Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:05:12.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Proper Treatment of Proper Names

Review products

ThomsenH. E.1997. On the Proper Treatment of Proper Names. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 20, 91–110.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Hanne Erdman Thomsen
Hanne Erdman Thomsen
Affiliation:
Department of Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen Business School, Dalgas Have 15, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Email: het/[email protected]
Get access

Extract

The present paper is a discussion of the syntactic and semantic treatment of proper names in the generalized quantifier framework, and supports the view that the semantic value of proper names is of the same kind as that of other nouns – sets of individuals, whereas unique individuals are assigned as the value of the NP-level. Furthermore, it i s argued that the set denoted by a name contains the individuals name-related to the expression in question, i.e. the individuals bearing the name. In other uses (e.g. the museum bought a Picasso) the name denotes the extension of an ad hoc predicate. Finally, the relation between th e proposed analysis and Saussure's concept of the linguistic sign is briefly discussed.

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , June 1997 , pp. 91 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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

Allan, K. 1995. What Names Tell About the Lexicon and the Encyclopedia. Lexicology 2, 280–325.Google Scholar
Allwood, J., Andersson, L.-G. & Dahl, O. 1977. Logic in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alshawi, H., Carter, D., Crouch, R., Pulman, S., Rayner, M. & Smith, A. 1992. CLARE: A Contextual Reasoning and Cooperative Response Framework for the Core Language Engine. Cambridge: SRI International, Cambridge Computer Science Research Centre.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Cooper, R. 1981. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J. & Perry, J. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1973. Reference and Proper Names. Journal of Philosophy 70 (14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, R. 1993. Formal Semantics - an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. M. 1985. What's in a Name? New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. 1991. On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. & McConnell-Ginet, S. 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coates-Stephens, S. 1993. The Analysis and Acquisition of Proper Names for the Understanding of Free Text. Computers and the Humanities 26: 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, B. 1985. Two Essays on Reference without Meaning. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19 (1).Google Scholar
Cooper, R. 1991. Three Lectures on Situation Theoretic Grammar. In Seligman, J. (ed.), Partial and Dynamic Semantics III. Edinburgh: DYANA Deliverable R2.1.C, Centre for Cognitive Science, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Cooper, R., Crouch, R., van Eijck, J., Fox, C., van Genabith, J., Jaspers, J., Kamp, H., Pinkal, M., Poesio, M., Pulman, S. & Vestre, E. 1994. FraCaS Deliverable D9. In The State of the Art in Computational Semantics: Evaluating the Descriptive Capabilities of Semantic Theories. Available by anonymous ftp from ftp.cogsci.ed.ac.uk, pub/FRACAS/de9.ps.gz.Google Scholar
Devlin, K. 1991. Logic and Information. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R., Wall, R. E. & Peters, S. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Synthese Language Library, vol. 11. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gamut, L. T. F. 1991. Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. Logic, Language and Meaning, vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1988. English Grammar - an Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, H. 1988. Words and Their Meaning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1972. Naming and Necessity. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 253–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A. 1992. Names and Naming: Why We Need Fields and Frames. In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E. F. (eds.), Fields and Contrasts - New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdal, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 123–142.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lønming, J. T. 1987. Mass Terms and Quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muskens, R. 1196. Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1981. Semantics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H., ter Meulen, A. & Wall, R. E. 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Quine, W. v. O. 1952. Methods of Logic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quine, W. v. O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. v. O. 1964 [1948]. On What There Is. In Quine, W., From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russel, B. 1956 [1918]. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. In Marsh, R. C. (ed.), Logic and Knowledge. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. 1960 [1916]. Course in General Linguistics. London: Owen.Google Scholar
Schwarz, D. S. 1979. Naming and Referring. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1958. Proper Names. Mind 67, 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloat, C. 1969. Proper Nouns in English. Language 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, H. S. 1963. The Meaning of Proper Names. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad.Google Scholar
Stechow, A. von & Wunderlich, D. 1991. Semantik/Semantic - ein Internationales Hand-buch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung - An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft: HSK, vol. 6. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On Referring. Mind 49, 320–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1973. Topics, Sentence Accent, Ellipsis: a proposal for their formal treatment. In Keenan, E. (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–328.Google Scholar
Westerstahl, D. 1985. Determiners and Context Sets. In van Benthem, J. & ter Meulen, A. (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar