DOCSLIB.ORG

Presupposition Projection and Entailment Relations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Presupposition Projection and Entailment Relations Amaia Garcia Odon i Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee, Prof. Dr. Rob van der Sandt, Dr. Henk Zeevat, Dr. Isidora Stojanovic, Dr. Cornelia Ebert and Dr. Enric Vallduví for having accepted to be on my thesis committee. I am extremely grateful to my adviser, Louise McNally, and to Rob van der Sandt. Without their invaluable help, I would not have written this dissertation. Louise has been a wonderful adviser, who has always provided me with excellent guid- ance and continuous encouragement. Rob has been a mentor who has generously spent much time with me, teaching me Logic, discussing my work, and helping me clear up my thoughts. Very special thanks to Henk Zeevat for having shared his insights with me and for having convinced me that it was possible to finish on time. Thanks to Bart Geurts, Noor van Leusen, Sammie Tarenskeen, Bob van Tiel, Natalia Zevakhina and Corien Bary in Nijmegen; to Paul Dekker, Jeroen Groe- nendijk, Frank Veltman, Floris Roelofsen, Morgan Mameni, Raquel Fernández and Margot Colinet in Amsterdam; to Fernando García Murga, Agustín Vicente, Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, Javier Ormazabal, Vidal Valmala, Gorka Elordieta, Urtzi Etxeberria and Javi Fernández in Vitoria-Gasteiz, to David Beaver and Mari- bel Romero. Also thanks to the people I met at the ESSLLIs of Bordeaux, Copen- hagen and Ljubljana, especially to Nick Asher, Craige Roberts, Judith Tonhauser, Fenghui Zhang, Mingya Liu, Alexandra Spalek, Cornelia Ebert and Elena Pa- ducheva. I gratefully acknowledge the financial help provided by the Basque Government – Departamento de Educación, Universidades e Investigación (BFI07.96) and Fun- dación ICREA (via an ICREA Academia award to Louise McNally). iii Abstract In this dissertation, I deal with the problem of presupposition projection. I mostly focus on compound sentences composed of two clauses and conditional sentences in which the second clause carries a presupposition. The central claim is that the presupposition carried by the second clause projects by default, with the excep- tion of cases in which the presupposition entails the first clause (or, in disjunctive sentences, the negation of the first clause). In the latter cases, the presupposi- tion should not project, since it is logically stronger than the first clause (or its negation). Thus, in conjunctions, if the presupposition projected, the speaker’s assertion of the first clause would be uninformative. As for conditionals and dis- junctions, if the presupposition projected, the speaker would show inconsistency in his/her beliefs by showing uncertainty about the truth value of the first clause (or its negation). I argue that, in conditionals, this uncertainty is conversationally im- plicated whereas, in disjunctions, it results from the context’s compatibility with the first disjunct. I maintain that, in cases where projection is blocked, the presup- position is conditionalized to the first clause (or its negation). I demonstrate that the conditionalization is motivated in a straightforward way by the pragmatic con- straints on projection just described and that, contrary to what is defended by the so-called ‘satisfaction theory’, presupposition conditionalization is a phenomenon independent from local satisfaction. iv Resumen En esta tesis, trato el problema de la proyección de presuposiciones. Me cen- tro mayoritariamente en oraciones compuestas de dos cláusulas y en oraciones condicionales cuya segunda cláusula contiene una presuposición. El argumento central es que la presuposición contenida en la segunda cláusula proyecta por de- fecto, con la excepción de casos en los que la presuposición entraña la primera cláusula (o, en las oraciones disyuntivas, la negación de la primera cláusula). En estos últimos casos, la presuposición no debería proyectar, puesto que es lógi- camente más fuerte que la primera cláusula (o su negación). Por tanto, en las oraciones conjuntivas, si la presuposición proyectase, la aseveración de la primera cláusula por parte del hablante no sería informativa. En cuanto a las oraciones condicionales y disyuntivas, si la presuposición projectase, el hablante mostraría inconsistencia en sus creencias al mostrar incertidumbre acerca del valor de ver- dad de la primera cláusula (o su negación). Sostengo que, en oraciones condi- cionales, esta incertidumbre es implicada conversacionalmente mientras que, en las oraciones disyuntivas, resulta de la compatibilidad contextual de la primera cláusula. Mantengo que, en casos en los que la proyección es bloqueada, la pre- suposición es condicionalizada a la primera cláusula (o su negación). Demuestro que la condicionalización es motivada de manera directa por las restricciones de tipo pragmático descritas arriba y que, contrariamente a la idea defendida por la así llamada ‘teoría de la satisfacción’, la condicionalización de la presuposición es un fenómeno independiente de la satisfacción local de la misma. Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview of the Proposed Analysis . .5 1.2 Chapter Summary and Thesis Structure . 17 2 The Presuppositions of a Discourse 21 2.1 Presupposition as Contextual Entailment . 21 2.1.1 Context Incrementation . 28 2.1.2 Presuppositional and Asserted Content . 36 2.2 The Issue of ‘Accommodation’ . 38 3 The Projection Problem in the Literature 43 3.1 The Projection Problem in the Early Literature . 44 3.1.1 Karttunen’s (1973) Filtering Account . 45 3.1.2 Gazdar’s (1979) Cancellation Account . 49 3.2 The ‘Satisfaction’ Theory . 57 3.2.1 Introduction . 57 3.2.2 Karttunen’s (1974): Satisfaction within the Local Context 58 3.2.3 Heim (1983b): CCPs as Encoders of Presupposition Her- itage Properties . 60 3.2.4 Counterintuitive Predictions: The ‘Proviso’ Problem and Proposed Solutions to it . 64 v vi CONTENTS 3.2.4.1 Plausibility Orderings and Relevance . 69 3.2.4.2 ‘Collapsing’ Conditional Presuppositions . 74 3.2.4.3 Potential and Actual ‘Accommodations’ . 79 3.2.4.4 Lassiter’s (2011) Probabilistic Account . 84 3.3 The Binding and Accommodation Theory . 86 3.3.1 Presuppositional DRT . 86 3.3.2 Binding . 89 3.3.3 Accommodation . 90 3.3.4 Presuppositional and Non-Presuppositional Interpretations 91 3.3.5 Conditional Presuppositions . 93 3.3.6 Quantified Sentences . 97 3.4 Chapter Summary . 98 4 Projection and Conditionalization 101 4.1 Introduction . 101 4.2 Pragmatic Constraints on Projection . 102 4.2.1 Contradictory Presuppositions . 106 4.3 Conditional Presuppositions . 109 4.4 Conditional Perfection . 119 4.5 Chapter Summary . 126 5 Further Issues 129 5.1 Introduction . 129 5.2 Focal Presuppositions . 129 5.3 Possessive and Definite Noun Phrases . 134 5.3.1 Possessives . 134 5.3.2 Definites . 137 5.4 Chapter Summary . 141 CONTENTS vii 6 Conclusions 143 Chapter 1 Introduction One of the distinctive features of presuppositions is that they project. That is, presuppositions escape from the scope of operators such as negation, modals, be- lieve-type verbs, the IF operator and the question operator. Put another way, these operators target the truth-conditional content of a sentence but not its presuppo- sitional content. Let us start with some examples of presupposition projection. Intuitively, the sentence in (1.1a), carries the presupposition in (1.1b): (1.1) a. Chris has given up writing b. Chris used to write The presupposition in (1.1b) is ‘triggered’ by the aspectual verb give up. Lexical expressions like aspectual verbs, factive verbs, definite noun phrases, possessive noun phrases, and particles like too, also, again, still, yet are presuppositional triggers. Additionally, syntactic constructions (i.e. clefts and pseudo-clefts), and focused constituents may also trigger presuppositions. In (1.1b), I use the symbol to indicate that the sentence in (1.1b) expresses the presupposition carried by the sentence in (1.1a). I will use this notational device throughout the thesis. As we can see in the next examples, when (1.1a) is embedded within the scope of an operator, the presupposition in (1.1b) projects to the main context. As a result, each of the sentences in the following examples, considered as a whole, also carries the presupposition in (1.1b): (1.2) a. Chris has not given up writing/ It is not true that Chris has given up writing b. It is possible that/ Perhaps/ Maybe Chris has given up writing 1 2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION c. Lenny thinks/believes that Chris has given up writing d. If Chris has given up writing, he must be depressed. e. Has Chris given up writing?/ Is it true that Chris has given up writing? Note that, if presuppositions are defined as propositions whose truth the speaker takes for granted for the purposes of the conversation or communicative exchange (Stalnaker (1973, 1974)), there is nothing surprising in the fact that they project. That is, the linguistic fact that presuppositions project is just a reflection of the fact that a speaker who is committed to the truth of a proposition for the purposes of a communicative exchange will keep his/her commitment regardless of whether the sentence that contains the presuppositional trigger is within the scope of an operator. For instance, if a speaker is committed to the truth of the proposition that Chris used to write (1.1b), s/he will keep his/her commitment to the truth of this proposition when s/he asserts that Chris has given up writing (1.1a), denies that Chris has given up writing (1.2a), raises the issue of whether Chris has given up writing (1.2b, 1.2d), reports that someone thinks that Chris has given up writing (1.2c), or asks whether Chris has given up writing (1.2e). Nevertheless, there are many cases in which the speaker uses a presuppositional trigger without presupposing the proposition triggered. For example, the second clause of the conjunctive sentence in (1.3a) carries the presupposition in (1.3b). However, (1.3a), as a whole, does not carry this presupposition, which just reflects the fact that the speaker of (1.3a) does not presuppose that (1.3b): (1.3) a.
Recommended publications
  • UNIT-I Mathematical Logic Statements and Notations

    UNIT-I Mathematical Logic Statements and Notations

    UNIT-I Mathematical Logic Statements and notations: A proposition or statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false (but not both). For instance, the following are propositions: “Paris is in France” (true), “London is in Denmark” (false), “2 < 4” (true), “4 = 7 (false)”. However the following are not propositions: “what is your name?” (this is a question), “do your homework” (this is a command), “this sentence is false” (neither true nor false), “x is an even number” (it depends on what x represents), “Socrates” (it is not even a sentence). The truth or falsehood of a proposition is called its truth value. Connectives: Connectives are used for making compound propositions. The main ones are the following (p and q represent given propositions): Name Represented Meaning Negation ¬p “not p” Conjunction p q “p and q” Disjunction p q “p or q (or both)” Exclusive Or p q “either p or q, but not both” Implication p ⊕ q “if p then q” Biconditional p q “p if and only if q” Truth Tables: Logical identity Logical identity is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition that produces a value of true if its operand is true and a value of false if its operand is false. The truth table for the logical identity operator is as follows: Logical Identity p p T T F F Logical negation Logical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition that produces a value of true if its operand is false and a value of false if its operand is true.
  • Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory

    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory

    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. – Ian Stewart Does God play dice? The mathematics of chaos In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. That is, a proof is a logical argument, not an empir- ical one. One must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a theorem of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a conjecture. Mathematical logic is the framework upon which rigorous proofs are built. It is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstrations. Logicians have analyzed set theory in great details, formulating a collection of axioms that affords a broad enough and strong enough foundation to mathematical reasoning. The standard form of axiomatic set theory is denoted ZFC and it consists of the Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms combined with the axiom of choice (C). Each of the axioms included in this theory expresses a property of sets that is widely accepted by mathematicians. It is unfortunately true that careless use of set theory can lead to contradictions. Avoiding such contradictions was one of the original motivations for the axiomatization of set theory. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. LOGIC AND SET THEORY A rigorous analysis of set theory belongs to the foundations of mathematics and mathematical logic.
  • Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'brien

    Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'brien

    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1994 The tS ylistic Mechanics of Implicitness: Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'Brien. Donna Glee Williams Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Williams, Donna Glee, "The tS ylistic Mechanics of Implicitness: Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'Brien." (1994). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 5768. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/5768 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough,m asubstandard r gins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
  • Folktale Documentation Release 1.0

    Folktale Documentation Release 1.0

    Folktale Documentation Release 1.0 Quildreen Motta Nov 05, 2017 Contents 1 Guides 3 2 Indices and tables 5 3 Other resources 7 3.1 Getting started..............................................7 3.2 Folktale by Example........................................... 10 3.3 API Reference.............................................. 12 3.4 How do I................................................... 63 3.5 Glossary................................................. 63 Python Module Index 65 i ii Folktale Documentation, Release 1.0 Folktale is a suite of libraries for generic functional programming in JavaScript that allows you to write elegant modular applications with fewer bugs, and more reuse. Contents 1 Folktale Documentation, Release 1.0 2 Contents CHAPTER 1 Guides • Getting Started A series of quick tutorials to get you up and running quickly with the Folktale libraries. • API reference A quick reference of Folktale’s libraries, including usage examples and cross-references. 3 Folktale Documentation, Release 1.0 4 Chapter 1. Guides CHAPTER 2 Indices and tables • Global Module Index Quick access to all modules. • General Index All functions, classes, terms, sections. • Search page Search this documentation. 5 Folktale Documentation, Release 1.0 6 Chapter 2. Indices and tables CHAPTER 3 Other resources • Licence information 3.1 Getting started This guide will cover everything you need to start using the Folktale project right away, from giving you a brief overview of the project, to installing it, to creating a simple example. Once you get the hang of things, the Folktale By Example guide should help you understanding the concepts behind the library, and mapping them to real use cases. 3.1.1 So, what’s Folktale anyways? Folktale is a suite of libraries for allowing a particular style of functional programming in JavaScript.
  • Theorem Proving in Classical Logic

    Theorem Proving in Classical Logic

    MEng Individual Project Imperial College London Department of Computing Theorem Proving in Classical Logic Supervisor: Dr. Steffen van Bakel Author: David Davies Second Marker: Dr. Nicolas Wu June 16, 2021 Abstract It is well known that functional programming and logic are deeply intertwined. This has led to many systems capable of expressing both propositional and first order logic, that also operate as well-typed programs. What currently ties popular theorem provers together is their basis in intuitionistic logic, where one cannot prove the law of the excluded middle, ‘A A’ – that any proposition is either true or false. In classical logic this notion is provable, and the_: corresponding programs turn out to be those with control operators. In this report, we explore and expand upon the research about calculi that correspond with classical logic; and the problems that occur for those relating to first order logic. To see how these calculi behave in practice, we develop and implement functional languages for propositional and first order logic, expressing classical calculi in the setting of a theorem prover, much like Agda and Coq. In the first order language, users are able to define inductive data and record types; importantly, they are able to write computable programs that have a correspondence with classical propositions. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Steffen van Bakel, my supervisor, for his support throughout this project and helping find a topic of study based on my interests, for which I am incredibly grateful. His insight and advice have been invaluable. I would also like to thank my second marker, Nicolas Wu, for introducing me to the world of dependent types, and suggesting useful resources that have aided me greatly during this report.
  • Learning Dependency-Based Compositional Semantics

    Learning Dependency-Based Compositional Semantics

    Learning Dependency-Based Compositional Semantics Percy Liang∗ University of California, Berkeley Michael I. Jordan∗∗ University of California, Berkeley Dan Klein† University of California, Berkeley Suppose we want to build a system that answers a natural language question by representing its semantics as a logical form and computing the answer given a structured database of facts. The core part of such a system is the semantic parser that maps questions to logical forms. Semantic parsers are typically trained from examples of questions annotated with their target logical forms, but this type of annotation is expensive. Our goal is to instead learn a semantic parser from question–answer pairs, where the logical form is modeled as a latent variable. We develop a new semantic formalism, dependency-based compositional semantics (DCS) and define a log-linear distribution over DCS logical forms. The model parameters are estimated using a simple procedure that alternates between beam search and numerical optimization. On two standard semantic parsing benchmarks, we show that our system obtains comparable accuracies to even state-of-the-art systems that do require annotated logical forms. 1. Introduction One of the major challenges in natural language processing (NLP) is building systems that both handle complex linguistic phenomena and require minimal human effort. The difficulty of achieving both criteria is particularly evident in training semantic parsers, where annotating linguistic expressions with their associated logical forms is expensive but until recently, seemingly unavoidable. Advances in learning latent-variable models, however, have made it possible to progressively reduce the amount of supervision ∗ Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
  • Logical Vs. Natural Language Conjunctions in Czech: a Comparative Study

    Logical Vs. Natural Language Conjunctions in Czech: a Comparative Study

    ITAT 2016 Proceedings, CEUR Workshop Proceedings Vol. 1649, pp. 68–73 http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1649, Series ISSN 1613-0073, c 2016 K. Prikrylová,ˇ V. Kubon,ˇ K. Veselovská Logical vs. Natural Language Conjunctions in Czech: A Comparative Study Katrin Prikrylová,ˇ Vladislav Kubon,ˇ and Katerinaˇ Veselovská Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Czech Republic {prikrylova,vk,veselovska}@ufal.mff.cuni.cz Abstract: This paper studies the relationship between con- ceptions and irregularities which do not abide the rules as junctions in a natural language (Czech) and their logical strictly as it is the case in logic. counterparts. It shows that the process of transformation Primarily due to this difference, the transformation of of a natural language expression into its logical representa- natural language sentences into their logical representation tion is not straightforward. The paper concentrates on the constitutes a complex issue. As we are going to show in most frequently used logical conjunctions, and , and it the subsequent sections, there are no simple rules which analyzes the natural language phenomena which∧ influence∨ would allow automation of the process – the majority of their transformation into logical conjunction and disjunc- problematic cases requires an individual approach. tion. The phenomena discussed in the paper are temporal In the following text we are going to restrict our ob- sequence, expressions describing mutual relationship and servations to the two most frequently used conjunctions, the consequences of using plural. namely a (and) and nebo (or). 1 Introduction and motivation 2 Sentences containing the conjunction a (and) The endeavor to express natural language sentences in the form of logical expressions is probably as old as logic it- The initial assumption about complex sentences contain- self.
  • The Peripatetic Program in Categorical Logic: Leibniz on Propositional Terms

    The Peripatetic Program in Categorical Logic: Leibniz on Propositional Terms

    THE REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC, Page 1 of 65 THE PERIPATETIC PROGRAM IN CATEGORICAL LOGIC: LEIBNIZ ON PROPOSITIONAL TERMS MARKO MALINK Department of Philosophy, New York University and ANUBAV VASUDEVAN Department of Philosophy, University of Chicago Abstract. Greek antiquity saw the development of two distinct systems of logic: Aristotle’s theory of the categorical syllogism and the Stoic theory of the hypothetical syllogism. Some ancient logicians argued that hypothetical syllogistic is more fundamental than categorical syllogistic on the grounds that the latter relies on modes of propositional reasoning such as reductio ad absurdum. Peripatetic logicians, by contrast, sought to establish the priority of categorical over hypothetical syllogistic by reducing various modes of propositional reasoning to categorical form. In the 17th century, this Peripatetic program of reducing hypothetical to categorical logic was championed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. In an essay titled Specimina calculi rationalis, Leibniz develops a theory of propositional terms that allows him to derive the rule of reductio ad absurdum in a purely categor- ical calculus in which every proposition is of the form AisB. We reconstruct Leibniz’s categorical calculus and show that it is strong enough to establish not only the rule of reductio ad absurdum,but all the laws of classical propositional logic. Moreover, we show that the propositional logic generated by the nonmonotonic variant of Leibniz’s categorical calculus is a natural system of relevance logic ¬ known as RMI→ . From its beginnings in antiquity up until the late 19th century, the study of formal logic was shaped by two distinct approaches to the subject. The first approach was primarily concerned with simple propositions expressing predicative relations between terms.
  • Introduction to Logic 1

    Introduction to Logic 1

    Introduction to logic 1. Logic and Artificial Intelligence: some historical remarks One of the aims of AI is to reproduce human features by means of a computer system. One of these features is reasoning. Reasoning can be viewed as the process of having a knowledge base (KB) and manipulating it to create new knowledge. Reasoning can be seen as comprised of 3 processes: 1. Perceiving stimuli from the environment; 2. Translating the stimuli in components of the KB; 3. Working on the KB to increase it. We are going to deal with how to represent information in the KB and how to reason about it. We use logic as a device to pursue this aim. These notes are an introduction to modern logic, whose origin can be found in George Boole’s and Gottlob Frege’s works in the XIX century. However, logic in general traces back to ancient Greek philosophers that studied under which conditions an argument is valid. An argument is any set of statements – explicit or implicit – one of which is the conclusion (the statement being defended) and the others are the premises (the statements providing the defense). The relationship between the conclusion and the premises is such that the conclusion follows from the premises (Lepore 2003). Modern logic is a powerful tool to represent and reason on knowledge and AI has traditionally adopted it as working tool. Within logic, one research tradition that strongly influenced AI is that started by the German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. His aim was to formulate a Lingua Rationalis to create a universal language based only on rationality, which could solve all the controversies between different parties.
  • Lecture 7: Semantics and Pragmatics. Entailments, Presuppositions, Conversational and Conventional Implicatures. Grice's

    Lecture 7: Semantics and Pragmatics. Entailments, Presuppositions, Conversational and Conventional Implicatures. Grice's

    Formal Semantics, Lecture 7 Formal Semantics, Lecture 7 B. H. Partee, RGGU April 1, 2004 p. 1 B. H. Partee, RGGU April 1, 2004 p. 2 Lecture 7: Semantics and Pragmatics. Entailments, presuppositions, (intentionally or unintentionally) much more than what is literally said by the words of her conversational and conventional implicatures. Grice’s conversational sentence. maxims. An example: (1) A: How is C getting along in his new job at the bank? 1. Grice’s Conversational Implicatures. .................................................................................................................1 B: Oh, quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet. 1.1. Motivation. Questions about the meanings of logical words.......................................................................1 1.2. Truth-conditional content (semantics) vs. Conversational Implicatures (pragmatics).................................2 What B implied, suggested, or meant is distinct from what B said. All B said was that C had 1.3. Conversational maxims. (“Gricean maxims”.) ............................................................................................3 not been to prison yet. 1.4. Generating implicatures. General principles. Examples............................................................................4 1.4.1. Characterization of conversational implicature. .............................................................................4 1.4.2. More Examples...............................................................................................................................4
  • The Composition of Logical Constants

    The Composition of Logical Constants

    the morphosemantic makeup of exclusive-disjunctive markers ∗ Moreno Mitrovi´c university of cyprus & bled institute . abstract. The spirit of this paper is strongly decompositional and its aim to meditate on the idea that natural language conjunction and disjunction markers do not necessarily (directly) incarnate Boo- lean terms like ‘0’ and ‘1’,respectively. Drawing from a rich collec- tion of (mostly dead) languages (Ancient Anatolian, Homeric Greek, Tocharian, Old Church Slavonic, and North-East Caucasian), I will examine the morphosemantics of ‘XOR’ (‘exclusive or’) markers, i.e. exclusive (or strong/enriched) disjunction markers of the “ei- Do not cite without consultation. ⭒ ther ...or ...”-type, and demonstrate that the morphology of the XOR marker does not only contain the true (generalised) disjunc- tion marker (I dub it κ), as one would expect on the null (Boolean hy- pothesis), but that the XOR-marker also contains the (generalised) conjunction marker (I dub it μ). After making the case for a fine- April 15, 2017 structure of the Junction Phrase (JP), a common structural denom- ⭒ inator for con- and dis-junction, the paper proposes a new syntax for XOR constructions involving five functional heads (two pairs of κ ver. 6 and μ markers, forming the XOR-word and combining with the respective coordinand, and a J-head pairing up the coordinands). draft I then move on to compose the semantics of the syntactically de- ⭒ composed structure by providing a compositional account obtain- ing the exclusive component, qua the semantic/pragmatic signa- ture of these markers. To do so, I rely on an exhaustification-based system of ‘grammaticised implicatures’ (Chierchia, 2013b) in as- manuscript suming silent exhaustification operators in the narrow syntax, which (in concert with the presence of alternative-triggering κ- and μ-ope- rators) trigger local exclusive (scalar) implicature (SI) computation.
  • Presupposition and Entailment Yuanli Fan School of Foreign Studies, Xi’An University, Shaanxi Xi’An 710065

    Presupposition and Entailment Yuanli Fan School of Foreign Studies, Xi’An University, Shaanxi Xi’An 710065

    Advances in Computer Science Research (ACSR), volume 76 7th International Conference on Education, Management, Information and Mechanical Engineering (EMIM 2017) Presupposition and Entailment Yuanli Fan School of Foreign Studies, Xi’an University, Shaanxi Xi’an 710065 Keywords: Presupposition; Entailment; Negation test; Information focus Abstracts. This paper aimsat the distinction of Presupposition and Entailment. Since variouskinds of definition misused confusedly. The distinction is always a hot question for discussing. The author triesto distinguish the presupposition and entailment fromsemantic scope by negation test. The traditional negation test seemsto have itslimitation for the semantic negation hasitsfunction scope. Therefore, the information focus is introduced to make a distinction between semantic presupposition and entailment of a multi-elements sentence. Through analyzing preposition and entailment of English sentence, the semantic and pragmatic essence can be easily acquired in order to promote the English Communication Competence. However, some sentence pattern, such asthe Imperative sentence, isneeded to do further research. Introduction Entailment and presupposition showsthe different relationship between sentences. Both of themare the meaning and information deduced fromthe sentence itself. The distinction between the two is alwaysan attentive hot question and hasnot reached agreement. The key point about that lie in: firstly, different referring terms are used by the same symbol and causing the misunderstanding about presupposition and entailment. It isessential to make clear distinction of presupposition and entailment for the developing of pragmatic or semantic research. In thispaper, we will discussthe semantic presupposition, and the distinction of semantic presupposition and entailment. The Philosophy Origination of Presupposition Presupposition originates with debates in philosophy, specifically debates about the nature of reference and referring expressions.