Switch to: References

Citations of:

Existential disclosure

Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (6):561 - 587 (1993)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Compositionality Without Word Boundaries: (The) More and (the) Most.Anna Szabolcsi - 2012 - Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22.
    This paper seeks to illustrate the advantages of not treating phonological words as distinguished building blocks in compositional semantics. Following Bobaljik 2012, we derive the relative readings of amount superlatives in two steps, [[[d-many] comparative] superlative]. The existence of two comparative constructions is revealed, involving more vs. the more. Each builds a different superlative construction, explaining the conflicting intuitions about superlatives in the literature, as well as puzzles relating to the definite article in superlatives.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Anaphora and Dynamic Binding.Gennaro Chierchia - 1992 - Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (2):111--183.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   40 citations  
  • Perspectival Plurality, Relativism, and Multiple Indexing.Dan Zeman - 2018 - In Rob Truswell, Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern & Hannah Rohde (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21, Vol. 2. Semantics Archives. pp. 1353-1370.
    In this paper I focus on a recently discussed phenomenon illustrated by sentences containing predicates of taste: the phenomenon of " perspectival plurality " , whereby sentences containing two or more predicates of taste have readings according to which each predicate pertains to a different perspective. This phenomenon has been shown to be problematic for (at least certain versions of) relativism. My main aim is to further the discussion by showing that the phenomenon extends to other perspectival expressions than predicates (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Meaning in Motion.Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof - 2000 - In Klaus von Heusinger & Urs Egli (eds.), Reference and Anaphoric Relations. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 47--78.
    The paper sketches the place of dynamic semantics within a broader picture of developments in philosophical and linguistic theories of meaning. Some basic concepts of dynamic semantics are illustrated by means of a detailed analysis of anaphoric definite and indefinite descriptions, which are treated as contextually dependent quantificational expressions. It is shown how a dynamic view sheds new light on the contextual nature of interpretation, on the difference between monologue and dialogue, and on the interplay between direct and indirect information.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Binding On the Fly: Cross-Sentential Anaphora in Variable— Free Semantics.Anna Szabolcsi - 2003 - In R. Oehrle & J. Kruijff (eds.), Resource Sensitivity, Binding, and Anaphora. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 215--227.
    Combinatory logic (Curry and Feys 1958) is a “variable-free” alternative to the lambda calculus. The two have the same expressive power but build their expressions differently. “Variable-free” semantics is, more precisely, “free of variable binding”: it has no operation like abstraction that turns a free variable into a bound one; it uses combinators—operations on functions—instead. For the general linguistic motivation of this approach, see the works of Steedman, Szabolcsi, and Jacobson, among others. The standard view in linguistics is that reflexive (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Values of Variables in Dynamic Semantics.Paul Dekker - 1996 - Linguistics and Philosophy 19 (3):211 - 257.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Quantificational Variability Effects with Plural Definites: Quantification Over Individuals or Situations?Cornelia Ebert & Stefan Hinterwimmer - 2010 - Journal of Semantics 27 (2):139-176.
    In this paper, we discuss the fact that not only adverbially quantified sentences with singular indefinites or bare plurals but also ones containing plural definites show Quantificational Variability Effects, that is, they receive readings according to which the quantificational force of the respective DP seems to depend on the quantificational force of the Q-adverb. We show that if the Q-adverb is a frequency adverb like usually, there is strong evidence that QVEs come about as indirect effects of a quantification over (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Towards an Explanation of Copula Effects.Gerhard Jäger - 2003 - Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (5):557-593.
    This paper deals with a series of semantic contrasts between the copula be and the preposition as, two functional elements that both head elementary predication structures. It will be argued that the meaning of as is a type lowering device shifting the meaning of its complement NP from the type of generalized quantifiers to the type of properties (where properties are conceived as relations between individuals and situations), while the copula be induces a type coercion from (partial) situations to (total) (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Aspect, Adverbs, and Events: Habituality Vs. Perfectivity.Alessandro Lenci & Pier Marco Bertinetto - 2000 - In Achille Varzi, James Higginbotham & Fabio Pianesi (eds.), Speaking of Events. Oxford University Press.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Semantically Restricted Argument Dependencies.Alastair Butler - 2011 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20 (1):69-114.
    This paper presents a new take on how argument dependencies in natural language are established and constrained. The paper starts with a rather standard view that (quantificational) argument dependencies are operator-variable dependencies. The interesting twist the paper offers is to eliminate the need for syntax that serves to enforce what the operator-variable dependencies are. Instead the role of ensuring grammatical and generally unambiguous forms is taken up by semantics imposing what are dependency requirements for any interpretation to go through at (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark