[paper] Egan (2007) "Epistemic modals, relativism and assertion"(イーガン「認識的法助動詞・相対主義・確言」)

Egan, Andy (2007). "Epistemic modals, relativism and assertion." Phosophical Studies 133: 1-22.


同じ認識的法助動詞文であっても,評価主体 (evaluator) によって真理値が異なるのが,著者の擁護する相対主義

ABSTRACT. I think that there are good reasons to adopt a relativist semantis for epistemic modal claims such as "the treasure might be under the palm tree", according to which such utterances determine a truth value relative to something finer-grained than just a world (or a pair). Anyone who is inclined to relativise truth to more than just worlds and times faces a problem about assertion. It't easy to be puzzleed about just what purpose would be served by assertions of this kind, and how to understand what we'd be up to in our /use/ of sentences like "the treasure might be under the palm tree", if they have such peculiar truth conditions. After providing a very quick argument to motivate a relativist view of epistemic modals, I bring out and attempt to resolve this problem in making sense of the role of assertions with relativist truth conditions. Solving this problem should be helpful in two ways: first, it eliminates an apparantly forceful objection to relativism, and second, spelling out the relativist account of assertion and communication will help to make clear just what the relativist position is, exactly, and why it's interesting.

  • Introduction
  • Motivation for relativism: eavesdroppers
  • Self-locating content and relativism
  • Self-locating assertion
  • A problem: disastrous assertions
  • The problem, formally
  • The response, informally
  • The response, formally
  • Relativism about epistemic modals and the assertibility test
  • Conclusion


なお,最初の「盗み聞き」例はこんな状況設定:

ジェームズ・ボンドがスイス・アルプスにあるスペクターの秘密基地を潜入し,盗聴器を中央会議室にしかける.さらに,じぶんがチューリッヒにいると誤信させる説得力ある証拠を残し,こっそりと脱出.長い一日の任務を終えてロンドンに帰ってくる.M16の本部でマルティーニを味わいつつ,新しく設置した盗聴器をモニターするボンドとCIAの同僚フェリックス・ライターは,ブロフェルドと彼の部下「ナンバー2」の会話を盗み聞きする.
 ここにいる登場人物の知識状況を確認.ボンドとフェリックスは,ボンドがロンドンにいると知っている.このことは,ブロフェルドとナンバー2が「ボンドはチューリッヒにいる」と知っているのと両立する.
 さまざまな悪巧みの長所・短所を議論している途中で,ナンバー2がブロフェルドに言う:「ボンドはチューリッヒにいるかもしれない」(Bond might be in Zurich.)
 この発話を《チューリッヒ》と呼ぶことにしよう(日時のついた文脈に束縛された特定の発話であり文タイプではない).このとき,《チューリッヒ》を聞いた2人の登場人物の反応について考える.
 スペクターの秘密基地で,ブロフェルドがナンバー2に言う:「そのとおり」(That's true).このブロフェルドの発話は明らかに適切.また,これ以外に次のように言っても適切になる:

  • "You're right."
  • "You have jsut expressed a truth."
  • "ZURICH is true."
  • "What you have just said is true."

 一方,遠く離れたロンドンでこの《チューリッヒ》発話を聞いたフェリックスが「そのとおり」と発話するのはおかしい(と著者は考える).

[book] Lycan (2001) Real Conditionals(ライカン『実在的条件文』)

Lycan, William G. (2001). Real Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1. The Syntax of Conditional Sentences
2. Truth Conditions: The Event Theory
3. Truth Conditions: Reality and Modus Ponens
4. In Defense of Truth Value
5. A Beautiful But False Theory of 'Even if'
6. An Unbeautiful But Less Easily Refutable Theory of 'Even If'
7. The 'Indicative'/'Subjunctive' Distinction
8. The Riverboat Puzzle

  • Appendix: 'Nonconditional Conditionals' (with Michael Geis)
  • Revisionary Postscript on Non-Conditional Conditionals


ちゃんと自腹で買ったのだ.

[book] Vance (2008) The Sounds of Japanese(日本語の音声)

Vance, Timothy J. 2008. The Sounds of Japanese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 この本はおすすめ.日本語を学習している英語話者を対象に書かれた音声学・音韻論の教科書.CD付属.英語話者向けに書かれているので,英語の音声と日本語の音声が随所で比較される.音声学の知識ゼロからでも読めるし,英語音声学の知識があればいっそう理解が深まるだろう.

 なにより,この本は理論と教育のバランスがよい.
 実のところ,日本語音声学の入門書でこのバランス感覚がとれているものはあんまりなかったりする.
 一方には,音声学・音韻論の本格的な学習を見越した入門書がある.こちらは記述内容は正確だが,いまひとつ初学者にとってはわかりにくい――最初の一歩にしてはマニアックすぎるのだ.たとえば,日英の比較で音声学をまなぶ入門書というと古いところで窪園『日英対照による音声学・音韻論』(くろしお,1998)があるものの,英語の比重が大きく,しかも,初歩としては理論指向が強すぎる.また,撥音・促音に関してほとんど記述がないあたり,日本語の音声を学ぶには適さない.
 もう一方には,日本語教師(のたまご)に向けて書かれた入門書がある.こちらは理論的な説明は最低限におさえ,日本語の音声を学ぶのに必要な事項をよく選んであるのが長所だ.また,わかりやすくしようという配慮もみられる.ただ,その反面で記述内容がおかしいものも散見される.なかでも,「日本語教育能力検定試験」対策の需要に向けて書かれているものには,ひどいものもある.
 その点で,この Vance の本はとりあげるべき話題をよく考えてあり,しかも記述内容が信頼できる点がえらい.

1. Phonetics

  • 1.1 Speech sounds
  • 1.2 Airstream mechanisms
  • 1.3 Phonation
  • 1.4 Nasality
  • 1.5 Transcription and segments
  • 1.6 Length
  • 1.7 Suprasegmentals
  • 1.8 Vowels
  • 1.9 Obstruents
  • 1.10 Sonorants
  • 1.11 Secondary and double articulation
  • 1.12 Acoustic displays

2 Phonemics

  • 2.1 Phonology
  • 2.2 Contrast and minimal pairs
  • 2.3 Allophones and phonemic symbols
  • 2.4 Allophones in complementary distribution
  • 2.5 Allophones in free variation
  • 2.6 Distinctive features
  • 2.7 Redundant features and allophonic rules
  • 2.8 Phonotactics
  • 2.9 Affricates
  • 2.10 Diphthongs
  • 2.11 Overlapping and neutralization
  • 2.12 Careful pronunciation

3 Vowels

  • 3.1 Short vowels
  • 3.2 Long vowels
  • 3.3 Vowel sequences
  • 3.4 Vowel reduction

4 Syllabic-initial consonants

  • 4.1 Stops
  • 4.2 Fricatives
  • 4.3 Affricates
  • 4.4 Nasals
  • 4.5 Liquid
  • 4.6 Semivowels

5 Syllable-final consonants

  • 5.1 Syllable-final nasals-
  • 5.2 The mora nasal phoneme
  • 5.3 Phonotactics of the mora nasal
  • 5.4 Syllable-final obstruents
  • 5.5 The mora obstruent phoneme
  • 5.6 Phonotactics of the mora obstruent

6 Syllable and moras

  • 6.1 Syllables
  • 6.2 Moras
  • 6.3 Mora timing
  • 6.4 Syllables, moras, and accent
  • 6.5 Words and music
  • 6.6 Extra-long syllables
  • 6.7 Vowel-vowel sequences

7 Accent and intonation

  • 7.1 Intonation
  • 7.2 Pitch accent
  • 7.3 Noun and particle accent
  • 7.4 Verb accent
  • 7.5 Adjective accent
  • 7.6 Longer phrases
  • 7.7 Compounds
  • 7.8 Sentence-final intonation

8 Other topics

  • 8.1 Vowel devoicing
  • 8.2 Syllabic-initial velar nasals
  • 8.3 Glottal stops
  • 8.4 Alveopalatal obstruents and romanization

[paper] König and Siemund, 2000. "Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations."

 

König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund, 2000. "Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations." In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Kortmann, Bernd (eds.) Cause-Condition-Concession-Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000, pp. 341-360. 

 

ABSTRACT

It is an intuition of long-standing that concessive constructions are somehow the negative or contradictory counterpart of causal constructions. This intuition is expressed by terms like "incausal", "anticause" or "inoperant cause" that are frequently used istread of "concessive". It is shown that this intuition, which is supported by a wide variety of facts across languages, can be explicated by analysing the meaning of causal and concessive constructions in such a way that the external negation of the former is equivalent to the internal negation of the latter. A semantic analysis for concessive constructions is proposed which meets this criterion of adequacy. Furthermore, it is shown that this opposition between concession and causality can also be observed in "interactive patterns of conceding". What is negated in such interactrive schemas of concession is the assumption of an interlocutor that some fact is a reason for a specific conclusion. 

 

  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Causal and concessive connectives: phenomena in need of explanation 
  • 3. Some recent proposals
  • 4. Towards an explication 
  • 5. Discourse approaches to the analysis of concessive relations 
  • 6. Conclusion 
 
 

 

TRANSCRIPT: Don Norman, "Conceptual model"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yvFSuL5qII

It's very important to provide the user with a good conceptual model. This makes it easier for the user to understand what's going on and to invent new actions from the older ones that work. But if you're not careful, if you give the wrong conceptual model, well, they'll invent wrong actions. 

Here's an example. On the desktop model, we show each directory by an icon, an icon of a file folder. The icons are within the window. A number of years ago, when the Macintosh computer was first introduced, and all we had were floppy disks, my son was using the Macintosh. Its directory folder looked something like this. When he tried to save a file, he was told at one point "I'm sorry, there's not enough room to save your file." So, my son, being very intelligent, believed in the conceptual model that had been presented to him, went back, looked at the directory folder, and carefully moved all the file folders over to the left, making considerable room on the right. Then he went back to the same application and tried to save. "Can't do it," he was told. "No room." Why not? Look at the screen. There is plenty of room. Problem is, that's a wrong conceptual model. Room in the picture on the screen is not the same as room on the floppy disk.

 

なんとなくトランスクリプトをアップしてみたり.動画は The Voyager Company が 1994年につくった CD-ROM に収録されていたものだそうで.(ソース:”Videos from Design of Everyday Things")

 

追記:twitter にて,koda_TO さんと t_hayashi さんにいっぱい添削していただきました.感謝.