (D₁.disj D₂)
Instances For
VP-level or: λv[P₁(v) or P₂(v)].
Equations
- Muskens1996.orVP P₁ P₂ u = DynamicSemantics.Update.test ((P₁ u).disj (P₂ u))
Instances For
NP-level or: λP[Q₁(P) or Q₂(P)].
Equations
- Muskens1996.orNP Q₁ Q₂ P = DynamicSemantics.Update.test ((Q₁ P).disj (Q₂ P))
Instances For
The paper's derivations #
"A¹ man adores a² woman. She₂ abhors him₁." — cross-sentential anaphora:
[u₁]; [man u₁]; [u₂]; [woman u₂]; [u₁ adores u₂]; [u₂ abhors u₁]. The
single-sentence tree is the paper's derivation (39); the man/woman/adores/
abhors box is the worked example Muskens runs the wp calculus on (p. 173),
with truth conditions ∃x₁ x₂ (man x₁ ∧ woman x₂ ∧ adores x₁ x₂ ∧ abhors x₂ x₁).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Every¹ farmer who owns a² donkey beats it₂." — universal force from
detEvery, anaphoric it₂ picking up the indefinite's dref:
([u₁]; [farmer u₁]; [u₂]; [donkey u₂]; [u₁ owns u₂]) ⇒ [u₁ beats u₂].
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"A² cat catches a¹ fish and eats it₁." — the paper's (52), decorated as
tree (56): VP coordination with cross-conjunct anaphora. andVP sequences
the conjuncts, so the dref introduced by "a¹ fish" is accessible to "it₁"
(contrast (53) with no¹, where it is not).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Weakest preconditions (§III.6) #
Given an Update D and postcondition χ, wp D χ characterizes the input
states from which D can transition to a state satisfying χ. The rules
WP_{[]}, WP_{;} and the TR extraction rules make truth-condition computation
compositional.
Weakest precondition: wp D χ i iff some output j has D i j ∧ χ j.
Equations
- Muskens1996.wp D χ i = ∃ (j : S), D i j ∧ χ j
Instances For
WP of a test: wp [C] χ = C ∧ χ.
WP of sequencing (WP_{;}): the postcondition threads through.
WP of random assignment (the ∃ clause of WP_{[]}): introducing a dref existentially quantifies over its values.
WP of existential Update: wp (∃u. D) χ = ∃e, wp D χ (extend i u e).
Proposition 2: wp(K, ⊤) is the existential closure ∃j K(i)(j) —
truth is satisfiability. Muskens's statement carries a closedness
antecedent (proper K); in the semantic formulation the identity is
definitional and unconditional.
DRT entailment: all premises true at i force the conclusion true at i.
Equations
- Muskens1996.drtEntails premises conclusion = ∀ (i : S), (∀ D ∈ premises, D.closure i) → conclusion.closure i
Instances For
Proposition 3: DRT entailment reduces to entailment of truth conditions
wp(Kᵢ, ⊤).
DPL-style entailment: every output of D₁ can be extended by D₂.
Equations
- Muskens1996.dplEntails D₁ D₂ = ∀ (i j : S), D₁ i j → ∃ (k : S), D₂ j k
Instances For
Corollary to Proposition 3: DPL entailment = validity of dynamic implication.
Truth-condition extraction rules #
TR of negation: tr(not K) = ¬wp(K, ⊤).
TR of disjunction: tr(K₁ or K₂) = wp(K₁, ⊤) ∨ wp(K₂, ⊤) — the
existential distributes over disjunction.
TR of implication: tr(K₁ ⇒ K₂) = ¬wp(K₁, ¬wp(K₂, ⊤)) — no way to
satisfy the antecedent without satisfying the consequent.
Semantic properness #
Semantic counterpart of [Mus96]'s properness (§III.5: a proper
DRS contains no free referents): satisfiability doesn't depend on the input
state. Proposition 1 connects the two — K is proper iff wp(K, ⊤) is a
closed formula. The syntactic notion is strictly finer: Muskens notes a
proper box and a non-proper box may have the same semantic value (his
(45) vs (47)), which is why this semantic version is only a counterpart,
not a reformulation.
Equations
- Muskens1996.isProper D = ∀ (i₁ i₂ : S), D.closure i₁ ↔ D.closure i₂
Instances For
Proper DRSes have state-independent weakest preconditions.
Cylindric-algebra bridges #
CDRT's dref introduction and dref equality are cylindric-algebra
operations under closure ([HMT71]) — the CDRT face of
the correspondence whose DPL face lives in
Studies/GroenendijkStokhof1991.lean.
Discourse referent introduction under closure = cylindrification.
closure(new n * φ) = cₙ(closure(φ)): introducing dref n
then continuing with φ equals cylindrifying φ at n.
CDRT equality condition on drefs = diagonal element.
fn. 4: the equivalence is a fact about total assignments #
[Mus96]'s fn. 4 scopes the SEM ≡ verification equivalence
(DRS.toRel_iff_realize) to total assignments, contrasting them with
[KR93]'s partial embeddings, where re-declared referents keep
their values. A DRS that re-declares a referent separates the two: on
[ | [x | man x] ⇒ [x | mortal x]] the agree-off-universe semantics may
reassign the re-declared x, so it only demands that some mortal exist,
while the persistence rendering (DRS.toRelAt, DRS/Indexed.lean) forces
every man to be mortal. In a model with a non-mortal man the two truth
values differ (fn4_diverges) — the witness is proper (fn4_isProper), so
what fails is exactly reuse-freeness (fn4_not_reuseFreeAt), the hypothesis
of the reconciliation DRS.trueRel_iff_toRelAt.
The language of the fn. 4 witness (no function symbols).
Equations
- Muskens1996.fn4Lang = { Functions := fun (x : ℕ) => Empty, Relations := Muskens1996.Fn4Rel }
Instances For
A man (0) who is not mortal, and a mortal (1).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
The witness is proper: its referential presuppositions are satisfied.
The witness is not reuse-free: the consequent re-declares 0.
Flat truth: every input verifies the witness — the re-declared referent may be reassigned, so it suffices that some mortal exist.
Indexed falsity: persistence keeps the re-declared referent's man value, so no output verifies the witness in a model with a non-mortal man.
The reconciliation DRS.trueRel_iff_toRelAt fails on the witness:
flat-true, indexed-false.