1 |
Horse or pony? Visual Typicality and Lexical Frequency Affect Variability in Object Naming ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
2 |
The interaction between cognitive ease and informativeness shapes the lexicons of natural languages ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
3 |
Horse or pony? Visual Typicality and Lexical Frequency Affect Variability in Object Naming
|
|
|
|
In: Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
4 |
The interaction between cognitive ease and informativeness shapes the lexicons of natural languages
|
|
|
|
In: Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (2022)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
Probing the linguistic knowledge of word embeddings: A case study on colexification
|
|
|
|
In: http://etd.adm.unipi.it/theses/available/etd-06212021-172428/ (2021)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
6 |
Deep daxes: Mutual exclusivity arises through both learning biases and pragmatic strategies in neural networks ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
Existential presupposition projection from none? : an experimental investigation
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
The question of how presuppositions project from the scope of quantificational sentences, and in particular negative quantificational sentences such as none in (1), continues to be controversial, both theoretically and empirically: some theories only predict the existential presupposition projection reading in (1-a) (for example, [2, 3, 26, 13]), while others derive the universal projection reading in (1-b) ([15, 20, 21, 12, 10, 11], among others). In addition, any theory has to account for presupposition suspension, yielding an interpretation without a (global) presupposition (1-c). (1) None of the bears won the race. a. At least one of the bears participated and none of them won. b. All of the bears participated and none of them won. c. None of the bears both participated and won. Previous empirical studies have found evidence for universal projection ([7]), while others have provided evidence for alternatives to universal projection ([24, 14]). To our knowledge, however, there exists no definitive positive evidence for the existential reading in (1-a). We report a study that directly compares the existential, universal, and presuppositionless readings of (1) through the use of a ‘covered box’ picture selection task [16, 5]. We find clear evidence for existential readings (as well as presuppositionless readings), but no evidence for universal ones. This result challenges theories that predict only universal readings. Our results, taken together with those reported in [7], suggest that any adequate account of presupposition projection must be able to explain all three interpretive options in (1).
|
|
Keyword:
English language; presupposition (logic); semantics; XXXXXX - Unknown
|
|
URL: http://handle.westernsydney.edu.au:8081/1959.7/uws:44506 http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mVkOTk2N/AC2015-proceedings.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
9 |
Diagnosing truth, interactive sincerity, and depictive sincerity
|
|
|
|
In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory; Proceedings of SALT 23; 358-375 ; 2163-5951 (2013)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
10 |
Only, at least, more, and less
|
|
|
|
In: LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts; Vol 4: LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts 2013; 7:1-5 ; 2377-3367 (2013)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
11 |
Deep daxes: mutual exclusivity arises through both learning biases and pragmatic strategies in neural networks
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
12 |
Modeling word interpretation with deep language models: the interaction between expectations and lexical information
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|