Show Context Citation Context Consider the following two questions: According to our analysis, a and
I was 15 when I decided to become a linguist. Having entered the Oberstufe — the final phase in the traditional German grammar school — in the summer ofI began developing a mild form of future angst: My parents, both non-academics, were not very helpful in this respect, trying to push me in the direction of German studies.
I made my selection of the hottest titles, 4 volumes of a History of the European Novel among them, and returned to the bookstore to find that the only available book of my choice was the one with he catchy title Language, Thought, and Reality or rather, Sprache, Denken, Wirklichkeitby famous hobby linguist B.
Whorf as I know now. I bought it, read it, and … wanted to become a linguist! This was not so much for the apparently mis-analysed wonders of the Hopi language.
Rather, what impressed me most was something Whorf used to illustrate his more than debatable claims on the subtle influence of grammar on our thinking: I immediately forgot about the literature part of German studies and went to the local library to get hold of any linguistics textbooks I could find — not many, and all of them with a strong structuralist flavour which was of course, not for me to discern.
Having spent the following year with langue vs. It was the latter which I had read in a German translation that made me aware of the logical approach to meaning, but I did not get seriously into this before entering university.
Hannover did not have anything to offer but a German studies department, and so I decided to leave my hometown and register for the MA programme in theoretical linguistics at Konstanz University. This was to take me another few years of studying linguistic semantics as well as some philosophy and mathematical logic in Konstanz and London with Hans Kamptogether with an amazing crowd of teachers, friends, and fellow semanticists I met on the way — too many to mention here.
The field had not been established as a sub-discipline of linguistics, and despite some serious integrative attempts thanks to Barbara Parteeit was still perceived as an esoteric pastime of a small community of logicians, philosophers of language, and few linguists.
In Germany, this community was particularly strong, with enough funding to have spectacular conferences bringing together some of the best researchers in the field. I attended quite a few of them, though rarely presenting anything, during the time I worked on my dissertation, which was supposed to be about the interface between logical and lexical semantics.
I never finished that dissertation, for at least two reasons. The first was that I kept changing my mind over the very subject area: The other reason was that I was easily distracted, working on a lot of other problems at the same time, and with more success in terms of publications.
I wrote a short article about this and showed it to my would-be supervisor Arnim von Stechow, who saw to it that I would submit it as my dissertation. In the event it was accepted by him and the co-promoters and also got published in a logic journal.
Rather than being proud of these 13 pages in print, I have always felt a bit ashamed for never having written a proper dissertation; but in the meantime I got used to being introduced as the guy who must have written the shortest linguistics dissertation ever.
From too many search committee meetings I know that German professors expect their colleagues to have written at least two books. Eventually I still managed to find a permanent position as a professor of semantics at Frankfurt — and wrote two books since then, both textbooks, but still.
And they are full of neat little formulae accounting for the complexities of compositional meaning.Thirty years after Groenendijk and Stokhof’s () dissertation, the exhaustive interpretation of answers is still one of the central topics in semantics and pragmatics.
Groenendijk and Stokhof identified three main problems for a pragmatic account of exhaustivity, which to this date remain largely open. Wh-movement and the semantics of questions ☞A homework assignment has been posted, due October 1, before class.
On the semantics and Logical Form of wh-clauses.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Cremers, Alexandre, and Emmanuel Chemla.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. Studies on the. Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof, PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Questions Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof, Handbook of Logic and Language, edited by Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, Elsevier/MIT Press, pp.
The Logic of Interrogation Jeroen Groenendijk, Groenendijk and Stokhof () and Chierchia (). I adopt a quantificational analysis of pair list readings because - unlike Chierchia's () functional analysis - it allows a. seen as elaborations of the theories of Kamp , Heim and Groenendijk & Stokhof , which provided various means of giving ‘wide scope’ existential force PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kamp, H. () “A theory of truth and semantic representation,” in. Boogaart, R. (). Aspect and temporal ordering. A contrastive analysis of Dutch and English.
(Doctoral dissertation). Free University, Amsterdam.