References mentioned in the text

• Austin, J. L., 1950, Truth. Philosophical Papers (3rd ed. 1979): 117–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Bach, E., 1986, “The Algebra of Events,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 9: 5–16. (Scholar)
• Barwise, J., 1981, “Scenes and Other Situations,” The Journal of Philosophy, 78: 369–97. (Scholar)
• –––, 1988, The Situation in Logic. Stanford: CSLI. (Scholar)
• Barwise, J. & Perry, J., 1983, Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Scholar)
• Barwise, J. & Etchemendy, J., 1987, The Liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Barwise, J. & Seligman, J., 1997, Information Flow. The Logic of Distributed Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Benthem, J. F. A. K. van, 1977, “Tense Logic and Standard Logic,” Logique et Analyse, 80: 395–437. (Scholar)
• Berman, S., 1987, “Situation-Based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification,” Issues in Semantics (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Volume 12), J. Blevins & A. Vainikka (eds.), Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association (GSLA), University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 45–68. (Scholar)
• Bonomi, A. & Casalegno, P., 1993, “Only: Association with Focus in Event Semantics,” Natural Language Semantics, 2: 1–45. (Scholar)
• Carnap, R., 1947, Meaning and Necessity, Chicago: Chicago University Press. (Scholar)
• Casati, R. & Varzi, A., 1999, Parts and Places. The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge/Mass.: The MIT Press. (Scholar)
• Cipria, A. and Roberts, C., 2000, “Spanish Imperfecto and Pretérito: Truth Conditions and Aktionsart Effects in a Situation Semantics,” Natural Language Semantics, 8: 297–347. (Scholar)
• Cooper, R., 1996, “The Role of Situations in Generalized Quantifiers,” Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. by S. Lappin: 65–86. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. (Scholar)
• –––, 1997, “Austinian Propositions, Davidsonian Events and Perception Complements,” The Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation: Selected Papers, J. Ginzburg, Z. Khasidashvili, J. J. Levy & E. Vallduví (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 19–34. (Scholar)
• Cresswell, M., 1990, Entities and Indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Scholar)
• Cresswell, M. & Stechow, A. von, 1982, “De re Belief Generalized,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 5: 503–35. (Scholar)
• Davidson, D., 1967a, “The Logical Form of Action Sentences,” The Logic of Decision and Action, N. Rescher (ed.), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 81–95. (Scholar)
• –––, 1967b, “Causal Relations,” Journal of Philosophy, 64: 691–703. (Scholar)
• –––, 1980, Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Dekker, P., 2004, “Cases, Adverbs, Situations, and Events,” Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning, Hans Kamp and Barbara Partee (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 383–404. (Scholar)
• Devlin, K., 1991, Logic and Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2006, “Situation Theory and Situation Semantics,” Handbook of the History of Logic. Volume 7, D. Gabbay and J. Woods (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland, 601–64. (Scholar)
• Elbourne, P., 2002, Situations and Individuals, (Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. (Scholar)
• –––, 2005, Situations and Individuals. Cambridge/Mass: The MIT Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2013, Definite Descriptions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016, “Incomplete Descriptions and Indistinguishable Participants,” Natural Language Semantics, 24: 1–43. (Scholar)
• Evans, G., 1977, “Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7: 467–536. (Scholar)
• Fintel, K. von., 1994, Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, Ph.D. Thesis, Linguistics Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, Preprint available online, and reprint available from ProQuest UMI. (Scholar)
• –––, 2004a, “A Minimal Theory of Adverbial Quantification,” Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning, H. Kamp & B. Partee (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 137–175. (Scholar)
• –––, 2004b. “Minimal Replies to Dekker, Hajičová & Sgall, Berman and de Swart,” Context-Dependence in the Analzsis of Linguistic Meaning, H. Kamp and B. Partee (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 542–47. (Scholar)
• Fintel, K. von & Gillies, A. S., 2011, “‘Might’ Made Right,” in Epistemic Modality, A. Egan and B. Weatherson (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 108–113. (Scholar)
• Fox, D., 2007, “Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures,” Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, in U. Sauerland and D. Penka (eds.), New York: Palgrave, 542–47. (Scholar)
• Fox, D. & Hackl, M., 2006, “The Universal Density of Measurement,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 29: 71–120. (Scholar)
• Gawron, J. M. & Peters, S., 1990, Anaphora and Quantification in Situation Semantics, Stanford: CSLI. (Scholar)
• Geach, P. T., 1980, Reference and Generality, 3^rd edition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (Scholar)
• Gillies, T., 2001, “A New Solution to Moore’s Paradox,” Philosophical Studies, 105: 237–50. (Scholar)
• Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I., 2000, Interrogative Investigations. Stanford: CSLI. (Scholar)
• Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M., 1984, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, available online, Chapters I–IV, Chapters V–VI, from the University of Amsterdam Digital Academic Repository. (Scholar)
• Hacking, I., 1967, “Possibility,” The Philosophical Review, 76: 143–68. (Scholar)
• Heim, I., 1990, “E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 13: 137–78. (Scholar)
• Higginbotham, J., 1983, “The Logic of Perceptual Reports: An Extensional Alternative to Situation Semantics,” The Journal of Philosophy, 80: 100–27. (Scholar)
• Jacobson, P., 1999, “Towards a Variable-Free Semantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 22: 117–84. (Scholar)
• Kadmon, N., 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, (Ph.D. Thesis, Linguistics Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst), New York: Garland, 1992. (Scholar)
• –––, 1990, “Uniqueness,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 13: 273–324. (Scholar)
• –––, 2001, Formal Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. (Scholar)
• Kamp, H., 1971, “Formal Properties of ‘now’,” Theoria, 37: 227–73. (Scholar)
• Kamp, H. & Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Scholar)
• Keshet, E., 2008, Good Intensions: Paving Two Roads to a Theory of the De re/De dicto Distinction, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Preprint available online. (Scholar)
• –––, 2010, “Situation Economy,” Natural Language Semantics, 18: 385–434. (Scholar)
• Klein, W., 1994, Time in Language. London: Routledge. (Scholar)
• Kratzer, A., 1989, “An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 12: 607–53. (Scholar)
• –––, 1998, “Scope or Pseudoscope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites?,” Events and Grammar, S. Rothstein (ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 163–96. (Scholar)
• –––, 2002, “Facts: Particulars or Information Units?,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 25: 655–70. (Scholar)
• –––, 2012, Modals and Conditionals, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Krifka, M., 1992, “Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution,” Lexical Matters, I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 29–53. (Scholar)
• Landman, F., 2000, Events and Plurality. The Jerusalem Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Scholar)
• –––, 2004, Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. (Scholar)
• Lasersohn, P., 1988, A Semantics for Groups and Events, (Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University), New York: Garland, 1990. (Scholar)
• –––, 1990, A Semantics for Groups and Events. New York: Garland Publishing. (Scholar)
• Lewis, D., 1972, “General Semantics,” Semantics of Natural Language, D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Dordrecht: Reidel, 169–218. (Scholar)
• McKenzie, A., 2012, The Role of Contextual Restriction in Reference Tracking, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Linguistics, U. Massachusetts/Amherst, Preprint available online. (Scholar)
• –––, 2015, “A Survey of Switch-Reference in North America,” International Journal of American Linguistics, 81: 409–448. (Scholar)
• Neale, S., 2004, “This, That, and The Other,” Descriptions and Beyond, M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 68–182. (Scholar)
• Ogihara, T., 1996, Tense, Attitudes and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Scholar)
• Partee, B., 1973, “Some Structural Analogies Between Tenses and Pronouns in English,” The Journal of Philosophy, 70: 601–09. (Scholar)
• Percus, O., 2000, “Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax,” Natural Language Semantics, 8: 173–229. (Scholar)
• Perry, J., 1986, “Thought without Representation,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 60: 263–83. (Scholar)
• Portner, P., 1992, Situation Theory and the Semantics of Propositional Expressions, Ph.D. Thesis, Linguistics Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, Preprint available online, and reprint available from ProQuest UMI. (Scholar)
• Récanati, F., 1986/87, “Contextual Dependence and Definite Descriptions,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 87: 57–73. (Scholar)
• –––, 1993, Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell. (Scholar)
• –––, 1996, “Domains of Discourse,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 445–75. (Scholar)
• –––, 2000, Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta. Cambridge/Mass: The MIT Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2002, Unarticulated Constituents, Linguistics and Philosophy, 25: 299–345. (Scholar)
• –––, 2004a, “Descriptions and Situations,” Descriptions and Beyond, M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 15–40. (Scholar)
• –––, 2004b, Literal Meaning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Reinhart, T., 1986, “On the Interpretation of ‘Donkey’ sentences,” in On Conditionals, E. Cross Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly & C. A. Ferguson (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103–22. (Scholar)
• Rose, K. de, 1991, “Epistemic Possibilities,” The Philosophical Review, 100: 581–605. (Scholar)
• Schein, B., 1993, Plurals and Events. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press. (Scholar)
• Schulz, K. & Rooij, R. van, 2006, “Pragmatic Meaning and Non-Monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 29: 205–50. (Scholar)
• Schwarz, F., 2008, Two Types of Definites in Natural Language, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Linguistics, U. Massachusetts/Amherst, Preprint available online. (Scholar)
• –––, 2012, “Situation Pronouns in Determiner Phrases,” Natural Language Semantics, 20: 431–75. (Scholar)
• Sevi, A., 2005, Exhaustivity. A Semantic Account of “Quantity” Implicatures, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tel Aviv, available online at scribd.com. (Scholar)
• Smith, C. S., 1991, The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Scholar)
• Soames, S., 1986, “Incomplete Definite Descriptions,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 27: 349–75. (Scholar)
• Spector, B., 2006, Aspects de la Pragmatique des Opérateurs Logiques, Ph.D. Thesis, Linguistics Department, University of Paris 7 (Denis Diderot), available online, from the Cognitive Science Department, École Normal Supérieur. (Scholar)
• Spelke, E., 1990, “Principles of Object Perception,” Cognitive Science, 14: 29–56. (Scholar)
• Stojanovich, I., 2012, “Situation Semantics,” in Identity, Language and Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of John Perry, A. Newen & R. van Riel (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 67–86. (Scholar)
• Teller, P., 1972, “Epistemic Possibility,” Philosophia, 2: 302–20. (Scholar)
• Vlach, F., 1973, “Now” and “Then”: A Formal Study in the Logic of Tense Anaphora, Ph.D. Thesis, Philosophy Department, University of California/Los Angeles, PDF preview available online, reprint available from ProQuest UMI. (Scholar)
• –––, 1983, “On Situation Semantics for Perception,” Synthese, 54: 129–52. (Scholar)
• Westerståhl, D., 1985, “Determiners and Context Sets,” in Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Dordrecht: Foris, 45–71. (Scholar)
• Zucchi, A., 1988, The Language of Propositions and Events: Issues in the Syntax and Semantics of Nominalization, (Ph.D. Thesis, Linguistics Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst), Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993. (Scholar)
• –––, 2015, “Events and Situations,” Annual Review of Linguistics, 1: 85–106. (Scholar)

References not mentioned in the text

Additional suggestions are most welcome.

• Alonso-Ovalle, L., 2002, “Aspect and Situations: a Situation Semantics Account of the Semantic Variability of Spanish al-clauses,” From Words to Discourse. Trends in Spanish Semantics and Pragmatics, J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 119-27. (Scholar)
• Asher, N. & Bonevac, D., 1985, “Situations and Events,” Philosophical Studies, 47: 57–77. (Scholar)
• –––, 1987, “Determiners and Resource Situations,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 10: 567–96. (Scholar)
• Barwise, J., 1991, “Situationen und kleine Welten,” Semantik/Semantics, A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 80–89. (Scholar)
• Barwise, J. & Perry, J., 1981a, “Situations and Attitudes,” The Journal of Philosophy, 78: 668–91. (Scholar)
• –––, 1981b, “Semantic Innocence and Uncompromising Situations,” Midwest Studies in the Philosophy of Language VI, P. French, T. Uehling, & H. Wettstein (eds.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 387–403. (Scholar)
• –––, 1985, “Shifting Situations and Shaken Attitudes,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 8: 105–61. (Scholar)
• Barwise, J. & Cooper, R., 1993, “Extended Kamp Notation: A Graphical Notation for Situation Theory,” Situation Theory and its Applications. Volume 3, P. Aczel, D. Israel, Y. Katagiri & S. Peters (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 29–53. (Scholar)
• Büring, D., 2004, “Crossover Situations,” Natural Language Semantics, 12: 23–62. (Scholar)
• Cooper, R., 1986, “Tense and Discourse Location in Situation Semantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 9: 17–36. (Scholar)
• –––, 1987a, “Preliminaries to the Treatment of Generalized Quantifiers in Situation Semantics,” Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 73–91. (Scholar)
• –––, 1987b, “Meaning Representation in Montague Grammar and Situation Semantics,” Computational Intelligence, 3: 35–44. (Scholar)
• –––, 1988, “Facts in Situation Theory: Representation, Psychology or Reality?,” Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, R. Kempson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49–61. (Scholar)
• –––, 1990, “Information in the Early Stages of Language Acquisition,” Situation Theory and its Applications, Volume 1, R. Cooper, K. Mukai & J. Perry (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 343–54. (Scholar)
• –––, 1992, “A Working Person’s Guide to Situation Theory,” Topics in Semantic Interpretation, S. L. Hansen & F. Soerensen (eds.), Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. (Scholar)
• –––, 1993, “Generalized Quantifiers and Resource Situations,” Situation Theory and its Applications, Volume 3, P. Aczel, D. Israel, Y. Katagiri & S. Peters (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications. (Scholar)
• –––, 1996, “The Attitudes in Discourse Representation Theory and Situation Semantics,” Logic, Language, and Computation, Volume 1, J. Seligman & D. Westerståhl (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 137–50. (Scholar)
• –––, 1999, “Using Situations to Reason about Speech Events,” Computing Meaning, Volume 1, H. Bunt & R. Muskens (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Scholar)
• Cooper, R. & Kamp, H., 1991, “Negation in Situation Semantics and Discourse Representation Theory,” Situation Theory and its Applications, Volume II, J. Barwise, M. Gawron, G. Plotkin and S. Tutiya (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 311–33. (Scholar)
• Cooper, R. & Barwise, J., 1993, “Extended Kamp Notation: a Graphical Notation for Situation Theory,” Situation Theory and Its Applications 3, P. Aczel, D. Israel, Y. Katagiri & S. Peters (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications. (Scholar)
• Cooper, R. & Ginzburg, J., 1996, “A Compositional Situation Semantics for Attitude Reports,” Logic, Language, and Computation, Volume 1, J. Seligman & D. Westerståhl (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 151–65. (Scholar)
• –––, 2004, “Clarification, Ellipsis, and the Nature of Contextual Updates in Dialogue,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 27: 297–365. (Scholar)
• Cresswell, M., 1991, “Die Weltsituation,” Semantik/Semantics, A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Berlin: de Gruyter, 71–80. (Scholar)
• Doron, E., 1990, “Situation semantics and free indirect discourse with examples from contemporary Hebrew fiction,” Hebrew Linguistics, 28: 21–29. (Scholar)
• –––, 1991, “Point of View as a Factor of Content,” Proceedings of SALT 1, S. Moore & A. Z. Wyner (eds.), Ithaca: CLC Publications, 51–64. (Scholar)
• Elbourne, P., 2001, “E-Type Anaphora as NP-Deletion,” Natural Language Semantics, 9: 241–88. (Scholar)
• –––, 2009, “Bishop Sentences and Donkey Cataphora: A Response to Barker and Shan,” Semantics & Pragmatics, 2: 1–7. (Scholar)
• Engdahl, E., 1990, “Argument Roles and Anaphora,” Situation Theory and its Applications, Volume 1, R. Cooper, K. Mukai & J. Perry (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 379–93. (Scholar)
• Frazier, L. & Clifton, C., 2018, “Topic Situations: Coherence by Inclusion,” Journal of Memory and Language, 103: 176–190. (Scholar)
• Fox, D. & Sauerland, U., 1997, “Illusive Wide Scope of Universal Quantifiers,” Interfaces in Linguistic Theory, G. Matos, et al. (eds.), Lisbon: Edições Colibri/Associação Portuguesa de Linguistica, 149–76. (Scholar)
• Gawron, J. M., 1986, “Situations and Prepositions,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 9: 327–82. (Scholar)
• –––, 1996, “Quantificational domains,” The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, S. Lappin (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 247–67. (Scholar)
• Gawron, J. M. & Peters, S., 1990a, “Some Puzzles About Pronouns,” Situation Theory and its Applications, Volume 1, R. Cooper, K. Mukai & J. Perry (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 395–431. (Scholar)
• Gawron, J. M., Nerbonne, J. & Peters, S., 1991, “The Absorption Principle and E-Type Anaphora,” Situation Theory and its Applications, volume 2, J. Barwise, J. M. Gawron, G. Plotkin & S. Tutiya (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 335–62. (Scholar)
• Ginzburg, J., 1991, “Questions without Answers, Wh-Phrases without Scope: A Semantics for Direct Wh-Questions and their Responses,” Situation Theory and its Applications, volume 2, J. M. Gawron, G. Plotkin & S. Tutiya (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 363–404. (Scholar)
• –––, 1996a, “Dynamics and the Semantics of Dialogue,” Logic, Language and Computation, volume 1, J. Seligman and D. Westerståhl (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 221–37. (Scholar)
• –––, 1996b, “The Semantics of Interrogatives,” Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, S. Lappin (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, 385–22. (Scholar)
• –––, 2011, “Situation Semantics and the Ontology of Natural Language,” in Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (Volume 1), C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (eds.), Berlin: de Gruyter, 830–51. (Scholar)
• Glasbey, S., 1996a, “Towards a Channel-Theoretic Account of the Progressive,” Logic, Language and Computation, volume 1, J. Seligman & D. Westerståhl (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 239–54. (Scholar)
• –––, 1996b, “The Progressive: a Channel-Theoretic Analysis,” Journal of Semantics, 13: 331–361. (Scholar)
• –––, 1998, “A Situation-Theoretic Interpretation of Bare Plurals,” The Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language and Computation: Selected Papers, J. Ginzburg, Z. Khasidashvili, C. Vogel, J-J. Levy, & E. Vallduví (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 35–54. (Scholar)
• –––, 1999, “Bare plurals, situations, and discourse context,” Logic, Language and Computation, volume 2, L. Moss, J. Ginzburg & M. de Rijke (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications, 85–105. (Scholar)
• Hallman, P., 2009, “Proportions in time: interactions of quantification and aspect,” Natural Language Semantics, 17: 29–61. (Scholar)
• Hinrichs, E., 1983, “The Semantics of the English Progressive: a Study in Situation Semantics,” Proceedings of the 19th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, in J. Richardson et al. (eds.), Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 171–182. (Scholar)
• Hinterwimmer, S., 2008, Q-Adverbs as Selective Binders: The Quantificational Variability of Free Relatives and Definite DPs, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (Scholar)
• Hinterwimmer, S. & Ebert, C., 2010, “Quantificational Variability Effects with Plural Definites: Quantification over Individuals or Situations?,” Journal of Semantics, 27: 139–176. (Scholar)
• Hornstein, N., 1986, “Review of Situations and Attitudes,” The Journal of Philosophy, 83: 168–84. (Scholar)
• Iida, M., 1996, Context and Binding in Japanese. Stanford: CSLI Publications. (Scholar)
• Landman, F., 1986, Towards a Theory of Information: The Status of Partial Objects in Semantics. Dordrecht: Foris. (Scholar)
• Larson, R. K., 1983, Restrictive Modification: Relative Clauses and Adverbs. University of Wisconsin PhD dissertation. (Scholar)
• –––, 1988, “Implicit Arguments in Situation Semantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 11: 131–68. (Scholar)
• Lasersohn, P., 1990, “Group Action and Spatio-Temporal Proximity,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 13: 179–206. (Scholar)
• –––, 1995, Plurality, Conjunction and Events. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Scholar)
• Lawlor, K., 2018, “Ordinary Language Philosophy Needs Situation Semantics (or, why Grice Needs Austin),” Context, Truth, and Objectivity: Essays on Radical Contextualism, E. Marchesan & D. Zapero (eds.), London: Routledge, 35–58. (Scholar)
• Mitchell, J., 1986, The Formal Semantics of Point of View, Ph.D. Thesis, Linguistics Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, available in PDF preview from ProQuest UMI. (Scholar)
• Moltmann, F., 1997, Parts and Wholes in Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2005, “Part Structures in Situations: The Semantics of Individual and Whole,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 28: 599–641. (Scholar)
• Muskens, R., 1995, Meaning and Partiality. Stanford: CSLI Publications. (Scholar)
• Partee, B., 1985, “Situations, Worlds, and Contexts,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 8: 53–58. (Scholar)
• –––, 1989, “Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts,” Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, C. Wiltshire, B. Music, & R. Graczyk (eds.), Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 342–365. (Scholar)
• Perry, J., 1986a, “From Worlds to Situations,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, 15: 83–107. (Scholar)
• –––, 2000, The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other Essays. Expanded Edition. Stanford: CSLI Publications. (Contains several essays on situation semantics.) (Scholar)
• Portner, P., 1997, “The Semantics of Mood, Complementation, and Conversational Force,” Natural Language Semantics, 5: 167–212. (Scholar)
• Ramchand, G., 2018, Situations and Syntactic Structures: Auxiliaries and Ordering in English, Cambridge/Mass.: The MIT Press. (Scholar)
• Romero, M., 2002, “Quantification over Situation Variables in LTAG: Some Constraints,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks (TAG+6): 101–14. Università di Venezia. (Scholar)
• Rooth, M., 1987, “Noun phrase interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics,” Generalized Quantifiers, P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Dordrecht: Reidel, 237–69. (Scholar)
• Schaffer, J. & Szabo, Z., 2014, “Epistemic Comparativism: a Contextualist Semantics for Knowledge Ascriptions,” Philosophical Studies, 168: 491–543. (Scholar)
• Schueler, D., 2008, The Syntax and Semantics of Implicit Conditionals: Filling in the Antecedent, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Preprint available online. (Scholar)
• Schwarz, B., 1998, “Reduced Conditionals in German,” Natural Language Semantics, 6: 271–301. (Scholar)
• Soames, S., 1990, “Lost Innocence,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 8: 59–71. (Scholar)
• Stalnaker, R., 1986, “Possible Worlds and Situations,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, 15: 109–23. (Scholar)
• Stojnic, U., Stone, M. & Lepore, E., 2013, “Deixis (Even Without Pointing),” Philosophical Perspectives, 27 (Philosophy of Language): 1–24. (Scholar)
• Wolter, L. K., 2006, That’s That: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Demonstrative Phrases, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California/Santa Cruz. (Scholar)
• Zalta, E., 1993, “Twenty-Five Basic Theorems in Situation and World Theory,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22: 385–428. (Scholar)
• Zucchi, S., 2015, “Events and Situations,” Annual Review of Linguistics, 1: 85–106. (Scholar)
• Zweig, E., 2006, “When the Donkey lost its fleas: Persistence, Contextual Restriction, and Minimal Situations,” Natural Language Semantics, 14: 283–296. (Scholar)