Article published in:
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 265286
References

References

Abbott, B.
2001Definiteness and identification in English. In Pragmatics in 2000: Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. 2, N.T. Enikö (ed.), 1–15. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
Aguilar, A.
2008Uniqueness and Weak Definites in Spanish. MA thesis, Utrecht University.
2014Weak Definites. Semantics, Lexicon and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Aguilar, A. & Zwarts, J.
2010Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings of SALT 20, D. Lutz & N. Li (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Barker, C.
2005Possessive weak definites. In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, J. Kim, Y.A. Lander & B.H. Partee (eds), 89–113. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L.W.
1992Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, E. Kittay & A. Lehrer (eds), 21–74. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Birner, B. & Ward, G.
1994Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20, 93–102. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
2010Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Carlson, G.
1977Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
2006The meaningful bounds of incorporation. In Non-Definiteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (eds), 35–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G & Sussman, R.
2005Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepsar & M. Reis (eds), 26–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carlson, G., Sussman, R., Klein, N. & Tanenhaus, M.
2006Weak definite NP's. In Proceedings of NELS 36, C. Davis, A.R. Deal & Y. Zabbal (eds), 179–198. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.
1982Nominalization in Montague Grammar: A semantics without types for natural languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 303–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Claessen, C.
2011A Lexical Semantics for Musical Instrument Nouns in Dutch. MA thesis, Utrecht University.
Du Bois, J.W.
1980Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, W.L. Chafe (ed.), 203–274. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Epstein, R.
1999 Roles and non-unique definites. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 25, 122–133. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. & de Swart, H.
2003The Semantics of Incorporation. From Syntax to Discourse Transparency. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.
1982Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, V.
1998Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gawron, J.M.
2011Frame semantics. In Handbook of Semantics, C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (eds), 664–687. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.
1978Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Horn, L.
1984Towards a new taxonomy of pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, D. Schiffrin (ed.), 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Irmer, M.
2009Bridging reference to eventualities. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, A. Riester & T. Solstad (eds), 217–230. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Kamp, H.
1981A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, J.A.G. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen & M.B.J. Stokhof (eds.), 277�322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
Krifka, M.
2004Bare NPs: kind-referring, indefinites, both or neither? In Proceedings of SALT 14, R.B. Young & Y. Zhou (eds), 180–203. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Laurence, S. & Margolis, E.
1999Concepts and cognitive science. In Concepts: Core Readings, E. Margolis & S. Laurence (eds), 3–81. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.
2000Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, D.
2006Definiteness of body part terms in Spanish and Portuguese. In Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, T.L. Face & C.A. Klee (eds), 172–182. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Löbner, S.
1998Definite associative anaphora. In Approaches to Discourse Anaphora. Proceedings of DAARC96 - Discourse Anaphora and Resolution Colloquium, S. Botley (ed.). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Lucas, C.
2011Form-function mismatches in (formally) definite English noun phrases: Towards a diachronic account. In The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation and Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguististics Today 171] P. Sleeman & H. Perridon (eds), 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M.
1975A framework for representing knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, P. Winston (ed.), 211–277.New York NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ojeda, A.E.
1993New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. ESCOL 93: 247–258.Google Scholar
Partee, B.
1987Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theories and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, J. Groenendijk, D. de Jong & M. Stokhof (eds), 115–143. Dordrecht: ForisGoogle Scholar
Petruck, M.
1996Frame semantics. In Handbook of Pragmatics, J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (eds), 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poesio, M.
1994Weak definites. In Proceedings of SALT IV, M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (eds.), 282–299.Ithaca: Cornell,Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
1995The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
2007Cognitive English Grammar [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B.
1905On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schulpen, M.
2011Weak Definites: Modification, Non-unique Reference and Enriched Meanings. MA thesis, Utrecht University.
Schwarz, F.
2009Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Strawson, P.
1950On referring. Mind 59: 320–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stvan, L.
1998The Semantics and Pragmatics of Bare Singular Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.
de Swart, H., Winter, Y. & Zwarts, J.
2007Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1): 195–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H. & Zwarts, J.
2009Less form more meaning: Why bare nominals are special. Lingua 119(2): 280–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Y. & Zwarts, J.
2011Event semantics and abstract categorial grammar. In Mathematics of Language 12, M. Kanazawa, A. Kornai, M. Kracht & H. Seki (eds), 174–191. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zribi‐Hertz, A. & Jean‐Louis, L.
2013From noun to name: On definiteness marking in Modern Martinikè. In Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and reference, P. Cabredo & A. Zribi-Hertz (eds), 269–315. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Schumacher, Petra B. & Hanna Weiland
2014.  In Weak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 219],  pp. 365 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.