Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Over the past few years, there have been a series of attempts Zee89, GS90, EK95, Mus94, KKP95] to combine the Montagovian type theoretic framework Mon74] with dynamic approaches, such as DRT Kam81]. The motivation for these developments is to obtain a general logical framework for discourse semantics that combines compositionality and dynamic binding.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Rafal Urbaniak (2010). Capturing Dynamic Conceptual Frames. Logic Journal of the IGPL 18 (3):430-455.
Gennaro Chierchia (1995). Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. University of Chicago Press.
Myriam Bras & Laure Vieu (eds.) (2001). Semantic and Pragmatic Issues in Discourse and Dialogue: Experimenting with Current Dynamic Theories. Elsevier.
Maria Bittner (2001). Surface Composition as Bridging. Journal of Semantics 18 (2):127-177.
S. J. Barker (1997). E-Type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic Semantics and the Quantifier/Variable-Binding Model. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (2):195-228.
Friederike Moltmann (2006). Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns: E-Type, Dynamic, and Structured-Propositions Approaches. Synthese 153 (2):199 - 260.
Tim Fernando (2001). A Type Reduction From Proof-Conditional to Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (2):121-153.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #247,892 of 754,495 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,163 of 754,495 )
How can I increase my downloads?