Search

In this paper we challenge the Optionality Criterion that goes with Recanati (2010)'s philosophical position called 'Truth-Conditional Pragmatics' (TCP). According to this criterion, any primary pragmatic process of interpretation other than saturation of context-sensitive expressions is intrinsically optional. This sense of 'optional' opposes a notion of mandatory which is too strict in so far as saturation, the only process considered as obligatory, does not always provide us with minimal propositions. This leads us to reconsider the notion of mandatory and to reformulate the core tenet of TCP in the following way: some primary pragmatic processes of modulation may have an optional demand but this does not avoid that on other occasions the same processes may be mandatorily demanded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the French philosopher François Recanati provides a summary for his book "Truth-Conditional Pragmatics." Recanati focuses on context in linguistics, the philosophy of language and semantics. Other topics include contextualism, the minimalist theory and the book "Literal Meaning" by Recanati.

In this article the French philosopher François Recanati provides a summary for his book "Truth-Conditional Pragmatics." Recanati focuses on context in linguistics, the philosophy of language and semantics. Other topics include contextualism, the minimalist theory and the book "Literal Meaning" by Recanati.

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a unified formal framework for complex systems modeling. To this aim, we define a unified semantics for systems including integration operators. We consider complex systems as functional blackboxes (with internal states), whose structure and behaviors can be constructed through a recursive integration of heterogeneous components. We first introduce formal definitions of time (allowing to deal uniformly with both continuous and discrete times) and data (allowing to handle heterogeneous data), and introduce a generic synchronization mechanism for dataflows. We then define a system as a mathematical object characterized by coupled functional and states behaviors. This definition is expressive enough to capture the functional behavior of any real system with sequential transitions. We finally provide formal operators for integrating systems and show that they are consistent with the classical definitions of those operators on transfer functions which model real systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This afterword constructs a working typology of nominalizations, based on but not restricted to the papers collected in this special issue. The typology is based on what we call the Functional Nominalization Thesis (FNT), a version of the model of “mixed projections” proposed in which claims that nominal properties of a nominalization are contributed by a nominal functional projection; above that projection the structure has nominal properties, below it, verbal properties. We argue for four possible levels of nominalization, CP, TP, vP and VP. We show that certain internal syntactic phenomena are characteristic of different levels of nominalization: genitive subjects of nominalization at TP and below, genitive objects of nominalization at vP and below. We suggest that the inventory of categories implicated in nominalization is quite restricted: D, and nominal counterparts of ‘light’ verbal categories. We examine two alternatives to the FNT, the framework of and head-sharing approach, and argue that our treatment is more appropriate under a minimalist approach, as it accommodates the facts within an independently motivated inventory of functional categories, without positing a special type of category limited only to nominalizations. We counter Bresnan''s objections against a syntactic derivation of nominalizations by showing that a word''s lexical integrity can be successfully violated by “suspended affixation” in syntactically derived nominalizations in Turkish while such integrity has to be respected in lexically derived nominalizations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper provides an overview of the syntax and semantics of Romance clitic impersonal constructions (CL-ICs), as present in the grammars of Spanish and Italian, within the framework of the Minimalist Program. Syntactically, these structures are characterised by the presence of the clitic se/si, which is analysed as a 0-person clitic, along with other person clitics in Romance, and heads a functional projection in the temporal domain immediately above T(ense). The syntactic properties of CL-ICs can be accounted for with reference to the complex agreement operations involving the clitic se/si, the empty category in subject position (a null generic pronoun: G-pro), the object argument in transitive contexts, and the features of the heads T and v. The interpretation of CL-ICs crucially relies on the presence of G-pro in the specifier position of vP: it introduces a variable that can be bound by an existential or a universal quantifier, which accounts for the variable quantificational force of CL-ICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a critique of two foundational assumptions of generative work culminating in the Minimalist Program: the assumption that, as a matter of conceptual necessity, language has a ‘double-interface property’ and the related assumption that phonology has a realizational function with respect to syntax-semantics. The issues are broached through a critique of Holmberg's (2000) analysis of Stylistic Fronting in Icelandic. We show that, although empirically motivated, and although based on the double-interface assumption, this analysis is incompatible with that assumption and with the notion of (phonological) realization. Independently of Stylistic Fronting, we argue that the double-interface assumption is a problematic legacy of Saussure's conception of the linguistic sign and that, conceptually, it is neither explanatory nor necessary. The Representational Hypothesis (e.g. Burton-Roberts 2000) develops a Peircian conception of the relation between sound and meaning that breaks with the Saussurian tradition, though in a way consistent with minimalist goals. Other superficially similar approaches (Lexeme—Morpheme Base Morphology, Distributed Morphology, Jackendoff's Parallel Architecture) are discussed; it is argued that they, too, perpetuate aspects of Saussurian thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, by Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore. The author stated that Cappelen and Lepore defended semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism in their book. A great deal of such defense focuses on the relationship between speech act content and semantic content. The author argues that Cappelen's and Lepore's argument fails due to the fact that they did not paid attention to the distinction between semantic content and speech act content.

The article comments on the book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, by Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore. The author claims that Cappelen and Lepore are minimalists. They claim that there is a short list of expressions and that the meaning of sentences is their truth-conditional content. They hold that sentences express complete propositions independent of context. The author explained his argument for Crazy Minimalism. The author also stated that there are two sides for the standard criterion for context-sensitivity.

The article offers some comments on the book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, by Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore. The book's main thesis is that all context sensitivity can be traced through expressions. And when this thesis is combined with the claim that the semantic content of an insensitive sentence is a proposition expressed by every utterance of that sentence, the doctrine of semantic minimalism emerges. Although the author disagrees with a great deal in the book, he endorses the outlook of its authors. The author expresses his reservations about speech act pluralism and about semantic minimalism.

The article presents the response of Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore to commentaries about their book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. The authors argue that their view is not radical. They explained that Insensitive Semantics is about methodology in semantics. They focus on the interplay between certain basic methodological assumptions. The authors also clarified that the various tests for context sensitivity are only used to provide evidence that sentences or expressions are context sensitive.

The article offers some comments on the book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, by Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore. There are some complaints by the authors against radical contextualism. The first one is that it postulates context sensitivity, another is that it blocks communication and third is its internal inconsistency. The notion that drives radical contextualism is that the open sentences of language speak of ways for things that admit understanding.

We argue that there are no devices in the grammar specific to coordination. The grammar is only capable of providing asymmetric structures, through particular lexical entries relating to semantic conjunction. Such entries produce adjunction structures, rather than head-complement structures. The interpretation of conjunction structures is a joint function of such lexical entries, processing properties, and pragmatics. Coordination phenomena are the result of an unresolved ambivalence between a ‘head initial’ and a ‘head final’ asymmetric conjunction structure, with the effect that there are parallel representations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]