Aloni, Maria. 1997. Quantification in Dynamic Semantics. In Paul Dekker, Martin Stokhof, and Yde Venema (eds). Proceedings of the Eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium. Thinking about the dynamics of identity and properties.
Aloni, Maria. 2000. Conceptual Covers in Dynamic Semantics. In Lawrence Cavedon, Patrick Blackburn, Nick Braisby, and Atsushi Shimojima (eds). Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. III. CSLI, Stanford, CA.
AnderBois, Scott, Adrian Brasoveanu, and Robert Henderson. 2015.
At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse.
Journal of Semantics 32.1. 93-138.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft014
"[T]he two kinds of content [at-issue versus appositive] must be integrated into a single, incrementally evolving semantic representation."
Appositives impose an update on the context set, at-issue content proposes an update.
Amaral, Patricia, Craige Roberts, and E. Allyn Smith. 2007. Review of The Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts. Lingusitics and Philosophy 30:707-749. A truly great book review, full of new observations and challenges.
Barker, Chris and Chung-chieh Shan. 2014. Continuations and Natural Language. Oxford University Press. An in-depth treatment of evaluation order, with careful consideration of quantificational binding and weak crossover.
Beaver, David. 2001. Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. CSLI Publications.
A terrific book filling out the details of the program sketched in Heim 1983.
Valuable discussion of the basics of presupposition.
Later chapters include an interesting proposal
for a formal theory of the semantics/accommodation interface.
Bittner, Maria. 2014. Perspectival discourse referents for indexicals. In Hannah Greene (ed). SULA 7: Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting on the Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas. 1–22. A dynamics for indexicals, including some shifty indexicals, parallel to the dynamics for anaphora.
Bledin, Justin and Kyle Rawlins. 2020. Resistance and Resolution: Attentional Dynamics in Discourse. Some expressions, as a matter of their conventional contribution, change what is publicly under discussion.
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Donkey pluralities: Plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31.2. 129-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0 Two kinds of plurality: ontological, and discourse update-y. Lots of donkeys.
Büring, Daniel. 1998. Modality, and the Candidate Behind the Wall. In Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds). Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 8: 36-54. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v8i0.2805 Great paper on Broken Vase scenarios.
Bumford, Dylan. 2015. Incremental quantification and the dynamics of pair-list phenomena. Semantics and Pragmatics 8.9. 1--70. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.9 "[I]terated, incremental update... generalizing the sequential conjunction operator of standard dynamic semantics."
Carter, Sam. To appear. The Dynamics of Loose Talk. Nous. Loose talk motivates an additional layer of meaning tracking communicated content versus literal content.
Carter, Sam. In review. Force and choice: FCIs in Permissive and Directive Imperatives. Directive force versus permissive force for imperatives involves a difference in semantic content.
Carter, Sam. To appear. Vagueness and discourse dynamics. Linguistics meets Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. "Using [a vague expression] imposes contraints on future use."
Champollion, Lucas, Justin Bledin, and Haoze Li. 2017. Rigid and Flexible Quantification in Plural Predicate Logic. Proceedings of SALT 27. 418–437. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v27i0.4190 Inspired by DPL and Dependence Logic, the values of some instances of existential quantification can vary within a quantifiational context.
Champollion, Lucas, Anna Alsop, and Ioana Grosu. 2019. Free choice disjunction as a rational speech act. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 29. 238-257. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4608 A specific analysis on which literal content depends on context-sensitive reasoning.
Charlow, Simon. 2018ish. Post-suppositions and semantic theory. Lingbuzz/003243. To appear in Journal of Semantics. Cumulative readings and multiple modified numerals. Higher-order quantifiers versus relations on sets of assignments. New argument that an update semantics solves content problems.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1992. Anaphora and Dynamic Binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 111-183. Prolegomena to the 1995 book.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of Meaning. Anaphora, Presupposition and the Theory of Grammar. University of Chicago Press. Includes the argument that the conservativity of determiners follows from the left to right dynamics of determiners.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2020. Origins of Weak Crossover: when Dynamic Semantics meets Event Semantics. Natural Language Semantics 28: 23–76. [Haven't seen it yet--could be interesting!]
Cohn-Gordon, Reuben, Noah Goodman, and Christopher Potts. 2018. An Incremental Iterated Response Model of Pragmatics. Manuscript. An RSA model of incremental interpretation that can handle data that is "out of reach" of global models.
Cresswell, Max. 2002. Static semantics for dynamic discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 545--571. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020834910542 Data motivating dynamic semantics "simply shows that truth-conditional semantics is more complicted than we thought."
Dekker, Paul. 1994/2012. Predicate logic with anaphora. In Mandy Harvey and Lynn Samelmann (eds). Proceedings of SALT 4 79--95. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v4i0.2459 Reprinted in Paul Dekker. 2012. Dynamic Semantics. 7-47. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4869-9_2 An early version of PLA (Predicate Logic with Anaphora); see comments after Dekker 2004.
Dekker, Paul. 2004. Grounding dynamic semantics. In Anne Bezuidenhout & Marga Reimer (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond, Oxford University Press. PLA re-engineered so that expressions are evaluated wrt an assignment and a sequence of individuals (interpreted as indefinite witnesses). Elegant, underappreciated. Although the same name is given to the formal system (PLA) as for the 1994 paper, the 1994 fragment relied on context update, where this paper has a "static" semantics.
Dekker, Paul. 2012. Dynamic Semantics. Springer. Collection of Dekker's meditations on dynamic semantics, with special consideration of indefinites.
Elliott, Patrick. 2020. Under review. Toward a principled logic of anaphora. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005562. Like DPL, but better, explicitly addressing criticisms of dynamic anaphora. Compare with Keshet 2018.
Frank, Michael and Noah Goodman. 2012. Predicting Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Games. Science 336.6084:998. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218633 Rational Speech Act theory in one page. See Scontras et al. for a tutorial.
George, B. R. 2014. Some remarks on certain trivalent accounts of presupposition projection Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 24.1–2, 86–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2014.911521 Argues that the right three-valued truth tables can meet Schlenker's explanatory challenge.
Gilles, Anthony. 2020. Updating Data Semantics. Mind 129.513. 1--41. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzy008 Stacking maybes and ifs can help us distinguish among dynamic strategies.
Golstein, Simon. 2019. Generalized update semantics Mind 128.511. 795--835. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzy076 "Synopsis: dynamic semantics without tests."
Goodman, Noah and Michael Frank. 2016. Pragmatic Language Interpretation as Probabilistic Inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20.11. 818--829. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005 Quantitative mind reading.
Gotham, Matthew. 2019. Double negation, excluded middle and accessibility in dynamic semantics. Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium 22. Accessibility of expressions in the scope of negation; treatment of double negation.
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1990. Two theories of dynamic semantics. ITLI Prepublications. Published in 2005 in Jan van Eijck (ed). Logics in AI. Lectures notes in computer science (Vol. 478). 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0018433 Clear, simple criteria (eliminativity and distributivity) for recognizing some situations in which a dynamic system can be re-engineered as a static system.
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39-100. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf00628304 A tremendously influential paper. G&S simplify the study of dynamic semantics first by eliminating the natural language part---they only discuss logical formulas, and don't say exactly how to translate from a natural language into their logic---and second, by eliminating possible worlds (only assignment functions remain). A detailed treatment of donkey anaphora.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman. 1996. Coreference and modality. https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9780631207498.1997.00010.x In Shallom Lappin (ed). Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. 179–213. Oxford: Blackwell. Simple but subtle.
Harel, David, Dexter Kozen, and Jerzy Tiuryn. 1984. Dynamic logic. Handbook of Philosophical Logic 497--604. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6259-0_10 The view from computer science.
Harris, Daniel. 2019. We talk to people, not contexts. Philosophical Studies 177. 2713–2733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01335-8 "[T]heories that take publicly shared contexts to play an essential role in the nature of communicative acts or anaphoric dependence conflate an artifact introduced by idealized models of conversation with a feature of the phenomenon being modeled."
Harris, Daniel. 2020. Semantics without semantic content. Mind and Language 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12290 The semantic component produces constraints on possible contents (so let general cognition worry about update).
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. UMass PhD dissertation. Available at semanticsarchive.net. A companion to her 1983 paper in which she develops a dynamic semantics in chapter 3 that focusses on bound anaphora and donkey sentences rather than on presupposition projection. The treatment of negation in this version is dynamically closed, unlike in the 1983 paper.
Heim, Irene. 1983/1988/2008. On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions. Written in 1983 for WCFFL2; published in the proceedings of WCCFL in 1988; reprinted in Paul Portner and Barbara Partee (eds). 2008. Formal Semantics. 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335.ch10 Promise: getting the truth conditions right in a dynamic semantics automatically predicts presupposition projection. Clear, simple, elegant, short.
Hofmann, Lisa. 2019. The anaphoric potential of indefinites under negation and disjunction. Amsterdam Colloquium. Extends Stone and Hardt's theory of modal subordination by viewing negation as a non-veridical context.
Keshet, Ezra. 2018. Dynamic update anaphora logic: A simple analysis of complex anaphora. Journal of Semantics 35. 263--303. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffx020 (1) DPL, (2) Plural Logic, (3) this paper: let's try to get the dynamics of anaphora right.
Koev, Todor. [In press]. Parenthetical Meaning. Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics, Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, Jeremy. To appear. The dynamics of negative concord. To appear in Linguistics and Philosophy. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004165 Split scope allows negative concord items to impose local licensing constraints and still check later for non-local constraints. Great example sentence: I haven't published many papers, but they all appear in good journals.
Lassiter, Daniel and Noah Goodman. 2017. Adjectival vagueness in a Bayesian model of interpretation. Synthese 194, 3801–3836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0786-1 Hallmarks of vagueness emerge from a probabilistic model of uptake.
Law, Jess. 2018. Binominal each and association with the structure of distributivity. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004289 A dynamic fragment for binomial each with plural discourse referents, delayed evaluation, and more.
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a Language Game Journal of Philosophical Logic 8.1. 339-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 Essential reading! Presupposition accommodation. Sphere of permissibility. Good stuff!
Lewis, Karen. 2012. Discourse dynamics, pragmatics, and indefinites. Philosophical Studies 158. 313–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9882-y No grammatically-mediated uptake---even whether an indefinite enrolls a novel discourse referent is negotiable.
Lewis, Karen. 2021 to appear. Descriptions, pronouns, and uniqueness.
Li, Haoze. 2021. Mandarin wh-conditionals: A question + dynamic meaning approach. Manuscript.
Mandelkern, Matthew. 2019. Bounded Modality. The Philosophical Review 128.1: 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-7213001 "epistemic modals are quantifiers over accessible worlds, as the standard theory has it; but, crucially, their domain of quantification is limited by their local contexts."
Mandelkern, Matthew. 2020. Dynamic non-classicality. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048402.2019.1624376. It turns out that some dynamic systems invalidate certain classical inferences. That's bad. [See info above about Matt's NYU spring 2021 seminar]
Mandelkern, Matthew. 2020 manuscript. Witnesses. Classical static truth conditions for logical connectives. Indefinites translate as classical existential quantification. They presuppose that if there is any object that satisfies their prejacent, the context maps their variable to such an object (a "witness"). This explains the ability of an indefinite to license anaphora. There is also a dynamic semantics that tracks presuppositions. Beautiful fragment.
Murray, Sarah. 2014. Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics 7.2. 1--51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2 https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/view/sp.7.2 Some upates are non-negotiable, e.g., evidentiality inferences in Cheyenne.
Murray, Sarah and Will Starr. 2020. The structure of communicative
acts. Linguistics and Philosophy.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09289-0
Some portion of force---sentential force---is semantic.
A carefully thought out manifesto.
Muskens, Reinhard. 1996. Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19. 143–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00635836 Super clear and tidy implementation of discourse representation theory.
Nouwen, Rick, Adrian Brasoveanu, Jan van Eijck, and Albert Visser. 2016. Dynamic Semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dynamic-semantics/ Authoritative survey.
Pryor, James. 2017. De Jure Codesignation. In Bob Hale, Alex Miller, and Crispin Wright (eds). A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, 2nd edition. Blackwell. 1033-1079. Sophisticated thinking about different ways that variables can have the same values.
Qing, Ciyang, Noah Goodman, and Daniel Lassiter. 2016. A rational speech-act model of projective content. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. A concrete analysis for how to relegate presupposition projection to the pragmatics.
Roberts, Craige. 2012[1996]. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5.6. 1–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6 Discourse is a game with context as a scoreboard organized around the questions under discussion by the interlocutors.
Roberts, Craige. 2017. Linguistic convention and the architecture of interpretation. Analytic Philosophy 58.4. 418-439. A critique of Lepore and Stone's 2015 book, Imagination and Convention. Considering a wide range evidence from linguistics and psycholinguistics and beyond, Roberts argues for Gricean considerations as parallel to other constraints on meaning.
Roberts, Craige. 2021. Imperatives in a dynamic pragmatics. Manuscript. This account is essentially pragmatic in that a central aspect of the meaning of an imperative utterance—its apparent deontic force—is not given by its compositional, syntactico-semantic content, but instead arises from the interaction between that content and the pragmatics of the canonical use of imperative clauses. The semantics of imperatives, like that of other linguistic constituents, is static, with the usual truth conditional, compositional derivations. The dynamics, the way that content serves as an update on context, lies entirely in the pragmatics of use of the conventional content.
Rothschild, Daniel. 2017. A Trivalent Account of Anaphora and Presupposition. 21st Amsterdam Colloquium 21. Aims to extend trivalent goodness from presupposition projection to cover anaphora as well. "It is my view that, when the dust has settles, [a trivalent account] remains the simplest viable treatment of presupposition projection on the market."
Rothschild, Daniel, and Stephen Yablo. 2020. Permissive updates. Ms. Truthmaker semantics for deontic modality, along with bridge principles for the semantics/pragmatics interface.
Rothschild, Daniel, and Seth Yalcin. 2016. Three notions of dynamicness in language. Linguistics and Philosophy 39. 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9188-1. A provocative paper offering technical criteria for counting as genuinely dynamic. "These definitions do not capture the idea of a conversation system which is such that it can only be compositionally induced by a semantics which is dynamic in shape—that is, whose only matching compositional semantics is surface dynamic... We might call such systems (if they exist) essentially dynamic. If there were clear examples of fragments of natural language having this property, it would be a powerful form of argument for dynamic approaches to compositional semantics. But it seems to us that the relevant technical notion of “essentially dynamic” is elusive. Our aim has been to draw this out.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2007. Anti-dynamics: presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 16. 325–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-006-9034-x Heim's program for deriving presuppositions from truth conditions misses an important generalization. Better to keep content as static truth conditions, and account for presuppositions via an independent mechanism.
Schlenker, P. 2008a. Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34, 157–212.
Schlenker, P. 2008b. Presupposition projection: Explanatory strategies. Theoretical Linguistics 34, 287–316.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2011. Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF). Linguistics and Philosophy 34. 341–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9098-1 Data from two sign languages provide evidence in support of dynamic approaches to donkey anaphora.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2021. Supplements without Bidimentionalism. Revised manuscript. Survey data and arguments supporting a scope-based account of supplements, including appositives.
Scontras et al. [no date]. Probabalistic language understanding. An introduction to the Rational Speech Act framework. https://www.problang.org/chapters/01-introduction.html Tutorial.
Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver, and Craige Roberts. 2015. What Projects and Why. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20. 309-327. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v0i20.2584 Not-at-issue stuff projects.
Stanaker, Robert. 2018. Dynamic pragmatics, static semantics. In Daniel Fogal, Daniel Harris, and Matt Moss (eds). New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford University Press. The dynamic turn got us lost. Let's get back on track: static content, and force in the pragmatics. "[T]hink of a context as a set of nested spheres of possible worlds..." Language games with epistemic might.
Starr, William. 2020. A preference semantics for imperatives.
Semantics and Pragmatics 13.6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.6
Stojnic, Una. 2019. Content in a Dynamic Context. Nous. "[U]nless we captured the change in the context prompted by an utterance we wouldn't be able to correctly predict the proposition expressed by the sentence uttered."
Stojnic, Una, Matthew Stone, and Ernie Lepore. 2017. Discourse and logical form: pronouns, attention and coherence.
Linguistics and Philosophy 40. 519--547.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9207-x
Pronoun reference is uniformly governed by what is at the center of attention.
Furthermore, attention and coherence are governed by linguistic rules.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2003.
Binding on the fly: Cross-sentential anaphora in variable-free semantics.
In Kruijff and Oehrle (eds).
Resource-sensitivity in Binding and Anaphora
215-229. Kluwer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0037-6_8
Cross-sentential anaphora without discourse update.
Thomason, Richmond, Matthew Stone, and David DeVault. 2006. Enlightened update: A computational architecture for presupposition and other pragmatic phenomena. Target article for Donna Byron, Craige Roberts, and Scott Schwenter's 2006 workshop on Presupposition Accommodation, OSU. Interpretation is a form of intention recognition. Pragmatic reasoning is holistic in character, continuous with common-sense reasoning about collaborative activities.
Troquard, Nicolas and Philippe Balbiani. 2019. Propositional Dynamic Logic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dynamic/ How do programming languages express computational meanings by deploying anaphora (variable bindings) and presuppositions (exceptions)?
Willer, Malte. 2018. Simplifying with Free Choice. Topoi 37.3. 379–392 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9437-5. Tracking positive and negative updates accounts for free choice implications.
Winter, Yoad. 2019. On Presupposition Projection with Trivalent Connectives. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory 29: 582 ff. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4644 Starts with strong Kleene, then proposes a filtering algorithm based on "determinant values". "Presuppositions are often thought of as a pragmatic matter, and there are many good reasons for that. However, the projection of presuppositions is connected to questions that are at the heart of formal semantic theory. We cannot separate inference with presuppositions from the meaning of the most prototypically “logical” elements of language – the propositional connectives."
Szabo, Zoltan. 2000. Descriptions and Uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 101: 29 – 57. A discussion of novelty and familiarity, and the division of labor between semantics and pragmatics. Lots of thought-provoking examples.