DOC PREVIEW
MIT 24 954 - Study References

This preview shows page 1 out of 3 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Intro to Pragmatics (Fox/Menéndez-Benito) 10/12/06 Back to disjunction (cleaning up before we go) • As Fox 2006 notes, putting together Sauerland’s alternatives for disjunction with the semantics for exh (and only) that we have now with gives us wrong predictions. 1) [[exh]] = λC<st,t> λpλw (p(w) & ∀q (C(q) & q(w)) → (p ⇒ q)) p ⇒ q = def ∀w (p(w) → q(w)) 2) John talked to Mary or Sue. • Sauerland-alternatives for 2): (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) John talked to Mary or Sue. John talked to Mary John talked to Sue. John talked to Mary and Sue. • Applying exh to (1), we get (i) that John talked to Mary or Sue (ii) that John didn’t talk to both Mary and Sue. (iii) that John didn’t talk to Mary (iv) that John didn’t talk to Sue.  (iii) and (iv) together contradict the assertion (i). [cf. G & S 1984: 3) Who did John talk to? Only Mary or SUE. ] • Innocent exclusion: 4) [[Exh]] = λ C<st,t> λpstλw (p(w) & ∀q∈ I-E(p,C) → ¬q(w)) I-E(p,C) = ∩{C ⊆ C: C’ is a maximal set in C such that C’¬ ∪ {p} is consistent} (i) Identify the maximal sets in C whose exclusion would be consistent with the propositional argument of Exh. Cite as: Daniel Fox and Paula Menendez-Benito, course materials for 24.954 Pragmatics in LinguisticTheory, Fall 2006. MIT OpenCourseWare (http://ocw.mit.edu/), Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Downloaded on [DD Month YYYY].Intro to Pragmatics (Fox/Menéndez-Benito) 10/12/06 (ii) The propositions that can be intersection of all of those sets innocently excluded are the ones in the 5) Exh (A ∨ B) 6) A ∨ B A B A & B Maximal sets whose exclusion would be consistent with ‘A or B’: 7) {A, A & B} 8) {B, A & B} Innocently excludable alternatives: A & B Hence: Exh (A ∨ B) = A or B & ~ (A & B) • Replicating Sauerland’s results: 9) Kai did do the reading or some of the homework Alternatives: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) r ∨ sh r sh r & sh r ∨ ah ah r & ah Cite as: Daniel Fox and Paula Menendez-Benito, course materials for 24.954 Pragmatics in LinguisticTheory, Fall 2006. MIT OpenCourseWare (http://ocw.mit.edu/), Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Downloaded on [DD Month YYYY].Intro to Pragmatics (Fox/Menéndez-Benito) 10/12/06 Maximal exclusion: dotted lines Intersection: solid lines. 10) [[Excl]] ((58)) = Kai did not eat the broccoli or some of the peas and (i) Kai did not eat all of the peas. (ii) Kai did not eat the broccoli and some of the peas [(iii) Kai did not eat the broccoli and all of the peas ] Cite as: Daniel Fox and Paula Menendez-Benito, course materials for 24.954 Pragmatics in LinguisticTheory, Fall 2006. MIT OpenCourseWare (http://ocw.mit.edu/), Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Downloaded on [DD Month


View Full Document

MIT 24 954 - Study References

Download Study References
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Study References and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Study References 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?