Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 399–467 | Cite as

Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites

  • Yoad Winter
Article

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Choice Function Scopal Semantic 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abusch, D.: 1994, ‘The Scope of Indefinites’, Natural Language Semantics 3, 88–135.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, I. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Ouantifiers and Natural Language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  3. Beghelli, F.: ‘A Minimalist Approach to Quantifier Scope’, in Proceedings of NELS23.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Shalom, D.: ‘Object Wide Scope and Semantic Trees’, in Proceedings of SALT 3.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, M. R.: 1974, Some Extensions of a Montague Fragment of English, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  6. van Benthem, J.: 1986, Essays in Logical Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. van Benthem, J.: 1991, Language in Action, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, G.: 1977, Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, UMASS.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, B.: 1997a, ‘Distribution, Collection and Quantification: A Type-Logical Account of Plurality’, to appear in B. Carpenter, Type Logical Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter, B.: 1997b, ‘Quantification and Scoping: A Deductive Account’, in B. Carpenter, Type Logical Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia, G.: 1993, ‘Questions with Quantifiers’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 181–234.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N.: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, R.: 1975, Montague's Semantic Theory and Transformational Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, UMASS.Google Scholar
  14. van der Does, J.: 1992, Applied Quantifier Logics, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. van der Does, J.: 1993, ‘Sums and Quantifiers’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 509–550.Google Scholar
  16. Dowty, D.: 1986, ‘A Note on Collective Predicates, Distributive Predicates and All’, in Marshall, Miller and Zhang (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  17. Egli, U. and K. von Heusionger: 1995, ‘The Epsilon Operator and e-Type Pronouns’, in U. Egli, P.E. Pause, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow and G. Wienold (eds), Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  18. Farkas, D. F.: 1981, ‘Quantifier Scope and Syntactic Islands’, in Proceedings of CLS 17.Google Scholar
  19. Farkas, D. F.: 1997, ‘Evaluation Indices and Scope’, in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  20. Fine, K.: 1985, Reasoning with Arburary Objects, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Fodor, J. D. and I. Sag: 1982, ‘Referential and Quantificational Indefinities’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–398.Google Scholar
  22. Fox, D.: 1995, ‘Economy and Scope’, Natural Language Semantics 3.Google Scholar
  23. Heim, I., H. Lasnik and R. May 1991, ‘Reciprocity and Plurality’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 63–101.Google Scholar
  24. Hendriks, H.: 1993, Studied Flexibility, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Hepple, M.: 1991, The Grammar and Processing of Order and Dependency: A Categorial Approach, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  26. Higginbotham, J.: 1987, ‘Indefiniteness and Predication’, in E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Menulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hilbert, D. and P. Bernays: 1939, Die Grundlagen der Mathematik II, second edition, reprint 1970, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoeksema, J.: 1983, ‘Plurality and Conjunction’, in A. ter Meulen (ed.), Studies in Modeltheoretic Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  29. Jacobson, P.: 1992, ‘Bach-Peters Sentences in a Variable-Free Semantics’, in P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  30. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  31. Keenan, E.: 1987, ‘A Semantic Definition of “Indefinite NP”’, in E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Keenan, E., and L. Faltz: 1985, Boolean Semantics for Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  33. Kratzer, A.: 1995, ‘Scope or pseudoscope? Are There Wide Scope Indefinites’, an unpublished ms., UMASS. To appear in F. Hamm and A. von Stechow (eds.), Proceedings of Recent Developments in the Theory of Natural Language, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  34. Lakoff, G.: 1970, ‘Repartee’, Foundations of Language 6, 389–422.Google Scholar
  35. Landman, F.: 1989, ‘Groups I & II’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559–605, 723–744.Google Scholar
  36. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice Theoretical Approach’, in R. Baucrle et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  37. Link, G.: 1987, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Plurals’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers, D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  38. Ludlow, P. and S. Neale: 1991, ‘Indefinite Descriptions: In Defense of Russell’, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 171–202.Google Scholar
  39. May, R.: 1977, The Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  40. Meyer Viol, W. P. M.: 1995, Instantial Logic, Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University, ILLC dissertation series, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  41. Moortgat, M.: 1988, Categorial Investigations, Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Nam, S.: 1991, ‘N-ary Quantifiers and the Expressive Power of NP Compositions’, in J. van der Does and J. van Eijck (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers Theory and Application, Dutch network for language, logic and information.Google Scholar
  43. Partee, B.: 1987, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type Shifting Principles’, in J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh and M. Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theories and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  44. Partee, B. and M. Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in R. Bauerle et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  45. Quine, W. V.: ‘Variables Explained Away’, in Selected Logic Papers, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Reinhart, T.: 1992, ‘Wh-in-situ: An Apparent Paradox’, in P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  47. Reinhart, T.: 1997, ‘Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided between QR and Choice Functions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 40(4), 335–397 (this issue). Prepublished in T. Reinhart, Interface Strategies, OTS Working Papers 95–002, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  48. Rodman, R.: 1976, ‘Scope Phenomena, “Movement Transformations” and Relative Clauses’, in B. H. Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Rooth, M. and B. Partee: 1982, ‘Conjunction, Type Ambiguity and Wide Scope or’, in Flickinger et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford.Google Scholar
  50. Ross, J. R.: 1967, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  51. Ruys, E. G.: 1992, The Scope of Indefinites, Ph.D., dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  52. Ruys, E. G.: 1995, ‘Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon’, unpublished ms., Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  53. Scha, R.: 1981, ‘Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification’, in J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof and T. M. V. Janssen (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  54. Schein, B.: 1993, Plurals and Events, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Szabolcsi, A.: 1987, ‘Bound Variables in Syntax: Are There Any?’, in J. Groenendijk et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  56. Szabolcsi, A.: 1997, ‘Strategies for Scope Taking’, in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  57. Verkuyl, H. J.: 1993, A Theory of Aspectuality, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Winter, Y.: 1995a, ‘Syncategorematic Conjunction and Structured Meanings’, in Proceedings of SALT 5.Google Scholar
  59. Winter, Y.: 1995b, ‘On the Formalization of Choice Functions as Representing the Scope of Indefinites’, in G. V. Morrill and R. T. Oelule (eds.), Formal Grammar, Proceedings of the Conference of the European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  60. Winter, Y.: 1996a, ‘A Unified Semantic Treatment of Singular NP Coordination’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 337–391.Google Scholar
  61. Winter, Y.: 1996b, ‘The Square of Individuals’, in P. Dekker and J. Groenendijk (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  62. Zimmermann, T. E.: 1986, ‘Transparent Adverbs and Scopeless Quantifiers’, in J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh and M. Stokhof (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics and Lexical Semantics, Foris.Google Scholar
  63. Zimmermann, T. E.: 1991, ‘Scopeless Quantifiers and Operators’, in J. van der Does and J. van Eijck (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers Theory and Application, Dutch network for language, logic and information.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoad Winter
    • 1
  1. 1.OTSUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations