Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 683–721 | Cite as

Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse

  • Craige Roberts

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise, Jon and John Perry: 1983,Situations and Attitudes,MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Carlson, Marcia: 1982, ‘The Representation of Disjunction’, manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, Gennaro and Mats Rooth: 1984, ‘Configurational Notions in Discourse Representation Theory’, in C. Jones and P. Sells (eds.),Proceedings of NELS 14, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, Noam: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Evans, Gareth: 1977, ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers and Relative Clauses (I)’,Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 467–536.Google Scholar
  6. Farkas, Donka, F. and Yoko Sugioka: 1983, ‘Restrictive If/When Clauses’,Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 225–58.Google Scholar
  7. Fitch, Frederick: 1952,Symbolic Logic, Ronald, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Fodor, Janet and Ivan Sag: 1982, ‘Referential and Quantificational Indefinites’,Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–98.Google Scholar
  9. Geach, Peter T.: 1962,Reference and Generality, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  10. Grice, H. P.: 1967, ‘Logic and Conversation’, William James Lectures, Harvard, published in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.),The Logic of Grammar, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1988, ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar: Going Back to MG and Beyond DRT’, unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam and Philips Research Laboratories.Google Scholar
  12. Heim, Irene: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  13. Heim, Irene: 1985, ‘Presupposition Projection and Anaphoric Relations in Modal and Propositional Attitude Contexts’, unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  14. Isard, Stephen: 1975, ‘Changing the Context’, in L. Keenan (ed.),Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jespersen, Otto: 1965,The Philosophy of Grammar, Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Kadmon, Nirit: 1987,On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D, dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  17. Kamp, Hans: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen and Martin Stokhof (eds.),Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Vol. I, Mathematische Centrum, Amsterdam, reprinted in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.), (1984),Truth, Interpretation and Information, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
  18. Karttunen, Lauri: 1976, ‘Discourse Referents’, in J. McCawley (ed.),Syntax and Semantics 7, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Kratzer, Angelika: 1977, ‘What “must” and “can” Must and Can Mean’,Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 337–55.Google Scholar
  20. Kratzer, Angelika: 1979, ‘Conditional Necessity and Possibility’, in R. Bauerle, U. Egli and A von Stechow (eds.),Semantics from a Different Point of View, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Kratzer, Angelika: 1980, ‘The Notional Category of Modality’, in Eikmeyer and Rieser (eds.),Words, Worlds and Contexts, deGruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  22. Kratzer, Angelika: 1981, ‘Partition and Revision, The Semantics of Counterfactuals’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 10, 201–16.Google Scholar
  23. Kratzer, Angelika: 1985, ‘An Investigation into the Lumps of Thought’, manuscript, Technische Universitat, Berlin.Google Scholar
  24. Ladd, D. Robert, Jr.: 1980,The Structure of Intonational Meaning, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  25. Landman, Fred: 1986,Towards a Theory of Information: The Status of Partial Objects in Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  26. Landman, Fred: 1987, ‘A Handful of Theories of Discourse Representation Theory’, unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, David: 1973,Counterfactuals, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, David: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. L. Keenan (ed.),Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis, David: 1979, ‘Score-Keeping in a Language Game’, in Bauerle et al. (eds.),Semantics from a Different Point of View, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Partee, Barbara H.: 1973, ‘Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English’,Journal of Philosophy 70, 601–609.Google Scholar
  31. Partee, Barbara H.: 1984, ‘Nominal and Temporal Anaphora’,Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 243–86.Google Scholar
  32. Pierrehumbert, Janet: 1980,The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation, Ph.D, dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. Reichenbach, Hans: 1947,Elements of Symbolic Logic, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  34. Roberts, Craige: 1985, ‘tAnaphora, Coreference and the Binding Theory’, manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  35. Roberts, Craige: 1986,Modal Subordination, Anaphora, and Distributivity, Ph.D, dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  36. Roberts, Craige: forthcoming, ‘Modal Subordination, Situations, and Reference Time’.Google Scholar
  37. Selkirk, Elisabeth O.: 1984,Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  38. Sells, Peter: 1985, ‘Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Modification’, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Report No. CSLI-85-28.Google Scholar
  39. Stalnaker, Robert: 1979, ‘Assertion’, in P. Cole (ed.),Syntax and Semantics 9, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Stalnaker, Robert: 1985, ‘Belief Attribution and Context’, manuscript of a talk given in the Colloquium in Philosophy of Oberlin College, April, 1985.Google Scholar
  41. Stenning, K.: 1978, ‘Anaphora as an Approach to Pragmatics’, in M. Halle, J. Bresnan and G. Miller (eds.),Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  42. Webber, Bonnie Lynn: 1978,A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Report No. 3761.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craige Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations