By Chris Barker, Chung-chieh Shan
This e-book takes options built by means of researchers in theoretical desktop technology and adapts and applies them to the examine of typical language that means. Summarizing greater than a decade of analysis, Chris Barker and Chung-chieh Shan recommend the Continuation speculation: that the that means of a typical language expression can depend upon its personal continuation. partially I, the authors enhance a continuation-based idea of scope and quantificational binding and supply a proof for order sensitivity in scope-related phenomena equivalent to scope ambiguity, crossover, superiority, reconstruction, unfavourable polarity licensing, dynamic anaphora, and donkey anaphora. half II outlines an leading edge substructural common sense for reasoning approximately continuations and proposes an research of the compositional semantics of adjectives reminiscent of 'same' by way of parasitic and recursive scope. It additionally exhibits that convinced situations of ellipsis will be handled as anaphora to a continuation, resulting in a brand new reason behind a subtype of sluicing referred to as sprouting.
The booklet makes an important contribution to paintings on scope, reference, quantification, and different vital facets of semantics and should attract semanticists in linguistics and philosophy at graduate point and above.
Read Online or Download Continuations and Natural Language PDF
Similar semantics books
During this groundbreaking publication, Wierzbicka demonstrates that each language has its «key strategies» and that those key techniques mirror the center values of the tradition. extra, she argues that inside a culture-independent analytical framework you will learn, evaluate, or even clarify cultures to outsiders via their key suggestions.
Over the past 20 years or so, lots of the paintings at the syntax of Philippine languages has been fascinated by the query of even if those languages might be stated to have grammatical matters, and if this is the case which argument of a easy transitive clause might be analysed as being the topic. Paul Kroeger's contribution to this debate asserts that grammatical family members resembling topic and item are syntactic notions, and has to be pointed out at the foundation of syntactic homes, instead of by way of semantic roles or discourse features.
This booklet provides an cutting edge and novel method of linguistic semantics, ranging from the concept that language might be defined as a mechanism for the expression of linguistic Meanings as specific floor kinds, or Texts. Semantics is particularly that method of principles that guarantees a transition from a Semantic illustration of the that means of a kinfolk of synonymous sentences to the Deep-Syntactic illustration of a selected sentence.
This quantity brings jointly unique papers through linguists and philosophers at the function of context and viewpoint in language and proposal. a number of contributions are all for the contextualism/relativism debate, which has loomed huge in contemporary philosophical discussions. In a considerable advent, the editors survey the sphere and map out the proper matters and positions.
- Language Myths, Mysteries and Magic
- Representation and inference for natural language: a first course in computational semantics
- Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding
- Fact Proposition Event
Additional resources for Continuations and Natural Language
Just as Montague recognized that the denotations of proper names (which according to Partee (1987) are fundamentally of type e) must be adjusted in order to coordinate with properly quantificational DPs (type (e → t) → t), so too must left be adjusted here. In both cases, the adjustment mechanism is the same: a generalization of Partee’s (1987) lift type-shifter. κx. x The tangram version shows how lift turns a value into an expression that is expecting a continuation. (19) B B lift A ⇒ A Looking at the result, the horizontal line represents the place where the continuation will fit.
On the semantic tier, contexts on the left (g[ ] and h[ ]) take scope over contexts on the right (i[ ] and j[ ]). Towers: Scope and Evaluation Order e x e rc i s e 9 Which of the following two ways of thinking about syntactic towers is coherent? E F E F E F ≡ C D ? C D ? A A A Hint: figure out how to write the syntactic category in question in flat (non-tower) notation. C D e x e rc i s e 10 h[ ] Work out the flat notational equivalent for the semantic value g[ ] . Hint: the x constituent structure of a semantic value mirrors exactly the constituent structure of the corresponding syntactic category (see previous exercise).
B will be a complex category label whose semantic type is whatever your favorite theory of questions says should be the kind of question built from a function of type α → β. S. S ⇒ John likes who? ’. , in Japanese), in English, in-situ wh-phrases for the most part must be interpreted as echo questions or metalinguistic questions, in which the questioner is asking for the identification of a word, rather than an individual. In ordinary non-echo wh-questions in English, in contrast, the wh-phrase must appear at the front of the clause.
- Download Modelling microbial responses in foods by Robin C. McKellar, Xuewen Lu PDF
- Download Fueling the Fire Global Warming, Fossil Fuels and the Fish by National Wildlife Federation PDF