<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org">
<title>Journal of Semantics - current issue</title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org</link>
<description>Journal of Semantics - RSS feed of current issue</description>
<prism:eIssn>1477-4593</prism:eIssn>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>May 2008</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>Journal of Semantics</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>0167-5133</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/93?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/141?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/175?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/93?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A New Look at the Semantics and Pragmatics of Numerically Quantified Noun Phrases]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/93?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper presents some arguments against a unilateral account of numerically quantified noun phrases (NQNPs) and for a bilateral account of such expressions. It is proposed that where NQNP give rise to <I>at least</I> readings, this is the result of one of the two forms of pragmatic reasoning. To that end, the paper develops an independently motivated account of specificity and existential closure involving diagonalization.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Breheny, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-07</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffm016</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A New Look at the Semantics and Pragmatics of Numerically Quantified Noun Phrases]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>25</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>139</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>93</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/141?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[An Epistemic Step for Anti-Presuppositions]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/141?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Sentence (1) strongly suggests that the speaker does not have a sister:
<tbl id="table1" loc="display"><tblbdy><r><c cspan="1" rspan="1">(1)</c><c cspan="3" rspan="1">John believes that I have a sister.</c></r><r><c cspan="1" rspan="1"></c><c cspan="1" rspan="1">a.</c><c cspan="1" rspan="1">Alternative:</c><c cspan="1" rspan="1">John knows that I have a sister.</c></r><r><c cspan="1" rspan="1"></c><c cspan="1" rspan="1">b.</c><c cspan="1" rspan="1">Actual inference:</c><c cspan="1" rspan="1">The speaker does not have a sister.</c></r><r><c cspan="1" rspan="1"></c><c cspan="1" rspan="1">c.</c><c cspan="1" rspan="1">Predicted inference:</c><c cspan="1" rspan="1">It is not common belief that the speaker has a sister.</c></r></tblbdy></tbl>
</p>
<p>According to <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib12">Heim (1991)</cross-ref>, <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib16">Percus (2006)</cross-ref>, and <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib22">Sauerland (2006)</cross-ref>, this inference should follow from the comparison of (1) to (1a). However, such an analysis would only predict a very weak implicature: it is not common belief that the speaker has a sister. I propose to strengthen this prediction by two means. First, I rely on a precise understanding of the modern Stalnakerian view of presuppositions and common ground (<cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib31">Stalnaker 1998</cross-ref>, <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib32">2002</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib7">von Fintel 2000</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib24">Schlenker 2006</cross-ref>). Second, I argue that this inference depends on contextual factors. More precisely, I show that the Competence Assumption (see <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib28">Spector 2003</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib18">van Rooij &amp; Schulz 2004</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib21">Sauerland 2004</cross-ref>) necessary to obtain secondary scalar implicatures should be supplemented with an Authority Assumption. I motivate this additional assumption on independent empirical grounds. Finally, I show how my proposal accounts for a wide variety of inferences with fine variations governed by (i) contextual differences and (ii) specific properties of the presupposition triggers involved.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chemla, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-07</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffm017</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[An Epistemic Step for Anti-Presuppositions]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>25</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>173</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>141</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/175?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What with? The Anatomy of a (Proto)-Role]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/175?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper describes a comprehensive survey of English verbs that semantically allow or require an Instrument role. It sheds light on the nature of Instrument roles and instrumentality by examining the distribution in semantic space of those verbs. We show first that verbs that semantically require instruments are typically semantically more complex than predicted by current theories of the structural complexity of verb meanings. We also show that verbs that require or allow instruments constrain the end states of situations they describe more than they constrain the agent's initial activity. Our survey further suggests that the causal role played by the instrument is more varied than suggested by previous studies and requires the introduction of a new subtype of causal relation, which we dub <I>helping</I>. Finally, our survey demonstrates that verbs that semantically require an instrument cluster together more closely in semantic space and constrain the instrument's (causal) role and properties more than verbs that merely allow the presence of an instrument.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G., Bienvenue, B., Conklin, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-07</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffm013</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What with? The Anatomy of a (Proto)-Role]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>25</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>220</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>175</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>