Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

28 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal semantics(32)e x y e ′john(x)dog(y)own(e,x,y)like(e ′ ,x,y)male(x)non-human(y)The result, which can be simplified as (32), does not contain anaphoric conditionsanymore. It is a resolved DRS to which the standard truth definition ofDRT applies. It has the same truth conditions as the second line in (26), therepresentations of the full discourse in (static) predicate logic. The differencewith static theories however is that the truth conditions only apply to theoutcome of the resolution process. They capture the interpretation of the fulldiscourse, not of isolated sentences. In this respect, the notion of meaning iscrucially different. As a dynamic theory of meaning, DRT locates the meaningof individual sentences in the change that results from interpreting the sentencein a discourse. In other words, the meaning of a sentence is its contextchange potential.Presuppositional expressions (for example, definite descriptions like the dogbut also cleft-constructions and adverbs like too and again) are treated asanaphoric expressions on a par with pronouns (hence the name presupposition-as-anaphora).They induce information that has to be resolved in thecontext. More specifically, they search for an antecedent in the context. Likeit in (25), the dog in (33) introduces the instruction to bind to a previouslyintroduced discourse marker, with the difference that this time it is madeexplicit that the discourse marker has to represent a dog:(33) John owns a dog. He likes the dog.(34)e x y e ′john(x)dog(y)own(e,x,y)like(e ′ ,z,u)zmale(z)udog(u)
3.2 The perfective-imperfective distinction 29As before, u resolves to y, the discourse marker that represents a previouslyintroduced dog.An important notion is that of accessibility. Consider the mini-discoursein (35), a slight modification of (25):(35) John doesn’t own a dog. *He likes it.This mini-discourse is infelicitous if a dog is to be interpreted as the antecedentof it (this is what the asterisk is meant to indicate here). In DRT this isaccounted for in the following way. Logical connectives, such as negation,yield complex conditions, that is conditions that are themselves constructedout of DRSs (like the conditions introduced by anaphoric expressions). Forexample, if K is a DRS, ¬K, the negation of K, is a complex condition. Thuswe get a hierarchical structure where DRSs are embedded in other DRSs. Forthe first sentence of (35) we get:(36)¬xjohn(x)e ydog(y)own(e,x,y)The truth definition of DRT specifies that (36) is true in a model M iff thereis a function f that maps x to an entity in M with the name John and this fcannot be extended to a function g that verifies the embedded DRS. Merging(36) with (28), the preliminary representation of the second sentence of (35),gives us (37):(37)¬x e ′john(x)e ydog(y)own(e,x,y)like(e ′ ,z,u)zmale(z)unon-human(u)As before, z and u look for antecedents to bind to and z binds to x. Thingshave changed for u, however. The discourse marker y is no longer accessible
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:
78 Chapter 4. An analysis of aorist
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?