Discourse Structure and the Structure of Context - Multiple Choices

More documents

Recommendations

Info

50 referent ti+1 gets introduced, the old pair of the indexical correspondence gets replaced by . So much about the indexical correspondence. 37 We are now ready to state the interpretation principles for I, you and now, though this is now little more than a dull exercise: We assume that both the KUtt for the utterance that is being processed and the indexical correspondence that reflects the relation between this KUtt and KDis have already been established. Interpretation rules 1. Interpretation rule for I. (i) Suppose that for some discourse refernt x in KDis the indexical correspondence contains the pair . Then x is used as representative of the given occurrence of I in the representation of the sentence containing this occurrence. 38 37 In footnote 31 (??) we noted that he prohibition against using third person pronouns to refer to speaker or addressee is part of a larger prohibition against using third person NPs of any kind. This suggests that the domain of the indexical correspondence should not be restricted to the universe of KDis, but allowed to include discourse referents from other context components than KDis, which are relevant to the interpretation of other types of NPs. (See 3.1 as well as 3.3 and 3.5 below.) For instance, it is quite common that speaker a and addressee b share a representation of one of them, say a. (Usually they will share representations for both of them) The sharing may be based on earlier encounters between them, or it may be that b knew a by hearsay even before they ever met. It is usual in such cases, moreover, that the shared knowledge includes the person's name - a's name is known not only to himself but also to b. According to the assumptions made in 3.1 this means that there will be a discourse referent z in KEnc together with the condition "Name(z,N)", where N is the shared name of a. Since it is highly "marked" for someone to refer to himself or to his addressee by using his name, the normal interpretation of a use of N by either a or b will be normally interpeted as referring to some individual distinct from a. The most natural way of capturing the interpreter's tendency to take such an utterance of N as not referring to a and his ability to avoid this is to assume that the indexical correspondence includes the pair or (depending on whether n is used by a or by b). The interpeter will look for another discourse referent u which appears in KEnc accompanied by the condition "Name(u,N)", or else accommodate. 38 It is not all that easy to see whether the indexical correspondence might end up containing more than one such pair. However, even if it were possible for this to
51 (ii) The indexical correspondence contains no pair . Then a new discourse referent x is introduced into KDis and this x is used as representative of the given occurrence of I in the representation of the sentence containing this occurrence. 2. Interpretation rule for you. As in case 1, but with"sp" replaced everywhere by "ad". 3. Interpretation rule for now. As in case 1, but with"sp" replaced everywhere by "n". 3.3 Demonstratives and KEnv. The demonstrative expressions we will consider are (i) phrases of the forms this N' and that N', where N' is a simple or complex common noun phrase, consisting of a head noun N with or without adjoined adjectival phrases, prepositional phrases and/or relative clauses, (ii) the one word NPs this and that; and (iii) the words here and there. As with proper names, interpretation of these expressions can be distinguished into two main cases, those where the referent is already represented withn KDis, and cases where it is not. We begin by looking at hte cases where it isn't. This case subdivides into two subcases in its turn. the first is that where the referent is represented in KEnv. In the second case the referent isn't even represented there. The first of these is reminiscent of what has been said about the interpretation of proper names in 3.1. The normal use of a proper name presupposes, we said, that the name's bearer has a representation in KEnc, and the interpretation then consists in identifying the referent of the given use of the name with that representation. Similarly, the interpretation of a demonstrative expression may involve selecting the relevant representation from KEnv happen, and the indexical correspondence would contain, say, two pairs and x2,sp>, it would be immaterial which of x1 and x2 would be chosen for the interpretation of I, since both represent the same individual (viz the anchor for sp).
Page 1 and 2: 1 Discourse Structure and the Struc
Page 3 and 4: 3 cumulative nature of interpretati
Page 5 and 6: 5 as the preceding sentence provide
Page 7 and 8: 7 function as representations of pa
Page 9 and 10: 9 "week-before-that-of n"(t) "the-d
Page 11 and 12: 11 There has been a tendency within
Page 13 and 14: 13 actual time of the represented u
Page 15 and 16: 15 however, that as things stand I
Page 17 and 18: 17 (1) Singular third person person
Page 19 and 20: 19 In normal language use most disc
Page 21 and 22: 21 (It is this commitment which mak
Page 23 and 24: 23 1999 (?)).) Within the present s
Page 25 and 26: 25 The ij-th interpretation (j = 1,
Page 27 and 28: 27 time and (in those cases where t
Page 29 and 30: 29 So far in this section we have o
Page 31 and 32: 31 below; and question its general
Page 33 and 34: 33 The possibility of selecting one
Page 35 and 36: 35 presented as something that is g
Page 37 and 38: 37 case of now too. And indeed ther
Page 39 and 40: 39 utterance time. Among these are
Page 41 and 42: 41 clear conception of who he means
Page 43 and 44: 43 which a single speaker may shift
Page 45 and 46: 45 One implication of this is that
Page 47 and 48: 47 interpreting D refer to this sam
Page 49: 49 members of which are discourse r
Page 53 and 54: 53 have discussed already - or of t
Page 55 and 56: 55 representing the demonstrative's
Page 57 and 58: 57 believe that there are no such c
Page 59 and 60: 59 is represented in at least one o
Page 61 and 62: 61 neither of us ever knew personal
Page 63 and 64: 63 choice of determiner will serve
Page 65 and 66: 65 is an indexical with equal right
Page 67 and 68: 67 There is a second point connecte
Page 69 and 70: 69 These are imponderabilia just pe
Page 71 and 72: 71 3.4 Definite Descriptions. Some
Page 73 and 74: 73 same semantic or pragmatic effec
Page 75 and 76: 75 b. C y x }, > president(y) presi
Page 77 and 78: seem to support the view that the c
Page 79 and 80: 79 Similar considerations apply to
Page 81 and 82: 81 sentence as a whole, or are ther
Page 83 and 84: 83 descriptions, demonstratives) th
Page 85 and 86: 85 which, they rightly observed, ma
Page 87 and 88: 87 Sometimes the topic situation is
Page 89 and 90: 89 with a supporting demonstration)
Page 91 and 92: 91 these entities belong to the top
Page 93 and 94: 93 in which the discourse tawhat is
Page 95 and 96: 95 Call a discourse referent x belo
Page 97 and 98: 97 "Look, there is a blackbird with
Page 99 and 100: 99 That notions of context vary is
Page 101 and 102:
101 There is a second distinction,
Page 103 and 104:
103 important are the different way
Page 105 and 106:
105 intensonal model MWe may assume
Page 107 and 108:
107 Justifications of (3) within a
Page 109 and 110:
109 utterance of sentence (2.a.i) (
Page 111 and 112:
111 present tense. (i) is appropria
Page 113 and 114:
113 whole, these times shift as the
Page 115 and 116:
115 the statements we make. This ma
Page 117 and 118:
117 always committed to having a pa
Page 119 and 120:
119 domain - is an aspect of the im
Page 121 and 122:
121 Meaning depends on context. The
Page 123 and 124:
123 Intuitively there seems t be a
Page 125 and 126:
125 Not that I will go very far. I
Page 127:
127 In Section 1 mentioned the prob
show all

Discourse Structure and the Structure of Context - Multiple Choices

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?