DOCSLIB.ORG

Inquisitive Semantics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inquisitive Semantics Inquisitive semantics Ivano Ciardelli Jeroen Groenendijk Floris Roelofsen November 24, 2017 About this document The current version of this book manuscript was created on November 24, 2017. Many of the papers referred to in the book can be accessed through: www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/papers Some computational tools that might help to become familiar with the frame- work presented in the book are available at: www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/resources The work presented here has been made possible through financial support from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the European Research Council (ERC), which we gratefully acknowledge. 2 Contents 1 Introduction7 1.1 Motivation..............................8 1.2 Main aims and outline of the book................. 17 2 Basic notions 19 2.1 The standard picture......................... 19 2.2 Information states.......................... 21 2.3 Issues................................. 23 2.4 Propositions.............................. 26 2.5 Contexts................................ 35 2.6 Summary and pointers to possible refinements........... 42 2.7 Exercises............................... 44 3 Basic operations on propositions 47 3.1 Algebraic operations......................... 48 3.2 Projection operators......................... 56 3.3 Linguistic relevance.......................... 59 3.4 Exercises............................... 59 4 A first-order inquisitive semantics 61 4.1 Logical language and models.................... 61 4.2 Semantics............................... 62 4.3 Semantic categories and projection operators........... 65 4.4 Examples............................... 67 4.5 Informative content, truth, and support.............. 71 4.6 Syntactic properties of non-hybrid sentences............ 72 4.7 Sources of inquisitiveness...................... 73 4.8 Comparison with alternative semantics............... 74 4.9 Exercises............................... 75 3 4 Contents 5 Questions 77 5.1 Polar questions............................ 77 5.2 Alternative questions......................... 78 5.3 Open disjunctive questions..................... 79 5.4 Wh-questions............................. 80 5.5 Question coordination and conditionalization........... 84 5.6 Limitations and extensions..................... 87 5.7 Exercises............................... 90 6 Disjunction, clause typing, and intonation 93 6.1 List structures............................ 96 6.2 Logical forms............................. 99 6.3 Interpreting logical forms...................... 100 6.4 Unmarked cases............................ 104 6.5 Marked cases............................. 107 6.6 Exercises............................... 110 7 Conditionals 113 7.1 Evidence for truth-conditional effects................ 114 7.2 Conditionals in inquisitive semantics................ 118 7.3 Further benefits............................ 127 7.4 Summary............................... 136 7.5 Exercises............................... 137 8 Propositional attitudes 139 8.1 Propositional attitudes: the standard account........... 140 8.2 Inquisitive epistemic logic...................... 144 8.3 Beyond know and wonder ...................... 153 8.4 Pointers to further work....................... 154 8.5 Exercises............................... 155 9 Comparison with previous approaches to questions 157 9.1 Alternative semantics........................ 158 9.2 Partition semantics.......................... 166 9.3 Inquisitive indifference semantics.................. 172 9.4 Division of labor........................... 175 9.5 Exercises............................... 182 10 Conclusion 185 10.1 Overview of main concepts..................... 185 10.2 Mission accomplished?........................ 187 A Sources 189 Contents 5 B Pointers for further reading 190 Chapter 1 Introduction Inquisitive semantics is a new semantic framework mainly intended for the anal- ysis of linguistic information exchange. Information exchange can be seen as a process of raising and resolving issues. Inquisitive semantics provides a new formal notion of issues, which makes it possible to model various concepts that are crucial for the analysis of linguistic information exchange in a more refined and more principled way than has been possible in previous frameworks. In particular: 1. The semantic content of both declarative and interrogative sentences can be represented in an integrated way, capturing not only the informa- tion that such sentences convey but also the issues that they raise; 2. Similarly, conversational contexts can be modeled as encompassing not just the information that has been established in the conversation so far, but also the issues that have been brought up; 3. And