Formal Semantics and the Grammar of Predication

Linguistic

Mass Nouns, Vagueness and Semantic Variation

The mass/count distinction attracts a lot of attention among cognitive scientists, possibly because it involves in fundamental ways the relation between language (i.e. grammar), thought (i.e. extralinguistic conceptual systems) and reality (i.e. the physical world). In the present paper, I explore the view that the mass/count distinction is a matter of vagueness. While every noun/concept may in a sense be vague, mass nouns/concepts are vague in a way that systematically impairs their use in counting. This idea has never been systematically pursued, to the best of my knowledge. I make it precise relying on supervaluations (more specifically, ‘data semantics’) to model it. I identify a number of universals pertaining to how the mass/count contrast is encoded in the languages of the world, along with some of the major dimensions along which languages may vary on this score. I argue that the vagueness based model developed here provides a useful perspective on both. The outcome (besides shedding light on semantic variation) seems to suggest that vagueness is not just an interface phenomenon that arises in the interaction of Universal Grammar (UG) with the Conceptual/Intentional System (to adopt Chomsky’s terminology), but it is actually part of the architecture of UG.Linguistic

Broaden Your Views. Implications of Domain Widening and the "Logicality" of Language

Linguistic

Identifying (In)Definiteness in Vietnamese Noun Phrase

This paper aims to settle the issue of whether những, các, một are articles in Vietnamese as argued by Nguyen T. C. (1975), Nguyen H. T. (2004), a.o. First, we adopt Dayal (in prep.)’s cross-linguistic questionnaire of (in)definiteness since this questionnaire offers us a set of useful tests to diagnose definiteness and indefiniteness from a crosslinguistic perspective. Second, we broaden up the empirical landscape by contrasting the interpretation of nominal constructions which have the so-called overt (in)definite markers (các-CLF-N, những-CLF-N, and một CLF N) with that of nominal constructions without them (including bare N and CLF-N, numeral(>1)-CLF-N), in order to see if the (in)definiteness effect truly comes from the presence or absence of these three markers, or from something else. We then conclude that (i) những and các are plural markers, (ii) only một seems to be a likely candidate for an indefinite article, and (iii) bare nouns and numerals are not genuine indefinites: the former denotes kinds, while the latter can be interpreted as definite, which sets Vietnamese apart cross-linguistically

Partitives, Reference to Kinds and Semantic Variation

No abstract

The Relevance of Polarity for the Online Interpretation of Scalar Terms

The interpretation of scalar terms (like, e.g., some vs. all; the numerals) has been at the center of much theoretical debate. Recently, this debate has focused on whether Scalar Implicature (SI) computation is grammatically or post grammatically driven (cf., e.g., Russell, 2006 vs. Chierchia, Fox and Spector, 2008 and references therein). In the present work, we address these issues through experimental means arguing, specifically, for two theses: Thesis 1: The interpretation of both numerals and determiners like some/all are systematically affected by the polarity (Downward monotone or DE vs. Upward monotone or UE) of the local context in which they are embedded. Thesis 2: Numerals and Determiners differ in how the ‘exact’ interpretation comes about: for numerals such interpretation is much faster. Thesis 1, if true, provides evidence against the thesis that scalar items are lexically ambiguous (for no lexical ambiguity is polarity sensitive in such a way) and in favor of the view that the ‘exact’ vs. the ‘at least’ interpretation of both types of scalar items is an implicature. Thesis 2, if true, shows that the way in which the ‘exact’ interpretation comes about for numerals vs. determiners is partly similar and partly different. This can be construed as an argument against the thesis that these elements are ‘underspecified’ in similar ways (cf., e.g., Musolino, 2003).LinguisticsPhilosophyPsycholog