DOCSLIB.ORG

Anaphora in Semantics and Pragmatics 2. Data: Binding Implicit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anaphora in Semantics and Pragmatics 2. Data: Binding Implicit ! ! !"#$%&'()$%*+,-./'0)-+1#)'23' ! ! !"#$%&'()$%*+,-./'0)-+1#)'23' ' ' 4%#5%#%'67'8%#+))/'9:;'<1*)'=/'3>>?''@7'"' ' ' 4%#5%#%'67'8%#+))/'9:;'<1*)'=/'3>>?''@7'9' ! ! Lecture 12: Implicit Arguments and Point of View is interpreted as a variable bound by a variable-binding operator associated with the interpretation of every man . "#!$%&'()*+,-.!/,%01*)%!2,!345%,62&7!%,-!8)%(5%62&7########################################################## "! Unified treatments of these uses of pronouns became available with the work of Kamp on 9#!:%6%.!$2,-2,(!250;2&26!<%)2%=;47!2,!>+%,62?24-!&*,64@67####################################################### 9! Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp 1981) and Heim on File Change Semantics A#!!B*50462,(!0)*0*7%;7!?*)!%&&*+,62,(!?*)!7+&1!014,*54,%############################################### C! (Heim 1983). Extensions to temporal and locative anaphora, where similar ranges of A#"#!3252;%)26247!6*!0)*,*+,7############################################################################################################ C! behavior can be found, were immediately made (Bäuerle 1979, Cooper 1986, Hinrichs A#9#!D14!3E,6%&62&!F4;%62*,!G%)2%=;4!/00)*%&1######################################################################## H! 1981, Partee 1984b, von Stechow 1982). Some temporal examples are given below. A#A#!D14!8)%(5%62&!I,)2&154,6!/00)*%&1################################################################################# J! (4) Deictic past reference time: I didn’t turn off the stove. A#C#!D14!I@0;2&26!/00)*%&1################################################################################################################ J! (5) Discourse anaphora: Mary woke up sometime in the night. She turned on the A#K#!D14!3E,6%&62&!326+%62*,!G%)2%=;4!/00)*%&1 ###################################################################### J! light. A#H#!D14!L;*=%;!/00)*%&1 ################################################################################################################## M! (6) Bound reference time: Whenever John wrote a letter to Mary, she answered two C#!N1E!26!&%,O6!%;;!=4!0)%(5%62&7P!%,-!2-4,62?E2,(!&%747!61%6!%)4# ######################################### M! days later. K#!/)(+54,67!?*)!%,-!%(%2,76!250;2&26!4;454,67!2,!7E,6%@# ##################################################### M! H#!Q%74)7*1,!*,!0)4-2&%647!*?!04)7*,%;!6%764!%,-!%!RS+-(4T!0%)%5464)# #########################"U! In (Mitchell 1986) and (Partee 1989) it was argued that such a range of behavior can be J#!/--262*,%;!2,64)4762,(!4@%50;47# #################################################################################################"U! found among a broader class of contentful context-dependent elements, as in the case of J#"#!V+;620;E2,(!%5=2(+26247###########################################################################################################"U! the adjective local, and others have extended the list even farther (Section 2.) This has J#9#!V2@4-!6E047!*?!%,%01*)%!W2612,!%!72,(;4!;4@2&%;!2645 ################################################""! given rise to interesting debates. F4?4)4,&47 ##################################################################################################################################################""! (7) John visited a local bar. (Mitchell 1986) Readings (8) Every sports fan in the country was at a local bar watching the playoffs. (Partee (Partee 1989) Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts 1989), modifying an example of (Mitchell 1986) (Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) D14!&*,64@6X-404,-4,&E!*?!250;2&26!%)(+54,67 An issue that arises for words like local and for many other cases is this: should we posit (Lasersohn 2009) Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments a covert pronoun-like element in the syntax as an “implicit argument” of local, or perhaps (Elbourne In Press) Implicit content and the argument from binding something like a situation variable in its semantics, or might the context-dependency ABB,+,"*%&'#)%B,*C.' somehow all be in the pragmatics? I will discuss several recent proposals in Section 3. In (Lasersohn 2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Section 4 I show how the sensitivity of bound variable interpretations to linguistic (Lasersohn 2008) Quantification and Perspective in Relativist Semantics structure has been used to argue against a “pure pragmatics” account. Section 5 reviews (Elbourne 2008) Implicit content and sloppy identity arguments for and against several other accounts. Section 6 introduces Lasersohn’s idea (Bhatt and Pancheva 2006) Implicit arguments (a good survey of different sorts of implicit about including a “judge” parameter in the speech-act context for sentences with arguments; emphasis on syntax, but includes semantics as well) “predicates of personal taste” like tasty, fun. In Section 7, if time remains, we’ll look at more examples that raise puzzles for the syntax-semantics-pragmatics borderlines. !"#$%&'()*+,-.#/,%01*)%#2,#345%,62&7#%,-#8)%(5%62&7# It is well known that English third-person pronouns can function variously as deictic or 9"#:%6%.#$2,-2,(#250;2&26#<%)2%=;47#2,#>+%,62?24-#&*,64@67# demonstrative elements, as discourse anaphors, and as bound variables, as illustrated in The possibility of bound-variable-like dependence of open-class words like adjectives (1), (2), and (3) respectively. and nouns was first raised in the work of Jonathan Mitchell, with examples like (7-8) (1) Deictic or demonstrative: Who’s he? above. On one of its interpretations, the word local demands some reference location to (2) Discourse anaphoric: A woman walked in. She sat down. anchor to, and means something close to “in the vicinity of [reference location]”. In (3) Bound variable: Every man believed that he was right. example (7), the reference location could be the utterance location, or, if the utterance is part of a narrative about John, the reference location could be determined by the In a typical use of (1), the pronoun gets its value from the non-linguistic context of the narrative. These represent indexical/deictic anchoring and discourse anaphora utterance, the context in which the speech act occurs. This is sometimes called a respectively. While local in (8) could also be understood as anchored to the utterance pragmatic (use of the) pronoun (Partee 1978), sometime indexical or deictic (because of location or some specific discourse location, the most likely interpretation, and the one I its similarity to the typical uses of indexical I and deictic this, that). In discourse will consider here, is one with a “bound variable reference location” – a possibly anaphora, as in (2), the pronoun takes its value from the constructed discourse context different location for every sports fan. (Heim 1983, Kamp 1981, Karttunen 1976). In a bound variable case like (3), the pronoun MGU0912.doc "!! MGU0912.doc 9!! ! ! !"#$%&'()$%*+,-./'0)-+1#)'23' ! ! !"#$%&'()$%*+,-./'0)-+1#)'23' ' ' 4%#5%#%'67'8%#+))/'9:;'<1*)'=/'3>>?''@7'A' ' ' 4%#5%#%'67'8%#+))/'9:;'<1*)'=/'3>>?''@7'C' ! ! Examples (7-8) concerned implicit binding of a context-dependent part of the meaning of to show that Recanati’s paraphrase merely describes one possible situation in which (11) an adjective; Partee (1984a) observed that the same behavior can be found with can be true, not a linguistically distinct reading of (11). “intransitive” uses of some relational nouns like enemy and friend. (12) #Whenever Sally cooks mushrooms, John never eats. Instead, he eats pasta with (9) (a) An enemy is approaching. (Partee 1984) tomato sauce. (Martí 2006) (b) John faced an enemy. As Martí argues, if eat could have a bound variable argument as notice can, (12) would (c) Every man faced an enemy. not be anomalous. It would be able to have an interpretation saying that when Sally cooks Enemy in (9a) is likely to be understood as my or our enemy. Note that approaching in mushrooms, John never eats them, but instead eats pasta. But it can’t mean that – it can (9a) is also context-dependent, and if the context supported a goal argument of only mean that when she cooks mushrooms, he doesn’t eat anything. And because of that, approaching other than me/us, the interpretation of enemy would probably shift the continuation Instead, he eats pasta … is anomalous. accordingly, especially if the example were put in the past tense. In (9b), it’s most likely In addition to context-dependence with nouns, adjectives, and verbs, it’s easy to find an enemy of John or of John’s group. And in (9c) we have the possibility of a bound examples involving temporal or locative expressions. Plain context-dependence is variable reading. familiar in such cases; I add a pair of bound-variable examples from (Partee 1989); these • The behavior of enemy raises interesting issues about the relation between 2-place are actually constructed on the model of “donkey-sentences” like Every farmer who owns enemy and 1-place enemy. The 2-place relation is clearly more general, but as a donkey beats it, and should presumably be given an analysis analogous to one’s favorite Mitchell (1986) argued, it does not follow that every instance of the 1-place treatment of donkey-sentence anaphora. property is best analyzed as derived from the 2-place one by filling in or (13) (a) Every man who stole a car abandoned it 2 hours later. quantifying over one argument place. (b) Every man who stole a car abandoned it 50 miles away. • An egocentric 1-place version of friend or enemy may be developmentally and ontogenetically
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semantics and Pragmatics
    Semantics and Pragmatics Christopher Gauker Semantics deals with the literal meaning of sentences. Pragmatics deals with what speakers mean by their utterances of sentences over and above what those sentences literally mean. However, it is not always clear where to draw the line. Natural languages contain many expressions that may be thought of both as contributing to literal meaning and as devices by which speakers signal what they mean. After characterizing the aims of semantics and pragmatics, this chapter will set out the issues concerning such devices and will propose a way of dividing the labor between semantics and pragmatics. Disagreements about the purview of semantics and pragmatics often concern expressions of which we may say that their interpretation somehow depends on the context in which they are used. Thus: • The interpretation of a sentence containing a demonstrative, as in “This is nice”, depends on a contextually-determined reference of the demonstrative. • The interpretation of a quantified sentence, such as “Everyone is present”, depends on a contextually-determined domain of discourse. • The interpretation of a sentence containing a gradable adjective, as in “Dumbo is small”, depends on a contextually-determined standard (Kennedy 2007). • The interpretation of a sentence containing an incomplete predicate, as in “Tipper is ready”, may depend on a contextually-determined completion. Semantics and Pragmatics 8/4/10 Page 2 • The interpretation of a sentence containing a discourse particle such as “too”, as in “Dennis is having dinner in London tonight too”, may depend on a contextually determined set of background propositions (Gauker 2008a). • The interpretation of a sentence employing metonymy, such as “The ham sandwich wants his check”, depends on a contextually-determined relation of reference-shifting.
    [Show full text]
  • Situation Theory: a Survey
    ABSTRACT SITUATION THEORY: A SURVEY Situation semantics was developed as an alternative to possible-worlds semantics. While possible-worlds semantics defines the informational content of sentences in terms of complete descriptions of the way the world is or might be, situation semantics defines the informational content of sentences in terms of partial worlds called situations. Situation theory is a novel informational ontology developed to give situation semantics a rigorous mathematical foundation. In reviewing the literature, we observed that although there are a few texts introducing situation theory in varying levels of detail and systematicity, there has not yet been published, until now, a general survey of the situation-theory literature that might introduce and guide future scholars. We note that a similar, if perhaps less-pressing need exists for a survey of the situation-semantics literature, but regret that we must leave such a survey for others. Jacob Ian Lee December 2011 SITUATION THEORY: A SURVEY by Jacob Ian lee A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science in the College of Science and Mathematics California State University, Fresno December 2011 © 2011 Jacob Ian Lee APPROVED For the Department of Computer Science: We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree. Jacob Ian Lee Thesis Author Todd Wilson (Chair) Computer Science Shigeko Seki Computer Science Shih-Hsi Liu Computer Science For the University Graduate Committee: Dean, Division of Graduate Studies AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimal Pronouns1
    1 Minimal Pronouns1 Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of Bound Variable Pronouns Angelika Kratzer University of Massachusetts at Amherst June 2006 Abstract The paper challenges the widely accepted belief that the relation between a bound variable pronoun and its antecedent is not necessarily submitted to locality constraints. It argues that the locality constraints for bound variable pronouns that are not explicitly marked as such are often hard to detect because of (a) alternative strategies that produce the illusion of true bound variable interpretations and (b) language specific spell-out noise that obscures the presence of agreement chains. To identify and control for those interfering factors, the paper focuses on ‘fake indexicals’, 1st or 2nd person pronouns with bound variable interpretations. Following up on Kratzer (1998), I argue that (non-logophoric) fake indexicals are born with an incomplete set of features and acquire the remaining features via chains of local agreement relations established in the syntax. If fake indexicals are born with an incomplete set of features, we need a principled account of what those features are. The paper derives such an account from a semantic theory of pronominal features that is in line with contemporary typological work on possible pronominal paradigms. Keywords: agreement, bound variable pronouns, fake indexicals, meaning of pronominal features, pronominal ambiguity, typologogy of pronouns. 1 . I received much appreciated feedback from audiences in Paris (CSSP, September 2005), at UC Santa Cruz (November 2005), the University of Saarbrücken (workshop on DPs and QPs, December 2005), the University of Tokyo (SALT XIII, March 2006), and the University of Tromsø (workshop on decomposition, May 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • A Prolegomenon to Situation Semantics
    A PROLEGOMENON TO SITUATION SEMANTICS David J. Israel Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Cambridge, MA 02238 Situation Semantics (yet?). ABSTRACT So what is there? Besides a few published An attempt is made to prepare Computational papers, each of them containing at least one Linguistics for Situation Semantics. position since abandoned~ there is a book ~ Attitudes literally on the very I INTRODUCTION verge of publication. This contains the philosophlcal/theoretlcal background of the program The editors of the AI Journal recently hit upon - The Big Picture. It also contains a very brief the nice notion of correspondents' columns. The treatment of a very simple fragment of ALIASS. And basic idea was to solicit experts in various what, the reader may well ask is ALIASS? An fields, both within and outside of Artificial Artificial Language for lliustratlng Aspects of Intelligence, to provide "guidance to important, ~Ituation ~emantlcs, that's what. Moreover there interesting current literature" in their fields. is in the works a ceiiaboratlve effort, to be For Philosophy, they made the happy choice of Dan called Situations andS. m This will contain Dennett; for natural language processing, the a "Fragment of Situation Semantics", a treatment of equally happy choice of Barbara Grosz. Each has so an extended fra~ent of ~. Last, for the far contributed one column, and these early moment, but not least, is a second book by Barwise contributions overlap in one, and as it happens, and Perry, ~ ~, which will include only one, particular; to wit: Situation~manties. a treatment of an even more extended fragment of Witness Dennett: English, together with a self-contalned treatment of the technical, mathematical background.
    [Show full text]
  • The Treatment of Tense in Situation Semantics 1
    The Treatment of Tense in Situation Semantics 1 Kiyong Lee In this paper, the four classical issues involving definite or dynamic in­ terpretations of tense are first reviewed, as discussed in Hinrichs (1987). Then, an attempt is made to solve them in a situation-theoretic frame­ work a la Barwise (1989) with the notions of described, discourse, resou­ rce or background situations. For semantic composition, Yoo and Lee's (1988) equation solving approach is adopted to treat Hinrichs's tensed sen­ tences. Finally, described and discourse situations are differentiated by the notions of temporal localization, connectedness, and dynamicity to state cons-traints on discourse situations and then properly to induce the dy­ namic or rational interpretation of a discourse. O. Introduction In this paper, I claim that Nerbonne's (1983) or Hinrichs's (1987) Rei­ chenbachian or indexical approach to the interpretation of temporal expres­ sions 2 is a particular application of Barwise and Perry's (1983) or Bar­ wise's (1989) Situation Theory to the model-theoretic semantics of tempo­ rally constrained natural language. In order to account for definite interpre­ tations of tense, as illustrated by 'Sam forgot to turn off the stove,' for in- 1 The work presented here was partially supported by a 1986 Korea University Faculty Research Grant. The preliminary versions were presented at the First Kyung Hee International Conference on Linguistics, summer 1989, and at the Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Febru­ ary 14, 1990. I am grateful to those who have made comments on these presenta­ tions and helped improve the paper, especially Ivan Sag, Suson Yoo, John Nerbonne, and Stanley Peters.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Some Fundamental Concepts for Semantics
    1 Some fundamental concepts for semantics All science, all significant inquiry, is a web with indefinite frontiers. (Justus Buchler ‘Introduction’ to Peirce 1940:xii) It is advisable to read the “Preface” before starting on this chapter. 1.1 Where we are heading This chapter outlines some fundamental concepts for semantics, concepts that will be referred to either explicitly or implicitly throughout the rest of the book. Here, and throughout the book, KEY words and concepts are introduced in SMALL CAPITALS and also listed in the summary section. In doing semantics it is essential to define the terms used in discussion. For instance: Definition 1.1 SEMANTICS is the study of meaning in human languages. To begin with, interpret the word meaning as anyone who knows English might reasonably do; this whole book is about the meaning of meaning. Note that within the discipline of linguistics the term semantics is not in the least bit pejorative as it is in the colloquial accusation That’s just semantics! which means “You’re just quibbling and prevaricating.” The definition of semantics refers to human languages – also referred to throughout the book as ‘natural languages’ – and we discuss them in §1.2. killed, crocodile, hunter, the, the Textbox 1 If I ask you to construct a meaningful sentence using all the words in Textbox 1, you can do so because meaning is compositional. The compositionality of meaning is examined in §1.3. It raises the distinction between the language we are describing, the OBJECT LANGUAGE, and the language (and formulae) we use when describing it, the METALANGUAGE.
    [Show full text]
  • The Notion of 'Being Informative' & the Praxiological- Information Perspective on Language
    tripleC 7(2): 214-227, 2009 ISSN 1726-670X http://www.triple-c.at The notion of 'being informative' & the praxiological- information perspective on language Antonio Florio ILCLI (Institute for Logic, Cognition, Language and Information), University of Basque Country, UPV-EHU, Donostia. E-mail: anto.florio@cheapnet.it Abstract: After a concise introduction on the analysis of truth and meaning in philosophy of language, two notions of information are grasped by the analysis of Situation Semantics and Situation Theory. The first is that of correlation, the second that of constraint; the latter is reducible to the former. More than that, the phenomenon of “alethic nature of information” is highlighted and the notion of “being informative” is pointed out. The difference between a meaning-oriented and an informational-oriented perspective of language is marked. Messages are recognized as being the atomic constituents of the informational perspective of language; the architecture of language is shown; and a praxiological- information perspective on the study of language is outlined. Keywords: Correspondence, correlation, Situation Semantics, Situation Theory, tokens, types, infons, data symbols, codes, message Acknowledgement: I am grateful to the professor J. M. Larrazabal for the invitation to discuss a preliminary draft of this paper in an open seminar at ILCLI in October 2008 and for the feedback I received in that occasion. I‟m grateful to the professor F. Salto for the invitation to “The First International Meeting of Experts in Information”, where I presented a preliminary draft of this paper, and for the feedback that I received after that meeting. ituation Semantics is a theory of natural extensional model theory and possible language and, following the classical world semantics...” (Perry, 1999, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Situation Semantics and Machine Translation
    SITUATION SEMANTICS AND MACHINE TRANSLATION. C.J. Rupp CCL, UMIST P.O. Box 88 Manchester M60 1QD Introduction Situation Semantics: The Basics. Situation Semantics is one of the most Situation Semantics is an informational recent and controversial theories in approach to formal semantics. The formal semantics. Machine Translation philosophical basis of this theory is laid (MT) is a highly complex application out in Barwise and Perry's Situations domain, in which research is expensive and Attitudes (1983) (henceforth B&P). of both time and resources. On the Most of the structure of the theory can surface, the space for interaction be seen as arising out of three basic between these two fields would seem concepts. fairly limited, and in practice the the application of formal semantics in MT Attunement: has been very limited, a notable ... an organism must be attuned to exception being the Rosetta project similarities between situations, what (Landsbergen 1982, 1987). The abstract we have called uniformities, and to translation problem however remains relationships that obtain between and any application must be based on these uniformities... (B&P plO) some formalisation of the problem. Constraints: The purpose of this paper is demonstrate that the enriched ... systematic relations of a special theoretical vocabulary of Situation sort between different types of Semantics offers a more intuitive situation .... These systematic characterisation of the translation constraints are what allow one process, than was .possible using more situation to contain information traditional semanuc theories. This about another. Attunement to these demonstration will take the form of a constraints is what allows an agent to formalisation of the most commonly used pick up information from one method for MT in terms of Situation situation about another.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fresh Interpretation of Conditional Donkey Sentences*
    Stop beating the donkey! A fresh interpretation of conditional donkey sentences* Aránzazu San Ginés and María José Frápolli1 Received: 10/02/2015 Final Version: 26/07/2016 BIBLID 0495-4548(2017)32:1p.7-24 DOI: 10.1387/theoria.13941 ABSTRACT: We propose a new approach to conditional donkey sentences that allows us to face successfully the often called proportion problem. The main ingredients of the proposal are van Benthem’s generalized quantifier ap- proach to conditionals (van Benthem, 1984), and Barwise’s situation semantics (Barwise, 1989). We present some experimental data supporting our proposal. Keywords: conditional donkey sentences; proportion problem. RESUMEN: Proponemos una nueva aproximación a las oraciones condicionales burro, que nos permite hacer frente con éxito al llamado problema de la proporción. Los principales elementos de la propuesta son la aproximación de van Benthem a los condicionales como cuantificadores generalizados (van Benthem, 1984), y la semántica de situaciones de Barwise (Barwise, 1989). Presentamos algunos resultados experimentales que respaldan nuestra propuesta. Palabras clave: oraciones condicionales burro; problema de la proporción. 1. Introduction Classical predicate logic and the philosophy that supports it have proved to be powerful tools in the task of analyzing how language works. Nevertheless, even the best tools have their limitations, and the predicate calculus is no exception. In Begriffsschrift, Frege com- pared the contrast between natural language(s) and his proposed logical calculus to the con- * Gabriel Sandu has been a great supporter of the research that has concluded with this paper. Allen Mann and Martin Andor have commented earlier versions of it and made insightful suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Computational Aspects of Situation Semantics
    SOME COMPUTATIONAL ASPECTS OF SITUATION S~21ANTICS Jon Barwise Philosophy Department Stanford Unlverslty~ Stanford, California Departments of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Can a realist model theory of natural language be in some crucial respects. It is a mathematical theory computationally plausible? Or, to put it another way, of linguistic meaning, one that replaces the view of the is the view of linguistic meaning as a relation between connection between language and the world at the heart expressions of a natural language and things (objects, of Tarski-style model theory with one much more like properties, etc.) in the world, as opposed to a that found in J.L. A-stln's "Truth". For another, it relation between expressions and procedures in the head. takes seriously the syntactic structures of natural consistent with a computational approach to language, directly interpreting them without assuming an understanding natural language? The model theorist must intermediary level of "logical form". either claim that the answer is yes, or be willing to admit that humans transcend the computatlonally feasible 2. A COMPUTATION OBSTRUCTION AT THE CORE OF in their use of language? ~IRST-ORDER LOGIC Until recently the only model theory of natural language The standard model-theory for first-order logic, and that was at all well developed was Montague Grammar. with it the derivative model-theory of indices Unfortunately, it was based on the primitive notion of ("possible worlds") used in Montague GrA~r is based on "possible world" and so was not a realist theory, unless Frege'a supposition that the reference of a sentence you are prepared to grant that all possible worlds are could only be taken as a truth value; that all else real.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lexical Approach to Presupposition and Meaning
    A Lexical Approach to Presupposition and Meaning Von der Philosophisch-Historischen Fakult¨at der Universit¨at Stuttgart zur Erlangung der W¨urde eines Doktors der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) genehmigte Abhandlung Vorgelegt von Charles Woei-Jye Yee aus Taipei, Taiwan Hauptberichter: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans Kamp Mitberichter: Prof. Dr. Klaus von Heusinger Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung: 20. Dezember 2010 Institut f¨ur Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung der Universit¨at Stuttgart 2011 Acknowledgements It’s been a long journey and I have gone through a great deal of personal transforma- tion throughout- knowledge, the ability to think critically, all that good stuff- plus a few more pounds under my belt, making that transformation literally complete. I find comfort in knowing that I have done this. But I couldn’t have done it without the fol- lowing people from IMS: Agnes Bende-Farkas, Christian Hying, Arndt Riester, Antje Roßdeutscher, Guisy Rota, and Tolgrim Solstad. You guys and gals really helped me out when I needed it. Thank you! I especially want to thank Klaus von Heusinger for his kind words and guidance. Klaus gave me some excellent feedbacks which helped me see certain aspects of the issue that I would have otherwise overlooked on my own. I would also like to thank several people who have given me great insights either through their wonderful work, or through personal discussions on the few occa- sions when we crossed path: David Beaver, Patrick Blackburn, Johan Bos, Kees van Deemter, Josef van Genabith, Bart Geurts, Ruth Kempson, Emiel Krahmer, Massimo Poesio, Uwe Reyle, Craige Roberts, Rob van der Sandt, Renata Vieira, Hank Zeevat- I admire your works, and they have influenced me tremendously.
    [Show full text]
  • It's Not Always Redundant to Assert What Can Be Presupposed
    It’s not always redundant to assert what can be presupposed∗ Comments on Mayr & Romoli (2016) Yasutada Sudo University College London y.sudo@ucl.ac.uk Draft 1 Abstract Mayr & Romoli(2016) point out that the felicity of sentences of the form p φ _ pφ ^ qq is problematic for theories of redundancy, as the second occurrence of φ is predicted to be redundant. I call this the Disjunction Puzzle. They propose two solutions to it that make crucial use of (i) incrementality, and (ii) a grammatical mechanism of exhaustification, and conclude that the Disjunction Puzzle supports (i) and (ii). I take issue with their conclusion and argue that the Disjunction Puzzle does not necessarily motivate (i) and (ii), because the puzzle only arises under a specific assumption about presupposition satisfaction and redundancy of assertion, namely, that they refer to the same notion of entailment. It is natural to make this assumption in possible worlds semantics, but is not necessarily motivated in a more fine-grained theory of meaning. Adopting Situation Semantics, I will demonstrate that the Disjunction Puzzle disappears once it is assumed that redundancy is computed with reference to a stronger notion of entailment than presupposition satisfaction. 1 Introduction Mayr & Romoli(2016) point out that the felicity of disjunctive sentences like (1) poses a puzzle for theories of redundancy. (1) Either Mary isn’t pregnant, or she is and she is expecting a daughter. (Mayr & Romoli 2016:2) Specifically, the conjunct she is (pregnant) is redundant here. I will define the relevant notion of redundancy below, but the idea behind this can easily be illustrated when (1) is compared to the version of the sentence without this conjunct, (2), which means the same thing.
    [Show full text]