finally, it becomes possible to formally represent a broader range of propositional attitudes that are relevant for information exchange: besides the familiar information-directed attitudes like knowing and be- lieving, issue-directed attitudes like wondering can be captured as well. This book provides a detailed exposition of the most basic features of inquis- itive semantics, and demonstrates some of the advantages that the framework has with respect to previously proposed ways of representing semantic content, conversational contexts, and propositional attitudes. This introductory chapter will proceed to argue in some detail why a frame- work like inquisitive semantics is needed for a satisfactory analysis of informa- tion exchange (Section 1.1), and will end with a global outline of the remaining chapters (Section 1.2). 7 8 Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Motivation The most basic question that needs to be addressed in more detail before we introduce the new formal notion of issues that forms the cornerstone of inquisi- tive semantics is why such a notion is needed at all for the analysis of linguistic information exchange. This will be done in Section 1.1.1. A second fundamental point that we want to make is that the analysis of linguistic information exchange does not just require a semantic theory of declar- atives and another semantic theory of interrogatives side by side, but rather an integrated theory of declaratives and interrogatives; neither sentence type can be fully understood in isolation. Reasons for this will be given in Section 1.1.2. Finally, a third important point is that a semantic theory of declaratives and interrogatives should not employ two different notions of semantic content, one for declaratives and one for interrogatives, but should rather be based on a single notion of semantic content that is general enough to capture both the information that sentences convey and the issues that they may raise. This point will be substantiated in Section 1.1.3. 1.1.1 Why do we need a formal notion of issues? There are several reasons why a formal notion of issues is needed for the analysis of linguistic information exchange, and each of these is related to one of the three aspects of information exchange listed above: some arise from the need for a suitable notion of semantic content, some from the need for a suitable model of conversational contexts, and yet others from the need for a sufficiently refined representation of the mental states of conversational participants. We will discuss each in turn. Reason 1: To represent the content of interrogative sentences The semantic content of a declarative sentence is standardly construed as a set of possible worlds, those worlds that are compatible with the information that the sentence conveys (as per the conventions of the language; additional information may be conveyed pragmatically when the sentence is uttered). This set of worlds is referred to as the proposition that the sentence expresses. This notion of semantic content works well for declarative sentences, whose main conversational role is indeed to provide information. For instance, the main communicative function of the declarative sentence in (1) below is to convey the information that Bill is coming. (1) Bill is coming. But information exchange typically does not just consist in a sequence of declar- 1.1. Motivation 9 ative sentences. An equally important role is played by interrogative sentences, whose main conversational role is to raise issues. Can the semantic content of an interrogative sentence be construed as a set of possible worlds as well? Consider the example in (2), a polar interrogative: (2) Is Bill coming? Frege(1918) famously proposed that the interrogative in (2) and the declarative in (1) can indeed be taken to have the same semantic content: \An interrogative sentence and an indicative one contain the same thought; but the indicative contains something else as well, namely, the assertion. The interrogative sentence contains something more too, namely a request. Therefore two things must be distinguished in an indicative sentence: the content, which it has in common with the corresponding sentence-question, and the assertion." (Frege, 1918, p.294)1 So the idea is that declaratives and interrogatives have the same semantic content|a proposition|but come with a different force|either assertion or request. This idea has been quite prominent in the literature, especially in speech act theory (Searle, 1969; Vanderveken, 1990).2 However, as noted by Frege himself, it is limited in scope. It may work for simple polar interrogatives, but not for many other kinds of interrogatives, like (3)-(4): (3) Is Bill coming, or Sue? (4) Who is coming? Moreover, as has been argued extensively in the more recent literature
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jigsaw Semantics
    Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication Volume 6 FORMAL SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS. DISCOURSE, CONTEXT AND Article 6 MODELS 2011 Jigsaw Semantics Paul J E. Dekker ILLC/Department of Philosophy Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/biyclc This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Dekker, Paul J E. (2011) "Jigsaw Semantics," Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication: Vol. 6. https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1566 This Proceeding of the Symposium for Cognition, Logic and Communication is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jigsaw Semantics 2 The Baltic International Yearbook of 1. INTRODUCTION Cognition, Logic and Communication Anybody involved in the formal study of the interpretation of natural October 2011 Volume 6: Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: language will notice that the discipline, to the extent that it is fair to Discourse, Context, and Models speak of one at all, is utterly scattered. If one enters the field with a pages 1-26 DOI: 10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1566 pure academic or intellectual interest, the diversity of grammars and interpretation systems is bewildering. One finds varieties of lexical, computational, cognitive, and representational semantics, structured PAUL J. E. DEKKER meanings, update semantics, constructive or proof-theoretic systems of ILLC/Department of Philosophy semantics, constraints-based and optimality theoretic semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Radical Inquisitive Semantics∗
    Radical inquisitive semantics∗ Jeroen Groenendijk and Floris Roelofsen ILLC/Department of Philosophy University of Amsterdam http://www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics October 6, 2010 Contents 1 Inquisitive semantics: propositions as proposals 2 1.1 Logic and conversation . .3 1.2 Compliance . .4 1.3 Counter-compliance . .5 2 Radical inquisitive semantics 6 2.1 Atoms, disjunction, and conjunction . .8 2.2 Negation . 12 2.3 Questions . 15 2.4 Implication . 18 3 Refusal, supposition and the Ramsey test 23 3.1 Refusing a proposal . 24 3.2 Suppositions . 26 ∗This an abridged version of a paper in the making. Earlier versions were presented in a seminar at the University of Massachusetts Amherst on April 12 and 21, 2010, at the Journ´ees S´emantiqueet Mod´elisation in Nancy (March 25, 2010), at the Formal Theories of Communication workshop at the Lorentz Center in Leiden (February 26, 2010), and at colloquia at the ILLC in Amsterdam (February 5, 2010) and the ICS in Osnabruck¨ (January 13, 2010). 1 3.3 Conditional questions . 27 3.4 The Ramsey test . 28 3.5 Conditional questions and questioned conditionals . 30 4 Minimal change semantics for conditionals 32 4.1 Unconditionals . 33 4.2 Dependency . 34 4.3 Minimal change with disjunctive antecedents . 36 4.4 Alternatives without disjunction . 39 4.5 Strengthening versus simplification . 40 5 Types of proposals 41 5.1 Suppositionality, informativeness, and inquisitiveness . 41 5.2 Questions, assertions, and hybrids . 42 6 Assessing a proposal 42 6.1 Licity, acceptability, and objectionability . 42 6.2 Support and unobjectionability . 44 6.3 Resolvability and counter-resolvability .
    [Show full text]
  • How to Do Things with Types⇤
    Joint Proceedings NLCS’14 & NLSR 2014, July 17-18, 2014, Vienna, Austria How to do things with types⇤ Robin Cooper University of Gothenburg Abstract We present a theory of type acts based on type theory relating to a general theory of action which can be used as a foundation for a theory of linguistic acts. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Type acts 2 3 Coordinating interaction in games 5 4 Conclusion 9 1 Introduction The title of this paper picks up, of course, on the seminal book How to do things with words by J.L. Austin [Aus62], which laid the foundation for speech act theory. In recent work on dialogue such as [Gin12] it is proposed that it is important for linguistic analysis to take seriously a notion of linguistic acts. To formulate this, Ginzburg uses TTR (“Type Theory with Records”) as developed in [Coo12]. The idea was also very much a part of the original work on situation semantics [BP83] which has also served as an inspiration for the work on TTR. TTR was also originally inspired by work on constructive type theory [ML84, NPS90] in which there is a notion of judgement that an object a is of a type T , a : T .1 We shall think of judgements as a kind of type act and propose that there are other type acts in addition to judgements. We shall also follow [Ran94] in including types of events (or more generally, situations) in a type theory suitable for building a theory of action and of linguistic meaning. ⇤The work for this paper was supported in part by VR project 2009-1569, SAICD.
