<?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 - recent issues</title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org</link>
<description>Journal of Semantics - RSS feed of recent issues (covers the latest 3 issues, including the current issue) </description>
<prism:eIssn>1477-4593</prism:eIssn>
<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/26/2/109?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/2/159?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/2/185?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/1/1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/1/49?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/1/87?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/345?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/381?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/411?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/451?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/2/109?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Agreement, Disputes and Commitments in Dialogue]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/2/109?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper provides a logically precise analysis of agreement and disputes in dialogue. The semantics distinguishes among the public commitments of each dialogue agent, including commitments to relational speech acts or <I>rhetorical relations</I> (e.g. <I>Narration, Explanation</I> and <I>Correction</I>). Agreement is defined to be the shared entailments of the agents' public commitments. We show that this makes precise predictions about implicit agreement. The theory also provides a consistent interpretation of disputes and models what content is agreed upon when a dispute has taken place.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lascarides, A., Asher, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-05-05</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffn013</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Agreement, Disputes and Commitments in Dialogue]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>158</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>109</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/2/159?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Multiple Focus]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/2/159?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper presents the results of an experimental study on multiple focus configurations, that is, structures containing two nested focus-sensitive operators plus two foci supposed to associate with those operators. There has been controversial discussion in the semantic literature regarding whether or not an interpretation is acceptable that corresponds to this association. While the data are unclear, the issue is of considerable theoretical significance, as it distinguishes between the available theories of focus interpretation. Some theories (e.g. Rooth's 1992) predict such a pattern of association with focus to be impossible, while others (such as Wold&rsquo;s 1996) predict it to be acceptable. The results of our study show the data to be unacceptable rather than acceptable, favouring important aspects of the theory of focus interpretation developed by Rooth.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Beck, S., Vasishth, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-05-05</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffp001</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Multiple Focus]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>184</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>159</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/2/185?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Solving Learnability Problems in the Acquisition of Semantics]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/2/185?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper proposes solutions to two semantic learnability problems that have featured prominently in the literature on language acquisition. Both problems have often been deemed unsolvable for language learners as a matter of logic, and they have accordingly been taken to motivate principles making sure they will not actually arise in the course of language acquisition. One problem concerns the acquisition of ambiguous sentences whose readings are related by entailment. Crain <I>et al.</I>'s (1994) <I>Semantic Subset Principle</I> is intended to preempt the problem by preventing acquisition of the weaker reading before the stronger reading has been acquired. In contrast, we demonstrate that this very order of acquisition becomes feasible in principle if children can exploit non-truth-conditional evidence of various kinds or evidence from sentences containing downward entailing operators. The other learnability problem concerns the potential need for expunction of certain readings of ambiguous sentences from a child's grammar. It has often been assumed that, in the absence of negative evidence, such expunction is impossible, and Wexler and Manzini (1987) posit a <I>Subset Principle</I> to preempt the problematic learning scenario. We argue, however, that if the evidence available to the child includes dialogues, and if listeners are expected to interpret speakers' utterances <I>charitably</I>, then expunction of unavailable readings is possible in principle.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gualmini, A., Schwarz, B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-05-05</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffp002</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Solving Learnability Problems in the Acquisition of Semantics]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>215</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>185</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/1/1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[No Alternative to Alternatives]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/1/1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Rooth's (1985, 1992) theory of focus requires, in addition to the ordinary semantic value of an expression, the focus semantic value, which is a set of alternatives generated by focus. Rooth claims that the union (disjunction) of the focus semantic value is accommodated into the restrictor of an adverbial quantifier. More recently, however, some researchers (Krifka 2001; Geurts &amp; van der Sandt 2004) have argued convincingly that what is accommodated is, in fact, the existential presupposition induced by focus. It would appear, then, that there is no need for assuming the focus semantic value. However, in this paper, I argue that, although the primary effect of focus is, indeed, presuppositional, the focus semantic value cannot be dispensed with. Not only is the focus semantic value necessary but, in fact, additional semantic values are required too. Unlike focus, the analyses of these other semantic values cannot be reduced simply to existential presupposition. I will concentrate on a special reading of some quantificational sentences, the <I>relative</I> reading, whose adequate account, I propose, requires the use of semantic values triggered by alternatives to various elements: the focus, background marking and the world of evaluation.<qd><p>&lsquo;Only if there are alternatives can one hope to get insight into what is truly at stake.&rsquo; Peter F. Drucker, <I>The Effective Executive</I> (p. 147)</p>
</qd></p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cohen, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-01-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffn005</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[No Alternative to Alternatives]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>48</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-02-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/1/49?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Presupposition Accommodation and Informativity Considerations with Aspectual Still]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/1/49?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper deals with a newly observed phenomenon which lies at the interface of the semantics and pragmatics of aspectual <I>still</I> (as in <I>John is still asleep</I>), namely the fact that <I>still</I> is infelicitous when it appears in past tense sentences whose reference time is not specified by some temporal adverbial or the utterance context. The main claim of the paper is that in such sentences, the truth of the assertion and that of the &lsquo;prior time&rsquo; presupposition this particle triggers can be both inferred from the truth of the minimally contrasting <I>still</I>-less counterpart. Moreover, in such cases the presuppositional status of the &lsquo;prior time&rsquo; claim is lost. Hence, the use of <I>still</I> in such sentences is uninformative and thus infelicitous. The analysis has several more general theoretical implications. Concerning the semantics of <I>still</I>, it shows that the novel data cannot be accounted for by using current definitions of the presupposition triggered by <I>still</I>. Instead, a modified definition of <I>still</I> is developed, which, following <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib18">Ippolito (2007)</cross-ref>, uses one eventuality variable in both the assertion and the presupposition of sentences with <I>still</I> but, unlike this theory, does not require the denotation of this variable to be contextually salient. As for the analysis of tense and temporal structure of clauses, the interaction of <I>still</I> with frame adverbials supports the view that such adverbials denote intervals identical to the reference time of the sentence, rather than including it. In addition, the paper argues that the contrast between felicitous and infelicitous cases of <I>still</I> can only be explained if, contrary to many current analyses, we assume that past tense is not necessarily anaphoric but can be represented in some cases as a new variable bound by existential closure. Given the proposed analysis, the felicity or infelicity of <I>still</I> in past tense sentences can be seen as a diagnostic for determining whether or not the reference time in such sentences is anaphoric or not.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greenberg, Y.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-01-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffn009</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Presupposition Accommodation and Informativity Considerations with Aspectual Still]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>86</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-02-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>49</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/1/87?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Two nows in Korean]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/26/1/87?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper presents a study of the two lexical adverbs in Korean, <I>cikum</I> and <I>icey</I>, which are assumed to be synonymous with each other and equivalent in meaning with English <I>now</I>. Because <I>cikum</I> and <I>icey</I> seem to be interchangeable in many instances without significant differences, their distinctive semantic features have been overlooked and not systematically studied. Starting from an overview of previous studies of <I>cikum</I> and <I>icey</I>, which focus on the intra-sentential analysis, this paper claims that, contrary to common assumptions, <I>cikum</I> and <I>icey</I> differ inherently in terms of the viewpoint of perspective taking in narrative discourse. Using examples drawn from a corpus, we argue that <I>cikum</I> simply refers to a time interval that contains the reference point from which the described event is viewed. On the other hand, <I>icey</I> describes a change in situation, showing that the reference point can be perceived as a point that divides the past and the future seen from this vantage point. Subsequently, we show that English <I>now</I> has in fact two functions corresponding to the Korean <I>cikum</I> and <I>icey</I>. The semantic differences between <I>cikum</I> and <I>icey</I> in narrative discourses are represented in discourse representation theory. <I>Cikum</I> preserves the given reference time, elaborating on an event described by the preceding sentence, while <I>icey</I> introduces a new reference time, updating the temporal context with a shifted temporal perspective.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lee, E., Choi, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-01-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffn012</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Two nows in Korean]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>26</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>107</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-02-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>87</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/345?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Syntax and Semantics of It-Clefts: A Tree Adjoining Grammar Analysis]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/345?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In this paper, we examine two main approaches to the syntax and semantics of <I>it</I>-clefts as in &lsquo;It was Ohno who won&rsquo;: an expletive approach where the cleft pronoun is an expletive and the cleft clause bears a direct syntactic or semantic relation to the clefted constituent, and a discontinuous constituent approach where the cleft pronoun has a semantic content and the cleft clause bears a direct syntactic or semantic relation to the cleft pronoun. We argue for an analysis using Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) that captures the best of both approaches. We use Tree-Local Multi-Component Tree Adjoining Grammar to propose a syntax of <I>it</I>-clefts and Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammar (STAG) to define a compositional semantics on the proposed syntax. It will be shown that the distinction TAG makes between the derivation tree and the derived tree, the extended domain of locality characterizing TAG and the direct syntax&ndash;semantics mapping characterizing STAG allow for a simple and straightforward account of the syntax and semantics of <I>it</I>-clefts, capturing the insights and arguments of both the expletive and the discontinuous constituent approaches. Our analysis reduces the syntax and semantics of <I>it</I>-clefts to copular sentences containing definite description subjects, such as &lsquo;The person that won is Ohno&rsquo;. We show that this is a welcome result, as evidenced by the syntactic and semantic similarities between <I>it</I>-clefts and the corresponding copular sentences.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Han, C.-H., Hedberg, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffn007</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Syntax and Semantics of It-Clefts: A Tree Adjoining Grammar Analysis]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>25</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>380</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>345</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/381?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Concept Narrowing: The Role of Context-independent Information]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/381?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The present study aims to investigate the extent to which the process of lexical interpretation is context dependent. It has been uncontroversially agreed in psycholinguistics that interpretation is always affected by sentential context. The major debate in lexical processing research has revolved around the question of whether initial semantic activation is context sensitive or rather exhaustive, that is, whether the effect of context occurs before or only after the information associated to a concept has been accessed from the mental lexicon. However, within post-lexical access processes, the question of whether the selection of a word's meaning components is guided exclusively by contextual relevance, or whether certain meaning components might be selected context independently, has not been such an important focus of research. I have investigated this question in the two experiments reported in this paper and, moreover, have analysed the role that context-independent information in concepts might play in word interpretation. This analysis differs from previous studies on lexical processing in that it places experimental work in the context of a theoretical model of lexical pragmatics.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rubio-Fernandez, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffn004</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Concept Narrowing: The Role of Context-independent Information]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>25</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>409</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>381</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/411?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Effect of Negative Polarity Items on Inference Verification]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/411?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The scalar approach to negative polarity item (NPI) licensing assumes that NPIs are allowable in contexts in which the introduction of the NPI leads to proposition strengthening (e.g. <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib21">Kadmon &amp; Landman 1993</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib23">Krifka 1995</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib26">Lahiri 1997</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib6">Chierchia 2006</cross-ref>). A straightforward processing prediction from such a theory is that NPIs facilitate inference verification from sets to subsets. Three experiments are reported that test this proposal. In each experiment, participants evaluated whether inferences from sets to subsets were valid. Crucially, we manipulated whether the premises contained an NPI. In Experiment 1, participants completed a metalinguistic reasoning task and Experiments 2 and 3 tested reading times using a self-paced reading task. Contrary to expectations, no facilitation was observed when the NPI was present in the premise compared to when it was absent. In fact, the NPI significantly slowed down reading times in the inference region. Our results therefore favour those scalar theories that predict that the NPI is costly to process (<cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib6">Chierchia 2006</cross-ref>), or other, non-scalar theories (<cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib25">Ladusaw 1992</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib17">Giannakidou 1998</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib39">Szabolcsi 2004</cross-ref>; <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib33">Postal 2005</cross-ref>) that likewise predict NPI processing cost but, unlike <cross-ref type="bib" refid="bib6">Chierchia (2006)</cross-ref>, expect the magnitude of the processing cost to vary with the actual pragmatics of the NPI.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Szabolcsi, A., Bott, L., McElree, B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffn008</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Effect of Negative Polarity Items on Inference Verification]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>25</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>450</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>411</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/451?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Editor's Note]]></title>
<link>http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/25/4/451?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-24</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/jos/ffn011</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Editor's Note]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Oxford University Press</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>25</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>451</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>451</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>