Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal semanticsthe name John and y introduced by the indefinite NP a dog. 3 These discoursemarkers will figure as the referents for these expressions for the remainder ofthe discourse. The idea is that indefinite expressions like a dog introduce discoursereferents in the discourse. Definite expressions like it or the dog, on theother hand, pick up previously introduced referents, as we will see when wediscuss the interpretation of the second sentence of (25). The descriptive informationis encoded in the conditions john(x), dog(y), and own(e,x,y). Thesemantics of DRT specifies that (27) is true in a model M iff there is a functionf that maps the discourse markers e, x, and y onto entities in the domain ofM in such a way that f(x) has the property of having the name John and ofowning f(y), f(y) has the property of being a dog and of being owned by f(x),and f(e) is an eventuality of owning between the two individuals.Note that we don’t need a conjunction in DRT, since it’s already specifiedin the truth definition that a sequence of conditions gets the meaning thatpredicate logic would express by means of a conjunction. The same holds forexistential quantification: the discourse markers in (27) get their existentialimport indirectly from the truth definition, which requires that there be afunction that verifies the DRS in the model.Let’s now move on to the second sentence. It is interpreted in the contextof the first sentence. 4 Following the two-stage presuppositionasanaphora versionof DRT (van der Sandt 1992) (which is standard nowadays and which isadopted in this work), we first construct the preliminary representation of thesecond sentence:(28)e ′like(e ′ ,z,u)zmale(z)unon-human(u)This preliminary DRS contains three conditions. Apart from the simple conditionlike(e ′ ,z,u), we find two complex conditions, the dashed boxes, correspondingto the anaphoric expressions he and it. These anaphoric expressionscome, in contrast to indefinites like a dog, with a special instruction: theyshould link up to a previously established discourse referent. This is indicatedby encoding them as a special type of condition which is itself constructed out3 I have chosen the traditional way of doing things in DRT by representing the propername as a variable whose reference is restricted by a predicate rather than as a constant.4 This is a simplification. The real context for the interpretation of the second sentencedoes not only contain the information provided by the first sentence, but all backgroundknowledge, including, for example, world knowledge.
3.2 The perfective-imperfective distinction 27of a DRS consisting of an anaphoric variable (z, u) and a condition (male(z),non-human(u)).We merge this preliminary DRS in (28) with (27), the representation of thecontext of (28). This merge (indicated by ‘⊕’) is an operation which returns anew DRS the universe and conditions of which are the unions of the universesand conditions to be merged:e x y e ′(29)e x yjohn(x)dog(y)own(e,x,y)⊕e ′like(e ′ ,z,u)zmale(z)unon-human(u)=john(x)dog(y)own(e,x,y)like(e ′ ,z,u)zmale(z)unon-human(u)In the resulting DRS (the rightmost one in (29)) the anaphoric elementsare not yet resolved. Resolution of anaphoric elements happens in the secondstage, through the resolution algorithm which links anaphoric variables to theirantecedents. In the present example, the condition(30)zmale(z)indicates that we have to link z to a discourse referent already introduced inthe discourse that represents a male individual. It is resolved to x by equatingz to x. Similarly, u looks for a discourse referent that represents a non-humanindividual, and resolves to y:(31)e x y e ′john(x)dog(y)own(e,x,y)like(e ′ ,z,u)zmale(z)unon-human(u)⇒e x y e ′ z ujohn(x)dog(y)own(e,x,y)like(e ′ ,z,u)male(z)non-human(u)z = xu = y
Page 3: Aspect in Ancient GreekA semantic a
Page 6 and 7: viNick Asher, David Beaver, the lat
Page 9: Contentsix8 Conclusions and discuss
Page 12 and 13: 2 Chapter 1. Introductiongroundbrea
Page 14 and 15: 4 Chapter 1. Introduction(4) µετ
Page 16 and 17: 6 Chapter 1. Introductionimperfecti
Page 19 and 20: 1.3 Organisation of the thesis 9In
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 2The interpretations of aor
Page 23 and 24: 2.3 Additional interpretations of t
Page 31: 2.5 The challenge 21scriptions of h
Page 34 and 35: 24 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 52: 42 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 57 and 58: 3.2 The perfective-imperfective dis
Page 77 and 78: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 673.3.1 Aspe
Page 79 and 80: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 69bials ((88
Page 81 and 82: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 71the term c
Page 83 and 84: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 73in the ext
Page 86 and 87:
76 Chapter 4. An analysis of aorist
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
100 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
122 Chapter 5. Aspect and performat
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
134 Chapter 6. The temporal structu
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
158 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
172 Chapter 8. Conclusions and disc
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
178 Appendix A: The language of Com
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
192 Appendix B: Examples spelled ou
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
206 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 218 and 219:
208 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 220 and 221:
210 References(Eds.), Cross-linguis
Page 222 and 223:
212 ReferencesGrice, P. (1975). Log
Page 224 and 225:
214 ReferencesLemmon, E. J. (1962).
Page 226 and 227:
216 Referencesvan der Sandt, R. (19
Page 228 and 229:
218 References
Page 230 and 231:
220 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
Page 232 and 233:
222 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
show all

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?