Referentially Anchored Indefinites

Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy

Volumn 84, Issue , 2007, Pages 273-292

  von Heusinger, Klaus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART   (Germany)

Author keywords

Direct Object; Noun Phrase; Relative Clause; Salient Function; Wide Scope

Indexed keywords

EID: 85102003626     PISSN: 09244662     EISSN: 2215034X     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_10     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. Aissen, J. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435–483.
2. Bende-Farkas, Á. & Kamp, H. 2001. Indefinites and Binding: From Specificity to Incorporation. Lecture Notes, revised version. XIII ESSLLI, Helsinki 2001.
3. Bossong, G. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
4. Chierchia, G. 2001. A Puzzle about Indefinites. In: C. Checchetto, G. Chierchia & M.-T. Guasti (eds.). Semantic Interfaces: Reference, Anaphora and Aspect. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 51–89.
5. Comorovski, I. 1983. On Clitic Doubling. MS Cornell U.
6. Dede, M. 1986. Definiteness and Referentiality in Turkish Verbal Sentences. In: D. Slobin & K. Zimmer (eds.). Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 147–164.
7. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. Comparative Studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
8. Enç, M. 1991. The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–25.
9. Farkas, D. 1978. Direct and Indirect Object Reduplication in Rumania. Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 14: University of Chicago, 88–97.
10. Farkas, D. [1981] 1985. Intensional Description and the Romance Subjunctive Mood. New York: Garland.
11. Farkas, D. 1995. Specificity and Scope. In: L. Nash & G. Tsoulas (eds.). Actes du Premier Colloque Langues & Grammaire. Paris, 119–137.
12. Farkas, Donka 2002. Specificity Distinction. Journal of Semantics 19, 213–243.
13. Fodor, J. & Sag, I. 1982. Referential and Quantificational Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–398.
14. Farkas, D. & von Heusinger, K. 2003. Stability of Reference and Object Marking in Romanian. Ms. Univeristät Stuttgart.
15. Geurts, B. to appear. Specific Indefinites, Presupposition, and Scope. In: R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle & T.E. Zimmermann (eds.). Presupposition and Discourse. Oxford: Elsevier.
16. Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
17. Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
18. Higginbotham, J. 1987. Indefinites and Predication. In: E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (eds.). The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press, 43–70.
19. Hintikka, J. 1986. The Semantics of ‘a certain’. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 331–336.
20. Ionin, T. 2006. This is Definitely Specific: Specificity and Definiteness in Article Systems. Natural Language Semantics 14, 175–234.
21. Jäger, G. 2004. Partial Variables and Specificity. Ms University of Potsdam.
22. Karttunen, L. 1976. Discourse Referents. In: J. McCawley (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground. New York: Academic Press, 363–385.
23. Kasher, A. & Gabbay, D. 1976. On the Semantics and Pragmatics of Specific and Nonspecific Indefinite Expressions. Theoretical Linguistics 2, 145–188.
24. Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. Routledge: London.
25. Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites. In: S. Rothstein (ed.). Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 163–196.
26. Krifka, M. 2001. Non-novel Indefinites in Adverbial Quantification. In: C. Condoravdi & G. Renardel (eds.). Logical Perspectives on Language and Information. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
27. Leonetti, M. 2003. Specificity and Object Marking: The Case of Spanish a. In: K. von Heusinger & G.A. Kaiser (eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages. Arbeitspapier 113 des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, 67–102.
28. Ludlow, P. & Neale, S. 1991. Indefinite Descriptions: In Defense of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 171–202.
29. Maclaran, R. 1980. On Two Asymmetrical Uses of the Demonstrative Determiners’ in Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 1.
30. Maclaran, R. 1982. The Semantics and Pragmatics of the English Demonstratives, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
31. Milsark, G. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge/Mass.
32. Prince, E. 1981. On the Inferencing of Indefinite-this NPs. In: A. Joshi & B. Webber & I. Sag (eds.). Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: CUP, 231–250.
33. Ruys, E.G. 1992. The Scope of Indefinites. Ph.D. dissertation, University Utrecht. Utrecht: LEd.
34. Speas, P. & Tenny, C. 2003. Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles. In A. DiSciullo (ed.). Asymmetry in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 315–344.
35. Reinhart, T. 1997. Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided between QR and Choice Functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335–397.
36. von Heusinger, K. 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics 19, 245–274.
37. von Heusinger, K. & Kornfilt, J. 2005. The Case of the Direct Object in Turkish: Semantics, Syntax and Morphology. Turkic Languages 9, 3–44.
38. Winter, Y. 1997. Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 399–467.
39. Winter, Y. 2005. On some Problems of (In)definiteness within Flexible Semantics. Lingua 115, 915–936.
40. Wright, S. & Givón, T. 1987. The pragmatics of Indefinite Reference: Quantified Ttext-based Studies. Studies in Language 11, 1–33.
41. Yeom, J. 1998. A Presuppositional Analysis of Specific Indefinites: Common Grounds as Structured Information States. Garland Publishing.
42. Zamparelli, R. 2005. The Structure of (In)definiteness. Lingua 115, 915–936.