Abstract
It is arguably desirable to have a theory of meaning that (i) does not identify propositions with sets of worlds, (ii) enables to capture the dynamic character of semantic interpretation and (iii) provides the basis for a semantic program that incorporates and extends the achievements of Montague semantics. A theory of properties and propositions that meets these desiderata is developed and several applications to the semantic analysis of natural languages are explored.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aczel, P., 1980, “Frege structures and the notion of proposition, truth and set”, inThe Kleene Symposium, J. Barwiseet al. (eds.), Amsterdam: North Holland.
Barwise, J. and Perry, J., 1983,Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chierchia, G., 1984,Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.
Chierchia, G., 1989, “Anaphora and attitudes De Se”, inContextual Expressions, J. van Benthem and P. van Emde Boas, (eds.), Dordrecht: Reidel.
Chierchia, G., 1992, “Anaphora and dynamic binding”,Linguistic and Philosophy 15, 111–183.
Chierchia, G. and Turner, R., 1988, “Semantics and property theory”,Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 261–302.
Chierchia, G., Partee, B.H., and Turner, R. (eds.), 1989,Properties, Types and Meaning, vol. 1 and vol. 2, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gresswell, M., 1973,Logics and Languages, Methuen, London.
Cresswell, M., 1985,Structured Meanings, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1990, “Dynamic Montague grammar”,Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, in L. Kaiman and L. Polos, (eds.), Akademiai Kiado, Hungary.
Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic”,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.
Heim, I., 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NPs, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.
Kamp, H., 1981, “A theory of truth and semantic representation”, inFormal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.), Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
Kaplan, D., 1979, “On the logic of demonstratives”, inContemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, P. French, T. Uehling and H. Wettstein (eds.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Kartunnen, L., 1976, “Discourse referents”, inSyntax and Semantics, 7, J. McCawley (ed.), New York: Academic Press.
Keenan, E. and Faltz, L., 1985,Boolean Semantics for Natural Language, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Muskens, R., 1989,Meaning and Partiality, University of Amsterdam.
Partee, B.H. and Rooth, M., 1983, “Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity”, inMeaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, R. Bauerle, C. Schwartze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Stalnaker, R., 1979, “Assertion”, inSyntax and Semantics, 9-Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), New York: Academic Press.
Stalnaker, R., 1984,Inquiry, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Thomason, R., 1980, “A model theory for propositional attitudes”,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 47–70.
Turner, R., 1990,Truth and Modality for Knowledge Representation, London: Pitman.
Zimmerman, T.E., 1993, “On the proper treatment of opacity verbs”,Natural Language Semantics 1.2, 149–180.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chierchia, G. Intensionality and context change. J Logic Lang Inf 3, 141–168 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01110613
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01110613