Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T18:45:20.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Semantics

Natural Language Ontology and Semantic Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2024

Kristina Liefke
Kristina Liefke
Affiliation:
Ruhr University Bochum

Summary

This Element gives an introduction to the emerging discipline of natural language ontology. Natural language ontology is an area at the interface of semantics, metaphysics, and philosophy of language that is concerned with which kinds of objects are assumed by our best semantic theories. The Element reviews different strategies for identifying a language's ontological commitments. It observes that, while languages share a large number of their ontological commitments (such as to individuals, properties, events, and kinds), they differ in other commitments (for example, to degrees). The Element closes by relating different language and theory-specific ontologies, and by pointing out the merits and challenges of identifying inter-category relations within a single ontology.
Get access

Keywords

ontologycompositional semanticscategoriessemantic selectionintertheoretic relations
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Semantics
Online ISBN: 9781009307789
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 31 January 2025

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

Ajdukiewicz, K. (1935). Die syntaktische Konnexität. Studia Philosophica, 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
Alexeyenko, S. (2015). The Syntax and Semantics of Manner Modification: Adjectives and adverbs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Osnabrück.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., & Morzycki, M. (2015). Degrees as kinds. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(3), 791–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse (Vol. 50). Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. (1986a). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. (1986b). Natural language metaphysics. In Marcus, R.B., Dorn, G.J.W., & Weingartner, P. (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VII (pp. 573–593). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1953). A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description. Language, 29(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beck, S., Krasikova, S., Fleischer, D., Gergel, R., Hofstetter, S., Savelsberg, C., Vanderelst, J., & Villalta, E. (2009). Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 9, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betti, A. (2015). Against Facts. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, M. (2001). Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 11, 36–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, M. (2011). Time and modality without tenses or modals. In Musan, R. & Rathers, M. (Eds.), Tense Across Languages (pp. 147–188). De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumberg, K. (2019). Desire, Imagination, and the Many-Layered Mind (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University.Google Scholar
Bochnak, R. (2015). The degree semantics parameter and cross-linguistic variation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(6), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondarenko, T. (2020). Factivity from pre-existence. Glossa, 5(1), 109.Google Scholar
Bowler, M. (2016). The status of degrees in Walpiri. In Grubic, M. & Mucha, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Semantics of African, Asian and Austronesian Languages 2 (pp. 1–17). University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Cariani, F. (in press). Future displacement and modality. In Lepore, E. & Stojnic, U. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. https://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=CARFDA-4&proxyId=&u=https%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FCARFDA-4.pdf.Google Scholar
Carlson, G.N. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Champollion, L., & Brasoveanu, A. (2022). On Link’s “The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach”. In McNally, L. & Szabó, Z.G. (Eds.), A Reader’s Guide to Classic Papers in Formal Semantics (pp. 331–366). Springer.Google Scholar
Charlow, S. (2014). On the Semantics of Exceptional Scope (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1984). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Events and Grammar (pp. 53–103). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G., & Turner, R. (1988). Semantics and property theory. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11(3), 261–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2018). Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Roelofsen, F., & Theiler, N. (2017). Composing alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauberg, J. (2009). Logica vetus et nova (1658). Kessinger Publishing.Google Scholar
Colapinto, A. (2020). Do it anaphora without covert events: In defense of a pro-verb analysis. Lingua, 245, 102921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics (Vol. 17). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, E. (2000). Noun class as number in Swahili. In Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of the Linguistic Science (Vol. 4, pp. 3–30). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (2023). From Perception to Communication: A theory of types for action and meaning (Vol. 16). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M.J. (1973). Logics and Languages. Methuen.Google Scholar
Cresswell, M.J. (1976). The semantics of degree. In Partee, B. (Ed.), Montague Grammar (pp. 261–292). Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M.J. (1990). Entities and Indices. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, D., & King, T.H. (2008). Type-checking in formally non-typed systems. In Software Engineering, Testing, and Quality Assurance for Natural Language Processing (pp. 3–4). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Curry, H.B. (1961). Some logical aspects of grammatical structure. In Jakobson, R. (Ed.), Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects (Vol. 12, pp. 56–68). American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Ambrosio, J. (2023). Prior’s puzzle generalized. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 106(1), 196–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Ambrosio, J., & Stoljar, D. (2021). Vendler’s puzzle about imagination. Synthese, 199, 12923–12944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). Truth and meaning. Synthese, 17(3), 304–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1977). The method of truth in metaphysics. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2(1), 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (2001). The logical form of action sentences. In Davidson, D. (Ed.), Essays on Actions and Events: Philosophical essays of Donald Davidson (pp. 105–121). Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R., & Hohaus, V. (2019). Vague predicates, crisp judgments. In Espinal, M.T., Castroviejo, E., Leonetti, M., McNally, L., & Real-Puigdollers, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23 (Vol. 1, pp. 347–364). Autonomous University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
Degtyarenko, K., de Matos, P., Ennis, M., Hastings, J., Zbinden, M., McNaught, R., Alcántara, A., Darsow, M., Guedj, M., & Ashburner, M. (2008, 01). Chebi: A database and ontology for chemical entities of biological interest. Nucleic Acids Research, 36, D344–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dik, S.C. (1975). The semantic representation of manner adverbials. In Kraak, A. (Ed.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1972–1973 (pp. 96–121). Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R. (1998). Adverbs, Events, and Other Things. Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, P. (2017). Elements of Clausal Embedding (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University College London.Google Scholar
Engesser, K. (1980). Untersuchungen zur Montaguegrammatik (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Fara, D.G. (2015). Names are predicates. Philosophical Review, 124(1), 59–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernando, T. (1993). The donkey strikes back: Extending the dynamic inter- pretation ‘constructively’. In Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 130–138). Publisher: OTS-Research Institute for Language and Speech, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2003). The non-identity of a material thing and its matter. Mind, 112(446), 195–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2017). Naïve metaphysics. Philosophical Issues, 27(1), 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, G. (2006). Attitude Problems: An essay on linguistic intensionality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, G. (2018). Content and theme in attitude ascriptions. In Grzankowski, A. & Montague, M. (Eds.), Non-Propositional Intentionality (pp. 114–133). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, C., Lappin, S., & Pollard, C. (2002). A higher-order fine-grained logic for intensional semantics. In Alberti, G., Balough, K., & Dekker, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium for Logic and Language (pp. 37–46). Pécs University.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1997). Über Sinn und Bedeutung [on Sinn and Bedeutung]. In Beaney, M. (Ed.), The Frege Reader (pp. 151–171). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Gamut, L. (1991). Logic, Language, and Meaning, Volume 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gehrke, B., & Castroviejo, E. (2015). Manner and degree: An introduction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33, 745–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon, B. (1999). The lexical semantics of English count and mass nouns. In Viegas, E. (Ed.), The Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons (pp. 19–37). Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (1995). Resolving questions, II. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18(5), 567–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (2005). Situation semantics: The ontological balance sheet. Research on Language and Computation, 3(2), 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (2008). Situation semantics and the ontology of natural language. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: Theories (pp. 267–294). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (2012). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, S. (2012). Number and Individuation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.Google Scholar
Grimm, S., & McNally, L. (2015). The -ing dynasty. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 25, 82–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, S., & McNally, L. (2022). Nominalization and natural language ontology. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8(1), 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1979). Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(2), 279–326.Google Scholar
Gross, C.G. (2002). Genealogy of the ‘grandmother cell’. The Neuroscientist, 8(5), 512–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Güngör, H. (2022). That solution to Prior’s puzzle. Philosophical Studies, 179, 2765–2785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, P. (1982). Events and objects in space and time. Mind, 91, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 10, 40–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hendriks, H. (1993). Studied Flexibility (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hendriks, H. (2020). Type shifting: The Partee triangle. In Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., & Zimmermann, T. E. (Eds.), The Companion to Semantics (pp. 1–26). Wiley.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1983). The logic of perceptual reports. The Journal of Philosophy, 80(2), 100–127.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (2003). Remembering, imagining, and the first person. In Barber, A. (Ed.), Epistemology of Language (pp. 496–533). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1957). Modality as referential multiplicity. Ajatus, 20, 49–64.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1959). Existential presuppositions and existential commitments. The Journal of Philosophy, 56(3), 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief: An introduction to the logic of the two notions. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1969). Semantics for propositional attitudes. In Models for Modalities. (pp 87–111). Springer Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1975). Impossible possible worlds vindicated. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4, 475–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, P. (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(2), 117–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, T.M.V. (1983). Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Mathematical Center, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Janssen, T.M., & Zimmermann, T.E. (2021). Montague semantics. In Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Summer 2021 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K.M. (2020). Human imprints of real time: From semantics to metaphysics. Philosophia, 48(5), 1855–1879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kac, M.B. (1992). A simplified theory of Boolean semantic types. Journal of Semantics, 9(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1976). How to Russell a Frege-Church. The Journal of Philosophy, 72(19), 716–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, I. (2015). Factivity mirrors interpretation. Lingua, 164, 156–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E.L. (2015). Individuals explained away. In Bianchi, A. (Ed.), On Reference (pp. 384–402). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E.L. (2018). Eliminating the Universe: Logical properties of natural language. World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E.L., & Faltz, L.M. (1985). Boolean Semantics for Natural Language (Vol. 23). Springer.Google Scholar
Keil, F.C. (1979). Semantic and Conceptual Development: An ontological perspective. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J.C. (2002). Designating propositions. Philosophical Review, 111(3), 341–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E., & Sag, I.A. (1985). Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8(2), 163–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knuuttila, S. (2003). Medieval theories of modality. In Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fall 2003 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Köpping, J., & Zimmermann, T. E. (2020). Variables vs. parameters in the interpretation of natural language. In Sakamoto, M., Okazaki, N., Mineshima, K., & Satoh, K. (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 164–181). Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kracht, M. (2002). On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(2), 157–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In von Stechow, A. & Wunderlich, D. (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639–650). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 8, 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2002). Facts: Particulars or information units? Linguistics and Philosophy, 5–6(25), 655–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2006). Decomposing attitude verbs. Manuscript. Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2019). Situations in natural language semantics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Summer 2019 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(5), 487–520.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1981). Naming and Necessity. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1959). A completeness theorem in modal logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 24(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, U. (2002). Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambek, J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 65(3), 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, F. (1989a). Groups I. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 559–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, F. (1989b). Groups II. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, F. (2000). Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, M. (2006). Variables in Natural Language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2012). Quantificational and modal interveners in degree constructions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 22, 565–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, F. (1999). Evidence for tense in a ‘tenseless’ language. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 29, 229–246.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1972). General semantics. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (Eds.), Semantics of Natural Language (pp. 169–218). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Liefke, K. (2014). A Single-Type Semantics for Natural Language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Liefke, K. (2018). Relating intensional semantic theories: Established methods and surprising results. In Arai, S., Kojima, K., Mineshima, K., Bekki, D., Satoh, K., & Ohta, Y. (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10838). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K. (2019). A situated solution to Prior’s substitution problem. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 23, 55–72.Google Scholar
Liefke, K. (2021). Modelling selectional super-flexibility. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 31, 324–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K. (2024). Experiential attitudes are propositional. Erkenntnis, 89, 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K., & Hartmann, S. (2018). Intertheoretic reduction, confirmation, and Montague’s syntax-semantics relation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 27, 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K., & Sanders, S. (2016). A computable solution to Partee’s temperature puzzle. In Amblard, M., de Groote, P., Pogodalla, S., & Retoré, C. (Eds.), Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: Celebrating 20 years of LACL (1996–2016) (pp. 175–190). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K., & Werning, M. (2018). Evidence for single-type semantics: An alternative to e/t-based dual-type semantics. Journal of Semantics, 35(4), 639–685.Google Scholar
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., & von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language (pp. 302–323). De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longley, J., & Normann, D. (2015). Higher-Order Computability. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marten, L., & Kempson, R. (2002). Pronouns, agreement, and the dynamic construction of verb phrase interpretation: A dynamic syntax approach to Bantu clause structure. Linguistic Analysis, 32, 471–504.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2006). Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(6), 673–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2010). Cross-linguistic variation in modality systems: The role of mood. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9, 1–74.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1973). Comparative Constructions in English: A syntactic and semantic analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester.Google Scholar
McCormack, A. (2007). Subject and Object Pronominal Agreement in the Southern Bantu Languages: From a dynamic syntax perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of London.Google Scholar
Mery, B., & Retoré, C. (2017). Classifiers, sorts, and base types in the Montagovian generative lexicon and related type theoretical frameworks for lexical compositional semantics. In Chatzikyriakidis, S. & Luo, Z. (Eds.), Modern Perspectives in Type-Theoretical Semantics (pp. 163–187). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2003). Propositional attitudes without propositions. Synthese, 135(1), 77–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2004). Two kinds of universals and two kinds of collections. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 739–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2007). Events, tropes, and truthmaking. Philosophical Studies, 134, 363–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2009). Degree structure as trope structure: A trope-based analysis of positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32, 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2013a). Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2013b). Propositions, attitudinal objects, and the distinction between actions and products. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(5–6), 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2013c). Propositions, attitudinal objects, and the distinction between actions and products. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(5–6), 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2017). Attitude reports, cognitive products, and attitudinal objects: A response to G. Felappi ‘On product-based accounts of attitudes’. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 6(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2020a). Existence predicates. Synthese, 197(1), 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2020b). Truthmaker semantics for natural language. Theoretical Linguistics, 46(3–4), 159–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2022a). Handouts from the class Natural Language Ontology (Université Côte d’Azur, Oct. 2022). www.friederike-moltmann.com/uploads/handout20120Philosophy20of20Language20NLO.docx.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2022b). Natural language ontology. In Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Winter 2022 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Montague, M. (2007). Against propositionalism. Noûs, 41(3), 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. (1969). On the nature of certain philosophical entities. The Monist, 53(2), 159–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria, 36(3), 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Hintikka, J., Suppes, P., & Moravcsik, J.M.E. (Ed.), Approaches to Natural Language (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morreau, M. (2014). Mr. Fit, Mr. Simplicity and Mr. Scope: From social choice to theory choice. Erkenntnis, 79, 1253–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, K. (2009). Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Moulton, K. (2015). CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(2), 305–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mucha, A. (2013). Temporal interpretation in Hausa. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36, 371–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muskens, R. (1995). Meaning and Partiality. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Muskens, R. (2005). Sense and the computation of reference. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 473–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebel, J.M. (2019). Hopes, fears, and other grammatical scarecrows. The Philosophical Review, 128(1), 63–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., van de Koot, H., & Doetjes, J. (2004). Degree expressions. The Linguistic Review, 21, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, G.B., & Woodman, C. (2000). Ontological classifiers as polycentric categories, as seen in Shona class 3 nouns. In Pütz, M. & Verspoor, M. H. (Eds.), Explorations in Linguistics Relativity (pp. 225–249). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1972). Some problems concerning the logic of grammatical modifiers. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (Eds.), Semantics of Natural Language (pp. 127–141). Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. (1983). Compositionality (technical report). Max-Planck-Institute of Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7(3), 243–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Groenendijk, J., de Jongh, D., Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1992). Syntactic categories and semantic type. In Rosner, M. & Johnson, R. (Eds.), Computational Linguistics and Formal Semantics (pp. 97–126). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B., & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Partee, B. & Portner, P. (Eds.), Formal Semantics: The essential readings (pp. 334–356). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pelletier, F.J. (2012). Lexical nouns are both +mass and +count, but they are neither +mass nor +count. In Massam, D. (Ed.), Count and Mass Across Languages (pp. 9–26). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñón, C. (2008). From properties to manners: A historical line of thought about manner adverbs. Linguistic Society of Belgium, 3, 1–14.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. (2008). Hyperintensions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 18(2), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C. (2015). Agnostic hyperintensional semantics. Synthese, 192, 535–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, P. (1992). Situation Theory and the Semantics of Propositional Expressions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2002). The lexical semantics of parenthical as and appositive which. Syntax, 5(1), 55–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. (1963). Symposium: Oratio obliqua. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 37, 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. (1971). Objects of Thought. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. (1948). On what there is. The Review of Metaphysics, 2(1), 21–38.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 53, 177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and Object. New edition. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quiroga, R. Q., Reddy, L., Kreiman, G., Koch, C., & Fried, I. (2005). Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain. Nature, 435(23), 1102–1107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramchand, G. (2022). Nonfinite verbal forms and natural language ontology. In Altshuler, D. (Ed.), Linguistics Meets Philosophy (pp. 302–334). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rett, J. (2018). A typology of semantic entities. Handout from a talk at the PhLiP seminar.Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2022). A typology of semantic entities. In Altshuler, D. (Ed.), Linguistics Meets Philosophy (pp. 277–301). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rips, L.J., & Hespos, S. J. (2019). Concepts of objects and substances in language. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26, 1238–1256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, K. (2016). Can semantics guide ontology? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 94(1), 24-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofsen, F. (2008). Anaphora Resolved (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2020). Locations. Journal of Semantics, 37(4), 611–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14(56), 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1996). The Principles of Mathematics. W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Schäfer, M. (2006). German Adverbial Adjectives: Syntactic position and semantic interpretation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Schäfer, M. (2008). Resolving scope in manner modification. In Bonami, O. & Hofherr, P. Cabredo (Eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 7, pp. 351–372). CSSP.Google Scholar
Schönfinkel, M. (1924). Über die Bausteine der mathematischen Logik. Mathematische Annalen, 92, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selvik, K.-A. (2001). When a dance resembles a tree: A polysemy analysis of three Setswana noun classes. In Cuykens, H. & Zawada, B. (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 161–184). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. (2011). Writing the Book of the World. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinhababu, N. (2015). Advantages of propositionalism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2010). Vivid attitudes: Centered situations in the semantics of remember and imagine. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 20, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, M. (1997). An Anaphoric Parallel between Modality and Tense (technical report). University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1996). The phrase structure of tense. In Rooryck, J. & Zaring, L. (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 277–291). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. (1959). Individuals: An essay in descriptive metaphysics. Methuen.Google Scholar
Sutton, P.R. (2024). Types and type theories in natural language analysis. Annual Review of Linguistics, 10, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P.R. (1978). The best explanation: criteria for theory choice. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(2), 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theiler, N., Roelofsen, F., & Aloni, M. (2018). A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 409–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, R.H. (1980). A model theory for the propositional attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2011). Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 257–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uegaki, W., & Sudo, Y. (2019). The *hope-wh puzzle. Natural Language Semantics, 27(4), 323–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umbach, C., & Ebert, C. (2009). German demonstrative so: Intensifying and hedging effects. Sprache und Datenverabeitung (International Journal for Language Data Processing), 1–2, 153–168.Google Scholar
Umbach, C., & Gust, H. (2014). Similarity demonstratives. Lingua, 149, 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umbach, C., Hinterwimmer, S., & Gust, H. (2022). German wie-complements: Manners, methods and events in progress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 40, 307–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. (1991). Language in Action. North-Holland.Google Scholar
van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2005). The Proper Treatment of Events. Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967a). Causal relations. The Journal of Philosophy, 64(21), 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967b). Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1979). Vicarious experience. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 84(2), 161–173.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2021). Intensional Semantics: Lecture notes for advanced semantics. https://github.com/fintelkai/fintel-heim-intensional-notes/IntensionalSemantics.pdf.Google Scholar
von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3(1), 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellwood, A. (2020). Interpreting degree semantics. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2972).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, E.S. (1983). Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(2), 287–308.Google Scholar
Winter, Y. (2002). Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics: The interpretation of coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Y. (2005). Cross-categorial restrictions on measure phrase modification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 233–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. (1991). How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics, 591–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyner, A.Z. (1994). Boolean Event Lattices and Thematic Roles in the Syntax and Semantics of Adverbial Modification (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T.E. (1993). On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics, 1(2), 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, T.E. (2001). Unspecificity and intensionality. In Féry, C. & Sternefeld, W. (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 524–543). Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T.E. (1987). Transparent adverbs and scopeless quantifiers. In Groenendijk, J., de Jongh, D., & Stokhof, M. (Eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics and Lexical Semantics (pp. 81–99). Foris.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T.E. (2006a). Monotonicity in opaque verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(6), 715–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, T.E. (2006b). The values of semantics. In Brandt, P. & Fuß, E. (Eds.), Form, Structure, and Grammar (Vol. 63, pp. 383–398). Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, T.E. (2018). Fregean compositionality. In Ball, D. & Brian, R. (Eds.), The Science of Meaning: Essays on the metatheory of natural language semantics (pp. 276–305). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, T.E. (2022). On Montague’s ‘The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English’. In A Reader’s Guide to Classic Papers in Formal Semantics (pp. 331–366). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, T.E., & Sternefeld, W. (2013). Introduction to Semantics: An essential guide to the composition of meaning. Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucchi, A. (2013). The Language of Propositions and Events: Issues in the syntax and the semantics of nominalization (Vol. 51). Springer.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. (1997). Vectors as relative positions: A compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics, 14, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, J., & Winter, Y. (2000). Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 9, 169–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Natural Language Ontology and Semantic Theory
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Natural Language Ontology and Semantic Theory
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Natural Language Ontology and Semantic Theory
Available formats
×