Cover not available
Part of
Events, Arguments, and Aspects: Topics in the Semantics of Verbs
Edited by Klaus Robering
[Studies in Language Companion Series 152] 2014
► pp. 1–62

Introduction

Events, arguments, and aspects

Published online: 28 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.152.00int
References

Bibliography

Abadi, Martín & Cardelli, Luca
(1996): A Theory of Objects . New York NY, etc.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz
(1935): “Die syntaktische Konnexität.” Studia Philosophica 1: 1–27. English translation as “Syntactic connexion” in McCall, Storrs (ed.): Polish Logic 1920–1939 . Oxford: Oxford University Press 1967 207–231.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D
(1988): “Lexical structure.” In: Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey , Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, Vol. I. Linguistic Theory: Foundations. 60–88.Google Scholar
Åqvist, Lennart
(1976): “Formal semantics of verb tenses as analyzed by Reichenbach.” In: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.) Pragmatics of Language and Literature , Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. 229–236.Google Scholar
Aristotle
(1989): Categories and De Interpretatione . Translated with Notes and Glossary by John Lloyd Ackrill. Oxford: Clarendon Press. First published in 1963.Google Scholar
(2006): Metaphysics. Book Θ . Translated with an Introduction and Commentary by Stephen Makin. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw
(1962): How to Do Things with Words . Edited by James O. Urmson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon
(1986): “The algebra of events.” Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5–16.Google Scholar
Backofen, Rolf & Smolka, Gert
(1995): “A complete and recursive feature theory.” Theoretical Computer Science 1995: 243–268.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon
(1989): The Situation in Logic . Stanford CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Perry, John
(1983): Situations and Attitudes . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bäuerle, Rainer
(1979): Temporale Deixis und temporale Frage . Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry
(1990): Relational Grammar . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C
(2011): “Coercion and leaking argument structure in Construction Grammar.” Linguistics : 1271–1303.Google Scholar
Boole, George
(1854): An Investigation of the Laws of Thought . London: Walton and Maberly.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
(2000): Lexical-functional Syntax . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Broad, Charlie D
(1933): An Examination of McTaggart’s Philosophy . Vol. I. Cambridge: ­Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, Kim B
(2002): Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N
(1980): Reference to Kinds in English . New York NY: Garland. Originally: PhD-thesis, The University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Robert L
(1992): The Logic of Typed Feature Structures. With Applications to Unification Grammars, Logic Programs and Constraint Resolution . Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
(1982): “Nominalization and Montague grammar: a semantics without types for natural languages.” Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 303–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988): Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds . New York NY and London: Garland. Originally: Ph.D. thesis, The University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro & McConnell-Ginet, Sally
(1990): Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cocchiarella, Nino B
(1986): Logical Investigations of Predication Theory and the Problem of Universals . Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernhard
(1986): Aspect . Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Max J
(1985): Structured Meanings. The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary
(ed.) (1999): Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Ressource Logic Approach . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, Michael W
(2005): “Generalized ID/LP-grammar: A formalism for parsing linearization-based HPSG-grammars.” Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, Ohio OH. URL [URL].Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald
(1967): “The logical form of action sentences.” In: Nicholas Rescher (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action , Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.81–120.Reprinted in Davidson (1980: p. 105–121).Google Scholar
(1980): Essays on Action and Events . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1984): Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
(1919): Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen . Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. Reprinted: Hildesheim and New York NY: Olms 1976.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna & Williams, Edwin
(1987): On the Definition of a Word . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dölling, Evelyn
(1996): “Anmerkungen zur Geschichte der Kategorialgrammatik.” In: Klaus Robering (ed.) Kategorien und Funktoren in Syntax und Semantik , Berlin: Technische Universität, volume 32 of Arbeitspapiere zur Linguistik – Working Papers in Linguistics . 47–66.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
(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
Dowty, David R
(1989): “On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role’.” In: Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee & Raymond Turner (eds.) Properties,Types and Meanings ., Dordrecht: Kluwer, Vol. II: Semantic Issues. 69–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engelberg, Stefan, Koplenig, Alexander, Proost, Kristel & Winkler, Edeltraud
(2012): “Argument structure and text genre: cross-corpus evaluation of the distributional characteristics of argument structure relations.” Lexicographica 12: 13–48.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick
(2005): Grammatical Relations . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fernald, Theodore B
(2000): Predicates and Temporal Arguments . New York NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J
(1968): “The case for case.” In: Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory , New York NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1–88.Google Scholar
(1970): “The grammar of hitting and breaking.” In: Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar , Waltham MA: Ginn. 120–133.Google Scholar
(1976): “Frame semantics and the nature of language.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science 280 (Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech): 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1977): “The case for case reopened.” In: Peter Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations , New York NY: Academic Press. 59–81.Google Scholar
(1982): “Frame semantics.” In: Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from the SICOL 1981 , Seoul: Hanshin. 111–138.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, John & Larsen, Peter Gorm
(2009): Modelling Systems. Practical Tools and Techniques in Software Development . Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
(1948): “Sense and reference.” The Philosophical Review 57: 207–230. German original in: Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100 (1892): 25–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1956): “The thought: a logical inquiry.” Mind 65: 289–311. German original in: Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1 (1918/19). 58–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galton, Antony
(1984): The Logic of Aspect. An Axiomatic Approach . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
(1995): A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure . ­Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2010): “Verbs, constructions, and semantic frames.” In Hovav, et al. (2010: 39–57).
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood
(1994): An Introduction to Functional Grammar . London: Arnold, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
(ed.) (1998): Papers from the UPenn/MIT Round Table on Argument Structure and Aspect, volume 32 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics . Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
(2010): “A minimalist approach to argument structure.” In: Cedric Boeckx (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism , Oxford: Oxford University Press. 426–447.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James
(1987): “On semantics.” In: Ernest LePore (ed.) New Directions in Semantics , London: Academic Press. 1–54. First published in Linguistics Inquiry . Vol. 16 (1985). 547–593.Google Scholar
Hindley, J. Roger & Seldin, Jonathan P
(1986): Introduction to Combinators and λ -Calculus . Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack
(1985): Categorial Morphology . New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme
(2013): The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hovav, Malka Rappaport, Doron, Edit & Sichel, Ivy
(eds.) (2010): Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
(1924): The Philosophy of Grammar . London: Allan & Unwin. 11th edition 1975.Google Scholar
(1965): A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VI, Morphology . London: Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Johnson, David E. & Postal, Paul M
(1980): Arc Pair Grammar . Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans
(1971): “Formal properties of now .” Theoria 37: 227–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe
(1993): From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic, and Discourse Representation Theory . 2 Vols. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David
(1978): “On the logic of demonstratives.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 81–98.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward
(1987): Universal Grammar: 15 Essays . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Keller, Bill
(1993): Feature Logics, Infinitary Descriptions and Grammar . Stanford CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Kenny, Anthony
(1963): Action, Emotion, and Will . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Kifer, Michael, Lausen, George & Wu, James
(1995): “Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages.” Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 42: 741–843.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
(1989): Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massenter-men, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen . München: Fink.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven Th
(1977): Many-Sorted Modal Logics . Uppsala: University of Uppsala, Department of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred & Rothstein, Susan
(2010): “Incremental homogeneity in the semantics of aspectual for-phrases.” In: Hovav et al. (2010: 229–251).
Larson, Richard & Segal, Gabriel
(1995): Knowledge and Meaning. An Introduction to Semantic Theory . MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter
(1990): A Semantics of Groups and Events . New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Lehrberger, John
(1974): Functor Analysis of Natural Language . The Hague and Paris: ­Mouton.Google Scholar
LePore, Ernest & Ludwig, Kirk
(2009): Donald Davidson’s Truth-Theoretic Semantics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leśniewski, Stanisław
(1992): Collected Works . 2 Vols. Edited by Stanisław Surma, Jan T. Srzednicki, D. I. Barnett. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
(2012): “Manner and result: implications for argument realization across languages.” URL [URL].
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka
(2005): Argument Realization . Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Harold D
(1982): Categorial Grammar and the Logical Form of Quantification . Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. & Meurers, W. Detmar
(2006): “Head-driven phrase structure grammar.” In: Keith Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics , Oxford: Elsevier, volume Syntax.2nd edition, 237–252.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David
(1972): “General semantics.” In: Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds.) Semantics of natural language , Dordrecht: Reidel. 169–218. Reprinted in Lewis, David: Philosophical Papers. Vol. I. New York NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press 1983. 189–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
(1966): “Towards a ’notional’ theory of the parts of speech.” Journal of Linguistics 2: 209–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec P
(1984): On the Nature of Grammatical Relations . Cambride MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2006): “Argument structure and morphology: noun phrases that name events.” URL [URL].
Meir, Irit
(2010): “The emergence of argument structure in two new sign languages.” In: Hovav et al. (2010: 101–123).
Miles, Russ & Hamilton, Kim
(2006): Learning UML 2.0 . Beijing etc.: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary L
(1974): “Existential sentences in English.” Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Boston MA.Google Scholar
Minsky, Marvin
(1974): “A framework for representing knowledge.” MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306. URL [URL]. Reprinted in Winston, Patrick H. [ed.]: The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York NY: McGraw-Hill 1975. 211–277.
Montague, Richard
(1974): Formal Philosophy. Selected Papers of Richard Montague . Ed. and with an introduction by Richmond H. Thomason. New Haven CT and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P.D
(1978): “Events, processes, and states.” Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan
(2007): Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Eine Einführung . Tübingen: Stauffenburg 3rd revised edition 2013.Google Scholar
(2010): Grammatiktheorie . Tübingen: Stauffenburg 3rd revised edition 2013.Google Scholar
Nebes, Norbert
(ed.) (1999): Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen. Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft . Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Needham, Paul
(1975): Temporal Perspective. A Logical Analysis of Temporal Reference in English, volume 25 of Philosophical Studies . Uppsala: University of Uppsala, Department of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John
(1986): “Reference time and time in narration.” Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 83–96.Google Scholar
Øhrstrøm, Peter & Hasle, Per
(2006): “A. N. Prior’s logic.” In: Dov Gabbay & John Woods (eds.) Handbook of the History of Logic , Amsterdam: Elsevier, volume 7. 399–446.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence
(1990): Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H
(1973): “Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English.” The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall
(1984): “Nominal and temporal anaphora.” Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 243–286.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David
(ed.) (1983): Studies in Relational Grammar , volume I. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(ed.) (1984): Studies in Relational Grammar , volume II. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A
(1987): Information-Based Syntax and Semantics . Stanford CA: Centerfor the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. & Joseph, Brian D
(eds.) (1983): Studies in Relational Grammar , volume III. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, Arthur N
(1957): Time and Modality . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(1967): Past, Present and Future . Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1968): Papers on Time and Tense . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans
(1947): Elements of Symbolic Logic . New York NY: MacMillan. German translation with a preface by David Kaplan: Grundzüge der symbolischen Logik . Gesammelte Werke Vol. 6. Braunschweig: Vieweg 1999.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand
(1940): An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth . London: Allen & Unwin. Paperback edition: Harmondsworth: Penguin 1970.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert
(1949): The Concept of Mind . London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Schalley, Andrea C
(2004): Cognitive Modeling and Verbal Semantics. A Representational Framework Based on UML . Berlin and New York NY: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinthal, Heyman
(1890): Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Römern mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Logik . Berlin: Dümmler,2nd edition. Reprinted Bonn: ­Dümmler 1961.Google Scholar
Tichy, Eva
(1999): “Nicht nur Vordergrund und Hintergrund: Zum Aspektgebrauch im Neuen Testament und im homerischen Epos.” In: Nebes (1999: 127–145).
Tichý, Pavel
(1985): “Do we need interval semantics?” Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 263–282. Reprinted in Svoboda, Vladimír, Jespersen, Bjørn, and Cheyne, Colin [eds.]: Pavel Tichý’s Collected Papers in Logic and Philosophy. Otago: University of Otago Press 2004. 577–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Troelstra, Anne S
(1992): Lectures on Linear Logic . Stanford CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
(1967): Linguistics in Philosophy . Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo & Harlow, R
(1977): “Categorial grammar and consistent basic VX-serialization.” Theoretical Linguistics 4: 227–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J
(1996): A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure . Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J., Swart, Henriëtte de & Hout, Angeliek van
(eds.) (2005): Perspectives on Aspect . Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Georg Henrik von
(1951): An Essay in Modal Logic . North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Zaefferer, Dietmar
(2002): “Polysemy, polyvalence, and linking mismatches. The concept of RAIN and its codings in English, German, Italian, and Spanish.” DELTA – Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Téorica e Aplicada 18: 27–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar