Article published in:
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

Published online: 03 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.01agu
References

References

Abusch, D.
1993 The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 83–135. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H. & Zwarts, J.
2009 Less form-more meaning. Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119(2): 280–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
1999 Demonstratives. Form, Function and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, K.
1966 Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75(3): 281–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, R.
2000 Roles and non-unique definites. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 25:122–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T.
2010 Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120(4): 984–1009. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & McNally, L.
2011 Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 47(2):87–128. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P.C. & Hendrick, R.
1998 The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science 22(4): 389–424. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R.
1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S.
1972 Naming and Necessity. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Count and Mass Across Languages. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L.
1998 On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7(1): 79–134. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munn, A. & Schmitt, C.
2005 Number and indefinites. Lingua 115: 821–855. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G.
1993 Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(1): 1–43. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C.
2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(3): 287–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roy, I.A.
2013 Non-verbal Predications. Copular Predications at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B.
1905 On denoting. Mind 14(56): 479–493. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P.F.
1950 On referring. Mind 59(235): 320–344. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zweig, E.
2009 Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(4): 353–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar