Semantics. Frames of the logic XXX (XXX-frames) are tuples F = (W, R, A) defined as follows. – W is a non empty set of possible worlds or states. −→ × – R : ∆ W W maps every possible action token i:α to a deterministic relation Ri:α between possible worlds in W .3 −→ × – A : 2AGT∗ W W maps every non-empty set of agents I to a transitive4 and Euclidean5 relation AI between possible worlds in W . It is convenient to view relations on W as functions from W to 2W ; therefore we write AI (w) = {wj : (w, wj) ∈ AI } and Ri:α(w) = {wj : (w, wj) ∈ Ri:α}. If AI (w) ƒ= ∅ and Ri:α(w) =ƒ ∅ then we say that AI and Ri:α are defined at w. ∈ { } { } Given a world w ∈ W , AI (w) is the set of worlds which are compatible with group I’s agreements at world w. If I is a xxxxxxxxx i then A{i}(w) is the set of worlds that agent i prefers. If (w, wj) Ri:α then wj is the unique actual successor world of world w, that will be reached from w through the occurrence of agent i’s action α at w. (We might also say that Ri:α is a partial function). Therefore, if Ri:α(w) = wj then at w agent i performs an action α resulting in the next state wj. ∈ joint action δI at w. If wj of joint action δI by I at w. i∈I Rδi (w) then world wj results from the performance T It is convenient to use RδI = Ti∈I Rδi . If RδI (w) ƒ= ∅ then coalition I performs Frames will have to satisfy some other constraints in order to be legal XXX-frames. For every i, j ∈ AGT , α ∈ REP(i), β ∈ REP(j) and w ∈ W we have: S1 if Ri:α and Rj:β are defined at w then Ri:α(w) = Rj:β(w).
Semantics. The study of semantics discusses the connection between conventional meaning and words. An intriguing question to ask is: What can semantics tell us about the word “prayer”? Certainly, background analysis of this concept and its semantic qualities would appear to answer questions posed in this thesis. However, there is an important nuance between a semantic study of the word “prayer” and a qualitative linguistic study of the concept of prayer. Most simply put, a semantic study is much narrower than a qualitative linguistic study. Although the concept of prayer includes all the denotations of the word “prayer,” all the semantic meanings of the word “prayer” do not completely explain the concept of prayer. The semantics of the concept of prayer include semantic patterns of words that occur in prayer. Crucially, the word “prayer” need not actually occur during prayer. Understanding the meaning of a word in one language is not enough to understand the concept across languages and cultures. Exhibit F: Different conceptions of prayer in different languages.63 There are categories of concepts that are represented by the different words for prayer in different languages. However, no one set of these semantic manifestations contains all of the concepts that make up the “universal” concept of prayer. This thesis hypothesizes that there exists a concept of prayer that is relatively consistent and stable across cultures and languages. This concept manifests itself in language, and the ways that it does so may differ from culture to culture. The English word “prayer” brings to mind a set of concepts, many of which are part of the larger concept of prayer, but might not accurately represent how a greater population of humanity views it. Therefore, a semantic examination of the word “prayer” would only yield a subset of relevant concepts. Relevant are the semantic trends that occur across the languages and cultures examined in this study sample. 63This exhibit is meant to simplify the difference highlighted between conceptions of prayer. In reality, this graphic would be much more complicated with the smaller circles overlapping with each other to exemplify the concentration of concepts that each word shares across languages. For instance, there are likely overlapping concepts between “prayer” and oracíon, but the purpose of the graphic is to show that neither of them separately can adequately explain larger concept of prayer. One of the strongest semantic trends is the ...
Semantics. In this section we provide a preliminary account of how the semantics of Wubuy NI might be handled in LFG, building on both NS08 and in particular on Asudeh (2007), which provides an account of the semantics of non-valency preserving Niuean pseudo-incorporation (see also Asudeh and Ball (2005),Van Geenhoven (1998), Xxxxxx and xx Xxxxx (2003), Xxxxx and Ladu- saw (2003)). The fundamental distinction between compounding (non-valency preserving) incorporation (as found in Niuean) and classifier incorporation (as in Wubuy), is that the latter involves a subcategorised argument of the verb - that is, there is evidence that the IN continues to bear a syntactic grammatical function subcategorised by the verbal stem, rather than being syntactically inert (as is the case in so-called compounding incorporation). The term pseudo-incorporation refers to the fact that Niuean incorporation appears to be syntactic rather than morphological (but this is orthogonal to the semantic treatment). We begin therefore by summarising the approach taken in Asudeh (2007). In terms of the syntax, Asudeh (2007) introduces a non-xxxxxx XX labelled INCORPORATE. Modifiers of the incorporate will occur freely in the syntax (Niuean does not exhibit doubling). The following illustrates the approach: (31) is the phrase structure rule introducing the the incor- poration structure and (32) is the f-structure for the example in (30). Note that the non-thematic INCORPORATE corresponds to a semantic argument of the verb ((↑ σ ARG) = ↓σ).
Semantics. With regard to the semantics, we find no evidence that the two detransitive structures differ beyond the fact that (i) the kha-antipassive is limited to human arguments, and (ii) the ø-detransitive but not the kha-detransitive allows lexical specification of the detransitivized object. Both structures share the semantic property of deleting any entailment to the cardinality of referents and are thus generally used for non-enumerable or generic reference, as we explain in the following. In standard intransitive or transitive clauses, Puma agreement desinences are neutral as to the referential status of the arguments they are triggered by. Specifi- cally, agreement markers can be coindexed with specific-reference NPs just as well as with indefinite pronouns and generic expressions.5 This is true of all agreement markers alike. We first discuss this with data for A-agreement, then for P- agreement. 4 The sentence would be grammatical if yoŋni ‘friend’ (without dative case) would be analyzed as the theme argument, resulting in the pragmatically odd reading ‘I gave a friend to someone/people’.
Semantics. The definition below mimics the usual semantics of formulas in Kripke models, reformulated here in terms of simplicial models: |