Cover not available
Article published In:
Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 42:2 (2019) ► pp.134–185

Semantics in generative grammar

A critical survey

I provide a critical survey of the role that semantics took in the several models of generative grammar, since the 1950s until the Minimalist Program. I distinguish four different periods. In the first section, I focus on the role of formal semantics in generative grammar until the 1970s. In Section 2 I present the period of linguistic wars, when the role of semantics in linguistic theory became a crucial topic of debate. In Section 3 I focus on the formulation of conditions on transformations and Binding Theory in the 1970s and 1980s, while in the last Section I discuss the role of semantics in the minimalist approach. In this section, I also propose a semantically-based model of generative grammar, which fully endorses minimalism and Chomsky’s later position concerning the primary role of the semantic interface in the Universal Grammar modelization (Strong Minimalist Thesis). In the Discussion, I point out some theoretical problems deriving from Chomsky’s internalist interpretation of model-theoretic semantics.
Keywords: semantic markers, theta-theory, deep structure, minimalist program, logical form
Article outline
  • 1.The semantic component in the first phase of generative grammar
  • 2.The linguistic wars
  • 3.The Extended Standard Theory
  • 4.The semantic turn of generative grammar
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00033.cip
References (203)
References
Allen, J. 1984. Towards a General Theory of Action and Time. Artificial Intelligence, 231, 123–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1971. On the Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation. Foundations of Language, 71, 387–96.Google Scholar
1977. On the Notion of Subject in Ergative Languages. In C. Li & S. Thompson (Eds.), Subject and Topic, 1–23. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Antinucci, F. 1976. Le due anime di Noam Chomsky. Lingua e stile, 111, 167–87.Google Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, E. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 91, 5–16.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y. 1953. On Recursive Definitions in Empirical Science. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Philosophy, 51, 160–5.Google Scholar
1954. Logical Syntax and Semantics. Language, 30 (2), 230–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D. I. 2001. Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Standford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N. & Bolhuis, J. J. 2013. Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17 (2), 89–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N. 2016. Why Only Us. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R. 1998. Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics, 151, 115–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2008. Bare Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bonomi, A. 1983. Linguistica e logica. In C. Segre (Ed.), Intorno alla linguistica, 148–71. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2005a. In Name Only: Structuring Sense Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005b. The Normal Course of Events: Structuring Sense Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Taking Form: Structuring Sense Volume III. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Borer, H. & Shaefer, F. (Eds.). 2015. The Roots of Syntax and the Syntax of Roots. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1970. On Complementizers: Towards a Syntactic Theory of Complement Types. Foundations of Language, 61, 297–321.Google Scholar
1972. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1978. A Realistic Transformational Grammar. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan & J. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, 1–59. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001. Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1937. The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
1952. Meaning Postulates. Philosophical Studies, 31, 65–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A. 2013. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Casalegno, P. 1997. Filosofia del linguaggio. Firenze: La Nuova Italia Scientifica.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1988. Structured Meaning, Thematic Roles and Control. In G. Chierchia, B. Partee & T. Raymond (Eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, Vol. 21, 131–66. Reidel: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. A Semantics for Unaccusatives and its Syntactic Consequences. Ithaca: Cornell University. Manuscript.Google Scholar
1995. Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity, and the syntax-pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 31. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. & McConnell-Ginet, S. 2000. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics, 2nd Edition. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1955. Logical Syntax and Semantics: Their Linguistic Relevance. Language, 31 (1), 36–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1955/1975. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
1972. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1973. Conditions on Transformations. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Moris Halle, 232–86. New York: Holti, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
1976. Conditions on Rules of Grammar. Linguistic Analysis, 21, 303–51.Google Scholar
1977. On wh-Movement. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
1986a. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1986b. Barriers. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. L. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–5. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 51.Google Scholar
1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. On Nature and Language. A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Reply to Ludlow. In N. Hornstein & L. Antony (Eds.), Chomsky and His Critics, 287–95. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 31, 104–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005. Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Approaching UG from Below. In U. Sauerland & H-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyeter.Google Scholar
2008a. Foreword. In Moro, A. 2008. The Boundaries of Babel: The Brain and the Enigma of Impossible Languages. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008b. On Phases. In C. P. Otero & R. Freidin (Eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–66. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. The Science of Language. Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern in English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Halle, M. & Lukoff, F. 1956. On Accent and Juncture in English. In M. Halle, G. Horace, H. G. Lunt, H. McLean & C. H. van Schooneveld (Eds.), For Roman Jackobson, 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. 1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 81, 425–504.Google Scholar
1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 506–69. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á J. & Ott, D. Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges. To appear in Á. J. Gallego & D. Ott (Eds.), Generative Syntax: Questions, Crossroads, and Challenges. Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics.
Cipriani, E. 2017. Chomsky on Analytic and Synthetic Propositions. Phenomenology and Mind, 121, 122–31.Google Scholar
forthcoming. Chomsky su riferimento e comunicazione. Paradigmi.
Dąbrowska, E. 2015. What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it?. Frontiers in Psychology, 61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In N. Resch (Ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, 81–95. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.Google Scholar
1980. Essays on action and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1986. A nice derangement of epitaphs. In E. Lepore (Ed.), Truth and Interpretation, 433–46. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Saussure, F. 1922. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Delfitto, D., Graffi, G. 2005. Chomsky fra storia della scienza e filosofia del linguaggio. In Nuovi orizzonti nello studio del linguaggio e della mente (it. trans. Chomsky 2000a), 9–33. Milano: Il Saggiatore.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. 2005. UG and External Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Interface Asymmetries. Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 53 (2/3), 139–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. & Hills, V. (Eds.). Forthcoming. Edges, Heads and Projections: Interface Properties. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dik, S. C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dougherty, R. C. 1970. Recent studies on language unviersals. Foundations of Language, 51, 488–519.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67 (3), 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eberle, K. 1988. Partial Orderings and Aktionsarten in Discourse Representation Theory. Proceedings of COLING-88, 160–5. Budapest.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. Root, Structure Preserving, and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Faschilli, C. 2011. Il Meaning Transfer secondo il Generative Lexicon di Pustejovsky. Esercizi filosofici, 61, 164–77.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1973. Points de vue récent sur les rapports entre la logique et la grammaire. Langages, 301, 20–31.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. London: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.Google Scholar
1977. The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Eds.), Grammatical Relations, Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 81, 58–82. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. 1975. The Language of Thought. Hassocks: Harvester.Google Scholar
1990. A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998. Concepts. Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D., Fodor, J. A. & Garrett, M. F. 1975. The Psychological Unreality of Semantic Representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 61, 515–32.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M. F., Walker, E. C. T. & Parkes, C. H. 1980. Against definitions. Cognition, 81, 263–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. 2002. On Logical Form. In R. Hendrick (Ed.), Minimalist Syntax, 82–124. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 1001, 25–50.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. J. 2013. A Configurational Approach to the Left Periphery. Paper presented at the 23rd Colloquium of Generative Grammar. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
2016. The Basic Elements of the Left Periphery. Ms. UAB.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. 1979a. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1979b. A solution to the projection problem. In C. K. Oh & D. A. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E. H., Pullum, G. K. & Sag, I. A. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Graffi, G. 1973. Equivalenti o inconciliabili? Su alcuni sviluppi recenti della linguistica trasformazionale. In U. Vignuzzi, G. Ruggero & R. Simone (Eds.), Teoria e storia degli studi linguistici, 281–338. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
2008. Che cos’è la grammatica generativa?. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
2013. Due secoli di pensiero linguistico. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. 2000. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 231, 1–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J. 1976. Lexical structure in syntax and semantics. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
Grunau, J. J. M. 1985. Towards a systematic theory of the semantic role inventory. Papers from the 20th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 144–59.Google Scholar
Guerts, B. 2009. Scalar Implicatures and Logical Pragmatics. Mind & Language, 24 (1), 51–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall-Partee, B. 1973. Deletion and variable binding. Mim. Linguistic Agency at the University of Trier.Google Scholar
Halle, M., Bresnan, J. & Miller, G. A. (Eds.). 1978. Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. University of Massachussetts. PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. 2016. On the grammar of the referential dependence. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rethoric, 46 (59), 11–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W. & Sheehan, M. 2015. The Philosophy of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (1), 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huybregts, R. 2017. Phonemic Clicks and the Mapping Asymmetry: How Language Emerged and Speech Developed. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, W. & Raimy, E. 2013. Three Types of Linearization and the Temporal Aspects of Speech. In I. Roberts & M. T. Biberauer (Eds.), Challenges to Linearization, 31–56. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1987. Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1992. Languages of the Mind. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. 1983. Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. 1981. A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen & M. Stockhorf (Eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1978. On the Logic of Demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic, VIII1, 81–98.Google Scholar
1989. Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. & Bresnan, J. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representations. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, 1–59. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. 1966. The Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1972. Semantic Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Postal, P. M. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Language Descriptions. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Fodor, J. A. 1963. The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language, 391, 170–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, J. 2007. The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koster, J., Van Riemsdijk, H. & Vergnaud, J-R. 1978. GLOW Manifesto. In Glow Newsletter, 11, 2–5.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. & Sergot, M. 1986. A Logic-based Calculus of Events. New Generation Computing, 41, 67–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1970. Linguistics and Natural Logic. Synthese, 221, 151–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1971. On generative semantics. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics, 232–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Ross, J. R. 1976. Is Deep Structure Necessary?. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 2, Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 159–64. New York-San Francisco-London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. & Segal, G. 1995. Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, R. J. 1957. Review of “Syntactic Structures” by Noam Chomsky. Language, 33 (3), 375–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1978. The Great Underlying Ground-Plains. In W. P. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntactic Typology. Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Hassocks (Sussex): The Harvester PressGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meaning: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marconi, D. 1997. Lexical Competence. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mates, B. 1950. Synonymity. University of California publications in philosophy, 251, 201–26.Google Scholar
May, R. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. PhD Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1968a. Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, V1, 243–69.Google Scholar
1968b. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In B. J. Darden, C. J. Bailey & A. Davison (Eds.), Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1968c. The role of semantics in a grammar. In E. Bach & R. T. Harm (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 124–69. London: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.Google Scholar
1970. Where do noun phrases come from?. In R. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 166–83. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
Moro, A. 2008. The Boundaries of Babel: The Brain and the Enigma of Impossible Languages. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1986. Dictionaries in the mind. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 171–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Gildea, P. M. 1987. How children learn words. Scientific American, 257 (3), 94–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. 1970. Universal Grammar. Theoria, 361, 373–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1973. The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. In P. Suppes, J. Moravcsik & J. Hintikka (Eds.), Approaches to Natural Language, 221–42. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, J. 1975. Aitia as Generative Factor in Aristotle’s Philosophy. Dialogue, 141, 62–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. Thought and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Parikh, P. 2001. The Use of Language. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. 1980. Modifiers and Quantifiers in Natural Language. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, VI1, 29–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. 1979. Semantics-Mathematics or Psychology?. In R. Bauerle, U. Egli & von Stechov, A. (Eds.), Semantics from Different Points of View, 1–14. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981. Montague Grammar, Mental Representations and Reality. In S. Kanger & S. Öhman (Eds.), Philosophy and Grammar, 59–78. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P. 1984. The 1-advcancement exclusiveness law. In D. Perlmutter & C. G. Rosen (Eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar, 2, 81–125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. H. 1983. Semantic structure. Journal of Linguistics, 19 (1), 79–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piattelli Palmarini, M. & Cecchetto, C. 1997. The Problem of Meaning in Generative Grammar. In C. Mandell & A. McCabe (Eds.), The Problem of Meaning: Behavioral and Cognitive Perspectives, 415–69. North-Holland: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. 2004. Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Meaning Before Truth. In G. Preyer & G. Peters (Eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy, 253–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2018. Conjoining Meanings: Semantics Without Truth Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkanen, L. 2008. Mismatching Meanings in Brain and Behavior. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2 (4), 712–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkanen, L. & McElree, B. 2006. An MEG Study of Silent Meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 191, 1905–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1971. On the surface verb “remind”. In C. J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 180–270. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. & Pullum, G. K. 1982. The Contraction Debate. Linguistic Inquiry, 131, 122–38.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., Busa, F. 1995. Unaccusativity and Event Composition. In M. Bertinetto, V. Binachi, J. Higginbotham & M. Squartini (Eds.), Temporal Reference: Aspect and Actionality. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2004. English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2014. Structural Meaning and Conceptual Meaning in Verb Semantics. Linguistic Analysis, 391, 211–47.Google Scholar
2017. The Event Domain. In R. D’Alessandro & I. Franco (Eds.), The Verbal Domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2018. Grammatical vs. Lexical Formatives. In N. Hornstein, H. Lasnik, P. Patel-Grosz & C. Yang (Eds.), Syntactic Structures after 60 Years: The Impact of the Chomskian Revolution in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2000. The Theta system: syntactic realization of verbal concepts. UiL-OTS Working Papers, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
2002. The Theta system: an overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28 (3), 229–90.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T., Everaert, M. & Marelj, M. 2016. Concepts, Syntax, and Their Interface: The Theta System. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, N. 2010. Uttering Trees. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1978. Chomsky e la semantica. In Accademia della Crusca (Ed.), Studi di grammatica italiana, Vol. 7, 161–82. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
1990a. Spiegazione e teoria grammaticale. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
1990b. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. 1996. Information structure: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 49: Papers in Semantics. Columbus: The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ronat, M. 1972. A propos du verbe “remind” selon Postal. Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata, I1, 233–67.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Šaumjan, S. K. 1965. Strukturnaja Linguistika. Moskow: Izdatel’svo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Scheffler, I. 1955. On synonymy and indirect discourse. Philosophy of Science, 22 (1), 39–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soames, S. 2010. What is Meaning?. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speas, P. & Tenny, C. 2003. Configurational Properties of Points of View Roles. In A. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar, 315–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. The interaction of clausal syntax, discourse roles, and information structure in questions. Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions, 16th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information. Nancy (FR): Université Henri Poincaré.Google Scholar
Starosta, S. 1978. The one per cent solution. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Valence, semantic case and grammatical relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. & Pustejovsky, J. (eds.). 2000. Events as Grammatical Objects. Standford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. 1959/1966. Éléments de syntaxe structural. Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tomalin, M. 2007. Reconsidering recursion in syntactic theory. Lingua, 1171, 1784–800. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rooy, R. 2003. Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy, 261, 727–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1966. Explorations in Semantic Theory. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current Issues in Linguistics, Vol. 31, 395–478. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wexler, S. 1995. The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilks, Y. 1978. Making Preferences More Active. Artificial Intelligence, 101, 75–97.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1994. Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wojtasiewicz, O. A. 1978. The Predicate Calculus with Extra-Logical Constants as an Instrument of Semantic Description. Studia Logica: An International Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37 (1), 103–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cipriani, Enrico
2021. On Chomsky's notion of explanatory adequacy. Language and Linguistics Compass 15:11 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.