No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Does Syntax Reveal Semantics? A Case Study Of Complex Demonstratives
Abstract
L'A. remet en question le lien traditionnel entre syntaxe et semantique, ainsi que le lien philosophique entre langage et metaphysique, a travers l'exemple des demonstratives complexes. A partir de la methodologie de d'Austin, et en reference a l'evidence grammaticale de J. King, l'A. repond aux arguments de la plausibilite en montrant la sous-determination syntaxique de la semantique dans les exemples de termes indefinis et de noms propres italiens.
... Although demonstratives' role within the accompanying DP is more or less not that deep, their position, scope, and even semantic contribution are still rich destinations for scholars working on different languages within the modern syntactic theory (cf. Bernstein, 1997;Johnson & Lepore, 2002;Kayne, 2008). Motivated by this veritable observation, the current research looks into some aspects of interaction between demonstratives and the nominal spine, namely their morphological form and base-generation. ...
This research addresses the syntactic behaviour and distribution of demonstratives in Haili Arabic, less-investigated Arabic variety. It precisely looks at how demonstratives interact with other DP components. To this end, the recent advancements of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work) are adopted. Following the cross-linguistic assumption that demonstratives are heads of a dedicated projection, DemP, the study argues that demonstratives in Haili Arabic are endowed with a set of uninterpretable Φ-features. Demonstratives function as a probe, and the head noun is the goal valuing their Φ-features. A by-product of this value is the morphological form of the given demonstrative. As for base-generation of demonstratives, I proposed two accounts. The first one maintains that there is only one projection hosting demonstratives. Thus, when demonstratives appear at the end of the DP, the head noun, lower Dº, and any accompanying nominal modifiers move to the spec of DemP. The second account is that there are two DemP's per a single DP, where only one can host the demonstrative at a time.
... Before examining the details of King's (2001) theory of that, I will make a few remarks on the more general argumentation in Chapter 1 of his monograph to the effect that complex demonstratives must be quantificational. Readers are referred to Johnson and Lepore 2002, Stanley 2002, Altshuler 2007 and Neale 2007 for further discussion of King's approach. ...
Using a version of situation semantics, this article argues that bare and complex demonstratives are interpreted as individual
concepts.
The paper aims at discussing the difficulties that students from French speaking countries who are pursuing their education in a Ghanaian university face in identifying English determiners. This is a qualitative study that analysed the difficulties that level 100 Francophone students who have French as a Second Language(L2) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in a Ghanaian university face in identifying English determiners. The data used for the analysis comprised students' written exercises. The data gathered in the study were analysed qualitatively. The theoretical framework on which this research is based is article-focused theory which is discourse rule transfer propounded by Robertson (2000) as well as the semantic model developed by Huebner (1983), known as the "semantic wheel for noun phrase reference". The findings of the study depict that pre determiners, central determiners and post determiners were found in the data analysed. Central determiners recorded the highest number of 25 representing 64%, followed by pre determiners with 11 representing 28% and post determiners showing 3 determiners denoting 8%. Based on the findings, some pedagogical measures such as taking into consideration the needs analysis and teaching all the three types of determiners in context communication were proposed as means of minimising Francophone students' difficulties in English determiner system.
The paper discusses the difficulties that students from French speaking countries who are pursuing their studies in a Ghanaian university face in identifying English determiners. This is a qualitative study that analysed the difficulties that level 100 Francophone students who have French as a Second Language(L2) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in a Ghanaian university face in identifying English determiners. The data used for the analysis comprised students’ written exercise. The theoretical framework on which this research is based is article-focused theory which is discourse rule transfer propounded by Robertson (2000) as well as the semantic model developed by Huebner (1983), known as the "semantic wheel for noun phrase reference". Pre determiners, central determiners and post determiners were found in the data analysed. Central determiners recorded the highest number of 25 representing 64%, followed by pre determiners with 11 representing 28% and post determiners showing 3 determiners denoting 8%. Based on the findings, some pedagogical measures such as taking into consideration the needs analysis and teaching all the three types of determiners in context communication were proposed as means of minimising Francophone students’ difficulties in English determiner system
In the study of anaphora, one major issue is that of the access modes provided by full NPs and pronouns. An access mode is understood not as the whole process of anaphor resolution, but as the set of procedural and qualitative information common to all NPs of a given type (for instance, common to all definite descriptions). The present study proposes a comparative approach to those access modes, focusing more specifically on demonstratives, definite descriptions and third-person pronouns. About demonstratives, which can be either pronouns or determiners, it confirms that, as stated in the utterer-centred approach to language, each has a single core value, and therefore encodes a single access mode, whether it is used as a determiner or as a pronoun in context. The study seeks to determine on what grounds a simple demonstrative is preferred over a complex one. The other question raised is whether such pairing between a determiner and a pronoun can also occur with members of the determiner and pronoun paradigms that do not share a form. To that end, the study compares the access modes coded by the definite article and third-person pronouns. It argues that they, too, form a pair.
Complex demonstratives raise problems in semantics and force a reexamination of basic principles underlying the New Theory of Reference. First, I present these problems and the relevant principles. Then, I explore the most common suggestions, for instance, as those put forward by Braun and Dever. Finally, I introduce my own view. The latter is a non-ad hoc extension of the Reflexive-Referential analysis of context-sensitive terms as discussed by Perry. It accounts for familiar problems, including those raised by the fact that sometimes the object referred to does not satisfy the nominal, nor preserve the relevant principles.RésuméLes démonstratifs complexes soulèvent des problèmes sémantiques majeurs qui incitent à l'examen de principes sous-jacents à la nouvelle théorie de la référence. Je présente ces problèmes de même que les principes qu'ils semblent remettre en question, expose les deux principales approches des demonstratifs (celles defendue par Braun et par Dever) et, finalement, suggère une théorie inspirée des travaux de John Perry sur les expressions référentielles sensibles aux contexts d'énonciation. Ma façon d'aborder les démonstratifs complexes est un prolongement de l'approche réfléxive référentielle et fait appel à de multiples propositions exprimées par des énonciations.
This paper presents a semantic and pragmatic theory of complex demonstratives. According to this theory, the semantic content
of a complex demonstrative, in a context, is simply an object, and the semantic content of a sentence that contains a complex
demonstrative, in a context, is a singular proposition. This theory is defended from various objections to direct reference
theories of complex demonstratives, including King's objection from quantification into complex demonstratives.
This squib presents a rebuttal to two of King’s (Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001) arguments that complex demonstratives are quantifier phrases like every man. The first
is in response to King’s argument that because complex demonstratives induce weak crossover effects, they are quantifier phrases.
I argue that unlike quantifier phrases and like other definite determiner phrases, complex demonstratives in object position
can corefer with singular pronouns contained in the subject DP. Although complex demonstratives could undergo LF-movement, the ruling out by weak crossover is empirically undetectable. The second rebuttal is in response to
King’s argument that because complex demonstratives allow antecedent-contained deletion, they are quantifier phrases. I present
data showing that along with quantifier phrases, complex demonstratives pattern with proper names in allowing ACD with restrictive
modification, but usually not with non-restrictive modification.
The form and distribution of pronouns varies considerably cross-linguistically. In this paper, I will propose that there is a direct relation between the form (i.e. DP internal realization), and syntactic distribution (i.e. DP external realization).
This paper is concerned with the syntax and semantics of quantifier scope construal, focussing on the distributive quantifiers every and each, and their interaction with negation. Our discussion is based on the theory of the syntax of quantifier scope developed more fully in Beghelli and Stowell (1994) and in Beghelli (1995).
Although deictic terms are among the earliest words children acquire, the proximal/non-proximal contrast (the true deictic contrast) between here and there, and between this and that, takes several years to master. As research on spontaneous production shows, children may start, for example, by using here with a deictic meaning, there with a non-deictic meaning, and a gesture to indicate a deictic contrast. On the basis of two experiments on comprehension, we argue that children go through at least three stages in acquiring the deictic contrasts. They start with NO CONTRAST, work out a PARTIAL CONTRAST used only in certain contexts, and finally master a FULL CONTRAST equivalent to the adult's. However, children follow different routes through these stages, depending on their initial choice of (a) the point of reference for the contrast – themselves or the speaker – and (b) the spatial relation to that point of reference – proximity or distance.
Serbo-Croatian (SC) is a language without articles, probably the
only category of
speech that has uncontroversially and crosslinguistically been argued to
occupy the
head of the Determiner Phrase (DP). This paper argues that even SC, a language
without articles, projects a DP on top of NPs in argument positions. The
strongest
evidence comes from noun/pronoun asymmetries, where the pronouns precede,
and
nouns follow, certain intensifying adjectives. Assuming that these adjectives
occupy
a fixed syntactic position, the conclusion must be that pronouns occupy
a structurally
higher position than nouns. Since the evidence of such asymmetries is extremely
sparse in the data, the children presumably cannot rely on them to conclude
that there
is a DP in SC. Since there are also no articles in SC, children have virtually
no
evidence of the existence of a DP. It must be then that the projection
of DPs is a
universal property, independent of the presence of the lexical item which
solely
occupies the head of the projection. Morphological properties of SC pronouns
and
adjectives actually support the existence of more than just one functional
projection
in the noun phrase in SC. The paper derives Greenberg's universal
43, which states
that pronouns are more likely to have (gender) morphology than nouns, by
arguing
that pronouns move (overtly) through more functional projections than nouns,
and
ultimately land in D.
Complex demonstratives, expressions of the form 'That F', 'These Fs', etc., have traditionally been taken to be referring terms. Yet they exhibit many of the features of quantified noun phrases. This has led some philosophers to suggest that demonstrative determiners are a special kind of quantifier, which can be paraphrased using a context sensitive definite description. Both these views contain elements of the truth, though each is mistaken. We advance a novel account of the semantic form of complex demonstratives that shows how to reconcile the view that they function like quantified noun phrases with the view that simple demonstratives function as context sensitive referring terms wherever they occur. If we are right, previous accounts of complex demonstratives have misconceived their semantic role; and philosophers relying on the majority view in employing complex demonstratives in analysis have proceeded on a false assumption.
It is conceded by most philosophers of language, and recently even by some linguists, that a satisfactory theory of meaning must give an account of how the meanings of sentences depend upon the meanings of words. Unless such an account could be supplied for a particular language, it is argued, there would be no explaining the fact that we can learn the language: no explaining the fact that, on mastering a finite vocabulary and a finitely stated set of rules, we are prepared to produce and to understand any of a potential infinitude of sentences. I do not dispute these vague claims, in which I sense more than a kernel of truth.1 Instead I want to ask what it is for a theory to give an account of the kind adumbrated.
I hope that some people see some connection between the two topics in the title. If not, anyway, such connections will be developed in the course of these talks. Furthermore, because of the use of tools involving reference and necessity in analytic philosophy today, our views on these topics really have wide-ranging implications for other problems in philosophy that traditionally might be thought far-removed, like arguments over the mind-body problem or the so-called ‘identity thesis’. Materialism, in this form, often now gets involved in very intricate ways in questions about what is necessary or contingent in identity of properties — questions like that. So, it is really very important to philosophers who may want to work in many domains to get clear about these concepts. Maybe I will say something about the mind-body problem in the course of these talks. I want to talk also at some point (I don’t know if I can get it in) about substances and natural kinds.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
How do children learn that the word "dog" refers not to all four-legged animals, and not just to Ralph, but to all members of a particular species? How do they learn the meanings of verbs like "think," adjectives like "good," and words for abstract entities such as "mortgage" and "story"? The acquisition of word meaning is one of the fundamental issues in the study of mind.
According to Paul Bloom, children learn words through sophisticated cognitive abilities that exist for other purposes. These include the ability to infer others' intentions, the ability to acquire concepts, an appreciation of syntactic structure, and certain general learning and memory abilities. Although other researchers have associated word learning with some of these capacities, Bloom is the first to show how a complete explanation requires all of them. The acquisition of even simple nouns requires rich conceptual, social, and linguistic capacities interacting in complex ways.
This book requires no background in psychology or linguistics and is written in a clear, engaging style. Topics include the effects of language on spatial reasoning, the origin of essentialist beliefs, and the young child's understanding of representational art. The book should appeal to general readers interested in language and cognition as well as to researchers in the field.
Bradford Books imprint
Obsessed by the cases where things go wrong, we pay too little attention to the vastly more numerous cases where they go right, and where it is perhaps easier to see that the descriptive content of the expression concerned is wholly at the service of this function [of identifying reference], a function which is complementary to that of predication and contains no element of predication in itself (Strawson [1974], p. 66).
An earlier version of the paper was written during an enjoyable year spent as a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne.
Knowledge and Reality brings together a selection of Colin McGinn's philosophical essays from the mid 1970s to the late 1990s, whose unifying theme is the relation between mind and reality. The essays are divided into three groups (‘Knowledge and Necessity’, ‘Thought and World’, and ‘Reality and Appearance’) and range over several topics of recent interest, including the analysis of knowledge, the a priori, necessity, possible worlds, externalism, essentialism, realism, mental representation, intentionality, and colour. While all but one essay has been previously published elsewhere, McGinn has provided a new postscript to each essay, placing it in its philosophical context by sketching the background against which it was written, explaining its relations to other notable work, and offering his current reflections on the topic. The volume thus traces the development of McGinn's ideas and their role in some central philosophical debates. Seen together McGinn's essays bear out his commitment to ‘not making the world depend upon our means of knowing about it’, offering a many‐sided defence of realism, while emphasizing the epistemological price that realism exacts.
In 1957, the Polish logician Andrej Mostowski pointed out that there are many mathematically interesting quantifiers that are not definable in terms of the first-order ∀, ∃ and initiated study of so-called generalized quantifiers (cf. Mostowski, 1957). Since then logicians have discovered and studied a large number of generalized quantifiers. At last count there were well over 200 research papers in this area. Most of this work has been directed toward cardinality quantifiers (e.g. Keisler, 1969) and topological quantifiers (e.g. Sgro, 1977) which are not particularly relevant to natural language, but even so, it has forced logicians to rethink the traditional theory of quantification.
L'A. plaide en faveur d'une theorie semantique reconnaissant la valeur des caracteres structures, sans lesquels aucune distinction ne peut etre operee du point de vue de la signification des demonstratifs complexes
In this influential study, Steven Pinker develops a new approach to the problem of language learning. Now reprinted with new commentary by the author, this classic work continues to be an indispensable resource in developmental psycholinguistics.
Reviews of this book:
"The contribution of [Pinker's] book lies not just in its carefully argued section on learnability theory and acquisition, but in its detailed analysis of the empirical consequences of his assumptions." --Paul Fletcher, Times Higher Education Supplement
"One of those rare books which every serious worker in the field should read, both for its stock of particular hypotheses and analyses, and for the way it forces one to re-examine basic assumptions as to how one's work should be done. Its criticisms of other approaches to language acquisition...often go to the heart of the difficulties." --Michael Maratsos, Language
"[A] new edition, with a new preface from the author, of the influential monograph originally published in 1984 in which Pinker proposed one of the most detailed (and according to some, best) theories of language development based upon the sequential activation of different language-acquisition algorithms. In his new preface, the author reaches the not very modest conclusion that, despite the time elapsed, his continues to be the most complete theory of language development ever developed. A classic of the study of language acquisition, in any case." -- Infancia y Aprendizaje [Italy]
BLDSC reference no.: D197033/98. Thesis (D. Phil.)--University of Oxford, 1997. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 231-244).
Individuation and the Semantics of Demonstratives Clark 1993, Eve V. The Lexicon in AcquisitionStrategies in the Acquisition of Deixis
- Davies
- Martin
Davies, Martin. 1982. Individuation and the Semantics of Demonstratives. Journal of Philosophi-cal Logic 11:287–310. Clark 1993, Eve V. The Lexicon in Acquisition, Cambridge: CUP. Clark, Eve V. and C. J. Sengul 1978, ‘Strategies in the Acquisition of Deixis’, Journal of Child Language, Vol. 5, pp. 457–475
Truth-theory for Indexical Languages
- Taylor
- Barry
Taylor, Barry. 1980. Truth-theory for Indexical Languages. In Reference, Truth and Reality, edited by M. Platts. London: Routledge & Paul.
On Wh-Movement Formal Syntax
- Chomsky
- Noam
Chomsky, Noam. 1977, On Wh-Movement, in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds.) Formal Syntax, New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.
Structure and strategy in learning to talk, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development
- Nelson
- Katherine
Nelson, Katherine, 1973, Structure and strategy in learning to talk, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 38, no. 149, pp. 1–135.
Syntactic Development
- O Grady
- William
O'Grady, William 1997. Syntactic Development, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
A First Language: The Early Stages, Cambridge, MA: HUP. Complex DemonstrativesReference and proper names
- Roger Brown
- T Burge
Brown, Roger 1973, A First Language: The Early Stages, Cambridge, MA: HUP. Complex Demonstratives / 39 Burge, T. 1973. 'Reference and proper names,' The Journal of Philosophy, 70, pp. 425– 439.
Minimalist Analysis, Oxford: Blackwell's. Lepore and Ludwig
- Lasnik
- Howard
Lasnik, Howard. 1999, Minimalist Analysis, Oxford: Blackwell's. Lepore and Ludwig 2000, 'The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives', Mind, Vol. 109, pp. 199–240.
Theory of Projection in Syntax
- Fukui
- Naoki
Fukui, Naoki 1995, Theory of Projection in Syntax, Stanford: CSLI.
Articulated Terms Atascadero: Ridgeview. Schiffer, Stephen. 1981. Indexicals and the Theory of Reference
- Richard
- Mark
Richard, Mark E. 1993. Articulated Terms. In Language and Logic, edited by J. E. Tomberlin. Atascadero: Ridgeview. Schiffer, Stephen. 1981. Indexicals and the Theory of Reference. Synthese 57:43–100.
New models in linguistics and language acquisition
- Maratsos
- Michael
Maratsos, Michael 1979, 'New models in linguistics and language acquisition', in M. Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. Miller (eds.) Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 247–263.
Indefiniteness and Predication The Representation of (In)Definiteness Higginbotham, James. 1988. Contexts, Models, and Meanings: a Note on the Data of Semantics
- Higginbotham
- James
Higginbotham, James. 1987, 'Indefiniteness and Predication' in Eric Reuland and Tanya Reinhart (eds.) The Representation of (In)Definiteness Higginbotham, James. 1988. Contexts, Models, and Meanings: a Note on the Data of Semantics. In Mental Representation: the Interface between Language and Reality, edited by R. Kemp-son. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Higginbotham, James and Robert May 1981, 'Questions, Quantifiers, and Crossing', The Linguis-tic Review, Vol. 1, pp. 41–80.
- Norbert Hornstein
Hornstein, Norbert 1995, Logical Form, Oxford: Blackwells.
- Williams
Williams, Edwin 1981, 'Predication', Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 203–38.
Indefiniteness and Predication The Representation of (In)Definiteness
- James Higginbotham
Higginbotham, James. 1987, 'Indefiniteness and Predication' in Eric Reuland and Tanya Reinhart
(eds.) The Representation of (In)Definiteness
- David Ingram
Ingram, David. 1989. First Language Acquisition, Cambridge: CUP.
Kaplan, David. 1978
- Robert Grieve
- Robert Hoogenraad
Grieve, Robert and Robert Hoogenraad 1979, 'First Words', in P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.)
1979, Language Acquisition, Cambridge: CUP, pp. 93–104.
Contexts, Models, and Meanings: a Note on the Data of Semantics
- James Higginbotham
Higginbotham, James. 1988. Contexts, Models, and Meanings: a Note on the Data of Semantics. In
Mental Representation: the Interface between Language and Reality, edited by R. Kempson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.