DOCSLIB.ORG

A Semantic-Pragmatic Approach to Ambiguity 19

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Semantic-Pragmatic Approach to Ambiguity 19 Grazer Linguistische Studien 65 (Frühjahr 2006) 17 Ahmed Ali Ibrahim A S e m a n t ic -P ra g m a tic A p p r o a c h to A m b ig u it y . A pplied t o W. H. A u d e n 's Th e Un k n o w n C it iz e n . 1. Introduction The present study mainly deals with a linguistic analysis of W. H. Auden's (1981) The Un­ known Citizen. The semantic-pragmatic approach adopted in the analysis is that of Leech (1980, 1981, 1983), Grice (1975) and SperberAVilson (1986) whose frameworks are re­ garded as the bricks and mortar in the field of semantics and pragmatics. Although seman­ tics and pragmatics have been differently approached by different and recent linguists such as Crystal(2004), Cruse (2000), Channell (1994), Cornwell (1997), Larson/Segal (1995), Lyons (1995) and Wierzbicka (1996), the present study will mainly adopt those who origi­ nate the argument decades earlier such as Leech (1981) and Grice (1975). Since there are many definitions for the term ambiguity,it is wise to focus on the pillars of the field who deal with that term. It has been differently defined by Norrman ( 1977), Page ( 1985), Edlow (1975), Schaar ( 1965), Empson ( 1961 ), Kaplan/Kris (1948) and Rimmon ( 1977). Each one of them adopted a framework which is relatively different from his contemporaries. The analysis will yield some findings concerning the pragmatically - as well as the semantically - ambiguous structures in Auden's poem. In other words,both semantic and pragmatic tools of analysis will be used to disambiguate certain phrases and expressions in the poem. The analysis will be followed by some pedagogical implications for teachers as well as students of English language and literature. The following section will mainly handle related defini­ tions on the subject. n. Definitions Ambiguity has been defined differently by numerous semanticists and pragmaticians. The term is synonymous with double meaning, lack of clarity and equivocation. Norrman (1977: 6) bases the concept on the dictionary definition as a sentence or a word which is obscure, doubtful, questionable and not clearly defined. Page (1985: 13) defines it as poly­ valence and diversity. However, the temi will be useful if it is rescued from loose usage because previous definitions looked at ambiguity as something vague, indeterminate and obscure. It should be noted in the present study how ambiguity is used as a stylistic device aiming at aesthetic effects. There are several factors which may render a sentence ambigu­ 18 A. A. Ibrahim ous; these factors may be phonological like when pronouncing homophonous words such as (reign - rain ) or it could be due to lexical reasons like the word bank in : 1) He walked by the bank where the word bank means either the financial institution or the river bank. There might be syntactic reasons behind ambiguous structures like the multiple meanings in: 2) The policemen were told to stop fighting in the park. The passive structure in (2) followed by the infinitive to stop makes us, as readers, unable to know who does the actual fight; is it the policemen or somebody else. Moreover,the prepositional phrase in the park should be modified with further linguistic structures. In this particular context, Edlow (1975: 427) asserts that "a sentence is lexically ambiguous if its ambiguity results from at least one of its words having two mean­ ings (admitting of paraphrases that are not paraphrases of one another) even if that word is isolated from its containing sentence ... On the other hand . a sentence is syntactically ambiguous if its ambiguity is due to its structure or syntax, rather than to one of its words having more than one sense." Therefore, we have sentences which are lexically ambiguous and others whose ambiguity is due to their syntactic structure. This division may create a problem when considering a sentence like His will be done, an example which is mentioned by Small/Cotterell/Ta- nenhaus (1985) and we need to detect where the source of ambiguity is. Syntactically, the sentence can be parsed as: - Pronoun (his ) + noun (will ) + copula (be ) + verb (done ). or - Pronoun ( his) + ellipted noun (0) + auxiliary (will) + copula (be) +verb(done). Consequently, it is not easy in this particular context to draw a line between lexical and syntactic ambiguity because the word will can be both noun and modal auxiliary. Since ambiguity mainly relies on lexical items , the present study will mainly deal with this category because other types of ambiguity like phonological and grammatical have more finite and clearly defined systems where lexical items are more open to word coinage and historical changes of their meanings. By lexical items, Trask (1993) means a word re­ garded as a comparatively abstract object w'hich has a more or less consistent meaning or function but which can possibly vary in form for grammatical puiposes. For instance, the word dog and dogs are both particular forms of the lexical item DOG. and takes, took, tak­ ing are particular items of the verb TAKE. An example from the poem below may be the w'ord report which has been mentioned several times in different forms. Schaar (1965) asserts that literary w'orks of art involve numerous rewritings and revisions. This is the reason w'hy critics tend to claim that ambiguity in Literature is deliberate. Among others who are interested in defining ambiguity is Empson (1961: 19) who regards ambiguity as A Semantic-Pragmatic Approach to Ambiguity 19 "any verbal nuance, however slight, which gives room for alternative reactions to the same piece of language." This definition has been criticized since it gives room to readers' reactions and therefore, placing the responsibility of identifying ambiguity squarely on the reader. His seven types of ambiguity can be summed up as follows. First, the ambiguity' arises when compari­ sons with several points of likeness occur. An example of that is the use of metaphor such as: 3) His words stabbed me in the heart. It seems that there is a similarity between the words in (2) and the dagger which may cause a type of ambiguity that requires some efforts. Second, it occurs when two or more alternative meanings are fully resolved into one where ambiguity is resolved by choosing one of the meanings. Third, ambiguity takes place when two apparently unconnected meanings are simultaneously given and each meaning is discrete and alternative in the context. Fourth, the ambiguity shows some alternative mean­ ings combining together to make clear a complicated state of mind in the author. Fifth, it is the type of ambiguity when the author is discovering his idea in the act of writing. The reader here should know what is going on in the writer's mind. Sixth, the reader is forced to invent interpretations or projection, i. e. the reader imposes his own reading onto a word. Seventh,the type of ambiguity which marks a division in the author's mind, and this - to Empson - is the most difficult one. From the foregoings, it can be inferred that Empson relies heavily on the readers'efforts to resolve ambiguity. Others like Kaplan/Kris (1948) classify ambiguity into five different types: a) Disjunctive ambiguity: This occurs when the separate meanings function in the process of interpretation as al­ ternatives excluding and inhibiting each other. For instance,the word bank in (1) has two different meanings and each meaning excludes the occurrence of the other one. The speaker can not mean both meanings simultaneously in a given context. b) Additive ambiguity: The separate meanings here are no longer fully exclusive but are included one in the other. For example,the word rich in clusters like rich man and rich soil where both share the core sense of abundance and excellence. c) Conjunctive ambiguity: This occurs when the separate meanings are jointly effective in the interpretation. In other words,each member of the pair consists of a different partial meaning. This under­ lies paradoxical phrases like 4) More haste , less speed. It is clear in (4) that there are two distinct meanings that are responded to conjointly. 20 A. A. Ibrahim d) Integrative ambiguity: This occurs when its manifold meanings support one another and they integrate to pro­ duce a complex, yet unified, pattern. The example shrunken seas in Eliot's (1974) "Sweeney Among the Nightingales" has been interpreted as (wither, old, dried up) or the state of the (ebb and flow) and other suggested associations like (contract, decline, de­ cay). Therefore, all meanings here are interwoven and further, they are contextually bound. Consequently, the interpreter of Eliot's line should look at it in comparison with the whole poem. e) Projective ambiguity : This occurs when responses vary altogether according to the interpreter. The term in such cases - as Kaplan/Kris indicate - is said to be hopelessly vague and is imposed or projected by the interpreter. This is the reason why ambiguity mainly depends on two main factors which primarily determine understanding utterances viz the reader and the context. From the aforementioned classification, it is wise to remember that multiple meaning is a broad phenomenon or an umbrella word which is manifested in many ways one of which is through ambiguity. The preceding discussion proves that ambiguity has not been used to mean the same thing in various writings of the subject. This must lead us to redefine the term 'ambiguity' in the following section. Redefining ambiguity Considering ambiguity as a term which has a double or multiple meanings is inadequate. The word meaning itself is intriguing. Chomsky (1962) gives examples of different usages of the verb mean : 5) These pictures mean a lot to him (have importance).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semantics and Pragmatics
    Semantics and Pragmatics Christopher Gauker Semantics deals with the literal meaning of sentences. Pragmatics deals with what speakers mean by their utterances of sentences over and above what those sentences literally mean. However, it is not always clear where to draw the line. Natural languages contain many expressions that may be thought of both as contributing to literal meaning and as devices by which speakers signal what they mean. After characterizing the aims of semantics and pragmatics, this chapter will set out the issues concerning such devices and will propose a way of dividing the labor between semantics and pragmatics. Disagreements about the purview of semantics and pragmatics often concern expressions of which we may say that their interpretation somehow depends on the context in which they are used. Thus: • The interpretation of a sentence containing a demonstrative, as in “This is nice”, depends on a contextually-determined reference of the demonstrative. • The interpretation of a quantified sentence, such as “Everyone is present”, depends on a contextually-determined domain of discourse. • The interpretation of a sentence containing a gradable adjective, as in “Dumbo is small”, depends on a contextually-determined standard (Kennedy 2007). • The interpretation of a sentence containing an incomplete predicate, as in “Tipper is ready”, may depend on a contextually-determined completion. Semantics and Pragmatics 8/4/10 Page 2 • The interpretation of a sentence containing a discourse particle such as “too”, as in “Dennis is having dinner in London tonight too”, may depend on a contextually determined set of background propositions (Gauker 2008a). • The interpretation of a sentence employing metonymy, such as “The ham sandwich wants his check”, depends on a contextually-determined relation of reference-shifting.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexical and Syntactic Ambiguity As a Source of Humor: the Case of Newspaper Headlines
    Lexical and syntactic ambiguity as a source of humor: The case of newspaper headlines CHIARA BUCARIA Abstract The paper analyzes some forms of linguistic ambiguity in English in a specific register, i.e. newspaper headlines. In particular, the focus of the research is on examples of lexical and syntactic ambiguity that result in sources of voluntary or involuntary humor. The study is based on a corpus of 135 verbally ambiguous headlines found on web sites presenting humor- ous bits of information. The linguistic phenomena that contribute to create this kind of semantic confusion in headlines will be analyzed and divided into the three main categories of lexical, syntactic, and phonological ambi- guity, and examples from the corpus will be discussed for each category. The main results of the study were that, firstly, contrary to the findings of previous research on jokes, syntactically ambiguous headlines were found in good percentage in the corpus and that this might point to di¤erences in genre. Secondly, two new configurations for the processing of the disjunctor/connector order were found. In the first of these configurations the disjunctor appears before the connector, instead of being placed after or coinciding with the ambiguous element, while in the second one two ambig- uous elements are present, each of which functions both as a connector and a disjunctor. Keywords: Ambiguity; headlines; lexical; syntactic; disjunctor; connector. Introduction The present paper sets out to analyze some forms of linguistic ambiguity in English in a specific register, i.e. newspaper headlines. In particular, the Humor 17–3 (2004), 279–309 0933–1719/04/0017–0279 6 Walter de Gruyter 280 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatics Is a Systematic Way of Explaining Language Use in Context
    Pragmatics is a systematic way of explaining language use in context. It seeks to explain aspects of meaning which cannot be found in the plain sense of words or structures, as explained by semantics. As a field of language study, pragmatics is fairly new. Its origins lie in philosophy of language and the American philosophical school of pragmatism. As a discipline within language science, its roots lie in the work of (Herbert) Paul Grice on conversational implicature and the cooperative principle, and on the work of Stephen Levinson, Penelope Brown and Geoff Leech on politeness. We can illustrate how pragmatics works by an example from association football (and other field sports). It sometimes happens that a team-mate will shout at me: “Man on!” Semantic analysis can only go so far with this phrase. For example, it can elicit different lexical meanings of the noun “man” (mankind or the human race, an individual person, a male person specifically) and the preposition “on” (on top of, above, or other relationships as in “on fire”, “on heat”, “on duty”, “on the fiddle” or “on the telly”). And it can also explain structural meaning, and account for the way this phrase works in longer sequences such as the “first man on the moon”, “a man on the run” or “the man on top of the Clapham omnibus”. We use language all the time to make things happen. We ask someone to pass the salt or marry us - not, usually at the same time. We order a pizza or make a dental appointment. Speech acts include asking for a glass of beer, promising to drink the beer, threatening to drink more beer, ordering someone else to drink some beer, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Language
    01:615:201 Introduction to Linguistic Theory Adam Szczegielniak The Meaning of Language Copyright in part: Cengage learning The Meaning of Language • When you know a language you know: • When a word is meaningful or meaningless, when a word has two meanings, when two words have the same meaning, and what words refer to (in the real world or imagination) • When a sentence is meaningful or meaningless, when a sentence has two meanings, when two sentences have the same meaning, and whether a sentence is true or false (the truth conditions of the sentence) • Semantics is the study of the meaning of morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences – Lexical semantics: the meaning of words and the relationships among words – Phrasal or sentential semantics: the meaning of syntactic units larger than one word Truth • Compositional semantics: formulating semantic rules that build the meaning of a sentence based on the meaning of the words and how they combine – Also known as truth-conditional semantics because the speaker’ s knowledge of truth conditions is central Truth • If you know the meaning of a sentence, you can determine under what conditions it is true or false – You don’ t need to know whether or not a sentence is true or false to understand it, so knowing the meaning of a sentence means knowing under what circumstances it would be true or false • Most sentences are true or false depending on the situation – But some sentences are always true (tautologies) – And some are always false (contradictions) Entailment and Related Notions • Entailment: one sentence entails another if whenever the first sentence is true the second one must be true also Jack swims beautifully.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pragmatics-Based Approach to Understanding
    A PRAGMATIC~BASED APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING INTERS~NTENTIAL ~LIPSI~ Sandra Car berry Department of Computer and Information Science University of Delaware Nevark, Delaware 19715, U3A ABSTRACT S~A~R-I : "The Korean Jet shot down by the Soviets was a spy plane." IntersententAal eAlipti caA utterances occur frequently in information-seeking dielogues. This FI: "With 269 people on board?"~ paper presents a pragmatics-based framework for F2: "With infrared cameras on board?" interpreting such utterances, ~ncluding identAfi- cation of the spoa~r' s discourse ~oel in employ- Previous research on ellipsis has neglected to ing the fra~ent. We claim that the advantage of address the speaker's discourse Eoals in employing this approach is its reliance upon pragmatic the frasment but reel understanding requires that information, including discourse content and these be identified (Mann, Moore, and Levin, 1977) conversational goals, rather than upon precise (Webber, PoZlack, and Hirschberg, 1982). representations of the preceding utterance alone. In this paper, we investlgate a framework for interpreting Intersententlal ellipsis that occurs INTRODOCTION in task-orlented dialogues. This framework includes: The fraRmentary utterances that are common in communication between humans also occur in man- [1] a context mechanism (Carberry, 1983) that Nachi~e OOmmUlLCcation. Humans perslat in using builds the information-seeker, s underlying abbreviated statements and queries, even in the plan as the dialogue progresses and differen- presence o/ explicit and repeated instructions to tiates be~een local and global contexts. adhere to syntactically and semantically complete sentences (Carbonell, 1983) • Thus a robust [2] a discourse component that controls the natural langua@e interface must handle ellipsis.
    [Show full text]
  • Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics
    Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics YEUNG, \y,ang -C-hun ...:' . '",~ ... ~ .. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy In Philosophy The Chinese University of Hong Kong January 2010 Abstract of thesis entitled: Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics Submitted by YEUNG, Wang Chun for the degree of Master of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in July 2009 This ,thesis investigates problems surrounding the lively debate about how Kripke's examples of necessary a posteriori truths and contingent a priori truths should be explained. Two-dimensionalism is a recent development that offers a non-reductive analysis of such truths. The semantic interpretation of two-dimensionalism, proposed by Jackson and Chalmers, has certain 'descriptive' elements, which can be articulated in terms of the following three claims: (a) names and natural kind terms are reference-fixed by some associated properties, (b) these properties are known a priori by every competent speaker, and (c) these properties reflect the cognitive significance of sentences containing such terms. In this thesis, I argue against two arguments directed at such 'descriptive' elements, namely, The Argument from Ignorance and Error ('AlE'), and The Argument from Variability ('AV'). I thereby suggest that reference-fixing properties belong to the semantics of names and natural kind terms, and not to their metasemantics. Chapter 1 is a survey of some central notions related to the debate between descriptivism and direct reference theory, e.g. sense, reference, and rigidity. Chapter 2 outlines the two-dimensional approach and introduces the va~ieties of interpretations 11 of the two-dimensional framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Scope Ambiguity Resolution As Pragmatic Inference: Formalizing Differences in Child and Adult Behavior K.J
    Modeling scope ambiguity resolution as pragmatic inference: Formalizing differences in child and adult behavior K.J. Savinelli, Gregory Scontras, and Lisa Pearl fksavinel, g.scontras, lpearlg @uci.edu University of California, Irvine Abstract order of these elements in the utterance (i.e., Every precedes n’t). In contrast, for the inverse scope interpretation in (1b), Investigations of scope ambiguity resolution suggest that child behavior differs from adult behavior, with children struggling this isomorphism does not hold, with the scope relationship to access inverse scope interpretations. For example, children (i.e., : scopes over 8) opposite the linear order of the ele- often fail to accept Every horse didn’t succeed to mean not all ments in the utterance. Musolino hypothesized that this lack the horses succeeded. Current accounts of children’s scope be- havior involve both pragmatic and processing factors. Inspired of isomorphism would make the inverse scope interpretation by these accounts, we use the Rational Speech Act framework more difficult to access. In line with this prediction, Conroy to articulate a formal model that yields a more precise, ex- et al. (2008) found that when adults are time-restricted, they planatory, and predictive description of the observed develop- mental behavior. favor the surface scope interpretation. We thus see a potential Keywords: Rational Speech Act model, pragmatics, process- role for processing factors in children’s inability to access the ing, language acquisition, ambiguity resolution, scope inverse scope. Perhaps children, with their still-developing processing abilities, can’t allocate sufficient processing re- Introduction sources to reliably access the inverse scope interpretation. If someone says “Every horse didn’t jump over the fence,” In addition to this processing factor, Gualmini et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Automated Detection of Syntactic Ambiguity Using Shallow Parsing and Web Data by Reza Khezri [email protected]
    DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, LINGUISTICS AND THEORY OF SCIENCE Automated Detection of Syntactic Ambiguity Using Shallow Parsing and Web Data By Reza Khezri [email protected] Master’s Thesis, 30 credits Master’s Programme in Language Technology Autumn, 2017 Supervisor: Prof. Staffan Larsson Keywords: ambiguity, ambiguity detection tool, ambiguity resolution, syntactic ambiguity, Shallow Parsing, Google search API, PythonAnywhere, PP attachment ambiguity Abstract: Technical documents are mostly written in natural languages and they are highly ambiguity-prone due to the fact that ambiguity is an inevitable feature of natural languages. Many researchers have urged technical documents to be free from ambiguity to avoid unwanted and, in some cases, disastrous consequences ambiguity and misunderstanding can have in technical context. Therefore the need for ambiguity detection tools to assist writers with ambiguity detection and resolution seems indispensable. The purpose of this thesis work is to propose an automated approach in detection and resolution of syntactic ambiguity. AmbiGO is the name of the prototyping web application that has been developed for this thesis which is freely available on the web. The hope is that a developed version of AmbiGO will assist users with ambiguity detection and resolution. Currently AmbiGO is capable of detecting and resolving three types of syntactic ambiguity, namely analytical, coordination and PP attachment types. AmbiGO uses syntactic parsing to detect ambiguity patterns and retrieves frequency counts from Google for each possible reading as a segregate for semantic analysis. Such semantic analysis through Google frequency counts has significantly improved the precision score of the tool’s output in all three ambiguity detection functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies in Linguistics
    STiL Studies in Linguistics Proceedings XXXV Incontro di Grammatica Generativa Vol 3. 2009 CISCL CENTRO INTERDIPARTIMENTALE DI STUDI COGNITIVI SUL LINGUAGGIO Interdepartmental Centre for Cognitive Studies on Language Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI SIENA Studies In Linguistics Vol3, 2009 2 STiL Studies in Linguistics Edited by: Vincenzo Moscati Emilio Servidio Correspondence can be addressed to: CISCL – Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Cognitivi sul Linguaggio Dipartimento di Scienze della Comunicazione Complesso S. Niccolò, Via Roma, 56 I-53100 Siena, Italy or by email at: moscati unisi.it 3 Contents Maria Teresa Guasti, Chiara Branchini, Fabrizio Arosio Agreement in the production of Italian subject and object wh-questions 6 Liliane Haegeman The syntax of conditional clauses 28 Maria Rita Manzini & Leonardo Savoia Mesoclisis in the Imperative: Phonology, Morphology or Syntax? 51 Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg & Ian Roberts Linearization and the Architecture of Grammar: A view from the Final-over- Final Constraint 77 Gloria Cocchi Bantu verbal extensions: a cartographic approach 90 Federica Cognola TopicPs and Relativised Minimality in Mòcheno left periphery 104 Silvio Cruschina & Eva-Maria Remberger Focus Fronting in Sardinian and Sicilian 118 Maria Teresa Espinal & Jaume Mateu On bare nominals and argument structure 131 Irene Franco Stylistic Fronting: a comparative analysis 144 Hanako Fujino The Adnominal Form in Japanese as a Relativization Strategy 158 Ion Giurgea Romanian null objects and gender
    [Show full text]
  • Scope Ambiguity in Syntax and Semantics
    Scope Ambiguity in Syntax and Semantics Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg. 142-157 Is Scope Ambiguity Semantically Real? (1) Everyone loves someone. a. Wide scope reading of universal quantifier: ∀x[person(x) →∃y[person(y) ∧ love(x,y)]] b. Wide scope reading of existential quantifier: ∃y[person(y) ∧∀x[person(x) → love(x,y)]] 1 Could one semantic representation handle both the readings? • ∃y∀x reading entails ∀x∃y reading. ∀x∃y describes a more general situation where everyone has someone who s/he loves, and ∃y∀x describes a more specific situation where everyone loves the same person. • Then, couldn’t we say that Everyone loves someone is associated with the semantic representation that describes the more general reading, and the more specific reading obtains under an appropriate context? That is, couldn’t we say that Everyone loves someone is not semantically ambiguous, and its only semantic representation is the following? ∀x[person(x) →∃y[person(y) ∧ love(x,y)]] • After all, this semantic representation reflects the syntax: In syntax, everyone c-commands someone. In semantics, everyone scopes over someone. 2 Arguments for Real Scope Ambiguity • The semantic representation with the scope of quantifiers reflecting the order in which quantifiers occur in a sentence does not always represent the most general reading. (2) a. There was a name tag near every plate. b. A guard is standing in front of every gate. c. A student guide took every visitor to two museums. • Could we stipulate that when interpreting a sentence, no matter which order the quantifiers occur, always assign wide scope to every and narrow scope to some, two, etc.? 3 Arguments for Real Scope Ambiguity (cont.) • But in a negative sentence, ¬∀x∃y reading entails ¬∃y∀x reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatics and Grammar: Motivation and Control Robert A
    Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session Volume 32 Article 3 1988 Pragmatics and grammar: Motivation and control Robert A. Dooley SIL-UND Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers Recommended Citation Dooley, Robert A. (1988) "Pragmatics and grammar: Motivation and control," Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 32 , Article 3. DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol32.03 Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol32/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRAGMATICS AND GRAIUIAR.: HOTIVATIOII AND OOIITROL Robert A. Dooley 1 Introduction 2 Pragmatics in relation to semantics and syntax 2.1 Early definitions of pragmatics 2.2 The interface between pragmatics and semantics 2.3 The interface between pragmatics and syntax 2.4 Externally motivated phenomena encoded by grammar 2.5 Types of interaction between grammar and pragmatics 3 Pragmatic phenomena with little or no grammaticalization 3.1 Mbya hearsay particle 3.2 Wayampi main clause word order 4 Pragmatic phenomena with partial grammaticalization 4.1 Mbya future marker 4.2 Hixkaryana hearsay particle 4.3 Hixkaryana afterthought elements 5 Pragmatic phenomena with more or less complete grammaticalization 5.1 English WR-clefts 5.2 Dutch auxiliary placement 6 Concluding remarks I Introduction Much of what has been done as "pragmatics" has dealt with utterance interpretation, that is, with the influence of context on meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Lightweight Monadic Programming in ML
    Lightweight Monadic Programming in ML Nikhil Swamy? Nataliya Gutsy Daan Leijen? Michael Hicksy ?Microsoft Research, Redmond yUniversity of Maryland, College Park Abstract ing [26]. In a monadic type system, if values are given type τ then Many useful programming constructions can be expressed as mon- computations are given type m τ for some monad constructor m. ads. Examples include probabilistic modeling, functional reactive For example, an expression of type IO τ in Haskell represents programming, parsing, and information flow tracking, not to men- a computation that will produce (if it terminates) a value of type tion effectful functionality like state and I/O. In this paper, we τ but may perform effectful operations in the process. Haskell’s present a type-based rewriting algorithm to make programming Monad type class, which requires the bind and unit operations with arbitrary monads as easy as using ML’s built-in support for given above, is blessed with special syntax, the do notation, for state and I/O. Developers write programs using monadic values programming with instances of this class. of type m τ as if they were of type τ, and our algorithm inserts Moggi [22], Filinksi [11], and others have noted that ML pro- the necessary binds, units, and monad-to-monad morphisms so that grams, which are impure and observe a deterministic, call-by-value evaluation order, are inherently monadic. For example, the value the program type checks. Our algorithm, based on Jones’ qualified 0 types, produces principal types. But principal types are sometimes λx.e can be viewed as having type τ ! m τ : the argument problematic: the program’s semantics could depend on the choice type τ is never monadic because x is always bound to a value in of instantiation when more than one instantiation is valid.
    [Show full text]