Logic and Conversation: Fall 2018
• Amsterdam • Master of Logic, University of Amsterdam
Traditionally, logic is concerned with the characterization of valid reasoning and argumentation, and therefore identifies the meaning of a sentence with its truth conditions. When analyzing the meaning of sentences in conversation, however, other notions become of interest as well. The focus of the course will be on inquisitive semantics, which enriches the traditional truth-conditional picture in ways that allow for a more comprehensive logical analysis of the meaning of sentences in linguistic interaction. We will not only present the basic inquisitive semantics framework, but also some current research in this area.
Good working knowledge of first-order logic is required, and some background in formal semantics is convenient, though not really necessary. For students of the Master of Logic, it is usually best to take this course in your second year (although there may be exceptions of course, depending on your specific background).
There are lecture notes for the first part of the course. The current version of the lecture notes can be downloaded here.
The grade will be based on two homework assignments (each counting for 20%) and a final paper (60%).
- A latex template for drawing inquisitive semantics diagrams can be downloaded here.
- Assignment 1 can be downloaded here. It’s due on Monday 17/9 (midnight).
- Assignment 2 can be downloaded here. It’s due on
Monday 1/10Thursday 4/10 (midnight).
Instructions for final paper
The final paper can be written either in groups of 2-3 students or individually. We encourage working in groups, but if someone already has a particular topic that they want to work on and cannot find others interested in this topic, then working individually is fine of course. Students are encouraged to discuss possible topics with us early on in the course. Topics and groups should be determined by October 9 at the very latest and should be communicated to us by that date. A preliminary version of the paper is to be presented during the last lecture, October 18, and the final version is due after the exam week, on October 28 (midnight). See Appendix B of the lecture notes for pointers to some relevant literature, which may help in finding an interesting topic.
Grading criteria for final paper
The criteria are the same as for a master thesis, though of course here we do not expect as much as in the case of a thesis.
- Correctness All claims should be correct, precisely formulated and carefully argued for.
- Writing The paper should be well-structured; the writing should be clear and concise. Typically, papers are around 10 pages. There is no official upper or lower bound, but quality is preferred over quantity: a single idea or result that is clearly explained in 7 pages is better than a collection of multiple half-baked ideas discussed in 15 pages.
- Difficulty Both conceptual and technical difficulty are taken into account.
- Originality The paper should contain some new results. This can take many forms: establishing previously unknown properties of one of the logics discussed in class, or closely related ones; further enriching the theories discussed; developing new applications; developing a theory of your own that solves some of the remaining challenges for the theories discussed.
The deadline is intended to be strict. Late submissions will be accepted until three days after the deadline, but 0.5 points will be substracted from the grade per day.
Tuesdays 9.00-11.00 (Startup Village learning space), Thursday 11.00-13.00 (ILLC room F2.19)
|1||4/9||LN chapter 1||Motivation||Floris|
|2||LN chapter 2||Basic notions||Thom|
|3||LN chapter 3||Operations on propositions||Floris|
|4||LN chapter 4||First-order inquisitive semantics||Floris|
|5||LN chapter 5-6||Question semantics||Floris|
|6||LN chapter 8||Propositional attitudes: inquisitive epistemic logic||Floris|
|7||LN chapter 9||Comparison with other frameworks||Floris|
|Some current research directions|
|8||27/9|| Barwise & Cooper (1981)
Sec. 1.5-1.7, Sec. 4.6
von Fintel (1993)
|Ungrammaticality and triviality (slides)||Nadine|
|9||2/10|| Theiler, Roelofsen & Aloni (2017)
Uegaki & Sudo (2017)
| Selectional restrictions of clause-embedding predicates
|10||4/10|| Chierchia (2013)
Pages 1-2, 20-22, and 26-40
Guerzoni & Sharvit (2014)
|Negative polarity items, part 1 (handout)||Floris|
|11||9/10||Crnic (2014)||Negative polarity items, part 2 (handout)||Floris|
|12||11/10|| Rojas-Esponda (2014)
Sec. 1, 2, 4
Iatridou & Tatevosov (2016)
|Discourse particles in questions||Nadine|
|13||16/10|| Beaver & Clark (2008)
|Additive particles in questions||Nadine|