当前位置: X-MOL 学术Theoretical Linguistics › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Shifting animacy shifts
Theoretical Linguistics ( IF 1.455 ) Pub Date : 2018-05-25 , DOI: 10.1515/tl-2018-0010
Joost Zwarts 1
Affiliation  

De Swart and de Hoop (henceforth dS&dH) make the suggestion that the linguistic distinction between animate and inanimate categories should be brought within the scope of the formal semantic theory of types and type shifts, overt and covert. I would like to work out this interesting idea a bit more. The result might be different from what dS&dH had in mind, although it is hopefully in the same promising spirit. Let me start with their idea that the type e, corresponding to the domain of entities E, has two subtypes: a (for dogs and men, for instance) and i (for breads and cups, for instance). The type distinction between a and i seems straightforward enough, but it does not provide a good foundation for type shifts in the formal sense. Such type shifts require some sort of structure, which the domain of entities all by itself does not have. Once we have complex types, like 〈e,t〉 (domain of sets) and 〈〈e,t〉,t〉 (domain of quantifiers), we also have useful shifts, like ident, which can shift any entity x to the singleton set {x} (Partee 1987). It is also possible to create more structure within the domain of entities, for example, by having kinds that are realized as individual objects (Carlson 1977) or individual objects that consist of stuff (Link 1983). Once we have such a richly structured domain of entities, it becomes possible to define shift between properties and kinds and mass and count (e.g., Chierchia 1998). It is not clear how we could structure the domain E in such a way that animate and inanimate entities are systematically related to each other. It is true that we might imagine some sort of function, call it STATUE, from animates to their inanimate representation (i.e. of type 〈a,i〉) as well as a function of type 〈i,a〉, say WAND, that takes an inanimate (e.g. a cup) and makes it a living thing (in a fairy tale context). Such functions could at first sight accomplish the required covert conceptual shifts in examples (3) and (4) from dS&dH (with my analytical embellishments):

中文翻译:

转移的兴趣转移

De Swart和de Hoop(以下简称dS&dH)提出,有生命和无生命类别之间的语言区别应纳入类型和类型转换,公开和隐蔽的形式语义理论的范围内。我想进一步解决这个有趣的想法。结果可能与dS&dH的想法不同,尽管希望它具有相同的前途。让我从他们的想法开始,与实体E的域相对应的类型e有两个子类型:a(例如对于狗和男人)和i(例如对于面包和杯子)。a和i之间的类型区分似乎很简单,但是在形式上并不能为类型转换提供良好的基础。这种类型转换需要某种结构,而实体域本身并不具有这种结构。一旦我们有了复杂的类型,例如〈e,t〉(集合的域)和〈〈 e,t〉,t〉(量词的域),我们也有了有用的移位,例如ident,它可以将任何实体x移位到单例集{x}(Partee 1987)。也有可能在实体的领域内创建更多的结构,例如,通过具有被实现为单个对象(Carlson 1977)或由东西组成的单个对象(Link 1983)的种类。一旦我们拥有了如此丰富的实体结构域,就可以定义属性与种类,质量和数量之间的转换(例如Chierchia 1998)。尚不清楚我们如何以无生命和无生命实体彼此系统地关联的方式构造域E。的确,我们可能会想象某种形式的函数(称为STATUE),从动画到其无生命的表示(即 WAND表示类型为<a,i>的函数以及类型为<i,a>的函数,它需要无生命的物体(例如杯子)并使其成为活物(在童话环境中)。乍看之下,这些功能可以实现dS&dH在示例(3)和(4)中所需的秘密概念转变(以我的分析为根据):
更新日期:2018-05-25
down
wechat
bug