English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The publication of the English original of Hans Kamp’s “Events, discourse representations, and temporal reference”, previously published only in French translation (Kamp 1981b), is a welcome addition to the literature. Not only does it make that paper much more widely accessible than it has been previously, which is valuable in itself for the many good and still-timely ideas it contains, but the paper and the new postscript included with it do indeed offer an important clarification of the motivations for the development of Discourse Representation Theory. This paper is, to me, an example of Kamp at his best, beautifully structured and full of subtle observations of both linguistic and philosophical interest. That’s the biggest reason that it’s nice to see it published now. This note about its relation to the motivations for DRT is just a supplement to the postscript, with the same goal of clarifying the historical record. The postscript gives a good explanation of the historical context of the paper and the reason for publishing it now. And what Kamp says there about my role in leading people to a mistaken idea of the motivations for the main ideas of DRT seems completely plausible to me. According to Kamp, my paper (Partee 1984) was apparently responsible for the idea that DRT was principally developed as a theory of nominal anaphora, including discourse anaphora and donkey sentences. And indeed that was how I thought of it. At the time that I was working on Partee 1984, I knew Kamp’s earliest work on events, temporal interpretation and the two past tenses in French, Kamp 1979 and Kamp & Rohrer 1983. And of course I knew his classic DRT paper, Kamp 1981a, which was presented at an Amsterdam Colloquium in 1980 and first published in the proceedings in 1981. But those two lines of work

A note on temporal reference, anaphora, and Kamp's motivations for DRT