Skip to main content
Log in

The values of variables in dynamic semantics

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäuerle, Rainer & U. Egli: 1985,Anapher, Nominalphrase und Eselsätze, Sonderforschungsbericht, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D.: 1995,Presuppositon and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics, Ph.D. thesis, CCS, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G.: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’,Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P.: 1993a, ‘Existential Disclosure’,Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 561–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P.: 1993b,Transsentential Meditations. Ups and Downs in Dynamic Semantics, Ph.D. thesis, ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P.: 1994, ‘Predicate Logic with Anaphora (Seven Inch Version)’, in M. Harvey and L. Santelmann (eds.),Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV, Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University, pp. 79–95.

  • Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1991, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., M. Stokhof, and F. Veltman: 1994, ‘Update Semantic for Modal Predicate Logic’, in R. H. Cooper and J. A. Groenendijk (eds.),Integrating Semantic Theories II, ILLC, Amsterdam, Dyana-2 report R2.1.B, pp. 135–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1983, ‘File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.),Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 164–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1990, ‘E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N.: 1987,On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N.: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.),Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam, pp. 227–322. Reprinted in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.),Truth, Interpretation and Information, Foris, Dordrecht, 1984, pp. 2–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. and U. Reyle: 1993,From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa, M.: 1994, ‘Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting’,Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 109–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L.: 1968a,What Do Referential Indices Refer To, paper P-3854, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L.: 1968b,What Makes Definite Noun Phrases Definite?, paper P-3871, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L.: 1976, ‘Discourse Referents’, in J. D. McCawley (ed.),Notes from the Linguistic Underground. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7, Academic Press, New York, pp. 363–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F.: 1986,Towards a Theory of Information, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. L. Keenan (ed.)Formal Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, R.: 1986,The Semantics of Anaphora in Discourse, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M.: 1987, ‘NP Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.),Generalized Quantifiers, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 237–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, L. K. and F. J. Pelletier: 1989, ‘Generically Speaking, or, Using Discourse Representation Theory to Interpret Generics’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.),Properties, Types and Meaning II, Semantic Issues, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 193–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem, J.: 1986,Essays in Logical Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, M. H.: 1994, ‘A Direct Definition of Generalized Dynamic Quantifiers’, in M. Stokhof and P. Dekker (eds.),Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, pp. 121–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eijck, J. and de Vries, F.-J.: 1992, ‘Dynamic Interpretation and Hoare Deduction’,Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltman, F.: 1995, ‘Defaults in Update Semantics’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 24, In press.

  • Vermeulen, C. F.: 1993, ‘Sequence Semantics for Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2, 217–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeevat, H.: 1989, ‘A Compositional Approach to Discourse Representation Theory’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 95–131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dekker, P. The values of variables in dynamic semantics. Linguist Philos 19, 211–257 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628200

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628200

Keywords

Navigation