Part of
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 311334
Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Zwarts, J
2010Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings of SALT 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds), 179–196. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A
2003Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. In From NP to DP: The Expression of Possession in Noun Phrases, Vol.1 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 56], M. Coene & Y. D’hulst (eds), 167–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, C
2005Possessive weak definites. In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, K. Ji-yung, Y. Lander & B. Partee (eds), 89–113. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2011Possessives and relational nouns. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds), 1109–1130. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Perry, J
1983Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, H. & McGregor, W
(eds) 1996The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Parts Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. & Ritter, E
1987A small clause analysis of inalienable possession in Mandarin and French. In Proceedings of NELS 18, J. Blevins & J. Carter (eds), 65–78. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Cornips, L
2003Heerlens Nederlands. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M
(eds) 2001The Circum-Baltic Languages: Grammar and Typology, 2 Vols [Studies in Language Companion Series 54-55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R
1980The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Guéron, J
1983L ’emploi ‘possessif’ de l’article défini en français. Langue Française 58 : 23–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In Grammatical Representation, J. Guéron, J.-Y. Pollock & H. Obenauer (eds), 43–86. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
2006Inalienable possession. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 589–638. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, A
1944Il tend les mains vs. il tend ses mains. Studies in Philology 41(3): 457–481.Google Scholar
Heine, B
1997Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hole, D
2005Reconciling ‘possessor’ datives and ‘beneficiary’ datives – Towards a unified voice account of dative binding in German. In Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein-Leisten (eds), 213–242. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kayne, R
1975French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koenig, E. & Haspelmath, M
1998Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, J. Feuillet (ed.), 525–606. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P
1999French body-parts and the semantics of binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(2): 219–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löbner, S
1985Definites. Journal of Semantics 4(4): 279–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3): 279–333. DOI logoGoogle 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/Linguistics Today 171], P. Sleeman & H. Perridon (eds), 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicol, F
1997Syntaxe minimaliste et sémantique conceptuelle: Recherches sur la syntaxe et la sémantique comparées du français et de l’anglais. PhD dissertation, Université de Paris-X.
Ojeda, A
1993New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. In ESCOL ‘93: Proceedings of the Tenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, A. Kathol & M. Bernstein (eds), 247–258. Ithaca NY: DMLL Publications.Google Scholar
Partee, B
1989Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In CLS 25: Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, C. Wiltshire, B. Music & R. Graczyk (eds), 342–365. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Seiler, H
2001The operational basis of possession: A dimensional approach revisited. In Dimensions of Possession [Typological Studies in Language 47], I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds), 27–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A
1994The noun phrase. In Syntax and Semantics: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, F. Kiefer & K. Kiss (eds), 179–274. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tellier, C
1990Underived nominals and the projection principle: Inherent possessors. In Proceedings of NELS 20, J. Carter, R.-M. Déchaine, B. Philip & T. Sherer (eds), 472–486. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. & Zubizarreta, M.-L
1992The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4): 595–652.Google Scholar
Vikner, C. & Jensen, P
2002A semantic analysis of the English genitive. Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2): 191–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A
2007Bodies and their parts: An NSM approach to semantic typology. Language Sciences 29: 14–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Suijkerbuijk, Michelle, Sterre Leufkens & Marten van der Meulen
2022.  De dochter doet een powernap . Linguistics in the Netherlands 39  pp. 192 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 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.