Abusch, D. 1985. On verbs and time. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Aikhenvald A. (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Alexander, C., B. Frank, G. Ned, D. Peters Sr., C. Shields, and R.A. Whitley. 2006. In Nqwal’luttenlhkálha: English to St’át’imcets dictionary. Vol. 2: Intermediate, ed. Henry Davis. Lillooet, BC: Upper St’át’imc Language Culture and Education Society.
Bybee J., Fleischman S. (1995) Modality in grammar and discourse. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W., and J. Nichols. eds. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Advances in discourse processes, Vol. XX. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chung, S., and A. Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories, ed. T. Shopen, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Condoravdi, C. 2001. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In Stanford papers on semantics, ed. D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark and L. Casillas, 1–30. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Copley, B. 2002. The semantics of the future. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Cruse D.A. (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, H. 2006. A teacher’s grammar of Upper St’át’imcets. Manuscript, University of British Columbia.
Davis, H., and H. Demirdache. 2000. On lexical verb meanings: Evidence from Salish. In Events as grammatical objects, ed. C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky, 95–142. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Davis, H., L. Matthewson, and H. Rullmann. to appear. ‘Out of control’ marking as circumstantial modality in St’át’imcets. In Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality, ed. L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop and A. Malchukov. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Demirdache, H. 1997. ‘Out of control’ in St’át’imcets and event (de)composition. In Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, ed. A. Mendikoetxea and M. Uribe-Etxebarria. Supplements to the International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology, XL, 97–144.
Enç M. 1996. Tense and modality. In Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 345–358. Oxford: Blackwell.
Faller, M. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
Faller, M. 2003. Propositional- and illocutionary-level evidentiality in Cuzco Quechua. In Proceedings of SULA 2, ed. J. Anderssen, P. Menéndez-Benito and A. Werle, 19–34. Amherst, MA: GLSA, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.
Faller, M. 2007. The Cuzco Quechua reportative evidentials and rhetorical relations. In Endangered languages, Vol. 14 of Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte, ed. P. Austin and A. Simpson. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Faller, M. to appear. Evidentiality above and below speech acts. Functions of Language. Special issue on evidentality, ed. C. Paradis and L. Egberg.
Frank, B., and R.A.Whitley. 1994. Preserving salmon at home. Lillooet, BC: Upper St’a´t’imc Language Culture and Education Society.
Gamut L.T.F. (1991) Logic, language, and meaning. Vol. 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Gillon, C. 2006. The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in Sk̲wx̲wú7mesh. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in S. Davis (Ed.) (1991), Pragmatics: A reader, 305–315. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
Horn L. (1989) A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou S. (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izvorski, R. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of SALT VII, ed. A. Lawson, 222–239. Ithaca, NY: DMLL Publications, Cornell University.
Kissine M. (2008) Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics 16: 129–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinedinst, N. 2006. Plurality and possibility. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
Klinedinst, N. 2007. Plurals, possibilities, and conjunctive disjunction. In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 19, ed. R. Breheny and N. Velegrakis, 261–284. Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London.
Kratzer A. (1977) What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts, ed. H.-J. Eikemeyer and H. Rieser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. D. Wunderlich and A. von Stechow, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope: Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events in grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kratzer, A. 2003. A note on choice functions in context. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Martí, L. 2003. Contextual variables. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Matthewson L. (1998) Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. Holland Academic Graphics, The HagueGoogle Scholar
Matthewson L. () 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7: 79–134Google Scholar
Matthewson L. (2004) On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 369–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson L. (2005) When I was small – I wan kwikws: Grammatical analyis of St’át’imcets oral narratives. UBC Press, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
Matthewson L. (2006) Temporal semantics in a supposedly tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 673–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson L., Davis H., Rullmann H. (2007) Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’a´t’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 201–254Google Scholar
Mithun M. (1999) The languages of native North America. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Portner P. (1997) The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley J., Szabó Z.G. (2000) On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15: 219–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eijk J. (1997) The Lillooet language: Phonology, morphology, syntax. UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
Van Eijk, J., and L. Williams. 1981. Lillooet legends and stories. Mount Currie, BC: Ts’zil Publishing House.
Vander Klok, J. 2008. Javanese modals: In between auxiliaries and verbs. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association, UBC, Vancouver, May 31–June 2, 2008.
von Fintel, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
von Fintel, K., and I. Heim. 2005. Intensional semantics: Lecture notes. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Westerståhl, D. 1985. Determiners and context sets. In Generalized quantifiers in natural language, ed. J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, 45–71. Dordrecht: Foris.
(1988) A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12: 51–97Google Scholar
Winter Y. (1997) Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A., and J. Sadock. 1975. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Syntax and Semantics IV, ed. J.P. Kimball, 1–36. New York: Academic Press.