DOCSLIB.ORG

Impersonally Interpreted Personal Pronouns

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Georg-August-Universit¨at G¨ottingen Sprachwissenschaftliches Seminar Impersonally Interpreted Personal Pronouns Dissertation zur Erlangung des philosophischen Doktorgrades an der Philosophischen Fakult¨at der Georg-August-Universit¨at G¨ottingen vorgelegt von Sarah Zobel aus Salzburg, Osterreich¨ G¨ottingen 2012 Uberarbeitung,¨ Tubingen¨ 2014 Acknowledgements Ich muss doch als Eltern bittsch¨on auch ohne Farb¨anderung erkennen, ob mein Kind erh¨ohte Temperatur hat.1 Writing this dissertation at the University of G¨ottingen has been an interesting experience for two reasons. First, I thought I would write a short, very technical dissertation about a well- delineated topic, preferably involving modality. The thesis I actually wrote definitely involves modality, and one might say that it is somewhat technical. What cannot be said about my thesis, not even charitably, is that it is short, and that its topic is well- delineated. Nevertheless|and that was quite a surprise for me|I had a lot of fun working on a topic which started with one natural language example read to me by Viola Schmitt on some afternoon in our \office" in Vienna, but which over the years more or less spun out of control the more data and insights on the data I gathered. Most of the data that I collected over the years has found its way into this thesis, and it is one of my favourite parts of this work. The second reason is that I never actively considered moving to Germany, let alone G¨ottingen. Frankly, I first learned the approximate geographic location of G¨ottingen six months after moving there, and it's fair to say that I didn't like the town at all at first. But G¨ottingen very slowly creeps up on you, and suddenly you don't mind sitting in a smallish university town somewhere in the middle of Germany since, actually, it's not about where you are, but who is there with you. The people I met in the last three years, both colleagues from G¨ottingen and guests from all over the world, made G¨ottingen a good place to live and work in. These people contributed either indirectly or directly to this work and I want to thank them for that. I want to thank my advisor Magda Kaufmann for asking me to come to G¨ottingen, and for allowing me the freedom to explore the data at my pace while being a very strict and critical reviewer of my work. I learned a lot from her, and while it was not always pain-free, it helped me find my way of working on a problem. Thanks also go to Cleo Condoravdi for interesting conversations at various stages of my research 1http://www.best-practice-business.de/blog/?p=12309 III and Regine Eckardt, who also agreed to be on my committee. I'm very much looking forward to defending this work in front of these exceptional researchers. For interesting discussions on the data, I thank Jerra Busch, Eva Csipak, Michael Job, Stefanie Simon, and Thomas Weskott. Additional, special thanks go to Thomas Weskott for reading and commenting on the better part of this thesis (in both senses of this expression). All remaining typos and mistakes are my own. Over the years, I've also profited from discussions with Nicholas Asher, Rajesh Bhatt, Fabrizio Cariani, Brady Clark, Irene Heim, Angelika Kratzer, Friederike Moltmann, E. Allyn Smith, Malte Willer, and the audiences at various talks and workshops where I presented stages of my work. For moral support and a great learning experience, I also thank the girls and guys of the semantics reading groups|most notably the \Kekslesegruppe"|that I regrettably had to stop attending during the last two months of writing this thesis. Now that it's over, I'm looking forward to joining in again, and not just for the cookies. Apart from various reading groups, I also had a great time at work-related, and not-so-work-related events in the linguistics department, the German department, the English department, and the Courant Research Center in G¨ottingen. These events made my stay in G¨ottingen enjoyable not only professionally, but also personally. As always, I want to thank my parents for the love and support, and for routinely checking up on me every three weeks to see whether I'm still alive during the last six months of writing. Thanks also go to my brother for being interested in the progress of my \Diplomarbeit" (= MA Thesis), and for being sure that I will get an \Einser" (= A). It is great to be part of such a supportive family who believe in your success. I hope they are right. Unfortunately, Chester the hamster, who is also featured in some of the examples in this thesis, didn't live to see his name in print. I hope I'm not misrepresenting him in any way. G¨ottingen, July 19, 2012 Now that the work I defended in 2012 has been revised, additional thanks are in order. The last two years have been a very busy period for me, not only because of moving to Tubingen¨ to work at another great university in an even more smallish university town. Needless to say, the experiences in these two years have shaped this revised version considerably. I want to thank my colleagues at the German Department of the University of Tubin-¨ gen for providing a comfortable and genial work environment. My esteemed colleagues Sebastian Bucking¨ and Patrick Grosz deserve additional thanks for finding time in their busy schedules to discuss data and theoretical issues with me. This work profited considerably from their expertise. I'm also indepted to my advisors Magdalena Kaufmann, Cleo Condoravdi, and Regine Eckardt for their continued advice and support. Further thanks go to people who continued to provide technical and moral support, as well as great friendship over the years. Jerra Busch, Dirk Buschbon, Eva Csipak, and Dolf Rami|you are the best! Big thanks also go to Thomas Weskott, who again excelled at the hard task of the spontaneous proof-reader. In my most impartial opin- ion, however, Thomas, you deserve the biggest thanks and a cornucopia of everything that is good just for being the way you are! And lastly, of course, I want to thank my brother and my parents|especially for not caring that it took nearly two more years until this thing was done. Tubingen,¨ October 24, 2014 Contents Introduction1 1 Data discussion and preliminary issues 15 1.1 Introduction................................. 15 1.2 Data discussion { part I: The semantics of the impersonal use..... 17 1.2.1 The impersonal use and its connection to genericity....... 17 1.2.2 Truth-conditional equivalence and impersonal pronouns..... 22 1.2.3 Impersonally vs. referentially used ich and du .......... 27 1.2.4 A note on non-declarative sentences................ 30 1.3 Data discussion { part II: Co-occurring linguistic material....... 31 1.3.1 The effect of co-occurring linguistic material........... 31 1.3.2 Spatial and temporal adverbials (and context).......... 34 1.3.3 Co-occurring referentially interpreted personal pronouns.... 37 1.3.4 Perfect tense and subjunctive marking on the verb....... 41 1.3.5 Stressed ich and du ......................... 44 1.3.6 A restriction on possible argument positions for ich ....... 45 1.4 Data discussion { part III: Pragmatic preferences and effects...... 48 1.4.1 A preliminary note......................... 48 1.4.2 Preferences on discourse contexts................. 48 1.4.3 Participant-oriented pragmatic effects............... 53 1.5 The semantics of personal pronouns.................... 59 1.5.1 Introductory remarks........................ 59 1.5.2 1st/2nd vs. 3rd { syntactic and semantic properties....... 59 1.5.3 \Standard" accounts of pronominal semantics........... 65 1.5.4 Kratzer (2009)........................... 70 1.5.5 Problems: the impersonal use and deferred ostension...... 73 1.6 Arguments against a counterfactual analysis............... 75 1.7 Summary and outlook........................... 81 2 Ich and du { a first try 83 2.1 Introduction................................. 83 VII 2.2 The semantics of impersonal pronouns.................. 84 2.2.1 Syntactic and semantic properties of impersonal pronouns... 84 2.2.2 Previous semantic analyses of impersonal pronouns....... 89 2.2.3 Impersonal pronouns and existential indefinite pronouns.... 99 2.3 Impersonally interpreted personal pronouns............... 104 2.3.1 The relevant semantic properties and their consequences.... 104 2.3.2 Malamud (2006, 2007)....................... 108 2.3.3 Alonso-Ovalle (2000, 2002)..................... 112 2.4 Interlude { the (in)definiteness problem.................. 115 2.4.1 The problem: Conflicting requirements.............. 115 2.4.2 Definiteness and indefiniteness................... 116 2.4.3 (In)definiteness and quantificational variability.......... 124 2.5 An alternative proposal for a unified account............... 128 2.5.1 A return to Nunberg (1993).................... 128 2.5.2 A formal account inspired by Nunberg (1993).......... 135 2.5.3 A unified account of personal pronouns as indefinites...... 138 2.6 A critical evaluation of the proposal in 2.5.3............... 145 2.7 Summary.................................. 151 3 The impersonal use, modals, and generic sentences 153 3.1 Introduction................................. 153 3.2 A possible worlds semantics for modality................. 154 3.2.1 The linguistic category of modality................ 154 3.2.2 A semantic account for modals.................. 156 3.3 Modal accounts of genericity........................ 163 3.3.1 Preliminaries on genericity and generic sentences........ 163 3.3.2 Krifka et al. (1995)......................... 170 3.3.3 Drewery (1998)........................... 178 3.3.4 Greenberg (2007).......................... 185 3.3.5 Choosing a modal account for Gen ................ 194 3.4 Modals as binders?............................. 195 3.4.1 Initial considerations........................ 195 3.4.2 Identifying the overt modals found with impersonal uses...
Recommended publications
  • 1 Semantics in Generative Grammar. by Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer

    1 Semantics in Generative Grammar. by Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer

    Semantics in generative grammar. By Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Pp. ix, 324. Introduction to natural language semantics. By Henriëtte de Swart. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998. Pp. xiv, 257. Although there aren’t that many text books on formal semantics, their average quality is quite good, and these two recent additions don’t lower the standard by any means. ‘Semantics in generative grammar’ (SGG) is the more innovative of the two. As its title indicates, SGG focuses its attention on the syntax/semantics interface, with particular emphasis on quantification and anaphora. These two subjects are discussed in considerable detail, while many others receive only a cursory treatment or are not addressed at all. We learn from the preface that this was a deliberate choice: ‘We want to help students develop the ability for semantic analysis, and, in view of this goal, we think that exploring a few topics in detail is more effective than offering a bird’s-eye view of everything.’ (p. ix) Having enjoyed the results of Heim and Kratzer’s explorations, I can only agree with this judgment. SGG falls into three main parts. The first part introduces the two notions that are at the heart of the formal semantics enterprise, viz. truth conditions and compositionality, and then goes on to develop a compositional truth- conditional semantics for a core fragment of English. The second part discusses variable binding and quantification, and the third part is an in-depth discussion of anaphora. All these developments are kept within an extensional framework. 06-09-1999 1 Intensional phenomena are addressed only briefly, in the last chapter of the book.
  • L1 ENGLISH L2 GERMAN LEARNERS‟ GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENTS and KNOWLEDGE of DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS by Daniel Robert Walter a THES

    L1 ENGLISH L2 GERMAN LEARNERS‟ GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENTS and KNOWLEDGE of DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS by Daniel Robert Walter a THES

    L1 ENGLISH L2 GERMAN LEARNERS‟ GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENTS AND KNOWLEDGE OF DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS By Daniel Robert Walter A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS German Studies 2011 ABSTRACT L1 ENGLISH L2 GERMAN LEARNERS‟ GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENTS AND KNOWLEDGE OF DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS By Daniel Robert Walter Second language learners are often faced with difficult decisions while interpreting language. One specific difficulty of discourse is dealing with ambiguity, which is often made more challenging by the fact that second language learners‟ native language processes may carry over into their second language processes. Some learners may not have received any explicit instruction on how to deal with ambiguity and must rely on internal processing by their interlanguage to make a guess as to what the speaker means. This thesis explores the acquisition of German demonstrative pronouns by second language learners of German whose native language is English. Unlike German, which allows for both personal pronoun usage (er, sie, es etc.) and demonstrative pronoun usage (der, die, das etc.) to refer back to antecedents, English only allows personal pronouns. Thus English native speakers tend to rely on syntactic structure to resolve ambiguous pronoun usage, while German speakers can differentiate antecedents through the use of demonstrative and personal pronouns. Demonstrative pronouns in German typically encode for object pronoun reference, while English does not have an equivalent form. In order to determine how L1 English learners of German deal with this incongruity between English and German pronoun resolution, learners of German in advanced German classes were tested via a grammaticality judgment test to see whether they were able to successfully identify demonstrative pronouns in German as grammatical or if they interpreted the demonstrative to be an error.
  • Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals As Windows Into the Properties of Pronouns Angelika Kratzer

    Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals As Windows Into the Properties of Pronouns Angelika Kratzer

    University of Massachusetts Amherst From the SelectedWorks of Angelika Kratzer 2009 Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of Pronouns Angelika Kratzer Available at: https://works.bepress.com/angelika_kratzer/ 6/ Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of Pronouns Angelika Kratzer This article argues that natural languages have two binding strategies that create two types of bound variable pronouns. Pronouns of the first type, which include local fake indexicals, reflexives, relative pronouns, and PRO, may be born with a ‘‘defective’’ feature set. They can ac- quire the features they are missing (if any) from verbal functional heads carrying standard ␭-operators that bind them. Pronouns of the second type, which include long-distance fake indexicals, are born fully specified and receive their interpretations via context-shifting ␭-operators (Cable 2005). Both binding strategies are freely available and not subject to syntactic constraints. Local anaphora emerges under the assumption that feature transmission and morphophonological spell-out are limited to small windows of operation, possibly the phases of Chomsky 2001. If pronouns can be born underspecified, we need an account of what the possible initial features of a pronoun can be and how it acquires the features it may be missing. The article develops such an account by deriving a space of possible paradigms for referen- tial and bound variable pronouns from the semantics of pronominal features. The result is a theory of pronouns that predicts the typology and individual characteristics of both referential and bound variable pronouns. Keywords: agreement, fake indexicals, local anaphora, long-distance anaphora, meaning of pronominal features, typology of pronouns 1 Fake Indexicals and Minimal Pronouns Referential and bound variable pronouns tend to look the same.
  • Scope Or Pseudoscope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites?1

    Scope Or Pseudoscope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites?1

    1 Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites?1 Angelika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts at Amherst March 1997 1. The starting point: Fodor and Sag My story begins with a famous example by Janet Fodor and Ivan Sag 2: The Fodor and Sag example (1) Each teacher overheard the rumor that a student of mine had been called before the dean. (1) has a reading where the indefinite NP a student of mine has scope within the that - clause. What the teachers overheard might have been: “A student of Angelika’s was called before the dean”. This reading is expected if indefinite NPs are quantifiers, and quantifier scope is confined to some local domain. (1) has another reading where a student of mine seems to have widest scope, scope even wider than each teacher. There might have been a student of mine, say Sanders, and each teacher overheard the rumor that Sanders was called before the dean. Fodor and Sag argue that this is not an instance of scope. If indefinite NPs seem to have anomalous scope properties, they are not true quantifiers. The apparent wide-scope reading of a student of mine in (1) is really a referential reading. Indefinite NPs, then, are ambiguous between quantificational and referential readings. If they are quantificational, their scope cannot exceed some local domain. If they are referential, they do not have scope at all. They may be easily confused with widest scope existentials, however. Sentence (1) is important for Fodor and Sag’s argument since it offers a third scope possibility for the indefinite NP that doesn’t seem to be there.
  • Quantification, Misc

    Quantification, Misc

    QUANTIFICATION, MISC. A Dissertation Presented by JAN ANDERSSEN Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2011 Linguistics c Copyright by Jan Anderssen 2011 All rights reserved QUANTIFICATION, MISC. A Dissertation Presented by JAN ANDERSSEN Approved as to style and content by Angelika Kratzer, Chair Lyn Frazier, Member Christopher Potts, Member Charles Clifton, Jr., Member John J. McCarthy Head of Department Linguistics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS That I have finished this dissertation is in large parts due to the guidance, patience, and encouragement of my committee members. It amazes me how tirelessly they have cleared all the stumbling blocks I sometimes threw in my own way. I am indebted first and foremost to my Doktormutter, Angelika Kratzer. My views on linguistics, and semantics in particular are shaped by Angelika’s writing, teaching, and advising. The introductory classes that I took with Angelika during my visiting year at UMass were the main reason for me to apply there without hesitation. I have never regretted this. What I have learned extends beyond the linguistic horizon. I was fortunate to have an outstanding dissertation committee, and I am very grateful to Lyn Frazier, Chris Potts, and Chuck Clifton for being on my committee, and for being generous with their time and feedback throughout not only the time of my dissertation writing, but the entire time I have known them. That I have enjoyed these years in graduate school no matter how frustrating the work might have seemed at times is entirely due to a great many good friends near and far.
  • Minimal Pronouns1

    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).
  • German Grammar Articles Table

    German Grammar Articles Table

    German Grammar Articles Table Is Tedd fornicate when Franky swivelling railingly? Douglis plucks his prefigurations promised saucily, but powerless Elwood never faxes so pronto. Traumatic and unassisted See hydrogenized his gatecrasher retrogrades jewel cross-legged. And the gender is it is important to get if available in german grammar table for each noun is spoken among the german article, we have to tell you to In German there's a lawn more to determining which article to crank than just. German Grammar Indefinite articles Vistawide. And crash the nouns with both definite article in the key below as first. German Grammar Songs Accusative and Dative Prepositions. Experienced German teachers prepared easy articles and simple conversations in German for. German grammar Nouns Verbs Articles Adjectives Pronouns Adverbial phrases Conjugation Sentence structure Declension Modal particles v t e German articles are used similarly to the English articles a crawl the film they are declined. Why by a fresh male a fit female exit a window neutral in German Though these might. Because as these might be already discovered German grammar is. General sites Helpful articles about teaching grammar Animated German Grammar Tutorials. The German definite article d- with growing its forms is getting essential tool. A new wrath of making chart German is easy. German Nominative and Accusative cases audio. How To our Understand The Frustrating Adjective Italki. Contracted Preposition-Determiner Forms in German Tesis. German language Kumarika. German Definite Articles Der Die Das Everything may Need. To give table above certain adjectival pronouns also talking like the background article der. You dig insert a 'k-' in front seven any voyage of 'ein-' in the constant of the against to.
  • Exceptive Conditionals: the Meaning of Unless

    Exceptive Conditionals: the Meaning of Unless

    Exceptive Conditionals: The Meaning of Unless Kai von Fintel University of Massachusetts at Amherst Introduction In this paper I investigate the meaning of one word of English, unless, and its theoretical implications. In numerous textbooks and grammars we can find the traditional view that unless is equivalent to if…not. (1) a. I will leave unless Bill calls soon. b. I will leave if Bill doesn’t call soon. There are numerous empirical problems with this alleged equivalence as we will see in the next section. Various authors offer alternative paraphrases: only if…not (Quirk et.al. 1972: 746, Clark and Clark 1977: 457), not…only if (Fillenbaum 1986: 184), if and only if…not (Comrie 1986: 97). This plethora of proposals is especially astonishing considering the fact that there are only eight logically possible binary truth-functions. For comments and suggestions, I would like to thank especially Barbara Partee, Veena Dwivedi, Paul Portner, Hotze Rullmann, Sue Tunstall, and the audience at NELS 22. Special appreciation to Michael Geis who let me see bits of his chapter on conditional connectives from an unpublished manuscript co-authored with Bill Lycan. Research on this paper has been partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BNS 87-19999 (Principal Investigators: Emmon Bach, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee). No one should be blamed for the remaining mistakes and errors, unless it’s me. KAI VON FINTEL The main claim I will defend in this paper is that unless cannot be treated as a truth-functional connective. Instead, its semantics has to be assimilated to the meaning given to if-clauses in much recent work in formal semantics, where if-clauses are interpreted as supplying a quantificational operator with a restriction on its domain.
  • Making Worlds Accessible. Essays in Honor of Angelika Kratzer

    Making Worlds Accessible. Essays in Honor of Angelika Kratzer

    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Angelika Kratzer Festschrift Angelika Kratzer FestSite 2020 Making Worlds Accessible. Essays in Honor of Angelika Kratzer Rajesh Bhatt University of Massachusetts Amherst, [email protected] Ilaria Frana University of Enna "Kore", [email protected] Paula Menéndez-Benito University of Tubingen̈ , [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ak_festsite_schrift Recommended Citation Bhatt, Rajesh; Frana, Ilaria; and Menéndez-Benito, Paula, "Making Worlds Accessible. Essays in Honor of Angelika Kratzer" (2020). Angelika Kratzer Festschrift. 1. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ak_festsite_schrift/1 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Angelika Kratzer FestSite at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Angelika Kratzer Festschrift by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Making Worlds Accessible ESSAYS IN HONOR OF Angelika Kratzer EDITED BY RAJESH BHATT ILARIA FRANA PAULA MENÉNDEZ-BENITO Contents Editors i Contributors ii Preface iii 1. Death on the Freeway: imaginative resistance as narrator accommodation 1 Daniel Altshuler and Emar Maier 2. A comparative note on the Bangla particle to and the German particle doch 17 Josef Bayer 3. The child in semantics 32 Valentine Hacquard 4. “Relative pronouns” as agreeing complementizers: German welch- 47 Dalina Kallulli 5. Attitude embedding predicates and indexicals under role shift in ASL 59 Elena Koulidobrova and Kathryn Davidson 6. Universal NPs, distributivity and dependent indefinites in Mandarin Chinese 72 Jo-Wang Lin 7. Quotes as complements: A Kratzerian approach 91 Emar Maier 8.
  • A Machine Learning Approach to German Pronoun Resolution

    A Machine Learning Approach to German Pronoun Resolution

    A Machine Learning Approach to German Pronoun Resolution Beata Kouchnir Department of Computational Linguistics Tubingen¨ University 72074 Tubingen,¨ Germany [email protected] Abstract The system presented in this paper resolves German pronouns in free text by imitating the This paper presents a novel ensemble manual annotation process with off-the-shelf lan- learning approach to resolving German guage sofware. As the avalability and reliability of pronouns. Boosting, the method in such software is limited, the system can use only question, combines the moderately ac- a small number of features. The fact that most curate hypotheses of several classifiers German pronouns are morphologically ambiguous to form a highly accurate one. Exper- proves an additional challenge. iments show that this approach is su- The choice of boosting as the underlying ma- perior to a single decision-tree classi- chine learning algorithm is motivated both by its fier. Furthermore, we present a stan- theoretical concept as well as its performance for dalone system that resolves pronouns in other NLP tasks. The fact that boosting uses the unannotated text by using a fully auto- method of ensemble learning, i.e. combining the matic sequence of preprocessing mod- decisions of several classifiers, suggests that the ules that mimics the manual annotation combined hypothesis will be more accurate than process. Although the system performs one learned by a single classifier. On the practical well within a limited textual domain, side, boosting has distinguished itself by achieving further research is needed to make it good results with small feature sets. effective for open-domain question an- swering and text summarisation.
  • David Lewis's Philosophy of Language

    David Lewis's Philosophy of Language

    DAVID LEWIS’S PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE1 RICHARD HOLTON Lewis never saw philosophy of language as foundational in the way that many have. One of the most distinctive features of his work is the robust confidence that questions in metaphysics or mind can be addressed head on, and not through the lens of language.2 That said, Lewis’s work in the philosophy of language has had enormous impact. The Lewis-Stalnaker analysis of counterfactuals provides the standard; so too does Lewis’s account of convention. His account of truth in fiction is widely accepted, and has provided the inspiration for recent fictionalist accounts of various domains.3 Elsewhere he provides, if not the orthodoxy, then the standard alternative to orthodoxy: this is true, for instance, of his counterpart semantics for modal language, and of his descriptivist account of the semantics of singular terms. Moreover, Lewis is a member of that small group of philosophers whose work is read and used by linguists, at least those working towards the semantic end of things. A check through the index pages of Linguistics and Philosophy reveals, as expected, that he is one of the handful of authors whose work is multiply cited in every volume by both linguists and philosophers. ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game’ is a central piece in pragmatics. ‘General Semantics’ is one of the founding texts of much contemporary formal semantics. ‘Adverbs of Quantification’ has 1 Thanks to Sam Guttenplan, Lloyd Humberstone, Rae Langton, Bob Stalnaker, Mark Steedman and Steve Yablo. I use the following abbreviations for Lewis’s collections of papers: PP I: Philosophical Papers Vol.
  • ANGELIKA KRATZER Department of Linguistics University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 545-6829

    ANGELIKA KRATZER Department of Linguistics University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 545-6829

    1 ANGELIKA KRATZER Department of Linguistics University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 545-6829 [email protected] http://people.umass.edu/kratzer/ Academic degrees 1973 University of Konstanz, MA in Theoretical Linguistics and Romance Philology (ausgezeichnet, ‘with distinction’). 1979 University of Konstanz, Dr. phil. (summa cum laude). Education Undergraduate Work 1967-1969 University of Munich: Romance Philology, Art History, Communication Studies, Modern German Literature. Graduate Work 1970-1972 University of Konstanz: MA-level studies in Theoretical Linguistics and Romance Philology. 1972-1973 University of Heidelberg: Mathematical Logic. 1974 Victoria University of Wellington/New Zealand: Formal Semantics for Natural Language, Logic, Philosophy of Language. Professional Employment 1992-present Professor of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 1985-1992 Associate Professor of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 1980-1985 Assistant Professor (wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin), Institute of Linguistics, Technical University Berlin. 1978-1980 Senior Researcher, Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. Project on Language Production. 2 1975-1978 Researcher, University of Konstanz. Project on Formal Syntax and Semantics. 1969-1970 Assistante de langue allemande, Lycée Jean Dautet, La Rochelle. Teaching & research at other institutions • NASSLLI (North American Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information), University of Maryland (2014). • Linguistic Society of America Summer Institutes: UC Santa Cruz (1991), Cornell University (1997), Harvard-MIT (2005), University of Michigan (2013). • Dutch Central Graduate Program (LOT): Amsterdam (1991), Utrecht (1994), Tilburg (2012). • Central European University Budapest (2009): Summer School on Conditionals. • École Normale Supérieure, Paris: Invited Professor (2009). • Institut Jean Nicod, Paris: Invited Researcher (2009). • École Normale Supérieure Paris (2005): Fall School in Linguistics.