Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 141–168 | Cite as

Intensionality and context change

Towards a dynamic theory of propositions and properties
  • Gennaro Chierchia


It is arguably desirable to have a theory of meaning that (i) does not identify propositions with sets of worlds, (ii) enables to capture the dynamic character of semantic interpretation and (iii) provides the basis for a semantic program that incorporates and extends the achievements of Montague semantics. A theory of properties and propositions that meets these desiderata is developed and several applications to the semantic analysis of natural languages are explored.

Key words

properties propositions dynamic semantics Montague semantics possible worlds characters λ-calculus Scott Domains Frege Structures 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aczel, P., 1980, “Frege structures and the notion of proposition, truth and set”, inThe Kleene Symposium, J. Barwiseet al. (eds.), Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and Perry, J., 1983,Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, G., 1984,Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G., 1989, “Anaphora and attitudes De Se”, inContextual Expressions, J. van Benthem and P. van Emde Boas, (eds.), Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G., 1992, “Anaphora and dynamic binding”,Linguistic and Philosophy 15, 111–183.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G. and Turner, R., 1988, “Semantics and property theory”,Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 261–302.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G., Partee, B.H., and Turner, R. (eds.), 1989,Properties, Types and Meaning, vol. 1 and vol. 2, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Gresswell, M., 1973,Logics and Languages, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  9. Cresswell, M., 1985,Structured Meanings, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1990, “Dynamic Montague grammar”,Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, in L. Kaiman and L. Polos, (eds.), Akademiai Kiado, Hungary.Google Scholar
  11. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic”,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.Google Scholar
  12. Heim, I., 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NPs, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Kamp, H., 1981, “A theory of truth and semantic representation”, inFormal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.), Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
  14. Kaplan, D., 1979, “On the logic of demonstratives”, inContemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, P. French, T. Uehling and H. Wettstein (eds.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  15. Kartunnen, L., 1976, “Discourse referents”, inSyntax and Semantics, 7, J. McCawley (ed.), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Keenan, E. and Faltz, L., 1985,Boolean Semantics for Natural Language, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Muskens, R., 1989,Meaning and Partiality, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Partee, B.H. and Rooth, M., 1983, “Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity”, inMeaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, R. Bauerle, C. Schwartze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Stalnaker, R., 1979, “Assertion”, inSyntax and Semantics, 9-Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Stalnaker, R., 1984,Inquiry, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Thomason, R., 1980, “A model theory for propositional attitudes”,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 47–70.Google Scholar
  22. Turner, R., 1990,Truth and Modality for Knowledge Representation, London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  23. Zimmerman, T.E., 1993, “On the proper treatment of opacity verbs”,Natural Language Semantics 1.2, 149–180.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gennaro Chierchia
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Cornell UniversityItaly
  2. 2.University of MilanItaly

Personalised recommendations