No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn &Joost Zwarts (eds.), Weak referentiality (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219).Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 2014. Pp. xii + 390.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Reviews
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
Barker, Chris. 2005. Possessive weak definites. In Kim, Ji-yung, Lander, Yury A. & Partee, Barbara H. (eds.), Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax, 89–113. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Borik, Olga & Gehrke, Berit (eds.). 2015. The syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg & Sussman, Rachel. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. In Kepser, Stephan & Reis, Marga (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, 71–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Vaneeta. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29, 123–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka & de Swart, Henriëtte. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Poesio, Massimo. 1994. Weak definites. In Mandy, Harvey & Santelmann, Lynn (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT IV), 282–299. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Specificity. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 1025–1058. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar