{"title":"多样性和修饰符","authors":"Jacopo Romoli, Agata Renans","doi":"10.1093/jos/ffaa005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A sentence with an adverbial modifier under negation like Mike didn’t wash the window with soap gives rise to an inference that Mike did wash the window. A sentence with a plural noun like Mike washed windows gives rise to a so-called ‘multiplicity’ inference that Mike washed multiple windows. In this note, we focus on the interaction between these two inferences in sentences containing both an adverbial modifier and a plural noun under negation, like Mike didn’t wash windows with soap. We observe that this sentence has a reading conveying that Mike didn’t wash any window with soap but that he did wash multiple windows (albeit not with soap). As we discuss, this reading is not predicted by any version of the implicature approach to the multiplicity inference, in combination with the implicature treatment of the inference of adverbial modifiers. We sketch two solutions for this problem. The first keeps the implicature approach to adverbial modifiers but adopts a non-implicature approach to multiplicity based on homogeneity. The second solution holds on to the implicature approach to the multiplicity inference but accounts for the inference of adverbial modifiers as a presupposition. In addition, it adopts the idea that presuppositions can be strengthened via implicatures, as proposed recently in the literature. Either way, the interaction between multiplicity and the inference of adverbial modifiers suggests that we cannot treat both as implicatures: if we want to treat either one as an implicature, we need to do something different for the other. We end by comparing the case above to analogous cases involving different scalar inferences and showing that the ambiguity approach to the multiplicity inference does not provide a solution to our problem.","PeriodicalId":15055,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Semantics","volume":"48 1","pages":"455-474"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multiplicity and Modifiers\",\"authors\":\"Jacopo Romoli, Agata Renans\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jos/ffaa005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A sentence with an adverbial modifier under negation like Mike didn’t wash the window with soap gives rise to an inference that Mike did wash the window. A sentence with a plural noun like Mike washed windows gives rise to a so-called ‘multiplicity’ inference that Mike washed multiple windows. In this note, we focus on the interaction between these two inferences in sentences containing both an adverbial modifier and a plural noun under negation, like Mike didn’t wash windows with soap. We observe that this sentence has a reading conveying that Mike didn’t wash any window with soap but that he did wash multiple windows (albeit not with soap). As we discuss, this reading is not predicted by any version of the implicature approach to the multiplicity inference, in combination with the implicature treatment of the inference of adverbial modifiers. We sketch two solutions for this problem. The first keeps the implicature approach to adverbial modifiers but adopts a non-implicature approach to multiplicity based on homogeneity. The second solution holds on to the implicature approach to the multiplicity inference but accounts for the inference of adverbial modifiers as a presupposition. In addition, it adopts the idea that presuppositions can be strengthened via implicatures, as proposed recently in the literature. Either way, the interaction between multiplicity and the inference of adverbial modifiers suggests that we cannot treat both as implicatures: if we want to treat either one as an implicature, we need to do something different for the other. We end by comparing the case above to analogous cases involving different scalar inferences and showing that the ambiguity approach to the multiplicity inference does not provide a solution to our problem.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Biomedical Semantics\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"455-474\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Biomedical Semantics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffaa005\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Semantics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffaa005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
一个带有否定状语的句子,比如Mike didn 't wash the window with soap,会引出Mike确实洗过窗户的推论。一个带有复数名词的句子,如Mike washed windows,会产生所谓的“多重性”推论,即Mike洗了多个窗户。在这篇文章中,我们将重点关注这两种推论在同时包含状语和复数名词的否定句中的相互作用,比如Mike didn 't wash window with soap。我们观察到,这个句子的读作传达了迈克没有用肥皂洗任何一扇窗户,但他确实洗了多个窗户(尽管不是用肥皂)。正如我们所讨论的那样,这种阅读并不是由任何版本的多重推理的含意方法所预测的,结合状语修饰语推理的含意处理。我们对这个问题提出了两种解决方案。第一种方法对状语修饰语采用隐含方法,但对基于同质性的多重性采用非隐含方法。第二种解决方案坚持了多重推理的隐含方法,但将状语修饰语的推理作为前提。此外,它采用了一种观点,即假设可以通过含义得到加强,正如最近在文献中提出的那样。无论哪种方式,多样性和状语修饰语推理之间的相互作用表明,我们不能把两者都当作含意:如果我们想把其中任何一个当作含意,我们需要对另一个做一些不同的事情。最后,我们将上述情况与涉及不同标量推理的类似情况进行比较,并表明多重推理的模糊性方法并不能解决我们的问题。
A sentence with an adverbial modifier under negation like Mike didn’t wash the window with soap gives rise to an inference that Mike did wash the window. A sentence with a plural noun like Mike washed windows gives rise to a so-called ‘multiplicity’ inference that Mike washed multiple windows. In this note, we focus on the interaction between these two inferences in sentences containing both an adverbial modifier and a plural noun under negation, like Mike didn’t wash windows with soap. We observe that this sentence has a reading conveying that Mike didn’t wash any window with soap but that he did wash multiple windows (albeit not with soap). As we discuss, this reading is not predicted by any version of the implicature approach to the multiplicity inference, in combination with the implicature treatment of the inference of adverbial modifiers. We sketch two solutions for this problem. The first keeps the implicature approach to adverbial modifiers but adopts a non-implicature approach to multiplicity based on homogeneity. The second solution holds on to the implicature approach to the multiplicity inference but accounts for the inference of adverbial modifiers as a presupposition. In addition, it adopts the idea that presuppositions can be strengthened via implicatures, as proposed recently in the literature. Either way, the interaction between multiplicity and the inference of adverbial modifiers suggests that we cannot treat both as implicatures: if we want to treat either one as an implicature, we need to do something different for the other. We end by comparing the case above to analogous cases involving different scalar inferences and showing that the ambiguity approach to the multiplicity inference does not provide a solution to our problem.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Biomedical Semantics addresses issues of semantic enrichment and semantic processing in the biomedical domain. The scope of the journal covers two main areas:
Infrastructure for biomedical semantics: focusing on semantic resources and repositories, meta-data management and resource description, knowledge representation and semantic frameworks, the Biomedical Semantic Web, and semantic interoperability.
Semantic mining, annotation, and analysis: focusing on approaches and applications of semantic resources; and tools for investigation, reasoning, prediction, and discoveries in biomedicine.