By Gennaro Chierchia
Within the Dynamics of which means, Gennaro Chierchia tackles relevant matters in dynamic semantics and extends the final framework.Chapter 1 introduces the idea of dynamic semantics and discusses intimately the phenomena which have been used to encourage it, akin to "donkey" sentences and adverbs of quantification. the second one bankruptcy explores in larger intensity the translation of indefinites and matters regarding presuppositions of forte and the "E-type strategy." In bankruptcy three, Chierchia extends the dynamic method of the area of syntactic idea, contemplating various empirical difficulties that comes with backwards anaphora, reconstruction results, and vulnerable crossover. the ultimate bankruptcy develops the formal procedure of dynamic semantics to accommodate important problems with definites and presupposition. Chierchia indicates that an strategy in accordance with a principled enrichment of the mechanisms facing that means is to be most well liked on empirical grounds over ways that rely on an enrichment of the syntactic apparatus.Dynamics of which means illustrates how possible summary stances at the nature of which means could have major and far-reaching linguistic effects, resulting in the detection of recent proof and influencing our knowing of the syntax/semantics/pragmatics interface.
Read or Download Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar PDF
Similar semantics books
C. S. Peirce used to be the founding father of pragmatism and a pioneer within the box of semiotics. His paintings investigated the matter of which means, that is the middle element of semiosis in addition to an important factor in lots of educational fields. Floyd Merrell demonstrates all through Peirce, indicators, and that means that Peirce's perspectives stay dynamically appropriate to the research of next paintings within the philosophy of language.
This booklet deals a brand new method of the research of the a number of meanings of English modals, conjunctions, conditionals, and notion verbs. even if such ambiguities can't simply be accounted for via feature-analyses of notice that means, Eve Sweetser's argument exhibits that they are often analyzed either without problems and systematically.
This easy-to-use consultant illuminates key strategies and phrases in semantics and pragmatics and the learn of that means because it is conveyed via language.
CDS is a multifarious box continuously constructing assorted methodological frameworks for analysing dynamically evolving facets of language in a vast diversity of socio-political and institutional contexts. This quantity is a innovative, interdisciplinary account of those theoretical and empirical advancements.
- Crimes Against Criminals
- Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings
- Modern Perspectives in Type-Theoretical Semantics
- Introducing pragmatics in use
- Language and Thought
- What Is Meaning? (Soochow University Lectures in Philosophy)
Extra resources for Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar
So how do we pick one or the other by means of a suitable description in a non-ad hoc way? Relativization to states of affairs doesn't seem to help us in this connection. 14 Let us now tum to relative clauses. Sentence (55a) could be interpreted as (55b): (55) a. Every man that has a donkey beats it. b. Every man that has a donkey beats the donkey he owns. 18 Discourse Representation Theory According to the analysis in (55b), sentences like (55a) only say something about men that own exactly one donkey.
70) a. An engineer inspected every plane. b. [an engineeri every planej [~ inspected tjll c. [every planej an engineeri [t i inspected tjll To be licensed as well-formed, a sentence must be well-formed at every level. The interaction of a set of (parametrized) principles prevents Move a from overgenerating. A standard system of relevant subtheories is the following: (71) a. X' -theory (which determines the admissible phrase-structural configurations) b. Theory of government (which characterizes the modes of interaction of constituents that are in construction with one another) c.
The conversion to this format is accomplished by performing three easy steps on a DRS: The First Soul (107) i. ii. iii. 41 Write each bracket as a box. Write each variable on a bracket inside the box, near the top. Replace conjunction by a carriage return. I illustrate how this works by showing what (106a) and (1 06d) look like in flowchart format: (108) Every man likes a woman. y woman(y) like(x,y) Every man who has a donkey beats it. xy man(x) donkey(y) has(x,y) ~ always beat( x, y) This flowchart notation is the one adopted in Kamp 1981.