Book•
Logics and languages
01 Jan 1973-
About: The article was published on 1973-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 361 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Semantics (computer science).
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: A range of semantic and pragmatic applications of the theory are examined, and a unitary principle specifying how the focus semantic value interacts with semantics and pragmatic processes is extracted.
Abstract: According to the alternative semantics for focus, the semantic reflec of intonational focus is a second semantic value, which in the case of a sentence is a set of propositions. We examine a range of semantic and pragmatic applications of the theory, and extract a unitary principle specifying how the focus semantic value interacts with semantic and pragmatic processes. A strong version of the theory has the effect of making lexical or construction-specific stipulation of a focus-related effect in association-with-focus constructions impossible. Furthermore, while focus has a uniform import, the sources of meaning differences in association with focus are various.
2,197 citations
Cites methods from "Logics and languages"
...In the interest of the appearance of simplicity, I am using a notation which hides intensionality, with the intent of introducing it in the way described in (Cresswell, 1973), and applied to alternative semantics in (von Stechow, 1989)....
[...]
...3In the interest of the appearance of simplicity, I am using a notation which hides intensionality, with the intent of introducing it in the way described in (Cresswell, 1973), and applied to alternative semantics in (von Stechow, 1989)....
[...]
01 Jan 1996
TL;DR: In this paper, Davidson drew a clear distinction between arguments and adjuncts, and pointed out that ignoring temporal relations, sentences like "We bought your slippers in Marrakesh" ignore temporal relations.
Abstract: In his analysis of action sentences, Donald Davidson drew a clear distinction between arguments and adjuncts. Neglecting temporal relations, sentences like
(1)
We bought your slippers in Marrakesh.
1,500 citations
TL;DR: This article presented a novel account of the syntax and semantics of questions, making use of the framework for linguistic description developed by Richard Montague (1974), but it differs from all of its predecessors in one way or another.
Abstract: This paper presents a novel account of the syntax and semantics of questions, making use of the framework for linguistic description developed by Richard Montague (1974). Certain features of the proposal are based on work by N. Belnap (1963), L. Aqvist (1965), C. L. Baker (1968, 1970), S. Kuno and J. Robinson (1972), C. L. Hamblin (1973), E. Keenan and R. Hull (1973), J. Hintikka (1974), Lewis (1975), and D. Wunderlich (1975), but it differs from all of its predecessors in one way or another. I will start with a number of observations which provide the basis for the treatment of questions presented in the second part of the paper and conclude with a summary and a brief discussion of how the proposed description compares with recent transformational analyses.
826 citations
TL;DR: The characteristic prominence patterns of "novelty focus" and "contrastive focus" both arise from a combination of the Givenness Constraint and AvoidF, which synthesizes insights from the literature on the semantics of focus with older views on information structure.
Abstract: This paper strives to characterize the relation between accent placement and discourse in terms of independent constraints operating at the interface between syntax and interpretation. The Givenness Constraint requires un-F-marked constituents to be given. Key here is our definition of givenness, which synthesizes insights from the literature on the semantics of focus with older views on information structure. AvoidF requires speakers to economize on F-marking. A third constraint requires a subset of F-markers to dominate accents. The characteristic prominence patterns of "novelty focus" and "contrastive focus" both arise from a combination of the Givenness Constraint and AvoidF. Patterns of prominence in questions as well as in answers to questions are explained in terms of the constraints, thanks in part to the way in which the Givenness relation is defined. Head/argument asymmetries noted in the literature on Focus Projection are placed in the phonology-syntax interface, independent of discourse conditions. Deaccenting follows when AvoidF is ranked higher than constraint(s) governing head/argument asymmetries.
730 citations
Cites methods from "Logics and languages"
...Following Cresswell (1973) and subse- quent applications of that system to the semantics of focus, we take type t to be the type of propositions: (26) Existential Type Shift: ExClo a....
[...]
TL;DR: There is a parallel between the two sets of distinctions in their cooccurrence patterns with expressions denoting numbers or amounts, as in Examples (1a–(4b):.
Abstract: A number of writers have commented on the close parallels between the mass-count distinction in nominal systems and the aspectual classification of verbal expressions (Allen, 1966; Mourelatos, 1978; L. Carlson, 1981; Hoepelman and Rohrer, 1980) that has been the subject of much attention in recent years in linguistics and philosophy. To take just one class of examples for now, there is a parallel between the two sets of distinctions in their cooccurrence patterns with expressions denoting numbers or amounts, as in Examples (1a)–(4b):
720 citations