LEADER 05781nam 2200757 450 001 9910459773303321 005 20200903223051.0 010 $a90-272-6938-6 035 $a(CKB)3710000000281388 035 $a(EBL)1847779 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001369059 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12545635 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001369059 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11288017 035 $a(PQKB)10465440 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1847779 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1847779 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10985906 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL680309 035 $a(OCoLC)895661469 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000281388 100 $a20140801h20142014 uy| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aWeak referentiality /$fedited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Universidad Nacional Auto?noma de Me?xico, Bert Le Bruyn, Joost Zwarts, Utrecht University 210 1$aAmsterdam ;$aPhiladelphia :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d[2014] 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (402 p.) 225 1 $aLinguistik aktuell = Linguistics today,$x0166-0829 ;$vvolume 219 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a1-322-49027-9 311 $a90-272-5702-7 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aWeak 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 327 $aEpistemic 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 327 $a5. 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 327 $aWeak 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 327 $a3. 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 327 $a1.1 Weak definites as functional definites 330 $aWe provide a survey of different aspects of definiteness by means of comprehension data collected via event-related brain potential recordings. We present a processing account including differences between definites and indefinites, as well as the contribution of lexical feature specifications, uniqueness, degrees of accessibility and enrichment. We then present new data associated with salience spreading from referential expressions to their supersets. Two core mechanisms emerge in all these studies that reflect the computation of accessibility information on the one hand and updating of disc 410 0$aLinguistik aktuell ;$vBd. 219. 606 $aRole and reference grammar 606 $aReference (Linguistics) 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xNoun phrase 606 $aPhraseology 606 $aFunctionalism (Linguistics) 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aRole and reference grammar. 615 0$aReference (Linguistics) 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xNoun phrase. 615 0$aPhraseology. 615 0$aFunctionalism (Linguistics) 676 $a401/.456 702 $aAguilar-Guevara$b Ana 702 $aBruyn$b Bert Le 702 $aZwarts$b Joost 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910459773303321 996 $aWeak referentiality$91914193 997 $aUNINA