27 found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: Angelika Kratzer (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
  1. Christopher Potts, Ash Asudeh, Yurie Hara, Eric McCready, Martin Walkow, Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Rajesh Bhatt, Christopher Davis, Angelika Kratzer & Tom Roeper, Expressives and Identity Conditions.
    We present diverse evidence for the claim of Pullum and Rawlins (2007) that expressives behave differently from descriptives in constructions that enforce a particular kind of semantic identity between elements. Our data are drawn from a wide variety of languages and construction types, and they point uniformly to a basic linguistic distinction between descriptive content and expressive content (Kaplan 1999; Potts 2007).
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Angelika Kratzer, A Note on Choice Functions in Context.
    Kratzer 1998 proposes that certain indefinite determiners (at least in some of their uses) might be variables for (Skolemized) choice functions that receive a value from the utterance context. What does it mean for a choice function variable to receive a value from the context of utterance? How can a context provide such a function? To sharpen intuitions, here is an example describing a custom from my home town Mindelheim. After every funeral, all the mourners gathered around the still open (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Angelika Kratzer, Beyond Ouch and Oops. How Descriptive and Expressive Meaning Interact.
    They are expressives, too. There is a phonology. There is a syntax. There is a compositional semantics. There are interesting interactions to investigate. German, Greek, and Papago are known examples of discourse particle languages. Intonation has been said to have similar uses in other languages.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Angelika Kratzer, Building Resultatives.
    Resultatives raise important questions for the syntax-semantics interface, and this is why they have occupied a prominent place in recent linguistic theorizing. What is it that makes this construction so interesting? Resultatives are submitted to a cluster of not obviously related constraints, and this fact calls out for explanation. There are tough constraints for the verb, for example.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Angelika Kratzer, Building Statives.
    The adjectival passive construction that is traditionally called ‘Zustandspassiv’ (‘state passive’) in German seems to have the same syntactic and semantic properties as its English cousin, except that it is easier to identify. German state or adjectival passives select the auxiliary sein (‘be’), and are therefore clearly distinguished from verbal or ‘Vorgangs’- passives (‘process passives’), which use the auxiliary werden (‘get’, ‘become’). In spite of their appearance, German state passives do not form a homogenious class, however. There are two important (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. 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.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Angelika Kratzer, Interpreting Focus: Presupposed or Expressive Meanings? A Comment on Geurts and Van der Sandt.
    The BPR assumes that we already know how sentences are partitioned into focused and backgrounded material, and this is quite legitimate, given the literature on the topic (see e.g. Krifka (1991), von Stechow (1991)). If the BPR was true, no more would have to be said about the meaning of focus. The behavior of whatever inferences are generated by backgrounding could be taken care of by theories dealing with the projection of presuppositions of the familiar kind, the presuppositions of definite (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Angelika Kratzer, Lumps of Thought: A Reply.
    Both Kratzer 1981 (“Partition and Revision”) and Kratzer 1989 (“Lumps of Thought”) assume that the truth of counterfactuals depends on a parameter. The parameter provides a set of propositions that uniquely characterizes the actual world in Kratzer 1981, and a so-called “set of propositions relevant for the truth of counterfactuals” in Kratzer 1989. Both papers try to find empirical constraints for the relevant sets, but - crucially - without characterizing them uniquely. The vagueness and context-dependency of counterfactuals is assumed to (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Angelika Kratzer, On the Plurality of Verbs.
    This paper pursues some of the consequences of the idea that there are (at least) two sources for distributive/cumulative interpretations in English. One source is lexical pluralization: All predicative stems are born as plurals, as Manfred Krifka and Fred Landman have argued. Lexical pluralization should be available in any language and should not depend on the particular make-up of its DPs. I suggest that the other source of cumulative/distributive interpretations in English is directly provided by plural DPs. DPs with plural (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Angelika Kratzer, Phase Theory and Prosodic Spellout: The Case of Verbs.
    In this article we will explore the consequences of adopting recent proposals by Chomsky, according to which the syntactic derivation proceeds in terms of phases. The notion of phase – through the associated notion of spellout – allows for an insightful theory of the fact that syntactic constituents receive default phrase stress not across the board, but as a function of yet-to-be-explicated conditions on their syntactic context. We will see that the phonological evi- dence requires us to modify somewhat the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Angelika Kratzer, Situations in Natural Language Semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Situation semantics was developed as an alternative to possible worlds semantics. In situation semantics, linguistic expressions are evaluated with respect to partial, rather than complete, worlds. There is no consensus about what situations are, just as there is no consensus about what possible worlds or events are. According to some, situations are structured entities consisting of relations and individuals standing in those relations. According to others, situations are particulars. In spite of unresolved foundational issues, the partiality provided by situation semantics (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Kent Bach, Chris Barker, Kai von Fintel, Lyn Frazier, James Isaacs, Angelika Kratzer, Bill Ladusaw, Helen Majewski, Line Mikkelsen & Barbara Partee (2007). 12.1 Direct Compositionality Beyond the Sentence Level. In Chris Barker & Pauline I. Jacobson (eds.), Direct Compositionality. Oxford University Press. 405.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Angelika Kratzer (2005). Constraining Premise Sets for Counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics 22 (2):153-158.
    This note is a reply to ‘On the Lumping Semantics of Counterfactuals’ by Makoto Kanazawa, Stefan Kaufmann and Stanley Peters. It shows first that the first triviality result obtained by Kanazawa, Kaufmann, and Peters is already ruled out by the constraints on admissible premise sets listed in Kratzer (1989). Second, and more importantly, it points out that the results obtained by Kanazawa, Kaufmann, and Peters are obsolete in view of the revised analysis of counterfactuals in Kratzer (1990, 2002).
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Angelika Kratzer (2005). Indefinites and the Operators They Depend On: From Japanese to Salish. In Greg N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Csli. 113--142.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Angelika Kratzer (2005). Indefinites and Their Operators. In Greg N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Csli.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer (2004). Manuscript Submission. Natural Language Semantics 12:129-134.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Angelika Kratzer (2002). Facts: Particulars or Information Units? [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):655-670.
    What are facts, situations, or events? When Situation Semantics was born in the eighties, I objected because I could not swallow the idea that situations might be chunks of information. For me, they had to be particulars like sticks or bricks. I could not imagine otherwise. The first manuscript of “An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought” that I submitted to Linguistics and Philosophy had a footnote where I distanced myself from all those who took possible situations to be units (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
    Written by two of the leading figures in the field, this is a lucid and systematic introduction to semantics as applied to transformational grammars of the ...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. 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.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Hans Kamp, Boem-mo Kang, Paul Kay, Ali Kazmi, Edward L. Keenan, Jeff King, Ewan Klein, Angelika Kratzer, Manfred Krifka & William Ladusaw (1995). 688 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Iwanska, Lucia Johnson, Mark Kadmon, Nirit K~ Ilm~ N, L~ Zlo. Linguistics and Philosophy 18:687-688.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Angelika Kratzer, Manfred Krifka, Bill Ladusaw, Shalom Lappin, Young-Suk Lee, Harold Levin, Godehard Link, Jan Tore LCnning, Peter Ludlow & Bill Lycan (1995). 680 ACKNOWLEDGMENT King, Jeff Klein, Elaine Kobes, Bernie. Linguistics and Philosophy 17:679-680.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Angelika Kratzer (1989). An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (5):607 - 653.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Angelika Kratzer (1986). Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society 22 (2):1–15.
  24. Angelika Kratzer (1981). Blurred Conditionals. In W. Klein & W. Levelt (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics. Reidel. 201--209.
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Angelika Kratzer (1981). Partition and Revision: The Semantics of Counterfactuals. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 10 (2):201 - 216.
    The last section made it clear that an analysis which at first seems to fail is viable after all. It is viable if we let it depend on a partition function to be provided by the context of conversation. This analysis leaves certain traits of the partition function open. I have tried to show that this should be so. Specifying these traits as Pollock does leads to wrong predictions. And leaving them open endows counterfactuals with just the right amount of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Angelika Kratzer (1979). Conditional Necessity and Possibility. In. In Rainer Bäuerle, Urs Egli & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Semantics From Different Points of View. Springer-Verlag. 117--147.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Angelika Kratzer (1977). What 'Must' and 'Can' Must and Can Mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3):337--355.
    In this paper I offer an account of the meaning of must and can within the framework of possible worlds semantics. The paper consists of two parts: the first argues for a relative concept of modality underlying modal words like must and can in natural language. I give preliminary definitions of the meaning of these words which are formulated in terms of logical consequence and compatibility, respectively. The second part discusses one kind of insufficiency in the meaning definitions given in (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation