This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Subcategories:
74 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 74
Material to categorize
  1. Barbara Abbott (2006). Definite and Indefinite. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier 3--392.
  2. Ken Akiba (2009). A New Theory of Quantifiers and Term Connectives. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 18 (3):403-431.
    This paper sets forth a new theory of quantifiers and term connectives, called shadow theory , which should help simplify various semantic theories of natural language by greatly reducing the need of Montagovian proper names, type-shifting, and λ-conversion. According to shadow theory, conjunctive, disjunctive, and negative noun phrases such as John and Mary , John or Mary , and not both John and Mary , as well as determiner phrases such as every man , some woman , and the boys (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds.) (1995). Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer.
    This extended collection of papers is the result of putting recent ideas on quantification to work on a wide variety of languages.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  4. Sigrid Beck (2001). Reciprocals Are Definites. Natural Language Semantics 9 (1):69-138.
    This paper proposes that elementary reciprocal sentences have four semantic readings: a strongly reciprocal interpretation, a weakly reciprocal interpretation, a situation-based weakly reciprocal reading, and a collective reading. Interpretational possibilities of reciprocal sentences that have been discussed in the literature are identified as one of these four. A compositional semantic analysis of all of these readings is provided in which the reciprocal expression is uniformly represented as 'the other ones among them' (recasting Heim, Lasnik and May 1991a, b). A reciprocal (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  5. Maria Bittner & Ken Hale (1995). Remarks on Definiteness in Warlpiri. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer
    In this paper, we discuss some rather puzzling facts concerning the semantics of Warlpiri expressions of cardinality, i.e. the Warlpiri counterparts of English expressions like one,two, many, how many. The morphosyntactic evidence, discussed in section 1, suggests that the corresponding expressions in Warlpiri are nominal, just like the Warlpiri counterparts of prototypical nouns, eg. child. We also argue that Warlpiri has no articles or any other items of the syntactic category D(eterminer). In section 2, we describe three types of readings— (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6. Berit Brogaard (2007). Descriptions: Predicates or Quantifiers? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (1):117 – 136.
    In this paper I revisit the main arguments for a predicate analysis of descriptions in order to determine whether they do in fact undermine Russell's theory. I argue that while the arguments without doubt provide powerful evidence against Russell's original theory, it is far from clear that they tell against a quantificational account of descriptions.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  7. Dylan Bumford & Chris Barker (2013). Association with Distributivity and the Problem of Multiple Antecedents for Singular Different. Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (5):355-369.
    Brasoveanu (Linguist Philos 34:93–168, 2011) argues that “different” exhibits what he calls association with distributivity: a distributive operator such as “each” creates a two-part context that propagates through the compositional semantics in a way that can be accessed by a subordinate “different”. We show that Brasoveanu’s analysis systematically undergenerates, failing to provide interpretations of sentences such as “Every1 boy claimed every girl read a different1 poem”, in which “different” can associate with a non-local distributive operator. We provide a generalized version (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8. John Campbell (2001). Memory Demonstratives. In Christoph Hoerl & Teresa McCormark (eds.), Time and Memory. Oxford University Press 177--194.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  9. Greg N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.) (2005). Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Csli.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Demetra Christopoulou, How to Deal with Janus'face of Natural Numbers?
    This paper addresses a dilemma arising from the linguistic behaviour of arithmetical expressions in two basic ways: they occur, either as singular terms in identity statements or as predicates of concepts in adjectival statements. However, those forms of syntactical behaviour give rise to opposite accounts of the ontological status of natural numbers. The substantival use of arithmetical expressions is associated with the interpretation of natural numbers as abstract particulars while the adjectival use of arithmetical expressions ordinarily supports the interpretation of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Elizabeth Coppock & David Beaver (2015). Definiteness and Determinacy. Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (5):377-435.
    This paper distinguishes between definiteness and determinacy. Definiteness is seen as a morphological category which, in English, marks a uniqueness presupposition, while determinacy consists in denoting an individual. Definite descriptions are argued to be fundamentally predicative, presupposing uniqueness but not existence, and to acquire existential import through general type-shifting operations that apply not only to definites, but also indefinites and possessives. Through these shifts, argumental definite descriptions may become either determinate or indeterminate. The latter option is observed in examples like (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Eros Corazza (2011). Lndexicals and Demonstratives. In Marina Sbisà, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives for Pragmatics. John Benjamins Pub. Co. 10--131.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Eros Corazza (2003). Demonstratives Qua Singular Terms. Erkenntnis 59:263-283.
    In a recent book, Jeffrey King argues that complex demonstratives, i.e., noun phrases of the form 'this/that _F', are not singular terms. As such, they are not devices of direct reference contributing the referent to the proposition expressed. In this essay I challenge King's position and show how a direct reference view can handle the data he proposes in favor of the quantificational account. I argue that when a complex demonstrative cannot be interpreted as a singular term, it is best (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14. H. Diesse (2006). Demonstratives. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Elizabeth Ferch (2013). Scopeless Quantity Words in Shona. Natural Language Semantics 21 (4):373-400.
    In Shona , bare plurals and bare singulars seem to have different scope possibilities with respect to a class of modifiers which I term “scopeless quantity words” few’, and ose ‘all’). I argue that this is due to two factors. First, the scopeless quantity words are intersective modifiers rather than quantifying determiners, so that DPs containing them denote entities rather than generalised quantifiers. Second, transitive sentences involving plural arguments are usually interpreted using the **-operator, which gives a cumulative (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Byeong-Uk Yi Glaister (1998). Numbers and Relations. Erkenntnis 49 (1):93-113.
    In this paper, I criticize John Bigelow's account of number and present my own account that results from the criticism. In doing so, I argue that proper understanding of the nature of number requires a radical departure from the standard conception of language and reality and outline the alternative conception that underlies my account of number. I argue that Bigelow's account of number rests on an incorrect analysis of the plural constructions underlying the talk of number and propound an analysis (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  17. Alexander Grosu & Fred Landman (1998). Strange Relatives of the Third Kind. Natural Language Semantics 6 (2):125-170.
    In this paper, we argue that there are more kinds of relative clause constructions between the linguistic heaven and earth than are dreamed of in the classical lore, which distinguishes just restrictive relative clauses and appositives. We start with degree relatives. Degree, or amount, relatives show restrictions in the relativizers they allow, in the determiners that can combine with them, and in their stacking possibilities. To account for these facts, we propose an analysis with two central, and novel, features: First, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  18. Martin Hackl & Jon Nissenbaum (2012). A Modal Ambiguity in for-Infinitival Relative Clauses. Natural Language Semantics 20 (1):59-81.
    This squib presents two puzzles related to an ambiguity found in for-infinitival relative clauses (FIRs). FIRs invariably receive a modal interpretation even in the absence of any overt modal verb. The modal interpretation seems to come in two distinct types, which can be paraphrased by finite relative clauses employing the modal auxiliaries should and could. The two puzzles presented here arise because the availability of the two readings is constrained by factors that are not otherwise known to affect the interpretation (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Sören Halldén (1948). Certain Problems Connected with the Definitions of Identity and of Definite Descriptions Given in Principia Mathematica. Analysis 9 (2):29 - 33.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Daniel Hardt & Line Mikkelsen (2015). Same but Different. Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (4):289-314.
    In this paper, we argue that same is fundamentally different from different, in that same imposes a discourse condition on eventualities, while different compares individuals. This difference has not been noted in previous literature. Furthermore, in the literature on same, there has been a persistent puzzle about the contribution of the definite article with which same must co-occur. We show that this puzzle is resolved once the contribution of same is adjusted to apply to eventualities: then the definite article can (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Rebecca Hasselbach (2007). Demonstratives in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 127 (1):1-27.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. John A. Hawkins (1980). Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (3):419-427.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  23. Caroline Heycock (2005). On the Interaction of Adjectival Modifiers and Relative Clauses. Natural Language Semantics 13 (4):359-382.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  24. Thomas Hofweber (2005). Number Determiners, Numbers, and Arithmetic. Philosophical Review 114 (2):179-225.
    In his groundbreaking Grundlagen, Frege (1884) pointed out that number words like ‘four’ occur in ordinary language in two quite different ways and that this gives rise to a philosophical puzzle. On the one hand ‘four’ occurs as an adjective, which is to say that it occurs grammatically in sentences in a position that is commonly occupied by adjectives. Frege’s example was (1) Jupiter has four moons, where the occurrence of ‘four’ seems to be just like that of ‘green’ in (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  25. Kyle Johnson, Determiners,.
    talk presented at On Linguistic Interfaces, Ulster, June 2007.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. David Kaplani (2013). 6. Demonstratives. In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. Broadview Press 83.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  27. Ed Keenan, Determiners, Adjectives and a Query of Von Benthem's.
    In this note I provide an answer to an apparently technical query by van Benthem (1986; 67) concerning denotations of English expressions. The answer turns out to be revealing of some systematic semantic differences associated with certain categories of expression. The categories of interest to us are illustrated in (1a) and given an extensional type theoretic analysis in (1b).
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Edward L. Keenan & Jonathan Stavi (1986). A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (3):253 - 326.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   53 citations  
  29. Jeffrey C. King (1994). Anaphora and Operators. Philosophical Perspectives 8:221-250.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  30. Angelika Kratzer, Decomposing Attitude Verbs.
    I will assume (without explicitly argue for it here) that the verb’s external argument is not an argument of the verb root itself, but is introduced by a separate head in a neo-Davidsonian way. The content argument can be saturated by DPs denoting the kinds of things that can be believed or reported.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  31. Manfred Krifka (2007). The Gifted Mathematician That You Claim to Be: Equational Intensional 'Reconstruction' Relatives. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (4):445 - 485.
    This paper investigates relative constructions as in The gifted mathematician that you claim to be should be able to solve this equation, in which the head noun is semantically dependent on an intensional operator in the relative clause , even though it is not c-commanded by it. This is the kind of situation that has led, within models of linguistic description that assume a syntactic level of Logical Form, to analyses in which the head noun is interpreted within the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Richard Larson & Sungeun Cho (2003). Temporal Adjectives and the Structure of Possessive DPs. Natural Language Semantics 11 (3):217-247.
    The presence of temporal adjectives in possessive nominals like John's former car creates two interpretations. On one reading, the temporal adjective modifies the common noun (N-modifying reading). On the other, it modifies the possession relation (POSS-modifying reading). An explanation for this behavior is offered that appeals to what occurs in possessive sentences like John has a former car (N-modifying reading) and John formerly had a car (POSS-modifying reading). In the sentential cases, the source of two readings is two distinct, modifiable (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Peter Lasersohn (1999). Generalized Distributive Operators. Linguistics and Philosophy 21:83-93.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Peter Ludlow (1995). The Logical Form of Determiners. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24 (1):47 - 69.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  35. Louise McNally (1999). Anna Szabolcsi, Ways of Scope Taking. Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (5):563-571.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Linda M. Moxey & Anthony J. Sanford (1998). Complement Set Reference and Quantifiers. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1--4.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Ethan Nowak (2014). Demonstratives Without Rigidity or Ambiguity. Linguistics and Philosophy 37 (5):409-436.
    Most philosophers recognize that applying the standard semantics for complex demonstratives to non-deictic instances results in truth conditions that are anomalous, at best. This fact has generated little concern, however, since most philosophers treat non-deictic demonstratives as marginal cases, and believe that they should be analyzed using a distinct semantic mechanism. In this paper, I argue that non-deictic demonstratives cannot be written off; they are widespread in English and foreign languages, and must be treated using the same semantic machinery that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Michael Pendlebury (1984). How Demonstratives Denote. Southern Journal of Philosophy 22 (1):91-104.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  39. John Perry (2009). Hintikka on Demonstratives. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4:369-382.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Paul Pietroski, Monadic Determiners: Quantification and Thematic Separation.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.) (2004). Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
    In 1905, Bertrand Russell published 'On Denoting' in which he proposed and defended a quantificational account of definite descriptions. Forty-five years later, in 'On Referring', Peter Strawson claimed that Russell was mistaken: definite descriptions do not function as quantifiers but (paradigmatically) as referring expressions. Ever since, scores of theorists have attempted to adjudicate this debate. Others have gone beyond the question of the proper analysis of definite descriptions, focusing instead on the complex relations between definites, indefinites, and pronouns. These relations (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42. Craige Roberts (2003). Uniqueness in Definite Noun Phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (3):287-350.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   29 citations  
  43. Tobias Rosefeldt (2008). 'That'-Clauses and Non-Nominal Quantification. Philosophical Studies 137 (3):301 - 333.
    This paper argues that ‘that’-clauses are not singular terms (without denying that their semantical values are propositions). In its first part, three arguments are presented to support the thesis, two of which are defended against recent criticism. The two good arguments are based on the observation that substitution of ‘the proposition that p’ for ‘that p’ may result in ungrammaticality. The second part of the paper is devoted to a refutation of the main argument for the claim that ‘that’-clauses are (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  44. Florian Schwarz (2012). Situation Pronouns in Determiner Phrases. Natural Language Semantics 20 (4):431-475.
    It is commonly argued that natural language has the expressive power of quantifying over intensional entities, such as times, worlds, or situations. A standard way of modelling this assumes that there are unpronounced but syntactically represented variables of the corresponding type. Not all that much as has been said, however, about the exact syntactic location of these variables. Meanwhile, recent work has highlighted a number of problems that arise because the interpretive options for situation pronouns seem to be subject (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45. Daniel Sedey (1971). How Quine Eliminates Demonstratives. Journal of Philosophy 68 (13):409-412.
  46. Yili Shi (2009). Part Iiic. Aspects of Demonstratives: On Chinese Numeral Yi and Demonstrative Determiner Na Versus English a and The: A Contrastive Analysis in a Discourse-Pragmatics Perspective. In Dingfang Shu & Ken Turner (eds.), Contrasting Meanings in Languages of the East and West. Peter Lang
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. A. Sierszulska (2006). On Tichy's Determiners and Zalta's Abstract Objects. Axiomathes 16 (4):486-498.
    It is not a common practice to postulate meaning entities treated as objects of some kind. The paper demonstrates two ways of introducing meaning-objects in two logics of natural language, Tichy’s Transparent Intensional Logic and Zalta’s Intensional Logic of Abstract Objects. Tichy’s theory belongs to the Fregean line of thinking, with what he calls ‘constructions’ as Fregean senses, and ‘determiners’ as object-like meaning entities constructed by the senses. Zalta’s theory belongs to Meinongian logics and he postulates a rich realm of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Luca Storto, Agreement in Maasai and the Syntax of Possessive DPs (I).
    Possessive DPs are “complex” in the sense that they involve two distinct nominal expressions as components.1 In this paper I address the issue of characterizing the nature of the syntactic relation holding between these two nominal expressions in possessives whose possessum is arguably not a syntactic argument-taking category. This amounts to providing an account of what licenses the insertion of the possessor in the derivation of possessive DPs and in accounting for any further steps in the syntactic derivation which lead (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Luca Storto, Agreement in Maasai and the Syntax of Possessive DPs (II).
    Possessives are “complex” DPs: they involve two distinct nominal expressions as components.1 In this paper I address the issue of characterizing the nature of the syntactic relation holding between these two nominal expressions in possessives whose possessum is arguably not a syntactic argument-taking category. This task can be divided into two parts: (i) providing an account of what licenses the insertion of the possessor in the derivation of possessive DPs and (ii) accounting for any further steps in the syntactic derivation (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Kjell Johan Sæbø (2009). Possession and Pertinence: The Meaning of Have. [REVIEW] Natural Language Semantics 17 (4):369-397.
    The meaning of have is notoriously difficult to define; sometimes it seems to denote possession, but often, it seems to denote nothing, only to complicate composition. This paper focuses on the cases where have embeds a small clause, proposing that all it accomplishes is abstraction, turning the small clause into a predicate. This analysis is extended to the cases where have appears to embed DPs: These objects are interpreted as small clauses as well, with implicit predicates denoting possession or—with relational (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 74