更新规则和语义共性。

IF 1.1 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Luca Incurvati, Giorgio Sbardolini
{"title":"更新规则和语义共性。","authors":"Luca Incurvati,&nbsp;Giorgio Sbardolini","doi":"10.1007/s10988-022-09362-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We discuss a well-known puzzle about the lexicalization of logical operators in natural language, in particular connectives and quantifiers. Of the many logically possible operators, only few appear in the lexicon of natural languages: the connectives in English, for example, are conjunction <i>and</i>, disjunction <i>or</i>, and negated disjunction <i>nor</i>; the lexical quantifiers are <i>all, some</i> and <i>no</i>. The logically possible nand (negated conjunction) and Nall (negated universal) are not expressed by lexical entries in English, nor in any natural language. Moreover, the lexicalized operators are all upward or downward monotone, an observation known as the Monotonicity Universal. We propose a logical explanation of lexical gaps and of the Monotonicity Universal, based on the dynamic behaviour of connectives and quantifiers. We define update potentials for logical operators as procedures to modify the context, under the assumption that an update by <math><mi>ϕ</mi></math> depends on the logical form of <math><mi>ϕ</mi></math> and on the speech act performed: assertion or rejection. We conjecture that the adequacy of update potentials determines the limits of lexicalizability for logical operators in natural language. Finally, we show that on this framework the Monotonicity Universal follows from the logical properties of the updates that correspond to each operator.</p>","PeriodicalId":47748,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics and Philosophy","volume":"46 2","pages":"259-289"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10036462/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Update rules and semantic universals.\",\"authors\":\"Luca Incurvati,&nbsp;Giorgio Sbardolini\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10988-022-09362-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We discuss a well-known puzzle about the lexicalization of logical operators in natural language, in particular connectives and quantifiers. Of the many logically possible operators, only few appear in the lexicon of natural languages: the connectives in English, for example, are conjunction <i>and</i>, disjunction <i>or</i>, and negated disjunction <i>nor</i>; the lexical quantifiers are <i>all, some</i> and <i>no</i>. The logically possible nand (negated conjunction) and Nall (negated universal) are not expressed by lexical entries in English, nor in any natural language. Moreover, the lexicalized operators are all upward or downward monotone, an observation known as the Monotonicity Universal. We propose a logical explanation of lexical gaps and of the Monotonicity Universal, based on the dynamic behaviour of connectives and quantifiers. We define update potentials for logical operators as procedures to modify the context, under the assumption that an update by <math><mi>ϕ</mi></math> depends on the logical form of <math><mi>ϕ</mi></math> and on the speech act performed: assertion or rejection. We conjecture that the adequacy of update potentials determines the limits of lexicalizability for logical operators in natural language. Finally, we show that on this framework the Monotonicity Universal follows from the logical properties of the updates that correspond to each operator.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistics and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"46 2\",\"pages\":\"259-289\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10036462/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistics and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-022-09362-1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistics and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-022-09362-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们讨论了自然语言中逻辑运算符词汇化的一个众所周知的难题,特别是连接词和量词。在许多逻辑上可能的运算符中,只有少数出现在自然语言的词典中:例如英语中的连接词是连接和,析取或,和否定析取nor;词汇量词是all, some和no。逻辑上可能的nand(否定连词)和Nall(否定全称)在英语和任何自然语言中都不是通过词汇条目来表达的。此外,词法化的操作符都是向上单调或向下单调的,这种现象被称为单调全称。基于连接词和量词的动态行为,我们提出了词汇间隙和单调泛性的逻辑解释。我们将逻辑运算符的更新潜力定义为修改上下文的过程,假设φ的更新取决于φ的逻辑形式和所执行的言语行为:断言或拒绝。我们推测,更新潜能的充分性决定了自然语言中逻辑运算符的词汇化极限。最后,我们证明了在这个框架下,单调全称是由对应于每个操作符的更新的逻辑属性推导出来的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Update rules and semantic universals.

Update rules and semantic universals.

Update rules and semantic universals.

Update rules and semantic universals.

We discuss a well-known puzzle about the lexicalization of logical operators in natural language, in particular connectives and quantifiers. Of the many logically possible operators, only few appear in the lexicon of natural languages: the connectives in English, for example, are conjunction and, disjunction or, and negated disjunction nor; the lexical quantifiers are all, some and no. The logically possible nand (negated conjunction) and Nall (negated universal) are not expressed by lexical entries in English, nor in any natural language. Moreover, the lexicalized operators are all upward or downward monotone, an observation known as the Monotonicity Universal. We propose a logical explanation of lexical gaps and of the Monotonicity Universal, based on the dynamic behaviour of connectives and quantifiers. We define update potentials for logical operators as procedures to modify the context, under the assumption that an update by ϕ depends on the logical form of ϕ and on the speech act performed: assertion or rejection. We conjecture that the adequacy of update potentials determines the limits of lexicalizability for logical operators in natural language. Finally, we show that on this framework the Monotonicity Universal follows from the logical properties of the updates that correspond to each operator.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Linguistics and Philosophy focuses on issues related to structure and meaning in natural language, as addressed in the semantics, philosophy of language, pragmatics and related disciplines, in particular the following areas: philosophical theories of meaning and truth, reference, description, entailment, presupposition, implicatures, context-dependence, and speech actslinguistic theories of semantic interpretation in relation to syntactic structure and prosody, of discourse structure, lexcial semantics and semantic changepsycholinguistic theories of semantic interpretation and issues of the processing and acquisition of natural language, and the relation of semantic interpretation to other cognitive facultiesmathematical and logical properties of natural language and general aspects of computational linguisticsphilosophical questions raised by linguistics as a science: linguistics methodology, properties of linguistic theories and frameworks, and the relation of linguistics to other fields of inquiryContributions may be in the form of articles, replies, or review articles. Linguistics and Philosophy is indexed in the ISI/Social Science Citation Index.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信