Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type‐shifting Principles

By Barbara H. Partee. 2008

892 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5972332e9a6b41a531059cccbbfde0a5bc21e886

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect (2008, background): “interpretations, in dependence on the context, leads Partee (1999) to proposing that they are unmarked with respect to telicity.”
The grammar of standards: Judge-dependence, purpose-relativity, and comparison classes in degree constructions (2014, methodology): “This analysis is supported by the fact that definite descriptions can in fact occur in the unambiguously ⟨et⟩ environments such as in the predicative position in a copula construction in conjunction with other ⟨et⟩ predicates (Graff, 2001) and in the complement of consider (Doron, 1983; Partee, 1986”
Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking (2010, neutral): “In fact, their status as generalized quantifiers can be derived from their modifier interpretation either through a covert existential quantifier (Link 1983), existential closure (Heim 1982; Winter 1997, 2001) or type-shifting (Partee 1986; Landman 2003).”
Property Theory, Adjectives, and Modification in Chinese (2006, background): “When viewed as such a potential type-lifter, hen can be characterized as denoting a function of type >, following the type shifting principles of Partee (1987) .”
A Natural Proof System for Natural Language (2017, background): “The inserted determiners play a role of a type-shifter in the sense of Partee (1987).”
Articulated Definiteness without Articles (2018, methodology): “(43) Dynamic Predicate Logic interpretation of Every man who owns a donkey beats it (simplified) a. x[man(x) y[donkey(y) own(x, y)]] beat(x, y) b. x[[man(x) y[donkey(y) own(x, y)]] N y[donkey(y) own(x, y) beat(x, y)]] (Chierchia 1995:124) Despite these differences, both theories assume that donkey a”