Cover not available
Part of
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 1–16

Advances in weak referentiality

ORCID logo
Published online: 3 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.01agu
References (100)
References
Abusch, D. 1993. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 83–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, A. 2014. Weak Definites. Semantics, Lexicon and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Zwarts, J. 2010. Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings from SALT 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
. 2013. Weak definites refer to kinds. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 42: 33–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnold, J.E. 1998. Reference Form and Discourse Patterns. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
. 2010. How speakers refer. The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(4): 187–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.C. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bale, A., Gagnon, M. & Khanjian, H. 2011. On the relationship between morphological and semantic markedness. Morphology 21(2): 197–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, C. 2005. Possessive weak definites. In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, J. Kim, Y. Lander & B.H. Partee (eds), 89–113. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Cooper, R. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2):159–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beyssade, C. & Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 2005. A syntax-based analysis of predication. In Proceedings from SALT 15, E. Georgala & J. Howell (eds), 44–61. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. 2003. Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language 79(4):708–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 2009. A constructional analysis of quasi-incorporation in Dutch. Gengo Kenkyu 135: 5–27.Google Scholar
Borthen, K. 2003. Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1973. Reference and proper names. The Journal of Philosophy 70(14):425–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. & Sussman, R. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, S, Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 71–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, S. & Ladusaw, W. 2003. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cieschinger, M. 2006. Constraints on the Contraction of Preposition and Definite Article in German. BA thesis, University of Osnabrück.
Clark, H. 1975. Bridging. In Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, R.C. Schank & B.L. Nash-Webber (eds), 99–27.New York NY: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H. & Murphy, G.L. 1982. Audience design in meaning and reference. Language and Comprehension 9: 287–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 1999. Bare NP’s, reference to kinds, and incorporation. In Proceedings from SALT 9, T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (eds), 34–51. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
. 2003. A semantics for pseudo-incorporation. Ms, Rutgers University.
. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(1): 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H. 2012. Constructions with and without articles. Paper presented at the Workshop ‘Calcul de la référence nominale’,Paris, 15 March 2012.
de Swart, H., Winter, Y., & Zwarts, J. 2007. Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1): 195–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H. & Zwarts, J. 2009. Less form-more meaning. Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119(2): 280–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives. Form, Function and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., Bleam, T., & Espinal, M.T. 2006. Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In Non-definiteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (eds), 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, K. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75(3): 281–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, R. 2000. Roles and non-unique definites. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 25:122–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120(4): 984–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & McNally, L. 2011. Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 47(2):87–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. 1994. Specificity and scope. Langues et Grammaires 1: 119–137.Google Scholar
. 2002. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 213–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, D. & de Swart, H. 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2004. Incorporation, plurality, and the incorporation of plurals. A dynamic approach. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3: 45–73.Google Scholar
. 2010. The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(6): 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P.C. & Hendrick, R. 1998. The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science 22(4): 389–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, S. 2012. Number and Individuation. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Guéron, J. 1983. L‘emploi ‘possessif’ de l’article défini en français. Langue Française 58(1): 23–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Sheldon R. 1976. Mokilese Reference Grammar. Honolulu HI: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
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
Irmer, M. 2009. Bridging reference to eventualities. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, A. Riester & T. Solstadt (eds), 217–230. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (eds), 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1977. Demonstratives. An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Themes from Kaplan, J. Almog, J. Perry & H. Wettstein (eds), 481–564. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and Grammar, S. Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. 1972. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, D. & Alexandropoulou, S. 2013. A corpus study of Greek bare singulars. Implications for an analysis. Revista da Abralin 12(1): 233–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Bruyn, B. 2010. Indefinite Articles and Beyond. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
. 2013. Article and bare predication. From synchrony to diachrony. In Proceedings of NELS 41, Y. Fainleib, N. LaCara & P. Yangsook (eds), 269–280. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Löbner, S. 1998. Definite associative anaphora. Ms, University of Düsseldorf.
Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and proper names. A theory of n-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609–665.Google Scholar
Mari, A. & Martin, F. 2008. Bare and indefinite NPs in predicative position in French. In SinSpec. Working Papers of the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context, F. Schäfer (ed.), 119–144. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Massam, D. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:153–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Count and Mass Across Languages. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L. 1998. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7(1): 79–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, O. & Spector, B. 2005. Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, E. Maier, C. Bary & J. Huitink (eds), 241–255. Nijmegen: NCSGoogle Scholar
McNally, L. 2014. Strong and weak nominals. To appear in Blackwell Companion to Semantics, L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann, & T.E. Zimmermann (eds). New York NY: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
McNally, L. & Boleda, G. 2004. Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 5: 179–196.Google Scholar
Milsark, G. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4): 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munn, A. & Schmitt, C. 2005. Number and indefinites. Lingua 115: 821–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G. 1993. Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(1): 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ojeda, A.E. 1993. New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. In Proceedings from the Tenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, A. Kathol (ed.), 247–258. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Partee, B.H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof, (eds), 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A.T. & Roeper, T. 1999. Scope and the structure of bare nominals: Evidence from child language. Linguistics 37(5): 927–960. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poesio, M. 1994. Weak definites. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (eds), 282–299. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Prince, E.F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–254. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Puig-Waldmüller, E. 2008. Contracted Preposition-determiner Forms in German: Semantics and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Que, M., Le Bruyn, B. & de Swart, H. 2012. The scope of bare nominals. In Genericity, A. Mari, C. Beyssade & F. Del Prete (eds), 116–139. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(3): 287–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, I.A. 2013. Non-verbal Predications. Copular Predications at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14(56): 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruys, E.G. 1993. The Scope of Indefinites. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic. A case of syntactic word formation. Language 56(2): 300–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, U. 2003. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings from SALT 13, R.B. Young & Y. Zhou (eds), 258–275. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U., Anderssen, J., & Yatsushiro, K. 2005. The plural is semantically unmarked. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 413–434. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, F. 2009. Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Spector, B. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In Presuppositions and Implicatures in Compositional Semantics, U. Sauerland & P.P. Stateva (eds), 243–281. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P.F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59(235): 320–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stvan, L.S. 1998. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Bare Singular Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, V. 1998. Indefinite Descriptions and Semantic Incorporation. Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J. & Zubizarreta, M. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4): 595–652.Google Scholar
Winter, Y. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R. 2008. Bare predicate nominals in Romance languages. In Essays on Nominal Determination [Studies in Language Companion Series 99], A. Klinge & H. Müller (eds), 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zweig, E. 2009. Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(4): 353–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Pinzin, Francesco & Cecilia Poletto
2022. Indefinite Objects in Micro‐variation. A Cross‐linguistic Analysis of the Distribution of Partitives Articles, Bare Nominals and Definite Determiners in Northern Italy*. Studia Linguistica 76:1 ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Pinzin, Francesco & Cecilia Poletto
2022. Partitive Articles and Indefinites, Micro and Macrovariation. Studia Linguistica 76:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Suijkerbuijk, Michelle, Sterre Leufkens & Marten van der Meulen
2022.  De dochter doet een powernap . Linguistics in the Netherlands 39 ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Meng-Chen & Werner Abraham
2020. Episodic versus generic eventualities and nominals. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:4 ► pp. 441 ff. DOI logo
Görgülü, Emrah
2018. Nominals and number neutrality in languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 12:10 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. 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.