Thought and Language. L. S. Vygotsky , E. Hanfmann , G. Vakar

1964 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-191
Author(s):  
Virgil Hinshaw,
Keyword(s):  
Language L

scholarly journals A Language for the Description of Program Instrumentation and Automatic Generation of Instrumenters

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adenilso S. Simao ◽  
Auri M. R. Vincenzi ◽  
Antonio C. L. Santana ◽  
Jose C. Maldonado
Keyword(s):  
Automatic Generation ◽  
Product Structure ◽  
C Language ◽  
Program Instrumentation ◽  
Language L ◽  
Transformational Programming ◽  
Software Product ◽  
Target Languages ◽  
Context Free ◽  
Testing Criteria

Instrumentation is a technique frequently used in software engineering for several different purposes, e.g. program and/or specification execution trace, testing criteria coverage analy- sis, and reverse engineering. Instrumenting a software product can be divided into two main tasks: (i) deriving the software product structure and (ii) inserting statements for collecting runtime/simulation information. Most instrumentation approaches are specific to a given domain or language. Thus, it is very difficult to reuse the effort expended in developing an instrumenter, even if the target languages are quite similar. To tackle this problem, in this paper, we propose an instrumentation-oriented meta-language, named IDeL, designed to support the description of both main tasks of instru- mentation process, namely: (i) the product structure derivation and (ii) the insertion of the instrumentation statements. In order to apply IDeL to a specific language L, it should be in- stantiated with a context-free grammar of L. To promote IDeL’s practical use, we also developed a supporting tool, named idelgen, that can be thought of as an application generator, based on the transformational programming paradigm and tailored to the instrumentation process. We illustrate the main concepts of our proposal with examples describing the instrumentation required in some traditional data flow testing criteria for C language.

RESULTS CONCERNING THINNESS OF D0L LANGUAGES

2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 209-216
Author(s):  
JUHA HONKALA
Keyword(s):  
Algebraic Curves ◽  
Integral Points ◽  
Language L ◽  
Positive Genus

A language L is called thin if there exists an integer n0such that for all n≥n0L contains at most one word of length n. We show that thinness is decidable for exponential D0L languages. We show also that Siegel's result concerning integral points on algebraic curves of positive genus can often be used to prove that a polynomially bounded HD0L language is thin.

The Semantic Truth Structure on the Language L of Predicate Logic

2022 ◽  
pp. 205-231
Author(s):  
Mircea Reghiş ◽  
Eugene Roventa
Keyword(s):  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Language L

Logical constants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Problem ◽  
Logical Consequence ◽  
Logical Form ◽  
Logical Truth ◽  
Semantic Property ◽  
Truth Conditions ◽  
Property A ◽  
Logical Constants ◽  
Language L

A fundamental problem in the philosophy of logic is to characterize the concepts of ‘logical consequence’ and ‘logical truth’ in such a way as to explain what is semantically, metaphysically or epistemologically distinctive about them. One traditionally says that a sentence p is a logical consequence of a set S of sentences in a language L if and only if (1) the truth of the sentences of S in L guarantees the truth of p and (2) this guarantee is due to the ‘logical form’ of the sentences of S and the sentence p. A sentence is said to be logically true if its truth is guaranteed by its logical form (for example, ‘2 is even or 2 is not even’). There are three problems presented by this picture: to explicate the notion of logical form or structure; to explain how the logical forms of sentences give rise to the fact that the truth of certain sentences guarantees the truth of others; and to explain what such a guarantee consists in. The logical form of a sentence may be exhibited by replacing nonlogical expressions with a schematic letter. Two sentences have the same logical form when they can be mapped onto the same schema using this procedure (‘2 is even or 2 is not even’ and ‘3 is prime or 3 is not prime’ have the same logical form: ‘p or not-p’). If a sentence is logically true then each sentence sharing its logical form is true. Any characterization of logical consequence, then, presupposes a conception of logical form, which in turn assumes a prior demarcation of the logical constants. Such a demarcation yields an answer to the first problem above; the goal is to generate the demarcation in such a way as to enable a solution of the remaining two. Approaches to the characterization of logical constants and logical consequence are affected by developments in mathematical logic. One way of viewing logical constanthood is as a semantic property; a property that an expression possesses by virtue of the sort of contribution it makes to determining the truth conditions of sentences containing it. Another way is proof-theoretical: appealing to aspects of cognitive or operational role as the defining characteristics of logical expressions. Broadly, proof-theoretic accounts go naturally with the conception of logic as a theory of formal deductive inference; model-theoretic accounts complement a conception of logic as an instrument for the characterization of structure.

Contested Slurs

2020 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-30
Author(s):  
Renée Jorgensen Bolinger
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
Semantic Content ◽  
The Other ◽  
Linguistic Community ◽  
Moral Reasons ◽  
Language L ◽  
Linguistic Practices

Sometimes speakers within a linguistic community use a term that they do not conceptualize as a slur, but which other members of that community do. Sometimes these speakers are ignorant or naïve, but not always. This article explores a puzzle raised when some speakers stubbornly maintain that a contested term t is not derogatory. Because the semantic content of a term depends on the language, to say that their use of t is semantically derogatory despite their claims and intentions, we must individuate languages in a way that counts them as speaking our language L, assigns t a determinately derogatory content in L, and still accommodates the other features of slurs’ linguistic profile. Given the difficulty of doing this, there is some reason to give a non-semantic analysis of the derogatory aspect of slurs. The author suggests that rather than dismissing the stubborn as semantically incompetent, we would do better to appeal to expected uptake as moral reasons for the stubborn to adjust their linguistic practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document