Advertisement

Type-Shifting Rules and the Semantics of Interrogatives

  • Jeroen Groenendijk
  • Martin Stokhof
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 39)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is a modest one. In what follows, we will argue that if one takes into consideration certain constructions involving interrogatives, a flexible approach to the relationship between syntactic categories and semantic types may be of great help. More in particular, we will try to show that if one uses something like an orthodox inten-sional type theory as one’s semantic tool, a more liberal association between syntactic categories and semantic types becomes imperative. However, we will also see that such flexibility is by no means easily introduced into the grammar, and that it needs to be properly checked in order to avoid undesirable consequences.

Keywords

Semantic Type Syntactic Category True Answer Entailment Relation Categorial Grammar 
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. Ades, A. and Steedman, M.: 1982, ‘On the Order of Words’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5, pp. 517–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belnap, N.: 1982, ‘Questions and Answers in Montague Grammar’, in: S. Peters and E. Saarinen (eds.), Processes, Beliefs and Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 165–198.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, M.: 1979, Questions in Montague Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  4. Benthem, J. van: 1986, ‘The Semantics of Variety in Categorial Grammar’, in: W. Buszkowksi, W. Marciszewski and J. van Benthem (eds.), Categorial Grammar, Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G. and Turner, R.: 1987, ‘Semantics and Property Theory’, forthcoming in Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  6. Dowty, D.: To appear, ‘Type raising, Functional Composition, and Non-Constituent Conjunction’, in: D. Oehrle, E. Bach and D. Wheeler (eds.), Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Gazdar, G.: 1980, ‘A Cross-Categorial Semantics for Coordination’, Linguistics and Philosophy 3, pp. 407–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M: 1984, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, diss., Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Hausser, R.: 1983, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of English Mood’, in: Kiefer, F. (ed.), Questions and Answers, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 97–158.Google Scholar
  10. Karttunen, L.: 1977, ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, pp. 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keenan, E. and Faltz, L.: 1985, Boolean Semantics for Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Landman, F. and Moerdijk, I.: 1983, ‘Compositionality and the Analysis of Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 6, pp. 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moortgat, M.: To appear, ‘Mixed Composition and Discontinuous Dependencies’, in: D. Oehrle, E. Bach and D. Wheeler (eds.), Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  14. Muskens, R.: 1986, ‘A Relational Formulation of the Theory of Types’, ITLI-pre-publication 5, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Partee, B.: 1986, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles’, in: J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh and M. Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 115–144.Google Scholar
  16. Partee, B. and Rooth, M.: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in: R. Bäuerle, B. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 361–383.Google Scholar
  17. Stalnaker, R.: 1984, Inquiry, Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Zwarts, F.: 1986, Categoriale Grammatica en Algebraïsche Semantiek, diss., Department of Linguistics, University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeroen Groenendijk
    • 1
  • Martin Stokhof
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations