Formal Semantics

In Barry C. Smith (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press. pp. 557--573 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Semantics is the discipline that studies linguistic meaning generally, and the qualification ‘formal’ indicates something about the sorts of techniques used in investigating linguistic meaning. More specifically, formal semantics is the discipline that employs techniques from symbolic logic, mathematics, and mathematical logic to produce precisely characterized theories of meaning for natural languages or artificial languages. Formal semantics as we know it first arose in the twentieth century. It was made possible by certain developments in logic during that period. This article chronicles those developments and how they led to the development of formal semantics.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What is formal in formal semantics?Jan Woleński - 2004 - Dialectica 58 (3):427–436.
Formal semantics in the age of pragmatics.Juan Barba - 2007 - Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6):637-668.
Formal Semantics: Origins, Issues, Early Impact.Barbara H. Partee - 2010 - The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6 (1).
Formal semantics: an introduction.Ronnie Cann - 1993 - New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Studies in formal semantics: intensionality, temporality, negation.Franz Guenthner & Christian Rohrer (eds.) - 1978 - New York: sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier North-Holland.
Foundations of intensional semantics.Chris Fox - 2005 - Malden MA: Blackwell. Edited by Shalom Lappin.
The handbook of contemporary semantic theory.Shalom Lappin (ed.) - 1996 - Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell Reference.
Formal semantics in modern type theories with coercive subtyping.Zhaohui Luo - 2012 - Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (6):491-513.
Why compositionality?Martin Stokhof - 2005 - In Greg Carlson & J. Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Stanford: CSLI Press. pp. 83-106.
Why Compositionality?Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof - 2005 - In Greg N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. Stanford: CSLI Publications. pp. 83--106.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-02-01

Downloads
47 (#330,788)

6 months
11 (#222,787)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jeffrey C. King
Rutgers University - New Brunswick

Citations of this work

Are machines radically contextualist?Ryan M. Nefdt - 2023 - Mind and Language 38 (3):750-771.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references