    [Show full text]
  • Vagueness: Insights from Martin, Jeroen, and Frank
    Vagueness: insights from Martin, Jeroen, and Frank Robert van Rooij 1 Introduction My views on the semantic and pragmatic interpretation of natural language were in- fluenced a lot by the works of Martin, Jeroen and Frank. What attracted me most is that although their work is always linguistically relevant, it still has a philosophical point to make. As a student (not in Amsterdam), I was already inspired a lot by their work on dynamics semantics, and by Veltman’s work on data semantics. Afterwards, the earlier work on the interpretation of questions and aswers by Martin and Jeroen played a signifcant role in many of my papers. Moreover, during the years in Amster- dam I developped—like almost anyone else who ever teached logic and/or philosophy of language to philosophy students at the UvA—a love-hate relation with the work of Wittgenstein, for which I take Martin to be responsible, at least to a large extent. In recent years, I worked a lot on vagueness, and originally I was again influenced by the work of one of the three; this time the (unpublished) notes on vagueness by Frank. But in recent joint work with Pablo Cobreros, Paul Egr´eand Dave Ripley, we developed an analysis of vagueness and transparant truth far away from anything ever published by Martin, Jeroen, or Frank. But only recently I realized that I have gone too far: I should have taken more seriously some insights due to Martin, Jeroen and/or Frank also for the analysis of vagueness and transparant truth. I should have listened more carefully to the wise words of Martin always to take • Wittgenstein seriously.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquisitive Semantics OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, //, Spi
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, //, SPi Inquisitive Semantics OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, //, SPi OXFORD SURVEYS IN SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS general editors: Chris Barker, NewYorkUniversity, and Christopher Kennedy, University of Chicago advisory editors: Kent Bach, San Francisco State University; Jack Hoeksema, University of Groningen;LaurenceR.Horn,Yale University; William Ladusaw, University of California Santa Cruz; Richard Larson, Stony Brook University; Beth Levin, Stanford University;MarkSteedman,University of Edinburgh; Anna Szabolcsi, New York University; Gregory Ward, Northwestern University published Modality Paul Portner Reference Barbara Abbott Intonation and Meaning Daniel Büring Questions Veneeta Dayal Mood Paul Portner Inquisitive Semantics Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, and Floris Roelofsen in preparation Aspect Hana Filip Lexical Pragmatics Laurence R. Horn Conversational Implicature Yan Huang OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, //, SPi Inquisitive Semantics IVANO CIARDELLI, JEROEN GROENENDIJK, AND FLORIS ROELOFSEN 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, //, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, and Floris Roelofsen The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in Impression: Some rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, for commercial purposes, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rights organization. This is an open access publication, available online and distributed under the terms ofa Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivatives .
    [Show full text]
  • Prosodic Focus∗
    Prosodic Focus∗ Michael Wagner March 10, 2020 Abstract This chapter provides an introduction to the phenomenon of prosodic focus, as well as to the theory of Alternative Semantics. Alternative Semantics provides an insightful account of what prosodic focus means, and gives us a notation that can help with better characterizing focus-related phenomena and the terminology used to describe them. We can also translate theoretical ideas about focus and givenness into this notation to facilitate a comparison between frameworks. The discussion will partly be structured by an evaluation of the theories of Givenness, the theory of Relative Givenness, and Unalternative Semantics, but we will cover a range of other ideas and proposals in the process. The chapter concludes with a discussion of phonological issues, and of association with focus. Keywords: focus, givenness, topic, contrast, prominence, intonation, givenness, context, discourse Cite as: Wagner, Michael (2020). Prosodic Focus. In: Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., and Zimmermann, T. E., editors. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Wiley{Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem133 ∗Thanks to the audiences at the semantics colloquium in 2014 in Frankfurt, as well as the participants in classes taught at the DGFS Summer School in T¨ubingen2016, at McGill in the fall of 2016, at the Creteling Summer School in Rethymnos in the summer of 2018, and at the Summer School on Intonation and Word Order in Graz in the fall of 2018 (lectures published on OSF: Wagner, 2018). Thanks also for in-depth comments on an earlier version of this chapter by Dan Goodhue and Lisa Matthewson, and two reviewers; I am also indebted to several discussions of focus issues with Aron Hirsch, Bernhard Schwarz, and Ede Zimmermann (who frequently wanted coffee) over the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science on 2018-01-25 to Be Valid from 2018-01-25
    DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, LINGUISTICS AND THEORY OF SCIENCE Type Theory with Records: From Perception to Communication, 7,5 higher education credits Type Theory with Records: Från perception till kommunikation, 7,5 högskolepoäng Third Cycle/Forskarnivå Confirmation The course syllabus was confirmed by the Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science on 2018-01-25 to be valid from 2018-01-25. Entry requirements General and specific entry requirements for third-cycle education according to Admissions Regulations and the general syllabus for the subject area at hand. Learning outcomes After completion of the course the doctoral student is expected to be able to : Knowledge and understanding demonstrate enhanced knowledge and understanding of the subject areas of the course, discuss in detail key theories and issues in one or more of the subject areas of the course, Skills and abilities offer a detailed analysis of issues, lines of arguments or methods from the literature, select and define issues, lines of arguments or methods from the literature that are suitable for a short critical essay or a conference paper, Judgement and approach critically discuss, orally or in writing, questions, lines of arguments or methods that are used in the literature, critically assess the validity of the studied lines of argument. Course content The course introduces TTR, a Type Theory with Records, as a framework for natural language grammar and interaction. We are taking a dialogical view of semantics. The course covers the formal foundations of TTR as well as TTR accounts of perception, intensionality, information exchange, grammar (syntax and semantics), quantification, modality and other linguistic phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Snippetssnippets
    snippetssnippets Issue 37 - December 2019 Special issue in honor of Uli Sauerland Contents 1. Andreea C. Nicolae, Patrick D. Elliott, and Yasutada Sudo Introduction ................................................... ..................1 2. DorothyAhn ASL IX to locus as a modifier ................................................... ..2 3. Artemis Alexiadou Decomposing scalar approximatives in Greek ......................................4 4. Anna Alsop, Lucas Champollion, and Ioana Grosu A problem for Fox’s (2007) account of free choice disjunction ........................7 5. Anton Benz and Nicole Gotzner Quantifier irgendein and local implicature ........................................10 6. Jonathan David Bobaljik and Susi Wurmbrand Fake indexicals, binding, and the PCC ............................................13 7. Brian Buccola and Emmanuel Chemla Alternatives of disjunctions: when a disjunct contains the antecedent of a pronoun ....16 8. LukaCrnicˇ and Brian Buccola Scoping NPIs out of DPs ................................................... .....19 9. Chris Cummins Some contexts requiring precise number meanings .................................22 10. Patrick D. Elliott and Paul Marty Exactly one theory of multiplicity inferences .......................................24 11. Anamaria Fal˘ au¸sand˘ Andreea C. Nicolae Two coordinating particles are better than one: free choice items in Romanian ........27 12. DannyFox Individual concepts and narrow scope illusions ....................................30 13. DannyFox Degree concepts
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Dynamic Semantics
    A Guide to Dynamic Semantics Paul Dekker ILLC/Department of Philosophy University of Amsterdam September 15, 2008 1 Introduction In this article we give an introduction to the idea and workings of dynamic se- mantics. We start with an overview of its historical background and motivation in this introductory section. An in-depth description of a paradigm version of dynamic semantics, Dynamic Predicate Logic, is given in section 2. In section 3 we discuss some applications of the dynamic kind of interpretation to illustrate how it can be taken to neatly account for a vast number of empirical phenom- ena. In section 4 more radical extensions of the basic paradigm are discussed, all of them systematically incorporating previously deemed pragmatic aspects of meaning in the interpretational system. Finally, a discussion of some more general, philosophical and theoretical, issues surrounding dynamic semantics can be found in section 5. 1.1 Theoretical Background What is dynamic semantics. Some people claim it embodies a radical new view of meaning, departing from the main logical paradigm as it has been prominent in most of the previous century. Meaning, or so it is said, is not some object, or some Platonic entity, but it is something that changes information states. A very simple-minded way of putting the idea is that people uses languages, they have cognitive states, and what language does is change these states. “Natu- ral languages are programming languages for minds”, it has been said. Others build on the assumption that natural language and its interpretation is not just concerned with describing an independently given world, but that there are lots of others things relevant in the interpretation of discourse, and lots of other functions of language than a merely descriptive one.
