Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:35:12.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Latter-day intensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

James Higginbotham
James Higginbotham
Affiliation:
Somerville College, Oxford.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 1993 , pp. 449 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bealer, G. (1982). Quality and concept. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belnap, N. (1982). Questions and answers in Montague grammar. In Peters, S. & Saarinen, E. (eds.) Processes, beliefs and questions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, M. (1979). Questions in Montague grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (1979). Semantic paradox. Journal of Philosophy. 76 169–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (1984). Epistemic paradox. Journal of Philosophy. 81 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G. (1980). Reference to kinds in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. (1984). On the role of thematic roles in linguistic theory. Linguistics. 22 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1984). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N. (ed.) The logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in Davidson (1989). 105–148.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1989). Elucidations of meaning. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 465–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1993). Interrogatives. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (eds.) The view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 195–227.Google Scholar
Kartunnen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. (1988). The relational theory of genericity. In Krifka, M. (ed.) Genericity in natural language (SNS-Bericht 88-142). University of Tübingen, 285–312.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1975). Outline of a Theory of Truth. The Journal of Philosophy. 72 690–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambek, J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65. 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R., Iatridou, S., Lahiri, U. & Higginbotham, J. (eds.) (1992). Control and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. (1963). Syntactical treatments of modality, with corollaries on reflexion principles and finite axiomatizability. Acta Philosophica Fennica 16. Reprinted in Montague (1974). 286–302.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy. Ed. Thomason, R.. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Montague, R. & Kaplan, D. (1960). A paradox regained. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 1. Reprinted in Montague (1974). 271–285.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. (1974). The liar paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 3. Reprinted with a Postscript in Parsons, Mathematics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983. 221–267.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1980). Modifiers and quantifiers in natural language. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary vol. VI. 29–60.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C. & Stechow, A. von (eds.) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. (1971). Objects of thought. Ed. Geach, P. & Kenny, A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, M. (1983). On the nature of derived nominals. In Levin, L., Rappaport, M. & Zaenen, A. (eds.) Papers in lexical-functional grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 113–142.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (1986). Combinatory grammar and projections from the lexicon. In Sag, I. & Szabolcsi, A. (eds.) Lexical matters. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Thomason, R. (1980). A note on syntactical treatments of modality. Synthese 44. 391–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar