Term
| Basic Concepts in Set Theory |
|
Definition
1. INTERSECTION
2. UNION
3. COMPLEMENT
4. SUBSET |
|
|
Term
INTERSECTION
(Basic Concepts in Set Theory) |
|
Definition
x ∊ (A∩B) ↔ ((x∊A) ˄ (x∊B))
x is a member of the union of A and B iff x is a member of A and x is a member of B. |
|
|
Term
UNION
(Basic Concepts in Set Theory) |
|
Definition
x ∊ (A∪B) ↔ ((x∊A) ˅ (x∊B))
x is a member of the union of A and B iff x is a member of A or x is a member of B |
|
|
Term
COMPLEMENT
(Basic Concepts in Set Theory) |
|
Definition
x ∊ (A–B) ↔ ((x∊A) ˄ (x∉B))
x is a member of the complement of A and B iff x is a member of A and x is NOT a member of B |
|
|
Term
SUBSET
(Basic Concepts in Set Theory) |
|
Definition
(A ⊆ B) ↔ ((x∊A) → (x∊B))
A is a subset of B iff for all individuals x, x is a member of A and x is a member of B. |
|
|
Term
| Basic concepts in denotational semantics |
|
Definition
1. Name
2. One-Argument Predicate
3. Two-Argument Predicate
4. State of affairs
5. Truth relative to a "model" |
|
|
Term
NAME
What does a name typically denote?
(Basic concepts in denotational semantics) |
|
Definition
A name typically denotes an individual.
(e.g. Abraham Lincoln; Jesse Ventura; etc.) |
|
|
Term
ONE-ARGUMENT PREDICATE:
What does a one-argument predicate typically denote?
(Basic concepts in denotational semantics) |
|
Definition
| A one-argument predicate (e.g., happy, sing, dog, etc.) typically denotes a set of individuals. |
|
|
Term
TWO-ARGUMENT PREDICATE:
What does a two-argument predicate typically denote?
(Basic concepts in denotational semantics) |
|
Definition
| A two-argument predicate (e.g., admire, follow, etc.) typically denotes a set of ordered pairs of individuals. |
|
|
Term
STATE OF AFFAIRS
When is a proposition judged to be true?
(Basic concepts in denotational semantics) |
|
Definition
| Propositions are judged to be true if they describe a state of affairs that corresponds with the actual state of the world. Truth must be evaluated at a specific time, in a specific situation or universe of discourse. |
|
|
Term
TRUTH RELATIVE TO A "MODEL"
What does a model of a situation need to provide?
(Basic concepts in denotational semantics) |
|
Definition
In order to evaluate the truth of a proposition, we need a MODEL of the situation which provides the following information:
i) U, the set of individuals in the universe of discourse,
ii) a listing of the DENOTATIONS for each of the basic expressions ("lexical items") in the corpus of expressions that will be analyzed. |
|
|
Term
| BASIC RULES FOR EVALUATING TRUTH VALUES |
|
Definition
(We use the symbol ⟦x⟧ to mean ‘the semantic value (= denotation) of x’.)
a. if a refers to an entity and P is a one-place predicate,
then ⟦P(c)⟧ = ‘true’ iff ⟦c⟧ ∊ ⟦P⟧
b. if a, β refer to entities and P is a two-place predicate,
then ⟦P(c,β)⟧ = ‘true’ iff ⟦⟧ ∊ ⟦P⟧ |
|
|
Term
Universal Quantifier: All men are mortal
(standard logical form) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Existential Quantifier: Some unicorn(s) obey Lancelot.
(standard logical form) |
|
Definition
| ∃x[UNICORN(x) ˄ OBEY(x, l)] |
|
|
Term
Negative Existential: No man is an island
(standard logical form) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Every loyal Roman loves Caesar.
(restricted quantifier notation) |
|
Definition
[every x: ROMAN(x) ˄ LOYAL(x)] LOVE(x, c)
RESTRICTION = “ROMAN (x) ˄ LOYAL(x)”; SCOPE = “LOVE(x, c)” |
|
|
Term
Most Romans who love Rome love Caesar.
(restricted quantifier notation) |
|
Definition
| [most x: ROMAN(x) ˄ LOVE(x, r)] LOVE(x, c) |
|
|
Term
Caesar loves all five Romans who love him.
(restricted quantifier notation) |
|
Definition
| [all five x: ROMAN(x) ˄ LOVE(x, c)] LOVE(c, x) |
|
|
Term
Define the quantifiers:
All students are bright |
|
Definition
⟦STUDENT⟧ ⊆ ⟦BRIGHT⟧
[all x: P(x)] Q(x) ↔ ⟦P⟧ ⊆ ⟦Q⟧ |
|
|
Term
Define the quantifiers:
No students are bright |
|
Definition
⟦STUDENT⟧ ∩ ⟦BRIGHT⟧ = Ø
[no x: P(x)] Q(x) ↔ ⟦P⟧ ∩ ⟦Q⟧ = Ø |
|
|
Term
Define the quantifiers:
Some students are bright |
|
Definition
| |⟦STUDENT⟧ ∩ ⟦BRIGHT⟧| ≥ 2 |
|
|
Term
Define the quantifiers:
A/Some student is bright |
|
Definition
⟦STUDENT⟧ ∩ ⟦BRIGHT⟧ ≠ Ø; or:
|⟦STUDENT⟧ ∩ ⟦BRIGHT⟧| ≥ 1 |
|
|
Term
Define the quantifiers:
Most students are bright |
|
Definition
|⟦STUDENT⟧ ∩ ⟦BRIGHT⟧| > |⟦STUDENT⟧ – ⟦BRIGHT⟧|
or: |⟦STUDENT⟧ ∩ ⟦BRIGHT⟧| > ½ |⟦STUDENT⟧|
[most x: P(x)] Q(x) ↔ | ⟦P⟧ ∩ ⟦Q⟧ | > ½|⟦P⟧| |
|
|
Term
Define the quantifiers:
Few students are bright |
|
Definition
| |⟦STUDENT⟧ ∩ ⟦BRIGHT⟧| < some contextually defined number |
|
|
Term
Define the quantifiers:
Both students are bright |
|
Definition
⟦STUDENT⟧ ⊆ ⟦BRIGHT⟧ ∧ |⟦STUDENT⟧| = 2
[four x: P(x)] Q(x) ↔ | ⟦P⟧ ∩ ⟦Q⟧ | = 4 |
|
|
Term
| What can quantificational adverbs quantify? |
|
Definition
Quantificational adverbs may quantify either times or entities/individuals. Some examples of both types are presented below:
a. Dogs are often noisy.
[many x: DOG(x)] NOISY(x)
b. Mary often met Sam when she was jogging.
[many t: t |
|
|
Term
What are the two interpretations of "some man loves every woman"?
(scope ambiguities: more than one quantifier) |
|
Definition
Some man loves every woman.
a. [some x: MAN(x)] ([every y: WOMAN(y)] LOVE(x,y))
b. [every y: WOMAN(y)] ([some x: MAN(x)] LOVE(x,y)) |
|
|
Term
What are the two interpretations of "all that glitters is not gold"?
(scope ambiguities: scope of negation) |
|
Definition
All that glitters is not gold.
a. ∀x[GLITTER(x) → ¬ GOLD(x)]
b. ¬ ∀x[GLITTER(x) → GOLD(x)] |
|
|
Term
What are the two interpretations of "every lottery ticket could win"?
(scope ambiguities: modality) |
|
Definition
Every lottery ticket could win.
a. ∀x[TICKET(x) → ◊ WIN(x)]
b. ◊ ∀x[TICKET(x) → WIN(x)] |
|
|
Term
What are the two interpretations of "some applicants must be rejected"?
(scope ambiguities: modality) |
|
Definition
Some applicants must be rejected.
a. ∃x[APPLICANT(x) □ BE-REJECTED(x)]
b. □ ∃x[APPLICANT(x) BE-REJECTED(x)] |
|
|
Term
| PRINCIPLE OF COMPOSITIONALITY |
|
Definition
| the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions and the way in which they are combined. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
‘about the thing’
Under the de re interpretation, the definite NP denotes a particular individual: the person who is serving as Prime Minister at the time of speaking in (16a), and the individual who is married to the speaker at the time of speaking in (17a).
(16) a. I hope to meet with the Prime Minister next year, (after he retires from office).
b. I hope to meet with the Prime Minister next year; (we’ll have to wait for the October election before we know who that will be).
(17) a. I wanted my husband to be a Catholic, (but he said he was too old to convert).
b. I wanted my husband to be a Catholic, (but I ended up marrying a Sikh). |
|
|
Term
| 'de dicto' interpretation |
|
Definition
Under the de dicto interpretation, the semantic contribution of the definite NP is not what it refers to but its sense: a property (e.g. the property of being Prime Minister, or the property of being married to the speaker) rather than a specific individual.
(16) a. I hope to meet with the Prime Minister next year, (after he retires from office).
b. I hope to meet with the Prime Minister next year; (we’ll have to wait for
the October election before we know who that will be).
(17) a. I wanted my husband to be a Catholic, (but he said he was too old to convert).
b. I wanted my husband to be a Catholic, (but I ended up marrying a Sikh). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A SET (in the mathematical sense) is a clearly-defined collection of things. We use braces, or “curly brackets”, to represent sets. So, for example, the denotation set of the word man in the simple model described above could be written as shown in (2a).
(2) a. { King Henry VIII, Thomas More } |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
We use the Greek letter epsilon to indicate that a certain element belongs to a given set.
The formula “x ∊ B” can be read as: “x is a member (or element) of set B” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The formula “x ∉ B” means that x is not a member of set B. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| EMPTY SET - a set with no members. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The CARDINALITY of a set is the number of members or elements which belong to that set. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| sets of pairs of things in which the members of each pair are distinguished by specifying the order in which they occur (using the notation ⟨x,y⟩ to represent the pair which consists of x followed by y). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The DOMAIN of the relation is the set of all the first elements of each pair. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The RANGE of the relation is the set of all the second elements of each pair. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a relation (= a set of ordered pairs) in which each element of the domain is mapped to a single, unique value in the range. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The first member of each ordered pair is called an ARGUMENT of the function, while the second member of each ordered pair is called a VALUE. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
SUBSET - We say that set A is a SUBSET of set B (written “A⊆B”) if A is included in B; that is, if all the elements which are members of A are also members of B.
({a,b,c} ⊆ {a,b,c,d,f}) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
PROPER SUBSET - If we want to specify that set A is a subset of set B, but that the two sets are not equal, we can write “A⊂B”. This symbol means that set A is a PROPER SUBSET of set B. The proposition “A⊂A” will be false for any set A.
({a,b,c} ⊂ {a,b,c,d,f}) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The INTERSECTION of two sets, written “A∩B”, is defined as the set consisting of all elements which are both members of A and members of B.
({a,b,c}∩{c,d,f}={c}) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The UNION of two sets, written “A∪B”, is the set consisting of all elements which are either members of A or members of B
({a,b,c}∪{c,d,f}={a,b,c,d,f}). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The COMPLEMENT of set A, written as ͞A or Aʹ, is defined as the set which contains all the elements of U that are not elements of A.
U = {1,2,3,4,5}
A = {2,3,4,6}
͞A = {1,5} |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (no, some, four, and several) provide information about the cardinality of the intersection of two sets. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (all, every, most) they express the idea that a certain proportion of one class is included in some other class. |
|
|
Term
What are the two interpretations of: "Mary thought she had read every book on the list."
(Scope ambiguities: propositional attitude verbs) |
|
Definition
a. [every x: BOOK(x)] (THINK(m, READ(m,x)))
b. THINK(m, [every x: BOOK(x)] READ(m,x)) |
|
|
Term
What are the two interpretations of: "John thinks he has visited every state."
(Scope ambiguities: propositional attitude verbs) |
|
Definition
a. [all x: STATE(x)] (THINK(j, VISIT(j,x)))
b. THINK(j, [all x: STATE(x)] VISIT(j,x)) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Intensional (=opaque) contexts |
|
Definition
| contexts where the denotation of a complex expression depends on the sense (intension) of one or more of its constituents. |
|
|
Term
| Types of adjective meanings: |
|
Definition
1. INTERSECTIVE
2. SUBSECTIVE
3. PRIVATIVE
4. 'PLAIN' NON-SUBSECTIVE |
|
|
Term
INTERSECTIVE
(types of adjective meanings) |
|
Definition
Intersective adjectives: ⟦Adj N ⟧ = ⟦Adj ⟧∩ ⟦N⟧
yellow submarine, carnivorous biped |
|
|
Term
SUBSECTIVE
(types of adjective meanings) |
|
Definition
the denotation set of the phrase will be a subset of the denotation set of the head noun: ⟦Adj N⟧ ⊆ ⟦N⟧
a. Bill Clinton is a typical politician/??Baptist.
b. a skillful surgeon, a beautiful dancer, a competent phonetician |
|
|
Term
PRIVATIVE
(types of adjective meanings) |
|
Definition
a “PRIVATIVE ADJ N” cannot be a member of the denotation set ⟦N⟧: ⟦Adj N⟧ ∩ ⟦N⟧ ≠ Ø
former, counterfeit, synthetic would-be , wannabe, past, spurious, imaginary, fictitious, fake, fabricated (in one sense), mythical (maybe debatable); ex-, pseudo-, non- |
|
|
Term
'PLAIN' NON-SUBSECTIVE
(types of adjective meanings) |
|
Definition
“Plain” non-subsective adjectives:
alleged, potential, possible, arguable, likely, predicted, putative, questionable, disputed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| adjectives whose composition with the noun they modify cannot be modeled as simple set intersection. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a technical synonym of ‘sense’ |
|
|
Term
| Other Intensional contexts |
|
Definition
1. TENSE
2. MODALITY
3. PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDE VERBS
4. COUNTERFACTUALS |
|
|
Term
MODALITY
(other intensional contexts) |
|
Definition
With modal operators like might, could, must, etc., it is not enough to know the truth value of the original proposition; we need to evaluate its meaning, in combination with that of the modal operator. With the modals in (23) the sentences which would have had different truth values at that time.
(23) (spoken in 2006)
a. Barack Obama could be the first black President of the United States. [T]
b. Nelson Mandela could be the first black President of the United States. [F] |
|
|
Term
TENSE
(other intensional contexts) |
|
Definition
Tense is another operator which combines with a single proposition to create a new proposition. As with modality, knowing the truth value of the original proposition does not allow us to determine the truth value of the tensed proposition. Both of the present tense sentences in (24a- b), spoken in 2014, are false; but the corresponding past tense sentences in (24c-d) have different truth values.
(24) (spoken in 2014)
a. Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State. [F]
b. Lady Gaga is the Secretary of State. [F]
c. Hillary Clinton was/has been the Secretary of State. [T]
d. Lady Gaga was/has been the Secretary of State. [F] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Another class of verbs which create intensional contexts are the so-called INTENSIONAL VERBS. Prototypical examples of this type are the verbs of searching and desiring. These verbs license de dicto vs. de re ambiguities in their direct objects. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| What the speaker wants to do with the proposition in a particular discourse context, i.e. an indication of what SPEECH ACT is being performed. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. DECLARATIVE
2. IMPERATIVE
3. INTERROGATIVE
4. HORTATIVE
5. OPTATIVE
6 SUBJUNCTIVE |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a category of linguistic meaning having to do with the expression of possibility and necessity.
Modality can be thought of as an operator that combines with a basic proposition (p) to form a new proposition (It is possible that p or It is necessarily the case that p). |
|
|
Term
| Two major classes of modality: |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
EPISTEMIC MODALITY
(two major classes of modality) |
|
Definition
possibility or necessity in light of speaker’s knowledge. Epistemic modality is often said to be “speaker-oriented”, because it encodes possibility or necessity in light of the speaker’s knowledge.
a. I might have seen you before (but I can’t remember for sure).
b. You must have been born somewhere. |
|
|
Term
"ROOT" MODALITY
(two major classes of modality) |
|
Definition
Root modality includes Deontic (permission & obligation), as well as other minor types. Non-epistemic modal marking may reflect various facets of the circumstances surrounding the described situation or event.
a. You may now kiss the bride.
b. You must pay your taxes (if you don’t want to go to jail) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
indicates possibility and necessity (permission and obligation) on the basis of some authoritative person or code of conduct which is relevant to the current situation, i.e. whether the truth of the proposition is required or permitted by the relevant authority.
a. You may now kiss the bride.
b. You must pay your taxes (if you don’t want to go to jail) |
|
|
Term
What type of modality?
It has to be raining. [after observing people coming inside with wet umbrellas] |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
What type of modality?
Visitors have to leave by six pm. [hospital regulations] |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
What type of modality?
John has to work hard if he wants to retire at age 50. [to attain desires] |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
What type of modality?
I have to sneeze. [given the current state of one’s nose] |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
What type of modality?
To get home in time, you have to take a taxi. [in order to achieve the stated purpose] |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What are the two parts of a CONVERSATIONAL BACKGROUND? |
|
Definition
1. MODAL BASE
2. ORDERING SOURCE |
|
|
Term
MODAL BASE
(two parts of a conversational background) |
|
Definition
| specifies the class of accessible worlds / worlds that are eligible for consideration |
|
|
Term
ORDERING SOURCE
(two parts of a conversational background) |
|
Definition
| specifies a ranking among the accessible worlds. It identifies the “best”, or highest-ranking, world or worlds among those that are accessible. |
|
|
Term
| What is an EPISTEMIC modal base? |
|
Definition
| selects worlds consistent with what is known about the actual world, i.e., consistent with the available evidence. |
|
|
Term
| What is a stereotypical ordering source? |
|
Definition
| optimal worlds are those in which the normal, expected course of events is followed as closely as possible, given the known facts. |
|
|
Term
| What is a CIRCUMSTANTIAL modal base? |
|
Definition
| selects worlds in which relevant circumstances of the actual world hold true |
|
|
Term
| Epistemic modality arises from...? |
|
Definition
| Epistemic modality arises from the EPISTEMIC modal base and a STEREOTYPICAL ordering source. |
|
|
Term
| Deontic and other Root modalities arise from ...? |
|
Definition
| Deontic and other Root modalities arise from a CIRCUMSTANTIAL modal base. Different types require different ordering sources, e.g. deontic (what the relevant authority requires), bouletic (wishes or desires), teleological (goals), etc. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Under Kratzer’s analysis, the English modals are not in fact polysemous, but rather indeterminate for type of modality. The strength of the modal (necessary vs. possible) is lexically entailed, but the type of modality (epistemic vs. deontic etc.) is determined by context. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
is a linguistic category whose primary meaning is source of information…
[T]his covers the way in which information was acquired, without necessarily relating to the degree of speaker’s certainty concerning the statement or whether it is true or not… [Aikhenvald 2004:3] |
|
|
Term
| Evidentiality is most likely to be marked: |
|
Definition
• in the past tense than in the future
• in 3rd person than 1st person
• in declarative sentences (statements) than questions or commands (generally only possible in questions or commands with some kind of secondary meaning, if at all);
• in main clauses than subordinate clauses;
• in positive sentences than negative (evidentials cannot normally be directly negated). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• explicitly taught and pat of speakers’ conscious knowledge; rules of usage may be expressed in proverbs etc
• reinforceable
• often innovated or replaced in multi-lingual contexts |
|
|
Term
| Types of evidential markers: |
|
Definition
• Hearsay
• Direct (something the speaker has seen, felt, etc personally)
• Indirect knowledge (something one has heard from someone else)
• Nonvisual (what you hear but don’t see)
• Inference (seen evidence)
• Assumed (It is reasonable to assume…) |
|
|
Term
| ILLOCUTIONARY EVIDENTIALS |
|
Definition
| (Use Conditional)– Fxn as illocutionary operators |
|
|
Term
| PROPOSITIONAL EVIDENTIALS |
|
Definition
| (Truth Conditional)– Part of the propositional content of the utterance. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. EMBEDDING
2. COMMITMENT
3. SPEAKER-ORIENTED |
|
|
Term
EMBEDDING
(tests for evidentials) |
|
Definition
| Illocutionary evidentials cannot be embedded within a conditional clause, while this is possible for propositional evidentials. |
|
|
Term
COMMITMENT
(tests for evidentials) |
|
Definition
A speaker who makes a statement using a hearsay or reportative evidential of the illocutionary type is not committed to believing that the propositional content of the utterance is possibly true.
A hearsay or reportative evidential of the propositional type, however, commits the speaker to believing that it is at least possible for the expressed proposition to be true. |
|
|
Term
SPEAKER-ORIENTED
(tests for evidentials) |
|
Definition
Illocutionary evidentials: speaker – oriented. This means that they indicate the source of information of the speaker, and cannot be used to indicate the source of information of some other participant.
Propositional evidentials, in contrast, can be used to indicate the source of information of some participant other than the speaker. |
|
|
Term
| What are the two interpretations of: "Arthur didn’t marry Susan because she is rich." |
|
Definition
a. ¬CAUSE(RICH(s), MARRY(a,s))
(He married her, but not because she is rich. It is not the cause of Susan being rich that caused A to marry her).
b. CAUSE(RICH(s), ¬MARRY(a,s))
(He didn’t marry her. Susan being rich caused A not to marry her). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Because is a two-place operator. But, it is adding a component of meaning, namely causation. Because is not polysemous. Rather, it has just one sense which can be used in different domains, or dimensions, or meaning: truth-conditional vs use-conditional. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. CONTENT
2. EPISTEMIC
3. SPEECH ACT |
|
|
Term
CONTENT
(domains for "because") |
|
Definition
CONTENT domain: John came back because he loved her. (Pause not necessary. Real world causation. Don’t get scope ambiguities)
Truth conditional
Negatable
Questionable
Embeddable |
|
|
Term
EPISTEMIC
(domains for "because") |
|
Definition
EPISTEMIC domain: John loved her, became he came back (his love is evidenced by the fact that he came back. the grounds for making the assertion. Pause necessary. The causation causes the speaker to make an assertion)
• Not questionable – question is restricted to main clause
• Negation – only take scope over the main clause. |
|
|
Term
SPEECH ACT
(domains for "because") |
|
Definition
SPEECH-ACT domain: what are you doing tonight because there’s a good movie on. Behave like separate speech acts/illocutionary forces. – the first clause is a question. Shows why you’re asking the question. Pause necessary. Don’t get scope ambiguities.)
• Not questionable – the clausal relationship is not being questioned.
• Negation – only takes scope over main clause. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A CONDITIONAL sentence is a bi-clausal structure of the form if p (then) q. The conjunction if seems to indicate that a certain kind of relationship holds between the meanings of the two clauses.
If clause - ANTECEDENT / “protasis”
Then clause – CONSEQUENT / “apodosis” |
|
|
Term
| Types of STANDARD CONDITIONALS: |
|
Definition
1. HYPOTHETiCAL
2. REALITY
3. COUNTERFACTUAL |
|
|
Term
HYPOTHETICAL
(types of standard conditionals) |
|
Definition
Mark 8:3 If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way.
(speaker does not know if p is true or not) |
|
|
Term
REALITY
(types of standard conditionals) |
|
Definition
Romans 7:15b–16 For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
(speaker believes p to be true) |
|
|
Term
COUNTERFACTUAL
(types of standard conditionals) |
|
Definition
John 11:21 “Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”
(speaker believes p to be false) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. STANDARD CONDITIONALS
2. RELEVANCE CONDITIONALS
3. FACTUAL CONDITIONALS
4. CONCESSIVE CONDITIONALS |
|
|
Term
RELEVANCE CONDITIONALS
(types of conditionals) |
|
Definition
(a.k.a. Biscuit conditionals / no real world connection)
If you are hungry, there is some pizza in the fridge.
This is the same as SPEECH ACT CONDITIONALS (the main clause has an independent illocutionary force):
a. If you are hungry, there’s some pizza in the fridge.
b. If you need anything, my name is Arnold.
c. If you have heard from Michael recently, how is he doing?
d. What did you do with that left-over pizza, if you don’t mind my asking? |
|
|
Term
FACTUAL CONDITIONALS
(types of conditionals) |
|
Definition
(Challenges a belief)
If you’re so smart, why aren't you rich? |
|
|
Term
CONCESSIVE CONDITIONALS
(types of conditionals) |
|
Definition
(Even if..)
I wouldn’t marry you if you were the last man on earth. |
|
|
Term
| Put: "Every student will succeed if he works hard" in Restricted Quantifier Notation. |
|
Definition
| [all x: STUDENT(x) ˄ WORK_HARD(x)] SUCCEED(x) |
|
|
Term
"If John did not come to work, he must be sick"
Describe analyzing the modal as having an EPISTEMIC reading. |
|
Definition
| [all w: (w is consistent with the available evidence) ˄ (the normal course of events is followed as closely as possible in w) ˄ (John did not come to work in w)] SICK(j) in w |
|
|
Term
"If John did not come to work, he must be fired"
Describe analyzing the modal as having an DEONTIC reading. |
|
Definition
| [all w: (the relevant circumstances of the actual world are also true in w) ˄ (the relevant authority’s requirements are satisfied as completely as possible in w) ˄ (John did not come to work in w)] FIRED(j) in w |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| TENSE indicates a temporal relation between Topic Time and time of speaking / grammatical marker that describes location in time. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
ASPECT indicates a temporal relation between Topic Time and Situation Time / Grammatical marker that describes the shape over time. / How an event is distributed over time.
Doesn’t locate the event at all, but it tells you something about the shape of the event (ie a repeating event, a punctiliar event, or an activity that does not really have an end point). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(selection of specific aktionsart/situation types): i.e. how the simple present in ENG can only be used for states.
This is like a selectional restriction for tense and aspect markers. |
|
|
Term
| Examples of the truth conditional analysis of ASPECT: |
|
Definition
The people of Babel built a to Heaven – FALSE perfective
The people of Babel were building a tower to heaven – TRUE imperfective |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“the time for which, on some occasion, a claim is made”
Adverbial time phrases like yesterday or last week normally modify the Topic Time.
“Topic” is “what we are talking about.” So Topic Time is the time span that we are talking about. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the time of the event or situation which is being described |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Uses of the English simple present tense: |
|
Definition
1. Gnomic (universal) statements: Water boils at 100o C – By using the simple present, this defines the property of water.
2. Simple present refers to states, not events.
3. Future events can only be in the simple present if they are scheduled. i.e. “The Foreign Minister flies to Paris on Tuesday.”
4. Stage directions, sports announcements (idiomatic meanings) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| indicates a temporal relation between TT and TU. Defines past, present, or future relative to the time of speaking. Absolute tenses are deictic elements, because their marking is anchored to the time of the current utterance. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| indicates a temporal relation between TT. The reference point for tense marking is some time other than the time of speaking. Anaphoric. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| combine absolute with relative time reference. ie “past in the past” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the contextually determined reference point of a relative tense marker |
|
|
Term
| Diagram: "I managed to get to the station at 3:15 pm, but the train had left promptly at 3:00." |
|
Definition
[ TT: 3:00 ] PT TU “past in the past” (23a)
---------------------------------
|TSit| (3:15) (now) |
|
|
Term
| Diagram: "When you arrive at his home tomorrow, Bill will have left five days ago (so you may want to check whether the plants need water)." |
|
Definition
[ TT: 4 days ago ] TU PT “past in the future” (23b)
---------------------------------
|TSit| (now) (tomorrow) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
PERFECTIVE indicates that Situation Time is contained in Topic Time.
TSit ⊆ TT |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
indicates that the Topic Time is a PROPER SUBSET of TSit
TT ⊂ TSit |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
indicates that TSit occurs before TT
TSit < TT |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
indicates that TT occurs before TSit
TT < TSit |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| describes a recurring event or on-going state which is a characteristic property of a certain period of time |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is non-habitual imperfective which is used only for events, and not for states. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is non-habitual imperfective which can be used for states, and perhaps for events as well. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What are the five major "situation types" (aktionsart)? |
|
Definition
1. STATE
2. ACTIVITY
3. ACCOMPLISHMENT
4. ACHIEVEMENT
5. SEMELFACTIVE |
|
|
Term
STATE
(five major 'situation types') |
|
Definition
Nothing changes. Homogenous time over time. ‘I am happy’ hate, love, know, own
(+ static)
(+ durative)
(- telic) |
|
|
Term
ACTIVITY
(five major 'situation types') |
|
Definition
running, dancing singing. Activities are atelic events such as dance, sing, carry a sword, hold a sign, etc.
(- static)
(+ durative)
(- telic) |
|
|
Term
ACCOMPLISHMENT
(five major 'situation types') |
|
Definition
change of state that require time. Accomplishments are durative telic events, meaning that they require some period of time in order to reach their end-point. Accomplishments often involve a process of some kind which results in a change of state. Examples include eat a pint of ice cream, build a house, run to the beach, clear a table, etc
(- static)
(+ durative)
(+ telic) |
|
|
Term
ACHIEVEMENT
(five major 'situation types') |
|
Definition
instantaneous: break, die, build a house. Achievements are telic events (normally involving a change of state) which are construed as being instantaneous: break, die, recognize, arrive, find, etc.
(- static)
(- durative)
(+ telic) |
|
|
Term
SEMELFACTIVE
(five major 'situation types') |
|
Definition
instantaneous event: clap hands, blink.
(- static)
(- durative)
(- telic) |
|
|
Term
| Tests for TELIC vs. ATELIC. |
|
Definition
1. TIME PHRASES: DURATION
2. TIME PHRASES: BOUNDING |
|
|
Term
TIME PHRASES: DURATION
(tests for telic vs. atelic) |
|
Definition
A description of an ATELIC event can be naturally modified by time phrases expressing duration:
For ten minutes Peter...
a. sang in Cantonese (atelic)
b. chased his pet iguana (atelic)
c. *broke three teeth. (telic) |
|
|
Term
TIME PHRASES: BOUNDING
(tests for telic vs. atelic) |
|
Definition
A description of a TELIC event can be naturally modified by time phrases expressing a temporal boundary:
In ten minutes Peter...
a. *chased his pet iguana (atelic)
b. broke three teeth (telic) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| those which do not have a natural endpoint. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| one that has a natural endpoint. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| situations which extend over a time interval (singing, dancing, reading poetry, climbing a mountain) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| situations which are construed as happening in an instant (recognizing someone, reaching the finish line, snapping your fingers, a window breaking) |
|
|
Term
| Test for DURATIVE vs. PUNCTILIAR |
|
Definition
| Punctiliar situations described in the progressive (He is tapping on the door/ blinking his eyes) normally require an iterative interpretation. |
|
|
Term
| Tests for EVENTS vs. STATES |
|
Definition
1. WHAT HAPPENED?
2. PROGRESSIVE
3. HABITUAL |
|
|
Term
WHAT HAPPENED?
(tests for events vs. states) |
|
Definition
Only sentences which describe eventive situations can be used appropriately to answer the question "What Happened?"
What happened was that...
a. Mary kissed the bishop (event)
b. the sun set. (event)
c. *Sally was Irish. |
|
|
Term
PROGRESSIVE
(tests for events vs. states) |
|
Definition
Only eventive situations can be naturally described using the progressive.
a. Mary is kissing the bishop. (event)
b. The sun is setting. (event)
c. *This room is being too warm. (state) |
|
|
Term
HABITUAL
(tests for events vs. states) |
|
Definition
Eventive situations described in the simple present tense take on a habitual interpretation.
a. Mary kisses the bishop (every Saturday). (event)
b. The sun sets in the west. (event)
c. This room is too warm. (state - note that it is not habitual) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. INCEPTIVE
2. INCHOATIVE
3. TERMINATIVE
4. CONTINUATIVE
5. ITERATIVE
6. DISTRIBUTIVE |
|
|
Term
INCEPTIVE
(minor aspect categories) |
|
Definition
| indicates that the beginning of the situation falls within the topic time. Such markers often get translated as begin to X. |
|
|
Term
INCHOATIVE
(minor aspect categories) |
|
Definition
| is sometimes used as a synonym for INCEPTIVE, but more commonly this term is restricted to changes of state or entering a state, e.g. to become fat, get old, get rich, etc.) |
|
|
Term
TERMINATIVE or COMPLETIVE
(minor aspect categories) |
|
Definition
| indicates that the end of the situation falls within the topic time. |
|
|
Term
CONTINUATIVE
(minor aspect categories) |
|
Definition
| continue to X, or keep on X-ing. |
|
|
Term
ITERATIVE
(minor aspect categories) |
|
Definition
| aspect is used to refer to events which occur repeatedly. Such forms are often translated into English using phrases like over and over, more and more, here and there, etc. |
|
|
Term
DISTRIBUTIVE
(minor aspect categories) |
|
Definition
| might be considered a sub-type of iterative; it indicates that an action is done by or to members of a group, one after another. |
|
|
Term
| Uses of the English Present Perfect: |
|
Definition
1. EXPERIENTIAL
2. PERSISTENT SITUATION
3. CONTINUING RESULT
4. RECENT PAST
5. STATIVE |
|
|
Term
EXPERIENTIAL
(uses of the English Present Perfect) |
|
Definition
a. Have you ever tasted fresh durian?
b. I have climbed Mt. Fuji twice in the past six months. |
|
|
Term
PERSISTENT SITUATION
(uses of the English Present Perfect) |
|
Definition
a. He has lived in Canberra since 1975.
b. I have been waiting for three days. |
|
|
Term
CONTINUING RESULT
(uses of the English Present Perfect) |
|
Definition
a. I have lost my glasses, so I can’t read this telegram.
b. The governor has fainted; don’t let the press know until he regains |
|
|
Term
RECENT PAST (or "Hot News")
(uses of the English Present Perfect) |
|
Definition
a. A group of former city employees has just abducted the Mayor.
b. The American president has announced new trade sanctions against the Vatican |
|
|
Term
STATIVE
(uses of the English Present Perfect) |
|
Definition
| “I’ve got two dollars in my pocket” |
|
|
Term
| Examples of perfect aspect: |
|
Definition
o In 1987, when I first met Arthur, he had (already) climbed Mt. Fuji four times. The events took place before TT so it’s perfect aspect. The situation itself was outside of topic time. Topic time, not time of the situation.
o Next Christmas, when you come to see me, I will have climbed Mt. Fuji four times. |
|
|
Term
| Examples of perfect tense: |
|
Definition
o Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize in 1922, for a paper that he had published in 1905. Past in the past.
o I will reach Tokyo at 6pm (PT), but George will have arrived at noon. |
|
|
Term
| Epistemic modality (must): |
|
Definition
| [all w: (w is consistent with the available evidence) ⋀ (the normal course of events is followed as closely as possible in w)] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| [all w: (the relevant circumstances of the actual world are also true in w) ⋀ (the relevant authority's requirements are satisfied as completely as possible in w)] |
|
|
Term
| Epistemic modality (may): |
|
Definition
| [some w: (w is consistent with the available evidence) ⋀ (the normal course of events is followed as closely as possible in w)] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| [some w: (the relevant circumstances of the actual world are also true in w) ⋀ (the relevant authority's requirements are satisfied as completely as possible in w)] |
|
|
