Order effects in dynamic semantics

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 67-73

  Graben, Peter Beim ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anaphor resolution; Belief revisions; Default reasoning; Dynamic semantics; Generalized quantum theory; Question order effects

Indexed keywords

ANAPHOR RESOLUTION; ARTICLE; BELIEF REVISIONS; DEFAULT REASONING; DYNAMIC SEMANTICS; GENERALIZED QUANTUM THEORY; HUMAN; LOGIC; QUANTUM THEORY; QUESTION ORDER EFFECTS; SEMANTICS;

ANAPHOR RESOLUTION; BELIEF REVISIONS; DEFAULT REASONING; DYNAMIC SEMANTICS; GENERALIZED QUANTUM THEORY; QUESTION ORDER EFFECTS;

HUMANS; LOGIC; QUANTUM THEORY; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84895903812     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/tops.12063     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Atmanspacher, H., Römer, H., & Walach, H. (2002). Weak quantum theory: Complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Foundations of Physics, 32(3), 379-406.
2. Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2008). Probabilistic dynamic belief revision. Synthese, 165(2), 179-202.
3. Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2011). Quantum logic as a dynamic logic. Synthese, 179, 285-306.
4. Beim Graben, P. (2006). Pragmatic information in dynamic semantics. Mind and Matter, 4(2), 169-193.
5. Blutner, R. (1996). Normality in update semantics. In T. Galloway & M. Simons (Eds.), SALT 5 Proceedings 1995 (pp. 19-36). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Cornell Linguistic Publications.
6. Blutner, R. (2009). Concepts and bounded rationality: An application of Niestegge's approach to conditional quantum probabilities. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1101(1), 302-310.
7. Blutner, R. (2012). Questions and answers in an orthoalgebraic approach. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 21(3), 237-277.
8. Blutner, R., Pothos, E. M., & Bruza, P. (2013). A quantum probability perspective on borderline vagueness. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(4), 711-736.
9. Engesser, K., & Gabbay, D. M. (2002). Quantum logic, Hilbert space, revision theory. Artificial Intelligence, 136(1), 61-100.
10. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux. Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39-100.
12. Kracht, M. (2002). Dynamic semantics. Linguistische Berichte. Sonderheft X, 217-241.
13. Lüders, G. (1950). Über die Zustandsänderung durch den Meßprozeß. Annalen der Physik, 443(5-8), 322-328.
14. Niestegge, G. (2008). An approach to quantum mechanics via conditional probabilities. Foundations of Physics, 38, 241-256.
15. Staudacher, P. (1987). Zur Semantik indefiniter Nominalphrasen. In B. Ansbach-Schnitker & J., Roggenhofer (Eds.), Neuere Forschungen zur Wortbildung und Historiographie der Linguistik (pp. 239-258). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
16. van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., & Kooi, B. (2009). Dynamic update with probabilities. Studia Logica, 93, 67-96.
17. Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221-261.
18. Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(4), 689-710.