Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-28T21:30:22.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Linguistics Meets Philosophy: A Historical Preface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2022

By
Barbara H. Partee
Edited by
Daniel Altshuler
Daniel Altshuler
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. xiii - lvi
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abusch, D. (1985). On Verbs and Time, Ph.D dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Abusch, D. (1986). Verbs of Change, Causation, and Time. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Abusch, D. (1988). Sequence of tense, intensionality, and scope. In Borer, H. (Ed.), WCCFL 7: Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 1–14). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Abusch, D. (1991). The present under past as De Re interpretation. In Bates, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 1–12). Stanford, CA: The Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Allwood, J., Andersson, L.-G., & Dahl, Ö. (1977). Logic in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asher, N., Van de Cruys, T., & Abrusán, M. (2015). Lexical semantics today. In Riemer, N. (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Semantics (pp. 169–186). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, A., & Crouch, R. (2002). Glue semantics for HPSG. In van Eynde, F., Hellan, L., & Beermann, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International HPSG Conference, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (3–5 August 2001) (pp. 1–19). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1950). Truth. In Urmson, J. O. & Warnock, G. J. (Eds.), Philosophical Papers of J. L. Austin (3rd ed. 1979) (pp. 117–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5–16.Google Scholar
Bach, E., & Harms, R. T. (Eds.). (1968). Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bach, E. W., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., & Partee, B. H. (Eds.). (1995). Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954a). Indexical expressions. Mind, 63, 359–379.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954b). Logical syntax and semantics. Language, 30, 230–237.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (2003). Lexical semantics. In Nadel, L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barker, C., & Jacobson, P. (Eds.). (2007). Direct Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, R. (1972). The proper treatment of number and numbers in a Montague Grammar. In Rodman, R. (Ed.), Papers in Montague Grammar: Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 2 (pp. 66–79). Los Angeles: Linguistics Department, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. (1981). Scenes and other situations. Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 369–397.Google Scholar
Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. I., Geurts, B., & Denlinger, K. (2021). Presupposition. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/presupposition/Google Scholar
Bennett, M. (1972). Accommodating the plural in Montague’s fragment of English. In Rodman, R. (Ed.), Papers in Montague Grammar: Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 2 (pp. 25–65). Los Angeles: Linguistics Department, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Beth, E. W. (1947). Logical and psychological aspects in the consideration of language. Synthese, 5(11–12), 542–544.Google Scholar
Beth, E. W. (1963). The relationship between formalised languages and natural language. Synthese, 15, 1–16.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (1994). Cross-linguistic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17(1), 53–108.Google Scholar
Brockhaus, K., & von Stechow, A. (1971a). On formal semantics: A new approach. Linguistische Berichte, 11, 7–36.Google Scholar
Brockhaus, K., & von Stechow, A. (1971b). Formale Semantik. In Brockhaus, K. & von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Beiträge zur generativen Grammatik. Referate des 5. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Regensburg, 1970 (pp. 48–64). Braunschweig: Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (2010). Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D. (2016). Intonation and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. (in preparation). Richard Montague: The Simplicity of Language, the Complexity of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1937). The Logical Syntax of Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R., & Bar-Hillel, Y. (1952). An Outline of a Theory of Semantic Information: Technical Report No. 247. Cambridge, MA: Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Champollion, L. (2016). Ten men and women got married today: Noun coordination and the intersective theory of conjunction. Journal of Semantics, 33, 561–622.Google Scholar
Champollion, L., & Krifka, M. (2016). Mereology. In Dekker, P. & Aloni, M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Semantics (pp. 369–388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Charlow, S. (2020). The scope of alternatives: Indefiniteness and islands. Linguistics and Philosophy, 43, 427–472.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1999 [1990]). Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955). Logical syntax and semantics: Their linguistic relevance. Language, 31, 36–45.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971a). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (Eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology (pp. 183–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971b). Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Peters, S. (Ed.), Goals of Linguistic Theory (pp. 63–130). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (originally distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1970).Google Scholar
Church, A. (1951). The need for abstract entities in semantic analysis. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 80(1), 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocchiarella, N. (1997). Formally-oriented work in the philosophy of language. In Canfield, J. V. (Ed.), Philosophy of Meaning, Knowledge and Value in the 20th Century (pp. 39–75). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cooper, R., & Parsons, T. (1976). Montague Grammar, generative semantics, and interpretive semantics. In Partee, B. H. (Ed.), Montague Grammar (pp. 311–362). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cresswell, M. J. (1973). Logics and Languages. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, K. (1972). Two object verbs in a Montague Grammar. In Rodman, R. (Ed.), Papers in Montague Grammar: Occasional Papers in Linguistics No.2 (pp. 127–138). Los Angeles: Linguistics Department, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M., Lowe, J. J., & Mycock, L. (2019). The Oxford Reference Guide to Lexical Functional Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967a). The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N. (Ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action (pp. 81–95). Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967b). Truth and meaning. Synthese, 17, 304–323. Reprinted in A. Martinich (Ed.) (2000). The Philosophy of Language (pp. 416–427). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D., & Harman, G. (Eds.). (1972). Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. (1995). Quantification in correlatives. In Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., & Partee, B. H. (Eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages (pp. 179–206). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Delacruz, E. (1972). Factives and proposition-level constructions in a Montague Grammar. In Rodman, R. (Ed.), Papers in Montague Grammar: Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 2 (pp. 101–126). Los Angeles: Linguistics Department, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1972). Studies in the Logic of Verb Aspect and Time Reference in English. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1978). A Guide to Montague’s PTQ. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dowty, D., Wall, R. E., & Peters, S. Jr. (1981). Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. (1972). Contrastive statements. Philosophical Review, 81, 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 353–375.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Langendoen, D. T. (Eds.). (1971). Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York/Chicago/San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1972). Conceptual Notation, edited and translated by T. W. Bynum. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gamut, L. T. F. (1982). Logika, Taal en Betekenis. Vol 1: Inleiding in de logica. Vol 2: Intensionele logica en logische grammatica. De Meern: Het Spectrum.Google Scholar
Gamut, L. T. F. (1991). Logic, Language, and Meaning. Vol. 1: Introduction to Logic. Vol. 2: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. (1962). Reference and Generality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositioinality. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (pp. 1660–1712). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1968). Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning. Foundations of Language, 4, 1–18. Also in Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words (pp. 117–137). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1988). Context and information in dynamic semantics. In Elsendoorn, B. & Bouma, H. (Eds.), Working Models of Human Perception (pp. 457–488). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (2013). The philosophy–linguistics connection 1967–76. In Baghramian, M. (Ed.), Donald Davidson: Life and Words (pp. 42–45). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, R. A. (1993). The Linguistics Wars. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts; published 1989, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. WCCFL, 2, 114–125.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1990). E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 137–179.Google Scholar
Hellan, L. (1980). Toward an Integrated Theory of Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Heller, J. (1961). Catch-22, a Novel. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Hendriks, H. (2021). Type shifting: The Partee triangle. In Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., & Zimmermann, T. E. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1983). The logic of perceptual reports: An extensional alternative to Situation Semantics. Journal of Philosophy, 80(2), 100–127.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E. (1986). Temporal anaphora in discourses of English. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1980). On the “any”-thesis and the methodology of linguistics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 101–122.Google Scholar
Hintikka, K. J. J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hockney, D., Harper, W. L., & Freed, B. (Eds.). (1975). Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Homer, V. (2021). Negative polarity. In Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., & Zimmermann, T. E. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1969). A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Binnick, R., Davison, A., Green, G., & Morgan, J. (Eds.), CLS 5: Papers from the Fifth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 98–107). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD dissertation. Distributed in 1976 by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1973). Greek Grice: A brief survey of proto-conversational rules in the history of logic. In CLS 9: Papers from the Ninth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 205–214). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (2020). Implicature: A golden anniversary tour. Presented at the DGfS Hamburg, March 2020 Workshop on diversity in pragmatic inferences, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Hughes, G., & Cresswell, M. (1968). An Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. (2012). Direct compositionality. In Werning, M., Hinzen, W., & Machery, E. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality (pp. 109–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. (2014). Compositional Semantics: An Introduction to the Syntax/Semantics Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kadmon, N., & Landman, F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 353–422.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J. A. G., Janssen, T. M. V., & Stokhof, M. B. J. (Eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language; Mathematical Centre Tracts 135 (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Partee, B. H. (Eds.). (2004). Context-Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Rohrer, C. (1983). Tense in texts. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., & von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language (pp. 250–269). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989 [1971]). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–614). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1968). What Do Referential Indices Refer To? Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1971a). Implicative verbs. Language, 47, 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1971b). Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics, 4, 55–69.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 168–193.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–194.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In McCawley, J. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground (pp. 363–385). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1977). Requiem for presupposition. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 3, 266–278.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J., & Postal, P. M. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1969). A Logical Base for a Transformational Grammar of English. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1971a). Names, quantifiers, and a solution to the sloppy identity problem. Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 211–232.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1971b). Quantifier structures in English. Foundations of Language, 7, 225–284.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (Ed.) (1975). Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., & Moss, L. S. (1985). Generalized quantifiers and the expressive power of natural language. In van Benthem, J. & ter Meulen, A. (Eds.), Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, GRASS 4, 73–127. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., & Stavi, J. (1986). A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 253–326.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., & Westerståhl, D. (1997). Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. In van Benthem, J. & ter Meulen, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language (pp. 837–893). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1994). Time in Language. London and New York, Routledge.Google Scholar
Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. J. & Katz, J. A. (Eds.), The Structure of Language (pp. 246–323). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P., & Richter, F. (2021). Semantics. In Müller, S., Abeillé, A., Borsley, R. D., & Koenig, J.-P. (Eds.), Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The Handbook (pp. 1001–1042). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kornai, A., & Kracht, M. (2015). Lexical semantics and model theory: Together at last? In Proceedings of the 14th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (MoL 14), Chicago, USA, July 25–26, 2015 (pp. 51–61). Stroudsberg: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 607–653.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. The Generic Book. Carlson, G. N. and Pelletier, F. J.. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press 125–175.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1998). Scope or pseudo-scope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? Events in Grammar. Rothstein, S.. Dordrecht, Kluwer: 163–196.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2002). “Facts: Particulars or Information Units?”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5–6): 655–670.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2021). Situations in natural language semantics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition).Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2022). David Lewis and his place in the history of formal semantics. In Beebee, H., & Fisher, A. R. J. (Eds.), Perspectives on the Philosophy of David K. Lewis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://works.bepress.com/angelika_kratzer/54/Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1987). Nominal reference and temporal constitution: Towards a semantics of quantity. In Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., & Veltman, F. (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers (= GRASS Series No. 8) (pp. 153–173). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (Ed.). (2005). Discourse topics (Special issue). Theoretical Linguistics, 30(2–3), 163–262.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. F. (Eds.), Semantics of Natural Language (pp. 253–355 and addendum 763–769). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. (1983). Logical form and conditions on grammaticality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6(3), 373–392.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. (1992). Expressing negation. In Barker, C. & Dowty, D. (Eds.), SALT II: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, May 1–3, 1992 (pp. 237–260). Columbus: Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1969). On derivational constraints. In Binnick, R., Davison, A., Green, G., & Morgan, J. (Eds.), CLS 5: Papers from the Fifth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 117–139). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 437–493.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 643–686.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B., & Klima, E. S. (1963). Rules for English pronominalization. Language, 39, 17–28.Google Scholar
Lenci, A., & Sandu, G. (2009). Logic and linguistics in the twentieth century. In Haaparanta, L. (Ed.), The Development of Modern Logic (pp. 775–847). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1968). Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic. Journal of Philosophy, 65, 113–126.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1970). General semantics. Synthese, 22, 18–67.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In Keenan, E. L. (Ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. In Bäuerle, R., Egli, U., & von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Semantics from Different Points of View. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1980). Polarity “any” as an existential quantifier. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. (Eds.), CLS 16: Papers from the Sixteenth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 211–219). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 325–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., & von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language (pp. 303–323). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Link, G. (1987). Algebraic semantics of event structures. In Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., & Veltman, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 243–262). Amsterdam: ITLI.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1968a). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without Deep Structure. In CLS 4: Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 71–80). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1968b). The role of semantics in a grammar. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 124–169). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1968). Pragmatics. In Klibanski, R. (Ed.), Contemporary Philosophy (pp. 102–121). Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1970). Pragmatics and intensional logic. Synthese, 22, 68–94.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Hintikka, K. J. J., Moravcsik, J. M. E., & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Natural Language (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, edited and with an introduction by Thomason, R. H.. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. (1969). On the treatment of presuppositions in transformational grammar. In CLS 5: Papers from the Fifth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp 167–177). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1980). Linguistic Theory in America: The First Quarter Century of Transformational Generative Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nouwen, R. (2016). Plurality. In Aloni, M. & Dekker, P. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics (pp. 267–284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1970). Some problems concerning the logic of grammatical modifiers. Synthese, 21, 320–334.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1972). An Outline of a Semantics of English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B., Sabsay, S. & Soper, J. (1971). Bibliography: Logic and Language,Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1972). Some transformational extensions of Montague Grammar. In Rodman, R. (Ed.), Papers in Montague Grammar: Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 2 (pp. 1–24). Los Angeles: UCLA Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1973a). Comments on Montague’s paper. In Hintikka, K. J. J., Moravcsik, J. M. E., & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Natural Language (pp. 243–258). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1973b). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 70, 601–609.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1975). Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 203–300.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (Ed.). (1976). Montague Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1979). Semantics – mathematics or psychology? In Bäuerle, R., Egli, U., & von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Semantics from Different Points of View (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 243–286.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2011). Formal semantics: Origins, issues, early impact. In Partee, B. H., Glanzberg, M., & Skilters, J. (Eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context, and Models. The Baltic Yearbook of Cognition, Logic, and Communication. Vol. 6 (2010) (pp. 1–52). Manhattan, KS: New Prairie Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2013a). The Amsterdam three and their part in a glorious history In Aloni, M., Franke, M., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), The Dynamic, Inquisitive, and Visionary Life of ϕ, ?ϕ, and ◊ϕ: A Festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2013b). Montague’s “linguistic” work: Motivations, trajectory, attitudes. In Chemla, E., Homer, V., & Winterstein, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, September 8–10 2012 (pp. 427–453). Paris: ENS.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2013c). The starring role of quantifiers in the history of formal semantics. In Punčochář, V. & Švarný, P. (Eds.), The Logica Yearbook 2012 (pp. 113–136). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2015). Asking what a meaning does: David Lewis’s contributions to semantics. In Loewer, B. & Schaffer, J. (Eds.), A Companion to David Lewis (pp. 328–344). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2018). Changing notions of linguistic competence in the history of formal semantics. In Ball, D. & Rabern, B. (Eds.), The Science of Meaning: Essays on the Metatheory of Natural Language Semantics (pp. 172–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (in preparation). The History of Formal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H., Sabsay, S., Soper, J., & Badecker, W. J. (1979). Bibliography: Logic and Language, 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Peters, P. S. Jr., & Ritchie, R. W. (1973). On the generative power of transformational grammars. Information Sciences, 6, 49–83.Google Scholar
Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2006). Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1969). Anaphoric islands. In Binnick, R., Davison, A., Green, G., & Morgan, J. (Eds.), CLS 5: Papers from the Fifth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 205–239). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (2016). Lexical semantics. In Aloni, M. & Dekker, P. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics (pp. 33–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning.” In Gunderson, K. (Ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge (pp. 131–193). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (1990). Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Rodman, R. (Ed.). (1972a). Papers in Montague Grammar. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Rodman, R. (1972b). The proper treatment of relative clauses in a Montague Grammar. In Rodman, R. (Ed.), Papers in Montague Grammar: Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 2 (pp. 80–93). Los Angeles: UCLA Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who? In Binnick, R., Davison, A., Green, G., & Morgan, J. (Eds.), CLS 5: Papers from the Fifth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 252–286). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1903). The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493.Google Scholar
Sailer, M. (2016). The syntax–semantics interface. In Aloni, M. & Dekker, P. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics (pp. 629–663). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1972). On the semantics and syntax of conditionals. In Rodman, R. (Ed.), Papers in Montague Grammar: Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 2 (pp. 139–149). Los Angeles: UCLA Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2015). Lewis on knowledge ascriptions. In Loewer, B. & Schaffer, J. (Eds.), A Companion to David Lewis (pp. 473–490). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Sharvy, R. (1980). A more general theory of definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 89, 607–624.Google Scholar
Srivastav, V. (1991). The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 637–686.Google Scholar
Staal, J. F. (1969). Formal logic and natural languages: A symposium. Foundations of Language, 5, 256–284.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1970). Pragmatics. Synthese, 22(1–2), 272–289.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 447–457.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. & Unger, P. (Eds.), Semantics and Philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2008). Philosophy of language in the twentieth century. In Moran, D. (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Twentieth Century Philosophy (pp. 382–437). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stein, M. (1981). Quantification in Thai. PhD dissertation; available from Graduate Linguistics Students Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59, 320–344.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–375.Google Scholar
Thomason, R., & Stalnaker, R. (1973). A semantic theory of adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 195–220.Google Scholar
Tovena, L. M. (2020). Negative polarity items. In Déprez, V. & Espinal, M. T. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Negation (pp. 391–406). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160.Google Scholar
von Stechow, A. (2012). Syntax and semantics: An overview. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (pp. 2173–2223). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Webber, B. L. (1988). Tense as discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 61–73.Google Scholar
Williams, G. M. Jr. (1979). Review of Studies in Linguistic Semantics, ed. by Fillmore, Charles J., Langendoen, D. Terence. American Speech, 54(1), 58–60.Google Scholar
Winter, Y. (2007). Type shifting with semantic features: A unified perspective. In Barker, C. & Jacobson, P. (Eds.), Direct Compositionality (pp. 164–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wotschke, E.-M. M. (1972). Complementation in a Montague Grammar. In Rodman, R. (Ed.), Papers in Montague Grammar: Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 2 (pp. 94–100). Los Angeles: UCLA Linguistics Department.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×