DOCSLIB.ORG

Page 1 ENGL 511 = LING 531: Semantics Description

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ENGL 511 - Page 1 ENGL 511 = LING 531: Semantics Description: An introduction to and survey of current semantic theories and methods with an emphasis on English. Basic concepts of linguistic semantics and its relation to other semantics. Compositional (transformational), model-theoretical (truth-conditional), pragmatic, and contextual semantics. Sample Syllabus (generic) Text: Raskin (1983) as an introduction to the course; Raskin (1987) as basic information; Lyons 1977 as a reference book for the entire course. Otherwise, see references under the specific subjects. Assignments: A presentation on a chapter of Raskin (1983) and a research paper by the end of the semester, worth 10% and 90% of the grade, respectively I. Introduction to Semantics* 1. Basic Concepts a. Semantic entities b. Semantic relations c. Semantic terminology d. Semantic concerns 2. Brief Survey of the History of Semantics a. Prehistory of semantics b. Traditional semantics c. Classical semantics d. Structural semantics 3. Linguistic and the "Other" Semantics a. Logical semantics b. Philosophy of Language c. General semantics d. Pop semantics and lexicography References: Raskin 1983 II. Compositional Semantics 1. Transformational and Related Semantics a. Interpretive semantics b. Generative semantics c. Case grammars 2. Other trends a. Neointerpretive semantics b. Neogenerative semantics c. Prototype semantics d. Fuzziness References: Katz and Fodor 1963, Lakoff 1971a, Fillmore 1968, Gruber 1967, Postal 1971; Katz 1980, Jackendoff 1981, Lakoff 1982. III. Truth-Conditional Semantics = Formal Semantics 1. Logic in Linguistic Semantics a. Predicate calculus b. Categorial approach c. Montague grammars d. Belief contexts ENGL 511 - Page 2 2. Natural logic a. Natural vs. formal logic b. Linguistic relativity c. Metaphors References: Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet 1990, Greenberg 1949, Heim and Kratzer 1998, Lewis 1972, Thomason 1974, Dowty et al. 1981, Partee 1973, Kempson 1977; Lakoff 1972, Whorf 1953, Lakoff and Johnson 1980 IV. Pragmatical Semantics 1. Presupposition a. Circumstantial sentences b. Logical, pragmatical, and other presuppositions c. Semantic recursion d. Inference and entailment e. New and given and the functional perspective of the sentence 2. Speech Acts a. Direct speech acts b. Indirect speech acts c. Applications and misapplications of speech-act theory 3. Implicature a. Bona-fide communication b. Co-operative principle c. Maxims of bona-fide communication d. Non-bona-fide communication (humor, lying) 4. Conversational structure and discourse analysis a. Connectives b. Discourse structure and its discovery c. Shifts of subject References: Keenan 1971, Lakoff 1971b, Raskin 1978, Prince 1981, Frantisek 1974; Austin 1962, Searle 1969, 1975, 1979; Grice 1975, Raskin 1984; van Dijk 1980, Reichman 1985, Tannen 1984; Levinson 1983. V. Postcompositional Contextual Semantics 1. Language and World a. Language and thought b. Dictionary and encyclopedia c. Linguistic vs. encyclopedic knowledge 2. Script-Based Semantics a. Lexicon b. Combinatorial rules c. Non-compositional elements d. Frame semantics and the semantics of understanding References: Bar-Hillel 1960, Raskin 1985a,b; Raskin 1984, 1985c and 1986a,b VI. Ontological Semantics 1. Ontology 2. Lexicon 3. Text meaning representation 4. Analysis 5. Acquisition References: Nirenburg and Raskin 2004 ENGL 511 - Page 3 Bibliography: (Raskin 1983, 1987 and Nirenburg and Raskin 2004 are available online as CHLS; the rest is in the Library--not on reserve, so be considerate!) Austin, John 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua 1960. "A demonstration of the non-feasibility of fully automatic high quality translation." In: F. L. Alt (ed.), Advances in Computers, Vol. 1. The Present Status of Automatic Translation of languages, Appendix III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 158-63. Reprinted in his Language and Information. Reading, Mass. - Jerusalem: Addison-Wesley - Jerusalem Academic Press, 1964, pp. 174-9. Cherchia, G., ans S, McConnell-Ginet 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dowty, David R., Robert E. Wall, and Stanley Peters 1981. Introduction to Montague Grammars. Dordrecht - Boston - London: Reidel. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. "The case for case." In: E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Frantisek, Danes (ed.) 1974. Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Hague - Paris: Mouton. Fodor, Janet Dean 1977. Semantics: Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar. Hassox, Sussex: Harvester. Greenberg, Joseph 1949. "The logical analysis of kinship." Philosophy of Science 16:1. Grice, H. Paul 1975. "Logic and conversation." In: Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58. Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1977. "Look and see." Language 43, pp. 937-47. Heim, I., and A. Kratzer 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Jackendoff, Ray 1981. "On Katz's autonomous semantics." Language 57:2, pp. 425-35. Katz, Jerrold J. 1980. "Chomsky on meaning." Language 56:1, pp. 11-41. Katz, Jerrold J. and Jerry A. Fodor 1963. "The structure of a semantic theory." Language 39:1, pp. 170-210. Reprinted in: Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, pp. 479-518. Kempson, Ruth M. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, George 1971a. "On generative semantics." In: Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232-96. Lakoff, George 1971b. "Presupposition and relative well-formedness." In: ibid, pp. 329-40. Lakoff, George 1972. "Linguistics and natural logic." In: Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht - Boston: Reidel, pp. 545-665. Lakoff, George 1982. "Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics." In: The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 140-93. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago - London: University of Chicago Press. Levinson, Stephen D. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nirenburg, Sergei, and Victor Raskin 2004. Ontological Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (forthcoming). Pre-publication draft at: http://crl.nmsu.edu/Staff.pages/Technical/Sergei/book/index-book.html. Partee, Barbara Hall 1973. "The semantics of belief sentences." In: K. Jaakko J. Hintikka et al. (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht - Boston: Reidel. Postal, Paul M. 1970. "On the surface verb 'remind.'" Linguistic Inquiry 1, pp. 37-120. Reprinted in: Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Prince, Ellen F. 1981. "Toward a taxonomy of given-new information." In: Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223-55. Raskin, Victor 1978. "Presuppositional analysis of Russian, I: Six essays on aspects of presupposition." In: Victor Raskin and Dmitry Segal (eds.), Slavica Hierosolymitana, Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Magnes, pp. 51-92. Raskin, Victor 1983. A Concise History of Linguistic Semantics. W. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University (mimeo), 3rd ed. Raskin, Victor 1984. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht - Boston - Lancaster: Reidel. Raskin, Victor 1985a. "Linguistic and encyclopedic knowledge in text processing." Quaderni di Semantica VI:1, pp. 92-102. Raskin, Victor 1985b. "Once again on linguistic and encyclopedic knowledge." Quaderni di Semantica VI:2, pp. 377-83. Raskin, Victor (ed.) 1985c. Round Table Discussion on Frame/Script Semantics, Round One. Quaderni di Semantica VI:2, pp. 221-353. Raskin, Victor 1986a. Round Table Discussion on Frame/Script Semantics, Round Two. Quaderni di Semantica VII:1, pp. 49-118. Raskin, Victor 1986b. "Script-based semantics." In: Donald G. Ellis and William A. Donohue (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum. Raskin, Victor 1987. A Concise Introduction to Linguistics. W. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. Reprinted as Chapters 4-9 in: V. Raskin and I. Weiser, Language and Writing, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Reichman, Rachel 1985. Getting the Computer to Talk Like You and Me. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. 1975. "Indirect speech acts." In: Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59-82. ENGL 511 - Page 4 Searle, John R. 1979. "Metaphor." In his: Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 76-116. Tannen, Deborah 1984. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. van Dijk, Teun A. 1980. Macrostructures. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum. Whorf, Benjamen L. 1953. Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. .
Recommended publications
  • Denying a Dualism: Goodman's Repudiation of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

    Denying a Dualism: Goodman's Repudiation of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

    Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 28, 2004, 226-238. Denying a Dualism: Goodman’s Repudiation of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction Catherine Z. Elgin The analytic synthetic/distinction forms the backbone of much modern Western philosophy. It underwrites a conception of the relation of representations to reality which affords an understanding of cognition. Its repudiation thus requires a fundamental reconception and perhaps a radical revision of philosophy. Many philosophers believe that the repudiation of the analytic/synthetic distinction and kindred dualisms constitutes a major loss, possibly even an irrecoverable loss, for philosophy. Nelson Goodman thinks otherwise. He believes that it liberates philosophy from unwarranted restrictions, creating opportunities for the development of powerful new approaches to and reconceptions of seemingly intractable problems. In this article I want to sketch some of the consequences of Goodman’s reconception. My focus is not on Goodman’s reasons for denying the dualism, but on some of the ways its absence affects his position. I do not contend that the Goodman obsessed over the issue. I have no reason to think that the repudiation of the distinction was a central factor in his intellectual life. But by considering the function that the analytic/synthetic distinction has performed in traditional philosophy, and appreciating what is lost and gained in repudiating it, we gain insight into Goodman’s contributions. I begin then by reviewing the distinction and the conception of philosophy it supports. The analytic/synthetic distinction is a distinction between truths that depend entirely on meaning and truths that depend on both meaning and fact. In the early modern period, it was cast as a distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact.
  • Philosophical Logic 2018 Course Description (Tentative) January 15, 2018

    Philosophical Logic 2018 Course Description (Tentative) January 15, 2018

    Philosophical Logic 2018 Course description (tentative) January 15, 2018 Valentin Goranko Introduction This 7.5 hp course is mainly intended for students in philosophy and is generally accessible to a broad audience with basic background on formal classical logic and general appreciation of philosophical aspects of logic. Practical information The course will be given in English. It will comprise 18 two-hour long sessions combining lectures and exercises, grouped in 2 sessions per week over 9 teaching weeks. The weekly pairs of 2-hour time slots (incl. short breaks) allocated for these sessions, will be on Mondays during 10.00-12.00 and 13.00-15.00, except for the first lecture. The course will begin on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 (Week 14) at 10.00 am in D220, S¨odra huset, hus D. Lecturer's info: Name: Valentin Goranko Email: [email protected] Homepage: http://www2.philosophy.su.se/goranko Course webpage: http://www2.philosophy.su.se/goranko/Courses2018/PhilLogic-2018.html Prerequisites The course will be accessible to a broad audience with introductory background on classical formal logic. Some basic knowledge of modal logics would be an advantage but not a prerequisite. Brief description Philosophical logic studies a variety of non-classical logical systems intended to formalise and reason about various philosophical concepts and ideas. They include a broad family of modal logics, as well as many- valued, intuitionistic, relevant, conditional, non-monotonic, para-consistent, etc. logics. Modal logics extend classical logic with additional intensional logical operators, reflecting different modes of truth, including alethic, epistemic, doxastic, temporal, deontic, agentive, etc.
  • Operational Semantics Page 1

    Operational Semantics Page 1

    Operational Semantics Page 1 Operational Semantics Class notes for a lecture given by Mooly Sagiv Tel Aviv University 24/5/2007 By Roy Ganor and Uri Juhasz Reference Semantics with Applications, H. Nielson and F. Nielson, Chapter 2. http://www.daimi.au.dk/~bra8130/Wiley_book/wiley.html Introduction Semantics is the study of meaning of languages. Formal semantics for programming languages is the study of formalization of the practice of computer programming. A computer language consists of a (formal) syntax – describing the actual structure of programs and the semantics – which describes the meaning of programs. Many tools exist for programming languages (compilers, interpreters, verification tools, … ), the basis on which these tools can cooperate is the formal semantics of the language. Formal Semantics When designing a programming language, formal semantics gives an (hopefully) unambiguous definition of what a program written in the language should do. This definition has several uses: • People learning the language can understand the subtleties of its use • The model over which the semantics is defined (the semantic domain) can indicate what the requirements are for implementing the language (as a compiler/interpreter/…) • Global properties of any program written in the language, and any state occurring in such a program, can be understood from the formal semantics • Implementers of tools for the language (parsers, compilers, interpreters, debuggers etc) have a formal reference for their tool and a formal definition of its correctness/completeness
  • Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla

    Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 086 604 SO 006 822 AUTHOR Norris, Jack A., Jr. TITLE Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla. PUB DATE 72 NOTE 20p.; Authorized Course of Instruction for the Quinmester Program EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS Course Objectives; Curriculum Guides; Grade 10; Grade 11; Grade 12; *Language Arts; Learnin4 Activities; *Logic; Non Western Civilization; *Philosophy; Resource Guides; Secondary Grades; *Social Studies; *Social Studies Units; Western Civilization IDENTIFIERS *Quinmester Program ABSTRACT Western and non - western philosophers and their ideas are introduced to 10th through 12th grade students in this general social studies Quinmester course designed to be used as a preparation for in-depth study of the various schools of philosophical thought. By acquainting students with the questions and categories of philosophy, a point of departure for further study is developed. Through suggested learning activities the meaning of philosopky is defined. The Socratic, deductive, inductive, intuitive and eclectic approaches to philosophical thought are examined, as are three general areas of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology,and axiology. Logical reasoning is applied to major philosophical questions. This course is arranged, as are other quinmester courses, with sections on broad goals, course content, activities, and materials. A related document is ED 071 937.(KSM) FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY U S DEPARTMENT EDUCATION OF HEALTH. NAT10N41
  • Curriculum Vitae

    Curriculum Vitae

    BAS C. VAN FRAASSEN Curriculum Vitae Last updated 3/6/2019 I. Personal and Academic History .................................................................................................................... 1 List of Degrees Earned ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title of Ph.D. Thesis ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Positions held ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Invited lectures and lecture series ........................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Honors, Prizes ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Research Grants .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Non-Academic Publications ................................................................................................................................................ 5 II. Professional Activities .................................................................................................................................
  • Extensible Transition System Semantics

    Extensible Transition System Semantics

    Extensible Transition System Semantics Casper Bach Poulsen Submitted to Swansea University in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Computer Science Swansea University 2015 Declaration This work has not been previously accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed ............................................................ (candidate) Date ............................................................ Statement 1 This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A bibliography is appended. Signed ............................................................ (candidate) Date ............................................................ Statement 2 I hereby give my consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed ............................................................ (candidate) Date ............................................................ Abstract Structural operational semantics (SOS) come in two main styles: big-step and small- step. Each style has its merits and drawbacks, and it is sometimes useful to maintain specifications in both styles. But it is both tedious and error-prone to maintain multiple specifications of the same language. Additionally, big-step SOS has poor support for
  • A. Detailed Course Structure of MA (Linguistics)

    A. Detailed Course Structure of MA (Linguistics)

    A. Detailed Course Structure of M.A. (Linguistics) Semester I Course Course Title Status Module & Marks Credits Code LIN 101 Introduction to Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Linguistics LIN 102 Levels of Language Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Study LIN 103 Phonetics Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 LIN 104 Basic Morphology & Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Basic Syntax LIN 105 Indo-European Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Linguistics & Schools of Linguistics Semester II LIN 201 Phonology Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 LIN 202 Introduction to Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Semantics & Pragmatics LIN 203 Historical Linguistics Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 LIN 204 Indo-Aryan Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Linguistics LIN 205 Lexicography Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Semester III LIN 301 Sociolinguistics Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 LIN 302 Psycholinguistics Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 LIN 303 Old Indo-Aryan Discipline 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Specific Elective Lin 304 Middle Indo-Aryan Discipline 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Specific Elective LIN 305 Bengali Linguistics Discipline 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 1 Specific Elective LIN 306 Stylistics Discipline 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Specific Elective LIN 307 Discourse Analysis Generic 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Elective Semester IV LIN 401 Advanced Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Morphology & Advanced Syntax LIN 402 Field Methods Core 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 LIN 403 New Indo-Aryan Discipline 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Specific Elective LIN 404 Language & the Discipline 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Nation Specific Elective LIN 405 Language Teaching Discipline 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Specific Elective LIN 406 Term Paper Discipline 50 6 Specific Elective LIN 407 Language Generic 20(M1)+20(M2)+10(IA) 4 Classification & Elective Typology B.
  • The Analytic-Synthetic Distinction and the Classical Model of Science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege

    The Analytic-Synthetic Distinction and the Classical Model of Science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege

    Synthese (2010) 174:237–261 DOI 10.1007/s11229-008-9420-9 The analytic-synthetic distinction and the classical model of science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege Willem R. de Jong Received: 10 April 2007 / Revised: 24 July 2007 / Accepted: 1 April 2008 / Published online: 8 November 2008 © The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract This paper concentrates on some aspects of the history of the analytic- synthetic distinction from Kant to Bolzano and Frege. This history evinces con- siderable continuity but also some important discontinuities. The analytic-synthetic distinction has to be seen in the first place in relation to a science, i.e. an ordered system of cognition. Looking especially to the place and role of logic it will be argued that Kant, Bolzano and Frege each developed the analytic-synthetic distinction within the same conception of scientific rationality, that is, within the Classical Model of Science: scientific knowledge as cognitio ex principiis. But as we will see, the way the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments or propositions functions within this model turns out to differ considerably between them. Keywords Analytic-synthetic · Science · Logic · Kant · Bolzano · Frege 1 Introduction As is well known, the critical Kant is the first to apply the analytic-synthetic distinction to such things as judgments, sentences or propositions. For Kant this distinction is not only important in his repudiation of traditional, so-called dogmatic, metaphysics, but it is also crucial in his inquiry into (the possibility of) metaphysics as a rational science. Namely, this distinction should be “indispensable with regard to the critique of human understanding, and therefore deserves to be classical in it” (Kant 1783, p.
  • Description Logics—Basics, Applications, and More

    Description Logics—Basics, Applications, and More

    Description Logics|Basics, Applications, and More Ian Horrocks Information Management Group University of Manchester, UK Ulrike Sattler Teaching and Research Area for Theoretical Computer Science RWTH Aachen, Germany RWTH Aachen 1 Germany Overview of the Tutorial • History and Basics: Syntax, Semantics, ABoxes, Tboxes, Inference Problems and their interrelationship, and Relationship with other (logical) formalisms • Applications of DLs: ER-diagrams with i.com demo, ontologies, etc. including system demonstration • Reasoning Procedures: simple tableaux and why they work • Reasoning Procedures II: more complex tableaux, non-standard inference prob- lems • Complexity issues • Implementing/Optimising DL systems RWTH Aachen 2 Germany Description Logics • family of logic-based knowledge representation formalisms well-suited for the representation of and reasoning about ➠ terminological knowledge ➠ configurations ➠ ontologies ➠ database schemata { schema design, evolution, and query optimisation { source integration in heterogeneous databases/data warehouses { conceptual modelling of multidimensional aggregation ➠ : : : • descendents of semantics networks, frame-based systems, and KL-ONE • aka terminological KR systems, concept languages, etc. RWTH Aachen 3 Germany Architecture of a Standard DL System Knowledge Base I N Terminology F E I R Father = Man u 9 has child.>... N E T Human = Mammal. u Biped . N E Description C R E F Logic A Concrete Situation S C Y E John:Human u Father S John has child Bill . T . E M RWTH Aachen 4 Germany Introduction
  • Willard Van Orman Quine: the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

    Willard Van Orman Quine: the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

    Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction Willard Van Orman Quine was one of the most well-known American “analytic” philosophers of the twentieth century. He made significant contributions to many areas of philosophy, including philosophy of language, logic, epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mind/psychology (behaviorism). However, he is best known for his rejection of the analytic/synthetic distinction. Technically, this is the distinction between statements true in virtue of the meanings of their terms (like “a bachelor is an unmarried man”) and statements whose truth is a function not simply of the meanings of terms, but of the way the world is (such as, “That bachelor is wearing a grey suit”). Although a contentious thesis, analyticity has been a popular explanation, especially among empiricists, both for the necessity of necessary truths and for the a priori knowability of some truths. Thus, in some contexts “analytic truth,” “necessary truth,” and “a priori truth” have been used interchangeably, and the analytic/synthetic distinction has been treated as equivalent to the distinctions between necessary and contingent truths, and between a priori and a posteriori (or empirical) truths. Empirical truths can be known only by empirical verification, rather than by “unpacking” the meanings of the terms involved, and are usually thought to be contingent. Quine wrestled with the analytic/synthetic distinction for years, but he did not make his thoughts public until 1950, when he delivered his paper, “The Two Dogmas of Empiricism” at a meeting of the American Philosophical Association. In this paper, Quine argues that all attempts to define and understand analyticity are circular.
  • A Fuzzy Description Logic

    A Fuzzy Description Logic

    From: AAAI-98 Proceedings. Copyright © 1998, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. A Fuzzy Description Logic Umberto Straccia I.E.I - C.N.R. Via S. Maria, 46 I-56126 Pisa (PI) ITALY [email protected] Abstract is such a concept: we may say that an individual tom is an instance of the concept Tall only to a certain degree Description Logics (DLs, for short) allow reasoning n ∈ [0, 1] depending on tom’s height. about individuals and concepts, i.e. set of individuals with common properties. Typically, DLs are limited to Fuzzy logic directly deals with the notion of vague- dealing with crisp, well dened concepts. That is, con- ness and imprecision using fuzzy predicates. Therefore, cepts for which the problem whether an individual is it oers an appealing foundation for a generalisation of an instance of it is a yes/no question. More often than DLs in order to dealing with such vague concepts. not, the concepts encountered in the real world do not The aim of this work is to present a general fuzzy DL, have a precisely dened criteria of membership: we which combines fuzzy logic with DLs. In particular we may say that an individual is an instance of a concept will extend DLs by allowing expressions of the form only to a certain degree, depending on the individual’s hC(a) ni (n ∈ [0, 1]), e.g. hTall(tom) .7i, with intended properties. Concepts of this kind are rather vague than precise. As fuzzy logic directly deals with the notion of meaning “the membership degree of individual a being vagueness and imprecision, it oers an appealing foun- an instance of concept C is at least n”.
  • Axiomatic Semantics I

    Axiomatic Semantics I

    Spring 2016 Program Analysis and Verification Lecture 3: Axiomatic Semantics I Roman Manevich Ben-Gurion University Warm-up exercises 1. Define program state: 2. Define structural semantics configurations: 3. Define the form of structural semantics transitions: 2 Tentative syllabus Abstract Program Program Analysis Interpretation Verification Analysis Basics Techniques fundamentals Operational Control Flow Numerical Lattices semantics Graphs Domains Axiomatic Equation Fixed-Points Alias analysis Verification Systems Collecting Chaotic Interprocedural Semantics Iteration Analysis Galois Shape Using Soot Connections Analysis Domain CEGAR constructors Widening/ Narrowing 3 Agenda • Basic concepts of correctness • Axiomatic semantics (pages 175-183) – Motivation – First-order logic reminder – Hoare Logic 4 program correctness 5 Program correctness concepts • Specification = a certain relationship between initial state and final state Main focus of this course • Partial correctness = specifications that hold if the program terminates • Termination = program always terminates – i.e., for every input state partial correctness + termination = total correctness Other correctness concepts exist: liveness, resource usage, … 6 Verifying factorial with structural semantics 7 Structural semantics for While [asssos] x := a, 1 [x Aa] [skipsos] skip, 1 1 S1, 1 S1’, ’ [comp sos] S1; S2, 1 S1’; S2, 2 S1, 1 ’ [comp sos] S1; S2, 1 S2, ’ tt [if sos] if b then S1 else S2, 1 S1, if B b = tt ff [if sos] if b then S1 else S2, 1 S2, if B b = ff while