Skip to main content Accessibility help

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.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:23:22.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2010

Evelien Keizer
Evelien Keizer
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The English Noun Phrase
The Nature of Linguistic Categorization
 , pp. 357 - 372
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

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

Aarts, B. 1992. Small clauses in English: the nonverbal types. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, B. 1998. English binominal noun phrases. Transactions of the Philological Society 96, 117–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, B. 2004. Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28/1, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, B., Nelson, G. and Wallis, S.. 1998. Using Fuzzy Tree Fragments to explore English grammar. English Today 55, 52–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, J., Mönnick, I. and Wekker, H., eds. 1997. Studies in English language and teaching, in honour of Flor Aarts. Rodopi: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Aarts, B., Denison, D., Keizer, E. and Popova, G., eds. 2004 Fuzzy grammar: a reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Abbott, B. 1996. Doing without a partitive constraint. In: Hoeksema, ed., 26–56.CrossRef
Abbott, V., Black, J. B. and Smith, E. E.. 1985. The representation of scripts in memory. Journal of Memory and Language 24, 179–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abney, S. P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Acuña-Fariña, J. C. 1996. The puzzle of apposition: on so-called appositive structures in English. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. C. 1999. On apposition. English Language and Linguistics 3/1, 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2002. English discourse particles: evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1982. The genitive v. the of-construction: a study of syntactic variation in seventeenth-century English. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A. 1975. More evidence for an NP-cycle. Linguistic Inquiry 6, 114–30.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A. and Lehrer, A.. 1976. NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP. Linguistic Analysis 2/4, 395–413.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. 2000. Cognitive psychology and its implications. 5th edn. New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C. 1977. Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In: Lesgold et al., eds., 67–82.
Anderson, R. C.1985. Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning and memory. In: Singer and Ruddell, eds., 374–84.
Anderson, R. C. and P. D. Pearson. 1984. A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In: Pearson, ed. 255–91.
Anderson, R. C, Spiro, R. J. and Montague, W. E., eds. 1977. Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. and Kiparky, R. P., eds. 1973. A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Anstey, M. P. and Mackenzie, J. L., eds. 2005. Crucial readings in functional grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y., eds. 1994. The encyclopaedia of language and linguistics, vol. I. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Aston, G. and Burnard, L.. 1998. The BNC handbook: exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. and S. C. Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In: Cole, ed., 1–61.
Austin, Frances O. 1980. A crescent-shaped jewel of an island: appositive nouns in phrases separated by of. English Studies 61, 357–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auwera, J., ed. 1980. The semantics of determiners. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bach, E. 1968. Nouns and noun phrases. In: Bach and Harms, eds., 90–122.
Bach, E. and Harms, R. T., eds. 1968. Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.- J. and Shuy, R. W., eds. 1973. New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1983. Ad-hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11, 211–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Cooper, R.. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistic Philosophy 4/2, 159–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäuerle, R., Egli, U. and Stechov, A., eds. 1983. Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, R.. 1980. Text, discourse and process. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A.. 1991. Connectionism and the mind: an introduction to parallel processing in networks.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bell, A. 1988. The British and the American connection in New Zealand media English. American Speech 63, 326–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, H. and Vries, J., eds. 1992. De binnenbouw van het Nederlands: een bundel artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper. Dordrecht: JCG Publications.Google Scholar
Bennis, H., Corver, N. and Dikken, M.. 1998. Predication in nominal phrases. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Th. 1998. The resolution of number conflicts in English and German agreement patterns. Linguistics 36, 41–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkel, A.. 1991. Cognitieve aspecten van handelingsbeschrijvingen. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. 1976. The concept of rank in ethnobotanical classification. American Ethnologist 3, 381–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B.1978. Ethnobotanical classification. In: Rosch and Lloyd, eds., 1–26.
Berlin, B. and Kay, P.. 1969. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E. and Raven, P. H.. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal plant classification.New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Ch. 1990. Die Syntaktische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Ch., Löbel, E. and Schmidt, Cl., eds. 1989. Syntactic phrase structure phenomena in noun phrases and sentences. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, B. J. and Ward, G.. 1998. Information status and non-canonical word order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjarkman, P. C. and Raskin, V., eds. 1986. The real-world linguist. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blom, A. 1977. Het kwantitieve Er. Spektator 6–7/8, 387–95.Google Scholar
Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A., eds. 1975. Representation and understanding. Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. and Cutting, J. C.. 1992. Regulating mental energy: performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. and Eberhard, K. M.. 1993. Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 57–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. and Miller, C. A.. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K., Nicol, J. and Cutting, J. C.. 1999. The ties that bind: creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 330–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1958. Stress and information. American Speech 33, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolkestein, A. M., Groot, C. and Mackenzie, J. L., eds. 1985a. Syntax and pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolkestein, A. M., Groot, C. and Mackenzie, J. L., eds. 1985b. Predicates and terms in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bower, G. H, J. B. Black and T. J. Turner. 1985. Scripts in memory for texts. In: Singer and Ruddell, eds., 434–76.
Bowers, J. S. 1975. Some adjectival nominalizations in English. Lingua 37, 341–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, C. 1983. Topic continuity in written English narrative. In: Givòn, ed., 315–41.CrossRef
Brown, G. and Yule, G.. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K., ed. 2006. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In: Goody, ed., 56–289.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C.. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. 1988. The story of over: polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. 1975. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 13, 391–419.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N.1994. Apposition. In: Asher and Simpson, eds., 184–7.
Carnap, R. 1956. Meaning and necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. and Freedle, R. O.. 1972. Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington, DC: Winston.Google Scholar
Caspel, P. P. J.. 1970. Een schat van een (niet meer zo jong) kind. De Nieuwe Taalgids 63, 280–7.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L.1972. Discourse structure and human knowledge. In: Carroll and Freedle, eds., 41–70.
Chafe, W. L. 1974. Language and consciousness. Language 50, 111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L.1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects and topics. In: Li, ed., 27–55.
Chafe, W. L.1977. Creativity in verbalization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge. In: Freedle, ed., 41–55.
Chafe, W. L.1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In: Tomlin, ed., 21–51.CrossRef
Chafe, W. L.2001. The analysis of discourse flow. In: Schiffrin, Tannin and Hamilton, eds., 673–87.
Chang, N., Narayanan, S., and Petruck, M. R. L.. 2002. Putting frames in perspective. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Taipei: Taiwan.Google Scholar
Chang, N., Feldman, J., Porzel, R. and Sanders, K.. 2002. Scaling cognitive linguistics: formalisms for language understanding. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Scalable Natural Language Understanding. Heidelberg: Germany.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In: Jacobs and Rosenbaum, eds., 184–221. Also appeared in Chomsky, 1972, 11–61.
Chomsky, N. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.1973. Conditions on transformations. In: Anderson and Kiparsky, eds., 232–86.
Christiansen, M. H. and Chater, N.. 1999. Connectionist natural language processing: the state of the art. Cognitive Science 23, 417–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christophersen, P. 1939. The articles: a study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: a multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 991–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H. 1977. Inferences in comprehension. In: Laberge and Samuels, eds., 243–63.
Clark, H. H. and S. E. Haviland. 1974. Psychological processes as linguistic explanation. In: Cohen, ed., 91–124.
Clark, H. H. and S. E. Haviland.1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In: Freedle, ed., 1–40.
Cohen, D., ed. 1974. Explaining linguistic phenomena. Washington DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Cole, P., ed. 1981. Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds. 1975. Speech acts: syntax and semantics 3. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Collins, P. and Lee, D., eds. 1999. The clause in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, E. and Sussman-Goldberg, B., eds. 1995. Meaning as explanation: advances in linguistic sign theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppen, P.-A. 1991. Specifying the noun phrase.Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.Google Scholar
Coppen, P-A. 1992. Specifying the noun phrase. Computational Linguistics 18, 155.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15, 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G.1994. Agreement. In: Asher and Simpson, eds., 54–60.
Corbett, G. G., Fraser, N. M. and McGlashan, S., eds. 1993. Heads in grammatical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, C., ed. 1986. Noun classes and categorization.Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, D. A.. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. and Rochemont, M.. 1990. Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 33–47.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A., eds. 1977. Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Curme, G. O. 1931. A grammar of the English language: syntax. Boston: Heath and Co.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2004. Language, mind and brain. Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Danesˇ, F. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of text. In: Danesˇ, ed., 106–28.CrossRef
Danesˇ, F., ed. 1974. Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague: Academia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. and Harman, G., eds. 1972. Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S.. 2003. On extraction from NPs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deane, P. 1987. English possessive, possession and the Silverstein hierarchy. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. 1986. Two notes on the theory of definiteness. Journal of Linguistics 22/1, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudoclefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Fortis Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delsing, L.-O. 1991. Quantification in the Swedish noun phrase. Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 47, 89–117.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 1998. Syntax. In: Romaine, , ed., 93–329.Google Scholar
Denison, D.2002. History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG2), Helsinki.
Denison, D.2005. The grammaticalizations of sort of, kind of and type of in English. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, University of Santiago the Compostela.
Denison, D. and M. E. Keizer. In preparation. Sort-of constructions: grammar and change.
Devriendt, B., Goossens, L. and Auwera, J., eds. 1996. Complex structures: a functionalist perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, R. and Graumann, C. F., eds. 1979. Language processing in social context. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1978. Functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997a. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: the structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997b. The theory of functional grammar. Part 2: complex and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C., ed. 1983. Advances in functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den. 1995. Copulas. Ms. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Dikken, M.. 2006. Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dornic, S., ed. 1977. Attention and performance VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67/3, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. and P. Jacobson. 1988. Agreement as a semantic phenomenon. In: Powers and De Jong, eds., 95–108.
Dresher, B. E. and Hornstein, N.. 1976. On some supposed contributions of artificial intelligence to the scientific study of language. Cognition 4, 321–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O. and Wurzel, W. U.. 1987. Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drijkoningen, F. and Hengeveld, K., eds. 1993. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1993. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M. 1997. The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 147–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K. M. 1999. The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject-verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language 41, 560–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Es, G. A. and Caspel, P. P. J.. 1971–5. Syntaxis van het moderne Nederlands. Groningen.Google Scholar
Everaert, M. 1992. Nogmaals: een schat van een kind. In: Bennis and De Vries, eds., 45–54.
Feldman, J. A. and Ballard, D. H.. 1982. Connectionist models and their properties. Cognitive Science 6, 205–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. In: Bach and Harms, eds., 1–88.
Fillmore, C. J.1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In: Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–31.
Fillmore, C. J.1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In: Zampolli, ed., 55–81.
Fillmore, C. J. 1978. The organization of semantic information in the lexicon. In: Papers from the parasession on the lexicon. Chicago Linguistics Society, 148–73.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.1982. Toward a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In: Jarvella and Klein, eds., 31–59.
Fillmore, C. J. 1985a. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6/2, 222–53.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1985b. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 73–86.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar’. Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Wooter, C. and Baker, C. F.. 2001. Building a large lexical databank which provides deep semantics. Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. 1966. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1, 267–80.Google Scholar
Flickinger, D. P., Macken, M. and Wiegand, N. eds. 1982. Proceedings of the first West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, CA: Linguistics Dept., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Z. W.. 1988. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28, 3–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. D. 1977. Semantics: theories of meaning in generative gammar. Hassocks: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. and Sag, I.. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, W. N. 1958. The structure of American English. New York: Ronald.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G. and Nicol, J.. 2002. Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: the role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes 17, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedle, R. O., ed. 1977. Discourse production and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Freedle, R. O., ed.1979. New directions in discourse processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. On sense and reference. In: Geach and Black, eds., 1977, 56–78.
Fries, C. C. 1952. The structure of English. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Fries, P. H. 1999. Post nominal modifiers in the English noun phrase. In: Collins and Lee, eds., 93–110.CrossRef
Fries, U. 1988. The crew have abandoned the ship. Concord with collective nouns revisited. Arbeiten aus Anglistik and Amerikanistik 13, 98–104.Google Scholar
García, E. 1977. On the practical consequences of theoretical principles. Lingua 43: 129–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, P. T. 1970. Reference and generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. and Black, M., eds. 1977. Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gestel, F. C.. 1986. X-bar grammar: attribution and predication in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Givòn, T. 1984. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.1986. Prototypes: between Plato and Wittgenstein. In: Craig, ed., 77–102.CrossRef
Givón, T.1988. The pragmatics of word order: predictability, importance and attention. In: Hammond, Moravcsik and Wirth, eds., 243–84.CrossRef
Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: an introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givòn, T., ed. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goody, E. N., ed. 1978. Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C. and Clark, L. F.. 1985a. Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C and L. F. Clark.1985b. The generation of knowledge-based inferences during narrative comprehension. In: Rickheit and Strohner, eds., 53–94.CrossRef
Greenbaum, S. and Y. Ni. 1996. About the ICE-tagset. In: Greenbaum, ed., 92–109.
Greenbaum, S., ed. 1996. Comparing English worldwide: the International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H., ed. 1978. Universals of human language, vol. 4.: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole and Morgan, ed., 41–58.
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Groot, A. W.. 1965. Structurele syntaxis. 2nd edn. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Groot, C. and Hengeveld, K., eds., Morphosyntactic expression in functional grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef
Guéron, J. 1980. On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 636–78.Google Scholar
Guéron, J., Obenauer, H.-G. and Pollock, J.-Y., eds. 1984. Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In: Hammond, Moravcsik and Wirth, eds., 209–39.CrossRef
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A. and Wirth, J., eds. 1988. Studies in syntactic typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannay, M. 1985a. English existentials in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannay, M.1985b. Inferrability, discourse-boundness, and subtopics. In: Bolkestein, De Groot and Mackenzie, eds. 1985a, 49–63.
Haugen, E. 1953. On resolving the close apposition. American Speech 28, 165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. 1981. Towards an account of the possessive construction NP's N and N of NP. Journal of Linguistics 17: 247–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, H. 1920. Studies in neurology. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definiteness and indefiniteness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Heim, I.1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory. In: Bäuerle, Egli and von Stechov, eds., 164–89.
Hengeveld, K. 2004. The architecture of a functional discourse grammar. In: Mackenzie and Gómez-González, eds., 1–21.
Hengeveld, K. To appear. The noun phrase in functional discourse grammar. In: Rijkhoff and García Velasco, eds.
Hengeveld, K. and J. L. Mackenzie. 2006. Functional discourse grammar. In: Brown, ed., 668–76.CrossRef
Higgins, F. R. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Hinton, G. E. and Anderson, J. A., eds. 1989. Parallel models of associative memory. Updated edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hockett, Ch. F. 1955. Attribution and apposition in English. American Speech 30: 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Ch. F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 1996. Introduction. In: Hoeksema, ed., 1–25.CrossRef
Hoeksema, J., ed. 1996. Partitives: studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions. Berlin: Mouton the Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C.. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. and Thompson, S.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. and Thompson, S.. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60, 703–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. and D. Lightfoot. 1981. Introduction. In: Hornstein and Lightfoot, eds., 9–31.
Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D., eds. 1981. Explanation in linguistics. Longman: London.Google Scholar
Huck, G. J. and Ojeda, A. E., eds. 1987. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 20, Discontinuous constituency. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. 1987. Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23, 109–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A.1993. Do we have heads in our minds? In: Corbett, Fraser and McGlashen, eds., 266–91.CrossRef
Jackendoff, R. J. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21–35.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1977. X' syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1990. Semantic structures.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1992. Languages of the mind.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 2002. Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S., eds. 1970. Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. and Kawamoto, S., eds. 1970. Studies in general and oriental linguistics. Tokyo: TEC Corporation for Language and Educational Research.Google Scholar
Jarvella, R. J. and Klein, W., eds. 1982. Speech, place and action: studies in deixis and related topics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. Philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. 1992. Syntactic variation in British newspapers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, B. B., Lees, R., Malkiel, Y., Pietrangeli, A. and Saporta, S., eds. 1973. Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. 1990. Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13/1, 59–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. and McDaniel, C.. 1978. The linguistic significance of the meaning of basic color terms. Language 54, 610–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994a. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.1994b. Principles of particle constructions. In: Guéron, Obenauer and Pollock, eds., 101–40.
Keenan, E. L. and Stavi, J.. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. O. and B. Schieffelin. 1976. Topic as a discourse notion. In: Li, ed., 335–84.
Keizer, M. E. 1988. Definiteness and indefiniteness: a scalar representation. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 26.
Keizer, M. E.1992. Reference, predication and (in)definiteness in Functional Grammar. A functional approach to English copular sentences. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Keizer, M. E. 2005a. The discourse function of close appositions. Neophilologus 89, 447–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, M. E.2005b. Close appositions. In: De Groot and Hengeveld, eds., 381–417.
Keizer, M. E.In prep. Some-sort-of and some-kind-of constructions.
Keizer, M. E. and M. van Staden. In prep. Introduction. In Van Staden and Keizer, eds.
Kintsch, W. 1989. The representation of knowledge and the use of knowledge in discourse comprehension. In: Dietrich and Graumann, eds., 185–209.
Kirk, J. M., ed. 1999. Corpora galore. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, ICAME-98. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. 1925. A handbook of present-day English, part II/2. 4th edn. Utrecht: Kemink & Zn.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. 1932. A handbook of present-day English, part II/2. 5th edn. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. and Erades, P.. 1947. An English grammar, vol. I/1. 7th edn. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1970. Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. In: Jakobson and Kawamoto, eds., 348–73.
Kuno, S. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 269–320.Google Scholar
Laberge, D. and Samuels, S. J., eds. 1977. Basic processes in reading; perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In: Bailey and Shuy, eds., 340–73.
Ladusaw, W. 1982. Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction. In: Flickinger et al., eds., 231–42.
Lakoff, G. 1971. On generative semantics. In Steinberg and Jakobovits, eds., 232–96.
Lakoff, G.1972. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In: Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, 183–228.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, S. 1994. Relational networks linguistics meets neural science. LACUS Forum 20, 151–78.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. 2004. Language and reality. Edited by Webster, Jonathan. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1973. Predicate raising: Uto-Aztecan evidence. In: Kachru et al., eds., 468–91.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2002. Concept, image, and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lee, D. W. 1952. Close apposition: an unresolved problem. American Speech 27, 268–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y., eds. 1968. Directions for historical linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lesgold, A. M., Pellegrin, J. W., Fokkema, S. D. and Glaser, R., eds. 1977. Cognitive psychology and instruction. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.1987a. Minimization and conversational inference. In: Verschueren and Bertucelli-Papi, eds., 61–129.CrossRef
Levinson, S. C. 1987b. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23, 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. and S. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In: Li, ed., 457–89.
Li, C. N., ed. 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindsay, P. H. and Norman, D. A.. 1972. Human information processing: an introduction to psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. 1998. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, L. ed. 1952. Semantics and the philosophy of language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Löbel, E. 1989. Q as a functional category. In: Bhatt, Löbel and Schmidt, eds., 133–58.CrossRef
Löbel, E. 1990. D und Q als funktionale Kategorien in der Nominalphrase. Linguistische Berichte 127, 232–64.Google Scholar
Löbner, S. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4, 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C. G. 1980. The meaning of the English definite article. In: Van der Auwera, ed., 81–95.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. 1983. Nominal predicates in a Functional Grammar of English. In: Dik, ed., 31–51.
Mackenzie, J. L. 1985a. Genominaliseer. Interdiciplinair Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap 5/2, 177–98.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L.1985b. Nominalisation and valency reduction. In: Bolkestein, De Groot and Mackenzie, eds. 29–47.
Mackenzie, J. L.1996. English nominalisations in a layered model of the sentence. In: Devriendt, Goosens and Van der Auwera, eds., 325–55.
Mackenzie, J. L.1997. Grammar, discourse and knowledge: the use of such in written language. In: Aarts et al., eds., 85–105.
Mackenzie J. L. and M. E. Keizer. 1991. On assigning pragmatic functions in FG, Pragmatics 1/2, 169–215. Reprinted in Anstey and Mackenzie, eds. 2005, 249–75.
Mackenzie, J. L. and Gómez-González, M.Á., eds. 2004. A New architecture for Functional Grammar.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallinson, G. and Blake, B. J.. 1981. Language typology: cross-linguistic studies in syntax.Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Matheson, C. A. 1990. Syntax and semantics of English partitive noun phrases: a phrase structure account. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English, 2 volumes, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. and Seidenberg, M. S.. 2000. Why do kids say goed and brang? Review of Pinker. 1999. Science 287/5450, 47–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L., D. E. Rumelhart and G. E. Hinton. 1986. The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In: McClelland and Rumelhart, eds. 1986b, 3–44.
McClelland, J. L. and D. E. Rumelhart. 1986. A distributed model of human learning and memory. In: McClelland and Rumelhart, eds. 1986b, 170–215.
McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E., eds. 1986a. Parallel distributed processing, Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E., eds. 1986b. Parallel distributed processing, Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McGloskey, M. and Glucksburg, S.. 1978. Natural categories: well-defined or fuzzy sets?Memory and Cognition 6, 462–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ch F. 1992. Apposition in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1856. A system of logic, vol 1. 4th edn. London: John W. Parker and Son.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston, ed., 211–77.
Mithun, M. 1986. The convergence of noun classification systems. Noun classes and categorization. In: Craig, ed., 379–97.
Mithun, Marianne1991. The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: the grammaticization of subjects. In: Traugott and Heine, eds., 159–84.
Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. Agreement. In: Greenberg, ed., 331–74.
Morgan, J. L. 1972. Verb agreement as a rule of English. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8, 278–86.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. 1989. Predication theory: a case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, D. J. and Kegl, J. A. eds. 1991. Bridges between psychology and linguistics: a festschrift for Lila Gleitman. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Narayanan, S. and Jurafsky, D.. 1998. Bayesian models of human sentence processing. In: Proceedings of the 20th Cognitive Science Society Conference, 84–90. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nelson, G., Wallis, S. and Aarts, B.. 2002. Exploring natural language: working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, J. 1995. Effect of clausal structure on subject-verb agreement errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24, 507–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oostdijk, N. 1991. Corpus linguistics and the automatic analysis of English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, P. C. 1956. Een schat van een kind. De Nieuwe Taalgids 49, 93–9.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, P. C.1971. Beknopte ABN-syntaksis. 4th edn. Den Bosch.
Partee, B. 1972. Opacity, coreference, and pronouns. In: Davidson and Harman, eds., 415–41.CrossRef
Pearson, P. D., ed. 1984. Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1999. Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. and Prince, A.. 1988. On language and connectionism: analysis of a Parallel Distributed Processing Model of language acquisition. Cognition 28, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pit'ha, P. 1971. Remarks on possessivity. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 16, 33–46.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1914. A grammar of late modern English, Part IA: Nouns, adjectives and articles. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1926. A grammar of late modern English, Part II: The verb and the particles. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Powers, J. and Jong, K., eds. 1988. Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In: Cole, ed., 223–55.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational grammar: a first course. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raskin, V. 1986. On possible applications of script-based semantics. In: Bjarkman and Raskin, eds, 19–45.
Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A.. 1989. The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google ScholarPubMed
Reed, A. 1988. Semantic groups and discourse groups. In: Powers and De Jong, eds., 416–27.
Reed, A. 1991. On interpreting partitives. In: Napoli and Kegl, eds., 207–24.
Reid, W. 1991. Verb and number agreement in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reid, W., Otheguy, R. and Stern, N., eds. 2002. Signal, meaning and message: perspectives on sign-based linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkema, J. 1987. Tekst en uitleg: een inleiding in de tekstwetenschap. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rickheit, G. and Strohner, H., eds. 1985. Inferences in text-processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: the endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff J. and D. García Velasco, eds. To appear. The Noun phrase in F(D)G.
Romaine, S. ed. 1998. The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.1978. Principles of categorization. In: Rosch and Lloyd, eds., 27–48.
Rosch, E.1981. Prototype classification and logical classification: the two systems. In: Scholnick, ed., 73–86.
Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. B.. 1975. Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D. and Johnson, D. M.. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B., eds. 1978. Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive variation in English. Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. 1975. Notes on a Schema for Stories. In: Bobrow and Collins, eds., 211–36.CrossRef
Rumelhart, D. E.1977. Toward an interactive model of reading. In: Dornic, ed., 573–603.
Rumelhart, D. E. 1980. Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In: Spiro, Bruce and Brewer, eds., 33–58.
Rumelhart, D. E. and A. Ortony. 1977. The representation of knowledge in memory. In: Anderson, Spiro and Montague, eds., 99–135.
Russell, B. 1903. The principles of mathematics. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14, 479–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B.1920. Descriptions. In: Linsky, ed., 95–108.
Sanford, A. J. and Garrod, S. C.. 1981. Understanding written language: explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. 1982. Representing memory: an artificial intelligence perspective. In: Ullén, ed., 25–63.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton, H. E., eds. 2001. The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scholnick, E., ed. 1981. New trends in conceptual representation: challenges to Piaget's theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. and MacDonald, M. C.. 1999. A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 23, 569–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. and McClelland, J. L.. 1990. More words but still no lexicon: reply to Besner et al. 1990. Psychological Review 97, 447–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiler, H. 1983a. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Seiler, H. 1983b. Possessivity, subject and object. Studies in Language 7, 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selfridge, O. G. 1955. Pattern recognition in modern computers. Proceedings of the Western Joint Computer Conference, New York, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In: Culicover, Wasow and Akmajian, eds., 285–316.
Singer, H. and Ruddell, R. B., eds. 1985. Theoretical models of reading. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. 1999. Grammar-based connectionist approaches to language. Cognitive Science 23, 589–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sopher, H. 1971. Apposition. English Studies 52, 401–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.. 1986. Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C. and Brewer, W. F., eds. 1980. Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Staden M. van and M. E. Keizer, eds. To appear. Interpersonal grammar: a cross-linguistic perspective.
Steedman, M. 1999. Connectionist sentence processing in perspective. Cognitive Science 23, 615–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, D. D. and Jacobovits, L. A., eds. 1971. Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., Schachter, P. and Partee, B.. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. In: Steinberg and Jakobovits, eds. 1971. 86–99.CrossRef
Taylor, J. R. 1991. Possessive genitives in English: a discourse perspective. South African Journal of Linguistics 9, 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1996. Possessives in English: an exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 2003. Linguistic categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. 1986. Basic word order: functional principles. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S., ed. 1987. Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds. 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. and Evans, V.. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. Language 77/4, 724–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. and Evans, V.. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullén, S., ed. 1982. Text processing. Proceedings of Nobel symposium 51. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Valin, R. D., ed. 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Valin, R. D. and LaPolla, R. J.. 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning and function.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. and Bertucelli-Papi, M., eds. 1987. The pragmatic perspective, selected papers from the 1985 internation pragmatics conference. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G. and Nicol, J.. 1998. Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: is proximity concord syntactic or linear?Cognition 68, B13–B29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. and Garrett, M. F.. 1996. Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: the role of conceptual factors. Cognition 61, 261–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. and Semenza, C.. 1995. Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: the role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language 34, 186–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., Jarema, G. and Kolk, H. H. J.. 1996. One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes 11, 407–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wit, P.. 1997. Genitive case and genitive constructions. PhD Dissertation. Utrechts Instituut voor Linguïstiek (UiL OTS). Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
Vos, R. 1993. Direct partitive constructions. In: Drijkoningen and Hengeveld, eds., 177–88.
Vos, R. 1999. A grammar of partitive constructions. PhD Dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg.Google Scholar
Wallis, S. A., B. Aarts and G. Nelson. 1999. Parsing in reverse – exploring ICE-GB with Fuzzy Tree Fragments and ICE-CUP. In: Kirk, ed., 355–44.
Wallis, S. A. and Nelson, G.. 2000. Exploiting fuzzy tree fragments in parsed corpus linguistics. Literary and Linguistic Computing 15, 339–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., W. Labov and M. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In: Lehmann and Malkiel, eds., 97–195.
Whitney, R. 1982. The syntactic unity of wh-movement and complex NP-shift. Linguistic Analysis 10, 299–319.Google Scholar
Whitney, R. 1983. The place of dative movement in a generative theory. Linguistic Analysis 12, 315–22.Google Scholar
Wiers, E. 1978. Kleins ‘appositionele constructies’. Spektator 8–1/2, 62–80.Google Scholar
Winston, P. H., ed. 1975. The psychology of computer vision. New York: McCraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, K. 1987. Extraposition from NP as anaphora. In: Huck and Ojeda, eds., 428–45.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Translated by Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woisetschläger, E. 1983. On the question of definiteness in an old man's book. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 137–57.Google Scholar
Zampolli, A., ed. 1977. Linguistic structures processing. Fundamental studies in computer science 5. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. 1961. Varia Syntactica. In: Language and society. Essays presented to Arthur M. Jensen on his seventieth birthday, 193–203. Copenhagen: Det Berlingske Bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. 1978. A handbook of English grammar. 14th edn. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A.1993. Heads, bases and functors. In: Corbett, Fraser and McGlashan, eds., 192–315.CrossRef
Aarts, B. 1992. Small clauses in English: the nonverbal types. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, B. 1998. English binominal noun phrases. Transactions of the Philological Society 96, 117–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, B. 2004. Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28/1, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, B., Nelson, G. and Wallis, S.. 1998. Using Fuzzy Tree Fragments to explore English grammar. English Today 55, 52–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, J., Mönnick, I. and Wekker, H., eds. 1997. Studies in English language and teaching, in honour of Flor Aarts. Rodopi: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Aarts, B., Denison, D., Keizer, E. and Popova, G., eds. 2004 Fuzzy grammar: a reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Abbott, B. 1996. Doing without a partitive constraint. In: Hoeksema, ed., 26–56.CrossRef
Abbott, V., Black, J. B. and Smith, E. E.. 1985. The representation of scripts in memory. Journal of Memory and Language 24, 179–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abney, S. P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Acuña-Fariña, J. C. 1996. The puzzle of apposition: on so-called appositive structures in English. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. C. 1999. On apposition. English Language and Linguistics 3/1, 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2002. English discourse particles: evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1982. The genitive v. the of-construction: a study of syntactic variation in seventeenth-century English. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A. 1975. More evidence for an NP-cycle. Linguistic Inquiry 6, 114–30.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A. and Lehrer, A.. 1976. NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP. Linguistic Analysis 2/4, 395–413.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. 2000. Cognitive psychology and its implications. 5th edn. New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C. 1977. Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In: Lesgold et al., eds., 67–82.
Anderson, R. C.1985. Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning and memory. In: Singer and Ruddell, eds., 374–84.
Anderson, R. C. and P. D. Pearson. 1984. A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In: Pearson, ed. 255–91.
Anderson, R. C, Spiro, R. J. and Montague, W. E., eds. 1977. Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. and Kiparky, R. P., eds. 1973. A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Anstey, M. P. and Mackenzie, J. L., eds. 2005. Crucial readings in functional grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y., eds. 1994. The encyclopaedia of language and linguistics, vol. I. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Aston, G. and Burnard, L.. 1998. The BNC handbook: exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. and S. C. Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In: Cole, ed., 1–61.
Austin, Frances O. 1980. A crescent-shaped jewel of an island: appositive nouns in phrases separated by of. English Studies 61, 357–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auwera, J., ed. 1980. The semantics of determiners. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bach, E. 1968. Nouns and noun phrases. In: Bach and Harms, eds., 90–122.
Bach, E. and Harms, R. T., eds. 1968. Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.- J. and Shuy, R. W., eds. 1973. New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1983. Ad-hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11, 211–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Cooper, R.. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistic Philosophy 4/2, 159–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäuerle, R., Egli, U. and Stechov, A., eds. 1983. Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, R.. 1980. Text, discourse and process. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A.. 1991. Connectionism and the mind: an introduction to parallel processing in networks.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bell, A. 1988. The British and the American connection in New Zealand media English. American Speech 63, 326–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, H. and Vries, J., eds. 1992. De binnenbouw van het Nederlands: een bundel artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper. Dordrecht: JCG Publications.Google Scholar
Bennis, H., Corver, N. and Dikken, M.. 1998. Predication in nominal phrases. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Th. 1998. The resolution of number conflicts in English and German agreement patterns. Linguistics 36, 41–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkel, A.. 1991. Cognitieve aspecten van handelingsbeschrijvingen. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. 1976. The concept of rank in ethnobotanical classification. American Ethnologist 3, 381–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B.1978. Ethnobotanical classification. In: Rosch and Lloyd, eds., 1–26.
Berlin, B. and Kay, P.. 1969. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E. and Raven, P. H.. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal plant classification.New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Ch. 1990. Die Syntaktische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Ch., Löbel, E. and Schmidt, Cl., eds. 1989. Syntactic phrase structure phenomena in noun phrases and sentences. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, B. J. and Ward, G.. 1998. Information status and non-canonical word order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjarkman, P. C. and Raskin, V., eds. 1986. The real-world linguist. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blom, A. 1977. Het kwantitieve Er. Spektator 6–7/8, 387–95.Google Scholar
Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A., eds. 1975. Representation and understanding. Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. and Cutting, J. C.. 1992. Regulating mental energy: performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. and Eberhard, K. M.. 1993. Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 57–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. and Miller, C. A.. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K., Nicol, J. and Cutting, J. C.. 1999. The ties that bind: creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 330–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1958. Stress and information. American Speech 33, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolkestein, A. M., Groot, C. and Mackenzie, J. L., eds. 1985a. Syntax and pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolkestein, A. M., Groot, C. and Mackenzie, J. L., eds. 1985b. Predicates and terms in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bower, G. H, J. B. Black and T. J. Turner. 1985. Scripts in memory for texts. In: Singer and Ruddell, eds., 434–76.
Bowers, J. S. 1975. Some adjectival nominalizations in English. Lingua 37, 341–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, C. 1983. Topic continuity in written English narrative. In: Givòn, ed., 315–41.CrossRef
Brown, G. and Yule, G.. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K., ed. 2006. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In: Goody, ed., 56–289.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C.. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. 1988. The story of over: polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. 1975. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 13, 391–419.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N.1994. Apposition. In: Asher and Simpson, eds., 184–7.
Carnap, R. 1956. Meaning and necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. and Freedle, R. O.. 1972. Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington, DC: Winston.Google Scholar
Caspel, P. P. J.. 1970. Een schat van een (niet meer zo jong) kind. De Nieuwe Taalgids 63, 280–7.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L.1972. Discourse structure and human knowledge. In: Carroll and Freedle, eds., 41–70.
Chafe, W. L. 1974. Language and consciousness. Language 50, 111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L.1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects and topics. In: Li, ed., 27–55.
Chafe, W. L.1977. Creativity in verbalization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge. In: Freedle, ed., 41–55.
Chafe, W. L.1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In: Tomlin, ed., 21–51.CrossRef
Chafe, W. L.2001. The analysis of discourse flow. In: Schiffrin, Tannin and Hamilton, eds., 673–87.
Chang, N., Narayanan, S., and Petruck, M. R. L.. 2002. Putting frames in perspective. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Taipei: Taiwan.Google Scholar
Chang, N., Feldman, J., Porzel, R. and Sanders, K.. 2002. Scaling cognitive linguistics: formalisms for language understanding. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Scalable Natural Language Understanding. Heidelberg: Germany.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In: Jacobs and Rosenbaum, eds., 184–221. Also appeared in Chomsky, 1972, 11–61.
Chomsky, N. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.1973. Conditions on transformations. In: Anderson and Kiparsky, eds., 232–86.
Christiansen, M. H. and Chater, N.. 1999. Connectionist natural language processing: the state of the art. Cognitive Science 23, 417–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christophersen, P. 1939. The articles: a study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: a multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 991–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H. 1977. Inferences in comprehension. In: Laberge and Samuels, eds., 243–63.
Clark, H. H. and S. E. Haviland. 1974. Psychological processes as linguistic explanation. In: Cohen, ed., 91–124.
Clark, H. H. and S. E. Haviland.1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In: Freedle, ed., 1–40.
Cohen, D., ed. 1974. Explaining linguistic phenomena. Washington DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Cole, P., ed. 1981. Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds. 1975. Speech acts: syntax and semantics 3. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Collins, P. and Lee, D., eds. 1999. The clause in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, E. and Sussman-Goldberg, B., eds. 1995. Meaning as explanation: advances in linguistic sign theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppen, P.-A. 1991. Specifying the noun phrase.Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.Google Scholar
Coppen, P-A. 1992. Specifying the noun phrase. Computational Linguistics 18, 155.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15, 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G.1994. Agreement. In: Asher and Simpson, eds., 54–60.
Corbett, G. G., Fraser, N. M. and McGlashan, S., eds. 1993. Heads in grammatical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, C., ed. 1986. Noun classes and categorization.Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, D. A.. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. and Rochemont, M.. 1990. Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 33–47.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A., eds. 1977. Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Curme, G. O. 1931. A grammar of the English language: syntax. Boston: Heath and Co.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2004. Language, mind and brain. Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Danesˇ, F. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of text. In: Danesˇ, ed., 106–28.CrossRef
Danesˇ, F., ed. 1974. Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague: Academia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. and Harman, G., eds. 1972. Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S.. 2003. On extraction from NPs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deane, P. 1987. English possessive, possession and the Silverstein hierarchy. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. 1986. Two notes on the theory of definiteness. Journal of Linguistics 22/1, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudoclefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Fortis Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delsing, L.-O. 1991. Quantification in the Swedish noun phrase. Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 47, 89–117.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 1998. Syntax. In: Romaine, , ed., 93–329.Google Scholar
Denison, D.2002. History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG2), Helsinki.
Denison, D.2005. The grammaticalizations of sort of, kind of and type of in English. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, University of Santiago the Compostela.
Denison, D. and M. E. Keizer. In preparation. Sort-of constructions: grammar and change.
Devriendt, B., Goossens, L. and Auwera, J., eds. 1996. Complex structures: a functionalist perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, R. and Graumann, C. F., eds. 1979. Language processing in social context. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1978. Functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997a. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: the structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997b. The theory of functional grammar. Part 2: complex and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C., ed. 1983. Advances in functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den. 1995. Copulas. Ms. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Dikken, M.. 2006. Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dornic, S., ed. 1977. Attention and performance VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67/3, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. and P. Jacobson. 1988. Agreement as a semantic phenomenon. In: Powers and De Jong, eds., 95–108.
Dresher, B. E. and Hornstein, N.. 1976. On some supposed contributions of artificial intelligence to the scientific study of language. Cognition 4, 321–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O. and Wurzel, W. U.. 1987. Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drijkoningen, F. and Hengeveld, K., eds. 1993. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1993. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M. 1997. The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 147–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K. M. 1999. The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of subject-verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language 41, 560–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Es, G. A. and Caspel, P. P. J.. 1971–5. Syntaxis van het moderne Nederlands. Groningen.Google Scholar
Everaert, M. 1992. Nogmaals: een schat van een kind. In: Bennis and De Vries, eds., 45–54.
Feldman, J. A. and Ballard, D. H.. 1982. Connectionist models and their properties. Cognitive Science 6, 205–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. In: Bach and Harms, eds., 1–88.
Fillmore, C. J.1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In: Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–31.
Fillmore, C. J.1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In: Zampolli, ed., 55–81.
Fillmore, C. J. 1978. The organization of semantic information in the lexicon. In: Papers from the parasession on the lexicon. Chicago Linguistics Society, 148–73.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.1982. Toward a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In: Jarvella and Klein, eds., 31–59.
Fillmore, C. J. 1985a. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6/2, 222–53.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1985b. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 73–86.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar’. Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Wooter, C. and Baker, C. F.. 2001. Building a large lexical databank which provides deep semantics. Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. 1966. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1, 267–80.Google Scholar
Flickinger, D. P., Macken, M. and Wiegand, N. eds. 1982. Proceedings of the first West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, CA: Linguistics Dept., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Z. W.. 1988. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28, 3–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. D. 1977. Semantics: theories of meaning in generative gammar. Hassocks: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. and Sag, I.. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, W. N. 1958. The structure of American English. New York: Ronald.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G. and Nicol, J.. 2002. Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: the role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes 17, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedle, R. O., ed. 1977. Discourse production and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Freedle, R. O., ed.1979. New directions in discourse processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. On sense and reference. In: Geach and Black, eds., 1977, 56–78.
Fries, C. C. 1952. The structure of English. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Fries, P. H. 1999. Post nominal modifiers in the English noun phrase. In: Collins and Lee, eds., 93–110.CrossRef
Fries, U. 1988. The crew have abandoned the ship. Concord with collective nouns revisited. Arbeiten aus Anglistik and Amerikanistik 13, 98–104.Google Scholar
García, E. 1977. On the practical consequences of theoretical principles. Lingua 43: 129–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, P. T. 1970. Reference and generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. and Black, M., eds. 1977. Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gestel, F. C.. 1986. X-bar grammar: attribution and predication in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Givòn, T. 1984. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.1986. Prototypes: between Plato and Wittgenstein. In: Craig, ed., 77–102.CrossRef
Givón, T.1988. The pragmatics of word order: predictability, importance and attention. In: Hammond, Moravcsik and Wirth, eds., 243–84.CrossRef
Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: an introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givòn, T., ed. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goody, E. N., ed. 1978. Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C. and Clark, L. F.. 1985a. Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C and L. F. Clark.1985b. The generation of knowledge-based inferences during narrative comprehension. In: Rickheit and Strohner, eds., 53–94.CrossRef
Greenbaum, S. and Y. Ni. 1996. About the ICE-tagset. In: Greenbaum, ed., 92–109.
Greenbaum, S., ed. 1996. Comparing English worldwide: the International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H., ed. 1978. Universals of human language, vol. 4.: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole and Morgan, ed., 41–58.
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Groot, A. W.. 1965. Structurele syntaxis. 2nd edn. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Groot, C. and Hengeveld, K., eds., Morphosyntactic expression in functional grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef
Guéron, J. 1980. On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 636–78.Google Scholar
Guéron, J., Obenauer, H.-G. and Pollock, J.-Y., eds. 1984. Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In: Hammond, Moravcsik and Wirth, eds., 209–39.CrossRef
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A. and Wirth, J., eds. 1988. Studies in syntactic typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannay, M. 1985a. English existentials in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannay, M.1985b. Inferrability, discourse-boundness, and subtopics. In: Bolkestein, De Groot and Mackenzie, eds. 1985a, 49–63.
Haugen, E. 1953. On resolving the close apposition. American Speech 28, 165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. 1981. Towards an account of the possessive construction NP's N and N of NP. Journal of Linguistics 17: 247–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, H. 1920. Studies in neurology. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definiteness and indefiniteness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Heim, I.1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory. In: Bäuerle, Egli and von Stechov, eds., 164–89.
Hengeveld, K. 2004. The architecture of a functional discourse grammar. In: Mackenzie and Gómez-González, eds., 1–21.
Hengeveld, K. To appear. The noun phrase in functional discourse grammar. In: Rijkhoff and García Velasco, eds.
Hengeveld, K. and J. L. Mackenzie. 2006. Functional discourse grammar. In: Brown, ed., 668–76.CrossRef
Higgins, F. R. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Hinton, G. E. and Anderson, J. A., eds. 1989. Parallel models of associative memory. Updated edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hockett, Ch. F. 1955. Attribution and apposition in English. American Speech 30: 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Ch. F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 1996. Introduction. In: Hoeksema, ed., 1–25.CrossRef
Hoeksema, J., ed. 1996. Partitives: studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions. Berlin: Mouton the Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C.. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. and Thompson, S.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. and Thompson, S.. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60, 703–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. and D. Lightfoot. 1981. Introduction. In: Hornstein and Lightfoot, eds., 9–31.
Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D., eds. 1981. Explanation in linguistics. Longman: London.Google Scholar
Huck, G. J. and Ojeda, A. E., eds. 1987. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 20, Discontinuous constituency. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. 1987. Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23, 109–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A.1993. Do we have heads in our minds? In: Corbett, Fraser and McGlashen, eds., 266–91.CrossRef
Jackendoff, R. J. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21–35.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1977. X' syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1990. Semantic structures.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1992. Languages of the mind.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 2002. Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S., eds. 1970. Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. and Kawamoto, S., eds. 1970. Studies in general and oriental linguistics. Tokyo: TEC Corporation for Language and Educational Research.Google Scholar
Jarvella, R. J. and Klein, W., eds. 1982. Speech, place and action: studies in deixis and related topics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. Philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. 1992. Syntactic variation in British newspapers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, B. B., Lees, R., Malkiel, Y., Pietrangeli, A. and Saporta, S., eds. 1973. Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. 1990. Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13/1, 59–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. and McDaniel, C.. 1978. The linguistic significance of the meaning of basic color terms. Language 54, 610–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994a. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.1994b. Principles of particle constructions. In: Guéron, Obenauer and Pollock, eds., 101–40.
Keenan, E. L. and Stavi, J.. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. O. and B. Schieffelin. 1976. Topic as a discourse notion. In: Li, ed., 335–84.
Keizer, M. E. 1988. Definiteness and indefiniteness: a scalar representation. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 26.
Keizer, M. E.1992. Reference, predication and (in)definiteness in Functional Grammar. A functional approach to English copular sentences. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Keizer, M. E. 2005a. The discourse function of close appositions. Neophilologus 89, 447–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, M. E.2005b. Close appositions. In: De Groot and Hengeveld, eds., 381–417.
Keizer, M. E.In prep. Some-sort-of and some-kind-of constructions.
Keizer, M. E. and M. van Staden. In prep. Introduction. In Van Staden and Keizer, eds.
Kintsch, W. 1989. The representation of knowledge and the use of knowledge in discourse comprehension. In: Dietrich and Graumann, eds., 185–209.
Kirk, J. M., ed. 1999. Corpora galore. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, ICAME-98. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. 1925. A handbook of present-day English, part II/2. 4th edn. Utrecht: Kemink & Zn.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. 1932. A handbook of present-day English, part II/2. 5th edn. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. and Erades, P.. 1947. An English grammar, vol. I/1. 7th edn. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1970. Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. In: Jakobson and Kawamoto, eds., 348–73.
Kuno, S. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 269–320.Google Scholar
Laberge, D. and Samuels, S. J., eds. 1977. Basic processes in reading; perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In: Bailey and Shuy, eds., 340–73.
Ladusaw, W. 1982. Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction. In: Flickinger et al., eds., 231–42.
Lakoff, G. 1971. On generative semantics. In Steinberg and Jakobovits, eds., 232–96.
Lakoff, G.1972. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In: Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, 183–228.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, S. 1994. Relational networks linguistics meets neural science. LACUS Forum 20, 151–78.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. 2004. Language and reality. Edited by Webster, Jonathan. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1973. Predicate raising: Uto-Aztecan evidence. In: Kachru et al., eds., 468–91.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2002. Concept, image, and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lee, D. W. 1952. Close apposition: an unresolved problem. American Speech 27, 268–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y., eds. 1968. Directions for historical linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lesgold, A. M., Pellegrin, J. W., Fokkema, S. D. and Glaser, R., eds. 1977. Cognitive psychology and instruction. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.1987a. Minimization and conversational inference. In: Verschueren and Bertucelli-Papi, eds., 61–129.CrossRef
Levinson, S. C. 1987b. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23, 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. and S. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In: Li, ed., 457–89.
Li, C. N., ed. 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindsay, P. H. and Norman, D. A.. 1972. Human information processing: an introduction to psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. 1998. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, L. ed. 1952. Semantics and the philosophy of language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Löbel, E. 1989. Q as a functional category. In: Bhatt, Löbel and Schmidt, eds., 133–58.CrossRef
Löbel, E. 1990. D und Q als funktionale Kategorien in der Nominalphrase. Linguistische Berichte 127, 232–64.Google Scholar
Löbner, S. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4, 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C. G. 1980. The meaning of the English definite article. In: Van der Auwera, ed., 81–95.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. 1983. Nominal predicates in a Functional Grammar of English. In: Dik, ed., 31–51.
Mackenzie, J. L. 1985a. Genominaliseer. Interdiciplinair Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap 5/2, 177–98.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L.1985b. Nominalisation and valency reduction. In: Bolkestein, De Groot and Mackenzie, eds. 29–47.
Mackenzie, J. L.1996. English nominalisations in a layered model of the sentence. In: Devriendt, Goosens and Van der Auwera, eds., 325–55.
Mackenzie, J. L.1997. Grammar, discourse and knowledge: the use of such in written language. In: Aarts et al., eds., 85–105.
Mackenzie J. L. and M. E. Keizer. 1991. On assigning pragmatic functions in FG, Pragmatics 1/2, 169–215. Reprinted in Anstey and Mackenzie, eds. 2005, 249–75.
Mackenzie, J. L. and Gómez-González, M.Á., eds. 2004. A New architecture for Functional Grammar.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallinson, G. and Blake, B. J.. 1981. Language typology: cross-linguistic studies in syntax.Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Matheson, C. A. 1990. Syntax and semantics of English partitive noun phrases: a phrase structure account. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English, 2 volumes, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. and Seidenberg, M. S.. 2000. Why do kids say goed and brang? Review of Pinker. 1999. Science 287/5450, 47–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L., D. E. Rumelhart and G. E. Hinton. 1986. The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In: McClelland and Rumelhart, eds. 1986b, 3–44.
McClelland, J. L. and D. E. Rumelhart. 1986. A distributed model of human learning and memory. In: McClelland and Rumelhart, eds. 1986b, 170–215.
McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E., eds. 1986a. Parallel distributed processing, Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E., eds. 1986b. Parallel distributed processing, Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McGloskey, M. and Glucksburg, S.. 1978. Natural categories: well-defined or fuzzy sets?Memory and Cognition 6, 462–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ch F. 1992. Apposition in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1856. A system of logic, vol 1. 4th edn. London: John W. Parker and Son.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston, ed., 211–77.
Mithun, M. 1986. The convergence of noun classification systems. Noun classes and categorization. In: Craig, ed., 379–97.
Mithun, Marianne1991. The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: the grammaticization of subjects. In: Traugott and Heine, eds., 159–84.
Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. Agreement. In: Greenberg, ed., 331–74.
Morgan, J. L. 1972. Verb agreement as a rule of English. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8, 278–86.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. 1989. Predication theory: a case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, D. J. and Kegl, J. A. eds. 1991. Bridges between psychology and linguistics: a festschrift for Lila Gleitman. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Narayanan, S. and Jurafsky, D.. 1998. Bayesian models of human sentence processing. In: Proceedings of the 20th Cognitive Science Society Conference, 84–90. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nelson, G., Wallis, S. and Aarts, B.. 2002. Exploring natural language: working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, J. 1995. Effect of clausal structure on subject-verb agreement errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24, 507–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oostdijk, N. 1991. Corpus linguistics and the automatic analysis of English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, P. C. 1956. Een schat van een kind. De Nieuwe Taalgids 49, 93–9.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, P. C.1971. Beknopte ABN-syntaksis. 4th edn. Den Bosch.
Partee, B. 1972. Opacity, coreference, and pronouns. In: Davidson and Harman, eds., 415–41.CrossRef
Pearson, P. D., ed. 1984. Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1999. Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. and Prince, A.. 1988. On language and connectionism: analysis of a Parallel Distributed Processing Model of language acquisition. Cognition 28, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pit'ha, P. 1971. Remarks on possessivity. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 16, 33–46.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1914. A grammar of late modern English, Part IA: Nouns, adjectives and articles. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1926. A grammar of late modern English, Part II: The verb and the particles. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Powers, J. and Jong, K., eds. 1988. Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In: Cole, ed., 223–55.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational grammar: a first course. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raskin, V. 1986. On possible applications of script-based semantics. In: Bjarkman and Raskin, eds, 19–45.
Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A.. 1989. The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google ScholarPubMed
Reed, A. 1988. Semantic groups and discourse groups. In: Powers and De Jong, eds., 416–27.
Reed, A. 1991. On interpreting partitives. In: Napoli and Kegl, eds., 207–24.
Reid, W. 1991. Verb and number agreement in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reid, W., Otheguy, R. and Stern, N., eds. 2002. Signal, meaning and message: perspectives on sign-based linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkema, J. 1987. Tekst en uitleg: een inleiding in de tekstwetenschap. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rickheit, G. and Strohner, H., eds. 1985. Inferences in text-processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: the endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff J. and D. García Velasco, eds. To appear. The Noun phrase in F(D)G.
Romaine, S. ed. 1998. The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.1978. Principles of categorization. In: Rosch and Lloyd, eds., 27–48.
Rosch, E.1981. Prototype classification and logical classification: the two systems. In: Scholnick, ed., 73–86.
Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. B.. 1975. Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D. and Johnson, D. M.. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B., eds. 1978. Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive variation in English. Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. 1975. Notes on a Schema for Stories. In: Bobrow and Collins, eds., 211–36.CrossRef
Rumelhart, D. E.1977. Toward an interactive model of reading. In: Dornic, ed., 573–603.
Rumelhart, D. E. 1980. Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In: Spiro, Bruce and Brewer, eds., 33–58.
Rumelhart, D. E. and A. Ortony. 1977. The representation of knowledge in memory. In: Anderson, Spiro and Montague, eds., 99–135.
Russell, B. 1903. The principles of mathematics. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14, 479–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B.1920. Descriptions. In: Linsky, ed., 95–108.
Sanford, A. J. and Garrod, S. C.. 1981. Understanding written language: explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. 1982. Representing memory: an artificial intelligence perspective. In: Ullén, ed., 25–63.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton, H. E., eds. 2001. The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scholnick, E., ed. 1981. New trends in conceptual representation: challenges to Piaget's theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. and MacDonald, M. C.. 1999. A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 23, 569–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. and McClelland, J. L.. 1990. More words but still no lexicon: reply to Besner et al. 1990. Psychological Review 97, 447–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiler, H. 1983a. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Seiler, H. 1983b. Possessivity, subject and object. Studies in Language 7, 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selfridge, O. G. 1955. Pattern recognition in modern computers. Proceedings of the Western Joint Computer Conference, New York, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In: Culicover, Wasow and Akmajian, eds., 285–316.
Singer, H. and Ruddell, R. B., eds. 1985. Theoretical models of reading. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. 1999. Grammar-based connectionist approaches to language. Cognitive Science 23, 589–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sopher, H. 1971. Apposition. English Studies 52, 401–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.. 1986. Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C. and Brewer, W. F., eds. 1980. Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Staden M. van and M. E. Keizer, eds. To appear. Interpersonal grammar: a cross-linguistic perspective.
Steedman, M. 1999. Connectionist sentence processing in perspective. Cognitive Science 23, 615–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, D. D. and Jacobovits, L. A., eds. 1971. Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., Schachter, P. and Partee, B.. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. In: Steinberg and Jakobovits, eds. 1971. 86–99.CrossRef
Taylor, J. R. 1991. Possessive genitives in English: a discourse perspective. South African Journal of Linguistics 9, 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1996. Possessives in English: an exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 2003. Linguistic categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. 1986. Basic word order: functional principles. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S., ed. 1987. Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds. 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. and Evans, V.. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. Language 77/4, 724–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. and Evans, V.. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullén, S., ed. 1982. Text processing. Proceedings of Nobel symposium 51. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Valin, R. D., ed. 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Valin, R. D. and LaPolla, R. J.. 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning and function.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. and Bertucelli-Papi, M., eds. 1987. The pragmatic perspective, selected papers from the 1985 internation pragmatics conference. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G. and Nicol, J.. 1998. Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: is proximity concord syntactic or linear?Cognition 68, B13–B29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. and Garrett, M. F.. 1996. Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: the role of conceptual factors. Cognition 61, 261–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B. and Semenza, C.. 1995. Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: the role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language 34, 186–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., Jarema, G. and Kolk, H. H. J.. 1996. One or more labels on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes 11, 407–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wit, P.. 1997. Genitive case and genitive constructions. PhD Dissertation. Utrechts Instituut voor Linguïstiek (UiL OTS). Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
Vos, R. 1993. Direct partitive constructions. In: Drijkoningen and Hengeveld, eds., 177–88.
Vos, R. 1999. A grammar of partitive constructions. PhD Dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg.Google Scholar
Wallis, S. A., B. Aarts and G. Nelson. 1999. Parsing in reverse – exploring ICE-GB with Fuzzy Tree Fragments and ICE-CUP. In: Kirk, ed., 355–44.
Wallis, S. A. and Nelson, G.. 2000. Exploiting fuzzy tree fragments in parsed corpus linguistics. Literary and Linguistic Computing 15, 339–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., W. Labov and M. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In: Lehmann and Malkiel, eds., 97–195.
Whitney, R. 1982. The syntactic unity of wh-movement and complex NP-shift. Linguistic Analysis 10, 299–319.Google Scholar
Whitney, R. 1983. The place of dative movement in a generative theory. Linguistic Analysis 12, 315–22.Google Scholar
Wiers, E. 1978. Kleins ‘appositionele constructies’. Spektator 8–1/2, 62–80.Google Scholar
Winston, P. H., ed. 1975. The psychology of computer vision. New York: McCraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, K. 1987. Extraposition from NP as anaphora. In: Huck and Ojeda, eds., 428–45.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Translated by Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woisetschläger, E. 1983. On the question of definiteness in an old man's book. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 137–57.Google Scholar
Zampolli, A., ed. 1977. Linguistic structures processing. Fundamental studies in computer science 5. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. 1961. Varia Syntactica. In: Language and society. Essays presented to Arthur M. Jensen on his seventieth birthday, 193–203. Copenhagen: Det Berlingske Bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. 1978. A handbook of English grammar. 14th edn. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A.1993. Heads, bases and functors. In: Corbett, Fraser and McGlashan, eds., 192–315.CrossRef

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Evelien Keizer, Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • Book: The English Noun Phrase
  • Online publication: 25 January 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627699.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Evelien Keizer, Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • Book: The English Noun Phrase
  • Online publication: 25 January 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627699.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Evelien Keizer, Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • Book: The English Noun Phrase
  • Online publication: 25 January 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627699.014
Available formats
×