語用論(Pragmatics)を考える

A natural history of human thinking

Thank you very much for reading logic in grammar polarity free choice and intervention. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have look numerous times for their chosen novels like this logic in grammar polarity free choice and intervention, but end up in harmful downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they are facing with some harmful virus inside their computer.

Logic In Grammar Polarity Free Choice And Intervention

Optimality Theory: References

BIBLIOGRAPHY For the medical writers, see Gunnu, DOUGLAS, A History of Medicine, Edinburgh, 1958, pp. 72f. (Celsus), 107f. (Michael Scot), 116 (Dioscorides). Also WALKE, KENNEH, Histoire de la Medecine, Verviers, 1958, mise a jour by VICTOR CHEVALI, p. 213 (Apuleius). (Tbis translation was the latest edition of the work which this writer was able to consult. On p. 213, incidentally, are the words: 'Pendant le Moyen Age ... cette pratique mis6ricordieuse [of pre-surgical sedation] fut abandonn6e-sans doute pour 6viter le risque d'administrer une dose trop forte.') For classical and Christian writers, see RAHNBR, Huoo, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, London, 1963, pp. 258f. (Clement, Ambrose, Cyril). For Lawrence of Lindores see Scottish Historical Review, 1911, 8, 225-46, 333-58 (ANDmtsoN); Philosophical Quarterly, 1955, 5, 348-54 (BAxTR). The content and temper of the De anima commentary can be seen in chs. 6 and 7 of MOONAN, LAWRENCE, 'Lawrence of Lindores (d. 1437) on Life in the Living Being' (unpublished doctorate thesis, Louvain, ISP, 1966). The present writer is now working on a larger scale examination of the life and thought of Lindores. L. MOONAN

[the university of california, los angeles].

I prove that there are phonological patterns which are expressible by ordered rewrite rules but not by any Optimality Theoretic (OT) grammar whose constraint set contains only markedness constraints and single–state faithfulness constraints, i.e. faithfulness constraints that assign violation marks to pairs of single input–output segments in correspondence, with no reference to other segments in the input or output. The intention is to capture formally the widespread intuition that certain opaque patterns, which are expressible by ordered rewrite rules, are problematic for classic, or traditional, OT.

/pdf/on-the-expressivity-of-optimality-theory-versus-ordered-xzxe3duoxw.pdf

On the Expressivity of Optimality Theory versus Ordered Rewrite Rules

\n Content words (e.g. nouns and adjectives) are generally connected: there are no gaps in their denotations; no noun means ‘table or shoe’ or ‘animal or house’. We explore a formulation of connectedness which is applicable to content and logical words alike, and which compares well with the classic notion of monotonicity for quantifiers. On a first inspection, logical words satisfy this generalized version of the connectedness property at least as well as content words do — that is, both in terms of what may be observed in the lexicons of natural languages (although our investigations remain modest in that respect) and in terms of acquisition biases (with an artificial rule learning experiment). This reduces the putative differences between content and logical words, as well as the associated challenges that these differences would pose, e.g., for learners.

/pdf/connecting-content-and-logical-words-wnsazdpwcz.pdf

Connecting Content and Logical Words

In this article, we describe and attempt to solve a puzzle arising from the interpretation of modified numerals like less than five and between two and five. The puzzle is this: such modified numerals seem to mean different things depending on whether they combine with distributive or non-distributive predicates. When they combine with distributive predicates, they intuitively impose a kind of upper bound, whereas when they combine with non-distributive predicates, they do not (they sometimes even impose a lower bound). We propose and explore in detail four solutions to this puzzle, each involving some notion of maximality, but differing in the type of maximality involved (‘standard’ maximality versus ‘informativity-based’ maximality) and in the source of maximality (lexically encoded in the meaning of the numeral modifier versus non-lexical). While the full range of data we consider do not conclusively favor one theory over the other three, we do argue that overall the evidence (i) goes against the view that modified numerals lexically encode a ‘standard’ maximality operator, and (ii) suggests the need for a pragmatic blocking mechanism that filters out readings (logical forms) of sentences that are generated by the grammar but intuitively unavailable.

Modified numerals and maximality

\n In recent work, Fox (2016) has argued, on the basis of both empirical and conceptual considerations, that relevance (the set of propositions relevant in an utterance context) is closed under speaker belief: if $\\phi $ is relevant, then it’s also relevant whether the speaker believes $\\phi $. We provide a formally explicit implementation of this idea and explore its theoretical consequences and empirical predictions. As Fox (2016) already observes, one consequence is that ignorance inferences (and scalar implicatures) can only be derived in grammar, via a covert belief operator of the sort proposed by Meyer (2013). We show, further, that the maxim of quantity no longer enriches the meaning of an utterance, per se, but rather acts as a filter on what can be relevant in an utterance context. In particular, certain alternatives (of certain utterances) are shown to be incapable of being relevant in any context where the maxim of quantity is active — a property we dub obligatory irrelevance. We show that the resulting system predicts a quite restricted range of interpretations for sentences with the scalar item some, as compared to both neo-Gricean (Geurts, 2010; Horn, 1972; Sauerland, 2004) and grammatical (Chierchia et al., 2012; Fox, 2007; Meyer, 2013) theories of scalar implicature, and we argue that these predictions seem largely on the right track.

Obligatory Irrelevance and the Computation of Ignorance Inferences

Nouwen (2010) proposes that numeral modifiers like “at most” and “up to” belong to a natural class of expressions that share the same semantic interpretation. We identify several semantic contrasts between “at most” and “up to” that are inconsistent with this proposal. Moreover, we show that Nouwen’s semantics cannot be right for “at most”. In attempting to apply his semantics to “up to”, we propose an amendment intended to accomodate certain observations not captured in Nouwen’s original account.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.1

 BibTeX info

/pdf/two-types-of-class-b-numeral-modifiers-a-reply-to-nouwen-5dzp6uetm1.pdf

Brian Buccola

Papers

On the Expressivity of Optimality Theory versus Ordered Rewrite Rules

Connecting Content and Logical Words

Modified numerals and maximality

Obligatory Irrelevance and the Computation of Ignorance Inferences

Two types of class B numeral modifiers: A reply to Nouwen 2010