{"title":"修饰修饰语的反事实分析","authors":"Toshiyuki Ogihara","doi":"10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I shall argue for a counterfactual analysis of the semantics of some ad-nominal modifiers. This analysis formalizes the intuition that adnominal modifiers are always restrictive in some sense. Technically, the proposal is formalized with an opera-tor that applies to two intensional entities of type and returns as the value the same type of semantic entity (type: ). In terms of how the rule works, it resem-bles Predicate Modification since it requires a special rule. However, it does not inter-sect the two sets in question. Rather, the rule yields a set of entities that are not neces-sarily a subset of the entities specified by the common noun in the actual world. I call this semantic procedure Restrictive Modification (RM). Essential reasoning is given as follows: the property of being x that has the modifier property and if in all closest worlds w in which x had a crucial property that all CN entities have, then x would have the CN property in w. For example, in the case of stone lion, it denotes the prop-erty of being x made of stone such that if x were to possess a crucial property that a re-al lion has (say, the property of being alive with flesh and blood), then x would be a real lion. This reasoning applies to a variety of adjective types. Some problematic ex-amples such as house key and ice water remain, and they are a reserved for a future study.","PeriodicalId":299752,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A counterfactual analysis of adnominal modifiers\",\"authors\":\"Toshiyuki Ogihara\",\"doi\":\"10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5559\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, I shall argue for a counterfactual analysis of the semantics of some ad-nominal modifiers. This analysis formalizes the intuition that adnominal modifiers are always restrictive in some sense. Technically, the proposal is formalized with an opera-tor that applies to two intensional entities of type and returns as the value the same type of semantic entity (type: ). In terms of how the rule works, it resem-bles Predicate Modification since it requires a special rule. However, it does not inter-sect the two sets in question. Rather, the rule yields a set of entities that are not neces-sarily a subset of the entities specified by the common noun in the actual world. I call this semantic procedure Restrictive Modification (RM). Essential reasoning is given as follows: the property of being x that has the modifier property and if in all closest worlds w in which x had a crucial property that all CN entities have, then x would have the CN property in w. For example, in the case of stone lion, it denotes the prop-erty of being x made of stone such that if x were to possess a crucial property that a re-al lion has (say, the property of being alive with flesh and blood), then x would be a real lion. This reasoning applies to a variety of adjective types. Some problematic ex-amples such as house key and ice water remain, and they are a reserved for a future study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":299752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5559\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5559","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, I shall argue for a counterfactual analysis of the semantics of some ad-nominal modifiers. This analysis formalizes the intuition that adnominal modifiers are always restrictive in some sense. Technically, the proposal is formalized with an opera-tor that applies to two intensional entities of type and returns as the value the same type of semantic entity (type: ). In terms of how the rule works, it resem-bles Predicate Modification since it requires a special rule. However, it does not inter-sect the two sets in question. Rather, the rule yields a set of entities that are not neces-sarily a subset of the entities specified by the common noun in the actual world. I call this semantic procedure Restrictive Modification (RM). Essential reasoning is given as follows: the property of being x that has the modifier property and if in all closest worlds w in which x had a crucial property that all CN entities have, then x would have the CN property in w. For example, in the case of stone lion, it denotes the prop-erty of being x made of stone such that if x were to possess a crucial property that a re-al lion has (say, the property of being alive with flesh and blood), then x would be a real lion. This reasoning applies to a variety of adjective types. Some problematic ex-amples such as house key and ice water remain, and they are a reserved for a future study.