Publications

Displaying 101 - 135 of 135
  • Senft, G. (1998). Zeichenkonzeptionen in Ozeanien. In R. Posner, T. Robering, & T.. Sebeok (Eds.), Semiotics: A handbook on the sign-theoretic foundations of nature and culture (Vol. 2) (pp. 1971-1976). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Sentence-oriented semantic approaches in generative grammar. In S. Auroux, E. Koerner, H. J. Niederehe, & K. Versteegh (Eds.), History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present (pp. 2201-2213). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Abstract

    1. Introduction 2. A generative grammar as an algorithm 3. The semantic component 4. Bibliography 1. Introduction Throughout the 20th century up to the present day grammar and semantics have been uneasy bedfellows. A look at the historical background will make it clear how this curious situation came about. 20th-century linguistics has been characterized by an almost exclusive concern with the structure of words, word groups and sentences. This concern was reinforced, especially on the American side of the Atlantic, by the sudden rise and subsequent dominance of behaviorism during the 1920s. It started in psychology but quickly permeated all the human sciences, including linguistics, until the early 1960s, when it collapsed as suddenly as it had arisen.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Presupposition. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 10) (pp. 80-87). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Presupposition is a semantic device built into natural language to make sentences fit for use in certain contexts but not in others. A sentence carrying a presupposition thus evokes a context in which that presupposition is fulfilled. The study of presupposition was triggered by the behavior of natural language negation, which tends to preserve presuppositions either as invited inferences or as entailments. As the role of discourse became more apparent in semantics, presupposition began to be seen increasingly as a discourse-semantic phenomenon with consequences for the logic of language.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Projection problem. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 10) (pp. 128-131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    The property of presuppositions to be sometimes preserved through embeddings, albeit often in a weakened form, is called projection. The projection problem consists in formulating the conditions under which the presuppositions of an embedded clause (a) are kept as presuppositions of the superordinate structure, or (b) remain as an invited inference that can be overruled by context, or (c) are canceled. Over the past 25 years it has been recognized that the projection problem is to be solved in the context of a wider theory of presupposition and discourse incrementation.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Propositional and predicate logic-linguistic aspects. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 10) (pp. 146-153). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Logic was discovered by Aristotle when he saw that the semantic behavior of the negation word not is different in sentences with a definite and in those with a quantified subject term. Until the early 20th century, logic remained firmly language-based, but for the past century it has been mainly a tool in the hands of mathematicians, which has meant an alienation from linguistic reality. With the help of new techniques, it is now possible to revert to the logic of language, which is seen as based on a semantic analysis of the logical words (constants) involved. This new perspective, combined with much improved insights into the semantically defined discourse dependency of natural language sentences, leads to a novel and more functionally oriented approach to logic and to a reappraisal of traditional predicate calculus, whose main fault, undue existential import, evaporates when discourse dependency, in particular the presuppositional aspect, is brought into play. Traditional predicate calculus is seen to have a much greater logical power and a much greater functionality than modern predicate calculus. There is also full isomorphism, neglected in modern logic, between traditional predicate calculus and propositional calculus, which raises the question of any possible deeper causes.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Virtual objects. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 13) (pp. 438-441). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Virtual objects are objects thought up by a thinking individual. Although 20th-century philosophy has tried to ban them from ontology, they make it impossible to account for the truth of sentences such as Apollo was worshipped in the island of Delos, in which a property is assigned to the nonexisting, virtual entity Apollo. Such facts are the reason why virtual objects are slowly being recognized again.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1986). Anaphora resolution. In T. Myers, K. Brown, & B. McGonigle (Eds.), Reasoning and discourse processes (pp. 187-207). London: Academic Press.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Factivity. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 4) (pp. 423-424). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Some predicates are ‘factive’ in that they induce the presupposition that what is said in their subordinate that clause is true.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Donkey sentences. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 3) (pp. 763-766). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    The term ‘donkey sentences’ derives from the medieval philosopher Walter Burleigh, whose example sentences contain mention of donkeys. The modern philosopher Peter Geach rediscovered Burleigh's sentences and the associated problem. The problem is that natural language anaphoric pronouns are sometimes used in a way that cannot be accounted for in terms of modern predicate calculus. The solution lies in establishing a separate category of anaphoric pronouns that refer via the intermediary of a contextually given antecedent, possibly an existentially quantified expression.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Early formalization tendencies in 20th-century American linguistics. In S. Auroux, E. Koerner, H.-J. Niederehe, & K. Versteegh (Eds.), History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present (pp. 2026-2034). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Discourse domain. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and lingusitics (vol. 1) (pp. 638-639). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    A discourse domain D is a form of middle-term memory for the storage of the information embodied in the discourse at hand. The information carried by a new utterance u is added to D (u is incremented to D). The processes involved and the specific structure of D are a matter of ongoing research.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Discourse semantics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 3) (pp. 669-677). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Discourse semantics (DSx) is based on the fact that the interpretation of uttered sentences is dependent on and co-determined by the information stored in a specialized middle-term cognitive memory called discourse domain (D). DSx studies the structure and dynamics of Ds and the conditions to be fulfilled by D for proper interpretation. It does so in the light of the truth-conditional criteria for semantics, with an emphasis on intensionality phenomena. It requires the assumption of virtual entities and virtual facts. Any model-theoretic interpretation holds between discourse structures and pre-established verification domains.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Aristotle and linguistics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and lingusitics (vol.1) (pp. 469-471). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Aristotle's importance in the professional study of language consists first of all in the fact that he demythologized language and made it an object of rational investigation. In the context of his theory of truth as correspondence, he also provided the first semantic analysis of propositions in that he distinguished two main constituents, the predicate, which expresses a property, and the remainder of the proposition, referring to a substance to which the property is assigned. That assignment is either true or false. Later, the ‘remainder’ was called subject term, and the Aristotelian predicate was identified with the verb in the sentence. The Aristotelian predicate, however, is more like what is now called the ‘comment,’ whereas his remainder corresponds to the topic. Aristotle, furthermore, defined nouns and verbs as word classes. In addition, he introduced the term ‘case’ for paradigmatic morphological variation.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Meaning, the cognitive dependency of lexical meaning. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 7) (pp. 575-577). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    There is a growing awareness among theoretical linguists and philosophers of language that the linguistic definition of lexical meanings, which must be learned when one learns a language, underdetermines not only full utterance interpretation but also sentence meaning. The missing information must be provided by cognition – that is, either general encyclopedic or specific situational knowledge. This fact crucially shows the basic insufficiency of current standard model-theoretic semantics as a paradigm for the analysis and description of linguistic meaning.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Lexical conditions. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 7) (pp. 77-79). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    The lexical conditions, also known as satisfaction conditions, of a predicate P are the conditions that must be satisfied by the term referents of P for P applied to these term referents to yield a true sentence. In view of presupposition theory it makes sense to distinguish two categories of lexical conditions, the preconditions that must be satisfied for the sentence to be usable in any given discourse, and the update conditions which must be satisfied for the sentence to yield truth.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2006). Multivalued logics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 8) (pp. 387-390). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    The widely prevailing view that standard bivalent logic is the only possible sound logical system, imposed by metaphysical necessity, has been shattered by the development of multivalent logics during the 20th century. It is now clear that standard bivalent logic is merely the minimal representative of a wide variety of viable logics with any number of truth values. These viable logics can be subdivided into families. In this article, the Kleene family and the PPCn family are subjected to special examination, as they appear to be most relevant for the study of the logical properties of human language.
  • Seuren, P. A. M., & Wekker, H. (1986). Semantic transparency as a factor in Creole genesis. In P. Muysken, & N. Smith (Eds.), Substrata versus universals in Creole genesis: Papers from the Amsterdam Creole Workshop, April 1985 (pp. 57-70). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1998). Towards a discourse-semantic account of donkey anaphora. In S. Botley, & T. McEnery (Eds.), New Approaches to Discourse Anaphora: Proceedings of the Second Colloquium on Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution (DAARC2) (pp. 212-220). Lancaster: Universiy Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language, Lancaster University.
  • Skiba, R. (2006). Computeranalyse/Computer Analysis. In U. Amon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society [2nd completely revised and extended edition] (pp. 1187-1197). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
  • Stivers, T. (2006). Treatment decisions: negotiations between doctors and parents in acute care encounters. In J. Heritage, & D. W. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 279-312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stolker, C. J. J. M., & Poletiek, F. H. (1998). Smartengeld - Wat zijn we eigenlijk aan het doen? Naar een juridische en psychologische evaluatie. In F. Stadermann (Ed.), Bewijs en letselschade (pp. 71-86). Lelystad, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Vermande.
  • Sumer, B., Perniss, P. M., & Ozyurek, A. (2017). A first study on the development of spatial viewpoint in sign language acquisition: The case of Turkish Sign Language. In F. N. Ketrez, A. C. Kuntay, S. Ozcalıskan, & A. Ozyurek (Eds.), Social Environment and Cognition in Language Development: Studies in Honor of Ayhan Aksu-Koc (pp. 223-240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tilar.21.14sum.

    Abstract

    The current study examines, for the first time, the viewpoint preferences of signing children in expressing spatial relations that require imposing a viewpoint (left-right, front-behind). We elicited spatial descriptions from deaf children (4–9 years of age) acquiring Turkish Sign Language (TİD) natively from their deaf parents and from adult native signers of TİD. Adults produced these spatial descriptions from their own viewpoint and from that of their addressee depending on whether the objects were located on the lateral or the sagittal axis. TİD-acquiring children, on the other hand, described all spatial configurations from their own viewpoint. Differences were also found between children and adults in the type of linguistic devices and how they are used to express such spatial relations.
  • Suppes, P., Böttner, M., & Liang, L. (1998). Machine Learning of Physics Word Problems: A Preliminary Report. In A. Aliseda, R. van Glabbeek, & D. Westerståhl (Eds.), Computing Natural Language (pp. 141-154). Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI Publications.
  • Takashima, A., & Bakker, I. (2017). Memory consolidation. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 177-200). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Terrill, A., & Dunn, M. (2006). Semantic transference: Two preliminary case studies from the Solomon Islands. In C. Lefebvre, L. White, & C. Jourdan (Eds.), L2 acquisition and Creole genesis: Dialogues (pp. 67-85). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Terrill, A. (2006). Central Solomon languages. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 2) (pp. 279-280). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    The Papuan languages of the central Solomon Islands are a negatively defined areal grouping: They are those four or possibly five languages in the central Solomon Islands that do not belong to the Austronesian family. Bilua (Vella Lavella), Touo (Rendova), Lavukaleve (Russell Islands), Savosavo (Savo Island) and possibly Kazukuru (New Georgia) have been identified as non-Austronesian since the early 20th century. However, their affiliations both to each other and to other languages still remain a mystery. Heterogeneous and until recently largely undescribed, they present an interesting departure from what is known both of Austronesian languages in the region and of the Papuan languages of the mainland of New Guinea.
  • Van Staden, M., Bowerman, M., & Verhelst, M. (2006). Some properties of spatial description in Dutch. In S. C. Levinson, & D. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of Space (pp. 475-511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Van Gijn, R., Hammarström, H., Van de Kerke, S., Krasnoukhova, O., & Muysken, P. (2017). Linguistic Areas, Linguistic Convergence and River Systems in South America. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics (pp. 964-996). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781107279872.034.
  • Van Geenhoven, V. (1998). On the Argument Structure of some Noun Incorporating Verbs in West Greenlandic. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments - Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp. 225-263). Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI Publications.
  • Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1998). The acquisition of WH-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 221-249). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
  • Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2006). Some universals of verb semantics. In R. Mairal, & J. Gil (Eds.), Linguistic universals (pp. 155-178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2006). Semantic macroroles and language processing. In I. Bornkessel, M. Schlesewsky, B. Comrie, & A. Friederici (Eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycho-/neurolinguistic perspectives (pp. 263-302). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Weissenborn, J. (1986). Learning how to become an interlocutor. The verbal negotiation of common frames of reference and actions in dyads of 7–14 year old children. In J. Cook-Gumperz, W. A. Corsaro, & J. Streeck (Eds.), Children's worlds and children's language (pp. 377-404). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Zeshan, U. (2006). Sign language of the world. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 11) (pp. 358-365). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Although sign language-using communities exist in all areas of the world, few sign languages have been documented in detail. Sign languages occur in a variety of sociocultural contexts, ranging from sign languages used in closed village communities to officially recognized national sign languages. They may be grouped into language families on historical grounds or may participate in various language contact situations. Systematic cross-linguistic comparison reveals both significant structural similarities and important typological differences between sign languages. Focusing on information from non-Western countries, this article provides an overview of the sign languages of the world.
  • Zwitserlood, I., & Van Gijn, I. (2006). Agreement phenomena in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In P. Ackema (Ed.), Arguments and Agreement (pp. 195-229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Share this page