Reconciling NSM and Formal SemanticsFootnote

* I would like to acknowledge many extremely useful comments from three anonymous (Australian Journal of Linguistics) reviewers, in addition to comments on earlier versions from Maïa Ponsonnet, Zhengdao Ye and Andras Kornai, and also especially Barbara Partee for many discussions over the years, and comments on what might be regarded as preliminaries to this paper. But they are not responsible for my errors.

References

• Barwise J & R Cooper 1981 ‘Generalized quantifiers and natural language’ Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219. doi: 10.1007/BF00350139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barwise J & R Cooper 1983 Situations and Attitudes Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barwise J & J Perry 1985 ‘Shifting situations and shaken attitudes’ Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 105–161. doi: 10.1007/BF00653379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett J 2003 A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carnap R 1947 Meaning and Necessity Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chierchia G & S McConnell-Ginet 2000 Meaning and Grammar: an introduction to semantics 2nd edition Cambridge MA: MIT Press first edition 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Cresswell MJ 1978 ‘Semantic competence’ in F Guenthner & M Guenther-Reutter (eds) Meaning and Translation: philosophical and linguistic approaches London: Duckworth. pp. 9–27.
   Google Scholar
• Dowty D 2007 ‘Compositionality as an empirical problem’ in C Barker & P Jacobson (eds) Direct Compositionality Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 23–101.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor J 1970 ‘Three reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die”’ Linguistic Inquiry 4: 429–438.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor J 1987 Psychosemantics Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gladkova A, U Vanhatalo & C Goddard 2015 ‘The semantics of interjections: an experimental study with natural semantic metalanguage’ Applied Psycholinguistics. doi:10.1017/S0142716415000260
   Google Scholar
• Goddard C 2001 ‘Conceptual primes in early language development’ In M Pütz & S Niemeier (eds) Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: theory and language acquisition Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 193–227.
   Google Scholar
• Goddard C 2011 Semantic Analysis: a practical introduction 2nd edition Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goddard C 2012 ‘Semantic primes, semantic molecules, semantic templates: Key concepts in the NSM approach to lexical typology’ Linguistics 50(3): 711–743. doi: 10.1515/ling-2012-0022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goddard C & A Wierzbicka 2002 Meaning and Universal Grammar: theory and empirical findings Vols I and II Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goddard C & A Wierzbicka 2014 Words and Meanings: lexi-cal semantics across domains, languages, and cultures Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff RS 1983 Semantics and Cognition Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff RS 1985 ‘Information is in the mind of the beholder’ Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 22–33. doi: 10.1007/BF00653372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird PN & RM Byrne 1991 Deduction Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird PN & RMJ Byrne 1993 ‘Précis of deduction’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 323–380. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00030260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz JJ 1966 The Philosophy of Language New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Katz JJ 1972 Semantic Theory New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Katz JJ & J Fodor 1964 ‘The structure of a semantic theory’ In The Structure of Language: readings in the philosophy of language Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. 479–518 first published in 1963, Language 39:170–210.
   Google Scholar
• Keenan EL & LM Faltz 1985 Boolean Semantics for Natural Language Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Kneale W & M Kneale 1962 The Development of Logic Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff G 1970 ‘Linguistics and natural logic’ Synthese 22: 151–171. Available at http://http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/43819/11229_2004_Article_BF00413602.pdf?sequence=1
   Google Scholar
• Landman F 1991 Structures for Semantics Kluwer Dordrecht: Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Larson R & G Segal 1995 Knowledge of Meaning Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• LePore E 1983 ‘What model theoretic semantics cannot do?’ Synthese 54: 167–187. doi: 10.1007/BF00869390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis D 1972 ‘General semantics’ In D Davidson & G Harman (eds) Semantics of Natural Language Dordrecht: D. Reidel. pp. 169–218.
   Google Scholar
• Link G 1998 Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Montague R 1970a ‘English as a formal language’ In B Visentini (ed.) Linguaggi nella Società e nella Tecnica Milan Rome: Edizioni di Communità. pp. 189–224 reprinted in Thomason (1974). pp. 188–221.
   Google Scholar
• Montague R 1970b ‘Universal grammar’ Theoria 36: 363–398 reprinted in Montague (1974).
   Google Scholar
• Partee BH 2004 ‘Reflections of a formal semanticist’ In Compositionality in Formal Semantics: selected papers of Barbara Partee Oxford: Blackwell Publishers longer version available as Partee (2005). pp. 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Partee BH 2005 Reflections of a formal semanticist Available at http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/BHP_Essay_Feb05.pdf accessed 27 January 2015 (longer version of Partee (2004)).
   Google Scholar
• Partee BH, A ter Meulen & RE Wall 1993 Mathematical Methods in Linguistics Dordrecht: Kluwer Corrected second printing.
   Google Scholar
• Pelletier FJ 1999 ‘A brief history of natural deduction’ History and Philosophy of Logic 20: 1–31. doi: 10.1080/014453499298165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietroski P, J Lidz, T Hunter & J Halberda 2009 ‘The meaning of “most”: Semantics, numerosity, and psychology’ Mind and Language 24: 554–585. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01374.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollard C 2008 ‘Hyperintensions’ Journal of Logic and Computation 18: 257–282 Prepublication draft available at: http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~pollard/cvg/hyper.pdf accessed 27 January 2015. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exm003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomason R 1974 Formal Philosophy: selected papers by Richard Montague New Haven CN: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka A 1972 Semantic Primitives Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka A 1975 ‘Why “kill” does not mean “cause to die”: The semantics of action sentences’ Foundations of Language 13: 491–528 reprinted in Wierzbicka (1980).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka A 1980 Lingua Mentalis: the semantics of natural language London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka A 1985 Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka A 1996 Semantics: primes and universals Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka A 2002a ‘Russian cultural scripts: The theory of cultural scripts and its applications’ Ethos 30: 401–432. doi: 10.1525/eth.2002.30.4.401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka A 2002b ‘Semantic primes and universal grammar in Polish’ In A Wierzbicka & C Goddard (eds) Meaning and Universal Grammar: theory and empirical findings Vol I Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins. pp. 65–144.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicka A 2006 English: meaning and culture Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar