Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation, pages 164--189. DeGruyter, Berlin.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....does not display linklike behaviour. Unlike the link, the position of the tail is not universally constant. Example 2.5 above would be given the following analysis in Vallduv i s framework: 2. 6) A: What does John drink B: g [ l John] drinks] f beer] Heim s theory of File Change Semantics (Heim 1983) compares the hearer s knowledge store to a filing system. Each file card denotes an entity and contains information on it. The hearer s knowledge about a certain entity is comparable to the entries on 1 The universality of the ordering of discourse functions will be discussed in Section 2.6. 2 ....

Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, ed. by R. Bauerle et al. Berlin:de Gruyter.

....away . A certain date in (27) for instance cannot be interpreted as one specific date, say April 1, which is such that each of the contextually relevant husbands forgot it. En s alternative is to define specificity in terms of discourse relations, exploiting the File Change Semantics of Heim (1982, 1983). She suggests that all noun phrases carry a pair of indices which mark their discourse referents and which roughly correspond to the file cards of Heim. Each of these indices carries a definiteness feature. The first index represents the discourse referent of the noun phrase, and the second ....

Heim, Irene: 1983, `File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness', in R. Buerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 164--189.

....ref=4 tea fa , he prefers f typ=cr ref=4 coffee f . correction focus) 10) But sometimes, fa typ=v ref=5 even fa f typ=v ref=5 Ben f drinks tea. adverb focus) The fifth type of focus is designed to cover foci which do not belong to one of the first four types. We assume with (Heim, 1983) that there is a file card for each discourse referent which serves as a repository of information about that referent. The constituents of an utterance which are in focus specify information which is to be added to a referent s file card. This concept of focus is based on (Vallduv i, 1992) To ....

I. Heim. 1983. File Change Semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarz, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, pages 164--189. de Gruyter, Berlin.

....answerhood conditions: to know what an interrogative sentence means is to know what under which circumstances counts as a true answer. See [13] for argumentation and an overview. 7 Such as game theoretical semantics ( 21, 22] discourse representation theory ( 24, 26] file change semantics ([19, 20]) update semantics ( 37] dynamic semantics ( 12, 3] 8 Within the formal semantics tradition, this development is associated with the pioneering work of Montague, Kaplan, Lewis, Cresswell. 34] presents an extensive overview of this tradition. 6 original, but rather its incorporation ....

Irene Heim, `File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness ', in: Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlijn, pp.

....information packaging and Update Semantics. There are other dynamic frameworks, however, that do provide a richer structure in their representation of hearers models of the common ground or information states, e.g. Discourse Representation Theory (drt) and Situation Theory. Among these is Heim s (1982, 1983) File Change Semantics (fcs) which views them as file like structures. In talking about Stalnaker s common ground, which is defined as a bare set of possible worlds, Heim points out: From my point of view, Stalnaker] thus restricts himself to one aspect of the common ground [ From his ....

....of file cards or discourse markers vis a vis the discourse universe. Issues of global and local focus in Sidner 1981, cognitive status in Gundel, Hedberg Zacharski 1992, and ranking of utterance centers in Centering Theory (Grosz, Joshi Weinstein 1983) are issues of file card management (Heim 1983 aims to capture familiarity and novelty from a fcs perspective) File card management is responsible for the creation of novel file cards and the activation of already familiar but dormant file cards. As is noted in Heim 1993, there is a strong but imperfect correlation between familiarity and ....

Heim, Irene, 1983. File Change Semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Reiner Bauerle et al., eds., Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 164-189. Berlin: de Gruyter.

.... equation involving quantifiers and pronouns has been tackled from different viewpoints. Firstly, there are the dynamic theories. Secondly, there are the theories originated along the lines of Heim (1982) and Kamp (1981) such as Discourse Representation Theory (drt) and File Change Semantics, Heim (1983). Independently of the viewpoint adopted, pronouns are still approached from one of two perspectives, namely, E type and bound. The next sections are devoted to a short but concise explanation of these matters. 47 4.4 Discourse Representation Theory drt is nowadays a theory of semantic content ....

Heim, I.: 1983, File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definites, in R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze and Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 164--178.

....we similarly treat it as denoting a unique subset of a familiar referent. 1 Introduction How do referring expressions denote According to Russell, a definite description such as the King of France , denotes a unique individual by virtue of its meaning. But, according to Familiarity Theory (Heim, 1983), referring expressions need not denote uniquely by virtue of their meaning as they refer to individuals made familiar by the discourse or other context. This observation plays a key role in Centering Theory (Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Grosz et al. 1995) and other computational approaches in which ....

I. Heim. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. de Gruyter, Berlin.

....process depends on the context, and builds the context. 2 The architecture of information states and the update process will depend partly on the object language, and on those features of language use # Preparation of this paper was part of the Esprit Basic Research Project Dyana (6852) 1 See [Hei82, Hei83, Kam81] for early formal work in this tradition, which has its roots in the work of Karttunen and Stalnaker. 2 Associations with the hermeneutic circle are understandable, but perhaps are not entirely correct. After all, there is a di#erence between a circle and a spiral. 1 that are taken into ....

Irene Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

....among alternative readings, and perhaps reasoning about why you might have said this, and thus updates his or her view of the world. The notion goes back at least to (Gazdar, 1979) and has been taken up within such theories as situation semantics (Barwise and Perry, 1983) file change semantics (Heim, 1983), discourse representation theory (DRT) Kamp, 1984; Kamp and Reyle, 1993) and dynamic predicate logic (DPL) Groenendijk and Stockhof, 1991) A striking property of all these theories apart from (Gazdar, 1979) is that in order to accommodate the idea that meanings are dynamic they provide ....

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Baur, R., editor, Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189, Berlin. Walter de Gruyter.

....type of discourse (see [Litman 85, Lambert Carberry 91, Ramshaw 91] Most of these theories postulate several levels of plans, each level handling a distinct phenomenon (discourse management, domain knowledge, etc. 4 Theory (DRT) Kamp 81] and that of [Polanyi 88, Reichman 85, Cohen 83, Heim 83] Extending beyond dialogue length discourse, Van Dijk 72] discusses large scale text organization and defines the notion of macro structures and [Rumelhart 72] develops the idea of story grammars. The functionalist argument goes as follows: discourse exhibits internal structure, where the ....

Heim, I. 1983. File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness. In R. Bauerle, Ch. Schwartze, and A. von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: De Gruyter. 40

....or when whose meaning is not known to one of them. The observation can be summarised that a np is marked when the reference is not established between dialogue participants. The phenomenon can basically be studied by presuppositional theory of the indefinite such as File Change Semantics [Hei83] though the notion of unfamiliarity must be defined differently for Japanese. 1 We do not discuss how the unfamiliarity should be defined for Japanese, but point out that the dynamic property of the indefinite can be also observed in the use of the particle. That is, the np marked with the ....

Irene Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

....: 31 2.2.1 Karttunen 1976 : 31 vii 2.2.2 Webber 1979; 1981 : 32 2.2.3 Sidner 1981 : 33 2.2. 4 Heim 1982, 1983 : 34 2.3 Referentiality : 36 2.3.1 Related Research on Turkish : 36 2.3.2 Referential Expressions : ....

....on English. 2.2 Some Related Research on English Karttunen 1976, in his pioneering research study, distinguishes indefinite NPs that can serve as antecedents for definite pronouns from those that cannot, labeling the former discourse referents. Later work was done by Webber 1979, 1981 and Heim 1982, 1983. In the following, their research will be reviewed. 2.2.1 Karttunen 1976 Karttunen specifies the contexts that provide future reference for a novel individual introduced into the discourse. For example, the utterance Bill is not a linguist (Karttunen 1976:365) is not 3 Note that balik ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Heim, Irene 1983. "File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness" in R.

....a simple example, shown in (37) 37) Q: As for the CRAZY chef, what did SHE cook A: The CRAZY chef cooked) th (a rack of SPAM. rh In this example, the material in parentheses with the subscript th corresponds to the link to prior utterances, or a pointer to a file card in Heim s framework (Heim 1983; also cf. Engdahl and Vallduv i 1994, Hoffman 1995) This file card represents the discourse entity that is updated by the utterance. Conversely, the material marked by the rh subscript corresponds to the contribution that the speaker makes to hearer s model (i.e. the information that is to be ....

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. W. de Gruyter, Berlin.

....syntax and semantics as manifested by quantificational NP interpretations. As to the aspect of referential NP interpretations, there are also renewed interests in dynamic NP interpretations, following the lead of a discourse representation theory by Kamp (1981) or the file change semantics by Heim (1983). There have also been recent attempts to combine the two aspects, for instance in theories of scope by Poesio (1991) and Reyle (1993) While the quantificational side of these theories does not appear to present a comprehensive and explanatory answer to the kind of data the dissertation is ....

....(Quantifier Over Referential Group) The rest of his formalism shows how to make inference over scope forests for reference disambiguation. Reyle (1993; 1995) proposes a way of dealing with ambiguities in natural language by extending the standard Discourse Representation Theory (cf. Kamp (1981) Heim (1983)) The goal of his proposal is to approximate human reasoning that apparently works even in the absence of further clues as to the various ambiguities in natural language. Reyle (1993) introduces the language of under specified DRSs, or UDRSs, to represent natural language and describes the proof ....

Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.

....is closely related to d(iscourse) linking in the sense of [Pesetsky 1987] 4 As Ellen Prince (p.c. points out, in its broadest sense, the term referential is taken as evoking any entity 4 For a discussion of the differences between reference and discourse reference, refer to [Heim 1983, 164 166] Phrase at issue specificity others referentiality John is looking for a Norwegian specific referential (but she didn t show up) new filecard John is looking for a Norwegian nonspecific referential (but he ll never find one) new filecard I wish I were a Norwegian. predicative ....

Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.

No context found.

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation, pages 164--189. DeGruyter, Berlin.

No context found.

Irene Heim. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, Ch.

No context found.

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation, pages 164--189. DeGruyter, Berlin.

No context found.

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation, pages 164--189. DeGruyter, Berlin.

No context found.

I. Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Buerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. De Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

No context found.

Heim, I., 1983. "File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definites". In R. Bauerle, C.Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 164--189.

No context found.

Irene Heim. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Rainer Bauerle et al., editors, Meaning, Use, and the Interpretation of Language. Berlin: de Gruyter.

No context found.

Heim, I.: 1983, `File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definites,' in: Bauerle et al. (eds.) 1983, 164--178.

No context found.

Heim, I. (1983). `File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness'. In R. B auerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.) (1983), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. De Gruyter, Berlin, 164--189.

No context found.

I. Heim. File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness. In R. Bauerle et al., editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC