From b41194b6dd78432555d33ecd2597b78379829c58 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: barker Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:43:46 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] --- applications.mdwn | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/applications.mdwn b/applications.mdwn index eae915b4..aee0c9a3 100644 --- a/applications.mdwn +++ b/applications.mdwn @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ From linguistics one syntactic category (NPs), but a more systematic approach would continuize uniformly throughout the grammar. See for detailed discussion by me (CB). -* Computing the meanings of expressions involving focus. Consider the difference in meaning between *John only drinks Perrier*, with main sentence accent on *Perrier*, versus *John only DRINKs Perrier*. Mats Rooth, in his 1995 dissertation, showed how to describe these meanings by having the focussed expression contribute a normal denotation and a focus alternative set denotation. The focus alternative sets had to be propagated upwards through the compositional semantics. One way to implement this idea is by means of delimited continuations, making use of operators similar to fcontrol and run proposed for a scheme-like language by Sitaram and other computer scienticsts. See . +* Computing the meanings of expressions involving focus. Consider the difference in meaning between *John only drinks Perrier*, with main sentence accent on *Perrier*, versus *John only DRINKs Perrier*. Mats Rooth, in his 1995 dissertation, showed how to describe these meanings by having the focussed expression contribute a normal denotation and a focus alternative set denotation. The focus alternative sets had to be propagated upwards through the compositional semantics. One way to implement this idea is by means of delimited continuations, making use of operators similar to fcontrol and run proposed for a scheme-like language by Sitaram and other computer scienticsts. See [another paper by CB](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.100.9748&rep=rep1&type=pdf). * Generalized coordination, as proposed by Partee and Rooth in highly influential papers in the 1980s. The idea is that the way that *John saw Mary or Bill* comes to mean *John saw Mary or John saw Bill* is by cloning the context of the direct object, feeding one of the clones *Mary*, feeding the other clone *Bill*, and disjoining the resulting propositions. See either of the two papers mentioned in the previous two items for discussion. -- 2.11.0