Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Muskens1996

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:

Semantic types (Table 2) #

Muskens typeLean typeDescription
etE → Propstatic predicate
s(st)Update Sdynamic proposition
[π]Dref S E → Update Sdynamic predicate (DynPred)
[[π]]DynPred S E → Update Sdynamic quantifier (DynQuant)

Composition rules T₁–T₅ need no special formalization: they are function application, seq, and λ-abstraction.

Semantic types #

@[reducible, inline]
abbrev Muskens1996.DynPred (S : Type u_4) (E : Type u_5) :
Type (max u_5 u_4)

Dynamic one-place predicate: type [π] in [Mus96].

Equations
Instances For
    @[reducible, inline]
    abbrev Muskens1996.DynQuant (S : Type u_4) (E : Type u_5) :
    Type (max u_5 u_4)

    Dynamic generalized quantifier: type [[π]] in [Mus96].

    Equations
    Instances For

      T₀ basic translations #

      def Muskens1996.cn {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} (P : EProp) :

      Common noun: farmer ↝ λv[|farmer v]. Type [π].

      Equations
      Instances For
        def Muskens1996.iv {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} (P : EProp) :

        Intransitive verb: stink ↝ λv[|stinks v]. Type [π].

        Equations
        Instances For
          def Muskens1996.tv {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} (R : EEProp) :
          DynQuant S EDynPred S E

          Transitive verb: love ↝ λQλv(Q(λv'[|v loves v'])). Type [[π]] → [π]: takes an NP (object) and produces a VP.

          Equations
          Instances For
            def Muskens1996.detA {R : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} [DynamicSemantics.RegisterStructure R S E] (u : R) :
            DynPred S EDynQuant S E

            Indefinite determiner: aⁿ ↝ λP'λP([uₙ]; P'(uₙ); P(uₙ)). Type [π] → [[π]]; introduces discourse referent u.

            Equations
            Instances For
              def Muskens1996.detEvery {R : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} [DynamicSemantics.RegisterStructure R S E] (u : R) :
              DynPred S EDynQuant S E

              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
                def Muskens1996.detNo {R : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} [DynamicSemantics.RegisterStructure R S E] (u : R) :
                DynPred S EDynQuant S E

                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
                  def Muskens1996.properNP {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} (name : DynamicSemantics.Dref S E) :

                  Proper name NP: Maryⁿ ↝ λP.P(Mary). Type [[π]].

                  Equations
                  Instances For
                    def Muskens1996.pro {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} (u : DynamicSemantics.Dref S E) :

                    Pronoun NP: heₙ ↝ λP.P(uₙ) — picks up the dref from the antecedent.

                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      Conditional: if ↝ λpq[|p ⇒ q].

                      Equations
                      Instances For
                        def Muskens1996.auxNeg {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} :

                        Auxiliary negation: doesn't ↝ λPλQ[|not Q(P)] — takes VP (P) then subject NP (Q), matching [Mus96]'s argument order.

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          Generalized coordination (§IV) #

                          and = sequencing applied pointwise; or = Update disjunction applied pointwise. The same schema works at every syntactic category.

                          Sentence-level and: K₁ and K₂ = K₁; K₂.

                          Equations
                          Instances For

                            Sentence-level or: K₁ or K₂ = [K₁ or K₂] (disjunction test).

                            Equations
                            Instances For
                              def Muskens1996.andVP {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} :
                              DynPred S EDynPred S EDynPred S E

                              VP-level and: λv(P₁(v); P₂(v)).

                              Equations
                              Instances For
                                def Muskens1996.orVP {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} :
                                DynPred S EDynPred S EDynPred S E

                                VP-level or: λv[P₁(v) or P₂(v)].

                                Equations
                                Instances For
                                  def Muskens1996.andNP {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} :
                                  DynQuant S EDynQuant S EDynQuant S E

                                  NP-level and: λP(Q₁(P); Q₂(P)).

                                  Equations
                                  Instances For
                                    def Muskens1996.orNP {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} :
                                    DynQuant S EDynQuant S EDynQuant S E

                                    NP-level or: λP[Q₁(P) or Q₂(P)].

                                    Equations
                                    Instances For

                                      The paper's derivations #

                                      def Muskens1996.exampleText {R : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} [DynamicSemantics.RegisterStructure R S E] (u₁ u₂ : R) (man woman : EProp) (adores abhors : EEProp) :

                                      "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
                                        def Muskens1996.donkeySentence {R : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} [DynamicSemantics.RegisterStructure R S E] (u₁ u₂ : R) (farmer donkey_ : EProp) (owns beats : EEProp) :

                                        "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
                                          def Muskens1996.vpCoordExample {R : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} {E : Type u_3} [DynamicSemantics.RegisterStructure R S E] (u₁ u₂ : R) (cat fish : EProp) (catches eats : EEProp) :

                                          "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
                                            Instances For
                                              theorem Muskens1996.wp_test {S : Type u_2} (C χ : DynamicSemantics.Condition S) :
                                              wp (DynamicSemantics.Update.test C) χ = fun (i : S) => C i χ i

                                              WP of a test: wp [C] χ = C ∧ χ.

                                              theorem Muskens1996.wp_seq {S : Type u_2} (D₁ D₂ : DynamicSemantics.Update S) (χ : DynamicSemantics.Condition S) :
                                              wp (D₁.seq D₂) χ = wp D₁ (wp D₂ 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).

                                              theorem Muskens1996.wp_true_eq_closure {S : Type u_2} (D : DynamicSemantics.Update S) :
                                              (wp D fun (x : S) => True) = D.closure

                                              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.

                                              def Muskens1996.drtEntails {S : Type u_2} (premises : List (DynamicSemantics.Update S)) (conclusion : DynamicSemantics.Update S) :

                                              DRT entailment: all premises true at i force the conclusion true at i.

                                              Equations
                                              Instances For
                                                theorem Muskens1996.proposition_3 {S : Type u_2} (premises : List (DynamicSemantics.Update S)) (conclusion : DynamicSemantics.Update S) :
                                                drtEntails premises conclusion ∀ (i : S), (∀ Dpremises, wp D (fun (x : S) => True) i)wp conclusion (fun (x : S) => True) i

                                                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
                                                Instances For
                                                  theorem Muskens1996.dpl_entailment_eq_dimpl_valid {S : Type u_2} (D₁ D₂ : DynamicSemantics.Update S) :
                                                  dplEntails D₁ D₂ ∀ (i : S), D₁.impl D₂ i

                                                  Corollary to Proposition 3: DPL entailment = validity of dynamic implication.

                                                  Truth-condition extraction rules #

                                                  theorem Muskens1996.tr_neg_eq {S : Type u_2} (D : DynamicSemantics.Update S) :
                                                  D.neg = fun (i : S) => ¬wp D (fun (x : S) => True) i

                                                  TR of negation: tr(not K) = ¬wp(K, ⊤).

                                                  theorem Muskens1996.tr_disj_eq {S : Type u_2} (D₁ D₂ : DynamicSemantics.Update S) :
                                                  D₁.disj D₂ = fun (i : S) => wp D₁ (fun (x : S) => True) i wp D₂ (fun (x : S) => True) i

                                                  TR of disjunction: tr(K₁ or K₂) = wp(K₁, ⊤) ∨ wp(K₂, ⊤) — the existential distributes over disjunction.

                                                  theorem Muskens1996.tr_impl_eq {S : Type u_2} (D₁ D₂ : DynamicSemantics.Update S) :
                                                  D₁.impl D₂ = fun (i : S) => ¬wp D₁ (fun (j : S) => ¬wp D₂ (fun (x : S) => True) j) i

                                                  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
                                                  Instances For
                                                    theorem Muskens1996.proper_wp_uniform {S : Type u_2} (D : DynamicSemantics.Update S) (h : isProper D) (i₁ i₂ : S) :
                                                    wp D (fun (x : S) => True) i₁ wp D (fun (x : S) => True) i₂

                                                    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.

                                                    inductive Muskens1996.Fn4Rel :
                                                    Type

                                                    Relation symbols of the fn. 4 witness: man and mortal.

                                                    Instances For
                                                      def Muskens1996.fn4Lang :
                                                      FirstOrder.Language

                                                      The language of the fn. 4 witness (no function symbols).

                                                      Equations
                                                      Instances For

                                                        The consequent [x | mortal x] — re-declaring x.

                                                        Equations
                                                        Instances For

                                                          [ | [x | man x] ⇒ [x | mortal x]] with the referent 0 re-declared in the consequent.

                                                          Equations
                                                          Instances For
                                                            @[implicit_reducible]

                                                            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.

                                                            theorem Muskens1996.fn4_trueRel (g : Fin 2) :

                                                            Flat truth: every input verifies the witness — the re-declared referent may be reassigned, so it suffices that some mortal exist.

                                                            theorem Muskens1996.fn4_not_toRelAt (g : Fin 2) :
                                                            ¬∃ (g' : Fin 2), DRT.DRS.toRelAt fn4 g g'

                                                            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.

                                                            theorem Muskens1996.fn4_diverges (g : Fin 2) :
                                                            ¬(fn4.trueRel g ∃ (g' : Fin 2), DRT.DRS.toRelAt fn4 g g')

                                                            The reconciliation DRS.trueRel_iff_toRelAt fails on the witness: flat-true, indexed-false.