From Sentence Meanings to Full Semantics

Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 352)

Abstract

Many questions about meaning are straightforwardly empirical, like the question whether “Gift” means the same in German as it does in English. Other questions about meaning are more abstract: for example the question whether in metaphors a word acquires a new meaning, or simply contributes its meaning in a different way to a phrase containing it. This is a question about the architecture of our preferred semantic theory, and perhaps not a question about facts at all. For some theories of language the notion of meaning, like the notion of cause in physics, vanishes altogether when we reach fundamentals.

Keywords

Semantic Theory Constituent Structure Categorial Grammar Compositional Semantic Truth Definition 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Apresjan J. Systematic Lexicography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barwise J. On branching quantifiers in English, J. Philos. Log., 8: 47–80, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barwise J., and Moschovakis Y. Global inductive definability, J. Symbolic Log., 43: 521–534, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bradfield J. Parity of imperfection, or fixing independence. In CSL ’03, (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2803), Springer, New York, NY, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cameron P., and Hodges W. Some combinatorics of imperfect information, J. Symbolic Log., 66: 673–684, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chomsky N. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1975.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ermers R., Arabic Grammars of Turkic: Arabic Linguistic Model Applied to Foreign Languages and Translation of ‘Abu Hayyan Al-Andalusi’s “Kitab Al-Idrak Li-Lisan Al-Atrak”. Brill, Leiden, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Ward Gilman, editor. Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. Merriam-Webster, Springfield, MA, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hodges W. Some strange quantifiers. In J. Mycielski, et al., editor, Structures in Logic and Computer Science, (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1261), pages 51–65. Springer, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodges W. Formal features of compositionality, J. Log. Lang. Inf., 10: 7–28, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hodges W. Two doors to open. In D. M. Gabbay, S. S. Goncharov, and M. Zakharyaschev, editors, Mathematical Problems from Applied Logic I, New Logics for the XXIst Century. Springer, New York, NY, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keenan E. L., and Stabler E. P. Bare Grammar. CSLI, Stanford, CA, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leitgeb H. Hodges’ theorem does not account for determinacy of translation: a reply to Werning, Erkentis, 623: 411–425, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parikh R., and Väänänen J. Finite information logic, Ann. Pure Appl. Log., 134: 83–93, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Partee B. H., ter Meulen A., and Wall R. E. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pustejovsky J. The Generative Lexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Orman Quine W. Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1960.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steedman M. The Syntactic Process, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tarski A. The concept of truth in formalized languages. English translation In J. Corcoran, editor, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, pages 152–278. Hackett Publishing Co, Indianapolis, IN, 1983.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tarski A., and Vaught R. Arithmetical extensions of relational systems, Compositio Math., 13: 81–102, 1957.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Werning M. Compositionality, context, categories and the indeterminacy of translation, Erkenntnis, 60: 145–178, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Westerståhl D. On the compositional extension problem, J. Philos. Log., 33: 549–582, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queen Mary, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations