Possible Worlds and Subject Matter. Discussion of Barbara H. Partee’s paper “Possible Worlds in Model-Theoretic Semantics: A Linguistic Perspective”

Perry, J.; Allén, Sture

doi:10.1515/9783110866858.124

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We note here that aggregation and combination are often considered distinct epistemic actions: for example, in [39] it is argued that aggregation is just a necessary condition for combination, and that combination (differently from aggregation) is generative and fallible. As hyperintensionality is one of our main desiderata, we will consider in more detail a counterexample to (E.E) adapted from [28].…”

Section: Closure Principles Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we draw from the observation that possible worlds semantics is not adequate to represent the informational content of prospositions (see e.g. [28]) and distinguish between two epistemically salient notions of support, intensional and extensional truth, with their corresponding classes of semantic objects, intensional and extensional propositions. The former consists of information states, while the latter of possible worlds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Hyperintensional Logic of Non-prime Evidence

Vigiani

2024

J Philos Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a logic of evidence that reduces agents’ epistemic idealisations by combining classical propositional logic with substructural modal logic for formulas in the scope of epistemic modalities. To this aim, we provide a neighborhood semantics of evidence, which provides a modal extension of Fine’s semantics for relevant propositional logic. Possible worlds semantics for classical propositional logic is then obtained by defining the set of possible worlds as a special subset of information states in Fine’s semantics. Finally, we prove that evidence is a hyperintensional and non-prime notion in our logic, and provide a sound and complete axiomatisation of our evidence logic.

show abstract

Section: Closure Principles Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Hyperintensional Logic of Non-prime Evidence

Vigiani

2024

J Philos Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…in English, the difficulty in accounting for available readings to this construction is described as the pathological properties problem (cf. Beldin and Rawlins, 2021; See also Perry 1989Perry /2000, who raises a related triviality worry for Partee's 1989 'possible worldaboutness'. )…”

Section: The Underlying Representation Of 'Xp-nun?'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Single/Multiple Fragments with NUN

Park¹

2021

Lang. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the Korean 'what/how about' construction. In Korean, unlike English, the wh-question word 'what/how' is typically phonologically suppressed and the particle '-(N)UN' is used, corresponding to the English preposition 'about'. Departing from Chung's (2021) recent work on this construction, this paper makes three claims. First, three distinct uses of this construction indicate that '-(N)UN' can be not only a contrastive topic marker but also a (contrastive) focus marker. Second, the underlying representation of this construction is that the pre-'(N)UN' part has a clausal structure that undergoes elision, leaving behind single or multiple fragment remnants. Meanwhile, the post-'(N)UN' part has ettehkey toy(-ess)-ni 'what happened'/ etteh-ni 'how'/ ettehkey ha-l ke-ni 'how do you cope with', where ettekey or ettehaasks a polar or wh-constituent question relating to the pre-'(N)UN' clause. Third, the formation of single or multiple fragment remnants is achieved via Move & Delete, where more specifically Move is the operation of scrambling widely available to the Korean language.

show abstract

“…with 'talks about' or 'is about'. The intensionality of notions of aboutness and subject matter is well established (Martı ´1989;Perry 1989), and it has been widely noted that 'about' is an intensional preposition, which occasions intensional contexts (Montague 1974, p. 267). But while the intensionality of aboutness is well known, the intensionality of 'refers to' and 'applies to' is surprising: what words refer to and apply to are typically taken to be thoroughly extensional notions, and 'refers' is supposedly an extensional verb par excellence.…”

Section: Representational Verbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic Verbs Are Intensional Transitives

D’Ambrosio

2017

Mind

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I show that we have strong empirical and theoretical reasons to treat the verbs we use in our semantic theorizing-particularly 'refers (to)', 'applies (to)', and 'is true (of )'-as intensional transitive verbs (ITVs). Stating our semantic theories with intensional vocabulary allows us to partially reconcile two competing approaches to the nature and subject-matter of semantics: the Chomskian approach, on which semantics is non-relational, internalistic, and concerns the psychology of language users, and the Lewisian approach, on which semantics is fully relational, specifies truth-conditions, and has metaphysical implications. ITVs have two readings: an intensional, de dicto reading, and a relational, de re reading. A semantic theory stated with the de dicto readings of our semantic verbs captures the core insights of the Chomskian approach to semantics, in part because it allows us to assign extremely fine-grained semantic values to expressions, even when those expressions are empty. On the other hand, the de re reading yields a theory that is fully relational, and issues in truth-conditions. The resulting theories are relatedand compatible-in that they are expressed by two different readings of the very same semantic vocabulary, and plausibly, the distinction between these two readings is one of scope.

show abstract

Possible Worlds and Subject Matter. Discussion of Barbara H. Partee’s paper “Possible Worlds in Model-Theoretic Semantics: A Linguistic Perspective”

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

A Hyperintensional Logic of Non-prime Evidence

A Hyperintensional Logic of Non-prime Evidence

Single/Multiple Fragments with NUN

Semantic Verbs Are Intensional Transitives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About