MacBook-Pro-de-Oscar.local 2026-2-15:17:39:26

S2 LOGOS . syntax, semantics, discourse 2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+up:
+  - "[[S2 LOGOS]]"
+tags:
+  - s/science/linguistique
+aliases:
+---
+
+```breadcrumbs
+title: "Sous-notes"
+type: tree
+collapse: false
+show-attributes: [field]
+field-groups: [downs]
+depth: [0, 0]
+```
+
+ - [[compositionnality]]
+language meaning need to satisfy a constraint much more concrete than [[compositionnality]], namely [[incrementality]] : NL input is processed word by word :
+ - A The train...
+ - B Ah-ha 
+ - A ...from Paris...
+ - B Go on
+
+ - reactions to an "abandonned utterance"
+     - encourage to continue :
+         - A John... Oh never mind
+         - B What about john ?
+         - A He's a lovely chap but a bit disconnected
+     - complete the sentence :
+         - A Bill is...
+         - B Yeah, don't say it, we know.
+     - abandoned utterance in mid-word :
+         - *context : A is in the kitchen searching for the always disappearing scissors*
+         - A Who took the sci-...
+
+
+ - scope ambiguity : when there are more than one QNP (quantified noun phrase)
+     - " every student has a supervisor
+     - " a supervisor manages every student
+ - intuitively, NPs refer to individuals or sets of individuals
+     - c yet there are problems
+     - " i saw no one
+     - " Who lost her notebook
+
+ - [[logique des predicats du premier ordre|first order logic]] to the rescue ?
+     - author:: [[Richard Montague]]
+     - translation into logic :
+         - $\text{An } N \mapsto \exists x (N'(x) \wedge \dots)$
+         - $\exists x P(x)$ iff there exists a witness $b$ such that $P(b)$ is true
+         - Every / each $\mapsto$ $\forall x$
+         - $\vdots$
+     - = A famous supervisor directs every student here.
+         - there are two interpretations :
+         - $\exists x (\operatorname{fam-sup}'(x) \wedge \forall y (\operatorname{student}(y) \to \operatorname{Direct}(x, y)))$
+         - $\forall y (\operatorname{student}(y) \to \exists x(\operatorname{fam-sup}'(x) \wedge \operatorname{Direct}(x, y))$
+     - = no player injured herself
+         - $\forall x (\operatorname{player}(x) \to \neg \operatorname{Injure}(x, x)$
+         - $\neg \exists x (\operatorname{player}(x) \wedge \operatorname{Injure}(x, x))$
+     -