Why compositionality?
| Abstract | The paper identifies some background assumptions of compositionality in formal semantics and investigates how they shape formal semantics as a scientific discipline. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesMark Siebel (2000). Red Watermelons and Large Elephants: A Case Against Compositionality? Theoria 15 (38):263-280.
Philip Robbins (2002). How to Blunt the Sword of Compositionality. Noûs 36 (2):313-334.
Wlodek Zadrozny (1994). From Compositional to Systematic Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (4):329 - 342.
Peter Pagin (2010). Compositionality II: Arguments and Problems. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):265-282.
Chris Barker & Pauline I. Jacobson (eds.) (2007). Direct Compositionality. Oxford University Press.
Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof (2005). Why Compositionality? In Greg N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Csli.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads13 ( #87,789 of 548,941 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
