Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:30:59.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On non-progressive being

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2017

Susan F. Schmerling*
Affiliation:
Austin, Texas
Diego Gabriel Krivochen*
Affiliation:
University of Reading, CINN

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Squibs/Notules
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank Andy Rogers and two anonymous CJL reviewers for comments that made this a better paper. All shortcomings are our own.

References

Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts, ed. Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., 4158. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 132.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to natural language, ed. Moravcsik, Julius, Suppes, Patrick, and Hintikka, Jaakko, 221242. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2011. Perfect and progressive. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus, and Portner, Paul, 12171262. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar