We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
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.
Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
References
REFERENCES
Beaver, David & Krahmer, Emiel. 2001. A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information10, 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Beaver, David. 2012. Weak uniqueness: The only difference between definites and indefinites. In Chereches, Anca (ed.), 22nd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 22), The University of Chicago, 18 May – 20 May 2012, 527–544. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/view/360.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Beaver, David. 2014. Definiteness and determinacy. Ms., University of Gothenburg & The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review75(3), 281–304.Google Scholar
Dowty, David, Wall, Robert E. & Peters, Stanley. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fara, Delia Graff. 2001. Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical Studies102, 1–42. [Originally published under the name Delia Graff.]Google Scholar
Haug, Dag. Partial dynamic semantics for anaphora: Compositionality without syntactic coindexation. Journal of Semantics, doi:10.1093/jos/fft008. Published online by Oxford University Press, 4 August 2013.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Flickinger, Daniel, Barlow, Michael & Westcoat, Michael (eds.), The Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 2), 114–125. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lapierre, Serge. 1992. Partial functions in type theory. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic33, 493–516.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Groenendijk, Jeroen, de Jongh, Dick & Stokhof, Martin (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Schoubye, Anders J. 2009. Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions. Linguistics and Philosophy32(6), 583–617.Google Scholar
Schoubye, Anders J. 2012. Against the argument from convention. Linguistics and Philosophy35(6), 515–532.Google Scholar
Schoubye, Anders J. 2013. Ghosts, murderers, and the semantics of descriptions. Noûs47(3), 496–533.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter. 1950. On referring. Mind59, 320–344.Google Scholar
Tichý, Pavel. 1982. Foundations of partial type theory. Reports on Mathematical Logic14, 59–72.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar