Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As a result of this distinction, nearly all textualists reject strict constructionism in this sense. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a major proponent of textualism, said that "no one ought to be" a strict constructionist, because the most literal interpretation meaning of a text can conflict with the commonly-understood or original ...
This sentence is semantically ambiguous. Specifically, it contains a scope ambiguity. This ambiguity cannot be resolved at surface structure, since someone, being within the verb phrase, must be lower in the structure than everyone. This case exemplifies the general fact that natural language is insufficiently specified for strict logical ...
We'll cover exactly how to play Strands, hints for today's spangram and all of the answers for Strands #283 on Wednesday, December 11. Related: 16 Games Like Wordle To Give You Your Word Game Fix ...
The strict reading of sentence 9) is that "Betsy loves her own dog". Application of Pro→BV then derives the sentence in 9.i): 9.i) [Betsy i loves her j (or x's) dog] Where her j is someone else or x's is anyone else's dog Complex example. 10) Betsy i loves her i dog and Sandy j does ∅ too where ∅ = loves her dog Strict reading
Such grammaticality judgements reflect the fact that the structure of sentence (1) obeys the rules of English grammar. This can be seen by comparing sentence (1) with sentence (2). Both sentences have the same structure, and both are grammatically well-formed. (1) Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
In logic, the logical form of a statement is a precisely-specified semantic version of that statement in a formal system.Informally, the logical form attempts to formalize a possibly ambiguous statement into a statement with a precise, unambiguous logical interpretation with respect to a formal system.
On a sentence level, the principle claims that what remains if one removes the lexical parts of a meaningful sentence, are the rules of composition. The sentence "Socrates was a man", for example, becomes "S was a M" once the meaningful lexical items—"Socrates" and "man"—are taken away.
Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.