Chapter in:
Reference: From conventions to pragmatics
Edited by Laure Gardelle, Laurence Vincent-Durroux and Hélène Vinckel-Roisin
[Studies in Language Companion Series 228] 2023
► pp. 2751
References
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana & Zwarts, Joost
2010Weak definites and reference to kinds. SALT 20: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2001Accessibility theory: An overview. In Text Representation. Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects [Human Cognitive Processing 8], Ted J. M. Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds), 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Mikkelsen, Line
2000Incorporation in Danish: Implications for interfaces. In Grammatical Interfaces in HPSG, Ronnie Cann, Claire Grover & Philip Miller (eds), 1–15. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Björkelund, Anders, Eckart, Kerstin, Riester, Arndt, Schauffler, Nadja & Schweitzer, Katrin
2014The extended DIRNDL corpus as a resource for coreference and bridging resolution. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds), 3222–3228. Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Borik, Olga & Gehrke, Berit
(eds) (2015) The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaja
2003Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Brocher, Andreas, Weeber, Frederike, Hoek, Jet & von Heusinger, Klaus
2020Referent management in discourse: The accessibility of weak definites. CogSci 2020: 2829–2835.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N.
1977Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Carlson, Gregory & Sussman, Rachel Shirley
2005Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, Stefan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds), 26–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1977Bridging. In Readings in Cognitive Science, Philip Nicholas Johnson-Laird & Peter Cathcart Wason (eds), 411–420. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Crawley, Rosalind A., Stevenson, Rosemary J. & Kleinman, David
1990The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19: 245–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta
2011Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 123–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Henriette & Zwarts, Joost
2009Less form – more meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119: 280–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1992Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka & de Swart, Henriette
2003Semantics of Incorporation. From Argument Structure to Discourse Transparency. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner
2015NP-Incorporation in German. In The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation, Olga Borik & Behrit Gehrke (eds), 225–261. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Fukumura, Kumiko & van Gompel, Roger P. G.
2011The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 1472–1504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., Randall, Hendrick, Ledoux, Kerry & Yang, Chin Lung
1999Processing of reference and the structure of language: An analysis of complex noun phrases. Language and Cognitive Processes 14: 353–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron
1993Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene
1982The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Kamp, Hans
1981A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language [Mathematical Centre Tracts 135], Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen & Martin J. B. Stokhof (eds), 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe
1993From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Model Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic, and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
2011Discourse representation theory. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language and Meaning, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 923–945. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1976[1969]Discourse referents. In Notes from the Linguistic Underground, James D. McCawley (ed.), 363–385. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Kertz, Laura, Rohde, Hannah & Elman, Jeffrey L.
2008Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25: 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1980Die Analyse des blossen Plural bei Gregory Carlson. Linguistische Berichte 70: 47–50.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Modarresi, Fereshteh
2016Number neutrality and anaphoric uptake of pseudo-incorporated nominals in Persian (and weak definites in English). Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26: 874–891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Law, Jess H.-K. & Syrett, Kristen
2017Experimental evidence for the discourse potential of Mandarin. In 47th Annual North East Linguistics Society (NELS 47), Andrew Lamont & Katerina Tetzlo (eds), 231–240. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane
2001Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Incorporation and pseudo-incorporation in syntax. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinschaefer, Judith
2005Event-oriented adjectives and the semantics of deverbal nouns in Germanic and Romance. The role of boundedness and the mass/count distinction. In La Formazione delle Parole, Maria Grossmann & Anna M. Thornton (eds), 355–368. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Modarresi, Fereshteh
2015Discourse properties of bare noun objects. In The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation, Olga Borik & Berit Gehrke (eds), 189–221. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Modarresi, Fereshteh, Fortmann, Jette & Krifka, Manfred
2019Weak definites vs. implicit entities vs. indefinites in German. Presentation at the 41st Annual Meeting, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Bremen.
Modarresi, Fereshteh & Krifka, Manfred
2021aPseudo incorporation and anaphoricity: Evidence from Persian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021bPseudo-incorporated antecedents and anaphora in Persian: The influence of stereotypical knowledge. In Proceedings of ELM (Experiments in Linguistic Meaning), Beltrama Andrea, Florian Schwarz & Anna Papafragou (eds), 224–236. http://​journals​.linguisticsociety​.org​/proceedings​/index​.php​/ELM​/issue​/view​/173 (13 July 2022). DOI logo
To appear. In Linguistic Evidence by Experimental Data. Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2020, Sam Featherston, Robin Hörnig, Andreas Konietzko & Sophie Wietersheim eds
Nübling, Damaris
2005Von in die über in’n und ins bis im. Die Klitisierung von Präposition und Artikel als “Grammatikalisierungsbaustelle”. In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah Groodt (eds), 105–131. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poesio, Massimo, Di Eugenio, Barbara, Stevenson, Rosemary & Hitzeman, Janet
2004Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics 30: 309–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul
1969Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 205–239.Google Scholar
Ramelli, Christian
2013The am+INF construction in German varieties. In Current Approaches to Limits and Areas in Dialectology, Ernestina Carrilho, Magro Catarina & Álvarez Xose (eds), 367–398. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Scholten, Julien & Aguilar-Guevara, Ana
2010Assessing the discourse referential properties of weak definite NPs. Linguistics in the Netherlands 27(1): 115–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B., Backhaus, Jana & Dangl, Manuel
2015Backward and forward-looking potential of anaphors. Frontiers in Psychology 6. https://​www​.readcube​.com​/articles​/10​.3389%2Ffpsyg​.2015​.01746 (13 July 2022). DOI logo
Schwarz, Florian
2009Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
2013Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistic Compass 7: 534–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014How weak and how definite are weak definites? In Weak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219], Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn & Joost Zwarts (eds), 213–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stvan, Laurel Smith
2009Semantic incorporation as an account for some bare singular count noun uses in English. Lingua 119: 314–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle & McNally, Louise
2005On the property analysis of opaque complements. Lingua 115: 885–914. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
1989Movement and regeneration. In Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Paolo Benincà (ed.), 105–136. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Schumacher, Petra B.
2019Discourse prominence: Definition and application. Journal of Pragmatics 154: 117–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Sproat, Richard & McKoon, Gail
1991A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67: 439–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Adina
2019A morpho-semantic account of weak definites and bare institutional singulars in English. In Definites across Languages, Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Julia Pozas Loyo & Vazquez-Rojas Maldonado (eds), 319–345. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva & Trotzke, Andreas
2021Semantic incorporation and dis-course prominence: Experimental evidence from English pronoun resolution. Journal of Pragmatics 186: 87–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanovich, Igor
2008Incorporated nominals as antecedents for anaphora, or How to save the thematic arguments theory. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 367–379.Google Scholar