Université de Neuchâtel, 19 January 2009 Time and Probability: A Contextual Semantic Account Kasia...

Université de Neuchâtel, 19 January 2009Université de Neuchâtel, 19 January 2009

Time and Probability:Time and Probability:A Contextual Semantic AccountA Contextual Semantic Account

Kasia M. JaszczoltKasia M. JaszczoltUniversity of Cambridge, U. K.University of Cambridge, U. K.

http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kmj21http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kmj21

22

(1)(1) mm33ae:rae:r33i:i:II khkh22ianian nn33iyiy33ai:ai:

MaryMary writewrite novelnovel

33

(1)(1)(a)(a) Mary wrote a novel.Mary wrote a novel.(b)(b) Mary was writing a novel.Mary was writing a novel.(c)(c) Mary started writing a novel but did not finish it.Mary started writing a novel but did not finish it.(d)(d) Mary has written a novel.Mary has written a novel.(e)(e) Mary has been writing a novel.Mary has been writing a novel.(f)(f) Mary writes novels. / Mary is a novelist.Mary writes novels. / Mary is a novelist.(g)(g) Mary is writing a novel.Mary is writing a novel.(h)(h) Mary will write a novel.Mary will write a novel.(i)(i) Mary will be writing a novel.Mary will be writing a novel.

from Srioutai (2006: 45)from Srioutai (2006: 45)

44

(2)(2) ff33onon tt11okok

rain rain fallfall

(a)(a) It is raining. (default meaning)It is raining. (default meaning)(b)(b) It was raining. (possible intended meaning)It was raining. (possible intended meaning)

55

OutlineOutline

Contextualism in the truth-conditional approach to Contextualism in the truth-conditional approach to meaningmeaning

Default Semantics (Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005, 2009, Default Semantics (Jaszczolt, e.g. 2005, 2009, forthcoming) forthcoming) Unit of analysisUnit of analysis Sources of information contributing to the unitSources of information contributing to the unit Pragmatic compositionalityPragmatic compositionality Merger representations: towards a formalizationMerger representations: towards a formalization

Representing time in DSRepresenting time in DS

66

Post-Gricean theory of utterance/ discoursePost-Gricean theory of utterance/ discourse

meaningmeaning

radical pragmaticsradical pragmatics

sense-generalitysense-generality

contextualismcontextualism

77

(3)(3) Some British people like cricket.Some British people like cricket.(3a)(3a) Some Some but not allbut not all British people like cricket. British people like cricket.

(4)(4) Tom dropped a camera and it broke.Tom dropped a camera and it broke.(4a)(4a) Tom dropped a camera Tom dropped a camera and as a resultand as a result it broke. it broke.

(5)(5) Everybody went to Geneva.Everybody went to Geneva.(5a)(5a) Every member of the research group Every member of the research group went to went to

Geneva.Geneva.

88

Semantic analysis takes us only part of the way Semantic analysis takes us only part of the way towards the recovery of utterance meaning. towards the recovery of utterance meaning. Pragmatic enrichment completes the process.Pragmatic enrichment completes the process.

Enrichment: Enrichment:

andand +> and then, and as a result+> and then, and as a result

somesome +> some but not all+> some but not all

everybodyeverybody +> everybody in the room, every +> everybody in the room, every acquaintance of the speaker, etc.acquaintance of the speaker, etc.

99

Modulation (Recanati 2004, 2005):Modulation (Recanati 2004, 2005):

The logical form becomes enriched/modulated as a The logical form becomes enriched/modulated as a result of pragmatic inference and the entire result of pragmatic inference and the entire semantic/pragmatic product becomes subjected to the semantic/pragmatic product becomes subjected to the truth-conditional analysis.truth-conditional analysis.

1010

what is saidwhat is said (Recanati) (Recanati) primary meaningprimary meaning (Jaszczolt) (Jaszczolt)

1111

what is saidwhat is said (Recanati) (Recanati) primary meaningprimary meaning (Jaszczolt) (Jaszczolt)

?? Question:Question:

How far can the logical form be extended? ‘How much How far can the logical form be extended? ‘How much pragmatics’ is allowed in the semantic representation?pragmatics’ is allowed in the semantic representation?

