Logic and Conversation: Fall 2023

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 approach in ways that allow for a more comprehensive formal analysis of the meaning of sentences in linguistic interaction. The course introduces the basic inquisitive semantics framework, and discusses some current research in this area. This year, we will focus in particular on the semantics of attitude verbs like know, believe, and wonder. Why, for instance, is believe typically incompatible with interrogative complements (Sue believes who arrived is not a good sentence) and wonder typically incompatible with declarative complements (Sue wonders that Mary arrived is not good either) while know can take either type of complement (Sue knows who arrived / Sue knows that Mary arrived). Is this an artifact of English grammar, or do we see the same pattern in other languages? Can such distributive constraints be explained based on the semantic properties of these verbs? Recent work has argued that we can indeed provide such explanations, and obtain a deeper understanding of attitude verbs more generally, if we adopt a formal semantic framework in which semantic content is not identified with truth-conditional content but also comprises inquisitive content.

Jump to schedule

Prerequisites

Good working knowledge of first-order logic is required (see for instance the first three chapters of this book). It is also convenient to have some background in formal semantics (see for instance this book), though this is not strictly required. For students of the Master of Logic, it is typically best to take this course in the second year of the programme, after having taken Meaning, Reference and Modality and Structures for Semantics during the first year. There may be exceptions, depending on your specific background.

Textbook

The first part of the course uses a textbook. The book is open access, so everyone can download a pdf for free. If you prefer a hardcopy, you can order one at amazon or other online bookstores.

Grading

The grade will be based on one data collection exercise (pass/fail), two homework assignments (each counting for 20%), and a final paper (60%).

Assignments

  • A latex template for drawing inquisitive semantics diagrams can be downloaded here.
  • The data collection exercise was posted on Monday 30/10 and is due on Monday 13/11 before class.
  • Assignment 1 has been posted on Thursday 2/11 and is due on Monday 20/11 before class.
  • Assignment 2 was posted on Monday 13/11 and is due on Monday 4/12 before class.

Instructions for final paper

The final paper must written individually. Please discuss possible topics with us early on in the course. Topics should be determined by November 30 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 on December 14, and the final version is due on December 22, 6pm. See Appendix B of the textbook and the inquisitive semantics website for pointers to some relevant literature, which may help in finding an interesting topic. We strongly encourage students to discuss their projects with each other and give each other feedback.

Grading criteria for final paper

The grading criteria for the final paper 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.

  1. Correctness All claims should be correct, precisely formulated and carefully argued for.
  2. 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.
  3. Difficulty Both conceptual and technical difficulty are taken into account.
  4. Originality The paper should contain some new results. This can take many forms: establishing previously unknown properties of one of the logical systems discussed in class, or closely related ones; further enriching the theories discussed; testing the predictions of the theories; developing new applications; developing a theory of your own that solves some of the remaining challenges for the theories discussed.

Late policy

Deadlines are strict. Late submissions will be accepted until three days after the deadline, but 0.5 points will be subtracted from the grade per day.

Schedule

Mondays 11.00-13.00, Thursdays 11.00-13.00

# Date Room Material Content Lecturer
The basic inquisitive semantics framework
1 30/10 L1.10 Book chapter 1 Course overview, motivation, and discussion of data collection exercise (slides Floris, slides Tomasz) Floris + Tomasz
2 2/11 L2.07 Book chapter 2 Basic notions in inquisitive semantics (slides) Floris
3 6/11 L1.10 Book chapter 3 Main operations on propositions in inquisitive semantics / Discuss progress on data collection exercise (slides) Floris + Tomasz
4 9/11 L2.07 Book chapter 4 Inquisitive semantics for a first-order logical language (slides) Floris
5 13/11 L1.10 Computational tools for analyzing attitude verb data Tomasz
6 16/11 L2.07 Discussion of the results of the data collection exercise: everyone presents 4 minute overview of their own findings, Tomasz presents some preliminary comparative results Students + Tomasz
7 20/11 L1.10 Book chapter 5-6 Inquisitive semantics for declarative and interrogative sentences in English (slides), for the exactly one implication of alternative questions see Roelofsen 2017 and Westera 2019. Floris
8 23/11 L2.07 Book chapter 8 Inquisitive semantics for attitude verbs (slides) Floris
9 27/11 L1.10 Book chapter 9 Comparison with other frameworks (slides) Floris
Recent and ongoing work on the semantics of questions and attitude verbs
10 30/11 L2.07 Theiler et al. 2018 Picky predicates: why *believe* doesn’t like interrogative complements (slides) Floris
11 4/12 L1.10 Uegaki and Sudo 2019 Why *hope* doesn't like interrogative complements (slides) Tomasz
12 7/12 L2.07 Klochowicz 2022 Comparing different approaches to the semantics of responsive clause-embedding predicates (slides) Tomasz
13 11/12 L1.10 Oomen and Roelofsen 2023, Esselink et al. 2023 Polar questions in Sign Language of the Netherlands (slides) Floris
14 14/12 L2.07 Project presentations Students