Synchronized Shared Memory and Procedural Abstraction: Towards a Formal Semantics of Blech

Author(s):  
F. Gretz ◽  
F-J. Grosch ◽  
M. Mendler ◽  
S. Scheele
2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 2303-2305
Author(s):  
Xiao-gang WANG ◽  
Xiao-juan WU ◽  
Xin ZHOU ◽  
Xiao-yan ZHANG

1990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yehunda Afek ◽  
Hagit Attiya ◽  
Danny Dolev ◽  
Eli Gafni ◽  
Michael Merritt
Keyword(s):  

The papers collected in this third volume of Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy illustrate the ways in which the field continues to broaden, taking on new methodological approaches and interacting with substantive theories from an ever wider array of disciplines. As the papers themselves clearly show, some recent research in experimental philosophy is going more deeply into well-established questions in the field, but at the same time, other strands of research are exploring issues that hardly appeared at all in the field even a few years ago. Thus, we see the introduction of new empirical and statistical methods (network analysis), new theoretical approaches (formal semantics), and the development of entirely new interdisciplinary connections (in the emerging field of “experimental jurisprudence”)


Author(s):  
Sarah E. Murray

This book gives a compositional, truth‐conditional, crosslinguistic semantics for evidentials set in a theory of the semantics for sentential mood. Central to this semantics is a proposal about a distinction between what propositional content is at‐issue, roughly primary or proffered, and what content is not‐at‐issue. Evidentials contribute not‐at‐issue content, more specifically what I will call a not‐at‐issue restriction. In addition, evidentials can affect the level of commitment a sentence makes to the main proposition, contributed by sentential mood. Building on recent work in the formal semantics of evidentials and related phenomena, the proposed semantics does not appeal to separate dimensions of illocutionary meaning. Instead, I argue that all sentences make three contributions: at‐issue content, not‐at‐issue content, and an illocutionary relation. At‐issue content is presented, made available for subsequent anaphora, but is not directly added to the common ground. Not‐at‐issue content directly updates the common ground. The illocutionary relation uses the at‐issue content to impose structure on the common ground, which, depending on the clause type (e.g., declarative, interrogative), can trigger further updates. Empirical support for this proposal comes from Cheyenne (Algonquian, primary data from the author’s fieldwork), English, and a wide variety of languages that have been discussed in the literature on evidentials.


1993 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-162
Author(s):  
David R. Cheriton ◽  
Hendrik A. Goosen ◽  
Hugh Holbrook ◽  
Philip Machanick

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document