1212

Aspects of meaning are added to the truth-conditional Aspects of meaning are added to the truth-conditional content (content (‘what is said’‘what is said’) when they conform to our pre-) when they conform to our pre-theoretic intuitions. theoretic intuitions. Availability Principle (Recanati).Availability Principle (Recanati).

1313

The logical form of the sentence can not only be The logical form of the sentence can not only be extended but also replaced by a new semantic extended but also replaced by a new semantic representation when the primary, intended meaning representation when the primary, intended meaning demands it. Such extensions or substitutions are demands it. Such extensions or substitutions are primary primary meaningsmeanings and their representations are and their representations are merger merger representationsrepresentations in in Default SemanticsDefault Semantics.. There is no There is no syntactic constraint on merger representationssyntactic constraint on merger representations..

1414

Object of study of the theory of meaning:Object of study of the theory of meaning:

Discourse meaning intended by Model Speaker and Discourse meaning intended by Model Speaker and recovered by Model Addressee (recovered by Model Addressee (primary meaningprimary meaning))

1515

(6)(6) You are not going to die, Peter.You are not going to die, Peter.

(6a)(6a) There is no future time at which you will die, There is no future time at which you will die, Peter.Peter.

(6b)(6b) You are not going to die from this cut, Peter.You are not going to die from this cut, Peter.(6c)(6c) There is nothing to worry about, Peter.There is nothing to worry about, Peter.

Default Semantics: Default Semantics: (6c)(6c) – substituted proposition – substituted proposition (primary meaning)(primary meaning)

1616

Summary so farSummary so far

The output of syntactic processing often leaves the The output of syntactic processing often leaves the meaning underdetermined.meaning underdetermined.

1717



The object of study of a theory of meaning is a The object of study of a theory of meaning is a pragmatically modified representation. (Default pragmatically modified representation. (Default Semantics is a radical contextualist theory.)Semantics is a radical contextualist theory.)

1818



This pragmatically modified representation is an object of This pragmatically modified representation is an object of study of a theory of meaning (Default Semantics is a study of a theory of meaning (Default Semantics is a radical contextualist theory).radical contextualist theory).

There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study. There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study.

1919



This pragmatically modified representation is an object of This pragmatically modified representation is an object of study of a theory of meaning (Default Semantics is a study of a theory of meaning (Default Semantics is a radical contextualist theory).radical contextualist theory).

There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study. There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study.

Discourse meaning is construed as meaning intended by Discourse meaning is construed as meaning intended by the Model Speaker and recovered by Model Addressee.the Model Speaker and recovered by Model Addressee.

2020

Going beyond contextualism: Going beyond contextualism:

DS does not recognize the level of meaning at DS does not recognize the level of meaning at which the logical form is pragmatically which the logical form is pragmatically developed/modulated as a real, interesting, and developed/modulated as a real, interesting, and cognitively justified construct. cognitively justified construct.

To do so would be to assume that syntax plays To do so would be to assume that syntax plays a privileged role among various carriers of a privileged role among various carriers of information (contextualists’ mistake).information (contextualists’ mistake).

2121

(7)(7) Child: Can I go punting?Child: Can I go punting?

Mother: You are too small.Mother: You are too small.

(A) The child is too small to go punting.(A) The child is too small to go punting.

(B) The child can’t go punting. (B) The child can’t go punting.

2222

(7)(7) Child: Can I go punting?Child: Can I go punting?Mother: You are too small.Mother: You are too small.

(A) The child is too small to go punting.(A) The child is too small to go punting.(B) The child can’t go punting. (B) The child can’t go punting.

(6)(6) Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Mother: You are not going to die.Mother: You are not going to die.

(A) The boy is not going to die from the cut.(A) The boy is not going to die from the cut.(B1) There is nothing to worry about.(B1) There is nothing to worry about.(B2) It’s not a big deal. (B2) It’s not a big deal.

2323

(7)(7) Child: Can I go punting?Child: Can I go punting?Mother: You are too small.Mother: You are too small.

