Advertisement

Prepositions and Points of View

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

Abstract

There are many words in our language whose meaning seems to make reference to a point of view or an hypothetical observer of the scene. I have in mind particularly such words as come, go, left, right, behind and others, all of which seem to depend for their meaning on looking at things from a certain point of view. Charles Fillmore [17] has recently shown how pervasive the use of points of view is in discourse. Indeed his work makes the task of formalizing it look well-nigh impossible. The aim of this present paper is therefore very much more restricted, and in two ways. First I have in mind semantics conceived in the narrow sense of the contribution a word or expression makes to the truth conditions of sentences in which it occurs. Second I shall be restricting myself solely to the formal semantics of the points of view involved in some spatial senses of English prepositions. The kind of fact I wish to explain is how the truth conditions of a sentence like (1) Across a meadow a band is playing excerpts from H.M.S. Pinafore depend, via the meaning of across, on the point of view from which the band is being observed.

Keywords

Deep Structure Syntactic Category Basic Sense Prepositional Phrase Goal Area 
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.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    Åqvist, L. E. G. son, ‘Modal Logic with Subjunctive Conditionals and Dispositional Predicates’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (1973), pp. 1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Åqvist, L. E. G. son, ‘Formal Semantics for Verb Tenses as Analysed by Reichenbach’, Pragmatics of Language and Literature (ed. T. A. van Dijk) Amsterdam, North Holland, 1976, pp. 229–236.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Åqvist, L. E. G. son and F. Guenthner, ‘Fundamentals of a Theory of Verb Aspect and Events within the Setting of an Improved Tense Logic’ (ed. F. Guenthner and Ch. Rohrer) Studies in Formal Semantics, Amsterdam, North Holland, 1978, pp. 167–199.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bennett, D. C., Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions: An Essay in Stratificational Semantics, London, Longman, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bigelow, J. C., ‘Contexts and Quotation I’, Linguistische Berichte 38 (1975), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bigelow, J. C., ‘Contexts and Quotation II’, Linguistische Berichte 39 (1975), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Clarke, H. H., ‘Space, Time, Semantics and the Child’, Cognitive Development: The Acquisition of Language (ed. Y. T. Moore), New York, Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Cooper, R. H., ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’, Paper presented at the Third Groningen Round Table, June 1976.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Cresswell, M. J., Logics and Languages. London, Methuen, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘Semantic deviance’, Linguistische Berichte 35 (1975), pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘Semantic competence’, Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches (ed. M. Guenthner-Reutter and F. Guenthner), London, Duckworth, 1978, pp. 9–27.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘Adverbs of Space and Time’, this volume, pp. 41–66.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘Categorial Languages’, Studia Logica 36 (1977), pp. 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘Interval Semantics and Logical Words’, this volume pp. 67–85.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Dowty, D. R., ‘Toward a Semantic Analysis of Verb Aspect and the English “Imperfective” Progressive’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, No. 1 (1977), pp. 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Dowty, D. R., ‘Toward a Semantic Theory of Word Formation in Montague Grammar’, Texas Linguistic Forum 2/ (1975), pp. 69–96.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Fillmore, C. J., ‘Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis’, 1971. Indiana University Linguistics Club Papers 1975.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Hausser, R. R., ‘Problems of Pronominalization’, paper presented at the Third Groningen Round Table, June 1976.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Hill, L. A., Prepositions and Adverbial Particles, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Hughes, G. E. and Londey, D. G., The Elements of Formal Logic, London, Methuen, 1965.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Kratzer, A. H. E. S., ‘Was „Können“ und „Müssen“ Bedeuten Können Müssen’, Linguistische Berichte 42 (1976), pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Kratzer, A. H. E. S., ‘What “Must” and “Can” Must and Can Mean’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, No. 3(1977), pp. 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Lewis, D. K., ‘Counterpart Theory and quantified Modal Logic’, The Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968), pp. 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Lewis, D. K., ‘General semantics’, Semantic of Natural Language (ed. D. Davidson and G. H. Harman), Dordrecht, Reidel, 1972, pp. 169–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Lewis, D. K., Counterfactuals, Oxford, Blackwell, 1973.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Lewis, D. K., ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, Formal Semantics of Natural Language (ed. E. L. Keenan), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1975, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Lewis, D. K., ‘The Paradoxes of Time Travel’, American Philosophical Quarterly 13 (1972), pp. 145–152.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Lutzeier, P. R., Der „Aspekt“ Weit als Einstieg zu einem nützlichen Kontextbegriff für eine natürliche Sprache, Doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart, 1974.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Montague, R. M., Formal Philosophy (ed. R. H. Thomason), New Haven, Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Parsons, T., ‘Tense Operators Versus Quantifiers’, The Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973), pp. 609f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Partee, B. H., ‘Some Structural Analogies Between Tenses and Pronouns in English’, The Journal of Philosophy 70 (1975), pp. 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Reichenbach, H., Elements of Symbolic Logic, New York, Macmillan, 1947.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Rennie, M. K., Some Uses of Type Theory in the Analysis of Language, Canberra: Department of Philosophy A.N.U., Monograph series No. 1, 1974.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Ruttenberg, J., ‘Some Difficulties with Cresswell’s Semantics and the Method of Shallow Structure’, U/Mass Occasional Papers II (ed. J. T. Stillings), Amherst, 1976.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Stalnaker, R. C., ‘A Theory of Conditionals’, Studies in Logical Theory (ed. N. Rescher), Oxford, Blackwell, 1968, pp. 98–112.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Stalnaker, R. C., ‘Tenses and Pronouns’, The Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973), pp. 610–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    von Stechow, A., ‘ε-λ-kontextfreie Sprachen. Ein Beitrag zu einer naturlich formalen semantic’, Linguistische Berichte 34 (1974), pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Taylor, B., ‘Tense and Continuity’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977), pp. 199–220.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Tichy, P., ‘An Approach to Intensional Analysis’, Noũs 5 (1971), pp. 273–297.Google 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