Structured Meanings, Thematic Roles and Control

  • Gennaro Chierchia
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 39)


One of the salient features of current work in semantics has been the search for fine grainedness. The strategies that are most actively being explored can perhaps be classified in two groups. The first group of proposals tries to come up with a theory of logical space capable of weighting information content in subtle ways. Data semantics, for example, (Veltman (1983), Landman (1986)) and situation semantics (Barwise and Perry 1983) fall within this group. The second group of proposals centers around the idea that at some level propositional content must be represented in terms of sentence-like structures, as Frege and Russell suggested. The structured meaning approach (a variant of Carnap’s intensional isomorphism approach), developed in Cresswell (1985) and related work falls in this second group.


Noun Phrase Propositional Attitude Propositional Content Argument Structure Embed Clause 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aczel, P.: 1988, ‘Algebraic Semantics for Intensional Logic, I’ volume I of the present collection.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, J. and Clark, R.: 1986, ‘On Non-overt Operators’, ras., USC and UCLA.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, E.: 1979, ‘Control in Montague Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 10, pp. 515–531.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, E.: 1980, ‘In Defense of Passive’, Linguistics and Philosophy 3, pp. 297–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bach, E.: 1982, ‘Purpose Clauses and Control’, in P. Jacobson and G. Pullum (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 37–57.Google Scholar
  6. Barwise, J. and Perry, J.: 1983, Situation and Attitudes, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L.: 1986, ‘Psych-erbs and θ-theory’, ms., Pisa and Geneva.Google Scholar
  8. Berwick, R.: 1982, ‘Locality Principles and the Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge’, Ph.D. Diss., MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Chierchia, G.: 1984, Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds, Ph.D. Diss., UMass, Amherst.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, G.: 1985, ‘Aspects of a Categorial Theory of Binding’, to be published in E. Bach, D. Wheeler, and R. Oehrle (eds.), Categorial Grammar and Natural Language Structures, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia, G.: 1987, ‘Anaphora and Attitudes De Se’, ms., Cornell U.Google Scholar
  12. Chierchia, G. and Jacobson, P.: 1986, ‘Local and Long Distance Control’, in S. Berman, J. Choe, and J. McDonough (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 16, GLSA, Amherst, pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
  13. Chierchia, G. and Turner, R.: 1987, ‘Semantics and Property Theory’, forthcoming in Linguistics and Philosophy 11(3).Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  15. Cresswell, M.: 1985, Structured Meanings, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dowty, D.: 1982, ‘The Categorial Theory of Grammatical Relations’, in P. Jacobson and G. Pullum (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Dowty, D.: 1985, ‘On Some Recent Analyses of Control’, Linguistics and Philosophy 8, pp. 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dowty, D.: (this volume) ‘On the Semantic Content of the Notion of “Thematic Role”’.Google Scholar
  19. Faraci, R.: 1974, ‘Aspects of the Grammar of Infinitives and FOR-phrases’, Ph.D. Diss., MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Farkas, D.: 1987, ‘On Obligatory Control’, forthcoming in Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  21. Gruber, J.: 1965, Studies in Lexical Relations, Ph.D. Diss., MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. Jackendoff, R.: 1972, Semantics Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jackendoff, R.: 1983, Semantics and Cognition, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, C: 1985, The Syntax and Thematics of Infinitival Adjuncts, Ph.D. Diss., UMass, Amherst.Google Scholar
  25. Keenan, E. and Faltz, L.: 1978, Logical Types for Natural Language, UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 3.Google Scholar
  26. Landman, F.: 1986, Towards a Theory of Information, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  27. Ladusaw, W. and Dowty, D.: 1987, ‘Towards a Non-Grammatical Account of Thematic Roles’, in W. Wilkins (ed.), On the Nature of Thematic Roles, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, D.: 1979, ‘Attitudes De Dicto and De Se’,The Philosophical Review 88, 513 – 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McConnell-Ginet, S.: 1982, ‘Adverbs and Logical Form’, Language 58, pp. 144–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Partee, B. and Rooth, M.: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type-Ambiguity’, in R. Bauerle, C. Schwartze, and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  31. Pesetzky, D.: 1987, ‘Binding Problems with Experiencer Verbs’, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 126–140.Google Scholar
  32. Rizzi, L.: 1986, ‘Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, pp. 501–558.Google Scholar
  33. Stalnaker, R.: 1985, Inquiry, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Veltman, F.: 1983, ‘Data Semantics’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Truth, Interpretation, Information, Foris.Google Scholar
  35. Thomason, R.: 1980, ‘A Model Theory for Propositional Attitudes’, in Linguistics and Philosophy 4, pp. 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, E.: 1987, ‘Implicit Arguments, the Binding Theory and Control’, in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, pp. 151–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gennaro Chierchia
    • 1
  1. 1.Cornell UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations