Please remind me: A history of the Japanese particle of recollection kke

The Japanese sentence-final particle kke is a marker of epistemic modality with evidential and mirative overtones. Its most common application is indexing the uncertainty of one’s recollection in interrogative sentences, but in declarative sentences it indexes a reaffirmation of the certainty of the utterance. This study traces the grammatical development of kke from the older Japanese perfect auxiliary -kyeri, citing examples from 8th-century Japanese through today. Through examining kke’s diachrony, it provides evidence that modal sentence-final particles can develop from auxiliaries when the contexts in which they are used become restricted over time.

What Is Neo-Positivism and How Could We Argue for It?

Chapter 7 explains how the non-factualist views established in the first part of this book fit into a general anti-metaphysical view called neo-positivism. This chapter formulates neo-positivism, explains why neo-positivism isn’t self-refuting, and explains how we could argue for neo-positivism. Neo-positivism is (roughly) the view is that every metaphysical question decomposes into subquestions, and in connection with each of these subquestions, we can endorse one of the following three anti-metaphysical views: non-factualism, scientism, or metaphysically innocent modal-truth-ism. Non-factualism about a question Q is the view that there’s no fact of the matter about the answer to Q. Scientism about Q is (roughly) the view that Q is an ordinary empirical-scientific question about some aspect of physical reality, and Q can’t be settled with an a priori philosophical argument. And metaphysically innocent modal-truth-ism about Q is (roughly) the view that Q asks about the truth value of a modal sentence that’s metaphysically innocent in the sense captured by the Chapter-6 view modal nothingism.

Introduction

Chapter 1 provides a synopsis of the entire book. Roughly speaking, the book does two things. First, it introduces a novel kind of non-factualist view and argues that we should endorse views of this kind in connection with a wide class of metaphysical questions—most notably, the question of whether there are any abstract objects and the question of whether there are any composite objects. Second, the book explains how these non-factualist views fit into a general anti-metaphysical view called neo-positivism, and it explains how we could argue that neo-positivism is true. Neo-positivism is (roughly) the view that every metaphysical question decomposes into subquestions, and in connection with each of these subquestions, we can endorse one of the following three anti-metaphysical views: non-factualism, or scientism, or metaphysically innocent modal-truth-ism. Non-factualism about a question Q is the view that there’s no fact of the matter about the answer to Q. Scientism about Q is (roughly) the view that Q is an ordinary empirical-scientific question about some aspect of physical reality, and Q can’t be settled with an a priori philosophical argument. And metaphysically innocent modal-truth-ism about Q is (roughly) the view that Q asks about the truth value of a modal sentence that’s metaphysically innocent in the sense that it doesn’t say anything about reality and, if it’s true, isn’t made true by reality.

Metaphysics, Sophistry, and Illusion

This book does two things. First, it introduces a novel kind of non-factualist view, and it argues that we should endorse views of this kind in connection with a wide class of metaphysical questions, most notably, the abstract-object question and the composite-object question (more specifically, the book argues that there’s no fact of the matter whether there are any such things as abstract objects or composite objects—or material objects of any other kind). Second, the book explains how these non-factualist views fit into a general anti-metaphysical view called neo-positivism, and it explains how we could argue that neo-positivism is true. Neo-positivism is (roughly) the view that every metaphysical question decomposes into some subquestions—call them Q1, Q2, Q3, etc.—such that, for each of these subquestions, one of the following three anti-metaphysical views is true of it: non-factualism, or scientism, or metaphysically innocent modal-truth-ism. These three views can be defined (very roughly) as follows. Non-factualism about a question Q is the view that there’s no fact of the matter about the answer to Q. Scientism about Q is the view that Q is an ordinary empirical-scientific question about some contingent aspect of physical reality, and Q can’t be settled with an a priori philosophical argument. And metaphysically innocent modal-truth-ism about Q is the view that Q asks about the truth value of a modal sentence that’s metaphysically innocent in the sense that it doesn’t say anything about reality and, if it’s true, isn’t made true by reality.

Sense Structure of Modal Units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” (in Italian)

The article focuses on appropriateness’s of quantifying ofinformation in microtext of functioning of modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” in the Italian language. Modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” determine quantifying of information in microtext being nucleus and forming modal structures together with joined components. The modal structure is formed by joined components in according to the regularity rules in the prenuclear zone(components combined with modal construction“non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” or modal construction “non potere far a meno di” and the near-peripheral zone (components used in the modal sentence with these modal constructions or in adjacent sentences). The modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” acquire the status of modal structures in the microtext oh their functioning. These modal units conserving the liaison with their inner form possess semantic implicatures of contrast and reactivity. The modal unit “non potere far a meno di” possesses one more semantic implicature: actionality. The typical microtexts of functioning of the Italian modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” are perceptional, emotional and epistemic.The modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” express the modal meaning of unique possibility and the unique possible reation of subject in certain circumstances. Usually such situation take place hic et nunc or is described through reflection of a subject (memories). Such reactions are characterized by absence of intention from the part of subject, spontaneity, impossibility of control that makes them impossible to be simulated or hidden. The modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” acquiring the status of modal structures in the microtext oh their functioning determine peculiarities of using of idiomatic means in the pre-nuclear zone, near-periphery zone and periphery zone. Idiomatic means typical for a microtext of functioning of the modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” characterize their sense structure. Such means are correlated with the modal meaning of unique possibility that expresses a contrast between factors of reality and imaginations or system of values of the subject of modal meaning that produce reaction of resistance. Being analyzed idiomatic means of different levels using in microtext of functioning of modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” it is determined that the modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” are markers of spontaneous non controlled sensorial, emotional or epistemic reaction of a subject that contradicts of his imaginations or system of values and usually causes emotional reaction of astonishment, admiration, embarrassment, fear. These modal units expressing the modal meaning ofunique possibility indicate the unique possible reaction by certain circumstances.In the pre-nuclear zone“nonpoterastenersi(trattenersi) da” and “nonpoterefaramenodi”are used lexical units thet express sensorial reaction (fremere, rabbrividire, sobbalzare, sussultare), emotional reaction (sorridere, ridere, interrompere qc con una risata), epistemic reaction or verba dicendi (richiedere, esclamare, gridare, notare, acido). In the near-peripheral zone are verbalized factors that caused a reaction of subject of modal evaluation such as lexical units of positive or negative evaluation, actional semantics. In the peripheral zone such information is completed end detailed. The microtect of functioning of the modal units “non potere trattenersi (astenersi) da” and “non potere far a meno di” is characterized by sense relations of contradictory between certain segments.

The representation of modal meaning of French sentence adverbs in a qualitative and quantitative approach

Our aim is to give a representation of the modal contribution of sentence adverbs in comparison to other forms conveying modal meaning, such as tenses and modal verbs. Our analysis will focus on modal sentence adverbs conveying epistemic meaning. These will be compared with the modal verbs pouvoir (can) and devoir (must) as well as with some uses of the future tense (called epistemic uses), with the purpose to present a model allowing to apprehend modal meanings transmitted by lexical and grammatical forms in order to differentiate their functioning. We will then substantiate our qualitative analysis by quantitative studies on the collocates that the modal sentence adverbs co-occur with in contemporary corpora constituted of 21st century newspapers, as well as in two other corpora representing two different genres and time periods: Universalis Encyclopedia and the digital edition of the Encyclopedia of Diderot and d’Alembert.

Multi-modal Sentence Summarization with Modality Attention and Image Filtering

In this paper, we introduce a multi-modal sentence summarization task that produces a short summary from a pair of sentence and image. This task is more challenging than sentence summarization. It not only needs to effectively incorporate visual features into standard text summarization framework, but also requires to avoid noise of image. To this end, we propose a modality-based attention mechanism to pay different attention to image patches and text units, and we design image filters to selectively use visual information to enhance the semantics of the input sentence. We construct a multimodal sentence summarization dataset and extensive experiments on this dataset demonstrate that our models significantly outperform conventional models which only employ text as input. Further analyses suggest that sentence summarization task can benefit from visually grounded representations from a variety of aspects.