The Development of a Uniquely American Identity (1790-1860

Description

• expression écrite
• cours - matière potentielle : san francisco

The Development of a Uniquely American Identity (1790-1860): Defining Elements of Art, Architecture, Changes in Transportation, Economic Developments, Immigration, Migration, Religion, Reform Movements, Science, and Literature In Early United States History A Lesson for 11th Grade United States/APUS History Students Steve Schmidt Lowell High School San Francisco, California National Endowment for the Humanities Picturing Early America Salem State, 2009

• ongoing debate over states
• apus history students
• current perceptions of the u.s.
• national economy
• a.k.a.
• a. k. a.

Sujets

• San Francisco
• Schmidt
• Bailey
• HIStory
• Student
• State
• Perception (homonymie)
• Current
• National
• Period

Informations

• Publié par: dasof
• Nombre de lectures: 41
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 11 Mo

Extrait

Pre-proceedingsContents
Workshop on Inquisitiveness 1
Martin Aher
Free Choice in Deontic Inquisitive Semantics (DIS) . . . . . . 1
Robin Cooper & Jonathan Ginzburg
Negative inquisitiveness and alternatives-based negation . . . 10
Edgar Onea & Markus Steinbach
Where Question, Conditionals and Topics Converge . . . . . . 20
Wataru Uegaki
Inquisitive knowledge attribution and the Gettier problem . . 30
Workshop on Formal Semantic Evidence 40
Ralf Naumann
Relating ERP-E ects to Theories of Belief Update & Combin-
ing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Janina Rad o & Oliver Bott
Underspecifed representations of scope ambiguity? . . . . . . . 51
Agata Maria Renans
Projective behaviour of Nur quantitative experimental research 61
Florian Schwarz & Sonja Tiemann
Presupposition Processing - The Case of German wieder . . . 71
Poster Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
M arta Abrus an & Kriszta Szendr oi
Experimenting with the king of France . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Gemma Boleda, Stefan Evert, Berit Gehrke & Louise McNally
Adjectives as saturators vs. modifers: Statistical evidence . . . 91
Adrian. Brasoveanu & Jakub Dotlacil
Licensing Sentence-internal Readings in English: An Experi-
mental Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Lisa Bylinina & S. Zadorozhny
Evaluative adjectives, scale structure, and ways of being polite 112
Emmanuel Chemla & Lewis Bott
Processing: Free choice at no cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Alex Djalali, Sven Lauer & Christopher Potts
Corpus evidence for preference-driven interpretation . . . . . . 132
Francesca Panzeri & Francesca Foppolo
Can children tell us something about the semantics of adjectives?142
Yasutada Sudo, Jacopo Romoli, Martin Hackl & Danny Fox
Variation of Presupposition Projection in Quantifed Sentences 152
iWorkshop on Sign Language 162
Gemma Barber a
When wide scope is not enough: scope and topicality of dis-
course referents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Kathryn Davidson
When Disjunction looks like Conjunction: Pragmatic Conse-
quences in ASL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Josep Quer
Quanti cational strategies across language modalities . . . . . 182
Ronnie Wilbur, Evie Malaia & Robin Shay
Degree modi cation and intensi cation in ASL adjectives . . . 192
General Program 201
M arta Abrus an
Focus, Evidentiality and Soft triggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Arno Bastenhof
Polarities in logic and semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Chris Blom, Philippe de Groote, Yoad Winter & Joost Zwarts
Implicit Arguments: Event Modi cation or Option Type Cat-
egories? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Lucas Champollion
Each vs. jeweils: A cover-based view on distance-distributivity 231
Simon Charlow
Cross-categorial donkeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen
On wh-exclamatives and noteworthiness . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Ka-fat Chow
Generalizing Monotonicity Inferences to Opposition Inferences 261
Elizabeth Coppock & David Beaver
Exclusive Updates! Brought to you by your local QUD . . . . 271
Tim Fernando
Steedman’s Temporality Proposal and Finite Automata . . . . 282
Michael Franke
On Scales, Salience and Referential Language Use (A Revisit) 292
Jonathan Ginzburg, Raquel Fern andez & David Schlangen
On Semantics and Pragmatics of Dys uency . . . . . . . . . . 302
Gianluca Giorgolo & Stephanie Needham
Pragmatic Constraints on Gesture Use: The E ect of Down-
ward and Non-Entailing Contexts on Gesture Processing . . . 312
Daniel Hardt, Line Mikkelsen & Bjarne Orsnes
Sameness, Ellipsis and Anaphora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
iiVincent Homer
As Simple as It Seems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
I-Ta Chris Hsieh
On the Non-Licensing of NPIs in the Only-Focus . . . . . . . 342
Julie Hunter
Now: A Discourse-Based Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
Natalia Ivlieva
Obligatory implicatures and grammaticality . . . . . . . . . . 362
Jacques Jayez & Bob van Tiel
Only ’only’. An experimental window on exclusiveness . . . . 372
Udo Klein
Computing quantifer scope with witness sets . . . . . . . . . . 382
Todor Koev
On the Grounding Status of Appositive Relative Clauses . . . 394
Sveta Krasikova
De niteness in Superlatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404
Noor van Leusen
The accommodation potential of implicative verbs . . . . . . . 414
Louise McNally & Henriette de Swart
In ection and derivation: how adjectives and nouns refer to
abstract objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Friederike Moltmann
Tropes, Intensional Relative Clauses and the Notion of a Vari-
able Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
Reinhard Muskens
A Theory of Names and True Intensionality . . . . . . . . . . 446
Tohru Seraku
Multiple Foci in Japanese Clefts and the Growth of Semantic
Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
Ryan Waldie
Nuu-chah-nulth Evidentials and the Origo . . . . . . . . . . . 465
Andreas Walker
Focus, Uniqueness and Soft Presupposition Triggers . . . . . . 475
Ting Xu
You again: How is its ambiguity derived? . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
iiiFree Choice in Deontic Inquisitive Semantics (DIS) Martin Aher
Free Choice in Deontic Inquisitive Semantics (DIS)
Martin Aher
University of Osnabrueck, Institute of Cognitive Science
Abstract. We will propose a novel solution to the free choice puzzle that is driven by empirical data
from legal discourse and does not suffer from the same problems as implicature-based accounts. We will
argue against implicature-based accounts and provide an entailment-based solution. Following Anderson’s
violation-based deontic logic, we will demonstrate that a support-based radical inquisitive semantics will
correctly model both the free choice effect and the boolean standard entailment relations in downward
entailing contexts. An inquisitive semantics is especially suited to model sluicing effects where the contin-
uation “but I do not know which” coerces an ignorance reading. It also demonstrates that the counterar-
guments to deontic reduction failed to take into account the different effects of inquisitive and informative
utterances in conversation, such that a refined definition of radical inquisitive entailment renders such in-
ferences invalid. Furthermore, we will argue that the problem of strengthening the antecedent that is used
as a counterargument against entailment-based accounts also fails under a refined notion of entailment.
Introduction
Example 1. Acountrymayestablisharesearchcenteroralaboratory.
Example 2. Acountrymayestablisharesearchcenter.
Example 3. Acountrymayestablishalaboratory.
When (1) is international law, it gives permission to establish a research center and it gives permission to
establish a laboratory. (Although it does not necessarily give permission to establish both.) The so called free
choice reading reverses standard entailment relations between the disjuncts and disjunction such that (1) entails
(2) and (3). It is now the same entailment relation as between a conjunction and its conjuncts. In a non-deontic
setting disjuncts entail the disjunction.
Example 4. Acountryestablishedaresearchcenteroralaboratory.
Example 5. Acountryestablishedaresearchcenter.
Example 6. Acountryestablishedalaboratory.
Either disjunct - (5), (6) - entails (4). Free choice disjunction has become one of the better documented puzzles
in semantics since it was investigated by Hans Kamp [14].
The approach to free choice outlined here is based on an investigation of World Trade Organisation dispute
texts, which documents discourse in a deontic setting between a complainant, respondent and a panel of judges.
Theresultsofpreviouswork[1]suggestthatjudgesorganizelegaldiscoursearoundcentralquestionsonwhether
specific laws have been violated. The complainant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that an act was
performed and to specify the law that it violated. The respondent has to either deny the act or break the link
between the act and the law.
A violation-based deontic logic gravitates around the question whether an act violates a specific law. A
permission sentence in a law text provides information on what is not a violation. This should mostly be
relevant in cases where there is also a general prohibition in force, so that the permission sentence effectively
provides an exception. For example, in case pets are not permitted in malls, the following sentence explicitly
tells you that you do not violate that prohibition by bringing a guide dog into the mall.
Example 7. Customers may bring guide dogs into the mall.
Legal discourse that gravitates around violations suggests an approach based on Anderson’s reduction of a 1
permission utterance ♦p to p → v [4] which will be shown to be a successful approach to the free choice
permission puzzle when implemented in the framework of inquisitive semantics.∧
Workshop on Inquisitiveness
Previous Accounts
Zimmermann[21]provid