Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 10

Abstract

ZASPiL 44(1).2006 contains 18 articles.

On Quantification and Extensionality

“…In Section 6, we imagined our two camps not being content with this annoyingly philosophical outcome, and wondered what arguments there might be to favor the grammar schema Ext over NExt or vice versa, arguments that would then indirectly 31 The central insight of this proposal, as we see it, is that in the case of physical ostension, the identification of the relevant object can be construed as an entirely rule-based, grammaticalized mechanism rather than a more or less free-wheeling attempt to guess the speaker's referential intention. 32 Basically the same analysis is independently suggested by Ebert et al [4]. They, too, work in a dynamic framework; the projection of their analysis of deictic utterances into our setting gives essentially ∃v i (vi = d ∧ φ) rather than our Dv i φ, where again it is assumed that I(d ) = I(D) (cf.…”

“…This is what we propose to do in this essay. 3 That contradictory answers should have been given is the more surprising in light of the fact that the two parties appear to agree on what we might call the generating syntax (i.e., the inductive definition of the well-formed expressions, particularly of quantified formulas), the ingredients for the semantic evaluation of well-formed expressions (to wit, model-theoretic structures and variable assignments), and the recursive (Tarskian [23]) steps to be taken in evaluating expressions relative to structures and variable assignments, as well as, presumably, on what it takes for well-formed expressions to be coextensive: 4 • Two sentences are coextensive if and only if they are both true or both false.…”

“…Our discussion might also be usefully compared to that by Glanzberg and King [5], who react to Rabern's [16] diagnosis that the treatment of quantification in Kaplan [8] is not compositional (see Pickel and Rabern [12] for a critique). 4 We will make these criteria more precise below. 5 We intend "grammar" to be understood in the broad sense of a complete description of a language system, including in particular both syntax and semantics (as e.g.…”

Prosody and head gestures as markers of information status in French as a native and foreign language

“…While there is a large body of empirical evidence showing that referential manual gestures performed during speech tend to mark the introduction of new referents (e.g., Debreslioska et al, 2013;Ebert et al, 2011, Gullberg, 2003Levy & Fowler, 2000;Levy & McNeill, 2009;Marslen-Wilson et al, 1982;Yoshioka, 2008) and accessible referents (Debreslioska & Gullberg, 2020, 2022Rohrer, 2022), only a few studies have looked at the potential joint effects of prosody and gesture, what we also call multimodal marking. Türk (2020) investigated the multimodal marking of information structure in Turkish and found that both referential and non-referential manual gestures were systematically synchronised with pitch accents and tended to be paired with foci and contrastive elements.…”

Co-linguistic content inferences: From gestures to sound effects and emoji

“…Co-speech gestures —gestures temporally aligned with spoken content—serve a variety of purposes, including lightening the cognitive burden of language production (Gillespie et al, 2014; Goldin-Meadow et al, 2001; Krauss, 1998), marking information-structural features like focus (Ebert et al, 2011; Wilmes, 2009), and contributing additional meaningful content to the speaker’s utterance. An instance of the latter use of gestures can be seen in (1), in which the upwards-pointing gesture up coincides with the verb phrase “use the stairs,” generating an inference that the girl will take the stairs upwards:(1) The girl will [use the stairs] up .⤳The girl will go up the stairs.…”