Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Propositional Logic and "...I don't believe you"
« Last post by Daniel on October 12, 2019, 04:17:48 PM »
Again, there's a literal contradiction there: first you assert not-P, then you conditionally allow for the possibility of P. (There's nothing technically wrong with writing out propositional logic like that, but it's basically meaningless as an English sentence.)

We're forced to repair it by adjusting the assertions, such as interpreting the first part to mean something like "I think you don't mean it, but..."

In short, basic propositional logic corresponds only to a narrow subset of natural language utterances (and sometimes only approximately). In order to tackle more complicated issues like belief, you will need to get a lot deeper into the research on these topics. They've all been researched extensively, but that will be a lot of reading. One problem is trying to jump ahead to analyze sentences beyond the scope of what your currently available tools allow. There's a lot more to be added to a complete theory than basic propositional logic, but it begins to break down when trying to stretch it to new sentence types without revising the foundation of the theory. While analogy and the sort of what-about-this approach you're taking can often be useful in exploring new aspects of scientific analysis, in the case of a formal system like propositional logic, it just doesn't stretch like that, because it's not meant to. It applies only within very strict parameters, which is why it's consistent and useful in the first place. It can be extended, but not just by looking at new sentences and trying to bend the expressions to fit. As somewhere to start (at least to understand why this must be the case), see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic
2
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Propositional Logic and "...I don't believe you"
« Last post by capjac145 on October 12, 2019, 10:39:18 AM »
Thanks :D

You're right. I am curious about "believe" still, what about something like, You don't mean it, and if you do, I don't believe you.
Would that be like (¬p∨(p→¬q))
or it is it more like that if and only if that you mention?
3
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Propositional Logic and "...I don't believe you"
« Last post by Daniel on October 11, 2019, 07:30:55 PM »
I think the notation you wrote reveals that you intended a different version of the original sentence:
It isn't raining, and if you say it is, I don't believe you.

(Alternatively you would be opening yourself up to false beliefs and false assertions, such that you're saying maybe it's raining but stating that it is not. That's anomalous and I'm not sure how to analyze it.)

There is also a complication of the phrase "believe you", which is I guess some sort of grammatical metonymy where "you" is substituted for "what you said".

Regardless, this is going to involve some sort of embedding of propositions beyond what can be expressed with basic predicate logic. You would need second-order logic of some sort including potentially dealing with issues of factivity (compare "I know P" versus "I believe P", where only in the first is "P" entailed as true).

As a general approach, you can try substituting complex expressions for simpler parts, then building up the complex expression. (That still won't account for more advanced issues like quotation, though.)

Quote
Or would it need the biconditional?
Biconditionals don't generally correspond to natural language conditionals,* except in formal statements like "if and only if". Material implication refers essentially has a gap in the relevant truth conditions because it is unimportant what happens when "[if] P" is false, having no bearing on the outcome of Q one way or the other, so it is always true if P is false. That would seem to apply here as well. You are not making any sort of assertion about whether you would believe them if they said something other than that it is raining. (And again this would get into complex issues of embedded propositions if you wanted to consider the case of the other person saying it is not raining, but regardless that is not specifically accounted for in the original statement-- maybe they are a pathological liar so if they agreed with you, instead of believing them, you would question your own beliefs instead!)

[*In fact, no simple propositional logic corresponds to all general usage of conditionals. There has been a lot of research on this topic, and it's interesting but complex. Among other issues are conditionals of the type "There's food in the fridge if you get hungry."]
4
Semantics and Pragmatics / Propositional Logic and "...I don't believe you"
« Last post by capjac145 on October 11, 2019, 07:10:34 PM »
I am curious about propositional logic.

How would a sentence like "It isn't raining, and if it is, I don't believe you" be translated into propositional logic?
I was thinking something like: (¬p∨(p→q))

Or would it need the biconditional? Or would it be something else all together?
Any insight about this would be great :)
5
Morphosyntax / Re: How to make a syntactic tree for this sentence?
« Last post by panini on October 04, 2019, 08:49:06 AM »
You might try a word-deletion version of the substitution test. For example (to take something that seems non-problematic), you can reduce "traditional grammar" to "grammar" while maintaining grammatical(ity) and thematic relations, and this is what you predict under what seems to be your analysis of this structure, that "traditional grammar" is some kind of noun-like phrase (well, the only credible question is whether we are looking at an NP or a DP). When you clear away some of the extra words that merely say e.g. what kind of grammar, it may be clearer how to integrate the things you call S2 and S3 with your S1.


The central assumption underpinning syntactic analysis in traditional grammar
6
Morphosyntax / Re: How to make a syntactic tree for this sentence?
« Last post by Daniel on October 03, 2019, 03:15:28 PM »
I'm trying to be careful with how I reply, because as I've said, there is no single "correct" answer, except the specific expectations of your instructor. Different classes would have different (similar) answers, such as the labels used.

Generally you seem to have labeled the words correctly, if that's your goal. Regarding the structure of the sentence, see my previous reply.
7
Morphosyntax / Re: How to make a syntactic tree for this sentence?
« Last post by łania on October 03, 2019, 11:46:15 AM »
What I'm trying to do is just to identify the phrasal categories and their constituents. I did it for S1 and before moving to S2 and S3 I wanted to check if I am not mixing up these categories. It's not a very complicated task but the sentence is so complex that it is difficult for me to divide it. That's why I am asking here, I looked for a person who have much more knowledge of this topic.
8
Morphosyntax / Re: How to make a syntactic tree for this sentence?
« Last post by Daniel on October 03, 2019, 08:42:34 AM »
What is "correct" depends on the rules of analysis you're using. It would vary for different classes. For example, you write "Adj" but some classes would just use "A". In terms of content what you wrote looks OK overall.

Your "S1" actually should contain everything. Embedded within it, you can also separate out "S2" and "S3", but if you're trying to understand how everything fits together you should start by distinguishing whole constituents (including everything inside them). So personally I'd probably start by separating out the subject (your "NP"), then working on what you're calling the "VP" above, including also "S2" and "S3" within that.
(But again, maybe there's a reason based on how you've been taught or expectations for you class about how you should approach this. For this kind of detail-oriented analysis with "correct" answers, asking online is generally NOT very helpful. We can discuss big ideas, but it won't necessarily get you to the "correct" answer for your class.)
9
Morphosyntax / Re: How to make a syntactic tree for this sentence?
« Last post by łania on October 03, 2019, 01:45:56 AM »
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
The sentence may be devided into three parts:
S1 - The central assumption underpinning syntactic analysis in traditional grammar is
that phrases and sentences are built up of a series of constituents
S2 - each of which belongs to a specific grammatical category
S3 - (and) serves a specific grammatical function

S1 consists of:
NP [The central assumption underpinning syntactic analysis in traditional grammar]
and VP [is that phrases and sentences are built up of a series of constituents]
The NP consists of:
NP: (det. - the); (NP: Adj - central N - assumption); (AP: Adj - underpining NP - Adj - syntactic, N - analysis) PP: (Prep - in); (NP - Adj - traditional; N - grammar)
The VP consists of:
(verb - is); (conj. - that); (NP: N - phrases; Con. - and; N - sentences); (VP: aux - are, verb - built, adv - up; (PP: prep. - of; det. - a; NP: N - series; prep - of; N - constituents).

How does it look like so far? I would be very greatful if you could tell me what is correct and what is not.
10
Language-specific analysis / Re: Homophones, Homographs and Synonyms in Spanish
« Last post by Paidon on October 03, 2019, 01:42:38 AM »
Thanks for your answer.

I too think that English seems to be a ready-made language for this kind of task; however as we're working in Spain, we need to create a task for Spanish speakers (and because of that, we can't use Central/South-American words).
I'll see about borrowings, thing is the words need to be pronounced the same way for a Spanish speaker.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10