Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Beaver, D., Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2005). Discourse representation theory. In Zalta, E. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, A., & Farkas, D. (2009). Exceptional scope as discourse reference to quantificational dependencies. In Bosch, D. G. P. & Lang, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (pp. 165–179). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, G., & Dotlačil, J. (2020). Computational Cognitive Modeling and Linguistic Theory. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Carlson, G., & Pelletier, F. (1995). The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chastain, C. (1975). Reference and context. In Gunderson, K. (Ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, VII). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Chiriacescu, S., & von Heusinger, K. (2010). Discourse prominence and pe- marking in Romanian. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 298–332.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Coppock, E. (2021). On definite descriptions: Can familiarity and uniqueness be distinguished? In Altshuler, D. (Ed.,) Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2015). Definiteness and determinacy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38, 377–435.Google Scholar

Coppock, l., & Beaver, D. (2014). A superlative argument for a minimal theory of definiteness. In Snider, T. (Ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 24 (pp. 177–196).Google Scholar

Evans, J., & Altham, J. (1973). The causal theory of names. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 47, 187–225.Google Scholar

Fraurud, K. (1990). Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics, 7(4), 395–433.Google Scholar

Grosz, B. (1977). The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1982 [1988]). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar

Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. (2003). Einstellungszustände und Einstellungszuschreibungen in der Diskursrepräsentationstheorie. In Haas-Spohn, U. (Ed.), Intentionalität zwischen Subjektivität und Weltbezug (pp. 209–289). Paderborn: Mentis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kamp, H. (2015). Using proper names as intermediaries between labeled entity representations. Erkenntnis, 80, 263–312.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. (2021a). Entity representations and articulated contexts. an application to the analysis of deictic demonstratives. In Alden Pepp, J. & Almog, J. (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Thirty Years Later. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. (2021b). The links of causal chains. Theoria 88(2), 296–325.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. (2021c). Unpublished notes for a graduate course in Linguistics offered at the University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. (2021d). Sharing real and fictional reference. In Maier, E. & Stokke, A. (Eds.), The Language of Fiction (pp. 37–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. (2022). Entity Representations and Articulated Contexts. To appear as a monograph in the Open Access series ‘Topics at the Grammar–Discourse Interface’.Google Scholar

Kamp, H., & Bende-Farkas, A. (2019). Epistemic specificity from a communication-theoretic perspective, Journal of Semantics, 36(1), 1–51.Google Scholar

Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Kamp, H., van Genabith, J., & Reyle, U. (2011). Discourse representation theory: An updated survey. In Gabbay, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. XV (pp. 125–394). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kripke, S. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal and intuitionistic logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1979). Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. In French, P., Uehling, T., & Wettstein, H. (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. First appeared in D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, 1972.Google Scholar

Peregrin, J., & von Heusinger, K. (2004). Dynamic semantics with choice functions. In Kamp, H. & Partee, B. (Eds.), Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning (pp. 255–274). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Schwarz, F. (2009). Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

Searle, J. (1958). Proper names. Mind, 67, 166–173.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1982). Proper names and intentionality. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 63(3), 205–225.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aguilar-Guevara, A., Pozas-Loyo, J., & Maldonado, V. V. R. (Eds.). (2019). Definiteness across Languages: Studies in Diversity Linguistics. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Amfo, A. N. (2007). Akan demonstratives. In Payne, D. L. & Peña, J. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 134–148).Google Scholar

Arkoh, R. (2011). Semantics of Akan bí and nʊ. MA thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Arkoh, R., & Matthewson, L. (2013). A familiar definite article in Akan. Lingua, 123, 1–30. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.012Google Scholar

Barker, C. (2005). Possessive weak definites. In Kim, Y.-Y., Lander, Y., & Partee, B. H. (Eds.), Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax (pp. 89–113). Amherst: GSLA Publications.Google Scholar

Barker, C., & Shan, C.-C. (2008). Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–40.Google Scholar

Barlew, J. (2014). Salience, uniqueness, and the definite determiner-tè in bulu. In Snider, T., D’Antoni, S., & Weigand, M. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 24 (pp. 619–639).Google Scholar

Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Beaver, D., & Coppock, E. (2015). Novelty and familiarity for free. In Proceedings of the 2015 Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 50–59).Google Scholar

Bombi, C. (2018). Definiteness in Akan: Familiarity and uniqueness revisited. In Maspong, S., Stefánsdóttir, B., Blake, K., & Davis, F. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 28 (pp. 141–160).Google Scholar

Bumford, D. (2017). Split-scope definites: Relative superlatives and Haddock descriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(6), 549–593.Google Scholar

Bumford, D. (2018). Binding into superlative descriptions. In Maspong, S., Stefánsdóttir, B., Blake, K., & Davis, F. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 28 (pp. 325–344).Google Scholar

Carlson, G., & Sussman, R. (2005). Seemingly indefinite definites. In Kesper, S. & Reis, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives (pp. 26–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Charlow, S. (2014). On the Semantics of Exceptional Scope. Dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (1995). Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cooper, R. (1979). The interpretation of pronouns. In Heny, F. & Schnelle, H. (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Third Groningen Round Table: Syntax and Semantics 10 (pp. 61–92). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Cooper, R. (1996). The role of situations in generalized quantifiers. In Lappin, S. (Ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 86–107). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2014). A superlative argument for a minimal theory of definiteness. In Snider, T. (Ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 24 (pp. 177–196).Google Scholar

Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2015). Definiteness and determinacy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(5), 377–435. doi:10.1007/s1098Google Scholar

Coppock, E., & Champollion, L. (in preparation). Invitation to formal semantics. Ms., Boston University and New York University.Google Scholar

Dayal, V., & Jiang, J. (2021). The puzzle of anaphoric bare nouns in mandarin: A counterpoint to index! Linguistic Inquiry. doi:10.1162/ling_a_00433Google Scholar

Déprez, V. (2016). Refining cross-linguistic dimension of definiteness: Variations on ‘la’. Talk presented at the Workshop on the Semantic Contribution of Det and Num, Barcelona, May 27–28.Google Scholar

Elbourne, P. (2005). Situations and Individuals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Elbourne, P. (2008). Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 409–466.Google Scholar

Elbourne, P. (2009). Bishop sentences and donkey cataphora: A response to Barker and Shan. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–7.Google Scholar

Elbourne, P. (2013). Definite Descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1977). Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7, 467–536.Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 337–362.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In Bezuidenhout, A. & Reimer, M. (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond (pp. 315–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50. Translated as “On sense and reference” by M. Black, in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, P. Geach and M. Black (eds. and trans.), 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980.Google Scholar

Glanzberg, M. (2007). Definite descriptions and quantifier scope: Some Mates cases reconsidered. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 3(2), 133–158.Google Scholar

Haddock, N. J. (1987). Incremental interpretation and combinatory categorial grammar. In Proceedings of the 10 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2 (pp. 661–663). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Hanink, E. A. (2017). The German definite article and the ‘sameness’ of indices. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 23, 9. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1949&context=pwplGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1990). E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13. 137–177. doi:10.1007/bf00630732Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In von Stechow, A. & Wunderlich, D. (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 487–535). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1999). Notes on Superlatives. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. (2001). A Natural History of Negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Horn, L. R., & Abbott, B. (2012). <the, a>: (in)definiteness and implicature. In Kabasenche, W. P., O’Rourke, M., & Slater, M. H. (Eds.), Reference and Referring (pp. 325–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jenks, P. (2015). Two kinds of definties in numeral classifier languages. In D’Antonio, S., Moroney, M., & Little, C. R. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 25 (pp. 103–124).Google Scholar

Jenks, P. (2018). Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 501–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kadmon, N. (1987). On Unique and Non-unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. (2018). Entity representations and articulated contexts. Unpublished manuscript, to appear as part of a tribute to David Kaplan, with the preliminary title: “Sense, reference and use – Afterthoughts on Kaplan.”Google Scholar

Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 267–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. A. (2011). Philosophical Troubles: Collected Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Löbner, S. (1985). Definites. Journal of Semantics, 4, 279–326. doi:10.1093/jos/4.4.279Google Scholar

Löbner, S. (2000). Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 213–308.Google Scholar

Maldonado, V. V. R., Fajardo, J. G., Gutiérrez-Bravo, R., & Loyo, J. P. (2018). The definite article in Yucatec Maya: The case of le… o’. International Journal of American Linguistics, 84, 207–242. doi:10.1086/696197CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neale, S. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Oliver, A., & Smiley, T. (2013). Plural Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ortmann, A. (2014). Definite article asymmetries and concept types: Semantic and pragmatic uniqueness. In Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., & Petersen, W. (Eds.), Frames and Concept Types: Applications in Linguistics and Philosophy (pp. 293–321). Cham: Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-0541-5_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Owusu, A. (2020). Clausal determiners and definite propositions. Talk presented at BU Linguistics Colloquium, November 13.Google Scholar

Prince, E. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information status. In Thompson, S. & Mann, W. (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund Raising Text (pp. 295–325). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Roberts, C. (2003). Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 287–350.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493.Google Scholar

Schwarz, F. (2009). Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

Soames, S. (1986). Incomplete definite descriptions. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 27, 349–375.Google Scholar

Stanley, J., & Szabó, Z. G. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language, 15, 219–261.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59(235), 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szabó, Z. G. (2000). Descriptions and uniqueness. Philosophical Studies, 101, 29–57.Google Scholar

Szabó, Z. G. (2003). Definite descriptions without uniqueness: A reply to Abbott. Philosophical Studies, 114, 279–291.Google Scholar

Szabolcsi, A. (1986). Comparative superlatives. In Fukui, N., Rapoport, T., & Sagey, E. (Eds.), Papers in Theoretical Linguistics (pp. 245–265). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar

Wespel, J. (2008). Descriptions and Their Domains: The Patterns of Definiteness Marking in French-Related Creoles. Dissertation, University of Stuttgart. doi:10.18419/opus-5708Google Scholar

Westerståhl, D. (1984). Determiners and context sets. In van Benthem, J. & ter Meulen, A. (Eds.), Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language (pp. 45–71). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Yifrach, M., & Coppock, E. (2020). Defining definiteness in Ṭuroyo. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5874Google Scholar