| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910459773303321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Weak referentiality / / edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Bert Le Bruyn, Joost Zwarts, Utrecht University |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Amsterdam ; ; Philadelphia : , : John Benjamins Publishing Company, , [2014] |
|
©2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (402 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Linguistik aktuell = Linguistics today, , 0166-0829 ; ; volume 219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Role and reference grammar |
Reference (Linguistics) |
Grammar, Comparative and general - Noun phrase |
Phraseology |
Functionalism (Linguistics) |
Electronic books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Weak Referentiality; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of content; List of contributors; List of abbreviations; Advances in weak referentiality; 1. Weak referentiality; 2. Weak referential properties; 3. The papers in this volume; 3.1 Indefinites; 3.2 Incorporation; 3.3 Predication; 3.4 Number; 3.5 (Weak) definites; 4. Conclusion; References; Modal inferences in marked indefinites; 1. Corpus study; 1.1 Haspelmath's implicational map; 1.2 The corpus; 1.3 Results; 1.4 Discussion; 2. On the meaning of irgend-indefinites; 3. Conclusion; References |
Epistemic and scopal properties of some indefinites1. Introduction; 2. Some indefinites and (non-)specificity; 3. Study 1: Long-distance scope; 3.1 Methodology; 3.1.1 Experimental contexts and corresponding predictions; 3.1.2 Test lists; 3.1.3 Participants and procedure; 3.2 Results; 3.3 Discussion; 4. Study 2: Epistemic and scopal (non-)specificity; 4.1 Methodology; 4.1.1 Experimental contexts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and corresponding predictions; 4.2 Test lists; 4.2.1 Participants and procedure; 4.3 Results; 4.3.1 Results on epistemic (non-)specificity; 4.4 Results on scopal (non-)specificity; 4.5 Discussion |
5. General discussion6. Conclusion and directions for further research; References; Antonymic prepositions and weak referentiality; 0. Introduction; 1. Weak referentiality; 2. A logistic regression analysis of mit and ohne; 2.1 The sense inventory; 2.2 Logistic regression modelling and annotation mining; 2.3 Random effects in the model; 3. Weak referentiality and the distribution of determiner omission; 3.1 Distribution of determiner omission over different senses; 3.2 Negative contexts; 4. Adjectives and omission; 5. Conclusion; References |
Weak referentiality and Russian instrumental nominals1. Introduction; 2. The data and the framework; 2.1 Romance bare predicates; 2.2 Russian instrumental case; 2.3 Syntactic structure for bare predicates; 3. Additional weak and weak referential nominals in instr case; 3.1 Nominal adjuncts; 3.2 Cognate adjuncts; 3.3 Manner cognate objects; 3.3.1 Manner COs with unergative verbs; 3.3.2 Two types of manner COs with unaccusative verbs; 3.3.3 Manner COs with adnominal genitives; 4. Concluding remarks; References; Predicate nominals in Papiamentu; 1. Introduction; 2. Predicate nominals |
3. Bare count nouns3.1 Bare singulars; 3.2 Bare plurals; 4. The structure of bare nominals; 4.1 Bare singulars and bare plurals interpreted as kinds; 4.2 Bare plurals in Papiamentu: Examining nan more closely; 5. Analyzing predicate nominals; 6. Summary and remaining problems; References; Many a plural; 1. Introduction; 2. The plural in English; 3. The classifying plural in Arabic; 4. The plural in singulative systems; 5. The plural distributed; 6. Conclusion; Acknowledgments; References; Telic definites and their prepositions; 1. Telic definites in French |
1.1 Weak definites as functional definites |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
We provide a survey of different aspects of definiteness by means of comprehension data collected via event-related brain potential recordings. We present a processing account including differences between definites and indefinites, as well as the contribution of lexical feature specifications, uniqueness, degrees of accessibility and enrichment. We then present new data associated with salience spreading from referential expressions to their supersets. Two core mechanisms emerge in all these studies that reflect the computation of accessibility information on the one hand and updating of disc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |