Advertisement

Circumstance Sentences

  • Helmut Schnelle
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Language Library book series (SLAP, volume 3)

Abstract

Circumstance sentences are sentences which may be understood only in the context of the circumstances of utterance. In the specific sense of the term I have in mind Quine’s occasion sentences and standing sentences — i.e. sentences, whose correct or incorrect application is strictly determined by the occasion of their utterance or an occasion preceding the utterance within a tolerable time interval — are not circumstance sentences.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Conceptual Scheme Semantic Network Ordinary Language Tense Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Aqvist, L., 1975, “Formal Semantics for Verb Tenses as Analyzed by Reichenbach,” in. Pragmatics and Poetics, T. van Dijk (ed.), Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar
  2. Aqvist, L., Günthner, F., 1976, “Fundamentals of a Theory of Verb Aspect and Events within the Setting of an Improved Tense Logic,” in: Studies in Formal Semantics, F. Günthner and C. Rohrer (eds.), Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Ballmer, T., 1974, Sprachrekonstruktionssysteme, Kronberg, Scriptor.Google Scholar
  4. Ballmer, T., 1976, “Logical Language Reconstruction and Reference,” Chicago Linguistic Society 12: 33–48.Google Scholar
  5. Bar-Hillel, Y., 1970, Aspects of Language, Jerusalem, Magnes Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bühler, L., 1934, Sprachtheorie, Stuttgart, Fischer.Google Scholar
  7. Carnap, R., 1970, “A Basic System of Inductive Logic, Part I,” in: Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, R. Carnap and R.C. Jeffrey (eds.), Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cocchiarella, N., 1966, “Tense Logic: A Study of Temporal Reference,” Diss., University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, D., 1967, “Truth and Meaning,” Synthese 17: 304–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, D., 1970, “Semantics for Natural Languages,” in: Linguaggi nella società e nella tecnica, Milano, Edizioni di Comunita, pp. 177–188.Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, D., 1973, “In Defense of Convention T,” in: Truth, Syntax and Modality, H. Leblanc (ed.), Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Hit, H., 1968, “Computable and Uncomputable Elements of Syntax,” in: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Sciences III, B. van Rootselaar and J.F. Staal (eds.), Amsterdam, North Holland, pp. 239–254.Google Scholar
  13. Hit, H., 1969, “Aletheic Semantic Theory,” The Philosophical Forum 1 (N.S.): 438–451.Google Scholar
  14. Isard, S., 1974, “What Would You Have Done If… ?” Theoretical Linguistics 1: 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Isard, S., 1975, “Changing the Context,” in: Formal Semantics of Natural Language, E. Keenan (ed.), London, Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–296.Google Scholar
  16. Kamp, H., 1968, “Tense Logic and the Theory of Linear Order,” Diss., University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  17. Kasher, A., 1974, “Mood Implicatures: A Logical Way of Doing Generative Pragmatics,” Theoretical Linguistics 1: 6–3 8.Google Scholar
  18. Longuet-Higgins, H.C., 1972, “The Algorithmic Description of Natural Language,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 182: 255–276.Google Scholar
  19. Lyons, J., 1968, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Montague, R., 1974, Formal Philosophy, New Haven, Yale University Press. Quine, W.V., 1960, Word and Object, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Quine, W.V., 1974, The Roots of Reference, La Salle, Ill., Open Court.Google Scholar
  22. Quine, W.V., Ullian, J.S., 1970, The Web of Belief, New York, Random House. Reichenbach, H., 1947, Symbolic Logic, London, Macmillan, § 51.Google Scholar
  23. Schnelle, H., 1976, “Circumstances and Circumstantial Expressions,” in: Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar I, J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof (eds.), Amsterdam, Centrale Interfakulteit, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Smaby, R., Forthcoming, “Consequence, Presupposition, and Coreference under Containers,” mimeogr. Linguistics Department, University of Pennsylvania, Dec. 1974. Thomason, R., 1974, Introduction, in: R. Montague, 1974.Google Scholar
  25. Van Dijk, T.A., 1977, Text and Context, London, Longman.Google Scholar
  26. Vennemann, T., 1975, “Topics, Sentence Accent, Ellipsis: A Proposal for their Formal Treatment,” in: Formal Semantics of Natural Language, E. Keenan (ed.), London, Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weinstein, S., 1974, “Truth and Demonstratives,” Noûs 8: 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wunderlich, D., 1970, Tempus und Zeitreferenz im Deutschen, München, Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helmut Schnelle
    • 1
  1. 1.Ruhr Universität BochumGermany

Personalised recommendations