'Grammatical' vs. 'Lexical' Meaning Constructors for Glue Semantics

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

    Abstract

    Current theories of formal semantics allow arguments of predicates to be of non-basic types, such as e→p (e for entity, p for proposition, with no commitment to any particular treatment of propositions). Modal adjectives such as alleged are for example standardly analysed as being of type (e→p)→(e→p). But such analyses allow certain kinds of modal adjectives that dont seem to exist, such as a hypothetical alleger, such that an alleger murderer would be somebody who has made allegations that somebody (else) is a murderer. Here I make a proposal using LFG glue semantics that permits it to avoid allowing this kind of adjectival meaning, by dividing the basic compositional units of meaning into an open class of lexical meanings, of strongly restricted form, and a finite class fixed by UG of grammatical meanings, which dont obey these restrictions.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationSelected Papers from the 2009 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society
    EditorsYvonne Treis and Rik De Busser
    Place of PublicationMelbourne Australia
    PublisherAustralian Linguistics Society
    Pages34
    EditionPeer Reviewed
    ISBN (Print)9780980281538
    Publication statusPublished - 2010
    EventConference of the Australian Linguistic Society 2009 - Melbourne Australia, Australia
    Duration: 1 Jan 2010 → …
    http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2009

    Conference

    ConferenceConference of the Australian Linguistic Society 2009
    Country/TerritoryAustralia
    Period1/01/10 → …
    OtherJuly 9-11 2009
    Internet address

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of ''Grammatical' vs. 'Lexical' Meaning Constructors for Glue Semantics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this