Rabu, 15 Juni 2011

Perkembangan Peserta Didik

peserta didik adalah manusia dengan segala fitrahnya. Perkembangan Aspek Kognitif. Menurut Piaget(1970), periode yang dimulai pada usia 12-18 Pengertian Individu. Manusia adalah mahluk yang dapat dipandang dari berbagai sudut. Menurut ketentuan dalam Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 19 Tahun minat sesuai dengan tingkat perkembangan dan kemampuan peserta didik, menjelaskan aspek perkembangan fisik dan sosial peserta didik usia SD/ MI. Secara lebih khusus, Anda diharapkan mampu: 1. Menjelaskan pengertian dan oleh S Rahmayani - 2011Menurut Wibowo kemampuan Dosen mengacu PP No 19 Tahun 2005 tentang standart Nasional Pendidikan dan perkembangan fisik serta psikologis peserta didik. tersebut sesuai dengan pengertian PLP menurut buku Pedoman Akademik. (2010:46) yaitu: .. Pemahaman terhadap perkembangan peserta didik di atas, sangat 1. merumuskan pengertian perkembangan, belajar, dan peserta didik; .Menurut Semiawan (1999), konsep peserta didik sebagai suatu totalitas Demikian pula definisi yang tercantum dalam Undang-undang. Sisdiknas No. mempengaruhi perkembangan peserta didik, dan bisa menentukan arah atau akan dipengaruhi oleh pemahamannya tentang perkembangan peserta didik.

Rabu, 30 Maret 2011

Minimal recursion semantics (MRS) is a framework for computational semantics that is suitable for parsing and generation and that can be implemented in typed feature structure formalisms. We discuss why, in general, a semantic representation with minimal structure is desirable and illustrate how a descriptively adequate representation with a nonrecursive structure may be achieved. MRS enables a simple formulation of the grammatical constraints on lexical and phrasal semantics, including the principles of semantic composition.
We have integrated MRS with a broad-coverage HPSG grammar.  Modifying the descriptive and theoretical generalizations of Relativized Minimality, we argue that a significant subset of weak island violations arise when an extracted phrase should scope over some intervener but is unable to. Harmless interveners seem harmless because they can support an alternative reading. This paper focuses on why certain wh-phrases are poor wide scope takers, and offers an algebraic perspective on scope interaction. Each scopal element SE is associated with certain operations (e.g., not with complements). When a wh-phrase scopes over some SE, the operations associated with that SE are performed in its denotation domain. The requisite operations may or may not be available in a domain, however.
We present an empirical analysis of a variety of wh-phrases. It is argued that the wh-phrases that escape all weak islands (i.e., can scope over any intervener) are those that range over individuals, the reason being that all Boolean operations are defined for their domain. Collectives, manners, amounts, numbers, etc. all denote in domains with fewer operations and are thus selectively sensitive to scopal interveners—a ldquosemantic relativized minimality effectrdquo.n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French). n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions.
Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French). n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French). n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French). n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements.
These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions.

scope of semantic


The semantics of plural noun phrases
VERKUYL, HENK | VANDERDOES, JAAP
Two approaches to plural Noun Phrases (NP's) are reviewed.
The aim is to show that their analysis of sentences such as the following can be improved upon: (1) two girls ate five sandwiches; (2) all boys crossed the street. Disregarding the issues of scope ambiguity, a matter quite separate from finding a proper semantics for plural NP's and thus ignored whenever possible, both Scha and Link attach different readings to (1): Scha nine, and Link four. In contrast, the semantics proposed takes it to be unambiguous. A collective and distributive reading is talked of, but only as a conceptually handy way to distinguish between two types of situation which, among other types, may verify sentence (1). (1) is considered vague as to being collective, distributive or otherwise. Scha and Link are discussed, and a semantics for plural NPs characterized by the following properties is presented: sentences get a unique meaning in a compositional way in which the subject NP has the object NP within its scope; the semantics works for arbitrary NP's; all NP's are of the same type and no NP is structurally ambiguous between a distributive and a collective reading; restriction is made to NP's containing count nouns, allowing standard type logical techniques rather than using an algebraic semantics along the lines of Link. (ESA) Minimal recursion semantics (MRS) is a framework for computational semantics that is suitable for parsing and generation and that can be implemented in typed feature structure formalisms. We discuss why, in general, a semantic representation with minimal structure is desirable and illustrate how a descriptively adequate representation with a nonrecursive structure may be achieved. MRS enables a simple formulation of the grammatical constraints on lexical and phrasal semantics, including the principles of semantic composition. We have integrated MRS with a broad-coverage HPSG grammar.  Modifying the descriptive and theoretical generalizations of Relativized Minimality, we argue that a significant subset of weak island violations arise when an extracted phrase should scope over some intervener but is unable to. Harmless interveners seem harmless because they can support an alternative reading. This paper focuses on why certain wh-phrases are poor wide scope takers, and offers an algebraic perspective on scope interaction. Each scopal element SE is associated with certain operations (e.g., not with complements). When a wh-phrase scopes over some SE, the operations associated with that SE are performed in its denotation domain. The requisite operations may or may not be available in a domain, however. We present an empirical analysis of a variety of wh-phrases. It is argued that the wh-phrases that escape all weak islands (i.e., can scope over any intervener) are those that range over individuals, the reason being that all Boolean operations are defined for their domain. Collectives, manners, amounts, numbers, etc. all denote in domains with fewer operations and are thus selectively sensitive to scopal interveners—a ldquosemantic relativized minimality effectrdquo.n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French). n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French). n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French). n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French). n this paper, I explore the possibility of understanding locality restrictions on the distribution of Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) as a consequence of covert movement. The present proposal restates Linebarger’s Immediate Scope Constraint in terms of morphology-driven checking requirements. These requirements cannot be met if a blocking element intervenes between the NPI feature and its morphosemantic licenser at Logical Form (LF). The empirical generalization is that the class of NPI ‘blocking expressions’ (a.k.a. ‘interveners’) overlaps to a large extent with interveners identified in wh-questions. Therefore, the same grammatical checking mechanisms operating in that domain, rather than the presence of an implicature, are here shown to be responsible both for apparent violations to Linebarger’s constraint (contra Linebarger) and for intervention effects (contra Krifka, 1995, and Chierchia, 2004). This approach is argued to be superior on empirical grounds as it predicts facts that are left unaccounted for in a theory like Linebarger’s, where pragmatics rescues otherwise ill-formed structures. In addition, the proposal allows us to view the locality constraints operating in the domain of NPI-licensing as an instance of more general (though yet to be fully understood) principles of the grammar whose effects are attested in other domains, such as wh-questions in German, Discourselinked (D-linked) wh-questions in English, and Negative Concord (NC) configurations (e.g. in Italian and French).     


scope of semantic


This thesis aims to present a descriptively adequate and revealing analysis of the scope order relations among logical operator words in English sentences.  Prefatory to the analysis there is discussion of some philosophical issues in linguistic semantics, including a discussion of the correctness of translating natural language sentences into a formal language in order to produce semantic representations for the.  It is concluded that such representations have obvious benefits as indicators of the truth conditions of sentences and that the objections that have been raised against them are non well-founded.
The body of the thesis consists in the derivation of a number of rules that capture the scope ambiguities of a wide range of sentences and the scope order preferences or incompatibilities of a number of English logical operator words.  The rules themselves are of three kinds; a general surface ordering principle that fixes the initial scope order of the operator words in an English sentence according to their surface order; a set of scope readjustment rules that account for the scope ambiguities of English sentences; and a set of output filters that block or mark as unpreferred certain scope orders in the presence of certain operator words.  In the final chapter of the thesis an analysis of plurality is given and integrated with the analysis of scope so that some differences in scope behavior between singular and plural quantifier words can be explained.
Thesis Supervisor:         Paul Kiparsky
Table of Contents
1          Introduction                                                                                                      7
            Semantics of scope in formal and natural languages                                            7
            General semantic theory and the semantics of scope                                          18
            The problem of opacity                                                                         31
            Note to chapter one                                                                                          42
2          Some Linguistic Analyses of Scope Relations                                        44
            Introduction                                                                                                      44
            Dougherty.  Feature analysis of a scope ambiguity                                             45
            Heny’s analysis of scope ambiguity                                                                    52
            Jackendoff’s objections to logical formalism                                                      61
            Recent linguistic analyses of any                                                                        70
            Summary                                                                                                          75
            Notes to chapter two                                                                                        79
3          Scope of Universal Quantifiers, Indefinite Noun Phrases and Negation   81
            Introduction                                                                                                      81
            The universal quantifier and the indefinite noun phrase                            84
            Scope of negation                                                                                             107
            Summary to chapter three                                                                                 130
            Notes to chapter three                                                                                      132
4          Broadening the analysis of scope relations                                                         135
            Introduction                                                                                                      135
            Reformulating the description of scope relations                                     136
            Extending the analysis                                                                           150
            Modal scope                                                                                                    157
            Summary and conclusions                                                                                 178
            Notes to chapter four                                                                                        184
5          Plurality and Quantifier Scope                                                               186
            Introduction                                                                                                      186
            Universal quantifier and the unquantified plural                                       189
            The indefinite plural                                                                                           209
            Indefinite plural quantifiers                                                                                 229
            The NP quantifiers and adverbial quantification                                      245
            Notes to chapter five                                                                                        261

The Semantics of Scope of English

his thesis aims to present a descriptively adequate and revealing analysis of the scope order relations among logical operator words in English sentences.  Prefatory to the analysis there is discussion of some philosophical issues in linguistic semantics, including a discussion of the correctness of translating natural language sentences into a formal language in order to produce semantic representations for the.  It is concluded that such representations have obvious benefits as indicators of the truth conditions of sentences and that the objections that have been raised against them are non well-founded.
The body of the thesis consists in the derivation of a number of rules that capture the scope ambiguities of a wide range of sentences and the scope order preferences or incompatibilities of a number of English logical operator words.  The rules themselves are of three kinds; a general surface ordering principle that fixes the initial scope order of the operator words in an English sentence according to their surface order; a set of scope readjustment rules that account for the scope ambiguities of English sentences; and a set of output filters that block or mark as unpreferred certain scope orders in the presence of certain operator words.  In the final chapter of the thesis an analysis of plurality is given and integrated with the analysis of scope so that some differences in scope behavior between singular and plural quantifier words can be explained.
Thesis Supervisor:         Paul Kiparsky
Table of Contents
1          Introduction                                                                                                      7
            Semantics of scope in formal and natural languages                                            7
            General semantic theory and the semantics of scope                                          18
            The problem of opacity                                                                         31
            Note to chapter one                                                                                          42
2          Some Linguistic Analyses of Scope Relations                                        44
            Introduction                                                                                                      44
            Dougherty.  Feature analysis of a scope ambiguity                                             45
            Heny’s analysis of scope ambiguity                                                                    52
            Jackendoff’s objections to logical formalism                                                      61
            Recent linguistic analyses of any                                                                        70
            Summary                                                                                                          75
            Notes to chapter two                                                                                        79
3          Scope of Universal Quantifiers, Indefinite Noun Phrases and Negation   81
            Introduction                                                                                                      81
            The universal quantifier and the indefinite noun phrase                            84
            Scope of negation                                                                                             107
            Summary to chapter three                                                                                 130
            Notes to chapter three                                                                                      132
4          Broadening the analysis of scope relations                                                         135
            Introduction                                                                                                      135
            Reformulating the description of scope relations                                     136
            Extending the analysis                                                                           150
            Modal scope                                                                                                    157
            Summary and conclusions                                                                                 178
            Notes to chapter four                                                                                        184
5          Plurality and Quantifier Scope                                                               186
            Introduction                                                                                                      186
            Universal quantifier and the unquantified plural                                       189
            The indefinite plural                                                                                           209
            Indefinite plural quantifiers                                                                                 229
            The NP quantifiers and adverbial quantification                                      245
            Notes to chapter five                                                                                        261