Models for Natural Languages

  • Jens Erik Fenstad
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 122)


“The structure of every sentence is a lesson in logic.” This often quoted statement of John Stuart Mill (1867) leads directly into a controversial area of theoretical grammar.


Natural Language Deep Structure High Order Logic Mass Noun Syntactic Rule 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Montague’s papers on linguistics and related topics have been edited by R. Thomason, Formal Philosophy. A recent collection of studies is B. H. Partee, Montague Grammar. An introductory paper from the linguistic point of view is B. H. Partee, ‘Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar’. The present paper, which is a somewhat extended version of a survey lecture to the 4th Scandinavian Logic Symposium, is written from a ‘logician’/mathematician’s point of view.Google Scholar
  2. Ajdukiewicz, K. (1936), ‘Die Syntaktische Konnexität’, Studia Philosophica 1.Google Scholar
  3. Bartsch, R. (1976), ‘The Role of Categorial Syntax in Grammatical Theory’, in Kasher, A. (ed.), Language in Focus, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Bresnan, J. (1976), ‘Toward a Realistic Model of Transformational Grammar’, paper presented at the MIT-AT & T Convocation on Communications, Sessions on Language and Cognition.Google Scholar
  5. Bunt, H. (1976), ‘The Formal Semantics of Mass Terms’, paper presented at the III Nordiska Lingvistmøtet.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1957), Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  7. Cresswell, M. J. (1973), Logics and Languages, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  8. Curry, H. B. (1961), ‘Some Logical Aspects of Grammatical Structure’, in Jakobson, R. (ed.), The Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, American Math. Society, Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  9. Hintikka, J. and Carlson, L. (1978), ‘Conditionals, Pronominalization by Quantifiers, and Other Applications of Subgames’ in E. Saarinen (ed.), Game-Theoretical Semantics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Lee, K. (1974), The Treatment of Some English Constructions in Montague Grammar, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  11. McMahon, W. E. (1976), Hans Reichenbach’s Philosophy of Grammar, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, G. A. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976), Language and Perception, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Montague, R. (1973), ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, reprinted in Thomason (1974).Google Scholar
  14. Partee, B. H. (1975), ‘Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 6.Google Scholar
  15. Partee, B. H. (ed.) (1976), Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Quine, W. V. (1969), ‘Propositional Objects’, in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Reichenbach, H. (1947), Elements of Symbolic Logic, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Shafter, G. (1976), A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Thom, R. (1970), ‘Topologie et Linguistique’, in Essays on Topology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. Thom, R. (1973), ‘Langage et Catastrophes: Eléments pour une Sémantique Topologique’, in Dynamical Systems, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Thomason, R. (ed.) (1974), Formal Philosophy, Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Erik Fenstad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Department of PhilosophyUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations