DOCSLIB.ORG

© in This Web Service Cambridge University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
© in This Web Service Cambridge University Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-02839-5 - The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics Edited by Maria Aloni and Paul Dekker Index More information Index Ability, see Modality term, 70 Aboutness, 135, 520, 744, 745 universal, 10 Abstraction (λ), 18, 84, 85, 339, 340, 565, 646, Algebraic closure, 381 781 Alternative semantics, see Semantics Accessibility, 79, 80, 112, 165, 497, 530, 531, 598, Ambiguity, 10, 13, 274, 667, 775, 783–786, 788, 609, 611, 621, 731, 742 794 Accomplishment, 50–52, 54, 344, 346, 348, analytical, 70, 83, 233, 250, 273, 299, 314, 350–355, 357–359, 367, 385 324, 327–330, 345, 364, 367, 395, 488, Achievement, 50, 54, 344–346, 348, 352–355, 550, 633–634, 638, 648–650, 657–658, 357–359 739 Activity, 41, 50, 52, 54, 59, 344–346, 348, 352, 353, hypothetical, 46, 186, 198, 251, 253, 289, 297, 355–359, 361, 367, 385 303, 329, 336, 470, 485, 533, 572, 669, 670, Adam’s thesis, 509, 522 674, 687 Additivity, see Anti-additivity lexical, 39–41, 46, 58, 250, 251, 358, 395, 451, Addressee reference, see Reference 455, 533, 534, 669, 785, 789 Adjacency pair, 134, 135 pragmatic, 199 Adjective referential, 558, 769 absolute, 390–394, 401, 402, 430–435, 438, 445, scopal, see Scope 461 Anaphora, see Reference, anaphoric adverbial, 446 Answerhood, see Question attributive, 451, 453, 454 Antecedent, 490, 491 gradable, 424, 446–449, 459, 460, 543 falsity of the, 494, 522 intensional, 449, 450, 452–454 strengthening, 494, 522 intersective, 331, 447, 453, 454 Anthropological linguistics, see Linguistics multi-dimensional, 434 Anti-additivity (additivity), 221, 383, 384, 479, qualitative, 446 482, 488 relational, 446, 448–450, 453, 454 Anti-variation, 258–259, 262–265 relative, 390–393, 395, 401, 422–432, Antisymmetry, 372, 373 438 Antonymy, 57 Adverb Apodosis, 490 degree, 446, see also Modifier Application (domain), 62, 71, 82, 84, 114, 263, frequency, 295–297, 398 340, 391, 395, 401–403, 410, 414, 415, 422, intensifier, 459, 461–463 425–427, 429, 431, 434, 538 manner, 446, 447, 459 Application (functional), 15, 17, 75, 84, 85, 117, modal, 446, 447 163, 209, 339, 452, 483, 485, 565, 569, 639, of quantification, 295, 296, 325, 398, 578, 644, 646, 655, 661 579 Appositive, 246, 715–721 temporal, 315–317, 325–326, 358, Approximation, 435–438, 771 436 Argument alternation (identification), 55–59, Aktionsart, 34, 36, 49, 52, 54, 268, 317, 343, 359, 632, 637, 639–640, 645–646, 655–656 550 Aristotelian logic, see Logic Algebra, 10, 13, 16, 67, 70, 71, 80, 82–84, 97, 376, Aristotle, 36, 91, 175, 187–188, 190, 218, 222, 225, 509, 511, 561, 588, 591 443, 468, 575 Boolean, 376 Articulation, maxim of, 711–713 Heyting, 587, 588 Artificial Intelligence, 63, 108, 688, 780 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-02839-5 - The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics Edited by Maria Aloni and Paul Dekker Index More information Index 917 Aspect, 336 Competence, 664 composition, see Composition Composition grammatical, 343, 360, 368, 368, 549, 552, 554 as identity, 377 imperfective, 316, 336, 337, 343, 360–367, 549, aspectual, 347, 349–357, 359, 366–368 550 by computation, 780–786 (in)definite, 336–337 function/type/relation, 17, 61, 64, 104, 116, lexical, 36, 343–360, 366, 368 120, 781 perfective, 316, 317, 323, 326–328, 336, 337, meaning, 15, 34, 116, 120, 254, 664 343, 360–364, 366, 367, 549, 550 modes of, 451–459 progressive, 344, 347, 361, 364, 365, 762, 764 syntactic, 33, 64 prospective, 324, 549, 550, 554, 555 Compositionality, 4, 5, 13, 17, 67–71, 74, 82, 106, Associativity, 271, 376, 376, 737, 742, 747 316 Asymmetry, 668, 670, 682, 709, 713 inverse, 73 Atelicity (atelic), 36, 50, 52, 343, 344, 346–351, Compositionality, Principle of, 3, 7, 13, 15–16, 18, 353, 355–359, 362, 367, 385–387 68, 73, 178, 475, 630, 781 Atom, 270–274, 281, 283, 345, 355–357, 375–378, Computational linguistics, see Linguistics 383, 384, 439 Computational semantics, see Semantics Attitude verb, see Belief report Computer science, 774, 775 Attributive definite, see Definite NP Conceptual cover, 574 Conceptual scheme, 185 Bach-Peters sentence, 649 Conditional, 490–524 Background, 116, 151, 152, 403, 471, 529, 530, counterfactual (subjunctive), 291, 295, 491, 532–535, 538, 539, 541, 548, 580–582, 608, 515–519, 544, 617, 618 728, 743, 747, 750, 753, 778, 779, 796 imperative (anankastic), 577, 617, 618, 620, Bare plural, 211, 239, 293, 297–300, 308, 347, 623, 624 350, 355, 357, 359, 367, 386 indicative, 491, 492, 515–519, 696 Bayesian analysis, 764, 766–769 interrogative, 576–577, 588–590 Bedeutung, see Reference material, 493–496, 500, 508, 509, 523 Behaviorism, 5 probability, 508–509, 512 Belief report, 16, 30, 73, 74, 78–80, 85, 90, 93, 96, quantificational (restricted), 503–506 98, 202, 528, 534, 547, 573, 578, 682, 689, referential (plural), 503–506 704, 719 relevance (biscuit), 491, 519–522 Bisimulation, 117 strict (variably), 496–500, 523 Bivalence, 100, 493, 698, 709, 713 three-valued, 510–514 Bouletic modality, see Modality Conditional Excluded Middle, 498, 522 Brevity, maxim of, 667, 711, 712 Conditional presupposition, 703, 706–708 Bridging antecedent, see Reference Conditional reasoning, 309, 764–769, 798 Congruence, 426, 427, 729, 732, 737, 742, 748, Case Grammar, see Grammar 753, 754 Categorial Grammar, see Grammar Consequent, 490, 491 Categorical judgement, 490 truth of the, 494, 522 Causal intentional chain, 189 Conservativity, 213–216, 218, 219 Centered world, 89 Constraint-satisfaction, 783–784 Centering, 742 Content, see Character Central gap (tolerance), 415 Context change potential, 116, 582, 700, 712, Character (content), 14, 86, 93, 193, 797 730, 733 Characterization lemma, 116 Context dependence, 14, 26–27, 64, 77, 81, 86, 95, Charity, principle of, 78, 79 176, 195, 411, 414, 415, 729, 736 Choice function, 242, 250–253, 504 Context of use, 27, 82, 86–88, 91–93, 190, 191, Circumstance of evaluation, 86–88, 92, 93, 193, 193–195, 204, 390, 395, 533 204, 449 Context set, see Common ground Circumstantial modality, see Modality, eventual Contextualism (relativism), 64, 90–91, see also Coercion, 15, 50, 63, 346, 358, 762, 763, Vagueness 771 Continuation semantics, see Semantics Cognition, 4, 369, 756–774 Contradiction, 395, 396, 468, 666, 705 Collectivity, 248, 249, 270, 272–277, 282, 283, Contraposition, 494, 495, 497, 498, 504, 505, 512, 299, 300, 302, 387, 544 513, 522 Commitment, 133, 153, 182, 184, 377, 413, 414, Contrariety, 218, 468 615, 617, 618 Contrast, 728, 732, 738, 740, 741, 743, Common ground (context set), 14, 502, 516–518, 746–754 582, 605–608, 611–615, 623, 694, 698, 700, rhematic, 750–752 702, 711–713, 730, 796 thematic, 747–750 Commutativity, 271, 278, 374, 376 Conversational move, 133–135, 139, 149–150, Comparative, 220, 393, 423–432, 434, 435, 459, 157, 590, 736, 737, 742, 743, 754 461–463, 477, 482, 610, 611 Conversational relevance, 130, 133, 144, 160, 161, Comparative linguistics, see Linguistics 169, 521, 580, 583, 584, 607, 620, 667, 737, Comparison class, 390, 391, 399, 425, 426, 428, 746, 753, 764, 797 430, 448, 449, 460, 461 Cooper store, 24, 254, 661 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-02839-5 - The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics Edited by Maria Aloni and Paul Dekker Index More information 918 INDEX Cooperative Principle, 133, 581, 583, 667, see also Discourse Representation Theory, 4, 14, 16, 25, Articulation, Brevity 108–118, 121, 127, 169, 201, 315, 660–661, Maxim of Manner, see Manner 703–708, 714, 757, 777, 785, 796 Maxim of Quality, see Quality Discourse semantics, see Semantics Maxim of Quantity, see Quantity Discourse structure, 28, 108, 120, 124, 128, 129 Maxim of Relation, see Relation Disjunctive syllogism, 514 Count noun, see Noun Distinctiveness (events), 387 Counterfactual, see Conditional Distributional semantics, see Semantics Counterpart, 538–541, 559 Distributivity, 248, 249, 253, 268–270, 272–276, Credence, 419 279–284, 299, 376, 387 Cross-linguistic, 360, 532, 553, 636–638, 643, Divisive reference, see Reference 651–653, 658–659, 662 Domain restriction, 212–215, 245, 257, 324, 399, Cross-sentential, 110, 119, 315, 328 492, 504–506, 508, 543, 544, 546, 547 Cumulativity, 52, 104, 269, 270, 272, 273, Donkey sentence, 28, 108, 242, 329 276–279, 284, 344, 349–351, 358, 379, Double negation, see Negation 384–386, see also Reference (cumulative) Dutch book argument, 511 Dynamic logic, see Logic De dicto/de re, 294, 575, 647 Dynamic Predicate Logic, 14, 108, 109, 115, De Morgan law, 218, 468, 479 117–121, 127 De re, see De dicto/de re Dynamic semantics, see Semantics Decision Theory, 581, 582 Dynamic syntax, 661 Declarative, 66 Dynamicity, 344, 354 Decomposition, 37, 38, 52, 352–353 feature-based, 34, 35, 53 Elaboration, 128, 129, 163, 733–740, 750, structural, 34, 35, 52–55 752 Default rule (reasoning), 288, 304, 305, 307, 308, Ellipsis, 108, 124, 128, 132, 162, 395, 399, 413, 758, 760, 762, 765, 767, 768, 797 662, 720, 781, 795 (in)Definite tense, see Tense Embedding, see Implicature, Imperative Definite NP, 72, 96, 109, 174, 180, 181, 183, 195, embedding, Question embedding, 225, 245, 246, 300–301, 308, 372, 376, 470, Discourse representation 492, 504, 506, 706, 736 Entailment, 30, 49, 268–270, 272, 305, 333, 347, anaphoric, 315 388, 447, 450, 479, 489, 496, 514, 561, 569, attributive, 197, 203 581, 587, 700, 709, 714, 743, 770, 790 quantificational, 503, 506 downward/upward, see Monotonicity referential, 197, 204, 503, 506 Epistemic modality, see Modality Definite/indefinite,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Donkey Anaphora Is In-Scope Binding∗
    Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 1, Article 1: 1–46, 2008 doi: 10.3765/sp.1.1 Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding∗ Chris Barker Chung-chieh Shan New York University Rutgers University Received 2008-01-06 = First Decision 2008-02-29 = Revised 2008-03-23 = Second Decision 2008-03-25 = Revised 2008-03-27 = Accepted 2008-03-27 = Published 2008- 06-09 Abstract We propose that the antecedent of a donkey pronoun takes scope over and binds the donkey pronoun, just like any other quantificational antecedent would bind a pronoun. We flesh out this idea in a grammar that compositionally derives the truth conditions of donkey sentences containing conditionals and relative clauses, including those involving modals and proportional quantifiers. For example, an indefinite in the antecedent of a conditional can bind a donkey pronoun in the consequent by taking scope over the entire conditional. Our grammar manages continuations using three independently motivated type-shifters, Lift, Lower, and Bind. Empirical support comes from donkey weak crossover (*He beats it if a farmer owns a donkey): in our system, a quantificational binder need not c-command a pronoun that it binds, but must be evaluated before it, so that donkey weak crossover is just a special case of weak crossover. We compare our approach to situation-based E-type pronoun analyses, as well as to dynamic accounts such as Dynamic Predicate Logic. A new ‘tower’ notation makes derivations considerably easier to follow and manipulate than some previous grammars based on continuations. Keywords: donkey anaphora, continuations, E-type pronoun, type-shifting, scope, quantification, binding, dynamic semantics, weak crossover, donkey pronoun, variable-free, direct compositionality, D-type pronoun, conditionals, situation se- mantics, c-command, dynamic predicate logic, donkey weak crossover ∗ Thanks to substantial input from Anna Chernilovskaya, Brady Clark, Paul Elbourne, Makoto Kanazawa, Chris Kennedy, Thomas Leu, Floris Roelofsen, Daniel Rothschild, Anna Szabolcsi, Eytan Zweig, and three anonymous referees.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Proof System for Natural Language
    A In the �tle of this thesis, a proof system refers to a system that carries out formal proofs (e.g., of theorems). Logicians would interpret a system as a symbolic calculus while com- Natural puter scien�sts might understand it as a computer program. Both interpreta�ons are fine for the current purpose as the thesis develops a proof calculi and a computer program A NATURAL PROOF SYSTEM based on it. What makes the proof system natural is that it operates on formulas with a natural appearance, i.e. resembling natural language phrases. This is contrasted to the Proof artificial formulas logicians usually use. Put differently, the natural proof system is FOR NATURAL LANGUAGE designed for a natural logic, a logic that has formulas similar to natural language sentenc- es. The natural proof system represents a further development of an analy�c tableau system for natural logic (Muskens, 2010). The implementa�on of the system acts as a System pp theorem prover for wide-coverage natural language sentences. For instance, it can prove x n that not all PhD theses are interesting entails some dissertations are not interesting. On z certain textual entailment datasets, the prover achieves results compe��ve to the y s state-of-the-art. t γT pp for zγ αF s Natural vp x t β e s vp t T F e np t s n e Language y z λ e s T t T z γ α z λα t n x e F e s T npα λ γ t x β y pp T pp y np x t γ e T n λ T s e x γ t T z F λ z y γ t T s e z e λ αn s β t T np α λ λ e F t α γ Lasha Abzianidze vp x s e s t vp pp F λ s y t z z T λ β n x αpp γ Lasha Abzianidze γ ISBN 978-94-6299-494-2 A Natural Proof System for Natural Language ISBN 978-94-6299-494-2 cb 2016 by Lasha Abzianidze Cover & inner design by Lasha Abzianidze Used item: leaf1 font by Rika Kawamoto Printed and bound by Ridderprint BV, Ridderkerk A Natural Proof System for Natural Language Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora
    IRENE HElM E-TYPE PRONOUNS AND DONKEY ANAPHORA 0. INTRODUCTION Kamp and Heim intended this proposal to compete with and replace us earlier treatments of the same phenomena, including a family of related proposals by Evans (1977, 1980), Cooper (1979), and others, which in contrast to (i)-(iv) made the following more traditional assumptions: (i) a non-existential, quantifier-free treatment of indefinites, (ii) a treatment of anaphoric pronouns as plain bound variables, (iii) a treatment of quantificational determiners and the conditional operator as capable of binding multiple variables, and (iv) a provision for default existential generalization of free vari- ables. Kamp and Heim intended this proposal to compete with and replace various earlier treatments of the same phenomena, including a family of related proposals by Evans (1977, 1980), Cooper (1979), and others, which in contrast to'(i)-(iv) made the following more traditional assumptions: (i') Indefinites are existential quantifiers. (ii') Anaphoric pronouns are semantically equivalent to (possibly complex) definite descriptions. (iii'.) Quantificational determiners, frequency adverbs, and the hidden operator of generality in conditionals bind just one variable each-. (iv') There is no need for default existential generalization of free variables. (i'), (iii'), and (iv') are, of course, just the standard assumptions from which (i), (iii), and (iv) departed. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to Kamp and Heim's proposal and variants thereof as 'DRT analyses', and to Evans's, Cooper's, and similar proposals as 'E-Type analyses'. ('DRT' abbreviates 'Discourse Represent- ation Theory'; the term 'E-Type' is loosely borrowed from Evans.) Let me caution, however, against unintended interpretations of these labels, especially the first one.
    [Show full text]
  • (Syntax)–Semantics Part Two
    Current Issues in Generative Linguistics Syntax, Semantics, and Phonology edited by Joanna Błaszczak, Bożena Rozwadowska, and Wojciech Witkowski Contents About this volume part one: syntax Generative Linguistics in Wrocław (GLiW) series is published by the Center Ángel l. Jiménez-FernÁndez and Selçuk İşSever for General and Comparative Linguistics, a unit of the Institute of English at the University of Wrocław. Deriving A/A’-Effects in Topic Fronting: Intervention of Focus and Binding Address: nataša knežević Center for General and Comparative Linguistics (CGCL) Serbian Distributive Children ul. Kuźnicza 22 50-138 Wrocław, Poland Slavica kochovSka Two Kinds of Dislocated Topics in Macedonian about the series: Generative Linguistics in Wrocław (GLiW) is meant to provide a suitable forum for the presentation and discussion of the Pol- katarzyna miechowicz-mathiaSen ish research within the field of generative linguistics. We are interested in Licensing Polish Higher Numerals: An Account of the Accusative Hypothesis studies that employ generative methodology to the synchronic or diachronic analysis of phonology, semantics, morphology, and syntax. Apart from that, kathleen m. o’connor we express a keen interest in interdisciplinary research that is based on typol- On the Positions of Subjects and Floating Quantifiers in Appositives ogy, diachrony, and especially experimental methods taken from psycho- or neurolinguistics and applied so as to provide a psycholinguistic background yurie okami to purely theoretical research. We believe that the dissemination of ideas is Two Types of Modification and the Adnominal Modification in Japanese fundamental to any scientific advancement and thus our choice is to publish research studies in the form of ebooks, available for free on our website.
    [Show full text]
  • Compositionality Reconsidered: with Special Reference to Cognition
    Compositionality Reconsidered: With Special Reference to Cognition Chungmin Lee∗y Seoul National University Chungmin Lee. 2012. Compositionality Reconsidered: With Special Reference to Cognition. Language and Information 16.2 , 17{42. The is- sues of compositionality, materialized ever since Frege (1982), are critically re-examined in language first mainly and then in all other possible represen- tational systems such as thoughts, concept combination, computing, gesture, music, and animal cognition. The notion is regarded as necessary and sug- gested as neurologically correlated in humans, even if a weakened version is applicable because of non-articulated constituents and contextuality. Compo- sitionality is crucially involved in all linguistically or non-linguistically mean- ingful expressions, dealing with at-issue content, default content, and even not- at-issue meanings such as implicatures and presuppositions in discourse. It is a constantly guiding principle to show the relation between representation and mind, still posing tantalizing research issues. (Seoul National University) Key words: compositionality, representational systems, contextuality, mind, cognition, thoughts, concept combination, computing, gesture, music, animal cognition 1. Issues on Compositionality This paper purports to be a review but a critical review of issues related to com- positionality, putting forward some direction of more flexible thinking in investi- gations and pointing out subtle cross-linguistic differences in application of com- positionality with Korean examples where relevant. The meaning of an expression is determined by \a function of the meanings of its parts and of the way they are syntactically combined." This is the principle of compositionality in semantics, which largely started from Frege (1892). It can be regarded as \a condition on ∗ We thank Barbara Partee, Wilfrid Hodges and James Pustejovsky for their kind explanation of parts of their papers and comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Structure(S), Form and Interpretation
    FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE(S), FORM AND INTERPRETATION The issue of how interpretation results from the form and type of syntactic structures present in language is one which is central and hotly debated in both theoretical and descriptive linguistics. This volume brings together a series of eleven new cutting-edge essays by leading experts in East Asian languages which show how the study of formal structures and functional morphemes in Chinese, Japanese and Korean adds much to our general understanding of the close connections between form and interpretation. This specially commissioned collection will be of interest to linguists of all backgrounds working in the general area of syntax and language change, as well as those with a special interest in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Yen-hui Audrey Li is Professor of Linguistics and East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Southern California. Her research focuses on the comparison of grammatical properties in English, Chinese and other East Asian languages. Recent work has considered issues of order and constituency, scope interaction of quantificational expressions, as well as the distribution, structure and interpretation of different types of nominal expressions and relative constructions. Andrew Simpson is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies, the University of London. His research interests centre on the comparative syntax of East and Southeast Asian languages, and his work addresses issues relating to processes of language change, DP-structure, the syntax of question formation and the interaction of syntax with phonology. ROUTLEDGECURZON ASIAN LINGUISTICS SERIES Editor-in-Chief: Walter Bisang, Mainz University Associate Editors: R.
    [Show full text]
  • Person Features: Deriving the Inventory of Persons
    Chapter 2 Person Features: Deriving the Inventory of Persons 1. Introduction One long-standing aim of research into person has been to achieve a deeper understanding of the inventory of personal pronouns by decomposing them into a limited set of person features. The main aim of this chapter is to make a contribution to this enterprise. We will argue that a set of two privative person features is sufficient to derive the full inventory of attested pronouns and their interpretations, without generating non-attested pronouns. In chapter 1 we showed that the cross-linguistic inventory of attested persons is a small subset of the set of theoretically possible persons. The theoretically possible persons are those that can be formed by freely combining the speaker (for which we use the symbol i), associates of the speaker (ai), the addressee (u), associates of the addressee (au), and others (o). The generalizations that distinguish between the attested and non-attested persons are the following (repeated from (9) in chapter 1): (1) a. There is no person that contains associates of a participant but not the participant itself. b. There is no person that consists of others and only speaker(s) or of others and only addressee(s). c. No person system distinguishes pluralities containing a participant but not its associates from pluralities containing that participant as well as its associates. d. First and second person plural pronouns show an ‘associative effect’: any element contained in them other than i or u must be ai or au and cannot be o. 31 This leaves us with three persons with a singular interpretation and four persons with a plural interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • DOMAINS of QUANTIFICATION and SEMANTIC TYPOI.DGY* Barbara
    DOMAINS OF QUANTIFICATION AND SEMANTIC TYPOI.DGY* Barbara H. Partee University of Massachusetts/Amherst 1. Background and central issucsl The questions I am ~oncerned with here arise from the interaction of two broad areas of current research in syntax and semantics. One area, a very old one, concerns the systematic semantic import of syntactic categories, a question requiring a· combination of theoretical work and cross-linguistic study. The other area, only recently under active investigation, concerns the structure and interpretation of expressions of quantification, including not only quantification expressed by NP's with determiners like "every" and "no" but also what Lewis 1975 called "adverbs of quantification" ("always", "in most cases", "usually", etc.), "floated" quantifiers, and quantifiers expressed by verbal affixes and auxiliaries. At the intersection of these two areas are pressing questions which seem ripe for intensive investigation. Some key questions noted by Partee, Bach, and Kratzer 1987 are the following: (1) Is the use of NP's as one means of expressing quantification universal, as proposed by Barwlse and Cooper 1981? Does every language employ some other klnd(s) of quantification? Is there some kind of quantification that every language employs? Our current hypothesis ls that the answer to the first of these questions is llQ., to the second ~; the third ls still entirely open. One goal of current research ls the formulation of a finer-grained, possibly lmplicatlonal hypothesis in place of Barwlse and Cooper's categorical universal. (2) What are the similarities and differences, within and across language.s, in the structure and interpretation of quantification expressed with NP's and quantification expressed with "floated" quantifiers, sentence adverbs, verbal affixes, auxiliaries, or other non-NP means? 1.1 ~ semantics 2.f syntactic categories: background 1.1.1 Traditional linguistics YIL.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Linguistic Representations of Numerals and Number Marking∗
    Proceedings of SALT 20: 582–598, 2011 Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking∗ Alan Bale Michaël Gagnon Concordia University University of Maryland Hrayr Khanjian Massachusetts Institute of Technology Abstract Inspired by Partee(2010), this paper defends a broad thesis that all mod- ifiers, including numeral modifiers, are restrictive in the sense that they can only restrict the denotation of the NP or VP they modify. However, the paper concentrates more narrowly on numeral modification, demonstrating that the evidence that moti- vated Ionin & Matushansky(2006) to assign non-restrictive, privative interpretations to numerals – assigning them functions that map singular sets to sets containing groups – is in fact consistent with restrictive modification. Ionin & Matushansky’s (2006) argument for this type of interpretation is partly based on the distribution of Turkish numerals which exclusively combine with singular bare nouns. Section 2 demonstrates that Turkish singular bare nouns are not semantically singular, but rather are unspecified for number. Western Armenian has similar characteristics. Building on some of the observations in section2, section3 demonstrates that re- strictive modification can account for three different types of languages with respect to the distribution of numerals and plural nouns: (i) languages where numerals exclusively combine with plural nouns (e.g., English), (ii) languages where they exclusively combine with singular bare nouns (e.g., Turkish), (iii) languages where they optionally combine with either type of noun (e.g., Western Armenian). Ac- counting for these differences crucially involves making a distinction between two kinds of restrictive modification among the numerals: subsective vs. intersective modification. Section3 also discusses why privative interpretations of numerals have trouble accounting for these different language types.
    [Show full text]