Warning: session_start(): open(/var/lib/php4/sess_fe105b5e46950578fa453a0fca8bbc1f, O_RDWR) failed: Permission denied (13) in /home/dec/ealing/public_html/ealing2012/site/wikka.php on line 203
EALING: Program:

EALING : WorkShop

HomePage :: Presentation - Program - Registration - PosterSession - Food & Lodging - Practical Information ::
Search:
Most recent edit on 2008-09-18 23:03:58 by WebMaster

Additions:

Nick LaCasse (UCLA)



Deletions:

Nick LaCasse (UCLA)





Edited on 2008-09-18 23:03:21 by WebMaster

Additions:
2:00 LaCasse: Restrictions on the space of Context Change Potentials

Deletions:
2:00 LaCasse: Restrictions on the space of Context Change Potentials



Edited on 2008-09-18 22:05:22 by WebMaster

Additions:
2:00 LaCasse: Restrictions on the space of Context Change Potentials

Nick LaCasse (UCLA)



Deletions:
2:00 Lacasse: Restrictions on the space of Context Change Potentials

Nick Lacasse (UCLA)





Edited on 2008-09-18 21:56:14 by WebMaster

Additions:

Emmanuel Chemla (IJN and LSCP, ENS)

Marta Abrusan (IJN, ENS)



Deletions:

Emmanuel Chemla (IJN and LSCP, Ecole Normale Supérieure)

Marta Abrusan (IJN, Ecole Normale Supérieure)





Edited on 2008-09-18 21:55:12 by WebMaster

No differences.


Edited on 2008-09-18 21:52:54 by WebMaster

Additions:
The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon at the ENS (Salle des Résistants, as all the Ealing lectures).

Deletions:
The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon in the Salle des résistants of the ENS, as all the Ealing lectures.



Edited on 2008-09-18 21:51:12 by WebMaster

Additions:

Program:



Deletions:

Program:





Edited on 2008-09-18 21:49:35 by WebMaster

Additions:

Program:

3:45 Chemla: Presuppositions from alternatives: getting the fine-grained picture


Deletions:
Program
3:45 Chemla: Presuppositions from alternatives: getting the fine-grained picture




Edited on 2008-09-18 21:48:50 by WebMaster

Additions:
2:00 Lacasse: Restrictions on the space of Context Change Potentials 2:45 Rothschild: A Less Stipulative Dynamic Semantics
3:45 Chemla: Presuppositions from alternatives: getting the fine-grained picture
4:30 Abrusan: On the triggering problem


Deletions:
*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
*16h30 Abrusan:* On the triggering problem




Edited on 2008-09-18 21:47:34 by WebMaster

Additions:
The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon in the Salle des résistants of the ENS, as all the Ealing lectures.
Program
*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
*16h30 Abrusan:* On the triggering problem

Abstracts:



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

Preliminary list of speakers and lecture titles:





Edited on 2008-09-18 21:41:49 by WebMaster

Additions:
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.




Edited on 2008-09-15 09:31:28 by WebMaster

Additions:
Abstract: 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., none vs. numerical quantifiers), as is now supported by experimental data.
Abstract: It is argued that the truth value of atomic sentences has to depend on the properties of their arguments, in other words the atomic sentence has to be about its arguments. Concentrating on verbal presupposition triggers, I argue that those entailments, which, if they were to be false, could prevent the atomic sentence to be about its arguments, are turned into presuppositions.


Deletions:
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., none vs. numerical quantifiers), as is now supported by experimental data.



Edited on 2008-09-14 21:52:30 by WebMaster

Additions:
Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by Nathan Klinedinst and Daniel Rothschild, and by Philippe Schlenker (in particular his last lecture Friday September 19th entitled The Current Debate

Deletions:
Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by Nathan Klinedinst and Daniel Rothschild, and by Philippe Schlenker (in particular his last lecture Saturday September 20th entitled The Current Debate



Edited on 2008-09-14 21:46:11 by WebMaster

Additions:
Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by Nathan Klinedinst and Daniel Rothschild, and by Philippe Schlenker (in particular his last lecture Saturday September 20th entitled The Current Debate
The Workshop will take place Saturday September the 20th in the afternoon in the same location as all the Ealing lectures.


Deletions:
Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by Nathan Klinedinst and Daniel Rothschild, and by Philippe Schlenker (in particular his last lecture Friday September 19th entitled The Current Debate
The Workshop will take place Friday September the 20th in the afternoon in the same location as all the Ealing lectures.




Edited on 2008-09-14 00:14:38 by WebMaster

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

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



Edited on 2008-09-08 05:57:18 by WebMaster

Additions:

Preliminary list of speakers and lecture titles:



Deletions:

Preliminary list of interveners and lecture titles:





Edited on 2008-09-08 03:51:29 by WebMaster

Additions:
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., none vs. numerical quantifiers), as is now supported by experimental data.

Deletions:
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., none vs. numerical quantifiers), as it is now supported by experimental data.



Edited on 2008-09-08 03:49:42 by WebMaster

Additions:
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., none vs. numerical quantifiers), as it is now supported by experimental data.

Deletions:
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., none vs. numerical quantifiers), as it is now supported by experimental data.



Edited on 2008-09-08 03:47:17 by WebMaster

Additions:
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., none vs. numerical quantifiers), as it is now supported by experimental data.

Deletions:
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., none vs. numerical quantifiers), as it is now supported by experimental data.



Oldest known version of this page was edited on 2008-09-08 03:46:20 by WebMaster []
Page view:
...Back to the main page of the program
Students can prepare for this workshop by attending the courses taught by Nathan Klinedinst and Daniel Rothschild, and by Philippe Schlenker (in particular his last lecture Friday September 19th entitled The Current Debate

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

Preliminary list of interveners and lecture titles:


Nick Lacasse (UCLA)

Restrictions on the space of Context Change Potentials

Daniel Rothschild (Columbia University)

A Less Stipulative Dynamic Semantics
Abstract: Heim's classic paper "On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions" (1983) proposed a replacement of truth-conditional semantics with a dynamic semantics that treats meanings as instructions to update the common ground. Heim's system predicts the basic pattern of presupposition projection quite accurately. The classic objection to this program (including other versions of dynamic semantics) is that the treatment of binary connectives is stipulative, and other, equally natural treatments fail to make the right predictions about presupposition projection. I give a variation on Heim's system that is designed to escape this objection.


Emmanuel Chemla (IJN and LSCP, Ecole Normale Supérieure)

Presuppositions from alternatives: getting the fine-grained picture
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., none vs. numerical quantifiers), as it is now supported by experimental data.

Marta Abrusan (IJN, Ecole Normale Supérieure)

On the triggering problem




...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