No differences.

The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon at the ENS (

The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon in the

*14h LaCasse:* Restrictions on the space of Context Change Potentials

*14h45 Rothschild:* A Less Stipulative Dynamic Semantics

*15h45 Chemla:* Presuppositions from alternatives: getting the fine-grained picture

The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon in the

*14h45 Rothschild:* A Less Stipulative Dynamic Semantics

*15h45 Chemla:* Presuppositions from alternatives: getting the fine-grained picture

The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon in the same location as all the Ealing lectures.

Dynamic semantics lacks explanatory power. For any classical operator, it is possible to construct many dynamic operators which agree on the non-presuppositional cases but diverge on the presuppositional cases. However, only a few dynamic operators appear in natural language, and their bivalent meanings and presupposition projection properties seem to be constant across languages. I solve this problem by restricting the space of dynamic operators with some simple and intuitive constraints on the space of sentential operators and quantifiers. The constraints I posit make very strong predictions about the space of natural language operators:

- They predict only a small list of possible propositional connective meanings, including all propositional English connectives.

- They predict conservativity and universal presupposition projection from both the restrictor and nuclear scope of a quantifier.

These predictions make the constraints an effective solution to the over-generation problem of dynamic semantics.

I present a system for presupposition projection which relies on alternatives for presuppositional material. I will discuss the following properties of this system. First, it is predictive (see Rothschild's talk). Second, this theory is an extension of a theory of scalar implicatures (including free choice inferences). Consequently, the triggering problem (see Abrusan's talk) becomes comparable to the symmetry problem with usual scales. Besides, this prompts the question of the status of presuppositions, what is it (common belief?) and how does it come about (pre- or post-suppositions?). Third, this theory predicts different presuppositions for quantified sentences with different quantifiers (e.g.,

Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by

Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by

Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by

The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon in the same location as all the Ealing lectures.

Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by

The Workshop will take place Friday September the 20th in the afternoon in the same location as all the Ealing lectures.

The Workshop will take place Friday September the 20th in the afternoon in the same location as all the Ealing lectures.

The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon in the same location as all the Ealing lectures.

I present a system for presupposition projection which relies on alternatives for presuppositional material. I will discuss the following properties of this system. First, it is predictive (see Rothschild's talk). Second, this theory is an extension of a theory of scalar implicatures (including free choice inferences). Consequently, the triggering problem (see Abrusan's talk) becomes comparable to the symmetry problem with usual scales. Besides, this prompts the question of the status of presuppositions, what is it (common belief?) and how does it come about (pre- or post-suppositions?). Third, this theory predicts different presuppositions for quantified sentences with different quantifiers (e.g.,

I present a system for presupposition projection which relies on alternatives for presuppositional material. I will discuss the following properties of this system. First, it is predictive (see Rothschild's talk). Second, this theory is an extension of a theory of scalar implicatures (including free choice inferences). Consequently, the triggering problem (see Abrusan's talk) becomes comparable to the symmetry problem with usual scales. Besides, this prompts the question of the status of presuppositions, what is it (common belief?) and how does it come about (pre- or post-suppositions?). Third, this theory predicts different presuppositions for quantified sentences with different quantifiers (e.g.,

I present a system for presupposition projection which relies on alternatives for presuppositional material. I will discuss the following properties of this system. First, it is predictive (see Rothschild's talk). Second, this theory is an extension of a theory of scalar implicatures (including free choice inferences). Consequently, the triggering problem (see Abrusan's talk) becomes comparable to the symmetry problem with usual scales. Besides, this prompts the question of the status of presuppositions, what is it (common belief?) and how does it come about (pre- or post-suppositions?). Third, this theory predicts different presuppositions for quantified sentences with different quantifiers (e.g.,

I present a system for presupposition projection which relies on alternatives for presuppositional material. I will discuss the following properties of this system. First, it is predictive (see Rothschild's talk for discussion). Second, this theory is an extension of a theory of scalar implicatures (including free choice inferences). This prompts the question of the status of presuppositions, what is it (common belief?) and how does it come about (pre- or post-suppositions?). Beside, the triggering problem (see Abrusan's talk) becomes comparable to the symmetry problem with usual scales. Third, it predicts different presuppositions for different quantified sentences (e.g.,

I present a system for presupposition projection which relies on alternatives for presuppositional material. I will discuss the following properties of this system. First, it is predictive (see Rothschild's talk for discussion). Second, this theory is an extension of a theory of scalar implicatures (including free choice inferences). This prompts the question of the status of presuppositions, what is it (common belief?) and how does it come about (pre- or post-suppositions?). Beside, the triggering problem (see Abrusan's talk) becomes comparable to the symmetry problem with usual scales. Third, it predicts different presuppositions for different quantified sentences (e.g.,

I present a system for presupposition projection which relies on alternatives for presuppositional material. I will discuss the following properties of this system. First, it is predictive (see Rothschild's talk for discussion). Second, this theory is an extension of a theory of scalar implicatures and free choice inferences. This prompts the question of the status of presuppositions, what is it (common belief?) and how does it come about (pre- or post-suppositions?). Beside, the triggering problem (see Abrusan's talk) becomes comparable to the symmetry problem with usual scales. Third, it predicts different presuppositions for different quantified sentences (e.g.,

Page view:

...Back to the main page of the program
Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by

The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon in the same location as all the Ealing lectures.

...Back to the main page of the program

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional ::
Powered by Wikka Wakka Wiki 1.1.6.2

Page was generated in 0.2430 seconds