By Paul J.E. Dekker (auth.)
The built-in thought of dynamic interpretation set out the following might be a shock to complex researchers in linguistics. It combines classical formal semantics and sleek dynamic semantics with out changing the basic paradigm. on the book’s middle lies a pragmatically influenced thought of a dynamic conjunction of meanings, an concept that's labored out in complete formal element. this is often utilized to linguistic phenomena that contain anaphora, quantification and modality. the writer demonstrates that during each one quarter of program present facts should be smartly mixed with new dynamic insights, yet extra importantly, there's a real extra pay-off: the paintings generates remedies of phenomena that weren't at the beginning meant, with practical readings of pronouns and quantifiers, ‘Hob-Nob’ sentences, and insights into what we now name ‘Pierce’s Puzzle’. the end result of a decade of labor by way of the Amsterdam college of dynamic semantics, this quantity condenses and displays upon an important physique of research.
Read or Download Dynamic Semantics PDF
Best semantics books
Utilizing a cognitive linguistics standpoint, this paintings offers the main accomplished, theoretical research of the semantics of English prepositions to be had. All English prepositions are initially coded as spatial family among actual entities. whereas keeping their unique that means, prepositions have additionally constructed a wealthy set of non-spatial meanings.
Within the Dynamics of which means, Gennaro Chierchia tackles principal concerns in dynamic semantics and extends the overall framework. bankruptcy 1 introduces the concept of dynamic semantics and discusses intimately the phenomena which were used to inspire it, reminiscent of "donkey" sentences and adverbs of quantification.
This article deals a philosophical exam of the elemental conceptual framework of pragmatic concept, and contrasts this framework with precise descriptions of our daily practices of language use. whereas the implications could be hugely appropriate to pragmatics, the research isn't a contribution to pragmatic thought.
A scary new method of how we comprehend metaphors completely evaluating and contrasting the claims made through relevance theorists and cognitive linguists. The ensuing hybrid idea exhibits the complementarity of many positions in addition to the necessity and danger of accomplishing a broader and extra practical idea of our knowing.
- Written Reliquaries: The Resonance of Orality in Medieval English Texts
- Studies in Syntax and Semantics
- Directionality and Logical Form: On the Scope of Focusing Particles and Wh-in-situ
- Semiotics of International Law: Trade and Translation
Additional info for Dynamic Semantics
However, in all of these cases we can always use an α-converted variant of the formula to be resolved, which, by observation (5) above, is fully equivalent. I now present an application of the Binding Algorithm to example (13), repeated here for convenience: (13) Once there was a queen. Her son fell in love with a frog. He kissed it, and she got mad. ((∃x Qx ∧ ∃y(Sy ∧ ∃z(F z ∧ L yz))) ∧ (K p1 p2 ∧ Mp3 )). The algorithm applies as follows. • [((∃x Qx ∧ ∃y(Sy ∧ ∃z(F z ∧ L yz))) ∧ (K p1 p2 ∧ Mp3 ))]?
These representations are very often rather large structured wholes and communicating them involves cutting them into pieces. When these wholes have been cut into pieces, and other agents have to glue the pieces together, the structural relations between (the parts of) the pieces have to be re-established of course. The three frameworks mentioned present typical ways in which this may be done, for the typical kind of relationships which, in natural language, we encounter as identity anaphora. The way in which this task is achieved in classical DRT , that of (Kamp 1981; Kamp and Reyle 1993), may be pictured as follows.
Consider the previous example again. 3 Logical Properties of PLA 35 He is an Irish boy. The conclusion, however, does not follow from He is an Irish boy, and he wrote a non-Irish friend. (18) IBp1 |= IBp1 , but IBp1 , ∃y(¬IBy ∧ W p1 y)) |= IBp1 . The non-transitive aspects of entailment already can be witnessed from Johan van Benthem’s “dynamic” counterexample to Aristotle’s prime example of a valid syllogism, Barbara. Barbara relies on the transitivity of the universal quantifier, and in van Benthem’s counterexample the cutting of Barbara’s middle term causes the break down of an anaphoric connection.