|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| In [[semantics|linguistic semantics]], an expression X is said to have '''cumulative reference''' if and only if the following holds: If X is true of both of ''a'' and ''b'', then it is also true of the combination of ''a'' and ''b''. Example: If two separate entities can be said to be "water", then combining them into one entity will yield more "water". If two separate entities can be said to be "a house", their combination cannot be said to be "a house". Hence, "water" has cumulative reference, while the expression "a house" does not. The [[english plural|plural]] form "houses", however, ''does'' have cumulative reference. If two (groups of) entities are both "houses", then their combination will still be "houses".
| | The writer is known as Wilber Pegues. One of the extremely very best things in the globe for him is doing ballet and he'll be starting something else alongside with it. Kentucky is exactly where I've always been residing. He is an order clerk and it's something he truly enjoy.<br><br>my web blog - free online tarot card readings ([http://profirealt.com.ua/?q=ru/content/things-consider-when-starting-fresh-hobby profirealt.com.ua]) |
| | |
| Cumulativity has proven relevant to the linguistic treatment of the [[mass noun|mass/count]] distinction and for the characterization of grammatical [[telicity]].
| |
| | |
| Formally, a cumulativity predicate ''CUM'' can be defined as follows, where capital ''X'' is a [[Variable (mathematics)|variable]] over [[set (mathematics)|sets]], ''U'' is the [[universe of discourse]], ''p'' is a [[mereology|mereological]] part [[mathematical structure|structure]] on ''U'', and <math>\oplus_p</math> is the [[mereology|mereological]] sum operation.
| |
| | |
| <center><math> | |
| (\forall X\subseteq U_p)(CUM(X)\iff \exists x,y(X(x) \wedge X(y) \wedge x\neq y) \wedge \forall x,y(X(x) \wedge X(y) \Rightarrow X(x \oplus_p y))) | |
| </math></center>
| |
| | |
| In later work, Krifka has generalized the notion to ''n''-ary predicates, based on the phenomenon of ''cumulative quantification''. For example, the two following sentences appear to be equivalent:
| |
| : John ate an apple and Mary ate a pear.
| |
| : John and Mary ate an apple and a pear.
| |
| | |
| This shows that the relation "eat" is cumulative. In general, an ''n''-ary predicate ''R'' is ''cumulative'' if and only if the following holds:
| |
| <center>
| |
| <math>
| |
| (\forall x_1,\ldots, x_n, y_1,\ldots, y_n)(R(x_1, \ldots,x_n)\wedge R(y_1, \ldots,y_n)) \rightarrow R(x_1\oplus y_1, \ldots,x_n\oplus y_n)
| |
| </math>
| |
| </center>
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| | |
| [[Manfred Krifka|Krifka, Manfred]] (1989). "Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics".
| |
| In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem and Peter van Emde Boas (eds.), ''Semantics and Contextual Expressions'' 75-115. Dordrecht: [[Foris]].
| |
| | |
| Krifka, Manfred. 1999. "At least some determiners aren’t determiners". In ''The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view'', ed. K. Turner, 257–291. North-Holland: [[Elsevier]] Science.
| |
| | |
| Scha, Remko. 1981. "Distributive, collective, and cumulative quantification". In ''Formal methods in the study of language'', ed. T. Janssen and M. Stokhof, 483–512. Amsterdam: [[Mathematical Centre Tracts]].
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Grammar]]
| |
| [[Category:Semantics]]
| |
The writer is known as Wilber Pegues. One of the extremely very best things in the globe for him is doing ballet and he'll be starting something else alongside with it. Kentucky is exactly where I've always been residing. He is an order clerk and it's something he truly enjoy.
my web blog - free online tarot card readings (profirealt.com.ua)