Dynamically oriented theories of semantics emphasize the context change potential of sentences. Context change potential depends on the context in which it is computed, since lexical expressions in any natural language tend to display a great number of contextually determined different readings. As context change potential is realized via update operations, updates of discourse record by sentences with such lexical expressions require computing contextual variants. Thus there is a need for a theory (or theories) of how to code the dependency of contextual variants on the context.In a number of theories dealing with this problem the point of departure is a very general underspecified lexical meaning which is seen as the contextual invariant of the semantics of a lexical expression and is made more specific according to the demands of the communication situation. Attempts to characterize this assumed more general kind of meaning are usually based on deductive mechanisms, using sometimes second-order logic, sometimes more general type systems, and designed so that The U {c_variantLd 1= semLE and The U {semLE} 1=t.J, ... , & c_variantLE hold, where 1= is the relation of semantic entailment, The context, semLE semantic invariant of lexical expression LE, c_variantLE its variant in context c, and t.J, ... ,t.n are the stipulated rules of contextual variation which extend 1= by allowing the necessary inference. A simple theory of this kind would postulate the invariant to be the disjunction of its contextual variants, and infer the meaning in a context by letting those disjuncts which do not provide a reading in this particular context be false, i.e. let semLE B AJvA2vA3 and let Th e entail -,AJ&-,A2 . Then c_variantLE B A3. Note that AJ and A2 are simply fa lse in this context, which is a poor rendering of the unavailability of a reading. More sophisticated theories use more sophisticated rules. The rules and the invariant are sources of difficulties, if contextual variation is strong.The meaning of the German preposition mit, which roughly corresponds to the English with, in its use as the head of a verbal modifier-PP shows a great contextual variability and depends in its meaning on the meaning of the verb it modifies, i.e. on the thematic structure of the situation. Simple-minded canceling of incompatible disjuncts is insuffi cient to characterize either its variation or this dependence. Moreover, even more sophisticated theories which use direct deduction seem to be ill equipped to provide such a characterization. Therefore, this paper proposes that update operations wrt. lexical items are based not on merely deductive, but on abductive inferential behavior, subsuming default
Developments in computational linguistics lead to the conception of sense extension rules in the lexicon as a theory of regular polysemy. Lexical rules are defined only on such semantic information as is in the lexicon with the desired effect of restricting the amount of semantic information in the lexical representation of ambiguous items. The paper presents some examples which indicate difficulties for this approach, argues for pragmatically based rules which use conceptual information, and proposes a programmatic partial formalization of this approach in the framework of abductive interpretation.
This volume presents a collection of papers touching on various issues concerning the syntax and semantics of predicative constructions. A hot topic in the study of predicative copula constructions, with direct implications for the treatment of he (how many he's do we need?), and wider implications for the theories of predication, event-based semantics and aspect, is the nature and source of the situation argument. Closer examination of copula-less predications is becoming increasingly relevant to all these issues, as is clearly illustrated by the present collection.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.