Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 March 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Germanic Languages
- Part I Phonology
- Part II Morphology and Agreement Systems
- Part III Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Language Contact and Nonstandard Varieties
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary 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
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 565 - 686Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Auwera, J. van der and Aguilar, A. Z. 2016. “The History of Modality and Mood.” In Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford University Press: 9–29.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2002. “Modality and Polarity.” In Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., and van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 51–73.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. and van Dooren, A. 2017. “Modal auxiliaries.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn., Vol. V. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 2646–2676.Google Scholar
Berthelin, S., Borthen, K, and Knudsen, C. S 2013. “Midtstillet jo–semantiske og pragmatiske aspekter.” Paper presented at MONS 15. University of Oslo, November 21, 2013.Google Scholar
Boogart, R. 2007. “The Past and perfect of epistemic modals.” In Saussure, L., de Moeschler, J., and Puskas, G. (eds.), Recent Advances in the Syntax and Semantics of Tense, Mood and Aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 47–71.Google Scholar
Boogart, R. And Janssen, T. 2010. “Mood in Dutch.” In Rothstein, B. and Thieroff, R. (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, D. 2013. The Nature and Origin of Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, V. 1993. Root and Epistemic Modal Auxiliary Verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology – A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar – Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. 1977. References to Kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chung, S. and Timberlake, A. 1985. “Tense, aspect and mood.” In Scopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press: 203–258.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Ployfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dyvik, H.1999. “The universality of f-stucture: Discovery or stipulation? The case of modals.” Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2011. “Modals and the present perfect.” In Mortelmans, T., Mortelmans, J, and de Mulder, W. (eds.), In the Mood for Mood. Rodopi: Cahiers Chronos: 1–20.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2017. “Counterfactual Present Perfects.” In Fryd, M. and Giancarli, P-D. (eds.), Aorists and Perfects: Synchronic and diachronic Perspectives. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers: 245–288.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. in press. “Have-less perfects.” In Eide, K. M. and Fryd, M. (eds.), Norwegian: An Old Norse Heritage. The Perfect Volume. Papers on the Perfect. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Elsness, J. 2003. “A contrastive look at the present perfect/preterite opposition in English and Norwegian,” Languages in Contrast 3.1: 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., and Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fagan, S. 2001. “Epistemic modality and tense in German,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13.3: 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, C. 2010. “The Interaction of Temporal and modal Auxiliaries in Counterfactual Contexts in Swedish,” Tampa Papers in Linguistics 1: 1–12.Google Scholar
Fintel, K. von 2006. “Modality and Language.” In Borchert, D. M (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edn., Vol. 6. Detroit: Macmillan Reference: 20–27.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. “Der Gedanke. Eine Logische Untersuchungen.” In Patzig, G. (ed.), 1986: Logische Untersiehurg (3): 30–53. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1972. “The inferential perfect in Scandinavian: a problem of contrastive Linguistics,” The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17.2: 132–139.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Izvorski, R. 1997. “The present perfect as an epistemic modal.” In Lawson, A. and Cho, E. (eds.), 1999: SALT VII. Ithaca: Cornell University: 99–116.Google Scholar
Khomutova, T. N. 2014. “Mood and Modality in Modern English,” Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 154: 395–401.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 2002. “The Notional Category of Modality.” In Portner, P. and Partee, B. H. (eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell: 289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, I. 2014. “Conditional clauses and the shape of HAVE,” Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal 1: 287–299.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, H. 2000. Satzmodus – kompositionell. Zur Parametrizierung der Modus-phrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, H. 2001. “Sentence mood constitution and indefinite noun phrases,” Theoretical Linguistics 27.2–3: 187–214.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, H. and Bredel, U. 2004. “Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German.” In Lohnstein, H. and Trissler, S. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 235–264.Google Scholar
Mezhevich, I. 2008. “A time-relational approach to tense and mood.” In Abner, N. and Bishop, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project: 326–334.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic change. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2006. “Modality: Overview and linguistic issues.” In Frawley, W., Klein, W., and Levinson, S. (eds.), Expression of Cognitive Categories: The Expression of Modality. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 1–26.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patard, A. 2014. “When tense and aspect convey modality. Reflections on the modal uses of past tenses in Romance and Germanic languages,” Journal of Pragmatics 71: 69–97.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1985. “Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 2010. “Mood in Icelandic.” In Rothstein, B. and Thieroff, R. (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 33–55.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1978. “Assertion.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 315–332.Google Scholar
Thieroff, R. 2004. “The subjunctive mood in German and the Germanic languages.” In Abraham, W. (ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology. Studia Typlogica 6. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 315–358.Google Scholar
Thieroff, R. 2010. “Moods, moods, moods.” In B. Rothstein and R. Thieroff (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–29.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H. P, Jacobsen, J. Í L., and Hansen, Z. S.. 2004. Faroese. An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Froðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. and Vikner, S. 1995. “Modals and double modals in the Scandinavian languages,” Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 55: 51–88.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. 2006. “On the semantic motivation of verb movement to C in German,” Theoretical Linguistics 32.3: 257–306.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1988. “Modals in Danish and event expressions,” Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 39: 1–33.Google Scholar
Wärnsby, A. 2009. “Controllability as a contextual variable.” In Studies on English Modality: In Honour of Frank Palmer: 69–98.Google Scholar
Wright, G. H. von 1951. “Deontic Logic.” Mind 60: 1–15. Reprinted in G. H. von Wright, A. Tsangalidis, and R. Fachinnetti (eds.), Logical Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul: 58–74.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 1999. “Modal verbs must be raising verbs.” In Bird, S., Carnie, A., Haugen, J. D., and Nordquest, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL18): 599–612.Google Scholar
References
Bach, E. 1981. “On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 63–81.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. and Partee, B. 1978. Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1999. “How to acquire language without positive evidence: What acquisitionists can learn from creoles.” In DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language Creation and Language Change – Creolization, Diachrony and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brodahl Nilsen, M. 2012. Sterke verb og semantiske fellestrekk. Om semantisk motivasjon for bøyingsklassetilhørighet ved norske verb. [Strong verbs and common semantic features. On the semantic motivation for conjugational classes of Norwegian verbs.] M.A. thesis, Dept. of Linguistic and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar – Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect – An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1985a. Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1985b. “Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology.” In Shopen, T (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press: 309–348.Google Scholar
Costa, J. 1998. Word Order Variation. A Constraint-Based Approach. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University. Distributed by: Holland Academic Graphics (HIL), The Hague.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. and Uribe-Extebarria, M. 2000. “The primitives of temporal relations.” In Martin, R., Michael, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 157–186.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. and Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2004. “The syntax of time adverbs.” In Guéron, J. and Lecarme, J. (eds.), The Syntax of Time: Current Studies in Linguistics 37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 143–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vooys, C. G. N. [1957]. 1967. Nederlandse spraakkunst, 7th edn., rev. by M. Schönfeld. Groningen: Wolters.Google Scholar
Dyvik, H. 1999. “The universality of f-stucture: discovery or stipulation? The case of modals.” Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2005. Norwegian Modals. Studies in Generative Grammar 74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2009a. “Tense, finiteness and the survive principle: Temporal chains in a crash-proof grammar.” In Putnam, M. (ed.), Towards a Derivational Syntax: Survive-Minimalism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 91–132.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2009b. “Finiteness: The haves and the have-nots.” In Alexiadou, A., Hankamer, J. T., McFadden, J., Nuger, J., and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 357–390.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2016. “Finiteness, inflection, and the syntax your morphology can afford.” In Eide, K. M. (ed.), Finiteness Matters: On Finiteness-Related Phenomena in Natural Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 121–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, M. 1986. “Towards a referential analysis of tense expressions,” Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 405–426.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., and Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fintel, K. von 2006. “Modality and Language.” In D. M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edn. http://mit.edu/fintel/www/modality.pdf.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E. van 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A. and Pianesi, F. 1997. Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guéron, J. and Hoekstra, T. 1995. “The temporal interpretation of predication.” In Cardinaletti, A. and Guasti, M. T. (eds.), Small Clauses: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 28. New York: Academic Press: 77–107.Google Scholar
Herweg, M. 1991a. “A critical account of two classical approaches to aspect,” Journal of Semantics 8: 362–403.Google Scholar
Herweg, M. 1991b. “Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and states,” Linguistics 29: 969–1010.Google Scholar
Hofmann, T. R. 1976. “Past tense replacement and the modal system.” In McCawley, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press: 86–100.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1990. As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janssen, T. A. J. M. 1988. “Tense and temporal composition in Dutch: Reichenbach’s ‘point of reference’ reconsidered.” In Ehrich, V. and Vater, H. (eds.), Temporalsemantik. Beiträge zür Linguistik der Zeitreferenz. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 96–128.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Book IV. Syntax. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2000. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation – A Study of Verbal Inflection. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø. Published as Julien 2002 by Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, R. E. 1961. German Dialects: Phonology and Morphology. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1998. “Partitive case and aspect.” In Geuder, W. and Butt, M. (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI: 265–307.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 1995. “A time-relational analysis of Russian Aspect,” Language 71: 669–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. 1998. “Assertion and Finiteness.” In Dittmar, N. and Penner, Z. (eds.), Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition: Essays in Honor of Jürgen Weissenborn. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag: 225–245.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 2006. “On finiteness.” In van Geenhoven, V. (ed), Semantics in Acquisition. Heidelberg: Springer: 245–272.Google Scholar
Maylor, B. R. 2002. Lexical Template Morphology: Change of State and the Verbal Prefixes in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meulen, A. G. B. ter 1995. Representing Time in Natural Language: The Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. and Law, P. 2001. “Creole Studies: A theoretical linguist’s field guide,” GLOT International 5.2: 47–57.Google Scholar
Partee, B. 1973. “Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English,” The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. 1993. “The transformation of Hawaiian plantation pidgin and the emergence of Hawaii Creole English.” Paper presented at the conference of Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, Amsterdam, June 10–12.Google Scholar
Salmons, J. 2012. A History of German: What the Past Reveals about Today’s Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1995. “What is the meaning of the present and past tenses?” In Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Higginbotham, J., and Squartini, M. (eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, Vol. 1. Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier: 381–396.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1996. “The phrase structure of tense.” In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Studies in Natural language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 33. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1985. “Reichenbach revisited: One, two or three temporal relations,” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19: 81–98.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. 1995. “Temporal argument structure: Nonfigurational elements of construal.” In Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Higginbotham, J., and Squartini, M. (eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality. Vol. 1. Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier, 397–410.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. 2006. “Case Marking Direction: The Accusative in German PPs,” Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 42.2: 93–107.Google Scholar
References
Carlson, L. and van der Zee, E. (eds.) 2005. Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Claessen, C. and Zwarts, J. 2010. “On the directional particle heen.” In van Kampen, J. and Nouwen, R. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 31–43.Google Scholar
Eschenbach, C. 2005. “Contextual, functional, and geometric components in the semantics of projective terms.” In Carlson, L. and van der Zee, E. (eds.), Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development. Oxford University Press: 71–91.Google Scholar
Garrod, K. R. and Coventry, S. A. 2004. Saying, Seeing, and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gehrke, B. 2008. Ps in Motion: On the Semantics and Syntax of P Elements and Motion Events. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. and Sailor, C. 2015. “Prepositional object gaps in English.”, British In Köhnlein, B. and Audring, J. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2015. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 63–74.Google Scholar
Haselbach, B. 2016. P’s at the Interfaces: On the Syntax, Semantics, and Morphology of Spatial Prepositions In German. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of The Prepositions in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kracht, M. 2002. “On the semantics of locatives,” Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 2: 157–232.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1996. “Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence.” In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., and Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 109–169.Google Scholar
Lindner, S. J. 1983. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2015. “Particle-verb formation.” In Müller, P., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 434–450.Google Scholar
Noonan, M. 2010. “À to Zu.” In Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6. Oxford University Press: 161–195.Google Scholar
Randell, D. A., Cui, Z., and Cohn, A. G. 1992. “A spatial logic based on regions and connection.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman: 165–176.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van and Huybregts, R. 2007. “Location and locality.” In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., and Wilkins, W. (eds.), Clausal and Phrasal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation: A Festschrift for Joseph E. Emonds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 339–364.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2007. “Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce.” In Reuland, E., Bhattacharya, T., and Spathas, G. (eds.), Argument Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 63–103.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2010. “Spatial p in English.” In Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6. New York: Oxford University Press: 126–160.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1975. “Figure and ground in complex sentences.” In Cogen, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society: 419–430.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. 2017. “Spatial semantics: modeling the meaning of prepositions,” Language and Linguistics Compass 11. 5: 1–20.Google Scholar
References
Biberauer, T. and Zeijlstra, H. 2012. “Negative concord in Afrikaans: Filling a typological gap,” Journal of Semantics 29: 345–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandtler, J. 2012. The Evaluability Hypothesis: The Syntax and Semantics of Polarity Item Licensing in Swedish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Büring, D. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus – The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collins, C. and Postal, P. M.. 2014. Classical NEG Raising: An Essay on the Syntax of Negation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crnič, L. 2014. “Non-monotonicity in NPI Licensing,” Natural Language Semantics 22:169–217.Google Scholar
de Swart, H. 1998. “Licensing of negative polarity items under inverse scope,” Lingua 105: 175–200.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2002. “Direct and Indirect Polarity Item Licensing,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 35–66.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1975. “Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure,” Linguistic Inquiry 6: 353–376.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1979. “Implication reversal in a natural language.” In Guenther, F. and Schmidt, S. J. (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel: 289–301.Google Scholar
Gajewski, J. R. 2011. “Licensing Strong NPIs,” Natural Language Semantics 19.2: 109–148.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guerzoni, E. 2004. “Even-NPIs in Yes/No Questions,” Natural Language Semantics 12.4: 319–343.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1984. “A Note on Negative Polarity and Downward Entailingness.” In Jones, C. and Sells, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th North Eastern Linguistic Society meeting. Amherst: GLSA: 98–107.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 1999. “Blocking Effects in the Expression of Negation,” Leuvense Bijdragen 80: 403–423.Google Scholar
Homer, V. in press. “Domains of Polarity Items,” Journal of Semantics.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. 1978. “Remarks on Neg-raising.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 129–220.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. 1985. “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity,” Language 61.1: 121–174.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. 2001. “Flaubert triggers, squatitive negation, and other quirks of grammar.” In Hoeksema, J., Rullmann, H., Sanchez-Valencia, V., and van der Wouden, T. (eds.), Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 173–200.Google Scholar
Israel, M. 1996. “Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics,” Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 619–666.Google Scholar
Israel, M. 2001. “Minimizers, maximizers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning,” Journal of Semantics 18: 297–331.Google Scholar
Klima, E. 1964. “Negation in English.” In Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall: 246–323.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. and Shimoyama, J. 2002. “Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese.” In Otso, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1995. “The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items,” Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–258.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Published 1980 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. 1992. “Expressing negation.” In Barker, C. and Dowty, D. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT II, Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 40. Columbus: Ohio State University: 237–259.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. 1997. “Negation and polarity items.” In Lappin, S. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell: 321–341.Google Scholar
Lahiri, U. 1998. “Focus and negative polarity in Hindi,” Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123.Google Scholar
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. C. 1987. “Negative polarity and grammatical representation,” Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387.Google Scholar
Nicolae, A. 2012. “Positive polarity items: An alternative-based account.” In Guevara, A. Aguilar, Chernilovskaya, A., and Nouwen, R. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16: 475–488.Google Scholar
Spector, B. 2014. “Global Positive Polarity Items and Obligatory Exhaustivity,” Semantics and Pragmatics 7. 11: 1–61.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2004. “Positive polarity – negative polarity,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 2: 409–452.Google Scholar
van der Wouden, T. 1997. Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Rooy, R. 2003. “Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance,” Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K. 1999. “NPI Licensing, Strawson-entailment, and Context Dependency,” Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2017. Universal quantifier PPIs. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2.1: 91.1–25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.220.Google Scholar
Zwarts, F. 1996. “A hierarchy of negative expressions.” In Wansing, H. (ed.), Negation: A Notion in Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 169–194.Google Scholar
Zwarts, F. 1998. “Three Types of Polarity.” In Hamm, F. and Hinrichs, E. (eds.), Plurality and Quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 177–238.Google Scholar
References
Bauman, S. and Riester, A. 2013. “Coreference, lexical givenness and prosody in German,” Lingua 136: 16–37.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. and Nikitina, T. 2008. “Gradience and the dative alternation.” In Uyechi, L. and Wee, L-H. (eds.), Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life. Stanford: CSLI Publications: 1–23.Google Scholar
Bruce, G. 1977. “Swedish word accent in sentence perspective,” Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 12. Gleerup: Lund.Google Scholar
Büring, D. 2003. “On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents,” Linguistics & Philosophy 26. 5: 511–545.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1976. “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View.” In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press: 25–55.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Haviland, S. E.. 1977. “Comprehension and the given-new contract.” In Freedle, R. O. (ed.), Discourse Processes: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 1: Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex: 1–40.Google Scholar
Constant, N. 2014. Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2001. “Features, θ-roles, and free constituent order,” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 405–437.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2016. “Syntactic and prosodic reflexes of information structure in Germanic.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 621–641.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. and Lenertová, D. 2010. “Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:169–209.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 2011. “German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases,” Lingua 121: 1906–1922.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 2013. “Focus as prosodic alignment,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31.3: 683–734.Google Scholar
Frey, W. 1993. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1981. “Empty categories: On some Differences between German and English,” Wiener Linguistische Gazette 25:13–36.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967 /1968. “Transitivity and theme in English (part II),” Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. “Questions in Montague Grammar,” Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Selkirk, E. O. 2011. “Contrastive focus versus discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence,” Language 87: 771–816.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2008. “Basic notions of information structure,” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276.Google Scholar
Kügler, F. and Féry, C. 2016. “Postfocal downstep in German,” Language and Speech. DOI:10.1177/0023830916647204.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2004. “Fragments and ellipsis,” Linguistics and Philosophy 27.6: 661–738.Google Scholar
Myrberg, S. and Riad, T. 2016. “On the expression of focus in the metrical grid and in the prosodic hierarchy.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 441–462.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and van de Koot, H. 2016. “Word order and information structure.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 383–401.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1981. “Toward a taxonomy of given-new information.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 223–256.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1981. “Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics,” Philosophica 27: 63–94.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. 1996. “Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics.” In Yoon, J. H. and Kathol, A. (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics. Columbus: Ohio State University Press: 91–136.Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. 2016. “Givenness.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 41–63.Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. and Culicover, P. 1990. English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 52. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1985. Associations with Focus. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1992. “A Theory of Focus Interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 2016. “Alternative semantics.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 19–40.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. 1999. “Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent,” Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. 2000. “The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing.” In Horne, M. (ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 231–261.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1974. “Pragmatic presuppositions.” In Munitz, M. and Unger, P. (eds), Semantics and philosophy. New York University Press: 197–213.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. 2000. “Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface,” Linguistic Inquiry 31:649–689.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002. “Subject positions and the placement of adverbials.” In Svenonius, P. (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. New York: Oxford University Press: 199–240.Google Scholar
Tomioka, S. 2010. “Contrastive topics operate on speech acts.” In Zimmermann, M. and Féry, C. (eds.), Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 115–138.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. 1995. Phonological Phrases: The Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. and Engdahl, E. 1996. “The linguistic realization of information packaging,” Linguistics 34: 459–519.Google Scholar
Vicente, L. 2006. “Negative short replies in Spanish.” In Bettelou, L. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 199–210.Google Scholar
Wang, B. and Féry, C. 2018. Prosody of Dual-focus in German: Interaction between Focus and Phrasing. Language and Speech 61.2: 303–333.Google Scholar
Winkler, S. 2016. “Ellipsis and information structure.” In Féry, C. & Ishihara, S. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 359–382.Google Scholar