1,949 research outputs found
Presupposition projection as proof construction
Even though Van der Sandt's presuppositions as anaphora approach is empirically successful, it fails to give a formal account of the interaction between world-knowledge and presuppositions. In this paper, an algorithm is sketched which is based on the idea of presuppositions as anaphora. It improves on this approach by employing a deductive system, Constructive Type Theory (CTT), to get a formal handle on the way world-knowledge influences presupposition projection. In CTT, proofs for expressions are explicitly represented as objects. These objects can be seen as a generalization of DRT's discourse markers. They are useful in dealing with presuppositional phenomena which require world-knowledge, such as Clark's bridging examples and Beaver's conditional presuppositions
Don't interpret focus : why a presuppositional account of focus fails, and how a presuppositional account of givenness works
This paper advances a purely presuppositional analysis of intonation. I first show that a inspiring recent article by Geurts and van der Sandt (Theoretical Linguistics, 2004) that pursues the same goal cannot account for multiple foci. Then, I show that if it is assumed that destressed rather than focussed material is semantically marked, multiple foci are accounted for correctly
Dynamic Semantics
This article focuses on foundational issues in dynamic and static semantics, specifically on what is conceptually at stake between the dynamic framework and the truth-conditional framework, and consequently what kinds of evidence support each framework. The article examines two questions. First, it explores the consequences of taking the proposition as central semantic notion as characteristic of static semantics, and argues that this is not as limiting in accounting for discourse dynamics as many think. Specifically, it explores what it means for a static semantics to incorporate the notion of context change potential in a dynamic pragmatics and denies that this conception of static semantics requires that all updates to the context be eliminative and distributive. Second, it argues that the central difference between the two frameworks is whether semantics or pragmatics accounts for dynamics, and explores what this means for the oft-heard claim that dynamic semantics blurs the semantics/pragmatics distinction
DRT’s treatment of inference and presupposition as a source of semantic enrichment
Jornadas organizadas por el Instituto de Lógica, Lenguaje e Información en la Universidad de Sevilla, los días 29, 30 de noviembre y 1 de diciembre de 2000
Demonstratives, definite descriptions and non-redundancy
In some sentences, demonstratives can be substituted with definite descriptions without any change in meaning. In light of this, many have maintained that demonstratives are just a type of definite description.
However, several theorists have drawn attention to a range of cases where definite descriptions are acceptable, but their demonstrative counterparts are not. Some have tried to account for this data by appealing to presupposition. I argue that such presuppositional approaches are problematic, and present a pragmatic account of the target contrasts. On this approach, demonstratives take two arguments and generally require that the first, covert argument is non-redundant with respect to the second, overt argument. I derive this condition through an economy principle discussed by Schlenker (2005)
Do we need dynamic semantics?
I suspect the answer to the question in the title of this paper is no. But
the scope of my paper will be considerably more limited: I will be concerned
with whether certain types of considerations that are commonly cited in
favor of dynamic semantics do in fact push us towards a dynamic semantics.
Ultimately, I will argue that the evidence points to a dynamics of discourse
that is best treated pragmatically, rather than as part of the semantics
Anàfora i subjectivació en construccions clítiques femenines lexicalitzades
In this paper I will examine anaphoric relationships in lexicalized feminine clitic constructions (dormirla [to sleep it off], pirárselas [to beat it], etc.). Lexicalized feminine clitic constructions have no syntactic reference for the clitic, but there is an implicit contextual semantic reference to an implicated and recognized concept. Given the diversity of lexicalized feminine clitic constructions, an attempt is going to be made to establish a growing speaker subjectification continuum depending on whether it is a contextual semantic reference from an accommodation in a singular context, in a multiple context, or we are faced with a conventional implication. We will also comment on other more complicated processes, either because the construction experiences changes in its meaning or because the analogy causes the presence of the feminine clitic.En aquest treball analitzarem les relacions anafòriques en les construccions amb clític femení lexicalitzat (dormirla, pirárselas, etc.). Les construccions amb clític femení lexicalitzat no tenen referència sintàctica pel clític, però hi ha implicada una referència semàntica contextual a un concepte implicat i reconegut. Donada la diversitat de construccions amb clític femení lexicalitzat, establirem un continu creixent de subjetivació del parlant segons que es tracti d’una referencia semàntica contextual a partir d’una acomodació en un context singular, en un context múltiple o es tracti d’una implicació convencional. Tenint en compte els diferents processos donats en les construccions amb clític femení lexicalitzat, comentarem també altres processos en els quals la situació és més complicada, bé perquè intervenen canvis de significat en la construcció, bé perquè l’analogia motiva la presència del clític femení.This work is supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Government of Spain under grant FFI2017-85441-R
The interpretative options of anaphoric complex demonstratives
In this paper, we present experimental evidence from a ‘yes’/‘no’ judgement task and two acceptability rating studies (Experiments 1a-c) for the claim made in Hinterwimmer (2019) that sentences with two anaphorically interpreted complex demonstratives are less acceptable than sentences with two anaphorically interpreted definite descriptions and sentences where one of the two previously introduced referents is picked up by a complex demonstrative, while the other one is picked up by a definite description. The results of Experiment 1a and 1b are in principle compatible with the account argued for in Hinterwimmer (2019), according to which the (potentially abstract) demonstrations presupposed by demonstratives may not have overlapping trajectories. However, sentences with two anaphorically interpreted complex demonstratives are not judged as unacceptable as would be expected if they involved a presupposition violation. Therefore, we propose an alternative, economy-based pragmatic account that builds on Ahn (2019) and Nowak (2019). The question of whether the observed pattern is more compatible with the account proposed by Hinterwimmer (2019) or the alternative pragmatic account is directly addressed in a further acceptability rating study (Experiment 1c). The design of that study is similar to that of Experiment 1b, but it includes as fillers both sentences clearly violating a presupposition and sentences violating a pragmatic constraint. Since the ratings for sentences containing two anaphorically interpreted complex demonstratives are closer to the ratings for sentences violating a pragmatic constraint than for sentences violating a presupposition, we conclude that the alternative pragmatic account is preferable to the account by Hinterwimmer (2019)
- …