[转贴]从语言到逻辑 —— 蒙太格语法研究资深专家Barbara Hall Partee访谈录

louselice^_^

[转贴，不参与评分]

从语言到逻辑 —— 蒙太格语法研究资深专家Barbara Hall Partee访谈录

中国社会科学院哲学所 邹崇理
chlizou@263.net

Barbara H. Partee是美国马萨诸萨大学著名的语言学和哲学教授，国际上资深的蒙太格语法研究专家和形式语义学奠基人之一。1965年师从当代著名语言学家N. Chomsky获得博士学位，1986年担任美国语言学会主席，1984年和1989年先后当选为美国文理科学院和国家科学院院士，也是荷兰皇家文理科学院外籍院士。多年来一直是国际上Linguistics and Philosophy等重要形式语义学刊物的编委，是世界上多所大学的讲座教授。

2005年我在访美期间专程到马萨诸萨州大学拜访了Partee教授，在其家中小住三日。就形式语义学和乔姆斯基学派的句法理论、语言和逻辑的关系以及形式语义学向语用学领域延伸等问题进行了广泛的对话和交流。Partee教授的看法主要有：乔姆斯基的句法理论取得很大成功，蒙太格语法是其延伸和超越，但蒙太格学派的形式语义学在句法生成及语言习得机制等方面应该向乔姆斯基的转换语法学习；形式语义学并非只是简单地使用现有逻辑工具去分析自然语言，而是根据自然语言的特征不断改进逻辑，运用逻辑和代数方法研究自然语言的形式语义学具有多种多样的研究模式；形式语义学扩展到形式语用学是当代重要的发展趋势，语义学和语用学的最初合流是把卡尔纳普的朴素内涵概念(从可能世界到外延的函项)替换成更为丰富的从“可能世界＋语境”到外延的函项，这里语境包含诸如讲话者、听话者、说话的时间地点等因素。

邹: 上个世纪80年代初伴随R.Montague的Formal Philosophy介绍到中国，您编辑的Montague Grammar专题论文集也很快同中国学者见了面。作为以蒙太格语法为开端的形式语义学在中国最早的介绍者，您因此享有盛名。但我们对您个人的情况不甚了解，您能否简要谈谈这方面的情况？据我所知，您在大学本科期间是学数学的，获得数学学士学位，博士阶段却师从当代著名语言学家N.Chomsky学习生成语法的句法理论，后来又转而研究以现代逻辑为基础的形式语义学，这些转变有些什么原因？

Partee: 在本科学习期间我受益于美国教育的人文传统，在主修数学的同时接触了哲学和俄语及其他知识。我确实非常喜爱数学和语言，我非常欣喜地发现语言学这个领域在Chomsky开创的新方向下非常适合于我两方面的研究兴趣，后来的实践也表明了这点。更幸运的是我在UCLA(加州大学洛杉矶分校)的第一次教学任职时，大约是在1968年，由D.Lewis介绍认识了哲学家和逻辑学家R.Montague，那时Montague刚好开始关于自然语言形式语义学的基础工作。我和Lewis早在Swarthmore 的本科学习时就彼此了解认识，因此他知道我对蒙太格的工作会感到兴趣。确实如此，不久我就开始探讨把蒙太格语义学融合到乔姆斯基的句法理论中去的途径。Montague悲剧性地夭折于1971年，这对我是一个巨大打击。但是我继续从事他开创的方向，并首次提出“蒙太格语法”的名称，这个思想后来逐渐扩展成形式语义学的理论系列(参见Partee 2001, Partee 2004, Partee 2005)。

邹：在西方的学术思想发展史上，逻辑学和语言学各自发展了很长时期，为什么自上个世纪50年代以来走到一起？Chomsky的转换语法理论是语言学的“哥白尼式的革命”，在语言学研究中已经大量使用了逻辑演绎方法，但逻辑学家Montague并不满足于此，进一步采用逻辑语义学方法处理自然语言的语义，建立了自然语言句法范畴和逻辑类型的对应。就逻辑与语言学研究更深层次的结合而言，是否可以说蒙太格语法是转换生成语法的进一步延伸？

Partee: 是的，我认为完全是这样。当E. Bach把蒙太格语法的内容放到他的中文教材中时(Bach 1989)，Chomsky已表明自然语言如何能转换成形式语言，而Montague 则进一步显示自然语言可以翻译成能够被解释的形式语言。缺少语义学的句法理论通常也可以独自建立，Chomsky一直认为句法是一种自足的学科。而Montague则表示：“对缺乏语义学的句法理论没有任何兴趣”(引自蒙太格论文(Montague 1970a)第223页著名的脚注2)。在我的研究中历来确信形式语义学就是句法内容添加语义因素的结果，或许还伴随出于句法语义接口的需要对句法的某种调整。

邹：蒙太格语法在某种意义上超越了转换生成语法，但并没有因此取代后者，后者在80年代以来甚至发展出广义词组结构语法和中心语驱动语法等理论，这些理论在语义领域大都借鉴蒙太格的做法，这是否说明蒙太格语法以及后来派生出的形式语义理论在句法方面或语言学的其他方面仍然有不如转换生成语法的地方？形式语义学是否应该向转换生成语法学习点什么？

Partee: 可以从两种不同角度看待MG(蒙太格语法)。
Montague的理论具有句法和语义以及二者的对应关系。用其“普遍语法”所表示的(Montague 1970a)该理论最宽泛抽象的表述方式与许多关于句法的特殊理论没有本质的区别，只要这些理论大体表现为句法代数配上与之同态的语义代数。在这个意义上，GPSG(广义词组结构语法)和 HPSG(中心语驱动语法)“都是”蒙太格语法，因为这些理论能用上述方法构造并且相应的语义学是组合的。我早期企图把蒙太格语法同乔姆斯基学派的转换语法结合起来，这需要重新构造TG(转换语法)，使得它配备代数性质的句法学并且能给予组合的解释，这些工作要求在TG的框架上做些调整。

   在另一种意义上，人们能够在Montague 著名的论著“PTQ”(Montague 1973)中看到一种作为范畴语法变异的特殊句法。语言学家对于范畴语法，无论它经过修正与否，在多大程度上是关于自然语言句法的好理论这一点是有分歧的。一些语言学家认为Montague的句法理论有点粗糙，给人留下深刻印象是其语义学而不是句法学。下列事实能够说明这点，第一本完整的教材(Dowty et al.1981)被叫做蒙太格语义学而不是蒙太格语法；另一些语言学家认为Montague的句法也是有意义并值得发展的，比如E. Bach在其广义范畴语法的著作中就做了这样的工作(Bach 1987), 其结果是HPSG的来源之一。

的确Chomsky在西方的句法领域内一直保持统治地位，但是我并不认为他处理句法的理论方法正如其统治地位所显示的那样优于其他理论。然而乔姆斯基派的句法理论确实有许多值得吸收的东西，我特别强调以下三点：(1)强调理论对语言的解释能力而不是简单的描写；(2)强调探索人类语言的共性以及语言的相异性的方面；(3)强调第一语言习得机制的研究，因为对于这一现象的解释从原则上来讲所触及的是语言学理论最为本质的东西。语义学家们实际上也正在致力于这些研究方向。

邹：形式语义学30多年的发展过程表明：逻辑和自然语言有着非常紧密的关系。有人认为逻辑是分析自然语言的工具，自然语言的语义学就是逻辑加自然语言例子。逻辑发展到什么程度，自然语言的语义学才因此进展到什么程度，自然语言语义学基本上是依赖逻辑而发展；另有人则认为自然语言本身具有与逻辑不尽相同的结构，它不能完全依赖逻辑。蒙太格的普遍语法思想概括了二者的共同性而不谈二者的差异。但差异毕竟存在，如蒙太格的英语语句系统跟通常的逻辑系统就有明显区别，逻辑系统需要证明系统的可靠性和完全性，而自然语言的系统没有这样的要求。所以说形式语义学有自己独立的发展目标，一旦从现代逻辑那里借鉴了基本工具后就独自开辟属于自己的领域，这个领域的发展没有完全依赖逻辑，比如在您主编的Mathematical Methods in Linguistics中所介绍的形式语义学采用的集合和代数的方法就不属于逻辑。怎样全面理解形式语义学和逻辑的关系？
Partee: 正如在许多学科里那样，语义学研究者认为按照自然语言对现有的逻辑工具进行改进和添加是非常有价值的工作。Montague做了大量开创性的工作，设计他的内涵高阶类型逻辑，用于描述自然语言的语义性质。他对形式语用学的逻辑基础也有绝妙的建树(Montague 1970b)，用于解释依赖语境的第一人称代词等。以后的形式语义学家继续思考其理论的逻辑基础，不同的研究者对于什么是最好的形式工具有不同的看法。例如Chierchia和Turner认为建立在集合论基础上从可能世界到外延的函项概念不足以把握自然语言的内涵现象，他们鼓吹用性质论取代集合论作为逻辑的模型论基础(Chierchia和 Turner 1988)，等等。语言学家总是在考虑从逻辑学家的现存著作中采用什么样的思想方法，并且从中可能发现创造新的形式化工具的需求。我以为在每一门科学那里都存在数学家和实际科学家的相互影响，我们需要专家的帮助，但我们也需要思考什么是就我们的应用来说最好的东西。有时这些应用还可能激发数学家和逻辑学家去开创新的领域，例如从Barwise, van Benthem, Kamp, Link, Groenendijk＆Stokhof及Muskens等人的工作可看出这点(Barwise 1989, Groenendijk＆Stokhof 1990, Groenendijk 1987, 1989, Kamp 1971, Kamp 1979, Kamp 1984, Link 1983, Link 1998, Muskens 1989, van Benthem 1983, van Benthem 1995)。
邹：哲学家C. Morris和R. Carnap把对语言符号系统的研究分为三个层面：句法、语义和语用。这也是形式语义学的重要方法论。广义的语义研究包括语用，现今的形式语义学已涉及许多语用现象，运用逻辑方法研究自然语言的语用现象是否有较大难度？形式语用学和计算语用学在当今有些什么进展？
Partee:的确如此，我认为形式语义学扩展到形式语用学是当今的发展趋势之一，在以前的论述中我已触及到这个问题，参见Kaplan, Stalnaker＆Lewis, 以及最近Kadmon和 Potts等人的文献。在这个领域我不是最权威的专家，但是对有关一些著述却是有非常深刻的印象。除上述文献外，还可参见(Beaver 2001, Chierchia 1995, Dekker 1993, Dekker 1996, Engdahl 1999, Gazdar 1979, Ginzburg 1992, Groenendijk和 Stokhof 1984, Guenthner 1978, Kamp 1978, Kratzer 1999, Krifka 1995, Merin 1992, Montague 1968, Partee 1999a, Potts和Kawahara 2004, Roberts 1995, von Fintel 2001, von Stechow 1990, Zaefferer 1986)。我知道这是一个偷懒的回答，我应该尽可能谈一些主要的发展和存在的困难。我认为语义学和语用学的首次合流出现在Kaplan, Montague, Stalnaker和Lewis等人的著述中: 把卡尔纳普的朴素内涵概念(从可能世界到外延的函项)替换成更为丰富的从可能世界加“语境”到外延的函项，这里语境包含诸如讲话者、听话者、说话的时间地点等因素。最终扩展到作为整体的言语行为语境，包括讲话者的意图作为指示词的参照物，等等。接下来的重大步骤是“动态语义学”的发展: 不仅语义解释要依赖语境，解释的一些特性也可能反过来影响语境，以不同的方式更新解释的内容。这个工作开始于Kamp和Heim的工作, 并且通过Groenendijk和Stokhof, Chierchia, Beaver, Dekker, Roberts和von Fintel等人的研究而推广。动态的思想导致对若干初期的语义分析进行重新思考，同时也存在大量涉及“形式语义学加语用学”的有待解决的问题。
   传统语用学一些内容，如礼貌原则通常处于形式语用学之外。然而即便是这种情况也有所改变，见Potts和Kawahara(2004)关于日语的研究，以及Kaplan(Kaplan 1999), Kratzer (1999), Potts (2003)的工作，还有其他关于“可表达的意义”的研究。对于研究领域的分工问题的争论仍在持续之中，语义学与语用学的区分问题甚至也不例外，其中包括话题与焦点（更一般的研究则是“信息结构”）、预设、否定、条件句和疑问句等诸多问题。这是一个令人振奋并且相当活跃的领域。
   你谈到计算语用学，应该说在计算语义学方面产生了大量的建设性工作，其中不少是新近出现的，这样也自然推广到形式语用学。我不是这些领域的专家，但是作为你的最后问题之一的解答，我可以推荐一些关于计算语用学的文献和一些有用的网站，这些网站刊载了计算语用学的研究结果。(参见访谈的后部分)
邹：正如我们所知，超内涵问题是指蒙太格语法及其类似理论不能区分在所有参照下具有相同外延的不同语言表达式(如句子)的不同意义。怎样解决这个问题，中国学者提出了一些初步的方案：(1)从作为心灵哲学那里借鉴内涵理论作为哲学基础；(2)使用像Zalta理论那样的内涵逻辑作为技术工具结合Asher处理话语中的抽象物体的方法。你对这些研究思路有什么看法？
Partee: 我认为非常有必要关注心智哲学，虽然我对任何特定的内涵理论知道得不多。我觉得语言哲学家和逻辑学家所做的工作从形式化角度看是更先进的。就我所知，Zalta的理论很大程度来源于作为其论文导师的Terence Parsons以及M.J.Cresswell的早期工作, 我越来越推崇Asher 的工作，其早期为解决超内涵问题进行的尝试尽管遇到根本性困难，然而迄今为止我认为他是这个领域的领军人物之一。
   我建议重点关注Robert Stalnaker的工作，比如读读他的优秀著作(Stalnaker 1984)和论文(Stalnaker 1988)。Stalnaker比其他哲学家花费了更多的精力致力于这样的思想：超内涵现象可以用更多的方式进行解释，某些方式涉及类似引语那样的东西。Stalnaker 竭力维护(或许最终是徒劳的，但我认为看到问题的这一面是非常重要的)这种观点：命题能够充分地表现为可能世界的集合，关于给定句子表达何种命题的语境依赖，其反面的例证也是显而易见的。
   用意义的个体化模式考虑表达式结构的一些方面，我相当欣赏这种方法。在David Lewis的Structured Meanings(Lewis 1970)一书中可以见到这些方法，在此列出有关著述(Cresswell＆von Stechow 1982, Cresswell 1985, Tich

louselice^_^

参考文献：
   Appelo, Lisette. 1986. A compositional approach to the translation of temporal expressions in the Rosetta system. In Proceedings of COLING-86, 313-318.
   Bach, Emmon. 1987. Categorial grammars as theories of language. In Categorial Grammar and Natural Language Structures, ed. R.; Bach Oerle, E.; Wheeler, D., 17-35. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Bach, Emmon. 1989. Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. New York: State University of New York Press.
   Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara H. eds. 1995. Quantification in Natural Languages. SLAP. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive Descriptions. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
   Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4:159-219. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 75-126.
   Barwise, Jon. 1989. The situation in logic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   Bealer, G. 1982. Quality and Concept. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Bealer, George, and M鰊nich, Uwe. 1989. Property theories. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, ed. F. Guenthner Gabbay, D., 133-253. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Beaver, David I. 2001. Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   Blackburn, Patrick, and Bos, Johan. 2005. Representation and Inference for Natural Language: A First Course in Computational Semantics: CSLI Studies in Computational Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   Borschev, Vladimir, and Partee, Barbara H. 2001. Genitive modifiers, sorts, and metonymy. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24:140-160.
   Borschev, Vladimir, and Partee, Barbara H. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: the role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered. In Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague (nouvelle série), v.4, eds. Eva Hajičová, Petr Sgall, Jirí Hana and Tomáš Hoskovec, 185-250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
   Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov G., and Yanovich, Igor. In press. Sentential and constituent negation in Russian BE-sentences revisited. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Princeton Meeting 2005 (FASL 14), eds. Hana Filip, Steven L. Franks, James Lavine and Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
   Cann, Ronnie. 1993. Formal Semantics: An Introduction: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Chierchia, Gennaro, and Turner, Raymond. 1988. Semantics and property theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11:261-302.
   Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Anaphora and Attitudes De Se. In Semantics and Contextual Expression, eds. Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem and Peter van Emde Boas. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Chierchia, Gennaro, Partee, Barbara, and Turner, Raymond eds. 1989. Properties, Types and Meaning. Volume I: Foundational Issues. Volume II: Semantic Issues. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Chierchia, Gennaro, and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1990. Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of meaning. Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Cocchiarella, Nino. 1978. On the Logic of Nominalized Predicates and Its Philosophical Interpretations. Erkenntnis 13:339-369.
   Condoravdi, Cleo, and Gawron, Jean Mark. 1996. The context-dependency of implicit arguments. In Quantifiers, Deduction, and Context, eds. Makoto Kanazawa, Christopher Pi駉n and Henri雝te de Swart, 1-32. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   Cooper, Robin, and Parsons, Terence. 1976. Montague Grammar, Generative Semantics, and Interpretive Semantics. In Montague Grammar, ed. B. Partee, 311-362. New York: Academic Press.
   Cresswell, M.J. 1978. Semantic competence. In Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches, eds. F. Guenthner and M. Guenthner-Reutter, 9-43. London: Duckworth.
   Cresswell, M.J., and von Stechow, Arnim. 1982. De re belief generalized. Linguistics and Philosophy 5:503-535.
   Cresswell, M.J. 1985. Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge MA: MIT-Press.
   de Swart, Henri雝te. 1998. Introduction to Natural Language Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   Dekker, Paul. 1993. Existential Disclosure. Linguistics and Philosophy 16:561-588.
   Dekker, Paul. 1996. The Values of Variables in Dynamic Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 19:211-257.
   Dowty, David, Wall, Robert E., and Peters, Stanley, Jr. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Engdahl, Elisabet. 1999. Integrating pragmatics into the grammar. In Boundaries of morphology and syntax, ed. Lunella Mereu, 175-194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Frost, David P. 1987. A natural language interface for expert systems: system architecture. Chichester: Wiley.
   Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, Langauge, and Meaning. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.
   Gazdar, Gerald, and Mellish, Christopher. 1989. Natural Language Processing in Prolog: Addison-Wesley.
   Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1992. Questions, queries and facts: A semantics and pragmatics for interrogatives, Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University: Ph.D. Thesis.
   Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam: Doctoral Dissertation.
   Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1990. Dynamic Montague Grammar. In Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, eds. L. Kálman and L. Pólos, 3-48. Budapest: Adakémiai Kiadó.
   Groenendijk, Jeroen; Stokhof, Martin. 1987, 1989. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Towards a compositonal, non-representational semantics of discourse. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, ITLI.
   Guenthner, Franz; Schmidt, Siegfried J. ed. 1978. Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Hajičová, Eva, Partee, Barbara, and Sgall, Petr. 1998. Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Halvorsen, P.-K., and Ladusaw, W.A. 1979. Montague's "Universal Grammar". An introduction for the linguist. Linguistics and Philosophy 3:185-223.
   Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, University of Massachusetts: Ph.D. dissertation; published 1989, New York: Garland.
   Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, 164-190. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 223-248.
   Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. London: Blackwell.
   Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. Semantics and Cognition. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. Shalom Lappin, 539-559. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Janssen, T.M.V. 1983. Scope aspects of tense, aspect and negation. In Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, eds. F. Heny and B. Richards, 55-99. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Janssen, T.M.V. 1986. Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar. Part 1: Foundations, Logic, Computer Science: CWI Tract 19. Amsterdam: Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science.
   Janssen, Theo. 1980. Compositional Semantics and Relative Clause Formation in Montague Grammar. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Part 1, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen and Martin Stokhof, 237-276. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.
   Kadmon, Nirit, and Landman, Fred. 1993. Any. Linguistics & Philosophy 16:353-422.
   Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
   Kamp, Hans. 1971. Formal Properties of Now. Theoria 37:227-273.
   Kamp, Hans. 1978. Semantics versus pragmatics. In Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, eds. Franz Guenthner and S. J. Schmidt, 255-287. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Kamp, Hans. 1979. Events, Instants and Temporal Reference. In Semantics from Different Points of View, eds. Rainer B鋟erle, Urs Egli and Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Springer.
   Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language; Mathematical Centre Tracts 135, eds. J.A.G. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen and M.B.J. Stokhof, 277-322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre. Reprinted in: Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds.), 1984, Truth, Interpretation, Information, GRASS 2, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 1-41. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 189-222.
   Kamp, Hans. 1984. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Truth, Interpretation and Information: Selected Papers from the Third Amsterdan Colloquium, eds. J. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen and M. Stokhof, 1-42. Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted in Paul Portner and Barbara H. Partee, eds., Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, Oxford: Blackwell (189-22).
   Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic. Introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic, and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Kamp, Hans, and Partee, Barbara. 1995. Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57:129-191.
   Kaplan, David. 1979. On the logic of demonstratives. In Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, eds. Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling, Jr. and Howard K. Wettstein, 401-412: University of Minnesota Press. Also in Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979) pp.81-98. Also in Davis 1991, 137-145.
   Kaplan, David. 1999. The meaning of 'Ouch' and 'Oops': Explorations in the theory of meaning as use. Talk-length version, draft #3. Ms. UCLA, Los Angeles.
   Keenan, E. L., and Moss, L. S. 1985. Generalized quantifiers and the expressive power of natural language. In Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, GRASS 4, eds. J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Keenan, Edward, and Stavi, Jonathan. 1986. A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:253-326.
   Keenan, Edward L., and Westerst録l, Dag. 1997. Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logics. In Handbook of logic and language, eds. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 837-893. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
   Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. Partition and Revision: The Semantics of Counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10:201-216.
   Kratzer, Angelika. 1986. Conditionals. In CLS 22: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, the Twenty Second Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. A.M. Farley, P. Farley and Karl-Erik McCullough, 1-15. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
   Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Conditionals. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, eds. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 651-656. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Kratzer, Angelika. 1999. Beyond Ouch and Oops. How Descriptive and Expressive Meaning Interact. Cornell Context-Dependency Conference: Cornell University.
   Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25:209-257.
   Landsbergen, Jan. 1987. Isomorphic grammars and their use in the ROSETTA translation system. In Machine Translation Today: The State of the Art, Proceedings of the Third Lugano Tutorial, 1984, ed. Margaret King, 351-372. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Lappin, Shalom ed. 1996. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Lewis, D. 1974. 'Tensions. In Semantics and Philosophy, eds. M. Munitz and P Unger. New York: New York University Press.
   Lewis, David. 1970. General semantics. Synthese 22:18-67. Reprinted in Davidson and Harman, eds. Semantics of Natural Language, 1972, Dordrecht: Reidel. 169-218. Also reprinted in Partee 1976, 1-50.
   Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, ed. E.L. Keenan, 3-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 178-188.
   Lin, Jo-wang. 1996. Polarity Licensing and Wh-Phrase Quantification in Chinese, Linguistics, University of Massachusetts: Ph.D.
   Lin, Jo-Wang. 1998. Distributivity in Chinese and its implications. Natural Language Semantics 6:201-243.
   Lin, Jo-Wang. 1999. Double quantification and the meaning of shenme ‘what’ in Chinese bare conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:573-593.
   Lin, Jo-wang. 2004. Choice functions and scope of existential polarity WH-phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:451-491.
   Link, Godehard. 1979. Montague-Grammatik. Die logische Grundlagen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
   Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, eds. R. B鋟erle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow, 303-323. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in  Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy: CSLI lecture notes No. 74. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. pp.11-34. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 127-146.
   Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy: CSLI lecture notes No. 74. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
   Merin, Arthur. 1992. Permission sentences stand in the way of Boolean and other lattice-theoretic semantices. Journal of Semantics 9:95-162.
   Montague, Richard. 1968. Pragmatics. In Contemporary Philosophy, ed. R. Klibanski, 102-121. Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice. Reprinted in Montague 1974, 95-118.
   Montague, Richard. 1970a. Universal grammar. Theoria 36:373-398. Reprinted in Montague 1974, 222-246.
   Montague, Richard. 1970b. Pragmatics and intensional logic. Synthèse 22:68-94. Reprinted in Montague 1974, 119-147.
   Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to Natural Language, eds. K.J.J. Hintikka, J.M.E. Moravcsik and P. Suppes, 221-242. Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted in Montague 1974, 247-270; Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 17-34.
   Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal Philosophy. Selected Papers of Richard Montague. Edited and with an introduction by Richmond H. Thomason. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
   Moortgat, Michael ed. 2001. Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: Third International Conference: Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin etc.: Springer.
   Muskens, Reinhard. 1989. Meaning and Partiality, Universiteit van Amsterdam: Ph.D. dissertation.
   Partee, B. 1979a. Montague grammar, mental representation, and reality. In Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, eds. Peter A. French, Theodore Edward Uehling and Howard K. Wettstein. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2:509-534. Reprinted in Partee 1976, pp. 51-76.
   Partee, Barbara. 1983/1997. Uniformity vs. versatility: the genitive, a case study. Appendix to Theo Janssen, 1997. Compositionality. In The Handbook of Logic and Language, eds. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 464-470: Elsevier.
   Partee, Barbara. 1984. Compositionality. In Varieties of Formal Semantics, eds. Fred Landman and Frank Veltman, 281-312. Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 153-181.
   Partee, Barbara. 1999a. Focus, quantification and semantics-pragmatics issues. In Focus. Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, eds. Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt, 213-231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Partee, Barbara H. 1977. Possible worlds semantics and linguistic theory. The Monist 60:303-326.
   Partee, Barbara H. 1988. Semantic facts and psychological facts. Mind & Language 3:43-52.
   Partee, Barbara H., Meulen, Alice ter, and Wall, Robert. 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Partee, Barbara H. 1999b. Nominal and temporal semantic structure: aspect and quantification. In Prague Linguistics Circle Papers, v.3, eds. E. Hajicová, T. Hoskovec, O. Les"ka, P. Sgall and Z. Skoumalová, 91-108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
   Partee, Barbara H. 1999c. Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998, ed. K. Dziwirek et al. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
   Partee, Barbara H. 2001. Montague grammar. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, eds. Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier.
   Partee, Barbara H., and Borschev, Vladimir. 2001. Some puzzles of predicate possessives. In Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer., eds. István Kenesei and Robert M. Harnish, 91-117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 292-315.
   Partee, Barbara H., and Borschev, Vladimir. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Modifying Adjuncts, eds. E. Lang, C. Maienborn and C. Fabricius-Hansen, 67-112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Reflections of a formal semanticist. In Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee, 1-25. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   Partee, Barbara H., and Borschev, Vladimir. 2004. The semantics of Russian Genitive of Negation: The nature and role of Perspectival Structure. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, eds. Kazuha Watanabe and Robert B. Young, 212-234. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
   Partee, Barbara H. 2005. Reflections of a formal semanticist as of Feb 2005: http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/BHP_Essay_Feb05.pdf.
   Partee, Barbara H. in press-a. Privative adjectives: subsective plus coercion. In Presuppositions and Discourse, eds. Rainer B鋟erle, Uwe  Reyle and Thomas Ede Zimmermann. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Partee, Barbara H. In press-b. A note on Mandarin possessives, demonstratives, and definiteness. In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, eds. Gregory Ward and Betty Birner. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Partee, Barbara H. with Herman L.W. Hendriks. 1997. Montague grammar. In Handbook of Logic and Language, eds. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 5-91. Amsterdam/Cambridge, MA: Elsevier/MIT Press.
   Partee, Barbara Hall. 1979b. Semantics - mathematics or psychology? In Semantics from Different Points of View, eds. R. B鋟erle, U. Egli and A. von Stechow, 1-14. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Partee, Barbara Hall. 1982. Belief-sentences and the limits of semantics. In Processes, beliefs, and questions, eds. Stanley Peters and Esa Saarinen, 87-106. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Portner, Paul, and Partee, Barbara H. eds. 2002. Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
   Portner, Paul. 2004. What is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Potts, Christopher. 2003. Expressive content as conventional implicature. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 33, eds. Makoto Kadowaki and Shigeto Kawahara. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
   Potts, Christopher, and Kawahara, Shigeto. 2004. Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions. In Proceedings of SALT 14, eds. Kazuha Watanabe and Robert B. Young. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
   Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures: Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Roberts, Craige. 1995. Domain restriction in dynamic semantics. In Quantification in natural language, eds. Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara H. Partee, 661-700. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Rosetta, M.T. 1994. Compositional Translation. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. In Pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 315-332. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 147-161.
   Stalnaker, Robert. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
   Stalnaker, Robert. 1988. Belief Attribution and Context. In Contents of Thought, eds. Robert Grimm and Daniel Merrill, 140-156. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
   Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Szabolcsi, Anna, and Zwarts, Frans. 1992-1993. Weak Islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1:235-284.
   Tich

louselice^_^

本人尚在学习中，实在写不出评论，不过内容甚好，拿来和大家分享，希望版主手下留情，不要删除啊。

另外，很多学校语言学专业没有逻辑课，真是遗憾。