35. Situation Semantics and the ontology of natural language

Ginzburg, Jonathan

doi:10.1515/9783110226614.830

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Appendix A: Basic Notions of TTR Type Theory with Records (Cooper, 2012;Cooper and Ginzburg, 2015;Cooper, 2023) is a cognitively construable formalism grounded in set theory, deriving much of its initial inspiration from Situation Semantics (Barwise and Perry, 1983;Ginzburg, 2011) and its formal notions from Constructive Type Theory (Martin-Löf, 1984;Ranta, 1994). A fundamental notion of Constructive Type Theory is the judgement a : T that classifies an object a as being of type T .…”

Section: Appendix B: Annotation Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing the Response Space of Questions: data and theory

Ginzburg

Yusupujiang

et al. 2022

dad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main aim of this paper is to provide a characterization of the response space for questions using a taxonomy grounded in a dialogical formal semantics. As a starting point we take the typology for responses in the form of questions provided in \cite{lupginz-jlm}. This work develops a wide coverage taxonomy for question/question sequences observable in corpora including the BNC, CHILDES, and BEE, as well as formal modeling of all the postulated classes. Our aim is to extend this work to cover \emph{all} responses to questions. We present the extended typology of responses to questions based on a corpus studies of BNC, BEE, Maptask and CornellMovie with include 506, 262, 467, and 678 question/response pairs respectively. We compare the data for English with data from Polish using the Spokes corpus (694 question/response pairs). We discuss annotation reliability and disagreement analysis. We sketch how each class can be formalized using a dialogical semantics appropriate for dialogue management.

show abstract

Section: Appendix B: Annotation Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing the Response Space of Questions: data and theory

Ginzburg

Yusupujiang

et al. 2022

dad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach ties incongruity to the general theory of scripts, viewed as embedded in ontology construction (Raskin 2017); this might have seemed idiosyncratic when it appeared in the 1980s, but currently is closely related to frames (Fillmore 1985;Löbner 2015) and to semantics as ontology construction (cf. situation semantics (Barwise & Perry 1983;Ginzburg 2011)).…”

Section: Humour Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laughter as language

Ginzburg

Mazzocconi

Tian

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the import of laughter, has interested philosophers and literary scholars for millennia and, more recently, psychologists, biologists, neuroscientists, and linguists. However, the assumption has been that laughter lacks meaning akin to what words and phrases possess and that it does not contribute to the compositional construction of meaning. In this paper, we argue that, in fact, laughter (and other non-verbal social signals like smiling, sighing, frowning) has propositional content-it involves reference to external real world events, has stand alone meanings, and participates in semantic and pragmatic processes like repair, implicature, and irony. We show how to develop a formal semantic and pragmatic account of laughter embedded in a general theory of conversational interaction and emotional reasoning and show how to explain the wide, indeed in principle unbounded range of uses laughter exhibits. We show how our account can be extended to other non-verbal social signals like smiling, sighing, eye rolling, and frowning. Should laughter and its ilk be incorporated in the grammar? We suggest that they probably should be, if one assumes a conversationally-oriented view of grammar. But various open issues remain.

show abstract

“…A detailed such ontology extending the original situation semantics ontology was developed in Ginzburg & Sag (2000). This approach has subsequently been developed in TTR in works such as Ginzburg (2011Ginzburg ( , 2012. We start by discussing how to add propositions into TTR.…”

Section: A Theory Of Abstract Entitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Type Theory with Records for Natural Language Semantics*

Cooper¹,

Ginzburg²

2015

The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semantic analysis of interaction and coordination in dialogue (SAICD), by the Lab(oratory of )Ex(cellence)-EFL (ANR/CGI), and by the Disfluency, Exclamations, and Laughter in Dialogue (DUEL) project within the projets franco-allemand en sciences humaines et sociales funded by the ANR and the DFG. We are grateful for comments to the participants in three courses we taught in which we presented a version of this material: Type Theory with Records for Natural Language Semantics, NASSLLI, Austin, Texas, 18th -22nd June, 2012; An introduction to semantics using type theory with records, ESSLLI, Opole, Poland, 13th -17th Aug, 2012; and Semantics using type theory with records, Gothenburg, 10th -12th June, 2013. We are grateful to Liz Coppock for comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. Finally, we would like to thank Chris Fox for his very penetrating and careful comments on the first submitted draft. A draft chapter for the Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Contemporary Semanticssecond edition, edited by Shalom Lappin and Chris Fox. This draft formatted on 3rd April 2015.

show abstract

35. Situation Semantics and the ontology of natural language

Cited by 4 publications

References 20 publications

Characterizing the Response Space of Questions: data and theory

Characterizing the Response Space of Questions: data and theory

Laughter as language

Type Theory with Records for Natural Language Semantics*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About