Advertisement

Finite-State Descriptions For Temporal Semantics

  • Tim Fernando
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 83)

Keywords

Motion Picture Regular Language Predicate Logic Event Semantic Instantaneous Event 
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.

References

  1. Chang, N., Gildea, D.and Narayanan, S.: 1998, ‘A dynamic model of aspectual composition.’ In Proc. CogSci 98.Google Scholar
  2. Davidson, D.: 1967, ‘The logical form of action sentences.’ In N. Rescher, ed., The Logic of Decision and Action, pages 81–95. University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dowty, D.: 1979, ‘Word Meaning and Montague Grammar’. Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. Fernando, T.: 2002, ‘A finite-state approach to event semantics.’ In Proc. of the 9th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME-2002), pages 124–131. IEEE CS Press. Section 2 of this chapter is elaborated in http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Tim.Fernando/jlc.pdf.Google Scholar
  5. Jackendoff, R.: 1991, ‘Parts and boundaries.’ In B. Levin and S. Pinker, eds., Lexical and Conceptual Semantics, pages 9–45. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Krifka, M.: 1989. ‘Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics.’ In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, eds., Semantics and Contextual Expressions, pages 75–115. Foris.Google Scholar
  7. Moens, M. and Steedman, M.: 1988, ‘Temporal ontology and temporal reference.’ Computational Linguistics, 14(2):15–28.Google Scholar
  8. Muskens, R.: 2001, ‘Talking about trees and truth-conditions.’ Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10(4):417–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Naumann, R.: 2001, ‘Aspects of changes: a dynamic event semantics.’ J. Semantics, 18:.27–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parsons, T.: 1990, ‘Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Pinker, S.: 1989, ‘Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure’. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pustejovsky, J.: 1991, ‘The generative lexicon.’ Computational Linguistics, 17(4): 409–441.Google Scholar
  13. Ramsay, A.: 1994, ‘The co-operative lexicon.’ In H. Bunt, R. Muskens, and G. Rentier, eds., Proc. International Workshop on Computational Semantics, pages 171–180. ITK, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  14. Ramsay, A.: 1999, ‘Dynamic and underspecified interpretation without dynamic or underspecified logic.’ In H. Bunt and R. Muskens, eds., Computing Meaning, pages 57–72. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Steedman, M.: 2000, ‘The Productions of Time’. Draft, ftp://ftp.cogsci. ed.ac.uk/pub/steedman/temporality/temporality.ps.gz.Google Scholar
  16. Tenny, C. and Pustejovsky, J.: 2000, ‘A history of events in linguistic theory.’ In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects, pages 3–37. CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  17. Ter Meulen A.: 1990, ‘English aspectual verbs as generalized quantifiers.’ In J. Carter et al., eds., Proc. NELS 20. GLSA, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, 378–390.Google Scholar
  18. Tojo, S.: 1999, ‘Event, state and process in arrow logic.’ Minds and Machines, 9:81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vendler, Z.: 1967, ‘Linguistics in Philosophy’. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Verkuyl, H.: 2000, ‘Events as dividuals.’ In J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi, and A.C. Varzi, eds., Speaking of Events, pages 169–205. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Westerståahl, D.: 1989, ‘Quantifiers in formal and natural languages.’ In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds., Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume IV, pages 173–209. Reidel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Fernando

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations