Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 699–726 | Cite as

Intensionality and boundedness

  • Glyn Morrill
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ades, Anthony E. and Mark J. Steedman: 1982, ‘On the Order of Words’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 517–558.Google Scholar
  2. Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz: 1935, ‘Die syntaktische Konnexitat’,Studia Philosophica 1, 1–27, translated in S. McCall (ed.),Polish Logic: 1920–1939, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 207–231.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, A. R. and N. D. Belnap: 1975,Entailment, Volume 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  4. Avron, Arnon: 1988, ‘The Semantics and Proof Theory of Linear Logic’,Theoretical Computer Science 57, 161–184.Google Scholar
  5. Bar-Hitlel, Yehoshua: 1953, ‘A Quasi-Arithmetical Notation for Syntactic Description’,Language 29, 47–58.Google Scholar
  6. van Benthem, Johan: 1983,The Semantics of Variety in Categorial Grammar, Report 83-29, Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University. Also in W. Buszkowski et al. (eds.), 1988,Categorial Grammar, Volume 25, Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe, John Benjamins, Amsterdam /Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  7. van Benthem, Johan: 1986, ‘Categorial Grammar’, inEssays in Logical Semantics, Volume 8, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 123–150.Google Scholar
  8. van Benthem, Johan: 1987, ‘Categorial Grammar and Type Theory’, Prepublication Series 87-07, Institute for Language, Logic and Information, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. van Benthem, Johan: 1988a, ‘The Lambek Calculus’, in R. Oehrle, E. Bach and D. Wheeler (eds.)Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 35–68. Paper presented at the Conference on Categorial Grammar, Tucson, June 1985.Google Scholar
  10. van Benthem, Johan: 1988b, ‘Strategies of Intensionalisation’, in I. M. Bodnár, A. Maté and L. Pólos (eds.),Intensional Logic, History of Philosophy, and Methodology, to Imre Ruzsa on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Filozófiai Figyelö, L. Eötvös University, Budapest, pp. 41–59.Google Scholar
  11. Bull, Robert A. and Krister Segerberg: 1984, ‘Basic Modal Logic’, inHandbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume II, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
  12. Curry, Haskell B. and Robert Feys: 1958,Combinatory Logic, Volume I, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Desclés, Jean-Pierre, Zlatka Guentchéva and Sebastian Shaumyan: 1986, ‘Theoretical Analysis of Reflexivisation in the Framework of Applicative Grammar’,Linguisticæ Investigationes X:1, 1–65.Google Scholar
  14. Dowty, David R., Robert E. Wall and Stanley Peters: 1981,Introduction to Montague Semantics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  15. Gallin, Daniel: 1975,Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic with Applictions to Montague Semantics, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Girard, Jean-Yves: 1987, ‘Linear Logic’,Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1–102.Google Scholar
  17. Girard, Jean-Yves: 1989, ‘Towards a Geometry of Interaction’,Proceedings of the AMS Conference on Categories, Logic and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  18. Girard, Jean-Yves and Yves Lafont: 1987, ‘Linear Logic and Lazy Computation’, TAPSOFT '87, Volume 2, LNCS 250, Springer-Verlag, Pisa, pp. 52–66.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1984,Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Ph.D. dissertation, Centrale Interfaculteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1987, ‘Type-Shifting Rules and the Semantics of Interrogatives’, Prepublication Series 87-01, Institute for Language, Logic and Information, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Hendriks, Herman: 1987, ‘Type Change in Semantics: the Scope of Quantification and Coordination’, Prepublication Series 87-09, Institute for Language, Logic and Information, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  22. Hepple, Mark and Glyn Morrill: 1989, ‘Parsing and Derivational Equivalence’,Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  23. Howard, W. A.: 1969, ‘The Formulae-as-Types notion of Construction’, ms. Appears in J. R. Hindley and J. P. Seldin (eds.) 1980,To H. B. Curry, Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jackendoff, R.: 1972,Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  25. Janssen, Theo M. V.: 1983, ‘Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar’, Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
  26. König, E.: 1989, ‘Parsing as Natural Deduction’,Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  27. Lambek, J.: 1958, ‘The Mathematics of Sentence Structure’,American Mathematical Monthly,65, 154–170.Google Scholar
  28. Lambek, J.: 1961, ‘On the Calculus of Syntactic Types’, in R. Jakobson (ed.),Studies of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, American Mathematical Society, pp. 166–178.Google Scholar
  29. Montague, Richard: 1973, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik and P. Suppes,Approaches to Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht. Reprinted in R. H. Thomason (ed.) (1974),Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 247–270.Google Scholar
  30. Moortgat, Michael: 1988,Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  31. Moortgat, Michael: 1990, ‘Cut Elimination and the Elimination of Spurious Ambiguity’,Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  32. Morrill, Glyn: 1988,Extraction and Coordination in Phrase Structure Grammar and Categorial Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  33. Morrill, Glyn: 1989a, ‘Intensionality, Boundedness, and Modal Logic’, Research Paper EUCCS/RP-32, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  34. Morrill, Glyn: 1989b, ‘Grammar as Logic’, Research Paper EUCCS/RP-34, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  35. Morrill, Glyn: 1990, ‘Grammar and Logical Types’,Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Ono, Hiroakira: (to appear), ‘Structural Rules and a Logical Hierarchy’, inProceedings of the Conference on Mathematical Logic and its Applications, 1988, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  37. Partee, Barbara and Mats Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.),Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, Volume 6, Linguistic Analysis, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 53–95.Google Scholar
  38. Partee, Barbara H.: 1986, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles’, in J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh and M. Stokhof (eds.),Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 189–215.Google Scholar
  39. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag: 1989, ‘Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding’, ms., Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  40. Popowich, Fred P.: 1988,Reflexives and Tree Unification Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  41. Prawitz, D.: 1965,Natural Deduction, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  42. Prijatelj, Andreja: 1989, ‘Intensional Lambek Calculi: Theory and Application’, Prepublication Series 89-06, Institute for Language, Logic and Information. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  43. Steedman, Mark: 1985, ‘Dependency and Coordination in the Grammar of Dutch and English’,Language 61, 523–568.Google Scholar
  44. Steedman, Mark: 1987, ‘Combinatory Grammars and Parasitic Gaps’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,5, 403–439.Google Scholar
  45. Szabolcsi, Anna: 1983, ‘ECP in Categorial Grammar’, ms. Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  46. Szabolcsi, Anna: 1987, ‘Bound Variables in Syntax’,Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium, Institute for Language, Logic and Information, University of Amsterdam, pp. 331–351.Google Scholar
  47. Wansing, Heinrich: 1989, ‘Relevant Quasi-Deductions, Weak Implicational Logics, and Operational Semantics’, ms. Institut für Philosophic, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glyn Morrill
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Cognitive ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburgh

Personalised recommendations