Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T02:44:10.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul Portner, Modality (Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. x+288.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2010

Ferenc Kiefer
Ferenc Kiefer*
Affiliation:
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
*
Author's address:Research Institut for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Benczúr utca 33, H-1068 Budapest, Hungarykiefer@nytud.hu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 254 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1990. Dynamic Montague grammar. In Kálmán, László & Pólos, László (eds.), Second Symposium on Logic and Language, 3–48. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 3–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, G. E. & Cresswell, M. J.. 1968. An introduction to modal logic. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1983. What is possible in Hungarian? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 33, 203–230.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1988. The Hungarian verb tud ‘to be able to’. Studies in Language 12.2, 393–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1.1, 335–355.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1978. Semantik der Rede. Königstein: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, Hans-Jürgen & Rieser, Hannes (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1986. Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 22.2, 115–135.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991a. Conditionals. In von Stechow, & Wunderlich, (eds.), 651–656.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991b. Modality. In von Stechow, & Wunderlich, (eds.), 639–650.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosengren, Inger (ed.). 1992. Satz und Illokution, vol. 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stechow, Arnim von & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.). 1991. Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung=Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12.1, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar