From 629e27a98dad2c0c1bb4dbcc246c2d03693ef7c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: chris Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:20:27 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] --- topics/_week6_plexy.mdwn | 24 +++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/topics/_week6_plexy.mdwn b/topics/_week6_plexy.mdwn index b1f94eaa..caf3e69d 100644 --- a/topics/_week6_plexy.mdwn +++ b/topics/_week6_plexy.mdwn @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ system*. 2. Plexy is a point. -Kaplan observes that sentences (1) and (2) have very different +Kaplan observes that as far as native speaker intuitions are concerned, sentences (1) and (2) have very different meanings. The sentence in (1) attributes a property to a location in space, and the setence in (2) attributes the same property to the referent of *Plexy*, which is a structured meaning. Since meanings @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@ need not be locations in space, it is easy to imagine judging (1) true and (2) false. As Kaplan puts it, the two sentences "speak about radically different objects". -The problem is that on a structured meaning theory, the meaning of the -sentence contains Plexy in the position corresponding to the argument -of the predicate. Likewise, we might suppose that the contribution of +The problem is that on a simple-minded structured meaning account, the meaning of (1) +contains Plexy in the position corresponding to the argument +of the predicate (since, by assumption, Plexy is the meaning of the DP). Likewise, on a simple-minded direct-reference account, the contribution of a directly referential term is simply the object it refers to. Combining these two assumptions, we incorrectly predict that (1) and (2) denote the same structure, and therefore have exactly the same @@ -55,13 +55,12 @@ bit of structure that is unique to direct reference. More concretely, Kaplan suggets that instead of inserting the referent of a directly referential term directly into the structure of the sentence in which it occurs, we insert the singleton set containing that referent. As -long as no complex structured meaning (that is not the meaning of a -directly referential term) happens to be a singleton set, we have a -solution. If *P* is Plexy, the meaning of (1) is ``, and -the meaning of (2) is `<{P}, point>`: radically different, as desired. +long as no complex structured meaning happens to be a singleton set, we have a +solution. If *P* is Plexy, the meaning of (1) might be ``, at the same time that +the meaning of (2) can be `<{P}, point>`: radically different, as desired. In terms of the type systems we'll be developing over the next few -weeks, the type of a DP will be a sum type: the disjoint union of the +weeks, the type of a DP will be a *sum type*: the disjoint union of the class of objects that a directly referential term can refer to, and the class of objects that can serve as the complex structure corresponding to a DP that is not directly referential. @@ -71,22 +70,21 @@ problem of non-referring names. Russell supposed that if a name had no referent (e.g., *Santa*), a sentence containing that name would have no meaning, since there would be no object to insert into the structure representing the meaning of that sentence. But on Kaplan's -scheme, there is no problem: *Santa is hungy* would denote `<{}, +scheme, there is no problem: *Santa is hungry* would denote `<{}, hungry>`. This second idea has some obvious flaws. For instance, it predicts that sentences that differ only in the choice of a non-referring name will have the same meaning. But it does not seem obvious that the -sentence *Santa is hungry* does not mean the same thing as *Cupid is +sentence *Santa is hungry* means the same thing as *Cupid is hungry*. Setting aside such objections, we will see over and over again the -utility of Kaplan's strategy for representing the meaning of +utility of the general strategy instantiated in Kaplan's strategy for representing the meaning of directly-referential expressions: Kaplan's rule for directly-referential expressions: a directly referential expression E contributes either - {} if there is no object that E refers to, or else {P} if E refers to P -- 2.11.0