    [Show full text]
  • The Surface-Compositional Semantics of English Intonation Mark Steedman
    THE SURFACE-COMPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS OF ENGLISH INTONATION MARK STEEDMAN University of Edinburgh This article proposes a syntax and a semantics for intonation in English and some related lan - guages. The semantics is ‘surface-compositional’, in the sense that syntactic derivation constructs information-structural logical form monotonically , without rules of structural revision, and with - out autonomous rules of ‘focus projection ’. This is made possible by the generalized notion of syntactic constituency afforded by combinatory categorial grammar (CCG)—in particular, the fact that its rules are restricted to string-adjacent type-driven combination. In this way, the grammar unites intonation structure and information structure with surface-syntactic derivational structure and Montague-style compositional semantics, even when they deviate radically from traditional surface structure. The article revises and extends earlier CCG-based accounts of intonational semantics, ground - ing hitherto informal notions like ‘theme ’ and ‘rheme ’ (a.k.a. ‘topic ’ and ‘comment ’, ‘ presupposi - tion ’ and ‘focus ’, etc.) and ‘background ’ and ‘contrast ’ (a.k.a. ‘given ’ and ‘new ’, ‘ focus ’, etc.) in a logic of speaker/hearer supposition and update, using a version of Rooth’s alternative semantics . A CCG grammar fragment is defined that constrains language-specific intonation and its interpreta - tion more narrowly than previous attempts.* Keywords : intonation structure, information structure, second-occurrence focus, combinatory cat - egorial grammar (CCG), syntax, semantics 1. INTRODUCTION . The main claims of this article concern the semantics of informa - tion structure—the part of sentence semantics that has to do with the relation of utter - ance to discourse context and participant supposition about ‘common ground ’—and its relation to surface grammar.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERPRETATION of DISJUNCTION Do Children Interpret
    INTERPRETATION OF DISJUNCTION 1 Do children interpret “or” conjunctively? Dimitrios Skordosa, Roman Feimanb, Alan Balec, & David Barnerd aUniversity of Calgary bBrown University cConcordia University dUniversity of California, San Diego CONTACT: Dimitrios Skordos School of Languages, Linguistics, Literatures & Cultures University of Calgary [email protected] INTERPRETATION OF DISJUNCTION 2 Acknowledgements: Thank you to the many families and preschools who participated in this research, as well as the Fleet Science Center. Thank you also to Junyi Chu and members of the Language and Development Lab for help collecting data. This work was funded in part by a grant to D.B. from the James S. McDonnell Foundation and a SSHRC Insight grant to A.B. INTERPRETATION OF DISJUNCTION 3 ABSTRACT Preschoolers often struggle to compute scalar implicatures (SI) involving disjunction (or), in which they are required to strengthen an utterance by negating stronger alternatives, e.g., to infer that, “The girl has an apple or an orange” likely means she doesn’t have both. However, recent reports surprisingly find that a substantial subset of children interpret disjunction as conjunction, concluding instead that the girl must have both fruits. According to these studies, children arrive at conjunctive readings not because they have a non-adult-like semantics, but because they lack access to the stronger scalar alternative and, and employ doubly exhaustified disjuncts when computing implicatures. Using stimuli modeled on previous studies, we test English-speaking preschoolers and replicate the finding that many children interpret or conjunctively. However, we speculate that conditions which replicate this finding may be pragmatically infelicitous, such that results do not offer a valid test of children’s semantic competence.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Describing Syntax and Semantics
    Chapter 3 Describing Syntax and Semantics 3.1 Introduction 110 3.2 The General Problem of Describing Syntax 111 3.3 Formal Methods of Describing Syntax 113 3.4 Attribute Grammars 128 3.5 Describing the Meanings of Programs: Dynamic Semantics 134 Summary • Bibliographic Notes • Review Questions • Problem Set 155 CMPS401 Class Notes (Chap03) Page 1 / 25 Dr. Kuo-pao Yang Chapter 3 Describing Syntax and Semantics 3.1 Introduction 110 Syntax – the form of the expressions, statements, and program units Semantics - the meaning of the expressions, statements, and program units. Ex: the syntax of a Java while statement is while (boolean_expr) statement – The semantics of this statement form is that when the current value of the Boolean expression is true, the embedded statement is executed. – The form of a statement should strongly suggest what the statement is meant to accomplish. 3.2 The General Problem of Describing Syntax 111 A sentence or “statement” is a string of characters over some alphabet. The syntax rules of a language specify which strings of characters from the language’s alphabet are in the language. A language is a set of sentences. A lexeme is the lowest level syntactic unit of a language. It includes identifiers, literals, operators, and special word (e.g. *, sum, begin). A program is strings of lexemes. A token is a category of lexemes (e.g., identifier). An identifier is a token that have lexemes, or instances, such as sum and total. Ex: index = 2 * count + 17; Lexemes Tokens index identifier = equal_sign 2 int_literal * mult_op count identifier + plus_op 17 int_literal ; semicolon CMPS401 Class Notes (Chap03) Page 2 / 25 Dr.
    [Show full text]