Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 291–331 | Cite as

On recent analyses of the semantics of control

  • David R. Dowty


Artificial Intelligence Recent Analysis Computational Linguistic 
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. Bach, Emmon: 1968, ‘Nouns and Noun Phrases’, Emmon Bach and Robert Harms (eds.),Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 166–183.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, Emmon: 1979, ‘Control in Montague Grammar’,Linguistic Inquiry 10, 515–532.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, Emmon: 1980, ‘In Defense of Passive’,Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 297–342.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, Emmon: 1983, ‘On the Relationship between Word Grammar and Phrase Grammar’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 65–90.Google Scholar
  5. Bach, Emmon and Barbara H. Partee: 1980, ‘Anaphora and Semantic Structure’,Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  6. Barwise, Jon and Robin Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–221.Google Scholar
  7. Barwise, Jon and John Perry: 1983,Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, Michael: 1974,Some Extensions of a Montague Fragment of English, UCLA dissertation (published 1976 by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington).Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, Michael: 1976, ‘A Variation and Extension of a Montague Fragment of English’, in Barbara H. Partee (ed.),Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York, pp. 119–164.Google Scholar
  10. Bolinger, Dwight: 1968, ‘Entailment and the Meaning of Structures’,Glossa 2, 119–127.Google Scholar
  11. Brame, Michael: 1976,Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax, North-Holland, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Bresnan, Joan: 1972,Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
  13. Bresnan, Joan: 1978, ‘A Realistic Transformational Grammar’, in Joan Bresnan, Morris Halle, and George Miller (eds.),Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Bresnan, Joan: 1982, ‘Control and Complementation’, in Joan Bresnan (ed.),The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1984a, ‘Some Anaphoric Properties of Infinitives’,Proceedings of the Third West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford University, pp. 28–39.Google Scholar
  16. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1984b,Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds, University of Massachusetts dissertation. Chierchia, Gennaro: (to appear),Predication in Natural Language, NET Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam: 1970, ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum (eds.),Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn and Company, Waltham.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, Robin: 1983,Quantification and Syntactic Theory, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Dowty, David R.: 1978, ‘Governed Transformations as Lexical Rules in a Montague Grammar’,Linguistic Inquiry 9, 393–426.Google Scholar
  20. Dowty, David R.: 1979,Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Dowty, David R.: 1981, ‘Quantification and the Lexicon’,The Scope of Lexical Rules, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 107–124.Google Scholar
  22. Dowty, David R.: 1982a, ‘Grammatical Relations and Montague Grammar’, in Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey Pullum (eds.),The Nature of Syntactic Representation, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 79–130.Google Scholar
  23. Dowry, David R.: 1982b, ‘More on the Categorial Theory of Grammatical Relations’, in Annie Zaenen (ed.),Subjects and Other Subjects: Proceedings of the Harvard Conference on the Representation of Grammatical Relations, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, pp. 115–153.Google Scholar
  24. Dowty, David R., Robert Wall, and Stanley Peters: 1981,Introduction to Montague Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. Gazdar, Gerald: 1982, ‘Phrase Structure Grammar’, in Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey Pullum (eds.),The Nature of Syntactic Representation, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 131–186.Google Scholar
  26. Halvorsen, Per-Kristian: 1983, ‘Semantics for Lexical-Functional Grammar’,Linguistic Inquiry 14, 567–616.Google Scholar
  27. Horn, Laurence R.: 1978, ‘Remarks on Negative Raising’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.),Syntax and Semantics 3, Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Huntley, Martin: 1984, ‘The Semantics of English Imperatives’,Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 103–134.Google Scholar
  29. Jackendoff, Ray, S.: 1976, ‘Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation’,Linguistic Inquiry 7, 89–150.Google Scholar
  30. Joseph, Brian: 1980, ‘Linguistic Universals and Syntactic Change’,Language 56, 345–370.Google Scholar
  31. Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley Peters: 1979, ‘Conventional Implicature’, in Choon-Kyu Oh and David Dineen (eds.),Syntax and Semantics 11, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
  32. Keenan, Edward: 1974, ‘The Functional Principle: Generalizing the Notion of “Subject of”,Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 298–303.Google Scholar
  33. Keenan, Edward and Leonard Faltz: 1978,Logical Types for Natural Language (UCLA Occasional Papers in Syntax 3), UCLA Linguistics Department, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  34. Kirkpatrick, Charles: 1983, ‘What do for-to Complements Mean?’Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 214–224.Google Scholar
  35. Klein, Ewan and Ivan Sag: 1985, ‘Type-Driven Translation’,Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 163–202.Google Scholar
  36. Lakoff, George: 1970, ‘Adverbs and Modal Operators’, unpublished paper, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  37. McCawley, James: 1970, ‘Where do Noun Phrases Come from?’, in Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum, (eds.),Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn and Co., Waltham, pp. 166–183.Google Scholar
  38. Montague, Richard: 1974,Formal Philosophy, ed. by Richmond Thomason, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  39. Partee, Barbara H.: 1974, ‘Opacity and Scope’, in M. K. Munitz and P. K. Unger (eds.),Semantics and Philosophy, University Press, New York, pp. 81–102.Google Scholar
  40. Partee, Barbara H.: 1975, ‘Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar’,Linguistic Inquiry 6, 203–300.Google Scholar
  41. Partee, Barbara H. and Mats Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow (eds.),Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 361–383.Google Scholar
  42. Postal, Paul: 1974,On Raising, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  43. Quine, Willard V. O.: 1960,Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  44. Rogers, Andy: 1974, ‘A Transderivational Constraint on Richard?’,Proceedings of the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 551–558.Google Scholar
  45. Rosenbaum, Peter: 1967,The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  46. Sadock, Jerrold: 1976, ‘Some Methodological Problems in Linguistic Semantics’,Problems in Linguistic Metatheory: 1976 Conference Proceedings, Michigan State University Linguistics Department, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  47. Sadock, Jerrold: 1983, ‘The Necessary Overlapping of Grammatical Components’,Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 198–221.Google Scholar
  48. Sag, Ivan: 1982, ‘A Semantic Theory of NP-Movement Dependencies’, in Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey Pullum (eds.),The Nature of Syntactic Representation, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 427–466.Google Scholar
  49. Sag, Ivan and Ewan Klein: 1982, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of English Expletive Pronoun Constructions’,Developments in GPSG, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, pp. 95–139.Google Scholar
  50. Schmerling, Susan: ‘Synonymy Jugdments as Syntactic Evidence’,Syntax and Semantics 9:Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 299-314.Google Scholar
  51. Stalnaker, Robert and Richmond Thomason: ‘A Semantic Theory of Adverbs’,Linguistic Inquiry 4, 195–220.Google Scholar
  52. Thomason, Richmond: 1974, ‘Some Complement Constructions in Montague Grammar’,Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 712–722.Google Scholar
  53. Thomason, Richmond: 1976a, ‘Some Extension of Montague Grammar’, in Barbara Partee (ed.),Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York, pp. 77–118.Google Scholar
  54. Thomason, Richmond: 1976b, ‘On the Semantic Interpretation of the Thomason 1972 Fragment’, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Dowty
    • 1
  1. 1.Ohio State University and Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral SciencesOhioUSA

Personalised recommendations