Chapter published in:
Implicitness: From lexis to discourse
Edited by Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276] 2017
► pp. 95118
References

References

Ariel, Mira
1991 “The Function of Accessibility in a Theory of Grammar.” Journal of Pragmatics 16: 443–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, Sarah
2001 “Testing the Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Theory of Anaphora: The Influence of Consistency Constraints on Interpretation of Coreference in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 901–941. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Capone, Alessandro
2008 “Belief Reports and Pragmatic Intrusion (the case of null appositives).” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1019–1040. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cote, Sharon A.
1996Grammatical and Discourse Properties of Null Arguments in English. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Cummins, Sarah, and Yves Roberge
2005 “A Modular Account of Null Objects in French.” Syntax 8: 44–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dankovics, Natália
2001 “Anaforikus viszonyok finn, észt és magyar összetett mondatokban pszicholingvisztikai szempontból” [Anaphoric relations in Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian compound sentences from the psycholinguistic point of view]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 98: 120–142.Google Scholar
2005 “A szórend szerepe az anafora-feldolgozásban” [The role of word order in anaphor resolution]. In Az ezerarcú elme. Tanulmányok Pléh Csaba 60. születésnapjára [The Thousand Face Mind. Studies on the Occasion of Csaba Pléh’s 60th Birthday], ed. by Judit Gervain, Kristóf Kovács, and Mihály Racsmány, 117–134. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad
1982 “Anaphora and Deixis: Same, Similar, or Different?” In Speech, Place and Action. Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, ed. by Robert J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein, 315–338. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1985 “Az anaforikus névmások értelmezéséről.” [On the interpretation of anaphoric pronouns]. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 16: 155–187.Google Scholar
1998 “Mondattan” [The syntax]. In Új magyar nyelvtan [New Hungarian Grammar], ed. by Katalin É. Kiss, Ferenc Kiefer, and Péter Siptár, 151–184. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel, and Carmen Portero Muñoz
2002Understood Objects in Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S.
2012 “Implicit Complements: A Dilemma for Model Theoretic Semantics.” Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 313–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
2005 “Argument Realization. The Role of Constructions, Lexical Semantics and Discourse Factors.” In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried, 17–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele 2013 “Arguments Structure Constructions versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates.” Mind and Language 28: 435–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan
2000 “Discourse Anaphora: Four Theoretical Models.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 151–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Anaphora and the pragmatics-syntax interface.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Robert Horn and Gregory Ward, 288–314. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2009 “Anaphora, Cataphora, Exophora, Logophoricity.” In Concise Encyclopaedia of Semantics, ed. by Keith Allan, 19–31. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2012The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Iten, Corinne, Marie-Odile Junker, Aryn Pyke, Robert Stainton, and Chaterine Wearing
2005 “Null Complements: Licensed by Syntax or by Semantics-Pragmatics?CLA Annual Conference Proceedings 2005: 1–15.Google Scholar
Kim, Kye-Sung, Park, Seong-Bae, Song, Hyu-Je, Park, Se Young, and Lee, Sang Jo
2010 “Identification of Non-referential Zero Pronouns for Korean-English Machine Translation.” In Proceedings of PRICAI 2010: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. 11th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Daegu, Korea, August 30–September 2, 2010, 112–122. Berlin: Springer.
Laczkó, Krisztina
2003 “A mutató névmások funkcionális vizsgálata.” [The functional examination of demonstrative pronouns]. Magyar Nyelvőr 127: 314–325.Google Scholar
Lejtovicz, Katalin E., and Zsolt T. Kardkovács
2007 “Anaphora Resolution.” Magyar Kutatók 8. Nemzetközi Szimpóziuma. 8th International Symposium of Hungarian Researchers on Computational Intelligence and Informatics, 227–237. Budapest: BMF.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mitkov, Ruslan
2013Anaphora Resolution. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita
1983 “Backward Anaphora and Discourse Structure.” Journal of Pragmatics 7: 129–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Németh T., Enikő
2000 “Occurrence and Identification of Implicit Arguments in Hungarian.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1657–1683. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “Implicit Arguments in Hungarian: Manners of Their Occurrence and Possibilities of Their Identification.” In Argument Structure in Hungarian, ed. by István Kenesei, 113–156. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2007 “Grammatika és pragmatika viszonya az implicit argumentumok tükrében.” [The relationship between grammar and pragmatics in case of implicit arguments]. In Nyelvelmélet − nyelvhasználat [Theory of Languge and Language Use], ed. by Tamás Gecső and Csilla Sárdi, 188–197. Székesfehérvár: Kodolányi János Főiskola.Google Scholar
2010 “How Lexical-Semantic Factors Influence the Verbs’ Occurrence with Implicit Direct Object Arguments in Hungarian.” In The Role of Data at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, ed. by Enikő T.Németh and Károly Bibok, 305–348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Lexical-Semantic Properties and Contextual Factors in the Use of Verbs of Work with Implicit Subject Arguments in Hungarian.” Intercultural Pragmatics 9: 453–477.Google Scholar
2014a “Hungarian Verbs of Natural Phenomena with Explicit and Implicit Subject Arguments: Their Use and Occurrence in the Light of Data.” In The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation, ed. by András Kertész and Csilla Rákosi, 103–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b “Implicit Arguments at the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface: Some Methodological Considerations.” Argumentum 10: 679–694.Google Scholar
Németh T., Enikő 2017 “Theoretical and methodological issues in the research into implicit arguments in Hungarian.” In Pragmatics at Its Interfaces, ed. by Stavros Assimakopoulos, 149-174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Németh T., Enikő, and Károly Bibok
2010 “Interaction between Grammar and Pragmatics: The Case of Implicit Arguments, Implicit Predicates and Co-composition in Hungarian.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 501–524. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peral, Jesús, and Antonio Fernández
2000 “Generation of Spanish Zero Pronouns into English.” In Natural Language Processing − NLP 2000. Second International Conference. Patras, Greece, June 2000. Proceedings, ed. by Dimitris N. Christodoulakis, 252–260. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pethő, Gergely, and Éva Kardos
2009 “Cross-Linguistic Evidence and the Licensing of Implicit Arguments.” Oslo Studies in Language 1: 33–61.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba
1994 “Mondatközi viszonyok feldolgozása: az anaphora megértése a magyarban.” [Processing intersentential relations: Interpreting anaphors in Hungarian]. Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle 50: 287–320.Google Scholar
1998A mondatmegértés a magyar nyelvben [Sentence Comprehension in Hungarian]. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba, and Katalin Radics
1978 “Truncated Sentence, Pronominalization and the Text.” Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28: 91–113.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba, and Brian McWhinney
1987 “Anaphora Resolution in Hungarian.” Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37: 103–124.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew
1997Syntactic Theories and the Structure of English. A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1985Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Renkema, Jan
2004Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, José, and Wilbert Spooren
1997 “Perspective, Subjectivity, and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View.” In Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker, and Linda Waugh, 85–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Kate
2006 “When Less Is More: Implicit Arguments and Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 139–170.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre
1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tolcsvai Nagy, Gábor
2001 “3rd Person Anaphora in Hungarian.” Hungarian Studies 15: 287–298.Google Scholar