1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Weak Referentiality
  4. Chapter

Advances in weak referentiality

image of Advances in weak referentiality

References

  1. Abusch, D
    1993 The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics2(2): 83–135. doi: 10.1007/BF01250400
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01250400 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguilar-Guevara, A
    2014 Weak Definites. Semantics, Lexicon and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Zwarts, J
    2010 Weak definites and reference to kinds. InProceedings from SALT 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2013 Weak definites refer to kinds. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes42: 33–60. doi: 10.4000/rlv.2169
     https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.2169 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alexandropoulou, S. , Schulpen, M. & de Swart, H
    2013 Modification of bare nominals across languages and constructions. Paper presented at the workshop ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation’, Potsdam, 14 March 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ariel, M
    1990 Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnold, J.E
    1998 Reference Form and Discourse Patterns. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2010 How speakers refer. The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass4(4): 187–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00193.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00193.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker, M.C
    1988 Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bale, A. , Gagnon, M. & Khanjian, H
    2011 On the relationship between morphological and semantic markedness. Morphology21(2): 197–221. doi: 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9158‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9158-1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Barker, C
    2005 Possessive weak definites. InPossessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, J. Kim , Y. Lander & B.H. Partee (eds), 89–113. Amherst MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Barwise, J. & Cooper, R
    1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy4(2):159–219. doi: 10.1007/BF00350139
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00350139 [Google Scholar]
  13. Beyssade, C. & Dobrovie-Sorin, C
    2005 A syntax-based analysis of predication. InProceedings from SALT 15, E. Georgala & J. Howell (eds), 44–61. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bickel, B
    2003 Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language79(4):708–736. doi: 10.1353/lan.2003.0205
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0205 [Google Scholar]
  15. Booij, G
    2009 A constructional analysis of quasi-incorporation in Dutch. Gengo Kenkyu135: 5–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Borthen, K
    2003 Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Burge, T
    1973 Reference and proper names. The Journal of Philosophy70(14):425–439. doi: 10.2307/2025107
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2025107 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carlson, G
    1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Carlson, G. & Sussman, R
    2005 Seemingly indefinite definites. InLinguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, S, Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 71–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197549.71
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.71 [Google Scholar]
  20. Chung, S. & Ladusaw, W
    2003 Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cieschinger, M
    2006 Constraints on the Contraction of Preposition and Definite Article in German. BA thesis, University of Osnabrück.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Clark, H
    1975 Bridging. InTheoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, R.C. Schank & B.L. Nash-Webber (eds), 99–27. New York NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Clark, H.H. & Murphy, G.L
    1982 Audience design in meaning and reference. Language and Comprehension9: 287–299. doi: 10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60059‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60059-5 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dayal, V
    1999 Bare NP’s, reference to kinds, and incorporation. InProceedings from SALT 9, T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (eds), 34–51. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2003 A semantics for pseudo-incorporation. Ms, Rutgers University.
  26. 2011 Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory29(1): 1–45. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9118‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9118-4 [Google Scholar]
  27. de Swart, H
    2012 Constructions with and without articles. Paper presented at the Workshop ‘Calcul de la référence nominale’,Paris, 15 March 2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. de Swart, H. , Winter, Y. , & Zwarts, J
    2007 Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory25(1): 195–222. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9007‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9007-4 [Google Scholar]
  29. de Swart, H. & Zwarts, J
    2009 Less form-more meaning. Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua119(2): 280–295. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  30. Diessel, H
    1999 Demonstratives. Form, Function and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. , Bleam, T. , & Espinal, M.T
    2006 Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. InNon-definiteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (eds), 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.95.04dob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.95.04dob [Google Scholar]
  32. Donnellan, K
    1966 Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review75(3): 281–304. doi: 10.2307/2183143
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2183143 [Google Scholar]
  33. Epstein, R
    2000 Roles and non-unique definites. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 25:122–133. doi: 10.3765/bls.v25i1.1200
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v25i1.1200 [Google Scholar]
  34. Espinal, M.T
    2010 Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua120(4): 984–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Espinal, M.T. & McNally, L
    2011 Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics47(2):87–128. doi: 10.1017/S0022226710000228
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226710000228 [Google Scholar]
  36. Evans, G
    1982 The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Farkas, D
    1994 Specificity and scope. Langues et Grammaires1: 119–137.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2002 Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics19(3): 213–243. doi: 10.1093/jos/19.3.213
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.213 [Google Scholar]
  39. Farkas, D. & de Swart, H
    2003 The Semantics of Incorporation. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2004 Incorporation, plurality, and the incorporation of plurals. A dynamic approach. Catalan Journal of Linguistics3: 45–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 2010 The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics3(6): 1–54. doi: 10.3765/sp.3.6
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fillmore, C
    1982 Frame semantics. InLinguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea(ed.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Frege, G
    1892 Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik100: 25–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Givón, T
    1983 Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gordon, P.C. & Hendrick, R
    1998 The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science22(4): 389–424. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1 [Google Scholar]
  46. Grimm, S
    2012 Number and Individuation. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Guéron, J
    1983 L‘emploi ‘possessif’ de l’article défini en français. Langue Française58(1): 23–35. doi: 10.3406/lfr.1983.6413
     https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1983.6413 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gundel, J. , Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2): 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  49. Harrison, Sheldon R
    1976 Mokilese Reference Grammar. Honolulu HI: University Press of Hawaii.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Haspelmath, M
    1997 Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hawkins, J
    1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Heim, I
    1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Horn, L
    1984 Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, D. Schiffrin (ed.), 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Irmer, M
    2009 Bridging reference to eventualities. InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, A. Riester & T. Solstadt (eds), 217–230. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Kamp, H
    1981 A theory of truth and semantic representation. InFormal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk , T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (eds), 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Kaplan, D
    1977 Demonstratives. An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. InThemes from Kaplan, J. Almog , J. Perry & H. Wettstein (eds), 481–564. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Kratzer, A
    1998 Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and Grammar, S. Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kripke, S
    1972 Naming and Necessity. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2557‑7_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_9 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, D. & Alexandropoulou, S
    2013 A corpus study of Greek bare singulars. Implications for an analysis. Revista da Abralin12(1): 233–251. doi: 10.5380/rabl.v12i1.32802
     https://doi.org/10.5380/rabl.v12i1.32802 [Google Scholar]
  60. Le Bruyn, B
    2010 Indefinite Articles and Beyond. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 2013 Article and bare predication. From synchrony to diachrony. InProceedings of NELS 41, Y. Fainleib , N. LaCara & P. Yangsook (eds), 269–280. Amherst MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Levinson, S
    2000 Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Löbner, S
    1998 Definite associative anaphora. Ms, University of Düsseldorf.
  64. Longobardi, G
    1994 Reference and proper names. A theory of n-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry25(4): 609–665.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Mari, A. & Martin, F
    2008 Bare and indefinite NPs in predicative position in French. InSinSpec. Working Papers of the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context, F. Schäfer (ed.), 119–144. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Massam, D
    2001 Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19:153–197. doi: 10.1023/A:1006465130442
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006465130442 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2012 Count and Mass Across Languages. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Matthewson, L
    1998 On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics7(1): 79–134. doi: 10.1023/A:1008376601708
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008376601708 [Google Scholar]
  69. Matushansky, O. & Spector, B
    2005 Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, E. Maier , C. Bary & J. Huitink (eds), 241–255. Nijmegen: NCS
     [Google Scholar]
  70. McNally, L
    2014 Strong and weak nominals. To appearin Blackwell Companion to Semantics, L. Matthewson , C. Meier , H. Rullmann , & T.E. Zimmermann (eds). New York NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. McNally, L. & Boleda, G
    2004 Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics5: 179–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Milsark, G
    1977 Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis3: 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Mithun, M
    1984 The evolution of noun incorporation. Language60(4): 847–894. doi: 10.1353/lan.1984.0038
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0038 [Google Scholar]
  74. Munn, A. & Schmitt, C
    2005 Number and indefinites. Lingua115: 821–855. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  75. Nunberg, G
    1993 Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy16(1): 1–43. doi: 10.1007/BF00984721
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984721 [Google Scholar]
  76. Ojeda, A.E
    1993 New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. InProceedings from the Tenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, A. Kathol (ed.), 247–258. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Partee, B.H
    1986 Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. InStudies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, J. Groenendijk , D. de Jongh , & M. Stokhof , (eds), 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Pérez-Leroux, A.T. & Roeper, T
    1999 Scope and the structure of bare nominals: Evidence from child language. Linguistics37(5): 927–960. doi: 10.1515/ling.37.5.927
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.5.927 [Google Scholar]
  79. Poesio, M
    1994 Weak definites. InProceedings of the Fourth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (eds), 282–299. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Prince, E.F
    1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. InRadical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–254. New York NY: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Puig-Waldmüller, E
    2008 Contracted Preposition-determiner Forms in German: Semantics and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Pustejovsky, J
    1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Que, M. , Le Bruyn, B. & de Swart, H
    2012 The scope of bare nominals. InGenericity, A. Mari , C. Beyssade & F. Del Prete (eds), 116–139. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Radden, G. & Dirven, R
    2007 Cognitive English Grammar [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  85. Roberts, C
    2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26(3): 287–350. doi: 10.1023/A:1024157132393
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  86. Roy, I.A
    2013 Non-verbal Predications. Copular Predications at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199543540.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199543540.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  87. Russell, B
    1905 On denoting. Mind14(56): 479–493. doi: 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
     https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  88. Ruys, E.G
    1993 The Scope of Indefinites. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Sadock, J
    1980 Noun incorporation in Greenlandic. A case of syntactic word formation. Language56(2): 300–319. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0036
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0036 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sauerland, U
    2003 A new semantics for number. InProceedings from SALT 13, R.B. Young & Y. Zhou (eds), 258–275. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Sauerland, U. , Anderssen, J. , & Yatsushiro, K
    2005 The plural is semantically unmarked. InLinguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 413–434. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197549.413
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.413 [Google Scholar]
  92. Schwarz, F
    2009 Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Spector, B
    2007 Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. InPresuppositions and Implicatures in Compositional Semantics, U. Sauerland & P.P. Stateva (eds), 243–281. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230210752_9
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230210752_9 [Google Scholar]
  94. Strawson, P.F
    1950 On referring. Mind59(235): 320–344. doi: 10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
     https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320 [Google Scholar]
  95. Stvan, L.S
    1998 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Bare Singular Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. van Geenhoven, V
    1998 Indefinite Descriptions and Semantic Incorporation. Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Vergnaud, J. & Zubizarreta, M
    1992 The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry23(4): 595–652.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Winter, Y
    1997 Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy20: 399–467. doi: 10.1023/A:1005354323136
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005354323136 [Google Scholar]
  99. Zamparelli, R
    2008 Bare predicate nominals in Romance languages. InEssays on Nominal Determination [Studies in Language Companion Series 99], A. Klinge & H. Müller (eds), 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.99.08zam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.99.08zam [Google Scholar]
  100. Zweig, E
    2009 Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy32(4): 353–407. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑009‑9064‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9064-3 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Abusch, D
    1993 The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics2(2): 83–135. doi: 10.1007/BF01250400
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01250400 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguilar-Guevara, A
    2014 Weak Definites. Semantics, Lexicon and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Zwarts, J
    2010 Weak definites and reference to kinds. InProceedings from SALT 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2013 Weak definites refer to kinds. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes42: 33–60. doi: 10.4000/rlv.2169
     https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.2169 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alexandropoulou, S. , Schulpen, M. & de Swart, H
    2013 Modification of bare nominals across languages and constructions. Paper presented at the workshop ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation’, Potsdam, 14 March 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ariel, M
    1990 Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnold, J.E
    1998 Reference Form and Discourse Patterns. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2010 How speakers refer. The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass4(4): 187–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00193.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00193.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker, M.C
    1988 Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bale, A. , Gagnon, M. & Khanjian, H
    2011 On the relationship between morphological and semantic markedness. Morphology21(2): 197–221. doi: 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9158‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9158-1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Barker, C
    2005 Possessive weak definites. InPossessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, J. Kim , Y. Lander & B.H. Partee (eds), 89–113. Amherst MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Barwise, J. & Cooper, R
    1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy4(2):159–219. doi: 10.1007/BF00350139
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00350139 [Google Scholar]
  13. Beyssade, C. & Dobrovie-Sorin, C
    2005 A syntax-based analysis of predication. InProceedings from SALT 15, E. Georgala & J. Howell (eds), 44–61. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bickel, B
    2003 Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language79(4):708–736. doi: 10.1353/lan.2003.0205
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0205 [Google Scholar]
  15. Booij, G
    2009 A constructional analysis of quasi-incorporation in Dutch. Gengo Kenkyu135: 5–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Borthen, K
    2003 Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Burge, T
    1973 Reference and proper names. The Journal of Philosophy70(14):425–439. doi: 10.2307/2025107
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2025107 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carlson, G
    1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Carlson, G. & Sussman, R
    2005 Seemingly indefinite definites. InLinguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, S, Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 71–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197549.71
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.71 [Google Scholar]
  20. Chung, S. & Ladusaw, W
    2003 Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cieschinger, M
    2006 Constraints on the Contraction of Preposition and Definite Article in German. BA thesis, University of Osnabrück.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Clark, H
    1975 Bridging. InTheoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, R.C. Schank & B.L. Nash-Webber (eds), 99–27. New York NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Clark, H.H. & Murphy, G.L
    1982 Audience design in meaning and reference. Language and Comprehension9: 287–299. doi: 10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60059‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60059-5 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dayal, V
    1999 Bare NP’s, reference to kinds, and incorporation. InProceedings from SALT 9, T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (eds), 34–51. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2003 A semantics for pseudo-incorporation. Ms, Rutgers University.
  26. 2011 Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory29(1): 1–45. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9118‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9118-4 [Google Scholar]
  27. de Swart, H
    2012 Constructions with and without articles. Paper presented at the Workshop ‘Calcul de la référence nominale’,Paris, 15 March 2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. de Swart, H. , Winter, Y. , & Zwarts, J
    2007 Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory25(1): 195–222. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑006‑9007‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9007-4 [Google Scholar]
  29. de Swart, H. & Zwarts, J
    2009 Less form-more meaning. Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua119(2): 280–295. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  30. Diessel, H
    1999 Demonstratives. Form, Function and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. , Bleam, T. , & Espinal, M.T
    2006 Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. InNon-definiteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (eds), 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.95.04dob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.95.04dob [Google Scholar]
  32. Donnellan, K
    1966 Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review75(3): 281–304. doi: 10.2307/2183143
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2183143 [Google Scholar]
  33. Epstein, R
    2000 Roles and non-unique definites. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 25:122–133. doi: 10.3765/bls.v25i1.1200
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v25i1.1200 [Google Scholar]
  34. Espinal, M.T
    2010 Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua120(4): 984–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Espinal, M.T. & McNally, L
    2011 Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics47(2):87–128. doi: 10.1017/S0022226710000228
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226710000228 [Google Scholar]
  36. Evans, G
    1982 The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Farkas, D
    1994 Specificity and scope. Langues et Grammaires1: 119–137.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2002 Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics19(3): 213–243. doi: 10.1093/jos/19.3.213
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.213 [Google Scholar]
  39. Farkas, D. & de Swart, H
    2003 The Semantics of Incorporation. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2004 Incorporation, plurality, and the incorporation of plurals. A dynamic approach. Catalan Journal of Linguistics3: 45–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 2010 The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics3(6): 1–54. doi: 10.3765/sp.3.6
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fillmore, C
    1982 Frame semantics. InLinguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea(ed.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Frege, G
    1892 Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik100: 25–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Givón, T
    1983 Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gordon, P.C. & Hendrick, R
    1998 The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science22(4): 389–424. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1 [Google Scholar]
  46. Grimm, S
    2012 Number and Individuation. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Guéron, J
    1983 L‘emploi ‘possessif’ de l’article défini en français. Langue Française58(1): 23–35. doi: 10.3406/lfr.1983.6413
     https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1983.6413 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gundel, J. , Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2): 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  49. Harrison, Sheldon R
    1976 Mokilese Reference Grammar. Honolulu HI: University Press of Hawaii.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Haspelmath, M
    1997 Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hawkins, J
    1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Heim, I
    1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Horn, L
    1984 Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, D. Schiffrin (ed.), 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Irmer, M
    2009 Bridging reference to eventualities. InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, A. Riester & T. Solstadt (eds), 217–230. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Kamp, H
    1981 A theory of truth and semantic representation. InFormal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk , T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (eds), 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Kaplan, D
    1977 Demonstratives. An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. InThemes from Kaplan, J. Almog , J. Perry & H. Wettstein (eds), 481–564. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Kratzer, A
    1998 Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and Grammar, S. Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kripke, S
    1972 Naming and Necessity. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2557‑7_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_9 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, D. & Alexandropoulou, S
    2013 A corpus study of Greek bare singulars. Implications for an analysis. Revista da Abralin12(1): 233–251. doi: 10.5380/rabl.v12i1.32802
     https://doi.org/10.5380/rabl.v12i1.32802 [Google Scholar]
  60. Le Bruyn, B
    2010 Indefinite Articles and Beyond. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 2013 Article and bare predication. From synchrony to diachrony. InProceedings of NELS 41, Y. Fainleib , N. LaCara & P. Yangsook (eds), 269–280. Amherst MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Levinson, S
    2000 Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Löbner, S
    1998 Definite associative anaphora. Ms, University of Düsseldorf.
  64. Longobardi, G
    1994 Reference and proper names. A theory of n-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry25(4): 609–665.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Mari, A. & Martin, F
    2008 Bare and indefinite NPs in predicative position in French. InSinSpec. Working Papers of the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context, F. Schäfer (ed.), 119–144. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Massam, D
    2001 Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19:153–197. doi: 10.1023/A:1006465130442
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006465130442 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2012 Count and Mass Across Languages. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Matthewson, L
    1998 On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics7(1): 79–134. doi: 10.1023/A:1008376601708
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008376601708 [Google Scholar]
  69. Matushansky, O. & Spector, B
    2005 Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, E. Maier , C. Bary & J. Huitink (eds), 241–255. Nijmegen: NCS
     [Google Scholar]
  70. McNally, L
    2014 Strong and weak nominals. To appearin Blackwell Companion to Semantics, L. Matthewson , C. Meier , H. Rullmann , & T.E. Zimmermann (eds). New York NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. McNally, L. & Boleda, G
    2004 Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics5: 179–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Milsark, G
    1977 Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis3: 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Mithun, M
    1984 The evolution of noun incorporation. Language60(4): 847–894. doi: 10.1353/lan.1984.0038
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0038 [Google Scholar]
  74. Munn, A. & Schmitt, C
    2005 Number and indefinites. Lingua115: 821–855. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  75. Nunberg, G
    1993 Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy16(1): 1–43. doi: 10.1007/BF00984721
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984721 [Google Scholar]
  76. Ojeda, A.E
    1993 New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. InProceedings from the Tenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, A. Kathol (ed.), 247–258. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Partee, B.H
    1986 Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. InStudies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, J. Groenendijk , D. de Jongh , & M. Stokhof , (eds), 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Pérez-Leroux, A.T. & Roeper, T
    1999 Scope and the structure of bare nominals: Evidence from child language. Linguistics37(5): 927–960. doi: 10.1515/ling.37.5.927
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.5.927 [Google Scholar]
  79. Poesio, M
    1994 Weak definites. InProceedings of the Fourth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (eds), 282–299. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Prince, E.F
    1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. InRadical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–254. New York NY: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Puig-Waldmüller, E
    2008 Contracted Preposition-determiner Forms in German: Semantics and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Pustejovsky, J
    1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Que, M. , Le Bruyn, B. & de Swart, H
    2012 The scope of bare nominals. InGenericity, A. Mari , C. Beyssade & F. Del Prete (eds), 116–139. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Radden, G. & Dirven, R
    2007 Cognitive English Grammar [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  85. Roberts, C
    2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26(3): 287–350. doi: 10.1023/A:1024157132393
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  86. Roy, I.A
    2013 Non-verbal Predications. Copular Predications at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199543540.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199543540.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  87. Russell, B
    1905 On denoting. Mind14(56): 479–493. doi: 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
     https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  88. Ruys, E.G
    1993 The Scope of Indefinites. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Sadock, J
    1980 Noun incorporation in Greenlandic. A case of syntactic word formation. Language56(2): 300–319. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0036
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0036 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sauerland, U
    2003 A new semantics for number. InProceedings from SALT 13, R.B. Young & Y. Zhou (eds), 258–275. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Sauerland, U. , Anderssen, J. , & Yatsushiro, K
    2005 The plural is semantically unmarked. InLinguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 413–434. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197549.413
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.413 [Google Scholar]
  92. Schwarz, F
    2009 Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Spector, B
    2007 Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. InPresuppositions and Implicatures in Compositional Semantics, U. Sauerland & P.P. Stateva (eds), 243–281. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230210752_9
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230210752_9 [Google Scholar]
  94. Strawson, P.F
    1950 On referring. Mind59(235): 320–344. doi: 10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320
     https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320 [Google Scholar]
  95. Stvan, L.S
    1998 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Bare Singular Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. van Geenhoven, V
    1998 Indefinite Descriptions and Semantic Incorporation. Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Vergnaud, J. & Zubizarreta, M
    1992 The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry23(4): 595–652.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Winter, Y
    1997 Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy20: 399–467. doi: 10.1023/A:1005354323136
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005354323136 [Google Scholar]
  99. Zamparelli, R
    2008 Bare predicate nominals in Romance languages. InEssays on Nominal Determination [Studies in Language Companion Series 99], A. Klinge & H. Müller (eds), 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.99.08zam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.99.08zam [Google Scholar]
  100. Zweig, E
    2009 Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy32(4): 353–407. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑009‑9064‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9064-3 [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269386-la.219.01agu
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269386-la.219.01agu
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269386
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error