COLLOQUIUM
Semantics and Pragmatics
Exchange
SemPrE
Univ.-Prof. Dr.
Hana Filip, PhD
Lehrstuhl Semantik, Institut fŸr Sprache
und Information
Wednesday,
12:30 -2 pm
Building 23.32, Level 02,
Room 63
CRC (SFB) CONFERENCE ROOM
|
July 26, 2017 Shalom
Lappin University of Gothenburg, King's College London and Queen Mary
University of London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
July 19, 2017 Anna
Czypionka University of Konstanz Temporal implicatures in sentence comprehension:
Evidence from acceptability ratings and self-paced reading times Implicatures
are inferences that go beyond the literal semantic meaning of an utterance.
In psycholinguistics, scalar implicatures are the most widely researched type
of implicature. These implicatures are triggered by scalar expressions, like
some (implying some, but not all), and have been investigated in a number of
paradigms. We present data on a new type of implicature, namely, temporal
implicatures. These are triggered by temporal expressions like this week
(implying this week, but not next). When combined with predicates that
ascribe a temporary property like be ill, this implicature makes sense: John
is ill this week implies that John is ill only this week. However, a
combination with predicates ascribing permanent properties like be tall is
less felicitous: # John is tall this week implies that John's size is not
constant; this implicature clashes with speakers' world knowledge about the
size of grown-ups. A series of judgment studies employing the
Literal Lucy paradigm show that just like scalar implicatures, temporal
implicatures are psychologically real and are independent from the semantic
meaning of the sentence. In addition, data from self-paced reading show that
temporal implicatures are routinely drawn during language comprehension, and
computed early. We argue that the infelicity of temporal modification with
permanent predicates (# John is tall this week) is due to a pragmatic inference
that conflicts with world-knowledge, rather than grammatical. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
July 12, 2017 Agata Renans Ulster University Accounting for inferences of pluralized count and mass nouns :
Evidence from Greek Across languages, plural marking on count nouns typically gives rise
to multiplicity inferences , indicating that there is
more than one entity in the denotation of the noun. Plural marking has also
been observed to occur on mass nouns in Greek, giving rise to a
parallel abundance inference, indicating that there is a large quantity
of what is denoted by the noun. Kane et al. (2016) propose a unified
implicature account of abundance and multiplicity inferences, which
prima facie predicts a uniform pattern across inferences, and standard
implicatures. We tested this prediction by comparing multiplicity inferences,
abundances inferences, and standard implicatures in Greek-speaking children
and adults. The results reflect an overall pattern of implicature
calculation, supporting a unified implicature analysis across the inferences. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
July 5, 2017 Kurt Erbach Heinrich Heine University Fighting for a share of the covers: Accounting
for inaccessible readings of plural predicatesPlural predication presents a
challenge that remains unsettled despite the numerous attempts to present a
satisfying analysis (Moltman 2016, Farkas &de Swart 2010, Oliver &
Smiley 2006, Yi 2005, 2006, Landman 2000, 1989a,b, Schwarzschild 1996, Link
1993, 1983, Krifka 1990, 1989, Schein 1986, Scha 1981, to name a few). The
current discussion looks at a small part of this multi-faceted topic, namely
the available readings of certain plural predicates. Gillon (1987) argues
that certain plural predicates are ambiguous inrespect to the truth value of
their minimal covers—i.e. sets of subsets ofpluralities, in which none
of the subsets overlap with the sum of the others, and the sum of all subsets
is equal to the plurality itself. While GillonÕs (1987) argument is logically
sound, I present evidence that suggests that certain minimal covers are not
immediately accessible interpretations of cumulative predicates. Namely, following certain
plural predicates, the lexical modifiers together and individually cannot be
used in tandem to indicate which minimal cover of the predication is true.
Following Gillon (1987), I assume these minimal covers must exist despite
their inaccessibility, so the issue at hand is determining how they come to
exist and why they are inaccessible from the initial interpretation of
certain plural predicates. LandmanÕs (2000) analysis of events and plurality
provides a multi-step process in which cumulative predicates are derived from
covers. This analysis can be used to show how the interpretations of
predicate that includes the relevant minimal covers come to exist, but leaves
the inaccessibility of such covers unexplained. I propose that complex
minimal covers are inaccessible because their derivation is simply too
complex to process on-line. This explanation accounts for the infelicity of
lexical modifiers, preserves the logic of minimal covers, and avoids the
introduction of further devices into the account. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June 28, 2017 Mojm’r Dočekal and Marcin Wągiel Masaryk
University, Czech Republic Counting degrees and events: A cross-linguistic perspective In this talk, we bring in novel data concerning distribution and
semantic properties of two classes of adverbs of quantification in Czech,
i.e., event numerals such as *dvakr‡t* ('twice/two times') as opposed to
degree numerals such as *dvojn‡sobně* ('doubly/twofold'). We explore the
contrasts between the expressions in question including the interaction with
comparatives and equatives as well as scope asymmetries. Furthermore, we
discuss their relationship with frequency adverbs and degree adverbs, respectively,
as well as cross-linguistic variation including data from typologically
distinct languages such as Vietnamese. We propose that degree numerals target
values on a provided scale and are, hence, best analyzed as degree
quantifiers resembling differentials whereas event numerals have a more
general semantics which primarily allows for quantification over individuated
events, but also enables to operate on degrees. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June 21, 2017 ƒva Kardos University of Debrecen, Hungary Telicity
across languages This talk is
concerned with how telicity arises across languages. More specifically, it
offers a semantic take on the encoding and calculation of telicity and
identifies two types of strategies in typologically such different languages
as English, Hungarian and Slavic languages. It promotes the idea that
telicity arises either (i) as a result of overt or covert maximalization over
events, as in the case of most predicates in Hungarian and Slavic languages,
or (ii) simply due to the co-occurrence of a verb encoding incremental
change, a theme participant whose quantity is known, and a bounded path that
is traversed in the course of the denoted event, as with most English verbal
predicates (Kardos 2012, 2016). Important ways in which the languages under
investigation differ is that they rely on these strategies to different
extents, which has significant interpretational and morphosyntactic
differences with respect to verbal predicates. Following
Filip and Rothstein (2006) and Filip (2008), I assume that telicity arises
either as a result of a maximalization operator MAXE mapping sets of
partially ordered events onto sets of maximal events. The application of MAXE
is contingent on a verb assigning a figure-path incremental relation, a
quantified theme DP, and a bounded path, an idea originating in Beavers
(2012). Alternatively, telicity can also arise without maximalization over
events with a verb assigning a figure path incremental role to a theme DP
whose quantity is known and a bounded path since in these cases for any event
that the verbal predicate describes, it does not describe any non-final
subevent of that event. An important difference between the two processes is
that the former leaves the predicate with quantized reference, and thus
telicity is guaranteed, whereas in the latter case it is not a necessary
consequence. This is
illustrated in Hungarian and Slavic languages, where event maximalization is
encoded in particle verbs and perfective verbs. In English, where event maximalization
is not necessary for telic interpretations in the case of most predicates,
degree achievements like warm and cool are well-known for aspectual
variability (Hay et al. 1999). Furthermore, in the case of predicates
containing a particle verb or a perfective verb, which arguably encode event
maximalization, the internal argument is semantically constrained in a way
that the quantity of its referent must be known, and this satisfies a
necessary condition for telicity (see above). As for how
the event maximalizing operator is encoded, there are different options to be
explored. It is either the case that it is encoded covertly in VPs, as in
some instances in English, or perfective verbs, as argued for by Filip (2008)
in her analysis of Slavic languages, or that it is encoded overtly in
perfective prefixes in Slavic languages or verbal particles in Hungarian.
That particles and prefixes seem to systematically turn stative predicates
into telic predicates in Hungarian and several Slavic languages may be taken
as one piece of evidence for their being overt event maximalization/telicity
markers. Yet another
question that is worth pursuing is whether bounded events must be marked in
Slavic languages similarly to Hungarian. If this requirement holds, the
expectation is that predicates that are inherently bounded (e.g. achievements
like die and break a vase and degree achievements associated with an endpoint
like empty the fridge and straighten the rope) must contain some marking
element (e.g. a particle or a prefix). In Hungarian, this expectation is met,
whereas in Slavic languages different patterns arise, making obligatory
telicity marking suspicious (cf. Di Sciullo & Slabakova 2005). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June 14, 2017 Łukasz Jędrzejowski University of Cologne On (the diachrony of) jakoby-clauses in Polish In this talk, I will examine the
development and use of dependent clauses in Polish introduced by the
complementizer jakoby (lit. Ôas
ifÕ) and show which factors in the lexical meaning of jakoby were responsible for the semantic change that it
underwent. In
the Old Polish example given in (1), the dependent clause is introduced by
the hypothetical comparative complementizer jakoby (Ôas ifÕ) and it is embedded under the matrix predicate widzieć (ÔseemÕ), expressing
indirect inferential evidence:
Ôthe
people on earth interpreted it as if it wanted to slay all of themÕ (KG, Kazanie I: Na Boże Narodzenie 26-7) In Old Polish, jakoby-clauses can be embedded only under
verbs of seeming. In other words, the structure seem as if p is used instead of seem that p if what the available evidence suggests is somehow in
conflict with what the speaker believes or used to believe. In Present-day
Polish, in turn, as illustrated in (2), the jakoby‑clause is embedded under the speech verb zaprzeczać (ÔdenyÕ):
ÔThe company denied that there supposedly were
any reports about faulty prepaid cards.Õ (NKJP, Dziennik
Zachodni, 27/9/2006) The complementizer jakoby is not interpreted as a
hypothetical comparative conjunction as
if any longer, but as a hearsay
complementizer (Åthat + allegedly). Interestingly, neither
Czech nor Slovak have experienced this change. Based
on Faller (2011) and Murray (2017), I will present account showing that the
change of jakoby involved two main developments:
First, the meaning of jakoby was
broadened to allow for inferences from reportative information (compatible
with, but not enforced by its seem-type
embedding verbs). Second, the reportative flavor acquired by jakoby licensed its use in complements
of speech verbs. Since these new contexts were no longer compatible with the
original inferential meaning, they ultimately lead to the inability to use jakoby in its original contexts, cf.
(3):
References Faller, Martina (2011): A possible worlds
semantics for Cuzco Quechua evidentials, in: Proceedings of SALT 20 ed. by Nan Li and David Lutz, eLanguage,
660‑683. Murray, Sarah E. (2017): The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June 7, 2017 Stergios Chatzikyriakidis University of
Gothenburg In defence of lost causes? Type Theories for
Natural Language Semantics In this talk, I will
present an overview of the use of TTs for representing linguistic semantics.
A historical overview is first given that covers in brief the history of type
theory. Then, the discussion moves to the application of type theories,
mostly type theories within the tradition of Martin Lšf, to various issues in
linguistic semantics like common nouns, modification, belief intensionality
and copredication among others. Various alternatives are discussed when
needed while the differences with simple type theory, which is the basis of
Montague Grammar, are highlighted. Furthermore, the use of proof assistants
implementing constructive type theories in dealing with Natural Language
inference and checking the correctness of formal semantics accounts is
discussed arguing that constructive type theories combined with the
associated maturity in proof assistant technology can produce powerful
reasoning engines and effective Òsemantic account checkersÓ. Lastly, I
discuss the use of TTs within the new setting in computational linguistics,
namely Deep Learning, trying to see its usefulness or not, and potential
avenues of interaction between the two fields. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
May 31, 2017 Natalia Gagarina Leibniz-ZAS Berlin Aspect
(and other verb categories) in monolingual and bilingual acquisition I trace the developmental
projection of the acquisition of aspect (and other verb categories) in
monolingual and bilingual children. Specifically, the goal is find out, how
children use the verb morphology to gain access to syntactic structure and to
identify differences in monolingual vs. (simultaneous and successive)
bilingual acquisition. Working within the general framework of
constructivism, I will show how the semantic structure of a predicate guides
the acquisition of the tense/aspect and agreement morphology. Our methodology is called
predicate tracking. Working within the lexicon of individual children, a
predicate is identified and then the emergence of the verb morphology is tracked.
Thus, the history of acquisition for each predicate is determined. Minimal
morphological contrasts as evidence for the productivity of tense/aspect and
agreement concepts are searched for. Prior research has shown a relatively
consistent frequency pattern cross-linguistically where the following two
configurations are highly probable: 1) telic verbs with past tense and
bounded aspectual morphology, and 2) atelic verbs with non-past tense and
unbounded aspectual morphology. This finding has prompted the argument that
aspect emerges prior to tense in child language. According to some variations
on the Principle and Parameters theme, this sequence is required by the
principle of economy. Our research with the predicate tracking methodology
indicates the following: 1) the precise pattern of acquisition is determined
by the properties of lexical aspect, i.e., the logical structure of
predicates, 2) the pattern varies cross-linguistically, and 3) deictic tense
is likely to be productive prior to viewpoint aspect. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
May 24, 2017 Leda Berio, Anja Latrouite, Robert Van Valin, Gottfried Vosgerau Heinrich Heine University DŸsseldorf Immediate and General Common Ground The traditional literalist account of meaning has been challenged by
several theories that stress the importance of context and of contextual
information in communication, especially for mechanisms of meaning
determination and reference fixing. However, the role of lexical meaning in
such contextualist accounts often remains only vaguely defined. In this
paper, we defend an account of communication that keeps the advantages of
contextualist theories, while a new element is introduced that we claim could
help solving some of the remaining issues. By differentiating Immediate and
General Common Ground in communica- tion, we draw a distinction between
mechanisms related to the situation at hand and those concerned with world
and language knowledge. We further argue that such a distinction can help
understanding cases of loose use and metaphors of which we provide some
examples. Finally, we claim that this distinction has grammatical reality, as
it is shown by the examples from Lakhota (North America), Umpithamu
(Australia), Kuuk Thaayorre (Australia) and Mongsen Ao (India) discussed in
the paper. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
May 17, 2017 George Tsoulas University
of York How to pluralise a Mass noun: The
ingredients The relation
between mass terms and plurals is well known and well supported empirically in
terms, for example, of determiners that are common to the two classes of
nominals to the exclusion of the singular. At the same time it comes in
general as a surprise that given the notion that mass terms as "somehow
plural" they never show up in the plural. From this point I look
at a set of languages which do pluralise mass nouns and attempt to derive the
possibility of plural mass terms. The objective is to build a syntactic
and semantic framework with as minimal assumptions as possible, within which
they can naturally occur. More specifically I look a the set of
required morphosyntactic features, their position in the nominal extended
projection and their associated semantics. Then we try to understand
where the points of variation lie and what sort of variation is
predicted. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
May 3, 2017 Stefan Heim Uniklinik
RWTH Aachen & Forschungszentrum Jülich If so many are
"few", how few are "many"? The neurocognition of
quantifier processing |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 26, 2017 Kathrin Byrdeck & Kurt Erbach Heinrich Heine
University DŸsseldorf Object Mass Nouns in Japanese Classifier languages are commonly assumed not to
have a grammaticized mass/countdistinction among nouns. In this talk we
pursue two main goals. First, based on data from Japanese and some insights
in Sudo (2016, forthcoming), and Inagaki & Barner (2009), we provide new
empirical evidence that Japanese nouns for concepts like BOOK, DOG, SHOE
(encoded by prototypical count nouns in languages with a grammaticized
mass/count distinctions) and collective artifacts like MAIL, FURNITURE have
individuated counting bases. We provide empirical evidence in support of the
claim that Japanese nouns like yūbinbutsu (`mailÕ) have the hallmark
properties of object mass nouns: (i) they are compared according to
cardinality in `more thanÕ constructions (also Inagaki & Barner 2009),
and (ii) they are infelicitous in constructions associated with count nouns.
To the extent that the existence of object mass nouns can be established in
the grammar of Japanese, as we argue, it follows that Japanese has
grammatical reflexes of the mass/count distinction, rather than just
exhibiting cognitive and grammatical reflexes of individuation (atomicity)
alone. Second, we offer a new formal analysis of the Japanese mass/count
distinction, building Sutton & FilipÕs (2016) context-sensitivity driven
account of the mass/count distinction, and specifically of object mass nouns.
Our results bolster a nascent growing body of studies strongly suggesting
that Japanese (and other classifier languages) in fact do have direct
grammatical reflexes of the mass/count distinction. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 19, 2017 Emar Maier University of Groningen Eventive vs. Evidential Speech Reports In this talk I argue for a distinction between eventive
and evidential speech reports. In eventive speech reports the at-issue
contribution is the introduction of a speech event with certain properties.
Typical examples include direct and free indirect speech. In evidential
speech reports, by contrast, the fact that something was said is not at
issue, but serves to provide evidence for the reported content. Typical
examples include Quechua and Bulgarian reportative evidentials, Dutch and
German reportative modals ('schijnen', 'sollen'), and the German reportive
subjunctive. Following up on an observation by Von Stechow & Zimmermann
(2005:fn.16), I argue that English indirect discourse is ambiguous. In the
current framework this means it allows both an eventive reading, where a
reported speech act is at issue, and an evidential reading, where it is
backgrounded. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
January 11, 2017 Dolf Rami Georg-August UniversitŠt Gšttingen Names,
Pronouns and Demonstratives as use-sensitive expressions Kaplan famously
distinguished between pure indexicals and true demonstratives. Nevertheless,
he thought that these two kinds of expressions are only two subvarieties of
the same semantic kind, namely
the kind of context-sensitive expressions. I will argue that Kaplan
underestimated the significance of his distinction and that it is in fact a
distinction in semantic kind. In my opinion, there are two different sorts of
expressions whose reference
depends in different ways on the occasion of their use and which should
semantically berepresented in different ways. Firstly, there are context-sensitive
expressions. The reference of these expressions depends on certain objective
factors that constitute a context of use. These expressions have a Kaplanian
character that determines their referent relative to a context of use.
Examples of this kind are expressions like ÒIÓ, ÒnowÓ and ÒtodayÓ. They all
share the following feature: It is impossible that two different uses of an
expression of these kind have different referents relative to the same context of use.
Formally they can be represented, as Kaplan did, by functions from contexts
of use to intensions. Secondly,
there are use-sensitive expressions. These expressions are neither sensitive
to any objective factors of a context of use nor can their linguistic meaning
be conceive of as a character. These expressions can have anaphoric or
referential uses. Some of them have bound and pragmatic anaphoric uses. The
reference of such an expression is determined relative to a referential or
pragmatic anaphoric use by accompanying referential intentions. Uses of use-sensitive expressions are
individuated by means of their accompanying referential intentions. Formally
use-sensitive expressions are represented as indexed expressions that are semantically
interpreted by means of an index-sensitive assignment function. Different indexes correspond
to different referential intentions. Co-referential use-sensitive expressions
are semantically interpreted by means of indexed-assignment-functions with
the same output. In this sense, the referent of a use-sensitive expression is
determined by subject factors that are independent of the parameters of a
context of use. The reference of use-sensitive expressions can additionally
be constrained in some cases by the use-conditional meaning of such an
expression. Use-conditional linguistic meanings can either be captured (a) as
restrictions on indexed-assignment-functions or (b) as restrictions on the
class of adequate possible uses of an expression. It is possible that any two
different uses of an expression of these kind have different referents
relative to the same or different contexts of use. Some use-sensitive
expressions also have bound uses and their corresponding assignment functions
can be shifted by the right sort of quantifiers. Bare demonstratives are
use-sensitives expressions without an additional use-conditional meaning and
they only have pragmatic anaphoric uses. Proper names are use-sensitives
expressions with an additional use-conditional meaning that restricts the
possible referents of a name to its bearer; but names only have pragmatic
anaphoric uses. Third person personal pronouns are use- sensitives
expressions with an additional use-conditional meaning that restricts the
possible referents of them to
male or female individuals and they have both pragmatic and bound anaphoric uses. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
December 14, 2016 Ruth Kempson King's College London Language
as Mechanisms for Interaction: the challenge of modelling dialogue My task is to
introduce and justify the formalism of Dynamic Syntax (DS), whose central
claim is that natural languages are mechanisms for interaction, defined by
grammars that articulate the online incremental process of growth of
interpretation/linearisation underpinning both production and parsing. The
talk will then argue that with this perspective, there is evidence that
language evolution could have been possible without having to presume rich
innateness, sudden-switch change, or prior availability of higher-order
inferential capacities such as mind-reading. My starting point is to
illustrate data from conversational dialogue which are a huge challenge for
syntax and semantics models, since sentence-based grammars are not at all
well suited to express the facts of
dialogue – and even for pragmatists, since dialogue dynamics
provide evidence that successful
communication does not have to involve reading othersÕ minds or grasping some
propositional understanding to be shared. Rather, what is essential is
speaker/hearer interaction. Then I will give a sketch of Dynamic Syntax sufficient to show
how the dynamics of dialogue will
emerge as an automatic consequence of the framework as well as
expressing universal constraints
on the process of structural growth. Finally I shall show how the individual mechanisms that
underpin anaphora, ellipsis, discontinuity effects, and scope dependencies, can
all be seen to be vehicles for
interaction, in virtue of generalisations across these phenomena which
can only be expressed in dynamic,
interactive terms. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
December 7, 2016 Kurt Erbach Heinrich Heine University DŸsseldorf Bare singular nouns in
Hungarian and the mass/count distinction I argue for an analysis of Hungarian in which notional singular count nouns
are semantically number neutral, and thus felicitous, with measure
constructions and the WH-quantifier mennyi (Ôwhat quantity ofÕ).
This provides an alternative analysis to Schvarcz (2016) and Schvarcz &
Rothstein (2015) who analyze the majority of Hungarian notional count nouns
as dual life—i.e. mass or count depending on the context. They
assume kšnyv (ÔbookÕ) is mass with mennyi &
measure constructions, but it is count in cardinality constructions. However,
certain Hungarian constructions indicate bare singular count nouns are
interpreted as number neutral. Furthermore, measure constructions sanction
the occurrence of mass and bare plural count nouns but disallow singular
count nouns (Krifka 1989, Landman 2016). Following Landman (2016) allows a
more straightforward analysis that shows the Hungarian nominal system is more
like other mass/count languages has been previously thought. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
November 30, 2016 Todor Koev Heinrich Heine University DŸsseldorf Adverbs
of Change, Aspect, and Anaphoricity Adverbs of change,
such as quickly or slowly, have been known to give rise to a number of
interpretations. A sentence like Kazuko ran to the store quickly can describe
the intensity of the described action (a manner reading), the temporal extent
of the entire event (a duration reading), or the time between the culmination
of the event and some previous event (an anaphoric reading). It has also been
noticed that available interpretations are sensitive to thelexical aspect of
the verbal predicate; for example, The police quickly spotted the suspect is
only compatible with an anaphoric reading for quickly. Existing accounts of
adverbs of change (e.g. Cresswell 1978; Rawlins 2013) take manner readings as
primary and successfully extend these to duration readings, but struggle to
derive anaphoric readings. In contrast, I take anaphoric readings as primary
and argue that other readings are special cases of these. Adverbs of change
are claimed to modify the temporal distance between two instantaneous events
that are compositionally or anaphorically available. The proposed account,
couched in a dynamic semantic framework, does particularly well in predicting
anaphoric interpretations and demonstrates how adverbs of change interact with
lexical aspect to derive other available readings. It also correctly predicts
certain positional effects and can accommodate the idiosyncratic behavior of
adverbs like slowly, which appears to lack truly anaphoric interpretations. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
November 23, 2016 Maria Spychalska Ruhr University of
Bochum Scalar implicatures in context of full and partial information:
Evidence from ERPs A major part of the
psycholinguistic research on scalar implicatures has been focused on the question
of how scalar implicatures are generated: in a default and automatic manner
or as results of effortful reasoning processes. This so-called default- vs.
context-based controversy has been experimentally operationalized in terms of
processing costs of scalar implicatures: the processing costs have been taken
as a proxy of the implicatureÕs default vs. non-default character. Yet, it
has eventually become evident that the data hardly fit this dichotomy. Many
studies on the processing of scalar implicatures brought contrastive results:
some experiments provided evidence that the processing of the pragmatically
enriched interpretation is costly relative to the processing of the semantic
meaning, other studies found no additional cost for the processing of scalar
implicatures. It was further
shown by Degen & Tannenahus (2015) that scalar implicatures may be
differently processed depending on contextual support: in contexts that
support the pragmatic interpretation, scalar implicatures will occur as
default and automatic, whereas when the contextual support is weaker,
listeners will take longer to arrive at the inference. This results were
integrated within a probabilistic model of linguistic processing, called
constraint-based account and predicting that interlocutors may use
information from multiple sources during sentence comprehension to create
expectations about the future development of the utterance. In my talk I will present results from
EEG studies on scalar implicatures processing arguing in favor of the
constraint-based model. Comparing results from two studies: where the scalar
implicature processing was tested in context of full information and in
context of partial information, I will discuss how the contextual support may
determine the cognitive costs of the implicature processing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
November 16, 2016 Willy Geuder Heinrich Heine University Manner adverbs, agentive adverbs, and adverbs in between
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
November 9, 2016 Christian Wurm Heinrich Heine University The
algebra of ambiguity We
present an algebraic approximation to the semantic content of linguistic
ambiguity. Starting from the class of ordinary Boolean algebras, we add to it
an ambiguity operator and a small set of (rather peculiar) axioms which we
think are correct for linguistic ambiguity beyond doubt. We then show some
important, non-trivial results that follow from this axiomatization, which
turn out to be surprising and not fully satisfying from a linguistic point of
view. The results leave us with some open questions, both on the linguistic
algebraic side – like the nature of intention in ambiguous statements,
or the properties of disjunctive axioms in universal algebra. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
July 20, 2016 Barbara Tomaszewicz UniversitŠt
zu Kšln Focus association in sentence processing The focus
structure of a sentence reflects the discourse context, but in the presence
of various operators, such as only, even and most, it has an effect on the
truth-conditions or the presuppositions of the sentence. Stolterfoht et al.
(2007) and Carlson (2013) showed that only facilitates the processing of
focus structures during silent reading. When (1) is read without preceding
context, the first conjunct receives a wide focus interpretation (marked as
FI), and when the processor encounters the ellipsis remnant (F2), it must
revise the focus structure of the first conjunct from wide to matching narrow
focus (F3). The presence of only in (2) requires narrow focus on its
associate (FI), which is congruous with the ellipsis remnant. Revision of the
focus structure in (1) vs. (2) was associated with an ERP signature in the
Stolterfoht et al. study on German, and with increased reading times in
CarlsonÕs self-paced reading study on English. 1) [Am
Dienstag hat der Direktor [den SchŸler]F3 getadelt]F1, und nicht [den
Lehrer]F2 On Tuesday has the
principal.Nom the pupil.Acc criticized and not the teacher.Acc 2) Am
Dienstag hat der Direktor nur [den SchŸler]F1 getadelt, und nicht [den
Lehrer]F2 On Tuesday has the
principal.Nom only the pupil.Acc criticized and not the teacher.Acc Since
Ôonly x ... and not yÕ is frequent in discourse, the presence of only could
create an expectation for an explicit mention of excluded alternatives, and
this bias alone could account for the facilitation in (2). In self-paced
reading experiments on Polish we showed that the processing of replacive
ellipsis ( Ôand not ... Õ ) is facilitated in the presence of the three
associators: only, even, most, which indicates that it is indeed the focus
association mechanism that explains the facilitation in (2) (Tomaszewicz and
Pancheva (2016)). The use of Polish allowed us for a direct comparison
between only, even and most, because (i) like in German replacive ellipsis is
unambiguous due to Accusative case marking, and therefore any differences in
ellipsis resolution can be attributed to the processing of focus structure
alone; (ii) with most the focus on ÔsculptorsÕ yields a superlative reading
that is unavailable in English or German (in Pancheva and Tomaszewicz (2012)
and Tomaszewicz (2015) we argue that this reading arises via focus
association). We
found that in Polish only, even and most create an expectation for narrow
focus on the object, but the facilitatory effects occur already on the
conjunct Ôand notÕ with only and even, and on the ellipsis remnant with most.
This difference likely reflects the difference between two types of focus
association: obligatory and optional as identified in the formal semantic
research on focus. Obligatory focus association is taken to be encoded in the
lexical semantics of focus sensitive expressions (only, even), whereas
optional/free association is a result of the contextual setting of the domain
variable of an operator like most (Beaver and Clark (2009)). While prenominai
only and even have one syntactic associate (3), most is free to associate
either with the adverbial or the subject in English (4a-b), or with the
object in Polish (5). 3)a.
John invited only/even [sculptors]F for coffee. b.
*John invited only/even sculptors [for coffee]F 4)a.
John invited the most sculptors [for coffee]F. Reading:
John invited more sculptors for coffee than for any other relevant occasion, b.
[John]F invited the most sculptors for coffee. Reading: John invited more
sculptors for coffee than for any other relevant individual did. 5) John
zaprosił najwięcej [rzeźbiarzy]F na kawę. John invited
most sculptors for coffee Reading:
John invited more sculptors for coffee than any other group of people that he
invited. During
incremental processing prenominai only and even create a precise expectation
for the location of focus, but most allows association with either the object
or the adverbial in Polish, which is compatible with our results. Currently,
we are extending these findings to meisten in German, which like English most
does not allow association with the object, to show that optional associators
facilitate the processing of focus structures that are compatible with the
semantics resulting from focus association (and that it is not the case that
the mere presence of a prenominai modifier increases the salience of the
contrast in the replacive ellipsis). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
July 6, 2016 Noortje
Venhuizen UniversitŠt
des Saarlandes Projection in
Discourse: A data-driven formal semantic analysis In this
talk, I present a unified, data-driven formal semantic analysis of projection
phenomena, which include presuppositions, anaphoric expressions, and
conventional implicatures (as defined by Potts, 2005). The different
contributions made by these phenomena are explained in terms of the notion of
information status. Based on this analysis, I present a new semantic
formalism called Projective Discourse Representation Theory (PDRT). PDRT is
an extension of traditional Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp, 1981; Kamp
and Reyle, 1993), which directly implements the anaphoric theory of
presuppositions (van der Sandt, 1992) by means of the introduction of
projection variables. I show that PDRT captures the differences, as well as
the similarities between the contributions made by presuppositions, anaphora
and conventional implicatures. In order to illustrate PDRT's representational
power, I present a data-driven computational analysis of the information
status of referential expressions based on data from the Groningen Meaning
Bank; a corpus of semantically annotated texts (Basile et al., 2012).
Taken together, the results pave way for a more integrated formal and empirical
analysis of different aspects of linguistic meaning. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June 29, 2016 Markus
Schrenk Heinrich-Heine-UniversitŠt
DŸsseldorf Causal Power and Modality as Stumbling Stones for a Semantic Analysis of Dispositional Predicates Attempts to give a semantic analysis
of dispositional predicates (like Òsolubility", ÒinflammabilityÓ, etc.)
in terms of (counterfactual) conditionals (for example: Òif x were put in
water it would dissolveÓ) saw a plethora of counterexamples: void
satisfaction, random coincidences, masks, finks, antidotes, etc. Already on
the (semantic/logical) surface the reasons for failure are pretty obvious.
Yet, there are also some deeper (metaphysical) reasons – Causal Power
and Modality – that can be unearthed. In this talk I will go through all
the above. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June 22, 2016 Higher School of
Economics, Department of Linguistics, Moscow A Typology of Falling Events Falling is a kind of quite
standard motion event with Source, Goal and a special manner of motion which
is usually reduced to the up-down (vertical) axis. The talk shows that
there are other semantic characteristics which build semantic
oppositions within the domain of falling and trigger its metaphorical
extensions. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June 15, 2016 Heinrich-Heine-UniversitŠt
DŸsseldorf The PoP approach to
vector semantics
The use
of vector space models, however, is problematic due to the high
dimensionality of these vectors and due to the fact that co-occurrence
patterns often follow what is known as heavy-tailed distribution (as
exemplified by the Zipfian distribution of words in documents). For instance,
while a few words frequently occur in text (thus co-occur with other words, such
as the function word ÒtheÓ), many content words occur rarely. Consequently,
as the number of vectors/entities increases, the number of co-occurring
context elements (i.e., the dimensionality ofvectors) escalates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June
8, 2016 Suzi Lima Universidade Federal do Rio
de Janeiro Portions, individuation
and measurement Container nouns (cup) are nouns that
denote concrete objects that can be used as receptacles for substances. It
has been argued that in constructions with numerals (as in Ôtwo glasses of
waterÕ), container phrases can be interpreted in at least two different ways
(Selkirk 1977, Rothstein 2012, Partee and Borschev 2012). Firstly, a
container noun can be used to denote actual containers filled with some
substance; e.g. Ôglasses of waterÕ can denote actual glasses filled with some
quantity of water (individuation). Secondly, a container noun can be used as
the description of a unit of measurement. Based on the results of a felicity judgment task
with children and adults with Brazilian Portuguese, English and Yudja, it
will be argued that individuation precedes measure. Second, unlike in
English, container phrases in Yudja can be interpreted as locatives or
trigger a concrete portion interpretation that is different from measure.
Similar results were found for Brazilian Portuguese when the question
included a prepositional phrase (Eu
bebi dois copos com ‡gua ÔI drank two cups with waterÕ) as opposed to
pseudopartitive constructions (Eu bebi
dois copos de ‡gua ÔI drank two cups of waterÕ). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June
1, 2016 Jens
Fleischhauer Heinrich-Heine-UniversitŠt
DŸsseldorf Animacy and
affectedness (in Germanic languages)
(1) a. Das MŠdchen schlug den
Jungen. Lundquist & Ramchand (2012)
argue that inanimate entities are conceived as less affected by processes
such as hitting or kicking than animate entities are. de Swart (2014), on the
other hand, argues that the alternation marks a difference in sentience. As
sentience presupposes animacy, the animacy contrast is merely epiphenomenal.
Both analyses have shortcomings: de SwartÕs analysis does not rely on
affectedness and therefore cannot explain the contrast between (1b) and (2).
Lundquist & RamchandÕs analysis is couched in the generative framework
and they define affectedness as a binary feature. Their analysis does not
give a principal explanation of why it is only a subset of contact verbs that
gives rise to the alternation illustrated in (1). An explanation of them
phenomenon requires two things: First, a graded concept of affectedness,
like the one proposed by Beavers (2011). Beavers notion of affectedness
provides an explanation of why contact verbs show an alternation dependent on
affectedness. According to him, these verbs entail potential results and the
alternation can be seen as a resolution of this potentiality. If the referent
of the second argument is animate, it is conceived as affected. If it is
inanimate, it is taken to be non-affected. Second, an explication of the
relationship between affectedness and animacy is needed. Lundquist &
Ramchand argue that inanimate entities are only affected, if they are
physically damaged. Beside physical affectedness, animate beings can also be
emotionally/psychologically affected. This allows combining the basis
insights of Lundquist & RamchandÕs analysis with the one of de SwartÕs. The aim of the talk is to present a
unified analysis of the phenomenon, which combines a gradual notion of
affectedness with the notion of
sentience. It will be shown that
such an approach allows explaining why the alternation arises with this
particular set of verbs. Furthermore, the analysis will shed light on the
relationship between affectedness and animacy. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
May 25, 2016 Karoly Varasdi & Zsofia Gyarmathy Heinrich-Heine-UniversitŠt DŸsseldorf A model
of evidence and an evidence-based analysis of progressive achievements In our
talk, we are going to outline a lattice-theoretic model of evidence and an
evidence-based approach to progressive achievements. Our starting point is
that an agent is justified in asserting a progressive sentence if the agent
has enough evidence supporting the base sentence in that specific scenario.
In our framework, evidence for a proposition is that which justifies the
speaker in asserting the proposition. We will argue that the set of all
potential pieces of evidence ordered by containment form a lattice, and is
connected with the lattice of propositions in a specific way based on the
notion of (partial) justification. We will show how this evidence-based
framework can be used to predict felicitous progressive uses of achievements,
such as "Mary is arriving at the station" and still exclude
unacceptable progressive achievements like "*Mary is noticing the
picture". To this end, we exploit the fact that sentence entailment and
evidence containment go in opposite directions in our framework and that
achievements that can appear in the progressive are those that describe the
right boundaries of extended events. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
May 4, 2016 Zsofia Gyarmathy Heinrich-Heine-UniversitŠt DŸsseldorf Achievements and
presuppositions This
session will include i) a presentation of a theoretical idea about the
activity presupposition of a subclass of
Vendler's achievements (called culminations by Bach 1986), ii) outlining
some ideas for three experiments to test the theoretical assumptions, and
iii) an open discussion where I would be happy to hear comments and feedback
especially about the experimental design. The basic theoretical idea I
propose is that culminations like win or arrive have
an existential presupposition that is of a hitherto not recognized kind that
I call an extra soft presupposition, which is cancellable even when the
trigger is not embedded under any operators, but is more similar to
presuppositions than implicatures in other respects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 27, 2016 Daniel Lassiter Stanford University Time: 16:30-18:00 Location: Building
24.91. Room 01.22 Must,
might, knows, and the rest of the epistemic system Linguists and philosophers
have long been torn between the intuition that must is
'weak' – expressing reduced commitment vis-a-vis the unqualified
expression – and the intuition that it expresses some fairly strong
epistemic relation, such as knowledge. Recently von Fintel & Gillies
(2010) have argued that the latter hunch is correct – must picks
out a strong epistemic necessity modal ˆ la modal logic S5 – and that
the intuition of weakness can be explained by reference to a little-noticed
evidential meaning component of must. Using corpus and
experimental data I'll show that must does not express
knowledge, certainty, or anything of this form: speakers routinely use must to
mark out a proposition p when they are explicitly uncertain
about the truth of p, say that they do not know p,
and consider not-p a possibility. The experimental results
also illuminate the relationship between might and
epistemic possible, which are (contrary to the usual assumption)
not synonymous. I'll discuss the implications of these results for a variety
of epistemic items, arguing that they problematize Kratzer's (1991)
influential proposal as well and favor a theory where epistemic modals are
given a semantics built around the probabilistic support of a proposition. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 21, 2016 Todor Koev Heinrich-Heine-UniversitŠt DŸsseldorf Countability
and the Diminutive in Bulgarian This technical
report briefly explores the count/mass distinction in Bulgarian. It pays
particular attention to diminutive modification and its ability to achieve a
mass-to-count shift when applied nouns that describe granular aggregates. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 14, 2016 Michael Daniel National Research University, Moscow Higher
School of Economics Centre for
Fundamental Studies / Laboratory of the Caucasian Languages Mass and
Class: Number,
nominal classes and mass nouns in East Caucasian In many ways, East Caucasian languages manifest a complex interaction
between the categories of grammatical number and gender as nominal
classification. One obvious example of such interaction is that the inventory
of nominal classes in the singular (usually three to five classes) is reduced
to only two classes in the plural – human vs. non-human. Not less
important, though probably somewhat less salient, is the treatment of mass
nouns as P(luralia) T(antum). Thus, in Dargwa languages, mass nouns show
non-human plural agreement. That mass nouns are PT is, of course, by no means
typologically unexpected. What is peculiar is that the mass nouns show this
agreement though being morphologically singular, while, at least for some of
them, morphologically plural forms are also available. Similar but more
complex is the situation in Archi, an outlier of the Lezgic branch of the
family. In Archi, mass nouns are usually described as fourth class
(singular). Incidentally, agreement pattern for this class is identical to
non-human plural. Many of these nouns show plural inflectional morphology. This
morphology is however not consistent and is coupled with singular agreement
on the attributes. I suggest that mismatches between morphology and agreement
are explained by a more general morphosyntactic property of East Caucasian
languages that do not ascribe agreement pattern to a lexical item as a whole
but do this separately to its singular and plural forms, and that the
ascription is governed not only by lexicon but is partly driven by semantics
of the respective morphologically singular and plural forms. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
February 10, 2016 Simon Dobnik University of
Gothenburg Interfacing
Language, Spatial Perception and Cognition in Type Theory with Records |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
January 27, 2016 Fabienne Martin The
imperfective in subjunctive conditionals: fake or real aspect? This
talk aims to provide a 'real aspect' approach of the 'fake' imperfective in
subjunctive conditionals (SCs) and a new account of the (non)-cancellability
of the counterfactual inference in SCs, largely based on IppolitoÕs 2013. It
is argued that PAST and PRES above MODAL in conditionals compete the same way
as in non-modal stative sentences, see Altshuler and Schwarzschild 2012. On
this view, the counterfactual inference of SCs, when cancellable, is nothing
else than the cessation implicature routinely triggered by past stative
sentences. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
January 20, 2016 Fred Landman Tel Aviv University and University of
TŸbingen Aspects of Event Semantics for Aspect |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
January 13, 2016 Todor Koev Parentheticality
and Discourse
(i)
the backgrounded status and projection/scopal properties of implications
triggered by slifting parentheticals, (ii)
the often weakened assertion strength of the main clause, (iii)
the requirement that slifting parentheticals create an upward-entailing
environment (cf. #*The dean, Susan doubts, flirted with the secretary*). I will
argue against the idea that the main clause is interpreted in the scope of
the slifting predicate. Rather, I suggest that the strength of the main
clause depends in a quasi-pragmatic way on the slifting parenthetical, as the
latter can lower the assertability threshold for the main clause. I will also
try to derive the informational properties and the polarity restrictions on
slifting parentheticals from their role as providing grounds for the main
claim of the sentence. |
|
December 9, 2015 Paul Gaus Result
States in the Perfect Time Span - Combination of two Theories of the Perfect The Perfect Time Span approach (PTS) is an
approach which tries to capture perfect meanings by locating the
Reichenbachian Event Time (E) within a time span. I found that in German
certain accomplishment constructions cannot be captured by this approach. In
this thesis I will show a solution to this problem by combining the PTS
approach with the so called Result State approach. My modi |
|
December 3, 2015 Todor
Koev Heinrich Heine University Appositive Projection and Its Exceptions This paper has two major goals. The first is to offer a comprehensive
account of the projection properties of appositive constructions. Appositives
posit a challenge to traditional assumptions about form and meaning because
they are interpreted in situ with respect to order-dependent phenomena like
discourse anaphora but nevertheless escape the scope of entailment-canceling
operators like negation or modals. Accounting for this pattern requires an
innovative way of looking at propositional operators and how they interact
with appositives. The second goal of the paper is to address various claimed
exceptions to the otherwise robust projectivity of appositives. I argue that
in some cases the construction under consideration is most likely not an
appositive at all. In other cases, the observed non-speaker-oriented readings
can be derived by pragmatic reasoning or are due to a perspective shift.
Although genuine instances of semantically embedded appositives do seem to
exist, I point out that such data have a limited empirical scope. I conclude
that appositive projection is a pervasive phenomenon and is part and parcel
of the semantics of appositives. |
|
November 25, 2015 Peter Sutton
and Hana Filip Heinrich Heine University DŸsseldorf Mass/Count
Variation: A Mereological 2d Supervaluationist Semantics We propose a
novel analysis of the mass/count distinction, within a new framework:
2-dimensional mereological supervaluationism. While the notions akin to
VAGUENESS [1], SEMANTIC ATOMICITY [4] and OVERLAP [3] are needed to ground
this distinction, no single notion is sufficient to fit the whole range of
data, especially intra- and crosslinguistic variation in mass [-C] vs. count
[+C] encoding. We make this variation tractable by treating it as following
from the interaction of all three of the above notions. We formally derive
four semantic classes of nouns (which closely match those in [2]) to explain
these form-denotation mappings and overcome challenges faced by [1; 3; 4]. References [1] Chierchia, G., 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness & semantic
variation. Synth. 174, 99-149. [2] Grimm, S., 2012. Number & Individuation. PhD Diss., Stanford
University. [3] Landman,
F., 2011. Count nouns, Mass nouns, Neat nouns, Mess nouns. In: The Baltic
International Yearbook of Cognition: Vol. 6. pp. 1-67. [4] Rothstein, S., 2010. Counting & the mass/count distinction.
JoS 27 (3), 343-397. |
|
November 19, 2015 Susan Rothstein Bar Ilan University
(Israel) & TŸbingen University Object mass nouns from a crosslinguistic perspective Rothstein 2010,
Schwarzschild 2011 show that nouns like furniture denote sets of individuable
entities. Barner and Snedeker (2005) show further that comparisons such as
who has more furniture? typically are answered by comparing cardinalities. On
this basis they suggest that object mass nouns have essentially the same
denotations as count nouns. In the first part of the talk, I will show that
the conclusions drawn by Barner and Snedeker (2005) are too strong: while
comparisons of object mass nouns may involve comparing cardinalities, they
need not do so. There is thus a basic contrast between object mass nouns and
count nouns: count nouns require comparison by cardinality while object mass
nouns allow it, but also allow comparisons along other, continuous
dimensions. I will support this with data from English, Brazilian Portuguese,
Hungarian and Mandarin. This means that object mass nouns and count nouns
must have different semantic interpretations, contra e.g. Bale and Barner
(2009). But whatever semantics we give for object mass and count nouns, we
need to answer the obvious question: If object mass nouns are not countable,
how can they be compared in terms of cardinality? In the second part of the
talk, I offer a solution to this problem, proposing that there are
cardinality scales, which allow us to evaluate and compare quantities in
terms of their perceived or estimated number of atomic parts without actually
counting the atoms. This allows us to clarify the distinction between
counting and measuring, and to maintain the general principle that only count
nouns have countable denotations. |
|
November 11, 2015 Henk Zeevat Heinrich Heine University Presupposition Blocking by Causal Inference The talk develops an
account of causal inferences in update semantics. A typical case would be the
inference of a causal relation in: When John pushed the
button, the bomb exploded. While cause inferences
have many applications, the talk applies it to presupposition projection. It
shows that the effects of Karttunen's satisfaction theory are better captured
by causal inferences than by the logical satisfaction relation employed by Karttunen.
E.g. blocking is not predicted by satisfaction in: If Marie is French,
she has stopped eating snails. It is after all just
false that every French person eats snails. But there is a plausible causal
inference that being French can lead to eating snails. In: If John has
grandchildren, his children are happy. most people infer that
John has children, contra the satisfaction theory. And of course, children
are the cause of grandchildren and not inversely.The talk also adds a new
class of presupposition blocking that is unreducible to the satisfaction
theory, based on identity inferences. |
|
November 4, 2015 Rainer Osswald Heinrich Heine University Quantification in
Frame Semantics with Hybrid Logic |