topics in conditional conjunctions
play

Topics in Conditional Conjunctions Magdalena Kaufmann University of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 08, 2022 •127 likes •1.78k views

Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Topics in Conditional Conjunctions Magdalena Kaufmann University of Connecticut magdalena.kaufmann@uconn.edu 49th Annual Meeting of the North East

  1. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Types of Conditional Conjunctions (CCs) C1: different types of clauses or NP, C2: always clausal: (5) Declarative and Declarative: You sing one more song and I’m out of here. DaD (6) Imperative and Declarative: Sing one more song and I’m out of here. IaD (7) Sufficiency Modal and Declarative: (von Fintel & Iatridou 2007) You only have to sing one more song and I’m out of here. SMaD (8) NP and Declarative: One more song and I’m out of here.

  2. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Types of Conditional Conjunctions (CCs) C1: different types of clauses or NP, C2: always clausal: (5) Declarative and Declarative: You sing one more song and I’m out of here. DaD (6) Imperative and Declarative: Sing one more song and I’m out of here. IaD (7) Sufficiency Modal and Declarative: (von Fintel & Iatridou 2007) You only have to sing one more song and I’m out of here. SMaD (8) NP and Declarative: One more song and I’m out of here. NPaD

  3. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Types of Conditional Conjunctions (CCs) C1: different types of clauses or NP, C2: always clausal: (5) Declarative and Declarative: You sing one more song and I’m out of here. DaD (6) Imperative and Declarative: Sing one more song and I’m out of here. IaD (7) Sufficiency Modal and Declarative: (von Fintel & Iatridou 2007) You only have to sing one more song and I’m out of here. SMaD (8) NP and Declarative: One more song and I’m out of here. NPaD ≈ regular hypothetical conditional: ‘If you sing one more song, I’m out of here.’ (NPaD: context dependent, Culicover 1970)

  4. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Lacking commitments CCs lack speaker commitments associated with C1 in isolation (or in ordinary conjunctions):

  5. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Lacking commitments CCs lack speaker commitments associated with C1 in isolation (or in ordinary conjunctions): • DaDs vs. stand-alone declaratives (9) You sing one more song and I’ll fall asleep. But I know you won’t. (10) You will sing one more song. #But I know you won’t.

  6. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Lacking commitments CCs lack speaker commitments associated with C1 in isolation (or in ordinary conjunctions): • DaDs vs. stand-alone declaratives (9) You sing one more song and I’ll fall asleep. But I know you won’t. (10) You will sing one more song. #But I know you won’t. • IaDs vs. stand-alone imperatives. (11) Say no and the guy will come again. So don’t. (12) Say no. #So don’t.

  7. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Lacking commitments CCs lack speaker commitments associated with C1 in isolation (or in ordinary conjunctions): • DaDs vs. stand-alone declaratives (9) You sing one more song and I’ll fall asleep. But I know you won’t. (10) You will sing one more song. #But I know you won’t. • IaDs vs. stand-alone imperatives. (11) Say no and the guy will come again. So don’t. (12) Say no. #So don’t. Assertive commitment to C2 only conditional on state of affairs mentioned in C1.

  8. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Comparing regular conjunctions • Regular conjunctions of declaratives (as enforced by will in C1): (13) Mary will sing another song and Sue will have another drink. no DaD

  9. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Comparing regular conjunctions • Regular conjunctions of declaratives (as enforced by will in C1): (13) Mary will sing another song and Sue will have another drink. no DaD • ‘NP and Decl ’ can receive non-conditional readings (14) My only pen and [you went and lost it]. Culicover 1970:(12)

  10. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Comparing regular conjunctions • Regular conjunctions of declaratives (as enforced by will in C1): (13) Mary will sing another song and Sue will have another drink. no DaD • ‘NP and Decl ’ can receive non-conditional readings (14) My only pen and [you went and lost it]. Culicover 1970:(12) • ‘ Imp and Decl ’ can receive non-conditional readings Txurruka 2003, Starr 2017 (15) a. Just do the dishes, and I will do the shopping before the kids get back. � IaD, � regular conjunction b. I do not like your attitude and, please, shut up. regular conjunction (Txurruka 2003:(34))

  11. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Comparing regular conjunctions • Regular conjunctions of declaratives (as enforced by will in C1): (13) Mary will sing another song and Sue will have another drink. no DaD • ‘NP and Decl ’ can receive non-conditional readings (14) My only pen and [you went and lost it]. Culicover 1970:(12) • ‘ Imp and Decl ’ can receive non-conditional readings Txurruka 2003, Starr 2017 (15) a. Just do the dishes, and I will do the shopping before the kids get back. � IaD, � regular conjunction b. I do not like your attitude and, please, shut up. regular conjunction (Txurruka 2003:(34)) Conditional interpretation doesn’t follow from syntactic messiness like � Coordination-of-Likes (Chomsky 1957).

  12. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside: IaDs can maintain imperativity e(ndorsing) IaDs vs. n(on endorsing) IaDs (Clark 1993, Kaufmann 2012, von Fintel & Iatridou 2017) (16) Study hard and you’ll pass the test. incentive to study hard e-IaD (17) Goof off and you’ll fail the test. incentive to not goof off n-IaD (or: if failing doesn’t matter - no incentive either way )

  13. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside: IaDs can maintain imperativity e(ndorsing) IaDs vs. n(on endorsing) IaDs (Clark 1993, Kaufmann 2012, von Fintel & Iatridou 2017) (16) Study hard and you’ll pass the test. incentive to study hard e-IaD (17) Goof off and you’ll fail the test. incentive to not goof off n-IaD (or: if failing doesn’t matter - no incentive either way ) To show: e-IaDs are an inhomogeneous class (Russell 2007, Kaufmann 2012, Scontras & Gibson 2011, Keshet & Medeiros 2018, Starr 2018,. . . )

  14. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): e-IaDs can be speech act conjunctions (18) Mow the lawn and I’ll give you 50 dollars. ≈ ‘Mow the lawn! If you mow the lawn, I will give you 50 dollars.’

  15. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): e-IaDs can be speech act conjunctions (18) Mow the lawn and I’ll give you 50 dollars. ≈ ‘Mow the lawn! If you mow the lawn, I will give you 50 dollars.’ • Commitment to C2 conditional on content in C1 ( ⇒ IaD)

  16. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): e-IaDs can be speech act conjunctions (18) Mow the lawn and I’ll give you 50 dollars. ≈ ‘Mow the lawn! If you mow the lawn, I will give you 50 dollars.’ • Commitment to C2 conditional on content in C1 ( ⇒ IaD) • Imperative plays its usual role (‘directive’)

  17. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): e-IaDs can be speech act conjunctions (18) Mow the lawn and I’ll give you 50 dollars. ≈ ‘Mow the lawn! If you mow the lawn, I will give you 50 dollars.’ • Commitment to C2 conditional on content in C1 ( ⇒ IaD) • Imperative plays its usual role (‘directive’) • Unlike Conditional Conjunction IaDs (CC-IaDs): (Kaufmann 2012, Keshet & Medeiros 2018)

  18. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): e-IaDs can be speech act conjunctions (18) Mow the lawn and I’ll give you 50 dollars. ≈ ‘Mow the lawn! If you mow the lawn, I will give you 50 dollars.’ • Commitment to C2 conditional on content in C1 ( ⇒ IaD) • Imperative plays its usual role (‘directive’) • Unlike Conditional Conjunction IaDs (CC-IaDs): (Kaufmann 2012, Keshet & Medeiros 2018) – Compatible with please or tags will you

  19. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): e-IaDs can be speech act conjunctions (18) Mow the lawn and I’ll give you 50 dollars. ≈ ‘Mow the lawn! If you mow the lawn, I will give you 50 dollars.’ • Commitment to C2 conditional on content in C1 ( ⇒ IaD) • Imperative plays its usual role (‘directive’) • Unlike Conditional Conjunction IaDs (CC-IaDs): (Kaufmann 2012, Keshet & Medeiros 2018) – Compatible with please or tags will you – No NPI licensing or binding into the antecedent

  20. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): e-IaDs can be speech act conjunctions (18) Mow the lawn and I’ll give you 50 dollars. ≈ ‘Mow the lawn! If you mow the lawn, I will give you 50 dollars.’ • Commitment to C2 conditional on content in C1 ( ⇒ IaD) • Imperative plays its usual role (‘directive’) • Unlike Conditional Conjunction IaDs (CC-IaDs): (Kaufmann 2012, Keshet & Medeiros 2018) – Compatible with please or tags will you – No NPI licensing or binding into the antecedent • Analysis: Speech act conjunction + modal subordination (SC IaDs). (Russell 2007, Kaufmann 2012, Keshet & Medeiros 2018, Starr 2018)

  21. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): CCs can be endorsing Endorsing IaDs can have CC characteristics as long as there are no SC characteristics:

  22. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): CCs can be endorsing Endorsing IaDs can have CC characteristics as long as there are no SC characteristics: • NPIs: (19) Lift a finger to help him(#, please,) and John will move mountains to return the favor. e-CC IaD

  23. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): CCs can be endorsing Endorsing IaDs can have CC characteristics as long as there are no SC characteristics: • NPIs: (19) Lift a finger to help him(#, please,) and John will move mountains to return the favor. e-CC IaD • Binding from C2 into C1: (Russell 2007:(27b)) (20) [Give him i enough money(#, will you,)] and [[every senator] i , no matter how honest, will give you access to his i files.]

  24. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): CCs can be endorsing Endorsing IaDs can have CC characteristics as long as there are no SC characteristics: • NPIs: (19) Lift a finger to help him(#, please,) and John will move mountains to return the favor. e-CC IaD • Binding from C2 into C1: (Russell 2007:(27b)) (20) [Give him i enough money(#, will you,)] and [[every senator] i , no matter how honest, will give you access to his i files.] Type Speaker endorsement if. . . then -conditional optional CC IaD optional SC IaD required

  25. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Aside (cont’ed): CCs can be endorsing Endorsing IaDs can have CC characteristics as long as there are no SC characteristics: • NPIs: (19) Lift a finger to help him(#, please,) and John will move mountains to return the favor. e-CC IaD • Binding from C2 into C1: (Russell 2007:(27b)) (20) [Give him i enough money(#, will you,)] and [[every senator] i , no matter how honest, will give you access to his i files.] Type Speaker endorsement if. . . then -conditional optional Today ✑ CC IaD optional SC IaD required

  26. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References What kinds of conditionals are CCs? • Generics: (21) a. Macy’s advertises a sale, and the whole town goes crazy. Bolinger (1967) b. Something happens in this town, and John knows about it. Keshet 2013:(6)

  27. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References What kinds of conditionals are CCs? • Generics: (21) a. Macy’s advertises a sale, and the whole town goes crazy. Bolinger (1967) b. Something happens in this town, and John knows about it. Keshet 2013:(6) • Future metaphysical: (22) You take one more step, and I’ll shoot.