(A)(A) The child is too small to go punting.The child is too small to go punting.(B) The child can’t go punting. (B) The child can’t go punting.

(6)(6) Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Mother: You are not going to die.Mother: You are not going to die.

(A) The boy is not going to die from the cut.(A) The boy is not going to die from the cut.(B1) There is nothing to worry about.(B1) There is nothing to worry about.(B2) It’s not a big deal. (B2) It’s not a big deal.

2424

Interlocutors frequently communicate their main intended Interlocutors frequently communicate their main intended content through a proposition which is not syntactically content through a proposition which is not syntactically restricted.restricted.

Experimental evidence:Experimental evidence:

Nicolle and Clark 1999Nicolle and Clark 1999

Pitts 2005Pitts 2005

Sysoeva and Jaszczolt 2007 Sysoeva and Jaszczolt 2007

2525

Merger Representation Merger Representation

Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called merger merger

representationsrepresentations..

2626


Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called merger merger representationsrepresentations. .

The outputs of sources of information about meaning The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing. footing.

2727



The outputs of sources of information about meaning The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned. footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned.

Merger representations have the status of mental Merger representations have the status of mental representations. representations.

2828



The outputs of sources of information about meaning The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned. footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned.

Merger representations have the status of mental Merger representations have the status of mental representations. representations.

They have a compositional structure: they are They have a compositional structure: they are proposition-like, truth-conditionally evaluable constructs, proposition-like, truth-conditionally evaluable constructs, integrating information coming from various sources integrating information coming from various sources that interacts according to the principles established by that interacts according to the principles established by the intentional character of discourse. the intentional character of discourse.

2929

Sources of information for Sources of information for ::

(i)(i) world knowledge (WK);world knowledge (WK);

(ii)(ii) word meaning and sentence structure (WS);word meaning and sentence structure (WS);

(iii)(iii) situation of discourse (SD);situation of discourse (SD);

(iv)(iv) properties of the human inferential system (IS);properties of the human inferential system (IS);

(v)(v) stereotypes and presumptions about society and stereotypes and presumptions about society and culture (SC). culture (SC).

3030

SCSC

(8)(8) A Botticelli was stolen from the Uffizi last week.A Botticelli was stolen from the Uffizi last week.

(8a)(8a) A painting by BotticelliA painting by Botticelli was stolen from was stolen from the Uffizi the Uffizi Gallery in FlorenceGallery in Florence last week. last week.

3131

WKWK

(9)(9) The temperature fell below -10 degrees The temperature fell below -10 degrees Celsius Celsius and the lake froze.and the lake froze.

(9a)(9a) The temperature fell below -10 degrees Celsius The temperature fell below -10 degrees Celsius and as a resultand as a result the lake froze. the lake froze.

3232

ISIS

(10)(10) The author of The author of Cloud AtlasCloud Atlas has breathtaking has breathtaking sensitivity and imagination.sensitivity and imagination.

(10a)(10a) David MitchellDavid Mitchell has breathtaking sensitivity and has breathtaking sensitivity and imagination.imagination.

world knowledge (WK)

word meaning and sentence structure (WS)

situation of discourse (SD)

stereotypes and presumptions properties of human inferential system (IS) about society and culture (SC)

Fig. 1: Sources of information contributing to a merger representation Σ

merger representation Σ

3434

The model of sources of information can be mapped The model of sources of information can be mapped onto onto types of processestypes of processes that produce the merger that produce the merger representation representation of the primary meaning and the of the primary meaning and the additional (secondary) meanings. additional (secondary) meanings.

Primary meaning:

combination of word meaning and sentence structure (WS)

conscious pragmatic inferencepm (from situation of discourse, social and

social, cultural and cognitive defaults (CD) cultural assumptions, and world world-knowledge defaultspm (SCWDpm) knowledge) (CPIpm) Secondary meanings:

Social, cultural and world-knowledge defaultssm (SCWDsm) conscious pragmatic inferencesm (CPIsm)

Fig. 2: Utterance interpretation according to the processing model of the revised version of Default Semantics

merger representation Σ

3636

Mapping between sources and processesMapping between sources and processes

WK WK SCWD or CPISCWD or CPI

SC SC SCWD or CPISCWD or CPIWS WS WS WS (logical form)(logical form)SD SD CPICPIIS IS CDCD

In building merger representations DS makes use of the In building merger representations DS makes use of the processing model and it indexes the components of processing model and it indexes the components of with a subscript standing for the type of processing.with a subscript standing for the type of processing.

3737

Psychological plausibility of rich (contextualist) semantic Psychological plausibility of rich (contextualist) semantic content:content:

‘‘I think that it is agreed on all sides that I think that it is agreed on all sides that ifif it is a fact that it is a fact that P is the semantic content of S (perhaps relative to P is the semantic content of S (perhaps relative to context), then this fact must be grounded in natural context), then this fact must be grounded in natural psychological and/or sociological facts concerning the psychological and/or sociological facts concerning the abilities and practices of competent speakers and abilities and practices of competent speakers and interpreters. If the alleged facts concerning semantic interpreters. If the alleged facts concerning semantic content are not somehow grounded in such natural facts, content are not somehow grounded in such natural facts, then semantics would not fit into Chomsky’s cognitive then semantics would not fit into Chomsky’s cognitive paradigm in linguistics, nor even into the broader project paradigm in linguistics, nor even into the broader project of “naturalizing epistemology”.’ of “naturalizing epistemology”.’

Clapp (2007: 251)Clapp (2007: 251)

3838

There is a need to distinguish the two kinds of There is a need to distinguish the two kinds of processes: the conscious, inferential one and the processes: the conscious, inferential one and the automatic, subdoxastic one.automatic, subdoxastic one.

Cf.: Levinson (2000) & Recanati (2002, 2004) – w.r.t. Cf.: Levinson (2000) & Recanati (2002, 2004) – w.r.t. primary meaningsprimary meanings

3939

Compositionality of Primary MeaningsCompositionality of Primary Meanings Schiffer (e. g. 1991, 1994, 2003): compositionality is not Schiffer (e. g. 1991, 1994, 2003): compositionality is not

a necessary property of semantics; composition of a necessary property of semantics; composition of meaning may simply reflect compositional reality. meaning may simply reflect compositional reality. Meaning supervenes on the structure of the world. Meaning supervenes on the structure of the world.

Recanati (2004): compositionality belongs to enriched, Recanati (2004): compositionality belongs to enriched, modulated propositions. ‘Interactionist’, ‘Gestaltist’ modulated propositions. ‘Interactionist’, ‘Gestaltist’ approach to compositionality.approach to compositionality.

DS: compositionality of DS: compositionality of utteranceutterance meaning rather than meaning rather than sentencesentence meaning. meaning.

4040

Merger representations are Merger representations are compositional structures.compositional structures.

4141

Selected applications of DSSelected applications of DS

Origins: Jaszczolt 1992, 1999. Origins: Jaszczolt 1992, 1999. Parsimony of Levels Parsimony of Levels (POL) Principle(POL) Principle: Levels of senses are not to be multiplied : Levels of senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. beyond necessity.

First applications: definite descriptions, proper names, First applications: definite descriptions, proper names, and belief reports (Jaszczolt 1997, 1999); negation and and belief reports (Jaszczolt 1997, 1999); negation and discourse connectives (Lee 2002). discourse connectives (Lee 2002).

Recent applications: presupposition, sentential Recent applications: presupposition, sentential connectives, number terms, temporality, and modality connectives, number terms, temporality, and modality (Jaszczolt 2005; 2009; Srioutai 2004, 2006; Jaszczolt (Jaszczolt 2005; 2009; Srioutai 2004, 2006; Jaszczolt and Srioutai forthcoming; Engemann 2008); syntactic and Srioutai forthcoming; Engemann 2008); syntactic constraint on primary meaning (Sysoeva and Jaszczolt constraint on primary meaning (Sysoeva and Jaszczolt 2007). 2007).

