The Sigma-Semantics: A Comprehensive Semantics for Functional Programs

A comprehensive semantics for functional programs is presented, which generalizes the well-known call-by-value and call-by-name semantics. By permitting a separate choice between call-by value and call-by-name for every argument position of every function and parameterizing the semantics by this choice we abstract from the parameter-passing mechanism. Thus common and distinguishing features of all instances of the sigma-semantics, especially call-by-value and call-by-name semantics, are highlighted. Furthermore, a property can be validated for all instances of the sigma-semantics by a single proof. This is employed for proving the equivalence of the given denotational (fixed-point based) and two operational (reduction based) definitions of the sigma-semantics. We present and apply means for very simple proofs of equivalence with the denotational sigma-semantics for a large class of reduction-based sigma-semantics. Our basis are simple first-order constructor-based functional programs with patterns

The Sigma-Semantics: A Comprehensive Semantics for Functional Programs

A comprehensive semantics for functional programs is presented, which generalizes the well-known call-by-value and call-by-name semantics. By permitting a separate choice between call-by value and call-by-name for every argument position of every function and parameterizing the semantics by this choice we abstract from the parameter-passing mechanism. Thus common and distinguishing features of all instances of the sigma-semantics, especially call-by-value and call-by-name semantics, are highlighted. Furthermore, a property can be validated for all instances of the sigma-semantics by a single proof. This is employed for proving the equivalence of the given denotational (fixed-point based) and two operational (reduction based) definitions of the sigma-semantics. We present and apply means for very simple proofs of equivalence with the denotational sigma-semantics for a large class of reduction-based sigma-semantics. Our basis are simple first-order constructor-based functional programs with patterns

The Radical Account of Bare Plural Generics

Bare plural generic sentences pervade ordinary talk. And yet it is extremely controversial what semantics to assign to such sentences. In this paper, I achieve two tasks. First, I develop a novel classification of the various standard uses to which bare plurals may be put. This “variety data” is important—it gives rise to much of the difficulty in systematically theorizing about bare plurals. Second, I develop a novel account of bare plurals, the radical account. On this account, all bare plurals fail to express propositions. The content of a bare plural has to be pragmatically “completed” by a speaker in order for her to make an assertion. At least the content of a quantifier expression has to be supplied. But sometimes, the content of a sentential operator or modal verb is also supplied. The radical account straightforwardly explains the variety data: Speakers’ communicative intentions vary wildly across different contexts

PERFORMING ANAPHORA IN MODERN GREEK: A NEO-GRICEAN PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS

The paper addresses the problem of interpreting anaphoric NPs in Modern Greek. It includes a proposal of a novel analysis based on the systematic interaction of the neo- Gricean pragmatic principles of communication, which provides a neat and elegant approach to NP-anaphora resolution. The findings of this study provide evidence for an account of NP-anaphora in terms of the division of labour between syntax and pragmatics and more accurately in terms of the systematic interaction of the neo-Gricean pragmatic principles

Comparative Ellipsis and Variable Binding

In this paper, we discuss the question whether phrasal comparatives should be given a direct interpretation, or require an analysis as elliptic constructions, and answer it with Yes and No. The most adequate analysis of wide reading attributive (WRA) comparatives seems to be as cases of ellipsis, while a direct (but asymmetric) analysis fits the data for narrow scope attributive comparatives. The question whether it is a syntactic or a semantic process which provides the missing linguistic material in the complement of WRA comparatives is also given a complex answer: Linguistic context is accessed by combining a reconstruction operation and a mechanism of anaphoric reference. The analysis makes only few and straightforward syntactic assumptions. In part, this is made possible because the use of Generalized Functional Application as a semantic operation allows us to model semantic composition in a flexible way.Comment: Postscript, 15 page