Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:45:14.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - A Typology of Semantic Entities

from Part V - Typologizing and Ontologizing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2022

By
Jessica Rett
Edited by
Daniel Altshuler
Daniel Altshuler
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

The goal of this paper is to discuss which basic semantic entities we should include in our formal semantic ontology, and on which principles we should include them (cf. Bach 1986b). The vast majority of formal theories employ individuals as a basic type; they represent quantification over, modification of, and reference to individuals. But many theories include additional types or entities, including possible worlds, but also less common ones like vectors. Some papers have argued that types should be constrained or reduced; others that they should be proliferated. I present some representative arguments on both sides and suggest a path forward in evaluating them against one another.

Keywords

semantic ontologymetasemanticstype theoryentitieseventstimessituationsindividualsdegreespossible worlds
Type
Chapter
Information
Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 277 - 301
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altshuler, D. (2016). Events, States, and Times. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2016). An Alternatives Based Account of Some-Exclamatives. LSA talk, January 9.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1986a). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5–16.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1986b). Natural language metaphysics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 114, 573–595.Google Scholar
Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. (2005). The Syntax–Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bale, A. (2011). Scales and comparison classes. Natural Language Semantics, 19, 169–190.Google Scholar
Bartsch, R., & Vennemann, T. (1972). The grammar of relative adjectives and comparison. Linguistische Berichte, 20, 19–32.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. (1981). Scenes and other situations. The Journal of Philosophy, 78, 369–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beck, S., Krasikova, S., Fleischer, D., Gergel, R., Hofstetter, S., Savelsberg, C., Vanderelst, J., & Villalta, E. (2009). Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 9, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S., Oda, T., & Sugisaki, K. (2004). Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 13, 289–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beltrama, A., & Bochnak, M. R. (2015). Intensification without degrees cross-linguistically. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33, 843–879.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2003). Word order and incremental update. In Proceedings from the 39th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Vol. 1 (pp. 634–664). Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2005). Future discourse in a tenseless language. Journal of Semantics, 12, 339–388.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. (2006). Ontology for human talk and thought (not robotics). Theoretical Linguistics, 32, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, M. (2014). Temporality: Universals and Variation. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochnak, M. R. (2015a). Degree achievements in a degree-less language. In Pasquereau, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of the Americas (SULA) 8 (pp. 17–32).Google Scholar
Bochnak, M. R. (2015b). The degree semantics parameter and cross-linguistic variation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochnak, M. R., & Bogal-Allbritten, E. (2015). Investigating gradable predicates, comparison, and degree constructions in underrepresented languages. In Bochnak, M. R., & Matthewson, L. (Eds.), Methodologies in Semantic Fieldwork (pp. 110–134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bogal-Allbritten, E., & Coppock, E. (2020). Quantification, degrees, and beyond in Navajo. In Hallman, P. (Ed.), Degree and Quantification (pp. 121–162). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bowler, M. (2016). The status of degrees in Walpiri. In Grubic, M. & Mucha, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of The Semantics of African, Asian and Austronesian Languages 2, pages 1–17. Universitatsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. (2009). Measure noun polysemy and monotonicity: Evidence from Romanian pseudopartitives. In Schardl, A., Walkow, M., & Abdurrahman, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 139–150). Ottawa: North East Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Burnett, H. (2012). The role of microvariation in the study of semantic universals: adverbial quantifiers in European & Quebec French. Journal of Semantics, 29, 1–38.Google Scholar
Bußmann, H. (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Castroviejo Miró, E., & Schwager, M. (2008). Amazing DPs. In Friedman, T. & Ito, S. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 18 (pp. 176–193).Google Scholar
Champollion, L. (2010). Parts of a Whole: Distributivity as a Bridge between Aspect and Measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Church, A. (1932). A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Annals of Mathematics, 33, 346–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M. (1976). The semantics of degree. In Partee, B. H. (Ed.), Montague Grammar (pp. 261–292). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cresswell, M. (1990). Entities and Indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N. (Ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action (pp. 105–122). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Doetjes, J. (2007). Adverbial quantification: Degree versus frequency. Lingua, 117, 685–720.Google Scholar
Dotlačil, J., & Nouwen, R. (2016). The comparative and degree pluralities. Natural Language Semantics, 24, 45–78.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2012). Counterfactuals without possible worlds. Journal of Philosophy, 109, 221–246.Google Scholar
Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grosu, A., & Landman, F. (1998). Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 125–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Buchholz, O. (1998). Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. In van der Auwera, J., & Baoill, D. O. (Eds.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe (pp. 277–334). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Henkin, L. (1963). A theory of propositional types. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 52, 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1957). Modality as referential multiplicity. Ajatus, 20, 49–64.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. (2005). Analogical change. In Joseph, B., & Janda, R. (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1976). How to Russell a Frege-Church. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 716–729.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D., & Montague, R. (1960). A paradox regained. Journal of Formal Logic, 1, 79–90.Google Scholar
Katz, G. (2003). Event arguments, adverb selection, and the stative adverb gap. In Lang, E., Maienborn, C., & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (Eds.), Modifying Adjuncts (pp. 455–474). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (2015). Individuals explained away. In Bianchi, A. (Ed.), On Reference (pp. 384–402). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (2018). Eliminating The Universe: Logical Properties Of Natural Language. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the Adjective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2005). Parameters of Comparison. Presentation at Cornell University.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 1–45.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C, & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81, 345–381.Google Scholar
King, J., & Lewis, K. (2018). Anaphora. In Zalta, E., E. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. (1982). The interpretation of adjectival comparatives. The Journal of Linguistics, 18, 113–136.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 607–53.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2007). Situations in natural language semantics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. CSLI.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, R., van Benthem, J., & van Emde Boas, P. (Eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression (pp. 75–15). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 487–520.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, I. & Scabolcsi, A. (Eds.), Lexical Matters (pp. 29–54). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1959). A completeness theorem in modal logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 24, 1–14.Google Scholar
Landman, F. (2000). Predicate-argument mismatches and the adjectival theory of indefinites. In Coene, M. & d’Hulst, Y. (Eds.), From NP to DP (pp. 211–237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Landman, M. (2006). Variables in Natural Language. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Landman, M., & Morzycki, M. (2003). Event-kinds and the representation of manner. In, Antrim, N. M., Goodall, G., Schulte-Nafeh, M., & Samiian, V. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 2002, Vol. 14 (pp. 136–147). California State University.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, Conjunction and Tense. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In Keenan, E., E. (Ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language (pp. 178–188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liefke, K. (2014a). A Single-Type Semantics for Natural Language. PhD thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Liefke, K. (2014b). A single-type semantics for the PTQ*-fragment. Sinn und Bedeutung, 18, 253–270.Google Scholar
Liefke, K. (2015). A single-type logic for natural language. Journal of Logic and Computation, 25, 1111–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefke, K., & Werning, M. (2018). Evidence for single-type semantics: An alternative to e/t-based dual-type semantics. Journal of Semantics, 35, 639–685.Google Scholar
Lin, J.-W. (2005). Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics, 23, 1–53.Google Scholar
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., & von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2006). Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 673–713.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2013). On how (not) to uncover cross-linguistic variation. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 42 (pp. 323–342). GLSA.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (2014). The measurement of semantic complexity: How to get by if your language lacks generalized quantifiers. In Newmeyer, F. & Preston, L. (Eds.), Formal Complexity (pp. 241–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2013). Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1970). English as a formal language. In Visentini, B. (Ed.), Linguaggi nella societé nella tecnica (pp. 189–223). Milan.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Hintikka, J., Moravcsik, J., & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Natural Language (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Mucha, A. (2013). Temporal interpretation in Hausa. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36, 371–415.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, K. (2007). Measurement in the nominal and verbal domain. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 235–276.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., van de Koot, H., & Doetjes, J. (2004). Degree expressions. The Linguistic Review, 21, 1–66.Google Scholar
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (2000). Underlying states and time travel. In Achille Varzi, J. H. & Pianesi, F. (Eds.), Speaking of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 7, 601–609.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 243–286.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2009). Do we need two basic types? Snippets, 20, 37–41.Google Scholar
Pearson, H. (2010). How to do comparison in a language without degrees. Sinn und Bedeutung 14, 356–372.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1973). Meaning and reference. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 699–711.Google Scholar
Quine, W. (1948). On what there is. The Review of Metaphysics, 2, 21–38.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. (2016). Situations and Syntactic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2013). Similatives and the degree arguments of verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 1101–1137.Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2014). The polysemy of measurement. Lingua, 143, 242–266.Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2015). Antonymy in space and other strictly-ordered domains. Perspectives on Spatial Cognition: Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 10, 1–33.Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2020). Separate but equal: a typology of equative constructions. In Hallman, P. (Ed.), Degrees and Quantification (pp. 163–204). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, K. (2016). Can semantics guide ontology? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 94, 24–41.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2009). Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 1, 106–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2006). Ontological symmetry in language: A brief manifesto. Mind & Language, 21, 504–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, F. (2012). Situation pronouns in determiner phrases. Natural Language Semantics, 20, 431–475.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (2005). Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 34, 207–228.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (2012). Directed scale segments. In Chereches, A., (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 22 (pp. 65–82).Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (2013). Degrees and segments. In Snider, T. (Ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 23 (pp. 212–238).Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R., & Wilkinson, K. (2002). Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics, 10, 1–41.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. (2013). On the universal properties of tense embedding: The lesson from before. Journal of Semantics, 31, 243–286.Google Scholar
Starr, W. (2014). What ‘if’? Philosopher’s Imprint 14, 1–27.Google Scholar
Stassen, L. (1985). Comparison and Universal Grammar: An Essay in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stojnić, U., & Altshuler, D. (2021). Formal properties of ‘now’ revisited. Semantics and Pragmatics, 14, 3.Google Scholar
Stone, M. (1997). An anaphoric parallel between modality and tense. University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science Technical Report.Google Scholar
Thomason, R. (1980). A model theory for propositional attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 47–70.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. (2001). Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2011). Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 257–303.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T. (1989). Intensional logic and two-sorted type theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 54, 65–77.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. (1997). Vectors as relative positions: A compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics, 14, 57–86.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×