DOCSLIB.ORG

Compositionality Tutorial 4 Pros and Cons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Compositionality Tutorial 4 Pros and Cons Compositionality Tutorial 4 Pros and Cons Dag Westerst˚ahl Stockholm University and University of Gothenburg Tsinghua University, Beijing June 17, 2011 Tsinghua University, Beijing June 17, 2011 1 Dag Westerst˚ahl () Compositionality 4 / 20 Outline 1 Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" Denial 2: ambiguity Denial 3: idioms Conclusions 2 Emptiness 3 Praise Tsinghua University, Beijing June 17, 2011 2 Dag Westerst˚ahl () Compositionality 4 / 20 Yes: FO is not compositional if semantic values are truth values and assignments are seen as parameters. (Because assignments are shifted in the clauses for the quantifiers.) But FO is compositional if semantic values are sets of assignments. X = Independence-Friendly logic (Hintikka, who explicitly makes the non-compositionality claim). Yes: It can be shown that no semantics for IF-logic which takes sets of assignments as values can be compositional (Cameron and Hodges). No: We already saw (Hodges' extension theorem) that compositional semantics with certain nice properties exist. Moreover, an interesting compositional semantics which takes semantic values to be sets of sets of assignments (so-called trumps or teams) has been given by Hodges (see V¨a¨an¨anen, Dependence Logic, 2007). Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional" X = first-order logic: 1 of 20 But FO is compositional if semantic values are sets of assignments. X = Independence-Friendly logic (Hintikka, who explicitly makes the non-compositionality claim). Yes: It can be shown that no semantics for IF-logic which takes sets of assignments as values can be compositional (Cameron and Hodges). No: We already saw (Hodges' extension theorem) that compositional semantics with certain nice properties exist. Moreover, an interesting compositional semantics which takes semantic values to be sets of sets of assignments (so-called trumps or teams) has been given by Hodges (see V¨a¨an¨anen, Dependence Logic, 2007). Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional" X = first-order logic: Yes: FO is not compositional if semantic values are truth values and assignments are seen as parameters. (Because assignments are shifted in the clauses for the quantifiers.) 1 of 20 X = Independence-Friendly logic (Hintikka, who explicitly makes the non-compositionality claim). Yes: It can be shown that no semantics for IF-logic which takes sets of assignments as values can be compositional (Cameron and Hodges). No: We already saw (Hodges' extension theorem) that compositional semantics with certain nice properties exist. Moreover, an interesting compositional semantics which takes semantic values to be sets of sets of assignments (so-called trumps or teams) has been given by Hodges (see V¨a¨an¨anen, Dependence Logic, 2007). Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional" X = first-order logic: Yes: FO is not compositional if semantic values are truth values and assignments are seen as parameters. (Because assignments are shifted in the clauses for the quantifiers.) But FO is compositional if semantic values are sets of assignments. 1 of 20 Yes: It can be shown that no semantics for IF-logic which takes sets of assignments as values can be compositional (Cameron and Hodges). No: We already saw (Hodges' extension theorem) that compositional semantics with certain nice properties exist. Moreover, an interesting compositional semantics which takes semantic values to be sets of sets of assignments (so-called trumps or teams) has been given by Hodges (see V¨a¨an¨anen, Dependence Logic, 2007). Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional" X = first-order logic: Yes: FO is not compositional if semantic values are truth values and assignments are seen as parameters. (Because assignments are shifted in the clauses for the quantifiers.) But FO is compositional if semantic values are sets of assignments. X = Independence-Friendly logic (Hintikka, who explicitly makes the non-compositionality claim). 1 of 20 No: We already saw (Hodges' extension theorem) that compositional semantics with certain nice properties exist. Moreover, an interesting compositional semantics which takes semantic values to be sets of sets of assignments (so-called trumps or teams) has been given by Hodges (see V¨a¨an¨anen, Dependence Logic, 2007). Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional" X = first-order logic: Yes: FO is not compositional if semantic values are truth values and assignments are seen as parameters. (Because assignments are shifted in the clauses for the quantifiers.) But FO is compositional if semantic values are sets of assignments. X = Independence-Friendly logic (Hintikka, who explicitly makes the non-compositionality claim). Yes: It can be shown that no semantics for IF-logic which takes sets of assignments as values can be compositional (Cameron and Hodges). 1 of 20 Moreover, an interesting compositional semantics which takes semantic values to be sets of sets of assignments (so-called trumps or teams) has been given by Hodges (see V¨a¨an¨anen, Dependence Logic, 2007). Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional" X = first-order logic: Yes: FO is not compositional if semantic values are truth values and assignments are seen as parameters. (Because assignments are shifted in the clauses for the quantifiers.) But FO is compositional if semantic values are sets of assignments. X = Independence-Friendly logic (Hintikka, who explicitly makes the non-compositionality claim). Yes: It can be shown that no semantics for IF-logic which takes sets of assignments as values can be compositional (Cameron and Hodges). No: We already saw (Hodges' extension theorem) that compositional semantics with certain nice properties exist. 1 of 20 Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional" X = first-order logic: Yes: FO is not compositional if semantic values are truth values and assignments are seen as parameters. (Because assignments are shifted in the clauses for the quantifiers.) But FO is compositional if semantic values are sets of assignments. X = Independence-Friendly logic (Hintikka, who explicitly makes the non-compositionality claim). Yes: It can be shown that no semantics for IF-logic which takes sets of assignments as values can be compositional (Cameron and Hodges). No: We already saw (Hodges' extension theorem) that compositional semantics with certain nice properties exist. Moreover, an interesting compositional semantics which takes semantic values to be sets of sets of assignments (so-called trumps or teams) has been given by Hodges (see V¨a¨an¨anen, Dependence Logic, 2007). 1 of 20 This is too unspecified. Compositionality is relative to a syntactic analysis (a grammar) and an assignment of semantic values. X = English belief sentences, of the form \A believes that '": This is more interesting: If extensions are semantic values, and (1) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist. (2) Karl believes that Samuel Clemens is a novelist. can differ in truth value, and if truth value depends on semantic value, then the semantics for (this fragment of) English is not compositional. Also, if intensions are semantic values, and (3) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist. (4) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist and 172 = 289. can differ in truth value, and if truth value depends on semantic value, then the semantics for (this fragment of) English is not compositional. Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional", cont. X = English: 2 of 20 X = English belief sentences, of the form \A believes that '": This is more interesting: If extensions are semantic values, and (1) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist. (2) Karl believes that Samuel Clemens is a novelist. can differ in truth value, and if truth value depends on semantic value, then the semantics for (this fragment of) English is not compositional. Also, if intensions are semantic values, and (3) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist. (4) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist and 172 = 289. can differ in truth value, and if truth value depends on semantic value, then the semantics for (this fragment of) English is not compositional. Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional", cont. X = English: This is too unspecified. Compositionality is relative to a syntactic analysis (a grammar) and an assignment of semantic values. 2 of 20 This is more interesting: If extensions are semantic values, and (1) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist. (2) Karl believes that Samuel Clemens is a novelist. can differ in truth value, and if truth value depends on semantic value, then the semantics for (this fragment of) English is not compositional. Also, if intensions are semantic values, and (3) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist. (4) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist and 172 = 289. can differ in truth value, and if truth value depends on semantic value, then the semantics for (this fragment of) English is not compositional. Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional", cont. X = English: This is too unspecified. Compositionality is relative to a syntactic analysis (a grammar) and an assignment of semantic values. X = English belief sentences, of the form \A believes that '": 2 of 20 Also, if intensions are semantic values, and (3) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist. (4) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist and 172 = 289. can differ in truth value, and if truth value depends on semantic value, then the semantics for (this fragment of) English is not compositional. Denials Denial 1: \X is not compositional" \X is not compositional", cont. X = English: This is too unspecified. Compositionality is relative to a syntactic analysis (a grammar) and an assignment of semantic values. X = English belief sentences, of the form \A believes that '": This is more interesting: If extensions are semantic values, and (1) Karl believes that Mark Twain is a novelist.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics
    Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics YEUNG, \y,ang -C-hun ...:' . '",~ ... ~ .. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy In Philosophy The Chinese University of Hong Kong January 2010 Abstract of thesis entitled: Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics Submitted by YEUNG, Wang Chun for the degree of Master of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in July 2009 This ,thesis investigates problems surrounding the lively debate about how Kripke's examples of necessary a posteriori truths and contingent a priori truths should be explained. Two-dimensionalism is a recent development that offers a non-reductive analysis of such truths. The semantic interpretation of two-dimensionalism, proposed by Jackson and Chalmers, has certain 'descriptive' elements, which can be articulated in terms of the following three claims: (a) names and natural kind terms are reference-fixed by some associated properties, (b) these properties are known a priori by every competent speaker, and (c) these properties reflect the cognitive significance of sentences containing such terms. In this thesis, I argue against two arguments directed at such 'descriptive' elements, namely, The Argument from Ignorance and Error ('AlE'), and The Argument from Variability ('AV'). I thereby suggest that reference-fixing properties belong to the semantics of names and natural kind terms, and not to their metasemantics. Chapter 1 is a survey of some central notions related to the debate between descriptivism and direct reference theory, e.g. sense, reference, and rigidity. Chapter 2 outlines the two-dimensional approach and introduces the va~ieties of interpretations 11 of the two-dimensional framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Scope Ambiguity in Syntax and Semantics
    Scope Ambiguity in Syntax and Semantics Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg. 142-157 Is Scope Ambiguity Semantically Real? (1) Everyone loves someone. a. Wide scope reading of universal quantifier: ∀x[person(x) →∃y[person(y) ∧ love(x,y)]] b. Wide scope reading of existential quantifier: ∃y[person(y) ∧∀x[person(x) → love(x,y)]] 1 Could one semantic representation handle both the readings? • ∃y∀x reading entails ∀x∃y reading. ∀x∃y describes a more general situation where everyone has someone who s/he loves, and ∃y∀x describes a more specific situation where everyone loves the same person. • Then, couldn’t we say that Everyone loves someone is associated with the semantic representation that describes the more general reading, and the more specific reading obtains under an appropriate context? That is, couldn’t we say that Everyone loves someone is not semantically ambiguous, and its only semantic representation is the following? ∀x[person(x) →∃y[person(y) ∧ love(x,y)]] • After all, this semantic representation reflects the syntax: In syntax, everyone c-commands someone. In semantics, everyone scopes over someone. 2 Arguments for Real Scope Ambiguity • The semantic representation with the scope of quantifiers reflecting the order in which quantifiers occur in a sentence does not always represent the most general reading. (2) a. There was a name tag near every plate. b. A guard is standing in front of every gate. c. A student guide took every visitor to two museums. • Could we stipulate that when interpreting a sentence, no matter which order the quantifiers occur, always assign wide scope to every and narrow scope to some, two, etc.? 3 Arguments for Real Scope Ambiguity (cont.) • But in a negative sentence, ¬∀x∃y reading entails ¬∃y∀x reading.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Logic of Two-Dimensional Semantics
    Matrices and Modalities: On the Logic of Two-Dimensional Semantics MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Peter Fritz (born March 4, 1984 in Ludwigsburg, Germany) under the supervision of Dr Paul Dekker and Prof Dr Yde Venema, and submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Logic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Date of the public defense: Members of the Thesis Committee: June 29, 2011 Dr Paul Dekker Dr Emar Maier Dr Alessandra Palmigiano Prof Dr Frank Veltman Prof Dr Yde Venema Abstract Two-dimensional semantics is a theory in the philosophy of language that pro- vides an account of meaning which is sensitive to the distinction between ne- cessity and apriority. Usually, this theory is presented in an informal manner. In this thesis, I take first steps in formalizing it, and use the formalization to present some considerations in favor of two-dimensional semantics. To do so, I define a semantics for a propositional modal logic with operators for the modalities of necessity, actuality, and apriority that captures the relevant ideas of two-dimensional semantics. I use this to show that some criticisms of two- dimensional semantics that claim that the theory is incoherent are not justified. I also axiomatize the logic, and compare it to the most important proposals in the literature that define similar logics. To indicate that two-dimensional semantics is a plausible semantic theory, I give an argument that shows that all theorems of the logic can be philosophically justified independently of two-dimensional semantics. Acknowledgements I thank my supervisors Paul Dekker and Yde Venema for their help and encour- agement in preparing this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ambiguous Nature of Language
    International J. Soc. Sci. & Education 2017 Vol.7 Issue 4, ISSN: 2223-4934 E and 2227-393X Print The Ambiguous Nature of Language By Mohammad Awwad Applied Linguistics, English Department, Lebanese University, Beirut, LEBANON. [email protected] Abstract Linguistic ambiguity is rendered as a problematic issue since it hinders precise language processing. Ambiguity leads to a confusion of ideas in the reader’s mind when he struggles to decide on the precise meaning intended behind an utterance. In the literature relevant to the topic, no clear classification of linguistic ambiguity can be traced, for what is considered syntactic ambiguity, for some linguists, falls under pragmatic ambiguity for others; what is rendered as lexical ambiguity for some linguists is perceived as semantic ambiguity for others and still as unambiguous to few. The problematic issue, hence, can be recapitulated in the abstruseness hovering around what is linguistic ambiguity, what is not, and what comprises each type of ambiguity in language. The present study aimed at propounding lucid classification of ambiguity types according to their function in context by delving into ambiguity types which are displayed in English words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. converges in an attempt to disambiguate English language structures, and thus provide learners with a better language processing outcome and enhance teachers with a more facile and lucid teaching task. Keywords: linguistic ambiguity, language processing. 1. Introduction Ambiguity is derived from ‘ambiagotatem’ in Latin which combined ‘ambi’ and ‘ago’ each word meaning ‘around’ or ‘by’ (Atlas,1989) , and thus the concept of ambiguity is hesitation, doubt, or uncertainty and that concept associated the term ‘ambiguous’ from the first usage until the most recent linguistic definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuzziness-Vagueness-Generality-Ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics (Elsevier Science B.V
    Fuzziness-vagueness-generality-ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics (Elsevier Science B.V. in New York & Amsterdam), 1998, 29 (1): pp 13-31. Fuzziness---Vagueness---Generality---Ambiguity1 Qiao Zhang Published by Journal of Pragmatics (Elsevier Science B.V. in New York & Amsterdam), 1998, 29(1): pp 13-31. Contact: Dr Grace Zhang Department of Languages and Intercultural Education Curtin University of Technology GPO Box 1987 Perth, Western Australia 6845 Australia Tel: +61 8 9266 3478 Fax: +61 8 9266 4133 Email: [email protected] Abstract In this paper, I attempt to distinguish four linguistic concepts: fuzziness, vagueness, generality and ambiguity. The distinction between the four concepts is a significant matter, both theoretically and practically. Several tests are discussed from the perspectives of semantics, syntax and pragmatics. It is my contention that fuzziness, vagueness, and generality are licensed by Grice's Co-operative Principle, i.e. they are just as important as precision in language. I conclude that generality, vagueness, and fuzziness are under-determined, and ambiguity is over-determined. Fuzziness differs from generality, vagueness, and ambiguity in that it is not simply a result of a one-to- many relationship between a general meaning and its specifications; nor a list of possible related interpretations derived from a vague expression; nor a list of unrelated meanings denoted by an ambiguous expression. Fuzziness is inherent in the sense that it has no clear-cut referential boundary, and is not resolvable with resort to context, as opposed to generality, vagueness, and ambiguity, which may be contextually eliminated. It is also concluded that fuzziness is closely involved with language users' judgments.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyticity, Necessity and Belief Aspects of Two-Dimensional Semantics
    !"# #$%"" &'( ( )#"% * +, %- ( * %. ( %/* %0 * ( +, %. % +, % %0 ( 1 2 % ( %/ %+ ( ( %/ ( %/ ( ( 1 ( ( ( % "# 344%%4 253333 #6#787 /0.' 9'# 86' 8" /0.' 9'# 86' (#"8'# Analyticity, Necessity and Belief Aspects of two-dimensional semantics Eric Johannesson c Eric Johannesson, Stockholm 2017 ISBN print 978-91-7649-776-0 ISBN PDF 978-91-7649-777-7 Printed by Universitetsservice US-AB, Stockholm 2017 Distributor: Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University Cover photo: the water at Petite Terre, Guadeloupe 2016 Contents Acknowledgments v 1 Introduction 1 2 Modal logic 7 2.1Introduction.......................... 7 2.2Basicmodallogic....................... 13 2.3Non-denotingterms..................... 21 2.4Chaptersummary...................... 23 3 Two-dimensionalism 25 3.1Introduction.......................... 25 3.2Basictemporallogic..................... 27 3.3 Adding the now operator.................. 29 3.4Addingtheactualityoperator................ 32 3.5 Descriptivism ......................... 34 3.6Theanalytic/syntheticdistinction............. 40 3.7 Descriptivist 2D-semantics .................. 42 3.8 Causal descriptivism ..................... 49 3.9Meta-semantictwo-dimensionalism............. 50 3.10Epistemictwo-dimensionalism................ 54
    [Show full text]
  • EURAMERICA Vol
    EURAMERICA Vol. 36, No. 2 (June 2006), 203-227 © Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica Nozick and Indigenous Truth Kai-Yee Wong Department of Philosophy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Applying two-dimensional modal semantics, some philosophers, most recently Frank Jackson and David Chalmers among others, have sought to provide analyses of Kripke’s examples of the necessary a posteriori. Despite the massive amount of attention that two-dimensionalism has received of late, Robert Nozick’s recent accounting of Kripke’s examples, which bears striking similarities to these two-dimensionalist analyses but reached a different conclusion, has gone unnoticed. This paper argues that (a) underlying such a difference is a serious problem with the two- dimensionalist approach to the necessary a posteriori and (b) thinking through this problem will go a long way towards a proper understanding, and thus assessment, of this approach. Key Words: two-dimensional semantics, Saul Kripke, Robert Nozick Received July 19, 2005; accepted December 21, 2005; last revised April 3, 2006 Proofreaders: Hsin Wen Fan, Chun-da Lee 204 EURAMERICA I. Two-Dimensionalism and Invariances Two-dimensional modal semantics (hereafter two-dimensionalism) first originated from work being conducted on two-dimensional modal logic for tense and modality by Frank Vlach (1973), Lennart Åqvist (1973), Krister Segerberg (1973), J. A. W. Kamp (1971), and Bas van Fraassen (1977), and also formal work on context dependence by Richard Montague (1968), David Lewis (1970), and David Kaplan (1979, 1989). Over the past three decades or so, it has developed into a framework for studying such notions as content, meaning, intentionality, and conceivability, owing to the efforts of Martin Davies and I.
    [Show full text]
  • Constraining Scope Ambiguity in LFG+Glue
    Constraining Scope Ambiguity in LFG+Glue Matthew Gotham University of Oxford Proceedings of the LFG’19 Conference Australian National University Miriam Butt, Tracy Holloway King, Ida Toivonen (Editors) 2019 CSLI Publications pages 111–129 http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/2019 Keywords: scope, quantification, Glue semantics Gotham, Matthew. 2019. Constraining Scope Ambiguity in LFG+Glue. In Butt, Miriam, King, Tracy Holloway, & Toivonen, Ida (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG’19 Conference, Australian National University, 111–129. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publi- cations. Abstract A major strength of the Glue approach to semantic composition for LFG is that it accounts for quantifier scope ambiguity without the need for ad- ditional assumptions. However, quantifier scope is more rigid in some lan- guages and constructions than Glue would lead us to expect. I propose a mechanism for constraining scope ambiguity in LFG+Glue, based on ideas taken from Abstract Categorial Grammar. Unlike existing proposals, this ac- count does not depend on representational constraints on linear logic deriva- tions or meaning representations. 1 Introduction 1.1 Scope ambiguity Famously, sentences like (1) are ambiguous in English between a ‘surface scope’ and an ‘inverse scope’ interpretation. (1) A police officer guards every exit. The surface scope interpretation can be paraphrased as ‘there is a police officer who guards every exit’, and is represented logically in (2-a). The inverse scope interpretation can be paraphrased as ‘every exit is guarded by a police officer’, and is represented logically in (2-b). (2) a. 9x:officer0x ^ 8y:exit0y ! guard0xy b. 8y:exit0y ! 9x:officer0x ^ guard0xy Pre-theoretically, we can refer to the ambiguity of (1) under consideration as ‘scope ambiguity’.
    [Show full text]
  • Compositionality and Ambiguity∗
    Compositionality and Ambiguity∗ Dag Westerst˚ahl G¨oteborg University 1 The issue The topic of this paper is the relation between two principles, both widely endorsed in semantics, which may be preliminarily expressed as follows: (C) The meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its (immediate) constituents and the mode of composition. (A) Ambiguity, in the sense that expressions have more than one meaning, is a pervasive linguistic phenomenon. There is an apparent conflict between (C) and (A). You may think it is only apparent, and that it is obvious how it should be resolved. This might be the view of many linguists and philosophers of language. But others have felt that the conflict does pose a real problem. In general, though, one cannot say that the issue has been discussed very much. What I propose to do in this paper is simply to dig a little more into it. I think there are in fact interesting problems involved, and it is worth while to state them. My first aim will be to illustrate and clarify that claim. The second aim is to propose a new way of reconciling the two principles, and explore some of its consequences. Before we can begin, however, some preliminary points need to be made. 2 Preliminary Methodological Remarks 2.1 Background Assumptions To make sense of (C) we need, minimally, some function µ, which I will call here a semantics, from some collection E of structured expressions to some collection M of ‘meanings’. ∗I would like to thank Josh Dever, Peter Pagin, Zoltan Szabo, Jouko V¨a¨an¨anen, and the audience at the Semantics Workshop, Rutgers University, May 2001, for helpful comments on earlier versions of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 18: Negative Contexts and Intensional Contexts: Similarities and Differences 1. Introduction to the Puzzle
    The Structure of Meaning, Lecture 18 Barbara H. Partee, May 22, 2006 Lecture 18: Negative Contexts and Intensional Contexts: Similarities and Differences 1. Introduction to the puzzle..........................................................................................................................................1 2. Background. “Scope ambiguity,” NP interpretations, and the semantics of operators.............................................2 3. Natural language patterns – strategies of marking different interpretations differently. ...........................................4 3.1. Some languages mark opaque readings, e.g. Romance languages - subjunctive................................................4 3.2. Negative Polarity Items (NPIs)...........................................................................................................................5 3.3. Russian Genitive of Negation and intensional verbs ..........................................................................................6 4. Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................................7 4.1 Scope differences.................................................................................................................................................7 4.2 Possible non-uniform NP meanings. .................................................................................................................7 4.3 Property types and other “demotions”
    [Show full text]
  • Hintikka Vs. Frege on the "Logic of Being"
    1 HINTIKKA VS. FREGE ON THE "LOGIC OF BEING" Ignacio Angelelli 0. INTRODUCTION* Hintikka blames Frege and Russell for having established in the tradition of modern logic the "dogma" of the ambiguity of "is" between existence, predication, identity, and class- inclusion. The affirmation of this multiple ambiguity is called by Hintikka the "Frege-Russell thesis". Hintikka's criticism of the Frege-Russell thesis is (as emphasized by Hintikka himself in Self- Profile 1987a) twofold: theoretical (English does not have and does not need the distinction of meanings of "is") and historiographical (pre-Fregean texts, to be properly understood, do not need the retrospective projection of that distinction). Frege is the real culprit, rather than Russell. Hintikka views his dispute with Frege as pertaining to "the logic of being" (a phrase apparently coined by him; cf 1979, end of section 10: "Game-theoretical semantics is thus much closer to Aristotle's views on the logic of being than is the received view [Frege's]", emphasis mine, but the theoretical and historiographical opposition to Frege concerning the meaning of "is", is only a part of a more general "revolt against Frege" (Hintikka 1981b) undertaken by Hintikka. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the success of Hintikka's "revolt" against Frege in the particular issue of the ambiguity of "is". In section (l) I describe the thesis of the ambiguity of "is" attributed to Frege by Hintikka and Haaparanta. In (2) I examine Hintikka's reasons for rejecting the thesis of the ambiguity of "is". Section (3) is devoted to an analysis of the historiographical campaign as presented in the volume The Logic of Being.
    [Show full text]
  • SAI and Autonomy of Syntax
    University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics Volume 6 University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics Volume 5 Article 6 1980 SAI and Autonomy of Syntax Michael Rochemont Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/umop Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Rochemont, Michael (1980) "SAI and Autonomy of Syntax," University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 6 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/umop/vol6/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rochemont: SAI and Autonomy of Syntax .SAI AND AUTONOMY OF SYNTAX Michael Rochemont 0.0 In this paper we will critically examine the proposed analysis of Liberman (1975) of affective conditioned inversion constructions like that evidenced in the sentences which follow. Nowhere in the world can you find such beaches as these. At no time was John uncomfortable with Sue. Few men is David able to approach casually. The discussion assumes without subsequent argument the general validity of the framework of the. R.E.S.T., pa~ticularly as developed in Chomsky (1973) 1 (1977) and related work. Sections 1.1 and 1.2 review the pruning analysis Liberman proposes and in section l .3, some of the problems associated with such an analysis are noted; it will be argued here that the correlations Liberrnan 1 s pruning convention is designed to explain do not reflect true generalizations about English, and for this reason, the analysis will be seen to be without motivation .
    [Show full text]