scholarly journals Verbose exponence: integrating the typologies of distributed and multiple exponence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Morphological Structure ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Common Information ◽  
Formal Definitions ◽  
The Common ◽  
Precise Interpretation

Multiple exponence is the multiple marking of the same feature or category within a single word. Distributed exponence is the occurrence of morphological structure such that providing a precise interpretation of a category can only be determined after considering more than one morphological formative. I propose the term verbose exponence to capture the common ground between these phenomena, i.e. all situations involving multiple morphological formatives sensitive to some common information. From this definition, a typology based on informational overlap emerges with types of verbose exponence corresponding to types of set interactions. The typology incorporates known related phenomena, such as overlapping exponence, while providing a sophisticated framework for describing previously unnamed phenomena. This typology is naturally cast in set-theoretic terms and formal definitions are provided for all assumptions and points in the typology. Such an approach provides precise articulations of the typological space but also of morphological redundancy, a property often associated with multiple exponence.

scholarly journals Logics of Common Ground

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 859-904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Miller ◽  
Jens Pfau ◽  
Liz Sonenberg ◽  
Yoshihisa Kashima
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Modal Logics ◽  
Joint Activities ◽  
Formal Definitions ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Agent Collaboration ◽  
Shared Information ◽  
Multi Agent ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of

According to Clark's seminal work on common ground and grounding, participants collaborating in a joint activity rely on their shared information, known as common ground, to perform that activity successfully, and continually align and augment this information during their collaboration. Similarly, teams of human and artificial agents require common ground to successfully participate in joint activities. Indeed, without appropriate information being shared, using agent autonomy to reduce the workload on humans may actually increase workload as the humans seek to understand why the agents are behaving as they are. While many researchers have identified the importance of common ground in artificial intelligence, there is no precise definition of common ground on which to build the foundational aspects of multi-agent collaboration. In this paper, building on previously-defined modal logics of belief, we present logic definitions for four different types of common ground. We define modal logics for three existing notions of common ground and introduce a new notion of common ground, called salient common ground. Salient common ground captures the common ground of a group participating in an activity and is based on the common ground that arises from that activity as well as on the common ground they shared prior to the activity. We show that the four definitions share some properties, and our analysis suggests possible refinements of the existing informal and semi-formal definitions.

The Semantics of Evidentials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

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.

Can Groups Assert That P?

2019 ◽  
pp. 326-344
Author(s):  
Deborah Tollefsen
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Single Individual ◽  
Constitutive Rule ◽  
The Past ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
Declarative Statement ◽  
John Macfarlane

When a group or institution issues a declarative statement, what sort of speech act is this? Is it the assertion of a single individual (perhaps the group’s spokesperson or leader) or the assertion of all or most of the group members? Or is there a sense in which the group itself asserts that p? If assertion is a speech act, then who is the actor in the case of group assertion? These are the questions this chapter aims to address. Whether groups themselves can make assertions or whether a group of individuals can jointly assert that p depends, in part, on what sort of speech act assertion is. The literature on assertion has burgeoned over the past few years, and there is a great deal of debate regarding the nature of assertion. John MacFarlane has helpfully identified four theories of assertion. Following Sandy Goldberg, we can call these the attitudinal account, the constitutive rule account, the common-ground account, and the commitment account. I shall consider what group assertion might look like under each of these accounts and doing so will help us to examine some of the accounts of group assertion (often presented as theories of group testimony) on offer. I shall argue that, of the four accounts, the commitment account can best be extended to make sense of group assertion in all its various forms.

scholarly journals Across the Divide: Looking for the common ground of Hindustani

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 2056-2079 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID LUNN
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Cultural Field ◽  
Literary Journals ◽  
The Common

AbstractThis article investigates some of the institutional and poetic practices around the idea of Hindustani in the period 1900–47. It charts the establishment of the Hindustani Academy in 1927 and explores some of its publishing activities as it attempted to make a positive institutional intervention in the Hindi–Urdu debate and cultural field more broadly. It then considers some aspects of poetic production in literary journals, including those associated with the Academy. Ultimately, it is an attempt to explore the grey areas that existed between Hindi/Hindu and Urdu/Muslim in the pre-Independence decades, and to make the case for studying the literature of both traditions simultaneously, along with emphasizing that attempts at compromise—including the perennially contested term ‘Hindustani’ itself—must be taken on their own terms.

Linguistic influences on gesture’s form

Gesture ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Gerwing ◽  
Janet Bavelas
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Communicative Function ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Original Action ◽  
New Information ◽  
Physical Form ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Given ◽  
Linguistic Influences

Hand gestures in face-to-face dialogue are symbolic acts, integrated with speech. Little is known about the factors that determine the physical form of these gestures. When the gesture depicts a previous nonsymbolic action, it obviously resembles this action; however, such gestures are not only noticeably different from the original action but, when they occur in a series, are different from each other. This paper presents an experiment with two separate analyses (one quantitative, one qualitative) testing the hypothesis that the immediate communicative function is a determinant of the symbolic form of the gesture. First, we manipulated whether the speaker was describing the previous action to an addressee who had done the same actions and therefore shared common ground or to one who had done different actions and therefore did not share common ground. The common ground gestures were judged to be significantly less complex, precise, or informative than the latter, a finding similar to the effects of common ground on words. In the qualitative analysis, we used the given versus new principle to analyze a series of gestures about the same actions by the same speaker. The speaker emphasized the new information in each gesture by making it larger, clearer, etc. When this information became given, a gesture for the same action became smaller or less precise, which is similar to findings for given versus new information in words. Thus the immediate communicative function (e.g., to convey information that is common ground or that is new) played a major role in determining the physical form of the gestures.

The History of Emotions and Nationalism Studies: a Сognitive Turn in Contemporary Historiography

Istoriya ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (8 (106)) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Olga Vorobieva
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
National Character ◽  
History Of Emotions ◽  
Cognitive Studies ◽  
History Of ◽  
Individual Consciousness ◽  
The Common ◽  
Constructivist Approaches ◽  
The Relationship

The article considers the cognitive potential of the history of emotions in the study of nationalism in historiographical discussions of 1990—2000s. The authors analyze the works, which criticize constructivist approaches and problematize the relationship between nationalism, “national character”, “emotional mode” and everyday behavioral practices. Based on P. Bourdieu's concept of ‘habitus’ and its modification in N. Elias's historical sociology, the article highlights the common ground and productive interaction between histories of emotion and nationalism studies. This reciprocal movement is interpreted as a symptom of the search for a common conceptual platform and vocabulary for the mutual translation of their research practices. The authors believe that a productive trend within this dialogue could be a more active address to cognitive studies advocating a rethinking of the relationship between individual consciousness and collective regimes of knowledge-power of sentimental, modern and “post-modern” eras.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document