4242

Languages:Languages:

English, Korean, Thai, Russian, French, GermanEnglish, Korean, Thai, Russian, French, German

4343

Representing TimeRepresenting Time

4444

4545

Merger Representations for the PastMerger Representations for the Past

(11)(11) Lidia went to a concert yesterday.Lidia went to a concert yesterday.((regular pastregular past))

(12)(12) This is what happened yesterday. Lidia goes to a This is what happened yesterday. Lidia goes to a concert, meets her school friend and tells her…concert, meets her school friend and tells her…((past of narrationpast of narration))

(13)(13) Lidia would have gone to a concert (then).Lidia would have gone to a concert (then).((epistemic necessity pastepistemic necessity past))

(14)(14) Lidia must have gone to a concert (yesterday). Lidia must have gone to a concert (yesterday). ((epistemic necessity pastepistemic necessity past))

(15)(15) Lidia may have gone to a concert (yesterday).Lidia may have gone to a concert (yesterday).((epistemic possibility pastepistemic possibility past))

(16)(16) Lidia might have gone to a concert (yesterday).Lidia might have gone to a concert (yesterday).((epistemic possibility pastepistemic possibility past))

4646

a cline of decreasing epistemic commitmenta cline of decreasing epistemic commitment

Fig. 3: Degree of epistemic commitment for selected expressions with past-time reference

rp, pn enp epp

1 0

4848

AccAcc ├ ├ pp ‘it is acceptable that it is the case that ‘it is acceptable that it is the case that pp’’

Grice (2001)Grice (2001)

4949

ACCACCΔΔ ├ Σ ├ Σ

‘‘it is acceptable to the degree Δ that Σ is true’it is acceptable to the degree Δ that Σ is true’

Fig. 4: Σ for example (11) ‘Lidia went to a concert yesterday.’ (regular past)

x t Σ' [Lidia]CD (x) yesterday (t) [ACC

rp ├ Σ']WS Σ' [x go to a concert]WS

Σ

Fig. 5: Σ for example (15) ‘Lidia may have gone to a concert yesterday.’ (epistemic possibility past)

x t Σ' [Lidia]CD (x) yesterday (t) [ACC

epp may+pple ├ Σ']WS Σ' [x go to a concert]WS

Σ

5252

Merger Representations for the PresentMerger Representations for the Present

(17)(17) Lidia is at a concert now.Lidia is at a concert now.

(regular present)(regular present)

(18)(18) Lidia will be at a concert now.Lidia will be at a concert now.

(epistemic necessity present)(epistemic necessity present)

(19)(19) Lidia must be at a concert now.Lidia must be at a concert now.

(epistemic necessity present)(epistemic necessity present)

(20)(20) Lidia may be at a concert now.Lidia may be at a concert now.

(epistemic possibility present)(epistemic possibility present)

(21)(21) Lidia might be at a concert now.Lidia might be at a concert now.

(epistemic possibility present)(epistemic possibility present)

Fig. 6: Degree of epistemic commitment for expressions with present-time reference

rn enn epn

1 0

5454

(22)(22) Lidia will often sing in the shower.Lidia will often sing in the shower.

(dispositional necessity present)(dispositional necessity present)

Fig. 7: Σ for example (17) ‘Lidia is at a concert now.’ (regular present)

.

x Σ' [Lidia]CD (x) [ACC

rn ├ Σ']WS,CD Σ' [x be at a concert]WS Σ

Fig. 8: Σ for example (18) ‘Lidia will be at a concert now’ (epistemic necessity present)

x t Σ' [Lidia]CD (x) now (t) [ACC

enn will ├ Σ']WS,CPIpm Σ' [x be at a concert]WS

Σ

Fig. 9: Σ for example (22) ‘Lidia will often sing in the shower’ (dispositional necessity present)

.

x t Σ' [Lidia]CD (x) often (t) [ACC

dnn will ├ Σ']WS,CPIpm Σ' [x sing in the shower]WS

Σ

5858

Merger Representations for the FutureMerger Representations for the Future (23)(23) Lidia goes to a concert tomorrow evening.Lidia goes to a concert tomorrow evening.

((‘tenseless’ future‘tenseless’ future))

(24)(24) Lidia is going to a concert tomorrow evening.Lidia is going to a concert tomorrow evening.

((futurative progressivefuturative progressive))

(25)(25) Lidia is going to go to a concert tomorrow evening.Lidia is going to go to a concert tomorrow evening. ((periphrastic periphrastic futurefuture))

(26)(26) Lidia will go to a concert tomorrow evening.Lidia will go to a concert tomorrow evening. ((regular futureregular future))

(27)(27) Lidia must be going to a concert tomorrow evening. Lidia must be going to a concert tomorrow evening. ((epistemic epistemic necessity futurenecessity future))

(28)(28) Lidia may go to a concert tomorrow evening.Lidia may go to a concert tomorrow evening. ((epistemic possibility epistemic possibility futurefuture))

(29)(29) Lidia might go to a concert tomorrow evening.Lidia might go to a concert tomorrow evening. ((epistemic possibility epistemic possibility futurefuture))

Fig. 10: Degree of modal detachment for selected

expressions with future-time reference

epf enf rf pf fp tf

1 0

Fig. 11: Σ for example (26) ‘Lidia will go to a concert tomorrow

evening’ (regular future)

x t Σ' [Lidia]CD (x) tomorrow evening (t) [ACC

rf ├ Σ']WS,CD Σ' [x go to a concert]WS

Fig. 12: Σ for example (24) ‘Lidia is going to a concert tomorrow evening.’ (futurative progressive)

x t Σ'

[Lidia]CD (x) tomorrow evening (t) [ACC

fp ├ Σ']WS, CPIpm Σ' [x go to a concert]WS

x t Σ' [Lidia]CD (x) tomorrow evening (t) [ACC

epf may ├ Σ']WS, CD Σ' [x go to a concert]WS

Fig. 13: Σ for example (28) ‘Lidia may go to a concert tomorrow evening’ (epistemic possibility future)

future may, default reading

6363

(30)(30) kk11rr33emleml33in in cc11a a cc11ap ap ngng33u:u:

GremlinGremlin cc11aa catch snakecatch snake

(30a)(30a) Gremlin will catch a snake (default meaning)Gremlin will catch a snake (default meaning)

(30b)(30b) Gremlin would have caught a snake Gremlin would have caught a snake (contextually (contextually inferred meaning)inferred meaning)

from Srioutai (2006: 242-4)from Srioutai (2006: 242-4)

Fig. 14: Σ for example (30) ‘Gremlin will catch a snake.’ (default reading 30a)

x y t n e

[k1r3eml3in]CD (x) [ng3u:]CD (y) ' [x c1ap y]WS

[ACCrf ├ ']WS, CD

Fig. 15: Σ for example (30) ‘Gremlin would have caught a snake.’ (non-default reading 30b)

x y '

[k1r3eml3in]CD (x) [ng3u:]CD (y) ' [x c1ap y]WS

[ACCcf c1a ├ ']WS, CPI

6666

(1)(1) mm33ae:rae:r33i:i:II khkh22ianian nn33iyiy33ai:ai:

MaryMary writewrite novelnovel

x y '

[m3ae:r3i:I]CD (x)

[n3iy3ai:]CD (y) ' [x kh2ian y]WS [ACC

rp ├ ']WS, CPI

Fig. 16: for example (1) ‘Mary wrote a novel’ (regular past)

6868

Application to contrastive studies and translation:Application to contrastive studies and translation:

H1H1

Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of what is saidwhat is said..

adequate, contextualist definition of adequate, contextualist definition of what is said: what is said: primary primary meaning of Default Semanticsmeaning of Default Semantics

6969

H1H1Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of what is saidwhat is said..

adequate, contextualist definition of adequate, contextualist definition of what is said: what is said: primary primary meaning of Default Semanticsmeaning of Default Semantics

H2H2Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of what is Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of what is implicitly communicated. implicitly communicated.

Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of both Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of both primary and secondary meanings.primary and secondary meanings.

