Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uniqueness in Definite Noun Phrases

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  • Abbott, B.: 1999, ‘Support for a Unique Theory of Definite Descriptions’, Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Cornell University.

  • Ariel, M.: 1988, ‘Referring and Accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics 24, 65–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, E., E. Jelinek, A Kratzer, and B. H. Partee (eds.): 1995, Quantification in Natural Languages, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C.: 1991, Possessive Descriptions, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C.: 1993, ‘A Presuppositional Account of Proportional Ambiguity’, Proceedings of the Third Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Cornell University, pp. 1–18.

  • Barker, C.: 2000, ‘Definite Possessives and Discourse Novelty’, Theoretical Linguistics.

  • Beaver, D.: 1997, ‘Presupposition’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 939–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birner, B. and G. Ward: 1994, ‘Uniqueness, Familiarity, and the Definite Article in English’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, pp. 93–102.

  • Bosch, P.: 1988, ‘Representing and Accessing Focussed Referents’, Language and Cognitive Processes 3, 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E.: 1995, ‘Centering Attention in Discourse’, Language and Cognitive Processes 10(2), 137–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E.: 1998, ‘Centering as a Psychological Resource for Achieving Joint Reference in Spontaneous Discourse’, in Walker et al. (eds.), pp. 227–249.

  • Carlson, G.: 1977, Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G.: 1995, Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Meaning of Grammar, University of Chicago Press.

  • Christophersen, P.: 1939, The Articles: A study of their theory and use in English, Oxford University Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H.: 1975, ‘Bridging’, in R. C. Schank and B. L. Nash-Webber (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computing Machinery, New York. Reprinted in P. N. Johnson-Laird and P. C. Wason (eds.): 1977, Thinking, Cambridge University Press, pp. 411–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condoravdi, C.: 1992, ‘Strong and Weak Novelty and Familiarity’, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, OSU Department of Linguistics, pp. 17–37.

  • Cooper, R.: 1979, ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’, in F. Heny and H. S. Schnelle (eds.), Syntax and Semantics10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, Academic Press, New York, pp. 61–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M. J.: 1973, Logics and Languages, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P.: 1997, On Denoting Descriptions, ILLC Research Report and Technical Notes Series #LP-97-02, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.

  • de Swart, H.: 1991, Adverbs of Quantification: A Generalized Quantifier Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

  • Donnellan, K.: 1966, ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’, Philosophical Review 75, 281–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. and P. Jacobson: 1989, ‘Agreement as a Semantic Phenomenon’, Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL’ 88), Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics, pp. 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, K.: 1971, Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fering), Nordfriisk Institut, Bredstedt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G.: 1977, ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers and Relative Clauses (I)’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 467–536. Reprinted in M. Platts (ed.), Reference, Truth and Reality: Essays on the Philosophy of Language, Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 255–317.

  • Evans, G.: 1980, ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 11(2), 337–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraurud, K.: 1990, ‘Definiteness and the Processing of NP's in Natural Discourse’, Journal of Semantics 7, 395–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, P. C.: 1992, ‘Pronominalization and Discourse Coherence: Discourse Structure and Pronoun Interpretation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, MO.

  • Gordon, P. C., B. J. Grosz, and L. A. Gilliom: 1993, ‘Pronouns, Nouns, and the Centering of Attention in Discourse’, Cognitive Science 17, 311–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P.: 1957, ‘Meaning’, Philosophical Review 66, 377–388. Reprinted in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–59. And in H. P. Grice (ed.), Studies in the Way of Words, pp. 217–223.

  • Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58. Reprinted in P. Grice (ed.) (1989) Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, pp. 22–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1990, ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar’, in L. Kálman and L. Pólos (eds.), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Adakémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 3–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B. J.: 1977, The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding, Technical Report No. 151, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B. J. and C. L. Sidner: 1986, ‘Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse’, Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B. J., A. K. Joshi, and S. Weinstein: 1983, ‘Providing a Unified Account of Definite Noun Phrases in Discourse’, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, pp. 44–50.

  • Grosz, B. J., A. K. Joshi, and S. Weinstein: 1995, ‘Centering: A Framework for Modelling the Local Coherence of Discourse’, Computational Linguistics 21(2), 203–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundel, J. K., N. Hedberg, and R. Zacharski: 1993, ‘Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse’, Language 69(2), 274–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. A.: 1978, Definiteness and Indefiniteness, Croom Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. A.: 1991, ‘On (In)definite Articles: Implicatures and (Un)grammaticality Prediction’, Journal of Linguistics 27, 405–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1983, ‘On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions’, in M. Barlow, D. Flickinger and M. Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Stanford University, pp. 114–125.

  • Heim, I.: 1990, ‘E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1992, ‘Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs’, Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J. and J. Kulas: 1985, Anaphora and Definite Descriptions: Two Applications of Game-Theoretic Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson-D'Zmura, S. B.: 1988, The Structure of Discourse and Anaphor Resolution: The Discourse Center and the Roles of Nouns and Pronouns, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson-D'Zmura, S. and M. K. Tanenhaus: 1998, ‘Assigning Antecedents to Ambiguous Pronouns: The Role of the Center of Attention as the Default Assignment’, in Walker et al. (eds.), pp. 199–226.

  • Jackendoff, R.: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N.: 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N.: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N. and F. Landman: 1993, ‘Any’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 353–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. and U. Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D.: 1977, ‘Demonstratives, Draft #2’, Ms., UCLA Philosophy Department. Revised and Published as ‘Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals’, in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 481–563.

  • Karttunen, L.: 1969, ‘Pronouns and Variables’, CLS 5.

  • Karttunen, L.: 1973, ‘Presuppositions of Compound Sentences’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 169–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M.: 1998, ‘Pragmatic Strengthening in Plural Predications and Donkey Sentences’, in Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Cornell University.

  • Kripke, S.: 1977, ‘Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference’, in P. A. French, T. E. Uehling and H. K. Wettstein (eds.), Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappin, S.: 1989, ‘Donkey Pronouns Unbound’, Theoretical Linguistics 15, 263–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H. and T. Stowell: 1991, ‘Weakest Crossover’, Linguistic Inquiry 22(4), 687–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1979, ‘Score-Keeping in a Language Game’, in R. Bauerle, U. Egli and A. von Stechow (eds.), Semantics from a Different Point of View, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals in Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach’, in R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, S.: 1987, ‘Definites’, Journal of Semantics 4, 279–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J.: 1977, Semantics, Cambridge University Press.

  • Lyons, C.: 1999, Definiteness, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.

  • Milsark, G.: 1977, ‘Towards an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities in the Existential Construction in English’, Linguistic Analysis 3, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, S.: 1990, Descriptions, MIT Press (Bradford Books), Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, J. and L. Schubert: 1989, ‘Generically Speaking’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, Volume 2, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poesio, M. and R. Vieira: 1997, ‘A Corpus-Based Investigation of Definite Description Use’, in cmp-lg e-print archive at http://xxx.lanl.gov, document cmp-lg/9710007.

  • Postal, P.: 1969, ‘Anaphoric Islands’, CLS 5, 205–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E. F.: 1981, ‘Toward a Taxonomy of Given/New Information’, in P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 223–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E. F.: 1992, ‘The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness and Information Status’, in S. Thompson and W. Mann (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund Raising Text, John Benjamins, Philadelphia, pp. 295–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T.: 1982, Pragmatics and Linguistics: An analysis of Sentence Topics, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C.: 1995, ‘Domain Restriction in Dynamic Semantics’, in Bach et al. (eds.), pp. 661–700.

  • Roberts, C.: 1996, ‘Anaphora in Intensional Contexts’, in S. Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell, pp. 215–246.

  • Roberts, C.: 1996b. ‘Information Structure: Towards an Integrated Theory of Formal Pragmatics’, in J.-H. Yoon and A. Kathol (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 49: Papers in Semantics, The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.

  • Roberts, C.: 1998, ‘The Place of Centering in a General Theory of Anaphora Resolution’, in Walker et al. (eds.), pp. 359–400.

  • Roberts, C.: 2002, ‘Demonstratives as Definites’, in K. von Deemter and R. Kibble (eds.), Information Sharing, CSLI Publications, pp. 89–136.

  • Roberts, C.: to appear in 2003, ‘Pronouns as Definites’, in A. Bezuidenhout and M. Reimer (eds.), On Descriptions, Oxford University Press.

  • Roberts, C.: forthcoming, ‘In Defense of a Satisfaction Theory of Presupposition’, Ms., The Ohio State University.

  • Rooth, M.: 1987, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gärdenfors (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 237–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B.: 1905, ‘On Denoting’, Mind 66, 479–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1986, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Harvard University Press.

  • Stalnaker, R.: 1974, ‘Pragmatic Presuppositions’, in M. Munitz and D. Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, New York University Press, pp. 197–219.

  • Stalnaker, R.: 1979, ‘Assertion’, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9, Academic Press.

  • Strawson, P. F.: 1950, ‘On Referring’, Mind 59, 320–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P. F.: 1964, ‘Identifying Reference and Truth Values’, Theoria 30. Reprinted in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jacobovits (eds.), (1971) Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Cambridge University Press.

  • Szabo, Z.: 2000, ‘Descriptions and Uniqueness’, Philosophical Studies 101, 29–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, A.: 1989, ‘Bound Variables in Syntax (Are There Any?)’, in R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Foris, Dordrecht (Grass 11), pp. 295–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, R. H.: 1990, ‘Accommodation, Meaning, and Implicature: Interdisciplinary Foundations for Pragmatics’, in P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA, pp. 325–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K.: 1994, Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. A., A. K. Joshi, and E. F. Prince (eds.): 1998, Centering Theory in Discourse, Oxford University Press.

  • Welker, K.: 1994, Plans in the Common Ground: Toward a Generative Account of Implicature, Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.

  • Zucchi, A.: 1995, ‘The Ingredients of Definiteness and the Definiteness Effect’, Natural Language Semantics 3, 33–78.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, 222 Oxley Hall 1712 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210-1298, U.S.A.

    Craige Roberts

Authors
  1. Craige Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roberts, C. Uniqueness in Definite Noun Phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 287–350 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393

Keywords

Search

Navigation