1932

Abstract

If we inspect the role of events or situations in formal semantic theories of natural languages, a general strategy common to several theories emerges: Assume that certain linguistic constructions involve a reference to events or situations and appeal to their metaphysical properties to account for semantic properties of the constructions. I concentrate on some paradigmatic cases that illustrate this way of pursuing explanatory tasks in semantics: perception reports, adverbial modification, telicity, and attitude reports.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125211
2015-01-14
2024-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/1/1/annurev-linguist-030514-125211.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125211&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Asher N, Bonevac D. 1985. Situations and events. Philos. Stud. 47:57–77 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bach E. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguist. Philos. 9:5–16 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach E, Chao W. 2012. The metaphysics of natural language(s). Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 14: Philosophy and Linguistics Kempson R, Fernando T, Asher N. 175–96 New York: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  4. Bach E, Jelinek E, Kratzer A, Partee BH. 1995. Introduction. Quantification in Natural Languages Bach E, Jelinek E, Kratzer A, Partee BH. 1–11 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  5. Barwise J. 1981. Scenes and other situations. J. Philos. 78:369–97 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barwise J, Perry P. 1983. Situations and Attitudes Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennett J. 2002. What events are. The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics Gale RM. 43–65 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  8. Bennett M. 1977. A guide to the logic of tense and aspect in English. Log. Anal. 20:491–517 [Google Scholar]
  9. Champollion L. 2010. Parts of a whole: distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. PhD thesis, Univ. Pa., Philadelphia. 124 pp.
  10. Davidson D. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. The Logic of Decision and Action Rescher N. 81–95 Pittsburgh: Univ. Pa. Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Davidson D. 1969. The individuation of events. Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel Rescher N. 216–34 Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  12. Davidson D. 1984. The method of truth in metaphysics. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation199–214 Oxford, UK: Clarendon [Google Scholar]
  13. Davidson D. 1985. Adverbs of action. Essays on Davidson: Actions and Events Vermazen B, Hintikka M. 293–304 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Dowty D, Wall R, Peters S. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  15. Dylan B. 1965. Love minus zero, no limit Bringing It All Back Home. Copyright 1965, 1983 by Warner Bros., Inc. Compact disc [Google Scholar]
  16. Forbes G. 2006. Attitude Problems: An Essay on Linguistic Intensionality Oxford, UK: Clarendon [Google Scholar]
  17. Higginbotham J. 1983. The logic of perceptual reports: an extensional alternative to situation semantics. J. Philos. 80:100–27 [Google Scholar]
  18. Higginbotham J. 1999. Perceptual reports revisited. Philosophy and Linguistics Murasugi K, Stainton R. 11–33 Boulder, CO: Westview [Google Scholar]
  19. Higginbotham J. 2000. On events in linguistic semantics. See Higginbotham et al. 2000, pp. 49–79 [Google Scholar]
  20. Higginbotham J, Pianesi F, Varzi AC. 2000. Speaking of Events Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim J. 1976. Events as property exemplifications. Action Theory Brand M, Walton D. 159–77 Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  22. Kratzer A. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguist. Philos. 12:607–53 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kratzer A. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope?. See Rothstein 1998, pp. 163–96 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kratzer A. 2002. Facts: particulars or information units?. Linguist. Philos. 25:655–70 [Google Scholar]
  25. Krifka M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. Semantics and Contextual Expressions Bartsch R, Van Benthem J, Van Emde BP. 75–115 Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris [Google Scholar]
  26. Krifka M. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. Lexical Matters Sag I, Szabolcsi A. 29–53 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  27. Krifka M. 1998. The origin of telicity. See Rothstein 1998, pp. 197–235 [Google Scholar]
  28. Landman F. 2000. Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  29. Montague R. 1969. On the nature of certain philosophical entities. Monist 53:159–94 [Google Scholar]
  30. Montague R. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to Natural Language Hintikka J, Moravcsik J, Suppes P. 221–42 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  31. Neale S. 1988. Events and logical form. Linguist. Philos. 11:303–21 [Google Scholar]
  32. Parsons T. 1989. The progressive in English: events, states, and processes. Linguist. Philos. 12:213–41 [Google Scholar]
  33. Parsons T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Parsons T. 2000. Underlying states and time travel. See Higginbotham et al. 2000, pp. 81–94 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pietroski PM. 2013. Event variables and their values. A Companion to Donald Davidson Lepore E, Ludwig K. 93–125 Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  36. Plunkett J. 2014. World Cup final: more than 20m UK viewers watch Germany win. The Guardian, July 14 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rothstein S. 1998. Events and Grammar Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  38. Rothstein S. 2010. Counting and the mass/count distinction. J. Semant. 27:343–397 [Google Scholar]
  39. Simons P. 2003. Events. The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics Loux MJ, Zimmerman DW. 357–85 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  40. Soames S. 1987. Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philos. Top. 15:47–87 [Google Scholar]
  41. Soames S. 2008. Why propositions can’t be sets of truth-supporting circumstances. J. Philos. Log. 37:267–76 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stalnaker R. 1983. Inquiry Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Stalnaker R. 1986. Possible worlds and situations. J. Philos. Log. 15:109–23 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sweney M. 2014. World Cup breaks Facebook and Twitter records. The Guardian, July 14 [Google Scholar]
  45. Taylor B. 1985. Modes of Occurrence: Verbs, Adverbs and Events Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  46. Vendler Z. 1957. Verbs and times. Philos. Rev. 56:143–60 [Google Scholar]
  47. Verkuyl HJ. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction Between Temporal and Atemporal Structure Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  48. Verkuyl HJ. 2000. Events as dividuals. See Higginbotham et al. 2000, pp. 169–205 [Google Scholar]
  49. Vlach F. 1983. On situation semantics for perception. Synthese 54:129–52 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wyner A. 1989. The semantics of adverbs and the perception problem. Proceedings of the 1989 Western States Conference on Linguistics Brengelman FH, Samiian V, Wilkins W. 2355–62 Fresno: Calif. State Univ. Fresno Press [Google Scholar]
  51. Zucchi A. 1993. The Language of Propositions and Events Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  52. Zucchi A. 1999. Incomplete events, intensionality and imperfective aspect. Nat. Lang. Semant. 7:179–215 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zucchi S, White M. 2001. Twigs, sequences and the temporal constitution of predicates. Linguist. Philos. 24:223–70 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125211
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error