Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 59–111 | Cite as


  • Paul Kay


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akmajian, Adrian: 1984, ‘Sentence Types and the Form-function Fit’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(1) 1–23.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Stephen R.: 1972, ‘How to Get Even’,Language 48(4) 893–906.Google Scholar
  3. Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot: 1983,L'argumentation dans la langue, Mardaga, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  4. Bresnan, Joan: 1975, ‘Comparative Deletion and Constraints on Transformations’,Linguistic Analysis 1(1) 25–74.Google Scholar
  5. Brugman, Claudia: 1986, ‘Sisterhood is More Powerful than You Thought: Scopal Adverb Placement and Illocutionary Force’,Papers from the 222nd Annual Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  6. Cresswell, M. J.: 1976, ‘The Semantics of Degree’, in B. Partee (ed.),Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Ducrot, Oswald: 1973,La preuve et la dire. Marne, Paris. [Pagination refers to publication of a revised version of the chapters of this work dealing with scales: Les échelles argumentatives. Minuit, Paris, 1980.]Google Scholar
  8. Fauconnier, Gilles: 1975a, ‘Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure’,Linguistic Inquiry 6, 353.Google Scholar
  9. Fauconnier, Gilles: 1975b, ‘Polarity and the Scale Principle’,Papers from the 11th Annual Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  10. Fauconnier, Gilles: 1976,Etude de certains aspects logiques et grammaticaux de la quantification et de l'anaphore en français et en anglais. Champion, Paris.Google Scholar
  11. Fauconnier, Gilles: 1985,Mental Spaces. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
  12. Fillmore, Charles J.: 1965, ‘Entailment Rules in a Semantic Theory’, POLA Report 10. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  13. Fillmore, Charles J.: 1983, ‘Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of Grammatical Construction’,Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  14. Fillmore, Charles J.: 1985, ‘Frames and the Semantics of Understanding’,Quaderni di Semantica VI(2) 222–254.Google Scholar
  15. Fillmore, Charles J.: 1987, ‘Varieties of Conditional Sentences’, MS, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Fillmore, Charles J. and Paul Kay: 1987, The Goals of Construction Grammar, Technical Report No. 50. Berkeley: UCB Cognitive Science Program.Google Scholar
  17. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and M. Catherine O'Connor: 1988, ‘Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone’,Language 64, 501–538.Google Scholar
  18. Fraser, Bruce: 1970, ‘An Analysis of Even in English’, in C. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen, (eds.)Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp. 141–80.Google Scholar
  19. Gazdar, Gerald, Geoffrey K. Pullum and Ivan A. Sag: 1982, ‘Auxiliaries and Related Phenomena in a Restrictive Theory of Grammar’,Language 58, 591–638.Google Scholar
  20. Green, Georgia M.: 1985, ‘The Description of Inversions in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar’,Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  21. Heringer, J. T.: 1973, ‘Even and Negative Polarity’, unpublished paper delivered Summer LSA Meetings.Google Scholar
  22. Horn, Larry: 1969, ‘A Presuppositional Approach toOnly andEven’, Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 98–107.Google Scholar
  23. Horn, Larry: 1971, ‘Negative Transportation: Unsafe at Any Speed?’,Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 120–133.Google Scholar
  24. Horn, Larry: 1985, ‘Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity’,Language 61, 121–174.Google Scholar
  25. Jackendoff, Ray: 1983,Semantics and Cognition. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  26. Kaplan, David: 1977, ‘Dthat’, in Peter A. French et al. (eds.),Complementary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  27. Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley Peters: 1975, ‘Conventional Implicature and Montague Grammar’,Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 266–278.Google Scholar
  28. Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley Peters: 1979, ‘Conventional Implicature’, in Oh and Dineen (eds.),Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Kay, Paul: 1984, ‘Linguistic Competence and Folk Theories of Language: Two English Hedges’,Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, pp. 128–137.Google Scholar
  30. Kay, Paul: 1986, ‘Pragmatic Informativeness and Scalar Semantics’, Jacob Marshak Seminar Lecture. UCLA.Google Scholar
  31. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki: 1965, ‘Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language’, MIT, Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  32. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki: 1969, ‘Attachment Transformations, in D. Reidel and S. Schane (eds.), Modern Studies in English, pp. 331–351, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  33. Ladusaw, William: 1979,Polarity as Inherent Scope Relations, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  34. Lakoff, George: 1971, ‘Performative Antinomies’, in C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen, (eds.),Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Holt, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Lkoff, George: 1987,Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, (especially Case Study #3, There-constructions) University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  36. Lambrecht, Knud: 1986a,Topic, Focus and the Grammar of Spoken French. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
  37. Lambrecht, Knud: 1986b, ‘Formulaicity, Frame Semantics, and Pragmatics in German Binomial Expressions’,Language 60, 753–798.Google Scholar
  38. Lambrecht, Knud: 1986c, ‘Pragmatically Motivated Syntax: Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French’,Papers from the 22nd Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  39. Lambrecht, Knud: forthcoming, ‘Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French’, in John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.),Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, David: 1979, ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game’, in R. Bauerle, U. Egli and A. von Stechow (eds.),Semantics from Different Points of View, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  41. McCawley, James: 1969, ‘Why You Can't not Say no Sentences Like this One’, MS, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  42. McCawley, James: 1987, ‘The Focus and Scope ofOnly’, MS, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  43. Putnam, Hilary: 1981,Reason, Truth, and History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  44. Sweetser, Eve Eliot: 1984, ‘Semantic Structure and Semantic Change’, Ph.D. Dissertation, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  45. Sperber, Dan and Deidre Wilson: 1986, Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  46. Stalnaker, Robert: 1973, ‘Pressuppositions’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 447–457.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Kay
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of LinguisticsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations