{"title":"Om denne boka","authors":"Kristina Hagen","doi":"10.5617/osla.8161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.8161","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131329307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It has been observed that cross-linguistically the core posture verbs ‘sit’/‘stand/‘lie’ can extend their meaning beyond the literal sense encoding posture or spatial orientation (see Newman 2002 for an overview). In the cognitive literature, the conceptual background of these extensions has been discussed, but up to now, there has been no discussion of the non-literal senses in the theoretical linguistic literature, including how the different senses are disambiguated. This paper supplements the cognitive descriptions of posture verbs, presenting data from an independent corpus study and proposing a formal analysis. The in-depth investigation of one English posture verb, ‘sit’, yields an empirical generalization that contributes to the discussion surrounding non-literal meaning.
{"title":"Polysemous Posture in English: A Case Study of Non-literal Meaning","authors":"Katherine Fraser","doi":"10.5617/osla.6673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.6673","url":null,"abstract":"It has been observed that cross-linguistically the core posture verbs ‘sit’/‘stand/‘lie’ can extend their meaning beyond the literal sense encoding posture or spatial orientation (see Newman 2002 for an overview). In the cognitive literature, the conceptual background of these extensions has been discussed, but up to now, there has been no discussion of the non-literal senses in the theoretical linguistic literature, including how the different senses are disambiguated. This paper supplements the cognitive descriptions of posture verbs, presenting data from an independent corpus study and proposing a formal analysis. The in-depth investigation of one English posture verb, ‘sit’, yields an empirical generalization that contributes to the discussion surrounding non-literal meaning.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131486675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents an analysis of coercion and related phenomena in the framework of Dependent Type Semantics (DTS). Using underspecified terms in DTS, we present an analysis of selectional restriction as presupposition; we then combine it with a type called ‘transfer frame’ to provide an analysis of coercion. Our analysis focuses on the fact that coercion is triggered not only by type mismatch between predicates and their arguments, but also by more general inference with contextual information. We show how the analysis can be extended to copredication of logical polysemy and complement coercion. Finally, we will suggest that this analysis can shed light on an aspect of complicity that is invoked in interpreting coercion and other meaning-shifting phenomena.
{"title":"Coercion as Proof Search in Dependent Type Semantics","authors":"Eriko Kinoshita, K. Mineshima, D. Bekki","doi":"10.5617/osla.6680","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.6680","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents an analysis of coercion and related phenomena in the framework of Dependent Type Semantics (DTS). Using underspecified terms in DTS, we present an analysis of selectional restriction as presupposition; we then combine it with a type called ‘transfer frame’ to provide an analysis of coercion. Our analysis focuses on the fact that coercion is triggered not only by type mismatch between predicates and their arguments, but also by more general inference with contextual information. We show how the analysis can be extended to copredication of logical polysemy and complement coercion. Finally, we will suggest that this analysis can shed light on an aspect of complicity that is invoked in interpreting coercion and other meaning-shifting phenomena.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126027226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Counting constructions with mass terms like ‘two beers’ have at least two coerced interpretations depending on context. For example, ‘two beers’ can have either a container (count) interpretation of ‘two glasses filled with beer’ or a portion (count) interpretation of ‘two portions of beer, each (equivalent to) the contents of one glass’. The intriguing puzzle we address, which has escaped attention, is why it is hard to get a measure (mass) interpretation of ‘beer to the amount of two glassfuls’, despite the fact that this and the other two interpretations are available for full pseudo-partitives such as ‘two glasses of beer’. Our proposal rests on an idea, backed up by co-predication data, that the measure interpretation is derived from the portion interpretation. It follows from this that coerced measure interpretations of counting constructions with mass terms would require coercing an implicit portion concept such as GLASS into a measure interpretation, something which, we argue, cannot easily be done.
{"title":"Counting Construcions and Coercion: Container, Portion and Measure Interpretations","authors":"Peter R. Sutton, H. Filip","doi":"10.5617/OSLA.6678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/OSLA.6678","url":null,"abstract":"Counting constructions with mass terms like ‘two beers’ have at least two coerced interpretations depending on context. For example, ‘two beers’ can have either a container (count) interpretation of ‘two glasses filled with beer’ or a portion (count) interpretation of ‘two portions of beer, each (equivalent to) the contents of one glass’. The intriguing puzzle we address, which has escaped attention, is why it is hard to get a measure (mass) interpretation of ‘beer to the amount of two glassfuls’, despite the fact that this and the other two interpretations are available for full pseudo-partitives such as ‘two glasses of beer’. Our proposal rests on an idea, backed up by co-predication data, that the measure interpretation is derived from the portion interpretation. It follows from this that coerced measure interpretations of counting constructions with mass terms would require coercing an implicit portion concept such as GLASS into a measure interpretation, something which, we argue, cannot easily be done.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121382741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Copredication, especially when combined with quantification, provides interesting examples to support the idea that common nouns have their own identity criteria, as once argued for by Geach and subsequently studied by others. In this paper, revisiting the use of dot-types in modern type theories to model copredication, we show that, when both copredication and quantification are involved, CNs are not just types but should better be interpreted as types associated with their own identity criteria. In other words, formally, CNs are setoids – pairs whose first component is a type that interprets the domain of a CN and whose second component gives the identity criterion for that CN. For copredication with quantification, identity criteria play an essential role in giving a proper treatment of individuation and counting and hence constructing appropriate semantics to facilitate reasoning correctly. With CNs being setoids, the dot-type approach provides an adequate theory for copredication in general and for copredication with quantification in particular. It is further explained that the CNs-as-types approach is still the appropriate characterisation of our approach to interpreting CNs since, in phenomena that do not involve the interaction of copredication with quantification, the identity criteria of related CNs are essentially the same and can be safely ignored.
{"title":"Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and dot-types for Copredication","authors":"S. Chatzikyriakidis, Zhaohui Luo","doi":"10.5617/osla.6679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.6679","url":null,"abstract":"Copredication, especially when combined with quantification, provides interesting examples to support the idea that common nouns have their own identity criteria, as once argued for by Geach and subsequently studied by others. In this paper, revisiting the use of dot-types in modern type theories to model copredication, we show that, when both copredication and quantification are involved, CNs are not just types but should better be interpreted as types associated with their own identity criteria. In other words, formally, CNs are setoids – pairs whose first component is a type that interprets the domain of a CN and whose second component gives the identity criterion for that CN. For copredication with quantification, identity criteria play an essential role in giving a proper treatment of individuation and counting and hence constructing appropriate semantics to facilitate reasoning correctly. With CNs being setoids, the dot-type approach provides an adequate theory for copredication in general and for copredication with quantification in particular. It is further explained that the CNs-as-types approach is still the appropriate characterisation of our approach to interpreting CNs since, in phenomena that do not involve the interaction of copredication with quantification, the identity criteria of related CNs are essentially the same and can be safely ignored.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128048438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The classical view of semantics that we inherited from Montague is that natural languages are formal languages where semantics specifies the interpretations which can be associated with expressions of the language. In this context coercion might be seen as a slight but formally specifiable disturbance in the formal semantics which shows how the canonical interpretation of an expression can be modified by its linguistic context. In recent years an alternative to the formal language view of natural language has developed which sees the interpretation of language as a more local and dynamic process where the interpretation of expressions can be modified for the purposes of the utterance at hand. This presents linguistic semantics as a dynamic, somewhat chaotic, system constrained by the need to communicate. An interpretation of an expression will work in communication if it is close enough to other interpretations your interlocutor might be familiar with and there is enough evidence in the ambient context for her to approximate the interpretation you intended. On this view of language as a system in flux, coercion is not so much a disturbance in the semantic system but rather a regularization of available interpretations leading to a more predictable system. I will present some of the reasons why I favour the view of language in flux (but nevertheless think that the techniques we have learnt from formal semantics are important to preserve). I will look at some of the original examples of coercion discussed in the Pustejovskian generative lexicon and suggest that the possibilities for interpretation are broader than might be suggested by Pustejovsky’s original work. Finally, I will suggest that coercion can play a central role in compositional semantics taking two examples: (1) individual vs. frame-level properties and (2) dynamic generalized quantifiers and property coercion.
{"title":"Coercion in Languages in Flux","authors":"R. Cooper","doi":"10.5617/osla.6677","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.6677","url":null,"abstract":"The classical view of semantics that we inherited from Montague is that natural languages are formal languages where semantics specifies the interpretations which can be associated with expressions of the language. In this context coercion might be seen as a slight but formally specifiable disturbance in the formal semantics which shows how the canonical interpretation of an expression can be modified by its linguistic context. In recent years an alternative to the formal language view of natural language has developed which sees the interpretation of language as a more local and dynamic process where the interpretation of expressions can be modified for the purposes of the utterance at hand. This presents linguistic semantics as a dynamic, somewhat chaotic, system constrained by the need to communicate. An interpretation of an expression will work in communication if it is close enough to other interpretations your interlocutor might be familiar with and there is enough evidence in the ambient context for her to approximate the interpretation you intended. On this view of language as a system in flux, coercion is not so much a disturbance in the semantic system but rather a regularization of available interpretations leading to a more predictable system. \u0000 \u0000I will present some of the reasons why I favour the view of language in flux (but nevertheless think that the techniques we have learnt from formal semantics are important to preserve). I will look at some of the original examples of coercion discussed in the Pustejovskian generative lexicon and suggest that the possibilities for interpretation are broader than might be suggested by Pustejovsky’s original work. Finally, I will suggest that coercion can play a central role in compositional semantics taking two examples: (1) individual vs. frame-level properties and (2) dynamic generalized quantifiers and property coercion.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129959703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper focuses on verbal idioms and their place in the lexicon. I discuss their morphosyntactic properties and effects observed for copredication. The data show that verbal idioms can be neither stored as atomic items, nor can their parts be treated as polysemous, i.e. as including “standard” and idiomatic meaning. I argue that a plausible result can be achieved by combining the framework of Distributed Morphology with Chomsky’s recent version of cyclic derivation. Viewed from that angle, idioms can be treated as emerging from derivational layers yielding a kind of structural coercion in the sense of Harley & Noyer (2000).
{"title":"Dispensing with Unwanted Polysemy: Verbal Idioms and the Lexicon","authors":"Jan Wiślicki","doi":"10.5617/osla.6675","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.6675","url":null,"abstract":"The paper focuses on verbal idioms and their place in the lexicon. I discuss their morphosyntactic properties and effects observed for copredication. The data show that verbal idioms can be neither stored as atomic items, nor can their parts be treated as polysemous, i.e. as including “standard” and idiomatic meaning. I argue that a plausible result can be achieved by combining the framework of Distributed Morphology with Chomsky’s recent version of cyclic derivation. Viewed from that angle, idioms can be treated as emerging from derivational layers yielding a kind of structural coercion in the sense of Harley & Noyer (2000).","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130286012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Culture is often transmitted in a text through lexemes termed realia words. These words are used to denominate culturally specific objects, but because they are culturally oriented they are very difficult to translate: various strategies are used by translators and are described in translation studies. This paper analyzes realia words used in the book Vaffelhjarte (Waffle Hearts) by the Norwegian children’s writer Maria Parr and translated into Italian. The study distinguishes different types of realia (personal names, place names, names of foods and drinks, names of holidays, and other names describing material culture) and the various strategies used to translate each type.
{"title":"La traduzione degli elementi culturali nella letteratura per bambini","authors":"Helene Johansen","doi":"10.5617/OSLA.6043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/OSLA.6043","url":null,"abstract":"Culture is often transmitted in a text through lexemes termed realia words. These words are used to denominate culturally specific objects, but because they are culturally oriented they are very difficult to translate: various strategies are used by translators and are described in translation studies. This paper analyzes realia words used in the book Vaffelhjarte (Waffle Hearts) by the Norwegian children’s writer Maria Parr and translated into Italian. The study distinguishes different types of realia (personal names, place names, names of foods and drinks, names of holidays, and other names describing material culture) and the various strategies used to translate each type.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131247741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article linguistically analyzes how the Sicilian dialect is used in conjunction with Italian in the books Il cane di terracotta (The Terracotta Dog) by Andrea Camilleri and La Mennulara (The Almond Picker) by Simonetta Agnello Hornby. The analysis considers how the dialect is represented at various levels: phonetic, morphological, syntactic, and lexical. In addition, the Norwegian translations of these books are also analyzed: Terrakottahunden , translated by Jon Rognlien, and Mandelplukkersken by Tommy Watz, respectively. It focuses on how the translators solved the challenge of the original books’ text alternating between Italian and Sicilian dialect. The translators’ account of their choices is presented following each analysis.
{"title":"Problemi di traduzione di due romanzi italiani in norvegese: tra la lingua e il dialetto","authors":"Pernille Thull","doi":"10.5617/OSLA.6044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/OSLA.6044","url":null,"abstract":"This article linguistically analyzes how the Sicilian dialect is used in conjunction with Italian in the books Il cane di terracotta (The Terracotta Dog) by Andrea Camilleri and La Mennulara (The Almond Picker) by Simonetta Agnello Hornby. The analysis considers how the dialect is represented at various levels: phonetic, morphological, syntactic, and lexical. In addition, the Norwegian translations of these books are also analyzed: Terrakottahunden , translated by Jon Rognlien, and Mandelplukkersken by Tommy Watz, respectively. It focuses on how the translators solved the challenge of the original books’ text alternating between Italian and Sicilian dialect. The translators’ account of their choices is presented following each analysis.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132106013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Negli ultimi decenni gli studi contrastivi continuano ad espandere il loro dominio segnando cosi l’inizio di una nuova fase: dall’analisi dei fenomeni grammaticali – prevalente negli studi del secolo scorso – l’interesse dei ricercatori si sta rivolgendo ora sempre di piu verso le differenze comunicative che caratterizzano le lingue e riguardano diversi livelli linguistici, dalle strutture morfosintattiche fino alle proprieta di carattere sociolinguistico e pragmatico. Il punto di partenza di uno studio contrastivo diventano pertanto il testo visto come realizzazione generale di un qualsiasi atto comunicativo e i mezzi linguistici usati per costruirlo. Cosi (come vedremo nelle sezioni successive) l’analisi si concentra sulle forme usate in un contesto specifico o in una situazione comunicativa prestabilita. Il presente articolo ha molteplici obiettivi. Oltre a introdurre i contributi del volume, esso si propone di descrivere il testo come oggetto di uno studio contrastivo individuando gli elementi importanti per la sua costruzione; e infine suggerisce possibili strade da seguire nei futuri studi italo-norvegesi, al momento ancora poco numerosi. L’articolo e diviso in tre parti: la presentazione del testo come materiale per l’analisi contrastiva nella prima sezione sara seguita, nella seconda sezione, dalla descrizione dei due tipi di analisi effettuata su due livelli (la struttura testuale e le parole usate), e si concludera nella terza sezione con la presentazione dei contributi di questo volume.
{"title":"Dal testo alle parole: studi contrastivi","authors":"Elizaveta Khachaturyan","doi":"10.5617/OSLA.6041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/OSLA.6041","url":null,"abstract":"Negli ultimi decenni gli studi contrastivi continuano ad espandere il loro dominio segnando cosi l’inizio di una nuova fase: dall’analisi dei fenomeni grammaticali – prevalente negli studi del secolo scorso – l’interesse dei ricercatori si sta rivolgendo ora sempre di piu verso le differenze comunicative che caratterizzano le lingue e riguardano diversi livelli linguistici, dalle strutture morfosintattiche fino alle proprieta di carattere sociolinguistico e pragmatico. Il punto di partenza di uno studio contrastivo diventano pertanto il testo visto come realizzazione generale di un qualsiasi atto comunicativo e i mezzi linguistici usati per costruirlo. Cosi (come vedremo nelle sezioni successive) l’analisi si concentra sulle forme usate in un contesto specifico o in una situazione comunicativa prestabilita. \u0000Il presente articolo ha molteplici obiettivi. Oltre a introdurre i contributi del volume, esso si propone di descrivere il testo come oggetto di uno studio contrastivo individuando gli elementi importanti per la sua costruzione; e infine suggerisce possibili strade da seguire nei futuri studi italo-norvegesi, al momento ancora poco numerosi. \u0000L’articolo e diviso in tre parti: la presentazione del testo come materiale per l’analisi contrastiva nella prima sezione sara seguita, nella seconda sezione, dalla descrizione dei due tipi di analisi effettuata su due livelli (la struttura testuale e le parole usate), e si concludera nella terza sezione con la presentazione dei contributi di questo volume.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122647745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：