7070

ConclusionsConclusions

Merger representations of Default Semantics can represent Merger representations of Default Semantics can represent temporal reference which is achieved in discourse in a variety of temporal reference which is achieved in discourse in a variety of ways, not only through grammatical tenses and adverbials. ways, not only through grammatical tenses and adverbials.

7171



Merger representations can represent cross-linguistic differences in Merger representations can represent cross-linguistic differences in referring to past, present and future eventualities. referring to past, present and future eventualities.

7272




Compositionality is best understood as pragmatic compositionality, Compositionality is best understood as pragmatic compositionality, sought at the level of sought at the level of ΣΣs rather than WS.s rather than WS.

7373




Compositionality is best understood as pragmatic compositionality, Compositionality is best understood as pragmatic compositionality, sought at the level of sought at the level of ΣΣs rather than WS.s rather than WS.

Temporality is not a primitive concept. It supervenes on the concept Temporality is not a primitive concept. It supervenes on the concept of epistemic detachment (of epistemic detachment (ACCACCΔΔ ├ Σ’) ├ Σ’) from the truth of the merged from the truth of the merged

proposition (proposition (Σ’).Σ’).

7474

Thank you!

7575

Select ReferencesSelect References Clapp, L. 2007. ‘Minimal (disagreement about) semantics’. In: G. Preyer and G. Clapp, L. 2007. ‘Minimal (disagreement about) semantics’. In: G. Preyer and G.

Peter (eds). Peter (eds). Context-Sensitivity and Semantic MinimalismContext-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 251-277.University Press. 251-277.

EnEnç, M. 1996. ‘Tense and modality’. In: S. Lappin (ed.) ç, M. 1996. ‘Tense and modality’. In: S. Lappin (ed.) The Handbook of The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic TheoryContemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 345-358.. Oxford: Blackwell. 345-358.

Engemann, H. 2008. ‘The concept of futurity: A study with reference to English, Engemann, H. 2008. ‘The concept of futurity: A study with reference to English, French and German’. M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.French and German’. M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.

Grice, P. 2001. Grice, P. 2001. Aspects of ReasonAspects of Reason. Ed. by R. Warner. Oxford: Clarendon Press.. Ed. by R. Warner. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar,

EvolutionEvolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaszczolt, K. M. 1992. Jaszczolt, K. M. 1992. Belief Sentences and the Semantics of Propositional Belief Sentences and the Semantics of Propositional

AttitudesAttitudes. D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford.. D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford. Jaszczolt, K. M. 1997. ‘The Default Jaszczolt, K. M. 1997. ‘The Default De ReDe Re Principle for the interpretation of belief Principle for the interpretation of belief

utterances’. utterances’. Journal of Pragmatics Journal of Pragmatics 28. 315-36.28. 315-36. Jaszczolt, K. M. 1999. Jaszczolt, K. M. 1999. Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and

Propositional Attitude AscriptionPropositional Attitude Ascription. Oxford: Elsevier Science.. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Jaszczolt, K. M. 2003. ‘On translating what is said: Jaszczolt, K. M. 2003. ‘On translating what is said: Tertium comparationisTertium comparationis in in

contrastive semantics and pragmatics’. In: K. M. Jaszczolt and K. Turner (eds). contrastive semantics and pragmatics’. In: K. M. Jaszczolt and K. Turner (eds). Meaning Through Language ContrastMeaning Through Language Contrast. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 441-. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 441-462.462.

7676

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of CommunicationTheory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2007. ‘Variadic function and pragmatics-rich Jaszczolt, K. M. 2007. ‘Variadic function and pragmatics-rich representations of belief reports’. representations of belief reports’. Journal of PragmaticsJournal of Pragmatics 39. 934-59. 39. 934-59.

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2009. Jaszczolt, K. M. 2009. Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as ModalityModality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jaszczolt, K. M. forthcoming. ‘Default Semantics’. In: Jaszczolt, K. M. forthcoming. ‘Default Semantics’. In: B. Heine and H. B. Heine and H. Narrog (eds). Narrog (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis . Oxford: Oxford . Oxford: Oxford University Press. University Press.

Jaszczolt, K. M. and J. Srioutai. forthcoming. ‘Communicating about the Jaszczolt, K. M. and J. Srioutai. forthcoming. ‘Communicating about the past through modality in English and Thai’ In: F. Brisard and T. Mortelmans past through modality in English and Thai’ In: F. Brisard and T. Mortelmans (eds). (eds). Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and ModalityCognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Modality’. Amsterdam: J. ’. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.Benjamins.

Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation TheoryDiscourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Kamp, H., J. van Genabith & U. Reyle. forthcoming. ‘Discourse Kamp, H., J. van Genabith & U. Reyle. forthcoming. ‘Discourse Representation Theory’. In: D.M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds). Representation Theory’. In: D.M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds). Handbook Handbook of Philosophical Logicof Philosophical Logic. Second edition.. Second edition.

7777

Lee, H.-K. 2002. Lee, H.-K. 2002. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Connectives The Semantics and Pragmatics of Connectives with Reference to English and Koreanwith Reference to English and Korean. PhD dissertation, University . PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.of Cambridge.

Levinson, S. C. 2000.Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational ImplicatureGeneralized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Press.

Nicolle, S. and B. Clark. 1999. ‘Experimental pragmatics and what Nicolle, S. and B. Clark. 1999. ‘Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise’. is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise’. CognitionCognition 69. 337-54. 69. 337-54.

Pitts, A. 2005. ‘Assessing the evidence for intuitions about Pitts, A. 2005. ‘Assessing the evidence for intuitions about what is what is saidsaid’. M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.’. M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.

Recanati, F. 2002. ‘Unarticulated constituents’. Recanati, F. 2002. ‘Unarticulated constituents’. Linguistics and Linguistics and PhilosophyPhilosophy 25. 299-345. 25. 299-345.

Recanati, F. 2004. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal MeaningLiteral Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.University Press.

Recanati, F. 2005. Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In: Recanati, F. 2005. Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In: G. Preyer & G. Peter (eds). G. Preyer & G. Peter (eds). Contextualism in Philosophy: Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and TruthKnowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 171-. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 171-196.196.

7878

Schiffer, S. 1991. ‘Does Mentalese have a compositional semantics?’. In: B. Schiffer, S. 1991. ‘Does Mentalese have a compositional semantics?’. In: B. Loewer and G. Rey (eds) Loewer and G. Rey (eds) Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his CriticsMeaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics. Oxford: . Oxford: Blackwell.181-99.Blackwell.181-99.

Schiffer, S. 1994. ‘A paradox of meaning’. Schiffer, S. 1994. ‘A paradox of meaning’. NoûsNoûs 28. 279-324. 28. 279-324. Schiffer, S. 2003. Schiffer, S. 2003. The Things We MeanThe Things We Mean. Oxford: Clarendon Press.. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Srioutai, J. 2004. ‘The Thai Srioutai, J. 2004. ‘The Thai cc11aa: A marker of tense or modality?’ In: E. : A marker of tense or modality?’ In: E.

Daskalaki Daskalaki et. al.et. al. (eds). (eds). Second CamLing ProceedingsSecond CamLing Proceedings. University of . University of Cambridge. 273-80.Cambridge. 273-80.

Srioutai, J. 2006. Srioutai, J. 2006. Time Conceptualization in Thai with Special Reference to Time Conceptualization in Thai with Special Reference to dd11ayay11

IIII, kh, kh33oe:y, koe:y, k11amlaml33ang, yang, y33u:u:II and c and c11a.a. PhD thesis. University of PhD thesis. University of Cambridge.Cambridge.

Sysoeva, A. and K. Jaszczolt. 2007. ‘Composing utterance meaning: An Sysoeva, A. and K. Jaszczolt. 2007. ‘Composing utterance meaning: An interface between pragmatics and psychology’. Paper presented at the interface between pragmatics and psychology’. Paper presented at the 10th 10th International Pragmatics ConferenceInternational Pragmatics Conference, Göteborg., Göteborg.

Date post:	22-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Université de Neuchâtel, 19 January 2009 Time and Probability: A Contextual Semantic Account Kasia...

Documents