Article published in:
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 265–286

Functional frames in the interpretation of weak nominals

This paper argues that so-called weak nominals , like the definite object in listen to the radio and the bare nominal in watch television , should be analyzed against the background of functional frames , representations of stereotypical use of certain common objects. In this way the compositional semantic analysis of weak nominals can be grounded in the lexical semantics of telic roles and frames that originates from computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, and cognitive psychology.
Published online: 03 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.11zwa
References

References

Abbott, B.
2001 Definiteness 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.
2008 Uniqueness and Weak Definites in Spanish. MA thesis, Utrecht University.
2014 Weak Definites. Semantics, Lexicon and Pragmatics. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Aguilar, A. & Zwarts, J.
2010 Weak 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.
2005 Possessive 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.
1992 Frames, 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.
1994 Uniqueness, 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.
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Carlson, G.
1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
2006 The 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.
2005 Seemingly 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.
2006 Weak 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.
1982 Nominalization in Montague Grammar: A semantics without types for natural languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 303–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Claessen, C.
2011 A Lexical Semantics for Musical Instrument Nouns in Dutch. MA thesis, Utrecht University.
Du Bois, J.W.
1980 Beyond 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.
2003 The Semantics of Incorporation. From Syntax to Discourse Transparency. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.
1982 Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, V.
1998 Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gawron, J.M.
2011 Frame semantics. In Handbook of Semantics, C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (eds), 664–687. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.
1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Horn, L.
1984 Towards 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.
2009 Bridging 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.
1981 A 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.
2004 Bare 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.
1999 Concepts and cognitive science. In Concepts: Core Readings, E. Margolis & S. Laurence (eds), 3–81. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.
2000 Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, D.
2006 Definiteness 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.
1998 Definite 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.
2011 Form-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.
1975 A 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.
1993 New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. ESCOL 93: 247–258.Google Scholar
Partee, B.
1987 Noun 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.
1996 Frame semantics. In Handbook of Pragmatics, J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (eds), 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poesio, M.
1994 Weak definites. In Proceedings of SALT IV, M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (eds.), 282–299.Ithaca: Cornell,Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
2007 Cognitive English Grammar [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B.
1905 On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schulpen, M.
2011 Weak Definites: Modification, Non-unique Reference and Enriched Meanings. MA thesis, Utrecht University.
Schwarz, F.
2009 Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Strawson, P.
1950 On referring. Mind 59: 320–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stvan, L.
1998 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Bare Singular Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.
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 nominals are special. Lingua 119(2): 280–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Y. & Zwarts, J.
2011 Event 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.
2013 From 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 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 27 december 2020. 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.