Works by Barbara H. Partee
34 found
Order:
1 filter applied
DisambiguationsDisambiguations:
| Barbara H. Partee [28] | Barbara Hall Partee [7] |
- Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English.Barbara Hall Partee -1973 -Journal of Philosophy 70 (18):601-609.
- Nominal and temporal anaphora.Barbara H. Partee -1984 -Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (3):243--286.
- Mathematical Methods in Linguistics.Barbara H. Partee,Alice ter Meulen &Robert E. Wall -1992 -Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (1):271-272.
- Compositionality in formal semantics: selected papers of Barbara H. Partee.Barbara Hall Partee -2004 - Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- Formal Semantics - the Essential Readings.Paul H. Portner &Barbara H. Partee (eds.) -2002 - Blackwell.This is a collection of papers that helped shape the field of formal semantics in linguistics.
- Quantification in Natural Languages.Emmon W. Bach,Eloise Jelinek,Angelika Kratzer &Barbara H. Partee (eds.) -1995 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.This extended collection of papers is the result of putting recent ideas on quantification to work on a wide variety of languages.
- Opacity, coreference, and pronouns.Barbara Hall Partee -1970 -Synthese 21 (3-4):359 - 385.The problem discussed here is to find a basis for a uniform treatment of the relation between pronouns and their antecedents, taking into account both linguists' and philosophers' approaches. The two main candidates would appear to be the linguists' notion of coreference and the philosophers' notion of pronouns as variables. The notion of coreference can be extended to many but not all cases where the antecedent is non-referential. The pronouns-as-variables approach appears to come closer to full generality, but there are (...) some examples of pronouns of laziness which appear to resist either of the two approaches. (shrink)
- Anaphora and Semantic Structure.Emmon Bach &Barbara H. Partee -2004 - In Barbara Hall Partee,Compositionality in formal semantics: selected papers of Barbara H. Partee. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 122--152.
- (1 other version)Montague Grammar.Barbara H. Partee -1980 -Journal of Philosophy 77 (5):278-312.No categories
- Quantificational structures and compositionality.Barbara H. Partee -1995 - In Emmon W. Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara H. Partee,Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht, Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 541--601.
- (1 other version)Formal Semantics: Origins, Issues, Early Impact.Barbara H. Partee -2010 -The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6 (1).Formal semantics is an approach to SEMANTICS1, the study of meaning, with roots in logic, the philosophy of language, and linguistics, and since the 1980’s a core area of linguistic theory. Characteristics of formal semantics to be treated in this article include the following: Formal semanticists treat meaning as mind-independent (though abstract), contrasting with the view of meanings as concepts “in the head” (see I-LANGUAGE AND E-LANGUAGE and MEANING EXTERNALISM AND INTERNALISM); formal semanticists distinguish semantics from knowledge of semantics (Lewis (...) 1975, Cresswell 1978), which has consequences for the notion of semantic COMPETENCE. A central part of the meaning of a sentence on this approach is its TRUTH CONDITIONS, and most although not all formal semantics is model-theoretic, relating linguistic expressions to model-theoretically constructed semantic values cast in terms of truth, REFERENCE, and possible worlds. This sets formal semantics apart from approaches which view semantics as relating a sentence just to a representation on another linguistic “level” (LOGICAL FORM) or a representation in an innate LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT. The formal semanticist could accept such representations as an aspect of semantics but would insist on asking what the model-theoretic semantic interpretation of the given representationlanguage is (Lewis 1970). Formal semantics is centrally concerned with COMPOSITIONALITY at the SYNTAX-SEMANTICS INTERFACE, how the meanings of larger constituents are built up from the meanings of their parts on the basis of their syntactic structure, and with the relation between compositional SENTENCE MEANING and meaning in discourse. (shrink)
- Possible Worlds Semantics and Linguistic Theory.Barbara H. Partee -1977 -The Monist 60 (3):303-326.The goal of this paper is to argue for the fruitfulness for linguistic theory of an approach to semantics that has been developed primarily by logicians and philosophers. That the theory of possible worlds semantics has been extremely fruitful for logic and philosophy is widely if not universally accepted, and I will not try to convince remaining skeptics on that score. But the goals of linguistics are sufficiently different from those of philosophy and logic that there are independent and highly (...) reasonable grounds for skepticism about the appropriateness of such a theory for linguistics, and I will address what seem to me the most important of these in addition to offering positive evidence in favor of such an approach to semantics. (shrink)
- Properties, Types and Meaning.Gennaro Chierchia,Barbara Hall Partee &Raymond Turner -1989
- Bound Variables and Other Anaphors.Barbara H. Partee -2004 - In Barbara Hall Partee,Compositionality in formal semantics: selected papers of Barbara H. Partee. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 110--121.
- The development of formal semantics in linguistic theory.Barbara H. Partee -1996 - In Shalom Lappin,The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell Reference. pp. 11--38.
- Genitives: A case study.Barbara H. Partee -1997 - In J. F. A. K. Van Benthem, Johan van Benthem & Alice G. B. Ter Meulen,Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier. pp. 464--470.No categories
- Comments on Jason Stanley's “on the linguistic basis for contextualism”.Barbara H. Partee -2004 -Philosophical Studies 119 (1-2):147-159.
- Semantic Facts and Psychological Facts.Barbara H. Partee -1988 -Mind and Language 3 (1):43-52.
- Montague semantics.Barbara H. Partee -1997 - In J. F. A. K. Van Benthem, Johan van Benthem & Alice G. B. Ter Meulen,Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier. pp. 5--91.
- Negation, Conjunction, and Quantifiers: Syntax vs. Semantics.Barbara Hall Partee -1970 -Foundations of Language 6 (2):153-165.
- Situations, worlds and contexts.Barbara H. Partee -1985 -Linguistics and Philosophy 8 (1):53--58.
- Changing notions of linguistic competence in the history of formal semantics.Barbara H. Partee -2018 - In Derek Ball & Brian Rabern,The Science of Meaning: Essays on the Metatheory of Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 172-196.In the history of formal semantics, the successful joining of linguistic and philosophical work brought with it some difficult foundational questions concerning the nature of meaning and the nature of knowledge of language in the domain of semantics: questions in part about “what’s in the head” of a competent language-user. This paper, part of a project on the history of formal semantics, revisits the central issues of (Partee, 1979) in a historical context, as a clash between two traditions, Fregean and (...) Chomskyan, a clash that accompanied early work combining Montague’s semantics with Chomskyan syntax. Recent advances in philosophy of mind (from, e.g., Stalnaker and Burge) go a long way towards changing the framework of arguments about “psychological reality” and “competence”, challenging the suppositions on which the original dichotomy rested, thus largely defusing the tension. (shrink)
- Symmetry and symmetrical predicates.Barbara H. Partee -unknown“Symmetrical predicates” have distinctive linguistic properties in many languages. But the concept of “symmetry” merits closer examination. Consider the surprising claim by the psychologist Amos Tversky (1977) that the concept ‘similar’, a standard example of a symmetrical predicate, is in fact not symmetrical. Tversky’s evidence includes the fact that experimental subjects generally rate (1a) as holding to a higher degree than (1b). (1) a. North Korea is similar to Red China. b. Red China is similar to North Korea.
- The Semantics Adventure.Barbara H. Partee -unknownFor me the adventure began just 50 years ago, here at MIT in 1961. The Chomskian revolution had just begun, and Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle had just opened up a PhD program in Linguistics, and I came in the first class. I want to start by thanking Chomsky and Halle for building that program, and I thank MIT and the Research Laboratory of Electronics for supporting it. I’m indebted to Chomsky for revolutionizing the field of linguistics and making it (...) into a field whose excitement has never waned. Chomsky redefined linguistics as the study of human linguistic competence, making linguistics one of the early pillars of cognitive science. (shrink)
- Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning.Hans Kamp &Barbara Hall Partee (eds.) -2004 - Boston: Elsevier.Does context and context-dependence belong to the research agenda of semantics - and, specifically, of formal semantics? Not so long ago many linguists and philosophers would probably have given a negative answer to the question. However, recent developments in formal semantics have indicated that analyzing natural language semantics without a thorough accommodation of context-dependence is next to impossible. The classification of the ways in which context and context-dependence enter semantic analysis, though, is still a matter of much controversy and some (...) of these disputes are ventilated in the present collection. This book is not only a collection of papers addressing context-dependence and methods for dealing with it: it also records comments to the papers and the authors' replies to the comments. In this way, the contributions themselves are contextually dependent. In view of the fact that the contributors to the volume are such key figures in contemporary formal semantics as Hans Kamp, Barbara Partee, Reinhard Muskens, Nicholas Asher, Manfred Krifka, Jaroslav Peregrin and many others, the book represents a quite unique inquiry into the current activities on the semantics side of the semantics/pragmatics boundary. (shrink)
- Asking What a Meaning Does.Barbara H. Partee -2015 - In Barry Loewer & Jonathan Schaffer,A companion to David Lewis. Chichester, West Sussex ;: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 328–344.David K. Lewis was a central player in the golden age of linguistics‐philosophy interaction, and he and his work were important parts of what made that age golden. This chapter discusses some of Lewis's ideas that have been most important for linguists, especially but not only for formal semanticists, and some of the influence his ideas have had. It provides Lewis's distinction between a language as an abstract object and the use of a language by a community, and its importance (...) for defending the non‐psychologistic foundations of formal semantics. The chapter discusses some issues of importance to linguists connected with Lewis's work on possible worlds, modal realism, conditionals, and counterpart theory in brief. It highlights a number of specific ideas that have influenced linguists. The chapter presents David's important role in helping linguists and philosophers understand each other and cooperate in working on the syntax and semantics of natural languages. (shrink)No categories
- Properties, Types, and Meaning, Volume 1.Gennero Chierchia,Barbara H. Partee &Raymond Turner (eds.) -1989 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.No categoriesExport citation
Bookmark - A Chapter in the History of Formal Semantics in the Twentieth Century: Plurals.Barbara H. Partee -2019 - In Daniel Altshuler & Jessica Rett,The Semantics of Plurals, Focus, Degrees, and Times: Essays in Honor of Roger Schwarzschild. Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 17-39.Plurals had a slow start in the history of formal semantics; a significant explosion of innovations didn’t come until the 1980s. In this paper, I offer a picture of developments by noting not only important achievements but also reflecting on the state of thinking about plurals at various periods—what issues or phenomena were not even noticed, what puzzles had started to get attention, and what innovations made the biggest changes in how people thought about plurals. I divide the epochs roughly (...) into decades: before formal semantics ; the first decade of formal semantics—the 1970s, with early work by Montague and Bennett and landmark work on bare plurals by Carlson; the 1980s, when work by Link, Scha, Krifka, Landman, Roberts, and others significantly changed the landscape; and the 1990s, where I mention some key work by Lasersohn and Schwarzschild and stop there, although there was much more work in the 1990s. I don’t discuss the twenty-first century at all because it’s not very historical yet. (shrink)No categories
- Bibliography, Logic and Language.Barbara Hall Partee,Sharon Sabsay &John Soper -1971 - Indiana University Linguistics Club.Export citation Bookmark
- Changing notions of linguistic competence in the history of formal semantics.Barbara H. Partee -2018 - In Derek Ball & Brian Rabern,The Science of Meaning: Essays on the Metatheory of Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Export citation Bookmark
- Emmon Bach. Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and.Barbara H. Partee -1995 - In Emmon W. Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara H. Partee,Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht, Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 2--1.
- Information structure, perspectival structure, diathesis alternation, and the Russian Genitive of Negation.Barbara H. Partee -unknownThe Russian Genitive of Negation construction (Gen Neg) involves case alternation between Genitive and the two structural cases, Nominative and Accusative.1 The factors governing the alternation have been a matter of debate for many decades, and there is a huge literature. Here we focus on one central issue and its theoretical ramifications. The theoretical issue is the following. The same truth-conditional content can often be structured in more than one way; we believe that there is a distinction between choices in (...) how to structure a situation to be described, and choices in how to structure a sentence describing the (already structured) situation. The distinction may not always be sharp, and the term Information Structure may perhaps cover both, but we believe that the distinction is important and needs closer attention. Babby (1980), in a masterful work on the Russian Genitive of Negation, argued that the choice depended principally on Theme-Rheme structure; after initially following Babby (Borschev & Partee 1998), we later argued (Borschev & Partee 2002a,b) that the choice reflects not Theme-Rheme structure but a structuring of the described situation which we call Perspectival Structure. Here we briefly review the phenomenon, Babby’s Theme-Rheme-based analysis, and our arguments for a different analysis. We then consider Hanging Topics, partitive Genitives, and broader licensing conditions of Genitive case, raising the possibility that our counterexamples to Babby’s use of Theme-Rheme structure might be explained away as examples involving Hanging Topics rather than (Praguian) Themes. We argue against that idea as well, but leave open the possibility that our Perspectival Structure may eventually be construable as a kind of information structure itself, if that notion can include some kinds of structuring of the situation as well as of the discourse. (shrink)
- Negation, intensionality, and aspect: Interaction with NP semantics.Barbara H. Partee -2008 - In Susan Deborah Rothstein,Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. John Benjamins. pp. 110--291.
- Richard Montague (1930-1971).Barbara H. Partee -2005 - In Keith Brown,Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier. pp. 8--255.Export citation Bookmark
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server or OpenAthens.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
 Email |  RSS feed |
Editorial team
General Editors:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-5b9ff6f457-sbjvh uwo