Can't Believe It Went By So Fast

Literature Cited

1. Asher N. 1986. Belief in discourse representation theory. J. Philos. Logic 15:127–89
   [Google Scholar]
2. Asher N. 1987. A typology for attitude verbs and their anaphoric properties. Linguist. Philos. 10:125–98
   [Google Scholar]
3. Beaver D. 2001. Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics Stanford, CA: CSLI/FoLLI
4. Bratman M. 1987. Intention, Plans and Practical Reasoning Stanford, CA: CSLI
5. Cocchiarella N. 1965. Tense and modal logic. PhD Thesis UCLA, Los Angeles:
   [Google Scholar]
6. Geach P. 1962. Reference and Generality Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
7. Guenthner F, Guenthner-Reutter M. 1978. Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches London: Duckworth
8. Kamp H. 1968. Tense logic and the theory of order PhD Thesis UCLA, Los Angeles:
9. Kamp H. 1971. Formal properties of “NOW. .” Theoria 37:227–73
   [Google Scholar]
10. Kamp H. 1974. Free choice permission. Proc. Aristot. Soc. 74:157–74
    [Google Scholar]
11. Kamp H. 1975. Two theories about adjectives. Formal Semantics for Natural Language E Keenan 123–55. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
12. Kamp H. 1981a. Evénements, représentations discursives et référence temporelle. Langages 64:39–64For the original English manuscript from which the paper in Langages is the French translation, see Semantics and Pragmatics, Volume 10 (2017).
    [Google Scholar]
13. Kamp H 1981b. A theory of truth and semantic representation. Formal Methods in the Study of Language JAG Groenendijk, TMV Janssen, MBJ Stokhof 277–322. Amsterdam: Math. Cent.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Kamp H 1990. Prolegomena to a structural account of belief and other attitudes. Propositional Attitudes—The Role of Content in Logic, Language, and Mind CA Anderson, J Owens 27–90. Chicago/Stanford, CA: Univ. Chicago Press/CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
15. Kamp H 2001a. The importance of presupposition. Linguistic Form and Its Computation C Rohrer, A Roßdeutscher, H Kamp 207–54. Stanford, CA: CSLI
    [Google Scholar]
16. Kamp H 2001b. Presupposition computation and presupposition justification: one aspect of the interpretation of multi-sentence discourse. Semantic and Pragmatic Issues in Discourse and Dialogue M Bras, L Vieu 57–84. Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
17. Kamp H. 2003. Einstellungszustände und einstellungszuschreibungen in der diskursrepräsentationstheorie. Intentionalität zwischen Subjektivität und Weltbezug U Haas-Spohn 209–89. Paderborn, Ger.: Brill mentis
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kamp H. 2015. Using proper names as intermediaries between labelled entity representations. Erkenntnis 80:263–312
    [Google Scholar]
19. Kamp H 2021. Sharing real and fictional reference. The Language of Fiction E Maier, A Stokke 37–87. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
20. Kamp H. 2022. The links of causal chains. Theoria 88:2296–325
    [Google Scholar]
21. Kamp H, Partee B. 1995. Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57:129–91
    [Google Scholar]
22. Kamp H, Reyle U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
23. Kamp H, Roßdeutscher A. 1994. DRS-construction and lexically driven inferences. Theor. Linguist. 20:165–236
    [Google Scholar]
24. Kamp H, van Genabith J, Reyle U 2011. Discourse Representation Theory. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 15 DM Gabbay, F Guenthner 125–394. Dordrecht, Neth: Springer. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
25. Karttunen L. 1976. Discourse referents. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7 J McCawley 363–85. New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
26. Kripke S. 1980. Naming and Necessity Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressFirst appeared in Davidson D, Harman G, eds. 1972. Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel.
27. Lewis D. 1973. Counterfactuals Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell
28. Ludwig K. 2016. From Individual to Plural Agency Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
29. Montague R. 1969. On the nature of certain philosophical entities. Monist 53:2159–94
    [Google Scholar]
30. Montague R 1970a. English as a formal language. Linguaggi nella Societa e nella Tecnica B Visentini et al.189–224. Milan, Italy: Ed. Communita
    [Google Scholar]
31. Montague R. 1970b. Pragmatics and intensional logic. Synthese 22:68–94
    [Google Scholar]
32. Montague R. 1970c. Universal grammar. Theoria 36:373–98
    [Google Scholar]
33. Partee B. 1975. Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguist. Inq. 6:203–300
    [Google Scholar]
34. Prior A. 1967. Past, Present and Future Oxford, UK: Clarendon
35. Thomason R 1974. Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
36. van der Sandt RA. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. J. Semant. 9:333–77
    [Google Scholar]
37. van der Sandt RA, Geurts B. 1991. Presupposition, anaphora, and lexical content. Text Understanding in LILOG O Herzog, C-R Rollinger 259–96. Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
38. Vardi M 2008. From church and prior to PSL. 25 Years of Model Checking: History, Achievements, Perspectives O Grumberg, H Veith 150–71. Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
39. von Heusinger K, ter Meulen A. 2013. Meaning and the Dynamics of Interpretation: Selected Papers of Hans Kamp Leiden, Neth.: Brill