Advertisement

Adverbs and Events

  • M. J. Cresswell
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 28)

Abstract

There are two basic approaches to the analysis of adverbial constructions in formalized representations of English. One is to follow Richard Montague1 and treat them as sentential operators of the same syntactical category as not.2 The other is to follow Donald Davidson3 and represent them in the predicate calculus with the aid of an extra argument place in the verb to be modified. Montague’s approach requires an intensional language and so there seems no hope of fitting his analysis into Davidson’s programme. It is, however, possible to incorporate Davidson’s analysis into an intensional language. In this paper I indicate why this may be desirable and then shew how it can be done in a way which satisfies the rather strict conditions imposed in [12] on the relation between ordinary English and the representing formal language.

Keywords

Modal Logic Propositional Attitude Ordinary Language Syntactic Category Comparison Class 
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.

Abbreviation

SNL)

Semantics of Natural Language

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    Ajdukiewicz, K., ‘Syntactic Connection’, in Polish Logic (ed. by S. McCall), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 207–231. (English translation of ‚Die syntaktische Konnexitat’, Studia Philosophica 1 (1935), 1–27.)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Åqvist, L. E. G., ‘Modal Logic With Subjunctive Conditionals and Dispositional Predicates’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (1973), 1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bar Hillel, Y., Language and Information, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Brody, B. A., ‚De re and de dicto Interpretations of Modal Logic or a Return to an Aristotelean Essentialism’, Philosophia 2 (1972), 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Carnap, R., Introduction to Semantics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1942.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chomsky, A. N., ‘Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation’, in Semantics, An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology (ed. by D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971, pp. 183–216.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Church, A., ‘A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types’, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5 (1940), 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Clark, R. L., ‘Concerning the Logic of Predicate Modifiers’, Noũs 4 (1970), 311–335.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘Functions of Propositions’, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 31 (1966), 545–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘Classical Intensional Logics’, Theoria 36 (1970), 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘Intensional Logics and Logical Truth’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 1 (1972), 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Cresswell, M. J., Logics and Languages, Methuen, London, 1973.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘Physical Theories and Possible Worlds’, Logique et Analyse 63/64(1973) 495–511.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Davidson, D., ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’, in The Logic of Decision and Action (ed. by N. Rescher), University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1967, pp. 81–95.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Davidson, D., ‘Truth and Meaning’, in Philosophical Logic (ed. by J. W. Davis et al.), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1969, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Davidson, D., ‘The Individuation of Events’, in Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel (ed. by N. Rescher et al.), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1969, pp. 216–234.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Davidson, D., ‘Events as Particulars’, Noûs 4 (1970), 25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Dretske, F. I., ‘Contrastive Statements’, The Philosophical Review 81 (1972), 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Fillmore, C. J., ‘The Case for Case’, in Universals in Linguistic Theory (ed. by E. Bach and R. T. Harms), Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1968, pp.1–88.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Fraassen, B. C. van, Formal Semantics and Logic, Macmillan, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Gabbay, D. M., ‘A General Theory of the Conditional in Terms of a Ternary Operator’, Theoria 38 (1972), 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Geach, P. T., ‘A Program for Syntax’, in SNL, 483–497.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Harman, G. H., ‘Is Modal Logic Logic?’, Philosophia 2 (1972), 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Hatcher, W. S., Foundations of Mathematics, W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1968.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Hintikka, K. J. J., ‘Semantics for Propositional Attitudes’, in Philosophical Logic (ed. by J. W. Davis et al.), 1969, pp. 21–45.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Hintikka, K. J. J., ‘Existential and Uniqueness Presuppositions’, in Problems in Philosophical Logic (ed. by K. Lambert), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1970, pp. 20–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Hintikka, K. J. J., ‘The Semantics of Modal Notions and the Indeterminacy of Ontology’, in SNL, 398–414.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Hintikka, K. J. J., ‘Sosa on Propositional Attitudes de dicto and de re’, The Journal of Philosophy 68 (1971), 489–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Lakoff, G., ‘Linguistics and Natural Logic’, in SNL, 545–665.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Lakoff, G., ‘On Generative Semantics’, in Semantics: an Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology (ed. by D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971, pp. 232–296.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Lakoff, G., ‘Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 458–508.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Lemmon, E. J., ‘Comments on D. Davidson’s ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’, in The Logic of Decision and Action (ed. by N. Rescher), University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1967, pp. 96–103.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Lewis, D. K., ‘Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic’, The Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Lewis, D. K., ‘General Semantics’, in SNL, 169–218.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Lewis, D. K., Counterfactuals, Blackwell, Oxford, 1973.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Lyons, J., ‘Towards a ‘Notional’ Theory of the Parts of Speech’, Journal of Linguistics 2 (1966), 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Lyons, J., Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    McCawley, J. D., ‘A Program for Logic’, in SNL, 498–544.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Mendelson, E., Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1964.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Meyer, R. K., ‘Intuitionism, Entailment, Negation’, in Truth, Syntax and Modality (ed. by H. Leblanc), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1973, pp. 168–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    Montague, R., ‘On the Nature of Certain Philosophical Entities’, The Monist 35 (1969), 159–195.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Montague, R., ‘English as a Formal Language’, in Linguaggi nella società e nella technica, Edizione di Comunità, Milan, 1970.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Montague, R., ‘Universal Grammar’, Theoria 36 (1970), 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Montague, R., ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in Approaches to Natural Language (ed. by K. J. J. Hintikka et al.), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973, pp. 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Parsons, T., ‘Some Problems Concerning the Logic of Grammatical Modifiers’, in SNL, 127–141.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Prior, A. N., ‘Is the Concept of Referential Opacity Really Necessary?’, Acta Philosophica Fennica (1963), Modal and Many-valued Logics, pp. 189–198.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Prior, A. N., ‘Modal Logic and the Logic of Applicability’, Theoria 34 (1968), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Quine, W. V., Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1960.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Quine, W. V., ‘Natural Kinds’, in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia University Press, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    Quine, W. V., ‘Propositional Objects’, ibid., pp. 139–160.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    Reichenbach, H., Elements of Symbolic Logic, Macmillan, New York, 1947.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Scott, D. S., ‘Advice on Modal Logic’, in Philosophical Problems in Logic (ed. by K. Lambert), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1970, pp. 143–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    Smart, J. J. C., ‘Quine on Space-Time’ (Preliminary mimeographed draft of an article for a volume edited by P. A. Schilpp, The Philosophy of W. V. Quine).Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    Stalnaker, R. C., ‘Pragmatics’, in SNL, pp. 380–397.Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    Stalnaker, R. C., ‘A Theory of Conditionals’, in Studies in Logical Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 1968, pp. 98–112.Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    Stalnaker, R. C. and R. H. Thomason, ‘A Semantic Analysis of Conditional Logic’, Theoria 36 (1970), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    Tarski, A., ‘The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages’, in Logic, Semantics and Metamathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1956, pp. 152–278.Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    Tichy, P., ‘An Approach to Intensional Analysis’, Noûs 5 (1971), 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Thomson, J. J., ‘The Time of a Killing’, The Journal of Philosophy 68 (1971), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Vendler, Z., ‘Facts and Events’, in Linguistics in Philosophy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1967, pp. 122–146.Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    Wallace, J., ‘On the Frame of Reference’, in SNL, 219–252.Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Wallace, J., ‘Some Logical Roles of Adverbs’, The Journal of Philosophy 68 (1971), 690–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    Wallace, J., ‘Positive, Comparative, Superlative’, ibid. 69 (1972), 773–782.Google Scholar
  64. [64]
    Wheeler, S. C., ‘Attributives and Their Modifiers’, Noûs 6 (1972), 310–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. Cresswell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyVictoria University of WellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations