|
Showing 1 - 6 of
6 matches in All Departments
Iceberg semantics is a new framework of Boolean semantics for mass
nouns and count nouns in which the interpretation of a noun phrase
rises up from a generating base and floats with its base on its
Boolean part set, like an iceberg. The framework is shown to
preserve the attractive features of classical Boolean semantics for
count nouns; the book argues that Iceberg semantics forms a much
better framework for studying mass nouns than the classical theory
does. Iceberg semantics uses its notion of base to develop a
semantic theory of the differences between mass nouns and count
nouns and between different types of mass nouns, in particular
between prototypical mass nouns (here called mess mass nouns) like
water and mud versus object mass nouns (here called neat mass
nouns) like poultry and pottery. The book shows in detail how and
why neat mass nouns pattern semantically both with mess mass nouns
and with count nouns. Iceberg semantics is a compositional theory
and in Iceberg semantics the semantic distinctions defined apply to
noun phrases of any complexity. The book studies in depth the
semantics of classifier noun phrases (like three glasses of wine)
and measure noun phrases (like three liters of wine). The classical
wisdom is that classifier interpretations are count. Recent
literature has argued compellingly that measure interpretations are
mass. The book shows that both connections follow from the basic
architecture of Iceberg semantics. Audience: Scholars and students
in linguistics - in particular semantics, pragmatics, computational
linguistics and syntax - and neighbouring disciplines like logic,
philosophy of language, and cognitive science.
Iceberg semantics is a new framework of Boolean semantics for mass
nouns and count nouns in which the interpretation of a noun phrase
rises up from a generating base and floats with its base on its
Boolean part set, like an iceberg. The framework is shown to
preserve the attractive features of classical Boolean semantics for
count nouns; the book argues that Iceberg semantics forms a much
better framework for studying mass nouns than the classical theory
does. Iceberg semantics uses its notion of base to develop a
semantic theory of the differences between mass nouns and count
nouns and between different types of mass nouns, in particular
between prototypical mass nouns (here called mess mass nouns) like
water and mud versus object mass nouns (here called neat mass
nouns) like poultry and pottery. The book shows in detail how and
why neat mass nouns pattern semantically both with mess mass nouns
and with count nouns. Iceberg semantics is a compositional theory
and in Iceberg semantics the semantic distinctions defined apply to
noun phrases of any complexity. The book studies in depth the
semantics of classifier noun phrases (like three glasses of wine)
and measure noun phrases (like three liters of wine). The classical
wisdom is that classifier interpretations are count. Recent
literature has argued compellingly that measure interpretations are
mass. The book shows that both connections follow from the basic
architecture of Iceberg semantics. Audience: Scholars and students
in linguistics - in particular semantics, pragmatics, computational
linguistics and syntax - and neighbouring disciplines like logic,
philosophy of language, and cognitive science.
The main claim of this book is that the very same distinction
between semantic singularity and plurality that is fundamental to
the semantics of nouns in the nominal domain is operative and
fundamental in the verbal domain as well, applying to verbs and
verbal arguments roles. It is argued that collective
interpretations of verbal arguments involve semantically singular
argument roles, and that a large variety of other interpretations
discussed in the literature - most importantly distributive and
cumulative interpretations - can be reduced to semantic plurality.
The book consists of three parts. The first part discusses
Davidsonian and neo-Davidsonian event analyses of verbs and verbal
roles. The second part discusses theories of semantic plurality,
focussing on the analysis of collective, distributive, and
cumulative readings. The third part develops a neo-Davidsonian
theory of events and plurality, a theory of event-maximalization,
and a theory of scopal relations, basing both the nominal and the
verbal domain strictly on the semantic singularity/plurality
distinction. This part provides a detailed analysis of nominal
plurality, verbal plurality, and their interaction, and it is shown
how these plurality interactions produce the effects of collective,
distributive, cumulative, and related interpretations. The book
will be of interest to theoretical linguists, in particular
scholars and advanced students in semantics, or in neighboring
fields of syntax, pragmatics, and computational linguistics. It
will also be of interest to researchers in philosophy of language,
logic, and cognitive science, and to computer scientists with an
interest in the semantics of natural language.
Formalization plays an important role in semantics. Doing semantics
and following the literature requires considerable technical
sophistica tion and acquaintance with quite advanced mathematical
techniques and structures. But semantics isn't mathematics. These
techniques and structures are tools that help us build semantic
theories. Our real aim is to understand semantic phenomena and we
need the technique to make our understanding of these phenomena
precise. The problems in semantics are most often too hard and
slippery, to completely trust our informal understanding of them.
This should not be taken as an attack on informal reasoning in
semantics. On the contrary, in my view, very often the essential
insight in a diagnosis of what is going on in a certain semantic
phenomenon takes place at the informal level. It is very easy,
however, to be misled into thinking that a certain informal insight
provides a satisfying analysis of a certain problem; it will often
turn out that there is a fundamental unclarity about what the
informal insight actually is. Formalization helps to sharpen those
insights and put them to the test."
Formalization plays an important role in semantics. Doing semantics
and following the literature requires considerable technical
sophistica tion and acquaintance with quite advanced mathematical
techniques and structures. But semantics isn't mathematics. These
techniques and structures are tools that help us build semantic
theories. Our real aim is to understand semantic phenomena and we
need the technique to make our understanding of these phenomena
precise. The problems in semantics are most often too hard and
slippery, to completely trust our informal understanding of them.
This should not be taken as an attack on informal reasoning in
semantics. On the contrary, in my view, very often the essential
insight in a diagnosis of what is going on in a certain semantic
phenomenon takes place at the informal level. It is very easy,
however, to be misled into thinking that a certain informal insight
provides a satisfying analysis of a certain problem; it will often
turn out that there is a fundamental unclarity about what the
informal insight actually is. Formalization helps to sharpen those
insights and put them to the test."
|
You may like...
Michael K
Nthikeng Mohlele
Paperback
R299
R234
Discovery Miles 2 340
The Passenger
Cormac McCarthy
Paperback
R365
R285
Discovery Miles 2 850
Only The Brave
Danielle Steel
Paperback
R365
R260
Discovery Miles 2 600
Resurrection
Danielle Steel
Paperback
R365
R260
Discovery Miles 2 600
Funny Story
Emily Henry
Paperback
R360
R255
Discovery Miles 2 550
|