DOCSLIB.ORG

Toward a Theory of Mandarin Quantification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toward a Theory of Mandarin Quantification Toward a Theory of Mandarin Quantification The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Tsai, Cheng-Yu. 2015. Toward a Theory of Mandarin Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:17467512 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Toward a Theory of Mandarin Quantification A dissertation presented by Cheng-Yu Tsai to The Department of Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Linguistics Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts April 2015 © 2015 – Cheng-Yu Tsai All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Professor C.-T. James Huang Author: Cheng-Yu Tsai Toward a Theory of Mandarin Quantification Abstract The goal of this dissertation is to show that certain puzzles in the syntax and semantics of Mandarin quantification can be explained from the perspective of Hamblin semantics. Following Kratzer and Shimoyama(2002), it is proposed that certain Mandarin quantificational expressions (including wh-phrases, numeral phrases, and strong quantificational phrases) denote sets of indi- vidual alternatives. They expand to sets of propositions in a pointwise manner and are selected by propositional operators. The distribution and interpretation of Mandarin quantificational expres- sions are constrained by the way alternatives interact with associated operators. Chapter 1 illustrates a number of issues in the behavior of Mandarin existential wh-phrases and numeral phrases, which cannot be easily explained by previous accounts. Chapter 2 investigates the properties of three logical operators h´aish`ı, h`uosh`ı and h´aiyˇou, which provide the initial motiva- tion for a Hamblin-style approach to the system of Mandarin quantification. It is argued that these three operators make a case for reading off Hamblin alternatives directly from the clausal syntax, and that, based on evidence from morphology and existential construal, wh-phrases in Mandarin pattern together with h´aish`ı-disjunctions and thus should receive a uniform semantic treatment. All types of quantificational expressions discussed in the first two chapters interact with the preverbal particle d¯ou in one way or another, and thus this element plays a special role in Man- darin quantification. Chapter 3 critically reviews three influential theories on d¯ou: Shyu’s (1995) focus-based theory, Lin’s (1996) distributivity-based theory, and Giannakidou and Cheng’s (2006) maximality-based theory. Chapter 4 is devoted to a novel proposal on the syntax and semantics of d¯ou, where it is argued that syntactically d¯ou is a modal head that agrees with a universal quanti- fier that collects alternatives introduced by the quantificational phrase to its left, and semantically provides existential quantification over possible worlds. It is shown that this proposal allows for a iii uniform account of d¯ou across different d¯ou-constructions, per the Hamblin-style analysis of quan- tificational phrases across-the-board. Finally, Chapter 5 reexamines the interpretations of existential wh-phrases and argues that in the few cases discussed the existential reading comes from not the c-commanding operator in the surface structure but from an invisible operator that collects alternatives. This operator is intro- duced into the syntax via agreement with the preverbal particle j`ıu, which is a related element to d¯ou and is overt in some of the cases at hand but not in others. Further consequences of the present approach to the behavior of NumPs and strong quantifier phrases are also discussed. iv Contents 1 Reassessing Mandarin quantification1 1.1 Goal of this dissertation...................................1 1.2 A reassessment of interrogative wh-phrases........................2 1.2.1 Wh-phrases in Mandarin...............................2 1.2.2 A historical perspective...............................4 1.2.3 Rethinking wide-scope wh-phrases.........................7 1.3 A reassessment of non-interrogative wh-phrases.....................9 1.3.1 Existential wh-phrases................................9 1.3.2 Universal wh-phrases................................ 17 1.4 A reassessment of indefinites in Mandarin......................... 19 1.4.1 Existential contexts.................................. 19 1.4.2 Adverbial quantification/generic contexts.................... 21 1.4.3 Negative contexts................................... 23 1.4.4 Wide scope again................................... 27 1.5 A Hamblin perspective.................................... 34 1.6 Kratzer and Shimoyama(2002)............................... 35 1.7 Mandarin wh-phrases in Hamblin semantics....................... 42 2 Logical relations and quantification: From morphology to alternatives 46 2.1 Prelude: Disjunction and conjunction in Hamblin semantics.............. 46 2.2 H´aish`ı-disjunctive questions................................. 48 2.3 The wh-morphology of Mandarin.............................. 56 2.4 H`uosh`ı-disjunction...................................... 60 2.5 H´aiyˇou-conjunction and “distributivity”.......................... 65 2.6 The syntax of sh`ı ‘be’ and yˇou ‘have’: Huang 1988..................... 69 3 Previous theories of dou¯ -quantification 74 3.1 Mandarin d¯ou-constructions: An overview......................... 74 3.2 The focus-based theory of dou ................................ 79 3.2.1 Three aspects of Shyu’s (1995) focus-based theory of dou ............ 79 3.2.2 Arguments for overt (A-)movement........................ 82 3.2.3 The semantics of li´an... d¯ou-constructions..................... 86 3.2.4 Reassessing the F-theory of d¯ou ........................... 86 3.3 The distributivity-based theory of dou ........................... 92 3.3.1 Three aspects of Lin’s (1996) D-theory....................... 92 3.3.2 Predictions and consequences............................ 97 3.3.3 Reassessing the D-theory of d¯ou .......................... 99 v 3.4 The maximality-based theory of dou ............................ 106 3.4.1 On Giannakidou and Cheng 2006......................... 106 3.4.2 Maximality in Mandarin: The case of d¯ou ..................... 109 3.4.3 More on d¯ou and definiteness: Cheng 2009.................... 111 3.4.4 Reassessing the M-theory of d¯ou .......................... 114 4 Unifying dou¯ -quantification 121 4.1 Unconditional d¯ou-constructions.............................. 121 4.1.1 Some generalizations................................. 121 4.1.2 Syntax......................................... 126 4.1.3 A note on pro-movement............................... 132 4.1.4 A note on the antecedent.............................. 135 4.1.5 Semantics....................................... 138 4.1.6 And?.......................................... 145 4.1.7 D¯ou and domain widening............................. 147 4.1.8 Over realizations of alternatives.......................... 150 4.2 Distributivity as free choice effects in disguise...................... 155 4.3 Universal mei... d¯ou-constructions............................. 159 4.3.1 On nominal mei .................................... 159 4.3.2 Clausal mei ...................................... 164 4.4 “Definite” d¯ou-constructions and the meaning of NumPs................ 165 4.4.1 Recap.......................................... 165 4.4.2 Proposal........................................ 166 4.5 Scalar d¯ou-constructions................................... 168 4.5.1 Core facts and issues................................. 168 4.5.2 Syntax......................................... 170 4.5.3 Revisiting Shyu 1995................................. 170 4.5.4 Li´an... d¯ou 6= shenzhi ‘even’............................. 173 4.5.5 Deriving scalarity................................... 176 5 Further issues 185 5.1 Revisiting existential wh-phrases.............................. 185 5.1.1 Negative contexts................................... 186 5.1.2 A new proposal.................................... 188 5.1.3 If -conditionals.................................... 192 5.1.4 Yes-no questions................................... 194 5.1.5 Deontic modals.................................... 196 5.1.6 The role of classifiers................................. 199 5.2 More on NumPs........................................ 202 5.3 Strong QPs in Mandarin................................... 207 5.3.1 The morphology of strong QPs........................... 207 5.3.2 The meaning of strong QPs............................. 210 5.4 Unresolved issues....................................... 214 5.4.1 Wh-adverbials and the A-not-A question operator................ 214 5.4.2 Two other types of d¯ou-constructions....................... 216 5.4.3 Other licensing conditions of strong QPs..................... 217 Bibliography 222 vi Acknowledgments The completion of this dissertation is not possible without the help and support from many in- dividuals. My deepest gratitude goes to my advisor Jim Huang (“Huang Laoshi”). Jim is an ad- mirable scholar, mentor, and teacher, whose work and passion have largely shaped my thoughts about research and being a researcher. I thank him for spending many hours discussing my projects with me, listening to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNIT-I Mathematical Logic Statements and Notations
    UNIT-I Mathematical Logic Statements and notations: A proposition or statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false (but not both). For instance, the following are propositions: “Paris is in France” (true), “London is in Denmark” (false), “2 < 4” (true), “4 = 7 (false)”. However the following are not propositions: “what is your name?” (this is a question), “do your homework” (this is a command), “this sentence is false” (neither true nor false), “x is an even number” (it depends on what x represents), “Socrates” (it is not even a sentence). The truth or falsehood of a proposition is called its truth value. Connectives: Connectives are used for making compound propositions. The main ones are the following (p and q represent given propositions): Name Represented Meaning Negation ¬p “not p” Conjunction p q “p and q” Disjunction p q “p or q (or both)” Exclusive Or p q “either p or q, but not both” Implication p ⊕ q “if p then q” Biconditional p q “p if and only if q” Truth Tables: Logical identity Logical identity is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition that produces a value of true if its operand is true and a value of false if its operand is false. The truth table for the logical identity operator is as follows: Logical Identity p p T T F F Logical negation Logical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition that produces a value of true if its operand is false and a value of false if its operand is true.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory
    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. – Ian Stewart Does God play dice? The mathematics of chaos In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. That is, a proof is a logical argument, not an empir- ical one. One must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a theorem of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a conjecture. Mathematical logic is the framework upon which rigorous proofs are built. It is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstrations. Logicians have analyzed set theory in great details, formulating a collection of axioms that affords a broad enough and strong enough foundation to mathematical reasoning. The standard form of axiomatic set theory is denoted ZFC and it consists of the Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms combined with the axiom of choice (C). Each of the axioms included in this theory expresses a property of sets that is widely accepted by mathematicians. It is unfortunately true that careless use of set theory can lead to contradictions. Avoiding such contradictions was one of the original motivations for the axiomatization of set theory. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. LOGIC AND SET THEORY A rigorous analysis of set theory belongs to the foundations of mathematics and mathematical logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Folktale Documentation Release 1.0
    Folktale Documentation Release 1.0 Quildreen Motta Nov 05, 2017 Contents 1 Guides 3 2 Indices and tables 5 3 Other resources 7 3.1 Getting started..............................................7 3.2 Folktale by Example........................................... 10 3.3 API Reference.............................................. 12 3.4 How do I................................................... 63 3.5 Glossary................................................. 63 Python Module Index 65 i ii Folktale Documentation, Release 1.0 Folktale is a suite of libraries for generic functional programming in JavaScript that allows you to write elegant modular applications with fewer bugs, and more reuse. Contents 1 Folktale Documentation, Release 1.0 2 Contents CHAPTER 1 Guides • Getting Started A series of quick tutorials to get you up and running quickly with the Folktale libraries. • API reference A quick reference of Folktale’s libraries, including usage examples and cross-references. 3 Folktale Documentation, Release 1.0 4 Chapter 1. Guides CHAPTER 2 Indices and tables • Global Module Index Quick access to all modules. • General Index All functions, classes, terms, sections. • Search page Search this documentation. 5 Folktale Documentation, Release 1.0 6 Chapter 2. Indices and tables CHAPTER 3 Other resources • Licence information 3.1 Getting started This guide will cover everything you need to start using the Folktale project right away, from giving you a brief overview of the project, to installing it, to creating a simple example. Once you get the hang of things, the Folktale By Example guide should help you understanding the concepts behind the library, and mapping them to real use cases. 3.1.1 So, what’s Folktale anyways? Folktale is a suite of libraries for allowing a particular style of functional programming in JavaScript.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaphoric Reference to Propositions
    ANAPHORIC REFERENCE TO PROPOSITIONS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Todd Nathaniel Snider December 2017 c 2017 Todd Nathaniel Snider ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ANAPHORIC REFERENCE TO PROPOSITIONS Todd Nathaniel Snider, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 Just as pronouns like she and he make anaphoric reference to individuals, English words like that and so can be used to refer anaphorically to a proposition introduced in a discourse: That’s true; She told me so. Much has been written about individual anaphora, but less attention has been paid to propositional anaphora. This dissertation is a com- prehensive examination of propositional anaphora, which I argue behaves like anaphora in other domains, is conditioned by semantic factors, and is not conditioned by purely syntactic factors nor by the at-issue status of a proposition. I begin by introducing the concepts of anaphora and propositions, and then I discuss the various words of English which can have this function: this, that, it, which, so, as, and the null complement anaphor. I then compare anaphora to propositions with anaphora in other domains, including individual, temporal, and modal anaphora. I show that the same features which are characteristic of these other domains are exhibited by proposi- tional anaphora as well. I then present data on a wide variety of syntactic constructions—including sub- clausal, monoclausal, multiclausal, and multisentential constructions—noting which li- cense anaphoric reference to propositions. On the basis of this expanded empirical do- main, I argue that anaphoric reference to a proposition is licensed not by any syntactic category or movement but rather by the operators which take propositions as arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Theorem Proving in Classical Logic
    MEng Individual Project Imperial College London Department of Computing Theorem Proving in Classical Logic Supervisor: Dr. Steffen van Bakel Author: David Davies Second Marker: Dr. Nicolas Wu June 16, 2021 Abstract It is well known that functional programming and logic are deeply intertwined. This has led to many systems capable of expressing both propositional and first order logic, that also operate as well-typed programs. What currently ties popular theorem provers together is their basis in intuitionistic logic, where one cannot prove the law of the excluded middle, ‘A A’ – that any proposition is either true or false. In classical logic this notion is provable, and the_: corresponding programs turn out to be those with control operators. In this report, we explore and expand upon the research about calculi that correspond with classical logic; and the problems that occur for those relating to first order logic. To see how these calculi behave in practice, we develop and implement functional languages for propositional and first order logic, expressing classical calculi in the setting of a theorem prover, much like Agda and Coq. In the first order language, users are able to define inductive data and record types; importantly, they are able to write computable programs that have a correspondence with classical propositions. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Steffen van Bakel, my supervisor, for his support throughout this project and helping find a topic of study based on my interests, for which I am incredibly grateful. His insight and advice have been invaluable. I would also like to thank my second marker, Nicolas Wu, for introducing me to the world of dependent types, and suggesting useful resources that have aided me greatly during this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Dependency-Based Compositional Semantics
    Learning Dependency-Based Compositional Semantics Percy Liang∗ University of California, Berkeley Michael I. Jordan∗∗ University of California, Berkeley Dan Klein† University of California, Berkeley Suppose we want to build a system that answers a natural language question by representing its semantics as a logical form and computing the answer given a structured database of facts. The core part of such a system is the semantic parser that maps questions to logical forms. Semantic parsers are typically trained from examples of questions annotated with their target logical forms, but this type of annotation is expensive. Our goal is to instead learn a semantic parser from question–answer pairs, where the logical form is modeled as a latent variable. We develop a new semantic formalism, dependency-based compositional semantics (DCS) and define a log-linear distribution over DCS logical forms. The model parameters are estimated using a simple procedure that alternates between beam search and numerical optimization. On two standard semantic parsing benchmarks, we show that our system obtains comparable accuracies to even state-of-the-art systems that do require annotated logical forms. 1. Introduction One of the major challenges in natural language processing (NLP) is building systems that both handle complex linguistic phenomena and require minimal human effort. The difficulty of achieving both criteria is particularly evident in training semantic parsers, where annotating linguistic expressions with their associated logical forms is expensive but until recently, seemingly unavoidable. Advances in learning latent-variable models, however, have made it possible to progressively reduce the amount of supervision ∗ Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Situations and Individuals
    Forthcoming with MIT Press Current Studies in Linguistics Summer 2005 Situations and Individuals Paul Elbourne To my father To the memory of my mother Preface This book deals with the semantics of the natural language expressions that have been taken to refer to individuals: pronouns, definite descriptions and proper names. It claims, contrary to previous theorizing, that they have a common syntax and semantics, roughly that which is currently associated by philosophers and linguists with definite descriptions as construed in the tradition of Frege. As well as advancing this proposal, I hope to achieve at least one other aim, that of urging linguists and philosophers dealing with pronoun interpretation, in particular donkey anaphora, to consider a wider range of theories at all times than is sometimes done at present. I am thinking particularly of the gulf that seems to have emerged between those who practice some version of dynamic semantics (including DRT) and those who eschew this approach and claim that the semantics of donkey pronouns crucially involves definite descriptions (if they consider donkey anaphora at all). In my opinion there is too little work directly comparing the claims of these two schools (for that is what they amount to) and testing them against the data in the way that any two rival theories might be tested. (Irene Heim’s 1990 article in Linguistics and Philosophy does this, and largely inspired my own project, but I know of no other attempts.) I have tried to remedy that in this book. I ultimately come down on the side of definite descriptions and against dynamic semantics; but that preference is really of secondary importance beside the attempt at a systematic comparative project.
    [Show full text]
  • A Diachronic and Semantic Study of Italian Free Choice
    Meaning through Time A Diachronic and Semantic Study of Italian Free Choice MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Marco Degano (born June, 6th 1995 in Udine, Italy) under the supervision of Dr. Maria Aloni, and submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Logic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Date of the public defense: Members of the Thesis Committee: July, 12th 2019 Dr. Maria Aloni Dr. Paul Dekker (chair) Dr. Luca Incurvati Dr. Floris Roelofsen ABSTRACT Formal semantics and historical linguistics have been often considered two distinct and unrelated disciplines, studied by different people with different methodologies and different concerns. The aim of this thesis is to bring them together. Our case study is the Italian indefinite determiner qualsiasi, which exhibits Free Choice functions. We adopt an implementa- tion in Hamblin semantics for the analysis of Free Choice, where qualsiasi is associated with a default [8] operator. We employ corpus-based tools to build a database of our item from its origin to its current usage with more than 500 examples. We show how the diachronic studies motivate the presence of the [8] operator in our formal treatment of Free Choice. We use our database, together with information obtained from historical dictionaries, to reconstruct the grammaticalization phases of the indefinite determiner qualsiasi. We show how a semantic compositional treatment of qualsiasi can be integrated in our diachronic investigation, explaining how the mode of composition changes in each phase. In the second part of the thesis, we extend our semantic framework to account for the contribution of un qualsiasi (the combination of qualsiasi with the indefinite article un), which exhibits other readings beyond Free Choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Choice and Homogeneity
    Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 12, Article 23, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.23 This is an early access version of Goldstein, Simon. 2019. Free choice and homogeneity. Semantics and Prag- matics 12(23). 1–47. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.23. This version will be replaced with the final typeset version in due course. Note that page numbers will change, so cite with caution. ©2019 Simon Goldstein This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). early access Free choice and homogeneity* Simon Goldstein Australian Catholic University Abstract This paper develops a semantic solution to the puzzle of Free Choice permission. The paper begins with a battery of impossibility results showing that Free Choice is in tension with a variety of classical principles, including Disjunction Introduction and the Law of Excluded Middle. Most interestingly, Free Choice appears incompatible with a principle concerning the behavior of Free Choice under negation, Double Prohibition, which says that Mary can’t have soup or salad implies Mary can’t have soup and Mary can’t have salad. Alonso-Ovalle 2006 and others have appealed to Double Prohibition to motivate pragmatic accounts of Free Choice. Aher 2012, Aloni 2018, and others have developed semantic accounts of Free Choice that also explain Double Prohibition. This paper offers a new semantic analysis of Free Choice designed to handle the full range of impossibility results involved in Free Choice. The paper develops the hypothesis that Free Choice is a homogeneity effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Action Type Deontic Logic
    Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Oct 01, 2021 Action Type Deontic Logic Bentzen, Martin Mose Published in: Journal of Logic, Language and Information Link to article, DOI: 10.1007/s10849-014-9205-0 Publication date: 2014 Document Version Early version, also known as pre-print Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Bentzen, M. M. (2014). Action Type Deontic Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 23(4), 397-414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-014-9205-0 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Action Type Deontic Logic Martin Mose Bentzen the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract A new deontic logic, Action Type Deontic Logic, is presented. To motivate this logic, a number of benchmark cases are shown, representing inferences a deontic logic should validate.
    [Show full text]
  • Meanings of Determiners Heading Non-Topic Dps to the Meanings of the Corresponding Topics
    Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my teachers and supervisors Manfred Bierwisch and Reinhard Blutner. Without their sympathetic help in a personally very difficult situation, I would have been unable even to start writing this dissertation. Besides this, they patiently supported me with their advice and experience in every stage of my work. The people that inspired me with discussions and comments are so numerous that there is no hope to mention all of them. Among them are Kai Alter, Daniel Büring, Johannes Dölling, Bernhard Drubig, Hans Martin Gärtner, Edward Göbbel, Michael Herweg, Caroline Heycock, Helen de Hoop, Inga Kohlhof, Manfred Krifka, Annette Lessmöllmann, Christine Maaßen, André Meinunger, Marga Reis, Michal Starke, Markus Steinbach, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Anatoli Strigin, Hubert Truckenbrodt, Enric Vallduví, Ralf Vogel, Chris Wilder, Susanne Winkler, Werner Wolff, Henk Zeevat, and Ede Zimmermann. I am indebted to the "Max-Planck-Gesellschaft" for its financial support. Special thanks go to Elena Demke, Annette Lessmöllmann, Anatoli Strigin, and Chris Wilder for correcting my English. All remaining mistakes are of course subject to my own responsibility. Last but not least, I thank my parents and my brother for everything. Table of Contents 1 Introduction . 1 2 The Dynamic Framework . 5 2.1 Donkey Sentences and Cross-sentential Anaphora . 5 2.2 Montague Semantics and File Change Semantics: A Comparison . 7 2.2.1 Montague Semantics: The General Picture . 7 2.2.2 File Change Semantics: An Overview . 11 2.2.2.1 The Strategy . 11 2.2.2.2 Files . 13 2.2.2.3 LF-Construal . 13 2.2.2.4 The Interpretation of LF .
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Vs. Natural Language Conjunctions in Czech: a Comparative Study
    ITAT 2016 Proceedings, CEUR Workshop Proceedings Vol. 1649, pp. 68–73 http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1649, Series ISSN 1613-0073, c 2016 K. Prikrylová,ˇ V. Kubon,ˇ K. Veselovská Logical vs. Natural Language Conjunctions in Czech: A Comparative Study Katrin Prikrylová,ˇ Vladislav Kubon,ˇ and Katerinaˇ Veselovská Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Czech Republic {prikrylova,vk,veselovska}@ufal.mff.cuni.cz Abstract: This paper studies the relationship between con- ceptions and irregularities which do not abide the rules as junctions in a natural language (Czech) and their logical strictly as it is the case in logic. counterparts. It shows that the process of transformation Primarily due to this difference, the transformation of of a natural language expression into its logical representa- natural language sentences into their logical representation tion is not straightforward. The paper concentrates on the constitutes a complex issue. As we are going to show in most frequently used logical conjunctions, and , and it the subsequent sections, there are no simple rules which analyzes the natural language phenomena which∧ influence∨ would allow automation of the process – the majority of their transformation into logical conjunction and disjunc- problematic cases requires an individual approach. tion. The phenomena discussed in the paper are temporal In the following text we are going to restrict our ob- sequence, expressions describing mutual relationship and servations to the two most frequently used conjunctions, the consequences of using plural. namely a (and) and nebo (or). 1 Introduction and motivation 2 Sentences containing the conjunction a (and) The endeavor to express natural language sentences in the form of logical expressions is probably as old as logic it- The initial assumption about complex sentences contain- self.
    [Show full text]