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. 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: 3 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.11zwa
References (46)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H. & Zwarts, J. 2009. Less form more meaning: Why bare nominals are special. Lingua 119(2): 280–295. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Aguilar‐Guevara, Ana & Carolina Oggiani
2023. Weak definite nominals. Language and Linguistics Compass 17:6 DOI logo
Oggiani, Carolina
2021. “Escribir artículo“: nombres singulares escuetos en posición de objeto en español rioplatense. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo
Schumacher, Petra B. & Hanna Weiland
2014. Referential properties of definites and salience spreading. In Weak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 219], ► pp. 365 ff. 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.