Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 143–186 | Cite as

Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation

  • Reinhard Muskens


Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Discourse Representation 
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.: 1993,Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J.: 1987, ‘Noun Phrases, Generalized Quantifiers and Anaphora’, in P. Gdrdenfors (ed.),Generalized Quantifiers, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
  3. van Benthem, J. F. A. K.: 1989, ‘Semantic Parallels’, in H. D. Ebbinghaus et al. (eds.),Logic Colloquium, Granada 1987, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 331–375.Google Scholar
  4. van Benthem, J. F. A. K.: 1991,Language in Action, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Bittner, M.: 1994, ‘Cross-Linguistic Semantics’,Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 53–108.Google Scholar
  6. Bos, J., E. Mastenbroek, S. McGlashan, S. Millies and M. Pinkal: 1994, ‘A Compositional DRS-based Formalism for NLP Applications’, in H. Bunt, R. Muskens and G. Rentier (eds),Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computational Semantics, ITK, Tilburg, pp. 21–31.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G.: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’,Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Church, A.: 1940, ‘A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types’,The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5, 56–68.Google Scholar
  10. Dekker, P. J. E.: 1993,Transsentential Meditations, Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, J. and D. Warren: 1980, ‘Lambda Normal Forms in an Intensional Logic for English’,Studia Logica 39, 311–324.Google Scholar
  12. Gabbay, D. and F. Gfinthner (eds.): 1983,Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  13. Gallin, D.: 1975,Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Gazdar, G.: 1980, ‘A Cross-Categorial Semantics for Coordination’,Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 407–409.Google Scholar
  15. Goldblatt, R.: 1987,Logics of Time and Computation, CSLI Lecture Notes, Stanford.Google Scholar
  16. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1990, ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar’, in L. Kálmán and L. Pólos (eds.),Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 3–48.Google Scholar
  17. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1991, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.Google Scholar
  18. Heim, I.: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Dissertation, UMass, Amherst, published in 1989 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Heim, I.: 1983, ‘File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.),Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. Hendriks, H.: 1993,Studied Flexibility: Categories and Types in Syntax and Semantics, Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Henkin, L.: 1963, ‘A Theory of Propositional Types’,Fundamenta Mathematisce 52, 323–344.Google Scholar
  22. Janssen, T.: 1986,Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar, CWI, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. 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, Part I, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  24. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle: 1993,From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. Keenan, E. and L. Faltz: 1978,Logical Types for Natural Language, UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics,3.Google Scholar
  26. Latecki, L. and M. Pinkal: 1990,Syntactic and Semantic Conditions for Quantifier Scope, Graduirung und Komparation, Arbeitspapier Nr. 13, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, D.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.),Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  28. May, R.: 1977,The Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Montague, R.: 1973, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in R. Montague (ed.),Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1974, pp. 247–270.Google Scholar
  30. Muskens, R. A.: 1989, ‘Going Partial in Montague Grammar’, in R. Bartsch, J. F. A. K. van Benthem and P. van Emde Boas (eds.),Semantics and Contextual Expression, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 175–220.Google Scholar
  31. Muskens, R. A.: 1991, ‘Anaphora and the Logic of Change’, in Jan van Eijck (ed.),JELIA '90, European Workshop on Logics in AI, Springer Lecture Notes, Springer, Berlin, pp. 414–430.Google Scholar
  32. Muskens, R.: 1994, ‘Categorial Grammar and Discourse Representation Theory’,Proceedings of COLING 94, Kyoto, pp. 508–514.Google Scholar
  33. Muskens, R. A.: 1995a, ‘Tense and the Logic of Change’, in: U. Egli, P. E. Pause, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow and G. Wienold (eds.),Lexical Knowledge in the Organisation of Language, J. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 147–183.Google Scholar
  34. Muskens, R. A.: 1995b,Meaning and Partiality, CSLI, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
  35. Muskens, R. A., J. F. A. K. van Benthem, and A. Visser: forthcoming, ‘Dynamics’, in J. F. A. K. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.),The Handbook of Logic and Language, Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Partee, B. and M. Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in R. Bäuerle, Ch. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.),Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 361–383.Google Scholar
  37. Pratt, V. R.: 1976, ‘Semantical Considerations on Floyd-Hoare Logic’,Proc. 17th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 109–121.Google Scholar
  38. Rooth, M.: 1987, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.),Generalized Quantifiers, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 237–268.Google Scholar
  39. Saurer, W.: 1993, ‘A Natural Deduction System for Discourse Representation Theory’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 22, 249–302.Google Scholar
  40. Scott, D.: 1971, ‘On Engendering an Illusion of Understanding’,Journal of Philosophy 68, 787–807.Google Scholar
  41. Von Stechow, A.: 1974, ‘ε − λ kontextfreie Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zu einer natürlichen formalen Semantik’,Linguistische Berichte 34, 1–33.Google Scholar
  42. Zeevat, H.: 1989, ‘A Compositional Approach to Discourse Representation Theory’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 95–131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinhard Muskens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsTilburg UniversityLE Tilburg

Personalised recommendations