Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 185–206 | Cite as

Situations as indices and as denotations

  • Tim FernandoEmail author
Research Article


A distinction is drawn between situations as indices required for semantically evaluating sentences and situations as denotations resulting from such evaluation. For atomic sentences, possible worlds may serve as indices, and events as denotations. The distinction is extended beyond atomic sentences according to formulae-as-types and applied to implicit quantifier domain restrictions, intensionality and conditionals.


Situations Possible worlds Events Types Intensionality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asher N., Lascarides A. (2003) Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise J., Etchemendy J. (1987) The Liar: An essay on truth and circularity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Barwise J., Perry J. (1983) Situations and attitudes. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaver D.I. (1997) Presupposition. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 939–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper R. (2005) Austinian truth, attitudes and type theory. Research on Language and Computation, 3(4): 333–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson D. (1967) The logical form of action sentences. In: Rescher N. (eds) The logic of decision and action. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 81–95Google Scholar
  7. Dekker P. (2004) Cases, adverbs, situations and events. In: Kamp H., Partee B. (eds) Context dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 383–404Google Scholar
  8. Dowty D.R. (1979) Word meaning and montague grammar. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernando, T. (2001). Conservative generalized quantifiers and presupposition. In Proceeding of the semantics and linguistic theory XI (pp. 172–191). New York: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  10. Fernando, T. (2009). Situations in LTL as strings. Information and Computation, doi: 10.1016/j.ic.2008.11.003 (in press, available online at ScienceDirect).
  11. Ginzburg, J. (2008). Situation semantics: From indexicality to metacommunicative interaction. Draft chapter for Handbook of Semantics.Google Scholar
  12. Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of english interrogatives. CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  13. Hobbs J.R. (1979) Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3(1): 67–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaplan D. (1989) Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–614Google Scholar
  16. Kratzer, A. (2008). Situations in natural language semantics. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. situations-semantics.
  17. Lewis D. (1975) Adverbs of quantification. In: Keenan E. (eds) Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  18. Moens M., Steedman M. (1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2): 15–28Google Scholar
  19. Parsons T. (1990) Events in the semantics of English. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Perry J. (1997) Situation semantics. In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Ranta A. (1994) Type-theoretical grammar. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Sæbø K.J. (2001) Necessary conditions in natural language. In: Féry C., Sternefeld W. (eds) Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp 427–449Google Scholar
  23. Schubert L. (2000) The situations we talk about. In: Minker J. (eds) Logic-based artificial intelligence. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 407–439Google Scholar
  24. Soames S. (1985) Lost innocence. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8: 59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sundholm G. (1986) Proof theory and meaning. In: Gabbay D., Guenthner F. (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic Vol. 3. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 471–506Google Scholar
  26. Troelstra A.S., Schwichtenberg H. (2000) Basic proof theory (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trinity CollegeDublin 2Ireland

Personalised recommendations