Article
Licensed
Unlicensed
Requires Authentication
Comments on: Fritz Hamm, Hans Kamp, Michiel van Lambalgen, There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics
-
Manfred Bierwisch
Published/Copyright:
September 15, 2006
Abstract
Although I am strongly inclined to agree with the headline of the target-paper, it is not clear to me to what extent it contributes to this position. This is primarily due to the unfortunate strategy to defer crucial parts of its demonstration and of the supporting arguments to Lambalgen and Hamm (2004). Either the reader is assumed to be familiar with this reference, but then he doesn't need the paper under discussion, or he is not, and then he is left in doubt about crucial points. My comments are made from of the latter position.
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
