Article
Licensed
Unlicensed
Requires Authentication
The future of semantics?
-
Martin Stokhof
Published/Copyright:
September 15, 2006
Abstract
The paper by Fritz Hamm, Hans Kamp and Michiel van Lambalgen (in what follows abbreviated as ‘hkl’) is a very rich one. Not only does it contain a wealth of empirical and formal insights concerning the analysis of tense and aspect, planning and causality, and other phenomena, it also contains some penetrating remarks concerning the scope and method of semantic theory. It is the latter aspect of the paper that I want to make a few comments on in what follows.
Published Online: 2006-09-15
Published in Print: 2006-09-01
© Walter de Gruyter
You are currently not able to access this content.
You are currently not able to access this content.
Articles in the same Issue
- There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics
- Comments on: Fritz Hamm, Hans Kamp, Michiel van Lambalgen, There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics
- Ontology for human talk and thought (not robotics)
- Representing events and discourse; comments on Hamm, Kamp and van Lambalgen
- What is an action-based model of interpretation?
- Is semantics computational?
- The future of semantics?
- Replies to comments
Articles in the same Issue
- There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics
- Comments on: Fritz Hamm, Hans Kamp, Michiel van Lambalgen, There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics
- Ontology for human talk and thought (not robotics)
- Representing events and discourse; comments on Hamm, Kamp and van Lambalgen
- What is an action-based model of interpretation?
- Is semantics computational?
- The future of semantics?
- Replies to comments
