Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 111–183 | Cite as

Anaphora and dynamic binding

  • Gennaro Chierchia

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–220.Google Scholar
  2. Berman, S.: 1987, ‘A Situation Based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification’, in J. Blevins and A. Vainikka (eds.),University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 12, GLSA, Amherst.Google Scholar
  3. Berman, S.: 1990, ‘Towards the Semantics of Open sentences: WH-phrases and Indefinites’, in M. Stokhof and L. Torenvliet (eds.),Proceedings of the 7th Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, G.: 1977,Reference to Kinds in English, Indiana University Linguistic Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Also published in 1979 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G.: 1988, ‘Dynamic Generalized Quantifiers and Donkey Anaphora,’ in M. Krifka (ed.)Genericity in Natural Language, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G.: 1990, ‘Intensionality and Context Change’, ms., Cornell University.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G. and M. Rooth: 1984, ‘Configurational Notions in DRT’, in C. Jones and P. Sells (eds.)Proceedings of NELS 14, GLSA, Amherst.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1965,Aspects of a Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N.: 1970, ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.)Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Blaisdell, Waltham, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, R.: 1979, ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’ in F. Heny and H. Schnelle (eds.)Syntax and Semantics 10, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, D.: 1967, ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’, in N. Rescher (ed.),The Logic of Decision and Action, University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dekker, P. (1990a) “The scope of Negation in Discourse” in M. Stokhof, J. Groenendijk and D. Beaver (eds)Quantification and Anaphora I, Dyana Deliverable R2.2A, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  13. Dekker, P. (1990b) “Existential Disclosure”, paper presented at the Third Symposium on Logic and Language, Réfvulop, Hungary. To appear in the proceedings of the conference.Google Scholar
  14. De Hoop, H. and De Swart, H.: 1989, ‘Over Indefiniete Objecten en to Relatie tussen Syntaxis en Semantiek’,Glot 12.Google Scholar
  15. Diesing, M.: 1988, ‘Bare Plural Subjects and the Stage/Individual Contrast’ in M. Krifka (ed.),Genericity in Natural Language, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  16. Engdahl, E.: 1986,Constituent Questions, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, G.: 1980, ‘Pronouns’,Linguistic Inquiry,11(2), 337–362.Google Scholar
  18. Gazdar, G.: 1980, ‘A Cross-categorial Semantics for Coordination’,Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 407–409.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1990, ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar’, in L. Kalman and L. Poles (eds.)Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.Google Scholar
  20. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1991, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, I.: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Heim, I.: 1990, ‘E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2), 137–178.Google Scholar
  23. Kadmon, N.: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13(3), 273–24.Google Scholar
  24. Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Gorenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.)Formal methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Karttunen, L.: 1976, ‘Discourse Referents’ in J. McCawley (ed.)Syntax and Semantics 7, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Keenan, E. and L. Faltz: 1985,Boolean Semantics for Natural Language, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  27. Keenan, E. and J. Stavi: 1986, ‘A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners’,Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253–26.Google Scholar
  28. Kratzer, A.: 1989a, ‘An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5), pp. 607–53.Google Scholar
  29. Kratzer, A.: 1989b, ‘Individual-level vs. Stage-level Predicates’, unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  30. Krifka, M.: 1991, ‘A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions’, unpublished manuscript, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  31. Lahiri, U.: 1991, ‘Quantificational Variability in Embedded Interrogatives’, paper presented at SALT 1, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  32. Lappin, S.: 1989, ‘Donkey Pronouns Unbound’,Theoretical Linguistics 15.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, D.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.)Formal Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  34. May, R.: 1977,The Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  35. Muskens, R.: 1989,Meaning and Partiality, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Neale, S.: 1991,Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
  37. Partee, B. H. and M. Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwartze and A. von Stechow (eds.)Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  38. Parsons, T.: 1991,Events in the Semantics of English, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  39. Pelletier, J. and L. Schubert: 1989, ‘Generically Speaking’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee and R. Turner (eds.),Properties, Types and Meaning, vol 2, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  40. Portner, P.: 1991: ‘Gerunds and Types of Events’, paper presented at SALT 1, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  41. Roberts, C.: 1987,Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  42. Root, R.: 1986, The Semantics of Anaphora in Discourse, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  43. Rooth, M.: 1985,Association with Focus, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  44. Rooth, M.: 1987, ‘NP Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gardenförs (ed.),Generalized Quantifiers, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  45. Rooth, M.: 1991, ‘Indefinites, Adverb of Quantification and Focus’; unpublished manuscript, AT&T Bells Labs, Murray Hill, N.J.Google Scholar
  46. Srivastav, V.: 1990a,WH-dependencies in Hindi and the Theory of Grammar; Ph.D. Diss., Cornell University.Google Scholar
  47. Srivastav, V.: 1990b, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Correlatives’, forthcoming inNatural Language and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
  48. Stalnaker, R.: 1979, ‘Assertion’ in P. Cole (ed.),Syntax and Semantics 9 — Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Stump, G.: 1981,Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Free Adjuncts and Absolutes, Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University. A revised version was published in 1985 by Kluwer with the titleThe Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions.Google Scholar
  50. van Benthem, J.: 1989, ‘Polyadic Quantifiers’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 437–64.Google Scholar
  51. Williams, E.: 1981, ‘Argument Structure and Morphology’,The Linguistic Review,1, 81–114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gennaro Chierchia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics Morrill HallCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations