Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 meaning. Robert May argued for the postulation of LF partly in order to account for such ...
The modern view is more complex, since a single judgement of Aristotle's system involves two or more logical connectives. For example, the sentence "All men are mortal" involves, in term logic, two non-logical terms "is a man" (here M) and "is mortal" (here D): the sentence is given by the judgement A(M,D).
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 ...
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
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.
In semantics, the best-known types of semantic equivalence are dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence (two terms coined by Eugene Nida), which employ translation approaches that focus, respectively, on conveying the meaning of the source text; and that lend greater importance to preserving, in the translation, the literal structure of the source text.
According to Chomsky, a speaker's grammaticality judgement is based on two factors: . A native speaker's linguistic competence, which is the knowledge that they have of their language, allows them to easily judge whether a sentence is grammatical or ungrammatical based on intuitive introspection.
However, negative raising is known to license strict NPIs, as seen in the following example, where the negation is in the main clause rather than the embedded clause: [13] Stanley doesn't believe that Carolyn will breathe a word about it [13] Phrase structure showing NEG- raising licensing a strict NPI