Common Nouns as Types
Common Nouns as Types
复制标题
普通名词作为类型
DOI：
10.1007/978-3-642-31262-5_12
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Zhaohui Luo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zhaohui Luo
当现代类型理论用于形式语义学时，普通名词（CN）被解释为类型，而不是谓词。尽管这带来了一些技术上的优势，但还是值得问一问：氯化萘有什么特殊之处，值得将其解释为类型？我们讨论了观察到的吉奇，不像其他词汇类别，CNs有标准的身份，一个组成部分的意义，使其合法的比较，计数和量化。这与构造性数学中的集合（类型）概念密切相关，其中集合（类型）不仅仅通过指定其对象来给出，而是与其对象之间的相等一起给出，并在一定程度上解释和证明了为什么类型在现代类型理论中被用来解释CN。它表明，为了忠实地解释修改CN的的类型，使相关的标准的身份可以被正确地捕获，它是重要的，假设证明无关的类型理论。我们还将简要讨论一个建议，解释质量名词短语的类型在一个统一的方法来CN的语义。
When modern type theories are employed for formal semantics, common nouns (CNs) are interpreted as types, not as predicates. Although this brings about some technical advantages, it is worthwhile to ask:what is special about CNs that merits them to be interpreted as types?We discuss the observation made by Geach that, unlike other lexical categories, CNs have criteria of identity, a component of meaning that makes it legitimate to compare, count and quantify. This is closely related to the notion of set (type) in constructive mathematics, where a set (type) is not given solely by specifying its objects, but together with an equality between its objects, and explains and justifies to some extent why types are used to interpret CNs in modern type theories. It is shown that, in order to faithfully interpret modified CNs as Σ-types so that the associated criteria of identity can be captured correctly, it is important to assume proof irrelevance in type theory. We shall also briefly discuss a proposal to interpret mass noun phrases as types in a uniform approach to the semantics of CNs.