Representing Future Conceptualization in Persian Utterances in the Framework of Default Semantics

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 Ferdosi Mashad University

2 Binalud University of Mashhad

Abstract

Representing Future Conceptualization in Persian Utterances in the Framework of Default Semantics
 
Nader Jahangiri[1]
Soheila Nourbakhsh Beidokhti[2]
 
Received: 2011/11/8
                                                                                                                                                         Accepted: 2012/8/9
 
 
Abstract
 
This article deals with the representation of time conceptualization in Persian. Discourse Representation Theory and Default Semantics are semantic theories which have recently accounted for discourse representation. In this article, the capability of these frameworks in representing time conceptualization of Persian is explored. Due to the fact that time conceptualization in Persian is heavily based on pragmatic inferences, it seems that DRT theory which relies on formal factors of utterance to represent time are not an adequate framework to do this job. While, default semantics in which different sources of information including pragmatic inference are to be considered in merger representation, is proved to be an appropriate framework to represent time conceptualization in Persian.
 
 
Keywords: discourse representation, futurity conceptualization, utterance, default semantics
 



[1] Retired professor, Department of Linguistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad


[2] Assistant professor, Department of foreign Language, Binaloud Institute of Higher Education in Mashhad (Corresponding Author); noorbakhsh@binaloud.ac.ir

References

Carston, R. (1988). "Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-theoretic Semantics". Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. R. M.  Kempson (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   pp. 155-81.
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics  of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Geurts, B. (2008). "Discourse Representation Theory". https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/discourse-representation-theory/#Rel
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2003). "The Modality of the Future: A Default-semantics  Account". http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.585.4736&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Jaszczolt, K. M.  (2005).  Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of  Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaszczolt, K. M.  (2006). "Futurity in Default Semantics". Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan Papers. K. von Heusinger  & K. Turner (eds.).  Oxford: Elsevier. pp.471-492.
Jaszczolt, K. M.. (2007). "Future Time Reference: Truth-conditional Pragmatics  or Semantics of  Acts of Communication? "
         http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kmj21/Futurity.Mouton.final.Jul07.pdf
Jaszczolt, K. M.  (2009). Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality.  New York: Oxford  University Press Inc.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized            Conversational  Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Recanati, F. (2004).  Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.
Smith, Carlota S. (2007). "Tense and Temporal interpretation". Lingua. 117. pp. 419- 436.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition.          Oxford: Blackwell.
………. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition    (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Srioutai, Jiranthara (2006).  Conceptualisation of Time in Thai. P.H.D. Thesis.                   University of  Cambridge.
Taylor, B. (1977). "Tense and Continuity". Linguistics & Philosophy. 1. pp. 199–220.
Yule, George (1996). Pragmatics.  Oxford University Press.
 
 
 
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 8, Issue 21
January 2017
Pages 8-31

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics