Article published In:
Interfaces in Romance: A constraint-based approach
Edited by Gabriela Bîlbîie
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43:1] 2020
► pp. 129168
References (35)
References
Bach, K. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargmann, S. & Sailer, M. 2018. The syntactic flexibility of semantically non-decomposable idioms. In M. Sailer & S. Markantonatou, Eds., Multiword Expressions: Insights from a Multi-lingual Perspective, p. 1–29. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Bos, J. 1996. Predicate logic unplugged. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof, Eds., Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, p. 133–143. ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti, Ed., Structure and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, volume 31, p. 39–103. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), 535–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 2000. ‘The garden swarms with bees’ and the fallacy of ‘argument alternation’. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock, Eds., Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, p. 111–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckardt, R. 2005. Too poor to mention: Subminimal events and negative polarity items. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein, Eds., Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, p. 301–330. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R. & Csipak, E. 2013. Minimizers: Towards pragmatic licensing. In E. Csipak, M. Liu, R. Eckardt & M. Sailer, Eds., Beyond “any” and “ever”. New Explorations in Negative Polarity Sensitivity, p. 267–298. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Findlay, J. Y., Bargmann, S. & Sailer, M. 2019. Why the butterflies in your stomach can have big wings: combining formal and cognitive theories to explain productive extensions of idioms. Presentation at Europhras 2019, Santiago de Compostella.
Gutzmann, D. 2011. Expressive modifiers & mixed expressives. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 81, 123–141. [URL]
Gutzmann, D. & McCready, E. 2016. Quantification with pejoratives. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer & H. Wiese, Eds., Pejoration, number 2016 in Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, p. 75–102. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, A. & Koenig, J.-P. 2011. Focus particles, secondary meanings, and Lexical Resource Semantics: The case of Japanese shika . In S. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 81–101. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [URL]Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 2009. The swarm alternation revisited. In E. Hinrichs & J. Nerbonne, Eds., Theory and Evidence in Semantics, p. 53–80. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. & Napoli, D. J. 2019. Degree resultatives as second-order constructions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 31(3), 225–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iordăchioaia, G. & Richter, F. 2015. Negative concord with polyadic quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 331, 607–658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. 1979. Conventional implicature. In C. Oh & D. Dinneen, Eds., Presupposition, volume 11 of Syntax and Semantics, p. 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of weak and strong polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25(3–4), 209–257.Google Scholar
Meier, C. 2003. The meaning of too, enough, and sothat . Natural Language Semantics, 11(1), 69–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, S.-H., Koenig, J.-P. & Chaves, R. P. 2019. A semantic underspecification-based analysis of scope ambiguitites in gapping. In M. Espinal, E. Castroviejo, M. Leonetti, L. McNally & C. Real-Puigdollers, Eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 231, volume 21, p. 237–251, Barcelona. [URL]Google Scholar
Penn, G. & Richter, F. 2005. The other syntax: Approaching natural language semantics through logical form composition. In H. Christiansen, P. R. Skadhauge & J. Villadsen, Eds., Constraint Solving and Language Processing. First International Workshop, CSLP 2004, Roskilde, Denmark, September 1–3, 2004, Revised Selected and Invited Papers, volume 3438 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p. 48–73. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richter, F. 2019. Formal background. In S. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. D. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Chapter 3. Berlin: Language Science Press. Prepublished version. [URL]Google Scholar
Richter, F. & Sailer, M. 2004. Basic concepts of Lexical Resource Semantics. In A. Beckmann & N. Preining, Eds., ESSLLI 2003 – Course Material I, volume 5 of Collegium Logicum, p. 87–143. Vienna: Kurt Gödel Society Wien.Google Scholar
2006. Modeling typological markedness in semantics. the case of negative concord. In S. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 305–325. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [URL]Google Scholar
Richter, F. & Soehn, J.-P. 2006. Braucht niemanden zu scheren: A survey of npi licensing in german. In S. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 421–440. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [URL]Google Scholar
Rizea, M.-M. & Sailer, M. 2019. Representing scales: Degree result clauses and emphatic negative polarity items in romanian. In S. Müller & P. Osenova, Eds., Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 79–99. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [URL]Google Scholar
Sailer, M. 2004. Local semantics in HPSG. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr, Eds., Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, volume 51, p. 197–214. [URL]Google Scholar
2007. NPI licensing, intervention and discourse representation structures in HPSG. In S. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 214–234. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [URL]
2009. On reading-dependent licensing of strong NPIs. In A. Riester & T. Solstad, Eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, volume 5 of SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732, p. 455–468. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. [URL]Google Scholar
Sailer, M. & Am-David, A. 2016. Definite meaning and definite marking. In D. Arnold, M. Butt, B. Crysmann, T. H. King & S. Müller, Eds., Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, p. 641–661. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [URL]Google Scholar
Soehn, J.-P., Liu, M., Tráwiński, B. & Iordăchioaia, G. 2010. Nicht sonderlich oder doch sattsam bekannt? Positive und Negative Polaritätselemente als lexikalische Einheiten mit Distributionsidiosynkrasien. In J. Korhonen, W. Mieder, E. Piirainen & R. Piñel, Eds., EUROPHRAS 2008 Beiträge zur internationalen Phraseologiekonferenz vom 13.–16.8.2008 in Helsinki, p. 273–281, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, J. 2001. An approach to polarity sensitivity and negative concord by lexical underspecification. In D. Flickinger & A. Kathol, Eds., Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 285–304. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [URL]
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C. & Simons, M. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89(1), 66–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Wouden, T. 1997. Negative Contexts. Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar