File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/93/e93-1017_metho.xml
Size: 30,672 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:13:17
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="E93-1017"> <Title>The donkey strikes back Extending the dynamic interpretation &quot;constructively&quot;</Title> <Section position="4" start_page="130" end_page="131" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 2 The idea in brief </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The semantics \[A\] assigned to a first-order formula A is that given to the program A DP\[ -- i.e., a binary relation on states. In dynamic logic, states are vab uations; more precisely, the set of states is defined, relative to a fixed first-order model M and a set X of variables (from which the free variables of formulas A are drawn), as the set \[M\[x of functions f,g,...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> from X to the universe IMI of M. Atomic programs come in two flavors: tests A? where A is a formula in the signature of M with free variables from X, and random assignments x :=? where z E X. These are analyzed semantically by a function p taking a X X program p to a binary relation p(p) C IMI x IMI according to fp(A?)g iff f=gandM~A\[f\] fp(x :=?)g iff f = g except possibly at x .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> The programs are then closed under sequential composition (interpreted as relational composition) fp(p;p')g iff fp(p)h and hp(p')g for some h, non-deterministic choice (interpreted as union)</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> and Kleene star (interpreted as the reflexive transive closure). Rather than extending ~ simultaneously to formulas built from modalites \[p\] and (p) labelled by programs p, it is sufficient to close the programs 1The semantics of dynamic logic is reviewed in the next section, where what exactly is meant, for example, by %tactic&quot; is explained.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> under a negation operation interpreted semantically as follows fP('~P)g iff f = g and fp(p)h for no h.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> As previously noted, -~p is equivalent to (\[p\]_l.)?. Returning to DP1, an implication A D B between formulas is interpreted in DP1 by equating it with</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> Now, given that a state is a single function from X to JMJ, it is hardly odd that implication is static (in the sense that the input and output states s and t must be the same), as any number of instantiations of s t (and t e) may be relevant to the right hand side of (3). That is, in terms of (1), the difficulty is that there may be several farmer/donkey couples, whereas a state can accomodate only one such pair, rendering an interpretation of (2) problematic. To overcome this predicament, the collection of states can be extended in at least two ways.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> (P1) Borrowing and modifying an idea from Kleene \[14\] (and Brouwer, Kolmogorov,...), incorporate into the final state t a functional witness f to the V3-clause in the right hand side of (3) to obtain s\[Azc, B\]t iff t=(s,f) and f is a function with</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> Or, to simplify the state t slightly, break the condition (in the righthand side) up into two mutually exclusive clauses depending on whether or not the domain of f is empty s\[A=~ Bit iff (t is a function with non-empty domain {s' J s\[A\]s'} and</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> so that closing the notion of a state under a partial function space construct becomes sufficient.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> that the new (expanded) set of states consists simply of the old states (i.e, valuations) together with sets of valuations. More precisely, define sEA~ Bit iff (3 a function f with non-empty domain {s' l s\[A\]s' } where t is the collapsed image of jr and</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> is simply the image of jr except that the sets of valuations in the image are &quot;collapsed&quot;, so that the resulting set has only valuations as elements.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> (The collapsing is &quot;justified&quot; by the associativity of conjunction.) Observe that, in either case, DPL's negation can be</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> (whence D is also definable from => and &). The first proposal, (P1), yields a dizzying tower of higher-order functions, in comparison to which, the second proposal is considerably simpler. Behind the step from (3) to either proposal is the idea that implication can spawn processes running in parallel. (Buried in (3) is the possibility of the input state s branching off to a multiplicity of states t'.) The parallelism here is &quot;conjunctive&quot; in that a family of parallel processes proceeds along happily so long as every member of the family is well; all is lost as soon as one fails. 2 More precisely, observe that, under (P2), a natural clause for s\[A\]t, where s is a set of valuations and A is an atomic formula, is 3 s\[A\]t iff B a function jr : s -*onto t such that (Vs' e s) s'\[Alf(s') .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="21"> 2The notion of parallelism is thus not unlike that of concurrent dynamic logic (Peleg \[19\]). By contrast, the non-empty) sets of valuations used (e.g., in Fernando \]) to bring out the eliminative character of information growth induced by tests A? live disjunctively (and die conjunctively).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="23"> s\[Alt iff (Vs' e s) (3t' e t) s'IAlt' and (Vt' e t) (3s' e s) s'\[AIt', yielding a more promiscuous ontology. This is studied in Fernando \[5\], concerning which, the reader is referred to the next footnote.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="24"> (That is, in the case of (2), every donkey that a farmer beats according to (1) must kick back.) A similar clause must be added to (P1), although to make the details for (P1) obvious, it should be sufficient to focus (as we will) on the case of (P2), where the states are structurally simpler. But then, a few words justifying the structural simplification in (P2) relative to (P1) might be in order. 4</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="131" end_page="133" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 A digression: forgetfulness and </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> information growth If semantic analysis amounts abstractly to a mapping from syntactic objects (or formulas) to other mathematical objects (that we choose to call meanings), then what (speaking in the same abstract terms) is gained by the translation? Beyond some vague hope that the meanings have more illuminating structure than have the formulas, a reason for carrying out the semantic analysis is to abstract away inessentim syntactic detail (with a view towards isolating the essential &quot;core&quot;). Thus, one might expect the semantic function not to be 1-1. The more general point is that an essential feature of semantic analysis is the process of forgetting what can be forgotten.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> More concretely, turning to dynamic logic and its semantic function p, observe that after executing a random assignment x :=?, the previous (-input state) value of x is overwritten (i.e., forgotten) in the output state, s Perhaps an even more helpful example is the semantic definition of a sequential composition p; p'. The intermediate state arising after p but before p' is forgotten by p(p;p') (tracking, as it does, only input/output states). Should such information be stored? No doubt, recording state histories would not decrease the scope of the account that can then be developed. It would almost surely increase it, but at what cost? The simpler the semantic framework, the better -- all other things being equal, that is (chief among which is explanatory power). Otherwise, a delicate balance must be struck between the complexity of the framework and its scope. Now, part of the computational intuition underlying dynamic logic is that at any point in time, a state (i.e., valuation) embodies all that is relevant about the past to what can happen in the future. (In other words, the meaning of a program is specified simply by pairs of input/output states.) This same intuition underlies (P2), discarding (as it does) the wit- null intuitive and informal level. A somewhat more technical mathematical account is developed at length in Fernando \[5\], where (P2) is presented as a reduction of (P1) to a disjunctive normal form (in the sense of the &quot;conjunctive&quot; and &quot;disjunctive&quot; notions of parallelism already mentioned).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> ness function tracing processes back to their &quot;roots.&quot; (Forgetting that spawning record would seem to be akin to forgetting the intermediate state in a sequential composition p; p~.) Furthermore, for applications to natural language discourse, forgetfulness would appear quite innocuous if the information content of a state increases in the course of interpreting discourse (so that all past states have no more information content than has the current state). And it is quite natural in discourse analysis to assume that information does grow.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Consider the following claim in an early paper (Karttunen \[13\]) pre-occupied with a problem (viz., that of presuppositions) that may appear peripheral to (1) or (2), but is nonetheless fundamental to the &quot;constructive&quot; outlook on which =C/, is based There are definitions of pragmatic presupposition ... which suggest that there is something amiss in a discourse that does not proceed in \[an\] ideal orderly fashion ....</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> All things considered, this is an unreasonable view .... People do make leaps and shortcuts by using sentences whose presuppositions are not satisfied in the conversational context. This is the rule rather than the exception, and we should not base our notion of presupposition on the false premiss that it does not or should not happen.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> But granting that ordinary discourse is not always fully explicit in the above sense, I think we can maintain that a sentence is always taken to be an increment to a conte~:t that satisfies its presuppositions. \[p.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> 191, italics added\] To bring out an important dimension of &quot;increment to a context&quot;, and at the same time get around the destruction of information in DPL by a random assignment, we will modify the translation .DPI. (mapping first-order formulas into programs) slightly into a translation .~, over which (P2) will be worked out (though the reader should afterwards have no difficulty carrying out the similar extension to DPI.). The modification is based (following Fernando \[4\], and, further back, Barwise \[1\]) on (i) a switch from valuations defined on all variables to valuations defined on only finitely many variables, and on (ii) the use of guarded assignments x := * (in place of random assignments), given by =z? + -~(z=z?); ~:=?, which has the effect of assigning a value to x precisely when initially z is unbound (in which ease the test z = z? fails). Note that (i) spoils bivalence, which is to say that certain presuppositions may fail. 6 Accordingly, our translation R(~) ~ of an STo what extent an account of presuppositions can be based on the break down in bivalence resulting from atomic formula R(~) to a program must first attend to presuppositions by plugging truth gaps through guarded assignments, before testing R(~)</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> = zl,...,xk). To avoid clashes with variables bound by quantifiers, the latter variables might be</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> the idea being to sharpen (5) by translating atomic formulas R(~, y, ~) with unmarked variables 3, and marked variables y, ~ (for 3 and V respectively) as follows</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> Note that to assert a formula A is not simply to test A, but also to establish A (if this is at all possible).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> Establishing not A is (intuitively) different from testing (as in DPL) that A cannot be established. 7 A negation ,-, reflecting the former is described next, avoiding an appeal to a modal notion (hidden in -~ by writing --,p instead of (\[p\]_l_)?).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> 4 Working out the idea formally Starting over and proceeding a bit more rigorously now, given a first-order signature L, throw in, for every n-ary predicate symbol R E L, a fresh n-ary predicate symbol/~ and extend the map : to these symbols by setting R = R. Then, interpret/~ in an L-structure M as the complement of R</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> So, without loss of generality, assume that we are working with a signature L equipped with such a map :, and let M be an L-model obeying the complementarity condition above (readily expressible in the first-order language). Fix a countable set X0 of variables, and define two fresh (disjoint) sets Y and Z of &quot;marked&quot; variables inductively simultaneously with a set ~ of L-formulas (built from &, V, V, 3 and =~) as follows (i) T, _1_ and every atomic L-formula with free variables from Xo U Y U Z is in (ii) if A and B are in ~, then so are A&B, A V B and A ~ B (iii) for every (&quot;unmarked&quot;) z E X0, if A E C/, then Vz A and 3z A belong to uninitialized variables will not be taken up here. The interested reader is referred to Fernando \[4\] for an internal notion of proposition as an initial step towards this end. be exploited to provide an account of Veltman \[21\]'s might operator as -1--. relative to an internal notion of proposition.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> (iv) for every x E X0, if A E 4, then the fresh (&quot;marked&quot;) variables YA,, and za,, belong to Y and Z respectively.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> Next, define a &quot;negation&quot; map ,-~ * on ~ by</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> This approach, going back at least to Nelson \[17\] (a particularly appropriate reference, given its connection with Kleene \[14\]), treats positive and negative information in a nearly symmetric fashion; on formulas in ~ without an occurrence of ::~, the function ,~N. is the identity. Furthermore, were it not for :V, our translation -~ would map formulas in (~ to programs interpreted as binary relations on So = {s \[ s is a function from a finite subset of X to IMI} , where X is the full set of marked an unmarked vari-</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="22"> All the same, the clauses for s\[A\]t can be formulated uniformly whether or not s E So, so long as it is understood that for a set s of valuations, u E X, and atomic A, sp(u := ,)t iff 3 a function f : s --*~,o t such that (Vs' e s) s' p(u := *)f(s') sp(A?)t iff ~ = s and (Ys' 6. s) s'p(A?)s' . (These clauses are consistent with the intuition described in section 2 of a &quot;conjunctive&quot; family of processes running in parallel.) The translation .e is then given by (7), (A&B) e = A';B e (AVB) e = Ae+B e, (6) and (4), with IMI x replaced by So. All that is missing is the clause for universal quantification Vx A, which (following Kleene \[14\]) can be interpreted essentially as zA,~ = ZA,~: ~ A\[ZA,x/X\], except that in the antecedent, ZA,,: is treated as unmarked null s~/x Air iff t is the collapsed image of a function f with domain {s' I sp( A, := ,)s'} such that (Vs' e dom(f)) s'\[A\[zA,x/z\]\]f(s') .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="23"> The reader seeking the definition of \[A\] spelled out in full is referred to the appendix.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="24"> Observe that non-deterministic choice + (for which DPL has no use) is essential for defining N. Strong negation ,,, is different from -% and lacks the universal force necessary to interpret implication (either as ,,~ (.& ~ .)) or as -V ,~ .). On the other hand, --A can be recovered as A =~ .L, whence static implication D is also derivable. Note also that an element s of So can be identified with {s}, yielding states of a homogeneous form.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="133" end_page="134" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 5 A few examples </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The present work does not rest on the claim that the disorderly character of discourse mentioned above by Karttunen \[13\] admits a compositional translation to a first-order formula. The problem of translating a natural language utterance to a first-order formula (e.g., assigning a variable to a discourse marker) is essentially taken for granted, falling (as it does) outside the scope of formal semantics (conceived as a function from formulas to meanings). This affords us considerable freedom to accomodate various interpretations. The donkey sentence (1) can be formulated as</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> so that not every donkey owned by a farmer need be beaten (Chierchia \[2\]). In either case, the pay back (2) can be formulated as kicks-back(y, x) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> A further alternative that avoids presupposing the existence of a donkey is to formulate (1) and (2) as</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> If a client turns up, you treat him politely.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> You offer him a cup of coffee and ask him to wait.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> Every player chooses a pawn. He puts it we consider a few examples from Groe-</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> on square one.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> It is not true that John doesn't own a car. It is red, and it is parked in front of his house.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> Either there is no bathroom here, or it is a funny place. In any case, it is not on the first floor.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> Example (8) can be formulated as</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> The double negation in (10) can be analyzed dynamically using -,~., and (11) can be treated as</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> where, in this case, the difference between -,, and -~ is immaterial.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> Groenendijk and Stokhof \[7\] suggest equating (not A) implies B, in its dynamic form, with A V B. To allow not A to be dynamic, not should not be interpreted as ~. But even (-~ A) =:~ B is different from A V B, as the non-determinism in A V B is lost in (,,~ A) :C/. B, and :=~ may lead to structurally more complex states (C/ So). What is true is that</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="19"> which reduces to A V B if ~ occurs neither in A nor B. Whereas the translation -~-~. yields a static approximation, the translation ~,-,-, applied recursively, projects to an approximation that is a binary relation on So.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> Notice that quantifers do not appear in the translations above of natural language utterances into first-order formulas. The necessary quantification is built into the semantic analysis of quantifier-free formulas, following the spirit (if not the letter) of Pagin and WesterstPShl \[18\]. (A crucial difference, of course, is that the universal quantification above arises from a dynamic =~.) The reader interested in compositionality should be pleased by this feature, insofar as quantifer-free formulas avoid the non-compositional relabelling of variables bound by quantifiers (in the semantic analysis above of quantified formulas).</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="134" end_page="136" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 6 Concerning certain points </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The present paper is admittedly short on linguistic examples -- a defect that the author hopes some sympathetic reader (better qualified than he) will correct. Towards this end, it may be helpful to take up specific points (beyond the need for linguistic examples) raised in the review of the work (in the form it was originally submitted to EACL).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Referee 1. What are the advantages over explanations of the anaphoric phenomenon in question in terms of discourse structure which do not require a change of the formal semantics apparatus? The &quot;anaphoric phenomenon in question&quot; amounts, under the analysis of first-order formulas as programs, to the treatment of variables across sentential boundaries. A variable can have existential force, as does the farmer in A farmer owns a donkey, or universal force, as does the farmer in Every farmer owns a donkey.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Taking the &quot;the formal semantics apparatus&quot; to be dynamic logic, DPL treats existential variables through random assignments. The advantage of the proposal(s) above is the treatment of universal variables across sentential variables, based on an extension of dynamic logic with an implication connective (defined by (4), if A and B are understood as programs). (Note that negation and disjunction can be analyzed dynamically already within dynamic logic.) Referee 2. Suggestions for choosing between the static/dynamic versions would enhance the usefulness of the framework.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Choose the dynamic version. Matching discourse items with variables is, afterall, done by magic, falling (as it does) outside the scope of DPL or Discourse Representation Theory (DRT, Kamp \[12\]).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> But the reader may have good reason to object.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> Programme Committee. A comparison to a DRT-style semantics should be added.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Yes, the author would like to describe the discourse representation structures (DRS's) for the extension to higher-order states above. Unfortunately, he does not (at present) know how to. s Short of that, it may be helpful to present the passage to states that are conjunctive sets of valuations in a different light. Given a state that is a set s of valuations sl, s~,..., let X, be the set of variables in the domain of some si Gs X, = U dom(si).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> siEs SSome steps (related to footnote 4) towards that direction are taken in Fernando \[5\]. Another approacb, somewhat more syntactic in spirit, would be to build on K. Fine's arbitrary objects (Meyer Viol \[15\]).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> Now, s can be viewed as a set F, of functions f~ labelled by variables z E X, as follows. Let f~ be the map with domain {si e s \[ z e dom(si)} that sends such an si to si(z). In pictures, we pass from to</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> F, -- f~2 : {si E s I z2 E di} -.-* c2 , so that the step from states sl,s2,.., in So to the more complicated states s in Power(S0) amounts to a semantic analysis of variables as functions, rather than as fixed values from the underlying first-order model. (But now what is the domain of such a function?) The shift in point of view here is essentially the &quot;ingenious little trick&quot; that Muskens \[16\] (p. 418) traces back to Janssen \[11\] of swapping rows with columns. We should be careful to note, however, that the preceding analysis of variables was carried out relative to a fixed state s -- a state s that is to be supplied as an argument to the partial binary functions globally representing the variables.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> Finally, A. Visser and J. van Eijck have suggested that a comparison with type-theoretic and gametheoretical semantics (e.g., Ranta \[20\] and Hintikka and Kulas \[10\]) is in order.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> This again is no simple matter to discuss, and (alas) fails somewhat beyond the scope of the present paper. For now, suffice it to say that (i) the translation * e above starts from first-order formulas, on which (according to Ranta \[20\], p. 378) the game-theoretic &quot;truth definition is equivalent to the traditional Tarskian one&quot;, and that (ii) the use of constructive logic in Ranta \[20\] renders the reduction from the proposal (P1) to (P2) (described in section 2) implausible inasmuch as that represents a (constructively unsound) transformation to a disjunctive normal form (referred to in footnote 4). But what about constructiveness? 7 Between construction and truth Having passed somewhat hastily from (P1) to (P2), the reader is entitled to ask why the present author has bothered mentioning realizability (alluding somewhat fashionably or unfashionably to &quot;constructiveness&quot;) and has said nothing about (classical) modal logic-style formalizations (e.g., Van Eijck and De Vries \[3\]), building say on concurrent dynamic logic (Peleg \[19\]). A short answer is that the connection with so-called and/or computations came to the author only after trying to understand the interpretation of implication in Kleene \[14\] (interpreting implication as a program construct being nowhere suggested in Peleg \[19\], which instead introduces a &quot;conjunction&quot; fl on programs). A more serious answer would bring up his attitude towards the more interesting question does all talk about so-called dynamic semantics come to modal logic? The crazy appeal dynamic semantics exerts on the author is the claim that a formula (normally conceived statically) is a program (i.e., something dynamic); showing how a program can be understood statically is less exciting. Some may, of course, find the possibility of &quot;going static&quot; as well as &quot;going dynamic&quot; comforting (if not pleasing). But if reducing dynamic semantics to static truth conditions is to complete that circle, then formulas must first be translated to programs. And that step ought not to be taken completely for granted (or else why bother talking about &quot;dynamic semantics&quot;). Understanding a computer program in a precise (say &quot;mathematical&quot;) sense is, in principle, to be expected insofar as the states through which the computer program evolves can be examined. If a program can be implemented in a machine, then it has a well-defined operational semantics that, moreover, is subject (in some sense or another) to Church's thesis. In that sense, understanding a computer program relative to a mathematical world of eternal truths and static formulas is not too problematic. Not too problematic, that is, when compared to natural language, for which nothing like Church's thesis has gained acceptance. To say that natural language is a programming language is outrageous (-- perhaps deliberately so --), and those of us laboring under this slogan must admit that we do not know how to translate an English sentence into a FORTRAN program (whatever that may mean). Nor, allowing for certain abstractions, formulas into programs. Furthermore, a favorite toy translation, DPL, goes beyond ordinary computability (and FORTRAN) when interpreted over the natural numbers. (The culprit is --.) Not that the idea of a program must necessarily be understood in the strict sense of ordinary recursion theory. But some sensitivity to matters relating to computation (&quot;broadly construed&quot;) is surely in order when speaking of programs.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> It was the uncomputable character of DPL's negation and implication that, in fact, drove the present work. Strong negation ,~ is, from this standpoint, a mild improvement, but it would appear that the situation for implication has only been made more complicated. This complication can be seen, however, as only a first step towards getting a handle on the computational character of the programs used in interpreting formulas dynamically. Whether more effective forms of realizability (incorporating, as was originally conceived, some notion of construction or proof into the witnessing by functions) can shed any helpful light on the idea of dynamic semantics is an open question. That realizability should, crazily enough, have anything to say whatsoever about a linguistic problem might hearten those of us inclined to investigate the matter. (Of course, one might take the easy way out, and simply restrict =~ to finite models.) Making certain features explicit that are typically buried in classical logic (such as the witness to the V3-clause in ::~) is a characteristic practice of constructive mathematics that just might prove fruitful in natural language semantics. A feature that would seem particularly relevant to the intuition that discourse interpretation amounts to the construction of a context is information growth. 9 The extension of the domain of a finite valuation is an important aspect of that growth (as shown in Fernando \[4\], appealing to Henkin witnesses, back-and-forth constructions, ...). The custom in dynamic logic of reducing a finite valuation to the set of its total extensions (relative to which a static notion of truth is then defined) would appear to run roughshod over this feature -- a feature carefully employed above to draw a distinction between establishing and testing a formula (mentioned back at the end of section 3).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> But returning to the dynamic implication ::~ introduced above, observe that beyond the loss of structure (and information) in the step from (P1) to (P2), it is possible within (P2) (or, for that matter, within (P1)) to approximate =~ by more modest extensions.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> There is, for instance, the translation -,~,,~ * (not to be confused with -----) which (in general) abstracts away structure with each application. The interpretation of implication can be simplified further by noting that --Tr can be recovered as ~r =V .1_, and thus the static implication D of DPI. can be derived from ::~.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> Reflecting on these simplifications, it is natural to ask what structure can dynamic semantics afford to forget? Is there more structure lurking behind construction than concerns truth? With the benefit of the discussion above about the dual (establishing/testing) nature of asserting a proposition -- or perhaps even without being subjected to all that babble --, surely we can agree that Story-telling requires more imagination than verifying facts.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> 9The idea that information grows during the run of a typical computer program is, by comparison, not so clear. One difference is that whereas guarded assignments would seem sufficient for natural language applications, a typical computer program will repeatedly assign different values to the same variable. To pursue the matter further, the reader may wish to (again) consult Vermeulen \[22\].</Paragraph> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>