Element contents
Series: Elements in Semantics
Reduction and Unification in Natural Language Ontology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2024
Summary
Semantic theories for natural language assume many different kinds of objects, including (among many others) individuals, properties, events, degrees, and kinds. Formal type-theoretic semantics tames this 'zoo' of objects by assuming only a small number of ontologically primitive categories and by obtaining the objects of all other categories through constructions out of these primitives. This Element surveys arguments for this reduction of semantic categories. It compares the ontological commitments of different such reductions and establishes relations between competing foundational semantic ontologies. In doing so, it yields insights into the requirements on minimal semantic ontologies for natural language and the challenges for semantic ontology engineering.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in SemanticsOnline ISBN: 9781009559683Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 16 January 2025
References
Alexeyenko, S. (2015). The Syntax and Semantics of Manner Modification: Adjectives and adverbs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Osnabrück.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1980). Nominalism and realism, Vol. 1: Universals and scientific realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse (Vol. 50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. (1977). An extension of classical transformational grammar. In Problems in Linguistic Metatheory: Proceedings of the 1976 conference at Michigan State University. Michiganf.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1980). In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3(3), 297–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. (1986a). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. (1986b). Natural language metaphysics. In Marcus, R. B., Dorn, G. J. W., & Weingartner, P. (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VII (pp. 573–593). Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. (1981). Scenes and other situations. Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 369–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J. (1997). Information and impossibilities. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38(4), 488–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, S. (1996). The coordination of unlike categories. Language, 72(3), 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beck, S., Krasikova, S., Fleischer, D., Gergel, R., Hofstetter, S., Savelsberg, C., Vanderelst, J., & Villalta, E. (2009). Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 9, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Avi, G., & Winter, Y. (2007). The semantics of intensionalization. In Muskens, R. (Ed.), Workshop on New Directions in Type-Theoretic Grammars (pp. 98–112).Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. (2017, 12). Person agreement, Austinian propositions, and anchoring to the context. ms. online.Google Scholar
Bochnak, R. (2015). The degree semantics parameter and cross-linguistic variation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(6), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondarenko, T. (2022). Anatomy of an Attitude (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (2005). Frege on sense and linguistic meaning. In Truth, Thought, Reason: Essays on Frege (pp. 242–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cariani, F. (in press). Future displacement and modality. In Lepore, E. & Stojnic, U. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. (1998). Thematic roles and the individuation of events. In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Events and Grammar (pp. 35–51). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1988). Meaning and Necessity: A study in semantics and modal logic (Vol. 30). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Champollion, L. (2017). Parts of a Whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlow, S. (2014). On the Semantics of Exceptional Scope (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York.Google Scholar
Charlow, S., & Bumford, D. (2025). Effect-driven interpretation: Functors for natural language composition (Ginzburg, J. & Lassiter, D., Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chatzikyriakidis, S., Cooper, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Sutton, P. R. (2025). Theories of Types and the Structure of Meaning (Ginzburg, J. & Lassiter, D., Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chatzikyriakidis, S., & Luo, Z. (2020). Formal Semantics in Modern Type Theories (Vol. 2; Retoré, C., Ed.). Wiley.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1984). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G., & Turner, R. (1988). Semantics and property theory. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11(3), 261–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. (1940). A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5(2), 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. (1951). A formulation of the logic of sense and denotation. In Henle, P. (Ed.), Structure, Method, and Meaning (pp. 3–24). New York: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9), 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2018). Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Roelofsen, F., & Theiler, N. (2017). Composing alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. (2012). Type theory and semantics in flux. In Kempson, R., Fernando, T., & Asher, N. (Eds.), Philosophy of Linguistics (Vol. 14, pp. 271–323). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R., & Ginzburg, J. (2015). Type theory with records for natural language semantics. In Lappin, S. & Fox, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 375–407). Malden, MA: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M. J. (1976). The semantics of degree. In Partee, B. (Ed.), Montague Grammar (pp. 261–292). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, H. B. (1961). Some logical aspects of grammatical structure. In Jakobson, R. (Ed.), Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects (Vol. 12). Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1977). The method of truth in metaphysics. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2(1), 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (2001). The logical form of action sentences. In Essays on Actions and Events: Philosophical essays of Donald Davidson (pp. 105–121). Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. (2022). On Chierchia’s ‘Reference to kinds across languages’. In A Reader’s Guide to Classic Papers in Formal Semantics (pp. 69–88). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Groote, P., & Kanazawa, M. (2013). A note on intensionalization. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 22, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degtyarenko, K., de Matos, P., Ennis, M., Hastings, J., Zbinden, M., McNaught, A., Alcántara, R., Darsow, M., Guedj, M., & Ashburner, M. (2008). Chebi: A database and ontology for chemical entities of biological interest. Nucleic Acids Research, 36, D344–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dik, S. C. (1975). The semantic representation of manner adverbials. In Kraak, A. (Ed.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1972–1973 (pp. 96–121). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Elliott, P. (2017). Elements of Clausal Embedding (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University College London, London.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2021). Intensional Semantics: Lecture notes for advanced semantics. https://github.com/fintelkai/fintel-heim-intensional-notes.Google Scholar
Fox, C., Lappin, S., & Pollard, C. (2002). A higher-order fine-grained logic for intensional semantics. In Alberti, G., Balough, K., & Dekker, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium for Logic and Language (pp. 37–46). Pecs, Hungary.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1997). Über Sinn und Bedeutung [On Sinn und Bedeutung]. In Beaney, M. (Ed.), The Frege Reader (pp. 151–171). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gajewski, J. R. (2007). Neg-raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(3), 289–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Gehrke, B., & Castroviejo, E. (2015). Manner and degree: An introduction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33, 745–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (1995). Resolving questions, II. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18(5), 567–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (2005). Situation semantics: The ontological balance sheet. Research on Language and Computation, 3(2), 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (2008). Situation semantics and the ontology of natural language. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: Theories (pp. 267–294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grimm, S., & McNally, L. (2022). Nominalization and natural language ontology. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8(1), 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1979). Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(2), 279–326.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1989). Type-shifting rules and the semantics of interrogatives. In Chierchia, G., Partee, B., & Turner, R. (Eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning (Vol. II, pp. 21–68). Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, J. A. G., & Stokhof, M. J. B. (1984). Studies on the Ssemantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Güngör, H. (2022). That solution to Prior’s puzzle. Philosophical Studies, 179, 2765–2785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunter, C. (1992). Semantics of Programming Languages: Structures and Techniques. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of Modality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1976). Questions in Montague English. In Partee, B. (Ed.), Montague Grammar (pp. 247–259). Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausser, R., & Zaefferer, D. (1978). Questions and answers in a context-dependent Montague grammar. In Guenthner, F. & Schmidt, S. J. (Eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages (pp. 339–358). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 10, 40–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, H. (1993). Studied Flexibility (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hendriks, H. (2020). Type shifting: The Partee triangle. In Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., & Zimmermann, T. E. (Eds.), The Companion to Semantics. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Henkin, L. (1963). A theory of propositional types. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1975). Impossible possible worlds vindicated. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4, 475–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kac, M. B. (1992). A simplified theory of Boolean semantic types. Journal of Semantics, 9(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1976). How to Russell a Frege-Church. Journal of Philosophy, 72(19), 716–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(1), 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (2015). Individuals explained away. In Bianchi, A. (Ed.), On Reference (pp. 384–402). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (2018). Eliminating the Universe: Logical properties of natural language. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L., & Faltz, L. M. (1985). Boolean Semantics for Natural Language (Vol. 23). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-B. (2008). Grammatical interfaces in English object extraposition. Linguistic Research, 25(3), 117–131.Google Scholar
Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E., & Sag, I. A. (1985). Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8(2), 163–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 607–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In von Stechow, A. & Wunderlich, D. (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639–650). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. & Zaring, L. (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2002). Facts: particulars or information units? Linguistics and Philosophy, 5–6(25), 655–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2013). Modality for the 21st century. In 19th International Congress of Linguists (pp. 181–201).Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2019). Situations in natural language semantics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Summer 2019 edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution: Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(5), 487–520.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Events and Grammar (pp. 197–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, U. (2002). Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, F. (1996). Plurality. In Lappin, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantics (pp. 425–457). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Landman, M. (2006). Variables in Natural Language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2012). Quantificational and modal interveners in degree constructions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 22, 565–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1972). General semantics. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (Eds.), Semantics of Natural Language (Vol. 40, pp. 169–218). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61(4), 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K. (2014). A Single-Type Semantics for Natural Language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Liefke, K. (2017). Relating intensional semantic theories: Established methods and surprising results. In Arai, S., Kojima, K., Mineshima, K., et al. (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10838). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Liefke, K. (2020). Content individuals, truthmaking conditions, and the formal semantics of attitude reports. Theoretical Linguistics, 46(3–4), 267–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K. (2021). Modelling selectional super-flexibility. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 31, 324–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K. (2023a). Meaning-driven selectional restrictions in the difference between remember versus imagine whether. In Loukanova, R. et al. (Eds.), Logic and Algorithms in Computational Linguistics 2021 (LAComp Ling2021) (Vol. 1081, pp. 2–27). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Liefke, K. (2023b). Two kinds of English non-manner how-clauses. In Umbach, C. & Jedrzejowski, L. (Eds.), Non-Interrogative Subordinate wh-Clauses (pp. 24–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K. (2024a). Intensionality and propositionalism. Annual Review of Linguistics, 10, 4.1–4.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K. (2024b). Natural Language Ontology and Semantic Theory (Ginzburg, J. & Lassiter, D., Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K., & Werning, M. (2018). Evidence for single-type semantics: An alternative to /-based dual-type semantics. Journal of Semantics, 35(4), 639–685.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. (2017). Sentential subjects in English and Norwegian. In Lohndal, T. (Ed.), Formal Grammar (pp. 175–202). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, C. (2011). Event semantics. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics (Vol. 33, pp. 802–829). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin-Löf, P. (1975). An intuitionistic theory of types. In Rose, H. & Shepherdson, J. (Eds.), Logic Colloquium (pp. 73–118). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2006). Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(6), 673–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, C. (2019). Triviality and interrogative embedding: Context sensitivity, factivity, and neg-raising. Natural Language Semantics, 27(3), 227–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1973). Comparative Constructions in English: A syntactic and semantic analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester.Google Scholar
McNally, L. (1992). An Interpretation for the English Existential Constructions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
McNally, L., & Boleda, G. (2004). Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. In Bonami, O. & Hofherr, P. Cabredo (Eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 5, pp. 179–196).Google Scholar
Meixner, U. (2011). Einführung in die Ontologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (1995). Exception sentences and polyadic quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 223–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2003). Propositional attitudes without propositions. Synthese, 135(1), 77–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2013). Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2017). Attitude reports, cognitive products, and attitudinal objects: A response to G. Felappi ‘On product-based accounts of attitudes’. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 6(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2020). Truthmaker semantics for natural language. Theoretical Linguistics, 46(3–4), 159–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2022). Natural language ontology. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022). Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1969). On the nature of certain philosophical entities. The Monist, 53(2), 159–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Hintikka, J. et al. (Eds.), Approaches to Natural Language (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. (1974). English as a formal language. In Thomason, R. H. (Ed.), Formal Philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague (pp. 188–221). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Moulton, K. (2015). CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(2), 305–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muskens, R. (2005). Sense and the computation of reference. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 473–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muskens, R. (2011). Type-logical semantics. In Craig, E. (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy online. London: Routledge. www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/type-logical-semantics/v-1.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., van de Koot, H., & Doetjes, J. (2004). Degree expressions. Linguistic Review, 21, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özyildiz, D., Qing, C., Roelofsen, F., et al. (2022, 04). Cross-linguistic patterns in the selectional restrictions of preferential predicates. Slides from a talk at GLOW 45.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1970). An analysis of mass and amount terms. Foundations of Language, 6, 362–388.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1983). Compositionality. Ms (Tech. Rep.). Nijmegen: Max-Planck-Institute of Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Groenendijk, J. et al. (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1992). Syntactic categories and semantic type. In Rosner, M. & Johnson, R. (Eds.), Computational Linguistics and Formal Semantics (pp. 97–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B., & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Partee, B. & Portner, P. (Eds.), Formal Semantics: The essential readings (pp. 334–356). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Perry, J. (1986). Possible worlds and subject matter: Discussion of Barbara H. Partee’s paper ‘Possible worlds in model-theoretic semantics: A linguistic perspective’. In Sture, A. (Ed.), Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences: Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium (Vol. 65, pp. 124–137). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Piñón, C. (1997). Achievements in an event semantics. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 7, 276–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñón, C. (2007). Aspectual composition with degrees. In McNally, L. & Kennedy, C. (Eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, semantics and discourse (pp. 183–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Piñón, C. (2008). From properties to manners: A historical line of thought about manner adverbs. Linguistic Society of Belgium, 3, 1–14.Google Scholar
Plummer, A., & Pollard, C. (2012). Agnostic possible worlds semantics. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, LACL 2012 (Vol. 7351, pp. 201–212). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C. (2008). Hyperintensions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 18(2), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C. (2015). Agnostic hyperintensional semantics. Synthese, 192, 535–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, C. (2002). The lexical semantics of parenthical as and appositive which. Syntax, 5(1), 55–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. (1963). Symposium: Oratio obliqua. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 37, 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rantala, V. (1982). Quantified modal logic: Non-normal worlds and propositional attitudes. Studia Logica, 41, 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rett, J. (2018). A typology of semantic entities. Handout from a talk in the PhLiP seminar. https://rett.humspace.ucla.edu/Rett%202020%20semantic%20entities.pdf.Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2022). A typology of semantic entities. In Altshuler, D. (Ed.), Linguistics meets Philosophy (pp. 277–301). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, K. (2016). Can semantics guide ontology? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 94(1), 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofsen, F. (2013). Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese, 190(1), 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2012). Reconsidering the construct state in modern Hebrew. Rivista di Linguistica, 24(2), 227–266.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. (1999). Syntactic Theory: A formal approach. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schäfer, M. (2006). German Adverbial Adjectives: Syntactic position and semantic interpretation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Schäfer, M. (2008). Resolving scope in manner modification. In Bonami, O. & Hofherr, P. Cabredo (Eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 7, pp. 351–372). Paris: CSSP.Google Scholar
Schönfinkel, M. (1924). Über die Bausteine der mathematischen Logik. Mathematische Annalen, 92, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, S. (1993). Modal situation theory. In Aczel, P., Israel, D., Peters, S., & Katagiri, Y. (Eds.), Situation Theory and its Applications (Vol. 3, pp. 163–187). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stone, M. (1997). An Anaphoric Parallel between Modality and Tense (Tech. Rep.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science.Google Scholar
Sutton, P. R. (2024). Types and type theories in natural language analysis. Annual Review of Linguistics, 10, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theiler, N., Roelofsen, F., & Aloni, M. (2018). A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 409–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theiler, N., Roelofsen, F., & Aloni, M. (2019). Picky predicates: Why believe doesn’t like interrogative complements, and other puzzles. Natural Language Semantics, 27(2), 95–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, R. H. (1980). A model theory for the propositional attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uegaki, W. (2016). Content nouns and the semantics of question-embedding. Journal of Semantics, 33(4), 623–660.Google Scholar
Uegaki, W. (2019). The semantics of question-embedding predicates. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(1), e12308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uegaki, W., & Sudo, Y. (2019). The *hope-wh puzzle. Natural Language Semantics, 27(4), 323–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umbach, C., & Ebert, C. (2009). German demonstrative so: Intensifying and hedging effects. Sprache und Datenverabeitung (International Journal for Language Data Processing), 1–2, 153–168.Google Scholar
Umbach, C., Hinterwimmer, S., & Gust, H. (2022). German wie-complements: Manners, methods and events in progress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 40, 307–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967a). Causal relations. Journal of Philosophy, 64(21), 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967b). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3(1), 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, A. S. (2021). On believing and hoping whether. Semantics and Pragmatics, 14(6), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Y. (2002). Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics: The interpretation of coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Y. (2016). Elements of Formal Semantics: An introduction to the mathematical theory of meaning in natural language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalta, E. N. (1997). A classically-based theory of impossible worlds. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38(4), 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R. (1995). Layers in the Determiner Phrase (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T. E. (1985). Remarks on Groenendijk and Stokhof’s theory of indirect questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8(4), 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, T. E. (1989). Intensional logic and two-sorted type theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 54(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, T. E. (2017). Intensionale Semantik. In Kompa, N. (Ed.), Handbuch Sprachphilosophie (pp. 187–197). Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T. E. (2020). Towards a general theory of type shifting. Invited talk at Semantics and Linguistic Theory 30. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T. E. (2022). On Montague’s ‘The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English’. In McNally, L. & Szabo, Z. G. (Eds.), A Reader’s Guide to Classic Papers in Formal Semantics (pp. 331–366). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, T. E. (2023). A compositional version of Kaplan’s theorem. Ms. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T. E., & Sternefeld, W. (2013). Introduction to Semantics: An essential guide to the composition of meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuber, R. (1982). Semantic restrictions on certain complementizers. 13th International Congress of Linguists (pp. 434–436). Tokyo.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this Element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 4
- Cited by