Compositionality in Formal Semantics......Page 5
Contents......Page 7
Acknowledgments......Page 11
1.1 A Personal History within the Development of Formal Semantics......Page 15
1.2 General Refiections......Page 27
Appendix: Example Sentences......Page 30
2.2 Referential and Non-referential Noun Phrases......Page 40
2.3 Semantic Relations between Pronouns and their Antecedents......Page 45
2.4 The Problem of Treating Pronouns Uniformly......Page 56
3 Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English......Page 64
3.1 Deictic Pronouns and Tenses......Page 65
3.2 Anaphoric Pronouns and Tenses with Specific Antecedents......Page 67
3.3 Pronouns and Tenses as Bound Variables......Page 68
3.4 Scope Matters......Page 70
3.5 Conclusion......Page 71
4 Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English......Page 73
4.1 Montague’s Analyses of Tenses in PTQ......Page 76
4.2 Some Problems with Montague’s Treatment of the Tenses......Page 79
4.3 A Somewhat Different Approach to Tense and Aspect......Page 83
4.4 Temporal Adverbial Phrases......Page 93
4.5 Analyses of the Tenses......Page 104
Postscript (1978)......Page 121
5.1 The Basic Distinction......Page 124
5.2 Structurally Ambiguous Pronouns......Page 126
5.3 Are There “Pronouns of Laziness”?......Page 130
5.4 Conclusion......Page 133
6.1 Pronouns and Variables......Page 136
6.2 Principles about Pronouns......Page 139
6.3 Coreference and Coindexing......Page 142
6.4 Spelling it Out: One Way......Page 144
6.5 Comparisons......Page 148
6.6 Taking Stock......Page 158
Appendix: A Partial Fragment of English......Page 159
7.1 The Principle and its Theory-relativity......Page 167
7.2 Broad Challenges to Montague’s Version of Compositionality......Page 170
7.3 Context-dependence, Ambiguity, and Challenges to Local, Deterministic Compositionality......Page 173
7.4 Implicit Arguments and Invisible Variables......Page 181
7.5 Concluding Remarks......Page 187
8.2 The Problem......Page 196
8.3 A Compositional Analysis......Page 198
8.4 Consequences for Adjectives......Page 199
8.5 Doubts about the Introduction of TCNs......Page 200
8.6 Genitives and Compositionality......Page 202
9.1 Introduction......Page 204
9.2 The Uniform Be Theory......Page 205
9.3 Type-shifting Principles......Page 206
9.4 Quantifying into and Relativizing out of Pred NP Position......Page 209
9.5 The Pseudoclefts......Page 211
9.6 Polymorphic Types and Be......Page 213
9.7 Conclusion......Page 214
10.1 Introduction......Page 217
10.2 Alternative Treatments of NPs: Some Examples......Page 218
10.3 Evidence for Multiple Types for NPs......Page 220
10.4 Type-shifting: General Principles and Particular Rules......Page 222
10.5 The Williams Puzzle......Page 233
10.6 English Be......Page 237
10.7 Conclusions......Page 238
11.2 Chief Background......Page 245
11.4 Older Observation......Page 246
11.5 Second New Observation......Page 247
11.6 Interlude......Page 249
11.7 Second New Observation, Continued......Page 250
11.8 In Retrospect 2003......Page 253
12.1 The Puzzle......Page 255
12.2 Into the Swamp......Page 257
12.3 Three Possible Positions......Page 258
12.4 Theoretical Relevance and Evidence for Ambiguity......Page 260
12.5 Further Evidence for Ambiguity......Page 265
12.6 Towards an Analysis......Page 267
Appendix: Properties of Cardinal and Proportional Many......Page 270
13.1 Background and Overview......Page 273
13.2 Initial Data......Page 275
13.3 Syntactic Constraints......Page 280
13.4 Why Not Do It All with Pronouns?......Page 281
13.5 Steps toward a Unified Theory of "Quantified Contexts"......Page 285
13.6 Summary......Page 291
14 Weak NPs in Have–Sentences......Page 296
15.1 Background: Possessives and the Argument-modifier Distinction in NPs......Page 306
15.2 Predicate Possessives: A Problem for the "One Genitive" Approach?......Page 313
15.3 Conclusion and Remaining Puzzles......Page 322
Index......Page 330