  28. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References What kinds of conditionals are CCs? • Generics: (21) a. Macy’s advertises a sale, and the whole town goes crazy. Bolinger (1967) b. Something happens in this town, and John knows about it. Keshet 2013:(6) • Future metaphysical: (22) You take one more step, and I’ll shoot. • Quantificational: (23) You come on time, and you usually get a seat.

  29. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References What kinds of conditionals are CCs? • Generics: (21) a. Macy’s advertises a sale, and the whole town goes crazy. Bolinger (1967) b. Something happens in this town, and John knows about it. Keshet 2013:(6) • Future metaphysical: (22) You take one more step, and I’ll shoot. • Quantificational: (23) You come on time, and you usually get a seat. • C1 temporally precedes C2

  30. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References What kinds of conditionals are CCs? • Generics: (21) a. Macy’s advertises a sale, and the whole town goes crazy. Bolinger (1967) b. Something happens in this town, and John knows about it. Keshet 2013:(6) • Future metaphysical: (22) You take one more step, and I’ll shoot. • Quantificational: (23) You come on time, and you usually get a seat. • C1 temporally precedes C2 • Perceived ‘immediate extension’ Bjorkman 2010 (Maybe Result . Too strong: Causation , Keshet, in view of (21b))

  31. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References What kinds of conditionals are CCs? • Generics: (21) a. Macy’s advertises a sale, and the whole town goes crazy. Bolinger (1967) b. Something happens in this town, and John knows about it. Keshet 2013:(6) • Future metaphysical: (22) You take one more step, and I’ll shoot. • Quantificational: (23) You come on time, and you usually get a seat. • C1 temporally precedes C2 • Perceived ‘immediate extension’ Bjorkman 2010 (Maybe Result . Too strong: Causation , Keshet, in view of (21b)) C1 provides the restrictor for a quantificational operator within C2

  32. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References CCs and (non-)epistemicity (Bolinger 1967, Kaufmann 2012, Keshet 2013,. . . ) (24) #John left work at six, and he { is, must be } home by now.

  33. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References CCs and (non-)epistemicity (Bolinger 1967, Kaufmann 2012, Keshet 2013,. . . ) (24) #John left work at six, and he { is, must be } home by now. Epistemic CCs improve (somewhat) in list environments List Effect ( � German equivalent; English: 4:y/2:better/2:n): (25) A: Oh no, look, John forgot his phone. We can probably find out when he left the office, but I have no clue where he is now. - Do you think we can reach him somehow? B: Come on, it’s not that hard, you know him! . . . He left around 5 and { he’s, he must be } home by now; he left around 6 and he { still will be, must still be } exercising at the gym.

  34. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Introduction 1 Types of CCs Side remarks on types of IaDs Semantics of CCs Analyzing CCs 2 Existing Accounts A Topic Analysis of CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle 3 Basic Facts Proposing an Answer In Favor of PI 4 Correlating IaDs. . .

  35. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Two types of approaches

  36. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Two types of approaches • Restricting quantificational operator (Keshet 2013, Keshet & Medeiros 2018) CCs are ordinary conjunctions in the scope of a quantificational operator (conjuncts aren’t entailed): (26) Operator [. . . ] [ C1 and C2 ]

  37. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Two types of approaches • Restricting quantificational operator (Keshet 2013, Keshet & Medeiros 2018) CCs are ordinary conjunctions in the scope of a quantificational operator (conjuncts aren’t entailed): (26) Operator [. . . ] [ C1 and C2 ] Asymmetry from prosody: defocused C1 maps onto restrictor of Operator

  38. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Two types of approaches • Restricting quantificational operator (Keshet 2013, Keshet & Medeiros 2018) CCs are ordinary conjunctions in the scope of a quantificational operator (conjuncts aren’t entailed): (26) Operator [ C1 ] [ C1 and C2 ] Asymmetry from prosody: defocused C1 maps onto restrictor of Operator

  39. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Two types of approaches • Restricting quantificational operator (Keshet 2013, Keshet & Medeiros 2018) CCs are ordinary conjunctions in the scope of a quantificational operator (conjuncts aren’t entailed): (26) Operator [ C1 ] [ C1 and C2 ] Asymmetry from prosody: defocused C1 maps onto restrictor of Operator • Left-subordinating and (Culicover & Jackendoff 1997, Klinedinst & Rothschild 2015, Starr 2018) CCs are ordinary hypothetical conditionals derived from a special (Starr: left-topicalizing) variant of and : (27) [ C1 and LS C2 ]

  40. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Two types of approaches: preview of my choices • Restricting quantificational operator (Keshet 2013, Keshet & Medeiros 2018) CCs are ordinary conjunctions in the scope of a quantificational operator (conjuncts aren’t entailed): (28) Operator [ C1 ] [ C1 and C2 ] Asymmetry from prosody: defocused C1 maps onto restrictor of Operator • Left-subordinating and (Culicover & Jackendoff 1997, Klinedinst & Rothschild 2015, Starr 2018) CCs are ordinary hypothetical conditionals derived from a special (Starr: left-topicalizing) variant of and : (29) [ C1 and LS C2 ]

  41. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Issues for Restricting Quantificational Operator • � DaDs, IaDs: surface scope, non-directive (Keshet & Medeiros 2018) (30) MOD Imp /GEN [C1 and C2]

  42. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Issues for Restricting Quantificational Operator • � DaDs, IaDs: surface scope, non-directive (Keshet & Medeiros 2018) (30) MOD Imp /GEN [C1 and C2] • Q-adverbs: extracted from C2, rather than C1 as in regular conjunctions (Keshet 2013:225); embedding within C2, (32) (31) a. You come on time and you usually get a seat. ≈ Usually, you come on time, and you get a seat. b. She probably left and you just didn’t notice. (his ii-a) (32) You come on time and you can be sure that you’ll always get a seat.

  43. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Issues for Restricting Quantificational Operator • � DaDs, IaDs: surface scope, non-directive (Keshet & Medeiros 2018) (30) MOD Imp /GEN [C1 and C2] • Q-adverbs: extracted from C2, rather than C1 as in regular conjunctions (Keshet 2013:225); embedding within C2, (32) (31) a. You come on time and you usually get a seat. ≈ Usually, you come on time, and you get a seat. b. She probably left and you just didn’t notice. (his ii-a) (32) You come on time and you can be sure that you’ll always get a seat. • Questions about generalizing to other types: (33)

  44. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Issues for Restricting Quantificational Operator • � DaDs, IaDs: surface scope, non-directive (Keshet & Medeiros 2018) (30) MOD Imp /GEN [C1 and C2] • Q-adverbs: extracted from C2, rather than C1 as in regular conjunctions (Keshet 2013:225); embedding within C2, (32) (31) a. You come on time and you usually get a seat. ≈ Usually, you come on time, and you get a seat. b. She probably left and you just didn’t notice. (his ii-a) (32) You come on time and you can be sure that you’ll always get a seat. • Questions about generalizing to other types: (33) SMaDs: You only have to come on time and you will get a seat.

  45. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Issues for Restricting Quantificational Operator • � DaDs, IaDs: surface scope, non-directive (Keshet & Medeiros 2018) (30) MOD Imp /GEN [C1 and C2] • Q-adverbs: extracted from C2, rather than C1 as in regular conjunctions (Keshet 2013:225); embedding within C2, (32) (31) a. You come on time and you usually get a seat. ≈ Usually, you come on time, and you get a seat. b. She probably left and you just didn’t notice. (his ii-a) (32) You come on time and you can be sure that you’ll always get a seat. • Questions about generalizing to other types: (33) NPaDs: FUT [ One more song and I’m out of here.]

  46. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Issues for Restricting Quantificational Operator • � DaDs, IaDs: surface scope, non-directive (Keshet & Medeiros 2018) (30) MOD Imp /GEN [C1 and C2] • Q-adverbs: extracted from C2, rather than C1 as in regular conjunctions (Keshet 2013:225); embedding within C2, (32) (31) a. You come on time and you usually get a seat. ≈ Usually, you come on time, and you get a seat. b. She probably left and you just didn’t notice. (his ii-a) (32) You come on time and you can be sure that you’ll always get a seat. • Questions about generalizing to other types: (33) Q-adverbs in IaDs: MOD Imp [(you) come on time and you’ll usually get a seat.]

  47. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References An issue for LS- and • Hypothetical readings for ‘ C1. C2 ’: (34) a. Stand up. I’ll break your arm. I.D b. You call the cops, I break her legs. D.D, Klinedinst & Rotschild 2015:(21) c. U drive. U text. U pay. D.D.D, US Dept. of Transportation

  48. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References An issue for LS- and • Hypothetical readings for ‘ C1. C2 ’: (34) a. Stand up. I’ll break your arm. I.D b. You call the cops, I break her legs. D.D, Klinedinst & Rotschild 2015:(21) c. U drive. U text. U pay. D.D.D, US Dept. of Transportation • At least in list contexts, hypothetical readings for ‘ C1. Then C2 .’: * / % I then D (35) a. Sing one more song, then I’m out of here. b. Say yes, then you have to pay. Say no, then he comes again and again. � I then D c. #Say yes, and then you have to pay. Say no, and then he comes again and again. *Ia then D

  49. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Desideratum for an analysis • Conditional readings are available for XaD, X.D, and X then D

  50. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Desideratum for an analysis • Conditional readings are available for XaD, X.D, and X then D • Shared property pending intonation for X (‘Conjunct 1’)

  51. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Desideratum for an analysis • Conditional readings are available for XaD, X.D, and X then D • Shared property pending intonation for X (‘Conjunct 1’) Proposal: Hypotheticality is driven by prosody.

  52. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Desideratum for an analysis • Conditional readings are available for XaD, X.D, and X then D • Shared property pending intonation for X (‘Conjunct 1’) Proposal: Hypotheticality is driven by prosody. • Limited role for and : ordinary clausal conjunction, constrains discourse relations, which in turn constrains resolution of anaphora (e.g. domain restrictions of modals). (Asher 1993, Txurruka 2003, Stojnic 2016)

  53. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Back to epistemic conditionals CCs are infelicitous for epistemic conditionals (%: modulo lists)

  54. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Back to epistemic conditionals CCs are infelicitous for epistemic conditionals (%: modulo lists) • Ruled out by Restricting Quantificational Operator approach: epistemic modals/adverbials resist restriction through focus (Keshet 2013:(69a,c)) (36) John must have DRIVEN to work. �≈ If John went to work in some way, he must have driven to work.

  55. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Back to epistemic conditionals CCs are infelicitous for epistemic conditionals (%: modulo lists) • Ruled out by Restricting Quantificational Operator approach: epistemic modals/adverbials resist restriction through focus (Keshet 2013:(69a,c)) (36) John must have DRIVEN to work. �≈ If John went to work in some way, he must have driven to work. • Existing LS- and theories: hypothetical update of belief state ( ⇒ amounts to epistemic conditional - overgenerates)

  56. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Back to epistemic conditionals CCs are infelicitous for epistemic conditionals (%: modulo lists) • Ruled out by Restricting Quantificational Operator approach: epistemic modals/adverbials resist restriction through focus (Keshet 2013:(69a,c)) (36) John must have DRIVEN to work. �≈ If John went to work in some way, he must have driven to work. • Existing LS- and theories: hypothetical update of belief state ( ⇒ amounts to epistemic conditional - overgenerates) • List Effect suggests: epistemic conditionals are possible in principle but, out of the blue, fail certain discourse requirements (imposed by coordinating relation? - Asher 1993: ‘common discourse topic’)

  57. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References More on CCs and their quantificational domain • Generic conditionals should look outside of the belief state: (using a DaD from Keshet 2013:5a): (37) A guy owns a Ferrari, and he’s going to rack up a few speeding tickets. John’s no exception to this. a. If he were to own a Ferrari, he’d rack up a few speeding tickets. b. #He doesn’t have one.

  58. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References More on CCs and their quantificational domain • Generic conditionals should look outside of the belief state: (using a DaD from Keshet 2013:5a): (37) A guy owns a Ferrari, and he’s going to rack up a few speeding tickets. John’s no exception to this. a. If he were to own a Ferrari, he’d rack up a few speeding tickets. b. #He doesn’t have one. CC-‘Antecedent’ can, but need not, be a subset of epistemic possi- bilities.

  59. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Core idea of an analysis for CCs • C1 sets an aboutness topic, C2 is interpreted with respect to that (Starr 2018) Similar to referential analyses of regular hypothetical conditionals (Schlenker 2003, Ebert, Endriss & Hinterwimmer 2014)

  60. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Core idea of an analysis for CCs • C1 sets an aboutness topic, C2 is interpreted with respect to that (Starr 2018) Similar to referential analyses of regular hypothetical conditionals (Schlenker 2003, Ebert, Endriss & Hinterwimmer 2014) • C1 carries pending intonation (for English: pitch accent(s) followed by H-) instead of commitment intonation (H* L-L%, Rudin 2008) (Krifka 2004, Schwager 2006, Keshet 2013)

  61. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Core idea of an analysis for CCs • C1 sets an aboutness topic, C2 is interpreted with respect to that (Starr 2018) Similar to referential analyses of regular hypothetical conditionals (Schlenker 2003, Ebert, Endriss & Hinterwimmer 2014) • C1 carries pending intonation (for English: pitch accent(s) followed by H-) instead of commitment intonation (H* L-L%, Rudin 2008) (Krifka 2004, Schwager 2006, Keshet 2013) • CC- and signals a suitable discourse relation that influences anaphora resolution (Stojnic 2016)

  62. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Core idea of an analysis for CCs • C1 sets an aboutness topic, C2 is interpreted with respect to that (Starr 2018) Similar to referential analyses of regular hypothetical conditionals (Schlenker 2003, Ebert, Endriss & Hinterwimmer 2014) • C1 carries pending intonation (for English: pitch accent(s) followed by H-) instead of commitment intonation (H* L-L%, Rudin 2008) (Krifka 2004, Schwager 2006, Keshet 2013) • CC- and signals a suitable discourse relation that influences anaphora resolution (Stojnic 2016) • XaDs differ in what aboutness topic X contributes (Starr 2018)

  63. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Core idea of an analysis for CCs • C1 sets an aboutness topic, C2 is interpreted with respect to that (Starr 2018) Similar to referential analyses of regular hypothetical conditionals (Schlenker 2003, Ebert, Endriss & Hinterwimmer 2014) • C1 carries pending intonation (for English: pitch accent(s) followed by H-) instead of commitment intonation (H* L-L%, Rudin 2008) (Krifka 2004, Schwager 2006, Keshet 2013) • CC- and signals a suitable discourse relation that influences anaphora resolution (Stojnic 2016) • XaDs differ in what aboutness topic X contributes (Starr 2018) • XaD contribute X-specific non-at-issue meaning (Keshet & Medeiros 2018)

  64. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Contexts Context c = � Speaker, Addressee, World, Time, PC, QUD,G � , where • PC( α ) the set of public commitments of each participant α

  65. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Contexts Context c = � Speaker, Addressee, World, Time, PC, QUD,G � , where • PC( α ) the set of public commitments of each participant α • question under discussion QUD, a set of propositions Roberts 1996

  66. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Contexts Context c = � Speaker, Addressee, World, Time, PC, QUD,G � , where • PC( α ) the set of public commitments of each participant α • question under discussion QUD, a set of propositions Roberts 1996 • G a variable assignments with slots representing salience ranking Stojnic 2016

  67. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Contexts Context c = � Speaker, Addressee, World, Time, PC, QUD,G � , where • PC( α ) the set of public commitments of each participant α • question under discussion QUD, a set of propositions Roberts 1996 • G a variable assignments with slots representing salience ranking Stojnic 2016 • From PC we obtain the context set CS (the set of worlds compatible with mutual belief): CS = � (PC(Speaker) ∩ PC(Addressee)).

  68. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Contexts Context c = � Speaker, Addressee, World, Time, PC, QUD,G � , where • PC( α ) the set of public commitments of each participant α • question under discussion QUD, a set of propositions Roberts 1996 • G a variable assignments with slots representing salience ranking Stojnic 2016 • From PC we obtain the context set CS (the set of worlds compatible with mutual belief): CS = � (PC(Speaker) ∩ PC(Addressee)). (building on Ggunlogson 2003,Farkas-Bruce 2009, Kaufmann 2012, Lauer 2013,. . . )

  69. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Basic Conversational Moves (38) Commit ( p ) updates a context c by adding p to PC(Speaker) (the public commitments of the speaker).

  70. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Basic Conversational Moves (38) Commit ( p ) updates a context c by adding p to PC(Speaker) (the public commitments of the speaker). (39) Referent X 1 ,..., X n ( φ ) updates G by a. storing in X 1 , . . . , X n what is made salient by φ , with ] c = X m for some 1 ≤ m ≤ n , and n ≥ 1 and [ [ φ ] b. moving all original values m into m + n .

  71. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Basic Conversational Moves (38) Commit ( p ) updates a context c by adding p to PC(Speaker) (the public commitments of the speaker). (39) Referent X 1 ,..., X n ( φ ) updates G by a. storing in X 1 , . . . , X n what is made salient by φ , with ] c = X m for some 1 ≤ m ≤ n , and n ≥ 1 and [ [ φ ] b. moving all original values m into m + n . ( Commit , Referent modeled after Ebert, Endriss, Hinterwimmer 2014, adding ranking for Referent )

  72. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Context update principles (FI) Falling Intonation A linguistic object that expresses a proposition p that is uttered with commitment marking is intergrated into the context with Commit ( p ). In English, commitment is marked by final H* L-L%, Rudin 2018. (modeled after Gunlogson 2003, Lauer 2013, Rudin 2018) (PI) Pending Intonation A linguistic object φ uttered with pending intonation is integrated into the context by Referent � X ( φ ). Tentatively, in German, Pending Intonation as L* H-.

  73. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Context update principles at work Adjusted from Ebert, Endriss & Hinterwimmer 2014 German Left-Dislocated Topic: (40) [Den Pfarrer] x , [den x kann keiner leiden.] The-ACC pastor RP-ACC can nobody like ‘The pastor nobody likes.’ (41) Referent x ( ι y pastor( y )) ∧ Commit ( λ w . nobody likes x in w )

  74. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Context update principles at work Adjusted from Ebert, Endriss & Hinterwimmer 2014 German Left-Dislocated Topic: (40) [Den Pfarrer] x , [den x kann keiner leiden.] The-ACC pastor RP-ACC can nobody like ‘The pastor nobody likes.’ (41) Referent x ( ι y pastor( y )) ∧ Commit ( λ w . nobody likes x in w ) Regular hypothetical conditional: (42) [If you study hard] X , (then X ) you will pass the exam. (43) Referent X ( λ w . Addressee studies hard in w ∧ w ∈ CS) ∧ Commit ( λ w . ∀ w ′ ∈ X [Addressee passes the exam w ′ ])

  75. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Context update principles at work in CCs DaD with future metaphysical will : (44) [You study hard] X [and you will C pass the exam.] (45) Referent X ( λ w . Addressee studies hard in w ) ∧ Commit ( λ w . WILL w ( X )( λ w ′ . Addressee passes exam in w ′ ))

  76. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Context update principles at work in CCs DaD with future metaphysical will : (44) [You study hard] X [and you will C pass the exam.] (45) Referent X ( λ w . Addressee studies hard in w ) ∧ Commit ( λ w . WILL w ( X )( λ w ′ . Addressee passes exam in w ′ )) Assumptions: • and requires that C is resolved to first propositional referent in sequence, here: X .

  77. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Context update principles at work in CCs DaD with future metaphysical will : (44) [You study hard] X [and you will C pass the exam.] (45) Referent X ( λ w . Addressee studies hard in w ) ∧ Commit ( λ w . WILL w ( X )( λ w ′ . Addressee passes exam in w ′ )) Assumptions: • and requires that C is resolved to first propositional referent in sequence, here: X . • will contributes restriction to epistemic possibilities

  78. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Context update principles at work in CCs DaD with future metaphysical will : (44) [You study hard] X [and you will C pass the exam.] (45) Referent X ( λ w . Addressee studies hard in w ) ∧ Commit ( λ w . WILL w ( X )( λ w ′ . Addressee passes exam in w ′ )) Assumptions: • and requires that C is resolved to first propositional referent in sequence, here: X . • will contributes restriction to epistemic possibilities • to add: C1 has to be simple present, as in if -clauses (historical necessity, Kaufmann 2005)

  79. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Context update principles at work in CCs DaD with future metaphysical will : (44) [You study hard] X [and you will C pass the exam.] (45) Referent X ( λ w . Addressee studies hard in w ) ∧ Commit ( λ w . WILL w ( X )( λ w ′ . Addressee passes exam in w ′ )) Assumptions: • and requires that C is resolved to first propositional referent in sequence, here: X . • will contributes restriction to epistemic possibilities • to add: C1 has to be simple present, as in if -clauses (historical necessity, Kaufmann 2005) • Binding into C1: � e , � s , t �� -topic to constrain QP-domain in C2

  80. Introduction Analyzing CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle In Favor of PI Appendix References Introduction 1 Types of CCs Side remarks on types of IaDs Semantics of CCs Analyzing CCs 2 Existing Accounts A Topic Analysis of CCs The Missing Modal Puzzle 3 Basic Facts Proposing an Answer In Favor of PI 4 Correlating IaDs. . .

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

English Monday - Conjunctions What is a conjunction? What is their purpose? What conjunctions do

English Monday - Conjunctions What is a conjunction? What is their purpose? What conjunctions do

English Monday - Conjunctions What is a conjunction? What is their purpose? What conjunctions do you know? There are two types o conjunctions: Coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or) Subordinating conjunctions (when, if, that, because)

368 views • 14 slides
26 Question 1 INDICATE THE IDEA TRANSMITTED BY THE CONJUNCTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES: a)

26 Question 1 INDICATE THE IDEA TRANSMITTED BY THE CONJUNCTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES: a)

26 Question 1 INDICATE THE IDEA TRANSMITTED BY THE CONJUNCTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES: a) Both Brazil and Italy are world cup champions. _____________________________________________________ b) I want to travel, but I dont have enough

306 views • 12 slides
Boolean Operators are simple words (such as AND, OR, and NOT) used as conjunctions to combine or

Boolean Operators are simple words (such as AND, OR, and NOT) used as conjunctions to combine or

Boolean Operators are simple words (such as AND, OR, and NOT) used as conjunctions to combine or exclude keywords in a search, resulting in more focused and productive results. Source: https://library.alliant.edu/screens/boolean.pdf AND OR

255 views • 22 slides
15. The Conditional 15.1 The conditional: Formation and uses 15.2 Mise en pratique 15.1 The

15. The Conditional 15.1 The conditional: Formation and uses 15.2 Mise en pratique 15.1 The

15. The Conditional 15.1 The conditional: Formation and uses 15.2 Mise en pratique 15.1 The Conditional: Formation and Uses Mme Legendre is talking to a friend about her hopes and wishes for the future: Un jour, jaimerais changer de

191 views • 15 slides
ADVERBS time (when) place (where) 1 Lesson 10 Conjunctions for a balanced argument.notebook

ADVERBS time (when) place (where) 1 Lesson 10 Conjunctions for a balanced argument.notebook

Lesson 10 Conjunctions for a balanced argument.notebook May 03, 2020 ADVERB - an adverb is a word that modifies (changes) or adds additional information to the verb in the sentence. Do you know what the 4 different types of adverbs frequency

476 views • 16 slides
Invariance of Conjunctions of Polynomial Equalities for Algebraic Differential Equations Khalil

Invariance of Conjunctions of Polynomial Equalities for Algebraic Differential Equations Khalil

Invariance of Conjunctions of Polynomial Equalities for Algebraic Differential Equations Khalil Ghorbal 1 Andrew Sogokon 2 e Platzer 1 Andr 1. Carnegie Mellon University 2. University of Edinburgh SAS, Munich, Germany September 11th, 2014

1.02k views • 53 slides
P( ) 1 conditional probability where P(F) > 0 Conditional probability of E given F:

P( ) 1 conditional probability where P(F) > 0 Conditional probability of E given F:

Conditional Probability P( ) 1 conditional probability where P(F) > 0 Conditional probability of E given F: probability that E occurs given that F has occurred. Ehf F FE Conditioning on F Written as P(E|F) Ser Means P(E,

731 views • 35 slides
Conditional Heteroscedasticity (CH) So far, our models are for the conditional mean . For

Conditional Heteroscedasticity (CH) So far, our models are for the conditional mean . For

Conditional Heteroscedasticity (CH) So far, our models are for the conditional mean . For instance, the Gaussian AR(1) model + t y t = y t 1 may be written: , 2 Conditionally on y t 1 , y

411 views • 19 slides
D.S.G. POLLOCK: TOPICS IN ECONOMETRICS 2011 1. EXPECTATIONS AND CONDITIONAL EXPECTATIONS The joint

D.S.G. POLLOCK: TOPICS IN ECONOMETRICS 2011 1. EXPECTATIONS AND CONDITIONAL EXPECTATIONS The joint

D.S.G. POLLOCK: TOPICS IN ECONOMETRICS 2011 1. EXPECTATIONS AND CONDITIONAL EXPECTATIONS The joint density function of x and y is f ( x, y ) = f ( x | y ) f ( y ) = f ( y | x ) f ( x ) , (1) where f ( x ) = f ( x, y ) dx and f ( y ) =

592 views • 21 slides
Markov random fields 2. conditional specifications 3. conditional auto-regression Rasmus

Markov random fields 2. conditional specifications 3. conditional auto-regression Rasmus

Outline: 1. specification of joint distributions Markov random fields 2. conditional specifications 3. conditional auto-regression Rasmus Waagepetersen 4. Brooks factorization, 5. conditional independence and graphs 6. Hammersley-Clifford

202 views • 9 slides
Simple data Readings: HtDP , sections 4-5 Topics: Boolean-valued functions Conditional

Simple data Readings: HtDP , sections 4-5 Topics: Boolean-valued functions Conditional

Simple data Readings: HtDP , sections 4-5 Topics: Boolean-valued functions Conditional expressions Example: computing taxes Symbols Strings Booleans Conditionals Tests Example Other data 1/38 04: Simple Data CS 135 Boolean-valued

425 views • 15 slides
Conditional Probability & Independence Conditional Probabilities Question : How should we

Conditional Probability & Independence Conditional Probabilities Question : How should we

Conditional Probability & Independence Conditional Probabilities Question : How should we modify P ( E ) if we learn that event F has occurred? Definition : the conditional probability of E given F is P ( E | F ) = P ( E F ) , for

523 views • 26 slides
Conditional Probability & Independence Conditional Probabilities Question : How should we

Conditional Probability & Independence Conditional Probabilities Question : How should we

Conditional Probability & Independence Conditional Probabilities Question : How should we modify P ( E ) if we learn that event F has occurred? Definition : the conditional probability of E given F is P ( E | F ) = P ( E \ F ) , for P

593 views • 24 slides
Blended Conditional Gradients: The unconditioning of conditional gradients Joint work with Gabor

Blended Conditional Gradients: The unconditioning of conditional gradients Joint work with Gabor

Blended Conditional Gradients: The unconditioning of conditional gradients Joint work with Gabor Braun, Sebastian Pokutta, Steve Wright Dan Tu 1/9 CONDITIONAL GRADIENTS: PROJECTION-FREE Given a polytope ! , solve the optimization problem: min

109 views • 9 slides
Multiscale Conditional 1) Generalization of conditional random fields (CRF) to multiscale

Multiscale Conditional 1) Generalization of conditional random fields (CRF) to multiscale

Contributions Multiscale Conditional 1) Generalization of conditional random fields (CRF) to multiscale conditional Random Fields for Image random fields (mCRF) Labeling 2) Learning features of the random field at multiple scales Xuming He,

371 views • 8 slides
Conditional Probability & Conditional Expectations Compute Probabilities by Conditioning IE

Conditional Probability & Conditional Expectations Compute Probabilities by Conditioning IE

Conditional Probability & Conditional Expectations Compute Probabilities by Conditioning IE 502: Probabilistic Models Jayendran Venkateswaran IE & OR Gamblers Chances A gambler has Rs.300 in his pocket when he walks into a

554 views • 9 slides
Physics, Big Data Analysis and Philosophy (and all the rest) Wolfgang Rhode ... eritis sicut

Physics, Big Data Analysis and Philosophy (and all the rest) Wolfgang Rhode ... eritis sicut

Physics, Big Data Analysis and Philosophy (and all the rest) Wolfgang Rhode ... eritis sicut Deus ... Platos Cave Analogy Are true conclusions possible? Within the world of logic ? Yes Within the world of mathematics ? Yes Within

800 views • 60 slides
Enterprise Engineering Master Class 2014 Jan Dietz Jan Hoogervorst Prelude and Outline

Enterprise Engineering Master Class 2014 Jan Dietz Jan Hoogervorst Prelude and Outline

Enterprise Engineering Master Class 2014 Jan Dietz Jan Hoogervorst Prelude and Outline Engineering automobiles Construction Assembly of mainly mechanical and electrical parts. Operating principle Rolling on surfaces, being propelled by

887 views • 76 slides
Histories of Western Music Dr. Matthew Chamberlain Western Music Appreciation | IHSS 1740

Histories of Western Music Dr. Matthew Chamberlain Western Music Appreciation | IHSS 1740

Histories of Western Music Dr. Matthew Chamberlain Western Music Appreciation | IHSS 1740 Monday, 15 January 2019 Histories of Western Music Todays Class About Me 1. 2. What is Music Appreciation? 3. Central Topics For this Class What

413 views • 24 slides
John Frames Arguments for Gods Existence 1. From Apologetics to the Glory of God (AGG),

John Frames Arguments for Gods Existence 1. From Apologetics to the Glory of God (AGG),

John Frames Arguments for Gods Existence 1. From Apologetics to the Glory of God (AGG), chapter 4, p.89ff 2. Each argument is really a group of arguments ... for educated adults from traditional Western Culture 3. Gives interesting

289 views • 11 slides
What Do You Believe? The Ologies What Do YOU Believe? WHAT Do You Believe? Is there

What Do You Believe? The Ologies What Do YOU Believe? WHAT Do You Believe? Is there

What Do You Believe? The Ologies What Do YOU Believe? WHAT Do You Believe? Is there absolute truth? Is there one faith that w as delivered once for all people? Is there ONE faith (belief) that is right for

453 views • 41 slides
This Weeks Sermon A Song for all Nations Psalm 96 Events Leading up to Psalm 96 1

This Weeks Sermon A Song for all Nations Psalm 96 Events Leading up to Psalm 96 1

This Weeks Sermon A Song for all Nations Psalm 96 Events Leading up to Psalm 96 1 Chronicles 15:1-3,11-16 After David had constructed buildings for himself in the City of David, he prepared a place for the ark of God and pitched a

742 views • 28 slides
Black Hole Information and Firewalls Don N. Page University of Alberta 2017 July 7 Introduction

Black Hole Information and Firewalls Don N. Page University of Alberta 2017 July 7 Introduction

Black Hole Information and Firewalls Don N. Page University of Alberta 2017 July 7 Introduction Black hole information is one of the greatest puzzles of theoretical physics from the 20th century that has persisted into the 21st. After Stephen

407 views • 22 slides
Overview Multi-Agent Systems Introduction to multi-agent systems and agent societies Agent

Overview Multi-Agent Systems Introduction to multi-agent systems and agent societies Agent

CPE/CSC 580-S06 Artificial Intelligence Intelligent Agents Overview Multi-Agent Systems Introduction to multi-agent systems and agent societies Agent Communication knowledge exchange among agents Agent Interaction eliminates explicit

623 views • 26 slides

More recommend