Advertisement

Realism and Definiteness

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

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the consequences of the familiarity theory of definiteness for the foundations of natural language semantics. What I will in particular explore is the question whether it is possible to interpret the claims in the familiarity theory of definiteness within a strictly realist framework or whether it forces a psychological interpretation. My claim will be that it forces such an interpretation, though I do not wish to claim that there are no possibilities that could be fruitfully pursued within a more realist framework.

Keywords

Real Object External Object Definite Description Computational Linguistics Common Noun 
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. Clark, H. H. and Marshall, C. R.: 1981, ‘Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge’, in: Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L., and Sag, I. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, The University Press, Cambridge, pp. 10–63.Google Scholar
  2. Donnellan, K. S.: 1966, ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’, Philosophical Review 75, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Grosz, B. and Sag, L.: 1981, ‘Focusing and Description in Natural Language Dialogs’, in: Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L., and Sag, I. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, The University Press, Cambridge, pp. 84–105.Google Scholar
  4. Heim, L: 1982, ‘The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  5. Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in: Groenendijk, J. A. G., Janssen, T. M. V., and Stokhof, M. J. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  6. Landman, F.: 1986, ‘Pegs and Alecs’, in: Towards a Theory of Information, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 97–155.Google Scholar
  7. Loebner, S.: 1987, ‘Definites’, forthcoming in Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
  8. Nunberg, G.: 1978, The Pragmatics of Reference, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  9. Nunberg, G.: 1979, ‘The Non-Uniqueness of Semantic Solutions: Polysemy’, Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 143–184.Google Scholar
  10. Polanyi, L. and Scha, R.: 1984, ‘A Syntactic Approach to Discourse Semantics’, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, pp. 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sidner, C. L.: 1981, ‘Focusing for Interpretation of Pronouns’, American Journal of Computational Linguistics 7, 217–231.Google Scholar
  12. Zeevat, H.: 1984, ‘Belief’, in: Landman, F. and Veltman, F. (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 405–425.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henk Zeevat
    • 1
  1. 1.University of StuttgartUSA

Personalised recommendations