Proceedings of the 13 ESSLLI Student Session - Multiple Choices ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

could be more than one. Note though that for K to qualify as a kind in w0 it is not necessary for there to be more than one or even one single instantiation of K in w0 (this makes it possible to talk about unicorns, dodos and new inventions as kinds). (15) For K to be a kind in w0 there has to be at least one world in which K has more than one instantiation. The second constraint (see (16)) captures the intuition that the instantiations of kinds behave in a regular way, i.e. that their kind-membership is not accidental. Note though that it does not prohibit kinds to display properties varying over time nor for individuals to start or stop being instantiations of a kind (this is left to world knowledge). (16) If k is an instantiation of the kind K in w0 at tn and if k exists in a world wn accessible from w0 at tn k is an instantiation of the kind K in wn at tn. I will call (15) the non-uniqueness constraint and (16) the non-accidentality constraint on kinds and their instantiations. 42 Background on articles I follow Partee (1987) in assuming that articles are default type-shifters from type to type e or type . In short this means that they are markers of argumenthood and that they cannot be omitted in absence of other determiners in argument position: (17) *I have cat. (18) *Man came to see me. I furthermore follow (Hawkins, 1991) and (Farkas, 2002) in assuming that the definite article is a uniqueness marker whereas the indefinite article is unmarked for uniqueness. This means that (19) signals that there is only one teacher present in a particular setting whereas (20) is in principle neutral with respect to there being one or more teachers. (19) I saw the teacher. (20) I saw a teacher. Proceedings of the 13 th ESSLLI Student Session As noted by Hawkins and Farkas it is the case though that by choosing the indefinite instead of the definite the speaker triggers the implicature that there is more than one teacher. Finally, in line with Partee’s type-shifting analysis I expect indefinite articles to be omissible in predicate position. The instances of bare predication treated in this paper show that this expectation is borne out. The crucial question is why they cannot always be omitted. The answer, I claim, does not lie in the semantics but in the pragmatics. The pragmatic analysis I defend is presented in 4.3. 42
43 Non-bare predication and non-uniqueness The analysis I defend is cast in (Weak) Bi-directional Optimality Theory (cf. (Blutner, 2000)) and is based on five standard assumptions. The first is that bare and non-bare predication are truth-conditionally equivalent (cf. (Partee, 1987)). The second assumption is that both bare and non-bare predication in principle trigger an implicature of nonuniqueness. This assumption builds on the insights of Hawkins and Farkas according to whom not using the definite triggers an implicature of non-uniqueness. The third assumption is that non-bare predication is syntactically more marked than bare predication (cf. (de Swart and Zwarts, To appear)). Syntactic markedness can be understood in terms of projections: whereas non-bare predication involves DPs, bare predication only involves NPs (or NumPs). The fourth assumption is that conveying non-uniqueness is semantically more marked than conveying neutrality with respect to uniqueness (cf. (de Swart and Zwarts, To appear)). Semantic markedness can be understood in terms of compatibility: non-uniqueness is compatible with neutrality but neutrality is not necessarily compatible with non-uniqueness. The fifth and final assumption is that unmarked forms and meanings are preferred over marked forms and meanings (a standard assumption in the OT literature). The resulting (Weak) Bi-directional OT tableau is presented in (21). (21) Proceedings of the 13 th ESSLLI Student Session What comes out of this analysis is that bare predication is neutral with respect to uniqueness whereas non-bare predication marks non-uniqueness. 44 Kinds and non-bare predication In 4.1. I claimed - on the basis of common intuitions - that kinds are subject to a nonuniqueness constraint. In 4.3. I claimed - on the basis of standard assumptions - that non-bare predication marks non-uniqueness whereas bare predication is neutral with respect to uniqueness. When we combine both claims it follows that non-bare predication is best suited to signal kind-membership. As I will demonstrate in what follows this is indeed what it does in languages like Dutch. I will show this on the basis of five predictions that follow from the claim that there is one-to-one correspondence between non-bare predication and kind-membership predication. The first prediction is that all predication involving kind-membership has to involve the indefinite article. That this is the case has been suggested by (Kupferman, 1991) and (Roy, 2006) and as far as I know this has never been challenged. Note that (14) is not a counterexample. (14) shows that bare predication may involve nouns that are usually associated with kinds but it is not an instance of kind-membership predication. Note also 43
Page 1 and 2: Proceedings of the 13 th ESSLLI Stu
Page 3 and 4: Contents Preface . . . . . . . . .
Page 5 and 6: Preface Proceedings of the 13 th ES
Page 9 and 10: mechanism of the encoded function.
Page 13 and 14: The table below presents experiment
Page 17 and 18: SIMULATING SPOKEN DIALOGUE WITH A F
Page 19 and 20: 21 Speech Generation Speech generat
Page 31 and 32: We now state our update semantics f
Page 33 and 34: 3 Comparison With a Partition Seman
Page 35 and 36: We take this objection seriously, a
Page 37 and 38: BARE PREDICATION AND KINDS ∗ Bert
Page 39 and 40: The reason why the b-variants are o
Page 41: 2006)). The second is that nouns re
Page 45 and 46: References Proceedings of the 13 th
Page 47 and 48: DIAGRAMMATIC REASONING WITH ENHANCE
Page 51 and 52: previously. Proceedings of the 13 t
Page 53 and 54: type theory of Euler diagrams based
Page 55 and 56: software (Stapleton and Delaney, 20
Page 57 and 58: FICTIONAL CONTINGENCIES Gemma Celes
Page 63 and 64: of as the individuals that these fi
Page 75 and 76: TOWARDS A NEW CHARACTERISATION OF C
Page 77 and 78: The following paper continues this
Page 81 and 82: only one increasing chain completel
Page 83 and 84: the minimal step width seems to be
Page 87 and 88: etrieved in order to check it again
Page 89 and 90: Results The percentages of correct
Page 91 and 92: The complexity of relative clauses
Page 93 and 94:
References Proceedings of the 13 th
Page 95 and 96:
A SALIENCE-DRIVEN APPROACH TO SPEEC
Page 97 and 98:
Proceedings of the 13 th ESSLLI Stu
Page 99 and 100:
2. the linguistic salience or “re
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
where the expectations provided by
Page 105 and 106:
A LOGIC WITH A CONDITIONAL PROBABIL
Page 107 and 108:
• v : F orC × W −→ {0, 1} is
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Lemma 4 M ∗ is a measurable model
Page 113 and 114:
is a tautology. Now we can equivale
Page 115 and 116:
A PROOF-THEORETIC APPROACH TO FRENC
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
References Abeillé, A., Godard, D.
Page 125 and 126:
INFINITE GAMES FROM AN INTUITIONIST
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
6 Further problems Proceedings of t
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
pointers to the text, containing th
Page 139 and 140:
example in a comparatively short te
Page 141 and 142:
Such an example is: Constant modifi
Page 143 and 144:
WORD SPACE MODELS OF SEMANTIC SIMIL
Page 145 and 146:
tween semantic similarity and seman
Page 147 and 148:
wu & palmer 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
frequency F−score 0 100 200 300 4
Page 153 and 154:
EXAMINING THE NOTICING FUNCTION OF
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
effects of input flood and individu
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
CDIPROVER3: A TOOL FOR PROVING DERI
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Example 8. Consider the TRS given i
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
THE RANK(S) OF A TOTALLY LEXICALIST
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
EXPRESSING CONJUNCTIVE AND AGGREGAT
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
(Rule) (Semantic Action) Qwh → In
Page 191 and 192:
(⇐) We will prove, by induction o
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
1 Introduction INTERROGATION IN DYN
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
to hold for questions to be felicit
Page 201 and 202:
5 Further research One goal for a s
Page 203 and 204:
THE SEMANTIC CHANGE OF THE FRENCH -
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
6 Conclusion In this paper, I inves
Page 213 and 214:
ADVERSARY IMPLICATURES ∗ Grégoir
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
2.2.1 The derivation of Q-Implicatu
Page 221 and 222:
of the first, the relation of Contr
Page 223 and 224:
List of authors Martin Avanzini Mar
show all

Proceedings of the 13 ESSLLI Student Session - Multiple Choices ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?