References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2015
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Modality and Propositional Attitudes , pp. 276 - 287Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Abraham, Werner 2001a. Modal verbs: Epistemics in German and English, in Barbiers, S., Beukema, F. and van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System, pp.19–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner 2001b. Modals: Toward explaining the “epistemic non-finiteness gap,” in Mueller, R. and Reis, M. (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, pp.7–36. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner 2012. Covert patterns of modality in typological comparison, in Abraham, W. and Leiss, E. (eds.), Covert Patterns of Modality, pp.386–439. Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Abusch, Dorit 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abusch, Dorit 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27: 37–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abusch, Dorit 2012. Circumstantial and temporal dependence in counterfactual modals. Natural Language Semantics 20: 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfandre, Danielle R. 2010. The Interdependence of Modality and Theory of Mind. PhD thesis, Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav and Hacquard, Valentine 2008. Epistemics with attitudes, in Friedman, T. and Ito, S. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 18, pp.37–54. Ithaca, NY. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/13025.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas 1986. Belief in discourse representation theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15: 127–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas 1989. Belief acceptance and belief reports. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 19: 327–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas 2000. Events, facts, propositions, and evolutive anaphora, in Higginbotham, J., Pianesi, F. and Varzi, A. C. (eds.), Speaking of Events, pp.123–150. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas and Bonevac, Daniel 1985. Situations and events. Philosophical Studies 47: 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas and Lascarides, Alex 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. (Second Edition). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bally, Charles 1942. Syntaxe de la modalité explicite, in F. cahiers de Saussure. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Balogh, Jennifer E. and Grodzinsky, Yosef 2000. Levels of linguistic representation in Broca’s aphasia: Implicitness and referentiality or arguments, in Bastiaanse, R. and Grodzinsky, Y. (eds.), Grammatical Disorders in Aphasia: A Neurolinguistic Perspective, pp.88–104. London: Whurr Publishers.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate 1973. “Negative transportation”: Gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte 27: 1–7.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon and Perry, John 1981a. Semantic innocence and uncompromising situations, in French, P. A., Uehling, T. E. and Wettstein, H. K. (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy VI: The Foundations of Analytic Philosophy, pp.387–404. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon and Perry, John 1981b. Situations and attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy 78: 668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon and Perry, John 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bastiaanse, Roelien and Edwards, Susan 2001. Word order and finiteness in Dutch and English Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language 79: 72–74.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh 1999. Covert Modality in Non-Finite Contexts. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh 2006. Covert Modality in Non-Finite Contexts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Lois 1970. Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Rispoli, Matthew, Gartner, Barbara and Hafitz, Jeremi 1989. Acquisition of complementation. Journal of Child Language 16: 101–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolinger, Dwight 1968. Postposed main phrases: An English rule for the romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 14: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaja, Fretheim, Thorstein and Gundel, Jeanette K. 1997. What brings a higher-order entity into focus of attention? in Mitkov, R. and Boguraev, B. (eds.), Operational Factors in Practical, Robust Anaphora Resolution. Proceedings of a Workshop at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckingham, Hugh W. Jr. 1981. Where do neologisms come from? in Brown, J. W. (ed.), Jargonaphasia, pp.39–62. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckingham, Hugh W. Jr., Avakian-Whitaker, Haiganoosh and Whitaker, Harry A. 1975. Linguistic structures in stereotyped aphasic speech. Linguistics 154/155: 5–13.Google Scholar
Buckingham, Hugh W. Jr. and Kertesz, Andrew 1976. Neologistic Jargonaphasia. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler 1974. Demonstrative constructions, reference and truth. The Journal of Philosophy 71: 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelli, Gloria 2007. “I reckon I know how Leonardo da Vinci must have felt …” Epistemicity, Evidentiality and English Verbs of Cognitive Attitude. Pari: Pari Publishing.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A. E. and Zurif, E. B. 1976. Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language 3: 572–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cariani, Fabrizio, Kaufmann, Magdalene and Kaufmann, Stefan 2013. Deliberative modality under epistemic uncertainty. Linguistics and Philosophy 36: 225–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg 1998. Thematic roles and the individuation of events, in Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar, pp.35–51. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, Ray 1973. Negative transportation and tag questions. Language 49: 612–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemla, E. 2009. Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics 17: 299–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Yu-Chin and Wexler, Kenneth 1990. Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1: 225–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, Fox, Danny and Spector, Benjamin 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics, in Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. and Portner, P. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3, pp.2297–2332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Choi, Soonja 1991. Early acquisition of epistemic meanings in Korean: A study of sentence-ending suffixes in the spontaneous speech of three children. First Language 11: 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1973. Conditions on transformations, in Anderson, S. R. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt & Reinhardt.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past, in Beaver, D., Kaufmann, S., Clark, B. and Casillas, L. (eds.), The Construction of Meaning, pp.59–88. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald 1980[1967]. The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N. (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, pp.81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in D. Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events, pp.105–122. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald 1984[1968]. On saying that, in Davidson, D. (ed.), Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, pp.93–108. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeRose, Keith 1991. Epistemic possibilities. The Philosophical Review 100: 581–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dölling, Johannes, Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana and Schäfer, Martin (eds.) 2008. Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 77: 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckhardt, Regine 2005. Too poor to mention: Subminimal eventualities and negative polarity items, in Maienborn and Wöllstein (eds.), pp.301–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckhardt, Regine 2008. The lower part of event ontology, in Dölling, Heyde-Zybatow, and Schäfer (eds.), pp.477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, Andy 2005. Epistemic modals, relativism, and assertion, in Gajewski, J., Hacquard, V., Nickel, B. and Yalcin, S. (eds.), New Work on Modality, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 51, pp.35–62. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Egan, Andy, Hawthorne, John and Weatherson, Brian 2005. Epistemic modals in context, in Preyer, G. and Peter, G. (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning and Truth, pp.131–170. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. 1976. Investigations in Pragmatic Theory. PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Faroqi-Shah, Yasmeen and Thompson, Cynthia K. 2004. Semantic, lexical, and phonological influences on the production of verb inflections in agrammatic aphasia. Brain and Language 89: 484–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1963. The position of embedding transformations in a grammar. Word 19: 208–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai 2010. The subjectivity of conditionals in a new light. Talk presented at DGfS Workshop on Subjective Meaning, Humboldt University, Berlin.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai and Gillies, Anthony 2005. “Might” made right. Handout for talk presented to the Philosophy Colloquium of the University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai and Gillies, Anthony 2008a. An opinionated guide to epistemic modality, in T. Sz. Gendler and J. Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology 2. 2007 draft http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-gillies-ose2.pdf, accessed February 15, 2010.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai and Gillies, Anthony 2008b. CIA leaks. Philosophical Review 117: 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai and Iatridou, Sabine 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai and Iatridou, Sabine 2008. How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals, in Guéron, J. and Lecarme, J. (eds.), Time and Modality, pp.115–148. Berlin: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny and Katzir, Roni 2011. On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 19: 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob 1966[1892]. On sense and reference, in Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds.), Translations from the Writing of Gottlob Frege. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedmann, Naama 2006. Speech production in Broca’s agrammatic aphasia: Syntactic tree pruning, in Grodzinsky, Y. and Amunts, K. (eds.), Broca’s Region. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon. R. 2007. Neg-Raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 289–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gajewski, Jon. 2011. Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 19: 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gettier, Edmund 1963. Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23: 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, Lila, Cassidy, R., Kimberly, Nappa, Rebecca, and Papafragou, Anna 2005. Language Learning and Development 1: 23–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goble, Lou 1996. Utilitarian deontic logic. Philosophical Studies 82.3: 317–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts, pp.41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef 1986. Language deficits and the theory of syntax. Brain and Language 27: 135–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzinsky, Yosef 1990. Theoretical Perspectives on Language Deficits. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef 1995a. A restrictive theory of agrammatic comprehension. Brain and Language 50: 27–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzinsky, Y. 1995b. Trace deletion, theta-roles, and cognitive strategies. Brain and Language 51: 469–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzinsky, Yosef, Wexler, Kenneth, Chien, Yu-Chin, Marakovitz, Susan and Solomon, Julie 1993. The breakdown of binding relations. Brain and Language 45: 396–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, Stokhof, Martin and Veltman, Fred 1996. Coreference and modality, in Lappin, S. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp.179–213. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara J., Joshi, Aravind K. and Weinstein, Scott 1983. Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse, in Proceedings for the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp.44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Barbara. J., Joshi, Aravind K. and Weinstein, Scott 1995. Towards a computational theory of discourse interpretation. Computational Linguistics 21: 203–225.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara and Sidner, Candace 1986. Attention, intention and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12: 175–204.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Borthen, Kaja and Fretheim, Thorstein 1999. The role of context in pronominal reference to higher order entities in English and Norwegian, in Bouquet, P. et al. (eds.), Modeling and Using Context: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hegarty, Michael and Borthen, Kaja 2003. Cognitive status, information structure, and pronominal reference to clausally introduced entities. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12: 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine 2009. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 279–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18: 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, Joseph Y. 1997. Defining relative likelihood in partially-ordered preferential structures. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 7: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, Michael 2003. Semantic types of abstract entities. Lingua 113: 891–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, Michael 2005. A Feature-Based Syntax of Functional Categories: The Structure, Acquisition and Specific Impairment of Functional Systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, Michael 2006a. Information update and convert modality in the semantics of propositional attitude verbs. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Lexicon-Discourse Interface, 8th Conference on Natural Language Processing, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. University of Konstanz. http://ling.unikonstanz.de/pages/conferences/konvens06/.Google Scholar
Hegarty, Michael 2006b. Type shifting of entities in discourse, in von Heusinger, K. and Turner, K. (eds.), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, vol. 16, pp.111–128. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, Michael 2007. Context and semantic types in the interpretation of clausal arguments, in Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. (eds.), The Grammar-Pragmatics Interface, pp.171–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, Michael, Gundel, Jeanette K. and Borthen, Kaja 2001. Information structure and the accessibility of clausally introduced referents. Theoretical Linguistics 27: 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases in English. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene and Kratzer, Angelika 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena 2000. What Counts: Focus and Quantification. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickok, G. and Avrutin, S. 1995. Representation, referentiality, and processing in agrammatic comprehension: Two case studies. Brain and Language 50: 10–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higginbotham, James 1983. The logic of perceptual reports: An extensional alternative to situation semantics. The Journal of Philosophy 80: 100–127.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James 1989. Elucidations of meaning. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 465–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James 1991. Belief and logical form. Mind and Language 6: 344–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James 2000. On events in linguistic semantics, in J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi and A. C. Varzi (eds.), Speaking of Events, pp.49–79. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James, Pianesi, Fabio and Varzi, Achille C. (eds.) 2000. Speaking of Events. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1969. Semantics of propositional attitudes, in Davis, J. W. et al. (eds.), Philosophical Logic, pp.21–45. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, W. and Weil, J. 1982. Acquisition of epistemic and deontic meaning of modals. Journal of Child Language 9: 659–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobbs, Jerry R. 1990. Literature and Cognition. CSLI Lecture Notes 21. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun and Jordens, Peter 1994. From adjunct to head, in Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B. D. (eds.), Language Acquisition and Studies in Generative Grammar, pp.119–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1975. On assertive predicates, in Kimball, J. P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 4, pp.91–124. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence 1971. Negative transportation: Unsafe at any speed? in Binnick, R. I. et al. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp.120–133. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1978. Remarks on Neg-Raising, in Cole, P. (ed.), Pragmatics, Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, pp.129–220. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine 1990. The past, the possible, and the evident. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 123–129.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 1985. On the semantics of logic and obligation. Mind 94: 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank and Pargetter, Robert 1986. Oughts, options, and actualism. The Philosophical Review 95.2: 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John Hughlings 1879. On affections of speech from disease of the brain, in Taylor, J. (ed.), Selected Writings of John Hughlings Jackson, vol. 2, pp.129–137. London: Staples Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst.Google Scholar
Johannesson, Nils-Lennart 1976. The English Modal Auxiliaries: A Stratificational Account. Stockholm Studies in English 36. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit 2001. Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition and Focus. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation, in Groenendijk, J. A. G., Janssen, T. M. V. and Stokhof, M. B. J. (eds.), Truth, Representation and Information, pp.1–41. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model-Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Katz, Graham 2000. Anti–neo-Davidsonianism, in Tenny, C. and Pustejovsky, J. (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, pp.393–414. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Katz, Graham 2003. Event arguments, adverb selection, and the Stative Adverb Gap, in Lang, E., Maienborn, C. and Fabricius-Hansen, C. (eds.), Modifying Adjuncts (Interface Explorations 4), pp.455–474. Dordrecht: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Katz, Graham 2008. Manner modification of state verbs, in McNally, L. and Kennedy, C. (eds.), Adjective and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse, pp.220–248. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Boolean Semantics for Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris 1999a. Gradable adjectives denote measure functions, not partial functions. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29: 65–80.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris 1999b. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris 2001. Polar opposition and the ontology of degrees. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 33–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Chris 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertesz, Andrew 1981. The anatomy of jargon, in Brown, J. W. (ed.), Jargonaphasia, pp.63–112. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul and Kiparsky, Carol 1971. Fact, in Steinberg, D. and Jakobovits, L. (eds,), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, pp.345–369. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kolodny, Nico and MacFarlane, John 2010. Ifs and ought. The Journal of Philosophy 107: 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, David H., Luce, R. Duncan, Suppes, Patrick and Tversky, Amos 1971. Foundations of Measurement. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika 1979. Conditional necessity and possibility, in Bäuerle, R., Egli, U. and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Semantics from Different Points of View, pp.117–147. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika 1981. The notional category of modality, in Eikmeyer, H. J. and Rieser, H. (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, pp.38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in P. Portner and B. H. Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, pp.289–323. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika 1991. Modality, in von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D. (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung [Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research], pp.639–650. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika 2002. Facts: Particulars or information units? Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 655–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika 2006. Decomposing attitude verbs. Handout/talk notes from lecture delivered at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 4, 2006.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Geoge 1970. Pronominalization, negation, and the analysis of adverbs, in Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, pp.145–165. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Geoge 1974. Syntactic amalgams, in LaGaly, M., Fox, R. and Bruck, A. (eds.), Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin 1969. A syntactic argument for Negative Transportation, in Binnick, R. I. et al. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred 2000. Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassiter, Peter 2010. Gradable epistemic modals, probability and scale structure. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20: 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassiter, Peter 2011. Measurement and Modality: The Scalar Basis of Modal Semantics. PhD thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Levinson, Dmitry 2003. Probabilistic model-theoretic semantics for want. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13: 222–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David 1986a. Events, in Philosophical Papers, vol. 2, pp.241–269. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Limber, John 1973. The genesis of complex sentences, in Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, pp.169–185. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, J. 1969. Negative raising and sentence pronominalization, in Binnick, R. I. et al. (ed.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lombard, Lawrence 1985. How not to trip the prowler: Transitive verbs of action and the identity of actions, in LePore, E. and McLaughlin, B. (eds.), Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, pp.268–281. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Magri, G. 2010. A Theory of Individual-Level Predicates Based on Blind Mandatory Scalar Implicatures. PhD thesis, MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia and Wöllstein, Angelika (eds.) 2005. Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, John 2003. Epistemic modalities and relative truth. http://johnmacfarlane.net/epistmod-2003.pdf, accessed February 15, 2010.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian 1995. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. (Second Edition). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence-Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. D. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English, vol. 2. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita 2005. Do states have Davidsonian arguments? Some empirical considerations, in Wöllstein, C. M. A. (ed.), Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, pp.69–88. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike 1997. Parts and Wholes in Semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike 2003a. Context, complex sentences, and propositional content. Ms. Stirling University.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike 2003b. Propositional attitudes without propositions. Synthese 135: 77–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulkern, Ann Elizabeth 2003. Cognitive Status, Discourse Salience, and Information Structure: Evidence from Irish and Oromo. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Nespoulous, Jean-Luc, Code, Chris, Virbel, Jacques and Lecours, André Roch 1998. Hypotheses on the dissociation between “referential” and “modalizing” verbal behavior in aphasia. Applied Psycholinguistics 19: 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I. A., Ho, S. and Sera, M. 1996. Children’s understanding of epistemic modals. Journal of Child Language 23: 621–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 143–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan 2001a. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan 2001b. Subjectivity as an evidential mention in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, Anna 2006. Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 116: 1688–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Terence 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Percus, Orin 2000. Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding, in ter Meulen, A. and Reuland, E. (eds.), Representation of (in)Definiteness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme 1990. Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkal, Manfred 1981. Some semantic and pragmatic properties of German glauben, in Eikmeyer, H.-J. and Rieser (, H.eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, pp.469–484. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul 1992. Situation Theory and the Semantics of Propositional Expressions. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul 1974. On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. F. 1976. The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French. Language 52: 404–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew 1990. Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The Nature of Early Child Grammar of English. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew 1996. Towards a structure-building model of acquisition, in Clahsen, H. (ed.), Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition, pp.43–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, Marga and Bezeuidenhout, Anne (eds.) 2004. Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya 2000. Strategies of anaphora resolution, in Bennis, H., Everaert, M. and Reuland, E. (eds.), Interface Strategies, pp.295–324. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. J. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WYzOTRkO/InfoStructure.pdf, accessed July 25, 2013.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel and Han, Chung-Hye 2004. On negative “Yes/No” questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 609–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romoli, Jacopo 2013. A scalar implicature-based approach to Neg-Raising. Linguistics and Philosophy 36: 291–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences, in Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, pp.222–272. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. Slifting, in Gross, M., Halle, M. and Schützenberger, M.-P. (eds.), The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages, pp.133–169. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1974. Three batons for cognitive psychology, in Weimer, W. B. and Palermo, D. S. (eds.), Cognition and the Symbolic Processes, pp.63–124. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan (ed.) 1998. Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussarie, Laurent 2009. What might be known: Epistemic modality and uncertain contexts, in Proceedings of SALT 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, Jacqueline 1983. Talking about the there and then: The emergence of displaced reference in parent-child discourse, in Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children’s Language, vol. 4. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Saddy, Douglas 1995. Variables and events in the syntax of agrammatic speech. Brain and Language 50: 135–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simons, Mandy 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117: 1034–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina 2005. Assessor sensitivity: Epistemic modals and predicates of personal taste, in Gajewski, J., Hacquard, V., Nickel, B. and Yalcin, S. (eds.), New Work on Modality, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 51, pp.179–206. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim 2004. Tense and modals, in Guéron, J. and Lecarme, J. (eds.), The Syntax of Time, pp.621–635. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick 1973. The semantics of children’s language. American Psychologist 88: 103–114.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D., Nicol, J. and Zurif, E. B. 1989. The effects of focal brain damage on sentence processing: An examination of the neurological organization of a mental module. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1: 25–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swinney, D. and Prather, P. 1989. On the comprehension of lexical ambiguity by young children: Investigations into the development of mental modularity, in Gorfein, D. S. (ed.), Resolving Semantic Ambiguity. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Tancredi, Chris 2007a. A multi-model modal theory of I-semantics. Part I: Modals. Ms. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Tancredi, Chris. 2007b. A multi-model modal theory of I-semantics. Part II: Identity and attitudes. Ms. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Thomason, Richard and Stalnaker, Robert 1973. A semantic theory of adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 195–220.Google Scholar
Tovena, Lucia M. 2000. Neg-Raising: Negation as finite failure? in Hoeksema, J., Ruhlmann, H., Sanchez-Valencia, V. and van der Wouden, T. (eds.), Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, pp.331–356. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Vasić, Nada, Avrutin, Sergey and Ruigendijk, Esther 2006. Interpretation of pronouns in VP-ellipsis constructions in Dutch Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language 96: 191–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villalta, Elisabeth 2008. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 467–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Marilyn, Joshi, Aravind and Prince, Ellen (eds.) 1998. Centering Theory in Discourse. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie. L. 1988. Discourse deixis and discourse processing. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie. L. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes 6: 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzlaff, Michaela and Clahsen, Harald 2004. Tense and agreement in German agrammaticism. Brain and Language 89: 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, H. and Perner, J. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13: 103–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yakovlev, P. I. 1968. Telencephalon “impar,” “semipar” and “totopar” (morphogenetic, tectogenetic and architectonic definitions). International Journal of Neurology 6: 245–265.Google ScholarPubMed
Yalcin, Seth 2005. Epistemic modals. In Gajewski, J., Hacquard, V., Nickel, B. and Yalcin, S. (eds.), New Work on Modality, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 51, pp.231–272. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Zucchi, Alessandro 1989. The Language of Propositions and Events. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Zucchi, Alessandro 1993. The Language of Propositions and Events: Issues in the Syntax and Semantics of Nominalization. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Frans 1998. Three types of polarity, in Hamm, F. and Hinrichs, E. (eds.), Plural Quantification, pp.177–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar