Advertisement

An Annotated Bibliography of Further Work in Montague Semantics

  • David R. Dowty
  • Robert E. Wall
  • Stanley Peters
Chapter
  • 238 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 11)

Abstract

In the years since 1970, when Montague wrote PTQ, at least two hundred articles inspired by this work have been published, extending and expanding it in many different ways. Some of them achieve larger or otherwise more adequate syntactic coverage of English, along with semantic interpretation of the constructions covered. Others are dedicated to analyzing languages other than English. Some present a different semantic analysis of constructions dealt with in PTQ, or introduce new ideas for semantically analyzing constructions that had not been dealt with previously. Still others attempt to elaborate the semantics to make it possible to deal with new aspects of meaning, such as presupposition.

Keywords

Relative Clause Formal Semantic Linguistic Inquiry Formal Grammar Bare Plural 
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.
    Allwood, J., ‘A Montague grammar for a fragment of Swedish,’ Gothenburg: Logical Grammar, Report 11 (1976).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ard, J., ‘Rebracketing in diachronic syntax and Montague grammar,’ Papery from the Parasession on Diachronie Syntax, Ed. by S.B. Steever, et al. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach, Emmon, ‘Control in Montague grammar,’ Linguistic Inquiry 10 (1979): 515–531.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bach, Emmon, ‘Montague grammar and classical transformational grammar,’ Linguistics, Philosophy, and Montague Grammar, pp. 3–50, ed. by S. Davis and M. Mithun, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bach, Emmon, ‘In defense of passive,’ Linguistics and Philosophy (to appear).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bach, Emmon and Cooper, Robin, ‘The NP-S analysis of relative clauses and com-positional semantics,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (1978): 145–150.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bartsch, R., ‘Syntax and semantics of relative clauses,’ Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar 1 (1976): 1–24.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barwise, Jon, ‘On branching quantifiers in English,’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979): 47–80.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bennett, Michael and Partee, Barbara H., ‘Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English,’ MS (1972).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bennett, Michael, ‘Accommodating the plural in Montague’s fragment of English,’ Papers in Montague Grammars, pp. 25–64, ed. by R. Rodman, UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2 (1972).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bennett, Michael, Some Extensions of a Montague fragment of English, UCLA Ph.D. Dissertation (1975), reproduced by the Indiana Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bennett, Michael, ‘A variation and extension of a Montague fragment of English,’ Montague Grammar, pp. 119–163, ed. by Barbara Partee, New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bennett, M.R., ‘A response to Karttunen on questions,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): 279–300.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bennett, Michael, ‘Demonstratives and indexicalsin Montague grammar,’ Synthese 39 (1978): 1–80.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bennett, Michael, ‘Mass nouns and mass terms in Montague grammar,’ Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, pp. 263–286 ed. by S. Davis and M. Mithun, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bigelow, John C., ‘Believing in semantics,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (1978): 101–144.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boër, Steven E., ‘“Who” and “whether”: Towards a theory of indirect questions clauses,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (1978): 307–345.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bowers, John S. and Reichenbach, Uwe K. H., ‘Montague grammar and transformational grammar: a review of Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague’ Linguistic Analysis 5 (1979).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carlson, Greg N., ‘A unified analysis of the English bare plural,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): 413–456.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carlson, Greg N., Reference to Kinds in English, unpublished University of Mass. dissertation, 1978, distributed by the Indian University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carlson, Greg N., ‘Generics and atemporal when,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (1979): 49–98.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cooper, R., ‘Montague’s semantic theory of adverbs and the VSO hypothesis,’ North East Linguistic Society 5 (1974): 225–233.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cooper, Robin, Montague’s Semantic Theory and Transformational Syntax, Ph.D. Diss., University of Massachusetts, 1975.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cooper, Robin, ‘The interpretation of pronouns,’ Proceedings of the Third Groningen Round Table: Syntax and Semantics 10, ed. by Heny and Schnelle, New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cooper, Robin, ‘Review of Richard Montague’s Formal Philosophy,’ Language 53 (1977): 895–910.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cooper, Robin, ‘Variable binding and relative clauses,’ Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, pp. 131–169, ed. by F. Guenthner and S.J. Schmidt, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel 1979.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cooper, Robin, ‘A fragment of English with questions and relative clauses,’ unpublished, 1978.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cooper, R. and Parsons, T., ‘Montague grammar, generative semantics and interpretive semantics,’ Montague Grammar, ed. by Barbara Partee, New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cresswell, M.J., Logics and Languages, London, England: Methuen & Co., 1973.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cresswell, M.J., ‘The semantics of degree,’ Montague Grammar, ed. by Barbara Partee, New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cresswell, M.J., ‘Adverbs of space and time,’ Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, pp. 171–199, ed. by F. Guenthner and S.J. Schmidt, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1978.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1972.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Delacruz, Enrique B., ‘Factives and proposition level constructions in Montague grammar,’ Montague Grammar, pp. 177–200, ed. by Barbara Partee, New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dowty, D.R., ‘Toward a semantic theory of word formation in Montague grammar,’ Texas Linguistic Forum 2 (1975): 69–96.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dowty, David, ‘Montague grammars and lexical decomposition of causative verbs,’ Montague Grammar, ed. by Barbara Partee, New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dowty, D.R., ‘Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English “imperfective” progressive,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): 45–78.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dowty, David R., ‘Governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague grammar,,’ Linguistic Inquiry 9 (1978): 393–426.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dowty, David R., ‘Applying Montague’s views on linguistic metatheory to the structure of the lexicon,’ Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 1978.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dowty, David R., Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1979.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dowty, David R., ‘Dative “movement” and Thomason’s extensions of Montague grammar,’ Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, pp. 153–222, ed. by S. Davis and M. Mithun, Austin: University of Texas, 1979.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Edmondson, J. A., ‘Strict and sloppy identity in Lambda-categorial grammar,’ Indiana University Linguistics Club mimeograph, 1976.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Edmondson, J.A. and Plank, Frans, ‘Great expectations: an intensive self analysis,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (1978): 373–413.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Friedman, Joyce and Warren, David S., ‘A parsing method for Montague grammars,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (1978): 347–372.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Friedman, Joyce, ‘An unlabeled bracketing solution to the problem of conjoined phrases in Montague’s PTQ,’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979): 151–169.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gabbay, D.M. and Moravcsik, J.M.E., ‘Branching quantifiers, English, and Montague-grammars,’ Theoretical Linguistics 1 (1974): 139–157.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gallin, Daniel, Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic with Applications to Montague Semantics, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gazdar, Gerald, Formal Pragmatics for Natural Languages: Implication, Presupposition and Logical Form, Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gazdar, G. and Klein, E., ‘Context-sensitive transderivational constraints and conventional implicature,’ Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 1977.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin, ‘Infinitives and context in Montague grammar,’ Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, pp. 287–310, ed. by S. Davis and M. Mithun, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Halvorsen, Per-Kristian G., The Syntax and Semantics of Cleft Constructions, Texas Linguistic Forum 11, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Linguistics, 1978.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Halvorsen, Per-Kristian and Ladusaw, William A., ‘Montague’s “Universal Grammar”: An introduction for the linguist,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (1979): 185–223.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hamblin, C. L., ‘Questions in Montague English,’ Foundations of Language 10 (1973): 41–53. Also in Montague Grammar, ed. by Barbara Partee.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hausser, Roland, ‘Scope ambiguity and scope restrictions in Montague grammars,’ Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar, v. 1, ed. by J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof, Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1976.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hausser, R.R., ‘Presuppositions in Montague grammar,’ Theoretical Linguistics 3 (1976): 245–280.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hausser, R. and Zaefferer, D., ‘Questions and answers in a context dependent Montague grammar,’ Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natrual Languages, pp. 339–358, ed. by F. Guenthner and S.J. Schmidt, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1978.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hintikka, K.J J., ‘On the proper treatment of quantifiers in Montague’s semantics,’ Logical Theory and Semantic Analysis, pp. 45–60, ed. by Sören Stenlund, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1974.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hoepelman, J.P., ‘Mass-nouns and aspects, or: Why we can’t eat gingercake in an hour,’ Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar 1 (1976): 132–153.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Janssen, T., ‘A computer program for Montague grammar: theoretical aspects and proofs for the reduction rules,’ Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar 1 (1976): 154–169.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kamp, J.A.W., ‘Two theories about adjectives,’ Formal Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 123–55, ed. by E.L. Keenan, Cambridge: University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kamp, Hans, ‘Semantics versus pragmatics,’ Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Laguages, pp. 255–287, ed. by F. Guenthner and S.J. Schmidt, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1978.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kaplan, David, ‘Demonstratives,’ 1977, preliminary version.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Karttunen, Lauri, ‘Syntax and semantics of questions,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): 3–44.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Karttunen, F. and Karttunen, L., ‘The clitic -kin/-kaan in Finnish,’ Papers from the Transatlantic Finnish Conference: Texas Linguistics Forum 5, 1976, ed. by R.T. Harms, Austin: Department of Linguistics, pp. 89–118.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Karttunen, F. and Karttunen, L., ‘Even questions,’ North East Linguistics Society, no. 7. 1977.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Karttunen, Lauri and Peters, Stanley, ‘Conventional implicature,’ Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, pp. 1–56, ed. by C.-K. Oh and D. Dinneen, New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Karttunen, Lauri and Peters, Stanley, ‘What indirect questions conventionally implicate,’ Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 351–368, ed. by S. Mufwene, C. Walker and S. Steever, Chicago: University of Chicago Linguistics Department, 1976.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Karttunen, Lauri and Peters, Stanley, ‘Interrogrative quantifiers,’ to appear, 1979.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kasher, Asa, ‘Logical forms in context: Presuppositions and other preconditions,’ The Monist 57 (1973): 371–395.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kasher, A., ‘A proper treatment of Montague grammars in natural logic and linguistics,’ Theoretical Linguistics 2 (1975), 133–145.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Keenan, E.L. and Faltz, L., Logical Types for Natural Languages, to appear.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Klein, E.H., ‘Crossing conference in a Montague Grammar,’ Pragmatics Microfiche 2,4 (1977): A3–C8.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Klein, Ewan, ‘A semantics for positive and compariative adjectives,’ 1979, MS.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    König, E., ‘Temporal and non-temporal uses of “noch” and “schon” in German,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): 173–198.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kratzer, Angelika, ‘What “must” and “can” must and can mean,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): 337–355.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kutschera, F.V., ‘Partial interpretations,’ Formal Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 156–174, ed. EX. Keenan, Cambridge: University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ladusaw, William A., ‘Some any’s mean some,’ Texas Linguistic Forum 15 (1979): 135–142.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ladusaw, William, ‘Some problems with tense in PTQ,’ Texas Linguistic Forum 6 (1977): 90–102.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ladusaw, William A., Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations, Austin: University of Texas, 1979, Ph.D. Dissertation.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ladusaw, William, ‘The scope of some sentence adverbs and surface structure,’ North East Linguistic Society, No. 8.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Lee, I-K., ‘Syntax and semantics of Korean delimiters,’ Chicago Linguistics Society 13 (1977): 302–315.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lee, Kiyong, The Treatment of Some English Constructions in Montague Grammar, Austin: University of Texas, 1974, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Lee, K., ‘Negation in Montague grammar,’ Chicago Linguistics Society 10 (1974): 378–389.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lewis, David, ‘General Semantics,’ Semantics of Natural Language, ed. by Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1972.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    McCawley, James D., ‘Helpful hints to the ordinary working Montague grammarian,’ Linguistics, Philosophy, and Montague Grammar, ed. by S. David and M. Mithun. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979, pp. 103–126.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    McCloskey, James, Transformational Syntax and Model Theoretic Semantics: A Case Study in Modern Irish, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1979.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Montague, R., ‘Comments on Moravcsik’s paper,’ Approaches to Natural Language, pp. 289–294, ed. by K.J.J. Hintikka, et al., Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1973.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Montague, R. and Schnelle, H., Universale Grammatik, Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1972.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Parsons, Terence, ‘Some problems concerning the logic of grammatical modifiers,’ Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 127–141, ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1972.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Parsons, Terence, ‘Type theory and ordinary language,’ Lingustics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, pp. 127–152, ed. by S. Davis and M. Mithun, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Partee, Barbara H., ‘Opacity and scope,’ Semantics and Philosophy, pp. 81–102, ed. by M.K. Munitz and Peter K. Unger, New York: New York University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Partee, Barbara H., ‘Montague grammar and transformational grammar,’ Linguistic Inquiry; Vol. VI. 2 (Spring, 1975) 203–300.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Partee, Barbara H., ‘Deletion and variable binding,’ Formal Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 16–34, ed. by E.L. Keenan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Partee, Barbara H., ‘Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar,’ Montague Grammar, ed. by B. Partee, New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Partee, Barbara, ‘John is easy to please,’ Linguistic Structures Processing, pp. 281–312, ed. by A. Zampolli, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Partee, Barbara H., ‘Semantics — mathematics or psychology,’ Semantics from different points of view: Proceedings of the Konstanz Colloquium on Semantics 1978, ed. by R. Bauerle, et al., Berlin: Springer, 1979.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Partee, Barbara H., ‘Constraining transformational Montague grammar: A framework and a fragment,’ Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, pp. 51–102, ed. by S. Davis and M. Mithun, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Partee, Barbara H., ‘Montague grammar and the well-formedness constraint,’ Syntax and Semantics 10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, ed. by F. Heny and H. Schnelle, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Peters, Stanley, ‘What do questions mean?’ Texas Linguistic Forum 13 (1979): 86–95.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Plank, F., ‘Misunderstanding understood subjects: the minimal distance principle in Montague grammar,’ Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar, pp. 154–215, 1976.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Rodman, Robert, ‘Scope phenomena, “movment transformations”, and relative clauses,’ Montague Grammar, ed. B. Partee, New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Rohrer, C., ‘Le système de Montague et les presuppositions,’ Language 30 (1973): 111–124.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Siegel, Muffy, ‘Capturing the Russian adjective,’ Montague Grammar, ed. B. Partee, New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Siegel, Muffy, Capturing the Adjective, Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1976, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Siegel, Muffy E.A., ‘Measure adjectives in Montague Grammar,’ Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, pp. 223–262, ed. by S. Davis and M. Mithun, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Thomason, R.H., ‘Home is where the heart is,’ Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1974. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Thomason, Richmond H., ‘Some complement constructions in Montague grammar,’ Papers for the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 1974.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Thomason, R.H., ‘Montague grammar and some transformations,’ Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1976, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Thomason, Richmond H., ‘Some extension of Montague Grammar,’ Montague Grammar, ed. by B. Partee, New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Thomason, R., ‘On the semantic interpretation of the Thomason 1972 fragment,’ Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1976, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Stalnaker, R.C. and Thomason, R.H., ‘A semantic theory of adverbs,’ Linguistic Inquiry 4 (1973): 195–220.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Waldo, James, ‘A PTQ semantics for sortal incorrectness,’ Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, pp. 311–331, ed. S. Davis and M. Mithun, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Dowty
    • 1
  • Robert E. Wall
    • 2
  • Stanley Peters
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of LinguisticsOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of LinguisticsUniversity of Texas at AustinUSA
  3. 3.CSLIStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations