Skip to main content
Log in

A note on the interpretation of adjoined relative clauses

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

By accepting the above proposals for translating tenses it appears possible to achieve a very general account of the interpretation of Warlpiri adjoined clauses. Moreover, if the analysis is correct it would provide an interesting example of natural language generalizing across tenses and NPs, since what we would have is a single syntactic construction whose interpretation varied according to whether an NP or a tense were translated with a distinguished variable. These results thus serve to pose once again the question of where precisely the common features of tenses and NPs reside. Recent work applying model-theoretic techniques to natural language semantics may well provide an answer. Thus in Dowty (1979) and Larson and Cooper (1980) NPs and tenses both denote the same sort of set-theoretic object, viz., sets of sets. Within generalized quantification theory this is just to say that both NPs and tenses denote quantifiers (cf. Barwise and Cooper, 1981, for much illuminating information on quantifiers and natural language). It may thus be possible to view the interpretation of Warlpiri adjoined clauses as a case of natural language generalizing across the semantic type of quantifiers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  • Bach, E. and Cooper, R.: 1978, ‘The NPS Analysis of Relative Clauses and Compositional Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 145–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J. and Cooper, R.: 1981, ‘Generalized quantifiers and Natural Language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R.: 1975, ‘Montague's Semantic Theory and Transformational Syntax’. Unpublished U. Mass. Dissertation (Amherst).

  • Cooper, R.: 1979, ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’, in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 10, ed. by F. Heny and H. Schnelle (New York).

  • Dowty, D.: 1979, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar (Dordrecht).

  • Hale, K.: 1973, ‘Person Marking in Walbiri’, in Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (New York).

  • Hale, K.: 1976, ‘The Adjoined Relative Clause in Australia’, in Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, ed. by R. M. W. Dixon (New Jersey).

  • Hale, K.: 1981, ‘On the position of Warlpiri in a Typology of the Base’, Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club mimeo.

  • Hausser, R.: 1979, ‘How Do Pronouns Denote?’, in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 10, ed. by F. Heny and H. Schnelle (New York).

  • Lapointe, S.: 1980, ‘A Theory of Grammatical Agreement’. Unpublished U. Mass. Dissertation (Amherst).

  • Larson, R. and Cooper R.: 1980, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of when-questions’, Paper presented at the Fourth Groningen Round Table Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands.

  • Montague, R.: 1974, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in R. Montague, Formal Philosophy, ed. by R. Thomason (New Haven).

  • Nash, D.: 1980, ‘Topics in Warlpiri Grammar’. Unpublished MIT Dissertation (Cambridge).

  • Partee, B.: 1973, ‘Some Structural Analogies Between Tenses and Pronouns in English’, Journal of Philosophy 60, 601–609.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Larson, R.K. A note on the interpretation of adjoined relative clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 473–482 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355583

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355583

Keywords

Navigation