Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 125–197 | Cite as

A typology for attitude verbs and their anaphoric properties

  • Nicholas Asher


Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Attitude Verb Anaphoric Property 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asher, N.: 1986, ‘Belief in Discourse Representation Theory’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 5, 127–189.Google Scholar
  2. Asher, N. and D. Bonevac: 1985, ‘How Extensional is Extensional Perception?’,Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 203–228.Google Scholar
  3. Asher, N. and D. Bonevac: 1985, ‘Situations and Events’,Philosophical Studies 47, 57–77.Google Scholar
  4. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  5. Barwise, J. and J. Perry: 1983, Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Bonevac, D.: 1984, ‘Semantics for Clausally Complemented Verbs’,Synthese 59, 187–218.Google Scholar
  7. Chastain, C.: 1975, ‘Reference and Context’, in K. Gunderson (ed.),Language, Mind and Knowledge, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  8. Dennett, D.: 1982, ‘Beyond Belief’, in A. Woodfield (ed.),Thought and Intentionality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 9–62.Google Scholar
  9. Edelberg, W.: 1984,Intentional Identity, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  10. Geach, P.: 1967, ‘Intentional Idensity’,Journal of Philosophy 64, 627–632.Google Scholar
  11. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1982, ‘Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements’,Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 175–233.Google Scholar
  12. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1984, ‘On the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers’, in F. Landman and F. Veltman (eds.),Varieties of Formal Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 143–170.Google Scholar
  13. Heim, L: 1983, ‘On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions’, in M. Barlow et al. (eds.), Proceedings from the Second Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  14. Hintikka, J.: 1962,Knowledge and Belief, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J.: 1975, ‘Different Constructions in Terms of the Basic Epistemological Verbs: A Survey of Some Problems and Proposals’,The Intentions of Intentionality and Other New Models for Modalities, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  16. Kamp, H.: 1973, ‘Free Choice Permission’,Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 73, 57–74.Google Scholar
  17. Kamp, H.: 1978, ‘Semantics Versus Pragmatics’, in F. Guenther, and S. J. Schmidt (eds.),Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 255–287.Google Scholar
  18. Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk, th. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.),Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematisch Centrum Tracts, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  19. Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘Reference Temporelle et Representation du Discours’,Langages, 39–64.Google Scholar
  20. Kamp, H.: 1983, ‘Situations in Discourse without Time or Questions’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  21. Kamp, H.: 1985, ‘Context Thought and Communication’,Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 85, 239–261.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, R. and J. Bresnan: 1982, ‘Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation’, in J. Bresnan (ed.),The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 173–282.Google Scholar
  23. Karttunen, L.: 1976, ‘Discourse Referents’, in J. D. McCawley (ed.),Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 363–386.Google Scholar
  24. Karttunen, L.: 1977, ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy1, 3–44.Google Scholar
  25. Kratzer, A.: 1981, ‘The Notional Category of Modality’, in Eickmeyer and Rieser (eds.)Words, Worlds and Contexts, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  26. Kripke, S.: 1979, ‘A Puzzle about Belief’, in A. Margalit (ed.),Meaning and Use, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 239–283.Google Scholar
  27. Ladusaw, W.: 1979,Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  28. Montague, R.: 1970, ‘Pragmatics and Intensional Logic’,Synthese 22, 68–94.Google Scholar
  29. Montague, R.: 1974, ‘On the Nature of Certain Philosophical Entities’, in R. Thomason (ed.),Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 148–187.Google Scholar
  30. Roberts, C.: 1985, ‘Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora’, University of Massachussetts, manuscript.Google Scholar
  31. Saarinen, E.: 1979, ‘Intentional Identity Interpreted: A Case Study of the Relations Among Quantifiers, Pronouns, and Propositional Attitudes’, in E. Saarinen (ed.),Game-Theoretical Semantics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 245–329.Google Scholar
  32. van Benthem, J.: 1983,The Logic of Time: A Model-Theoretic Investigation into the Varieties of Temporal Ontology and Temporal Discourse, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  33. Wada, H. and N. Asher: 1986, ‘BUILDRS: An Implementation of DR Theory and LFG’,COLING-86, 540–546.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Asher
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas at AustinAustin TXUSA

Personalised recommendations