Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 287–350 | Cite as

Uniqueness in Definite Noun Phrases

  • Craige Roberts


Artificial Intelligence Noun Phrase Computational Linguistic Definite Noun Phrase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott, B.: 1999, ‘Support for a Unique Theory of Definite Descriptions’, Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  2. Ariel, M.: 1988, ‘Referring and Accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics 24, 65–87.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, E., E. Jelinek, A Kratzer, and B. H. Partee (eds.): 1995, Quantification in Natural Languages, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, C.: 1991, Possessive Descriptions, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, C.: 1993, ‘A Presuppositional Account of Proportional Ambiguity’, Proceedings of the Third Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Cornell University, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  6. Barker, C.: 2000, ‘Definite Possessives and Discourse Novelty’, Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Bosch, P.: 1988, ‘Representing and Accessing Focussed Referents’, Language and Cognitive Processes 3, 207–231.Google Scholar
  10. Brennan, S. E.: 1995, ‘Centering Attention in Discourse’, Language and Cognitive Processes 10(2), 137–167.Google Scholar
  11. Brennan, S. E.: 1998, ‘Centering as a Psychological Resource for Achieving Joint Reference in Spontaneous Discourse’, in Walker et al. (eds.), pp. 227–249.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, G.: 1977, Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  13. Chierchia, G.: 1995, Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Meaning of Grammar, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Christophersen, P.: 1939, The Articles: A study of their theory and use in English, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Cresswell, M. J.: 1973, Logics and Languages, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. de Swart, H.: 1991, Adverbs of Quantification: A Generalized Quantifier Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
  21. Donnellan, K.: 1966, ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’, Philosophical Review 75, 281–304.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Ebert, K.: 1971, Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fering), Nordfriisk Institut, Bredstedt.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Evans, G.: 1980, ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 11(2), 337–362.Google Scholar
  26. Fraurud, K.: 1990, ‘Definiteness and the Processing of NP's in Natural Discourse’, Journal of Semantics 7, 395–433.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Grosz, B. J. and C. L. Sidner: 1986, ‘Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse’, Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Hawkins, J. A.: 1978, Definiteness and Indefiniteness, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  38. Hawkins, J. A.: 1991, ‘On (In)definite Articles: Implicatures and (Un)grammaticality Prediction’, Journal of Linguistics 27, 405–442.Google Scholar
  39. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Heim, I.: 1990, ‘E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–177.Google Scholar
  42. Heim, I.: 1992, ‘Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs’, Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221.Google Scholar
  43. Hintikka, J. and J. Kulas: 1985, Anaphora and Definite Descriptions: Two Applications of Game-Theoretic Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Jackendoff, R.: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  47. Kadmon, N.: 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  48. Kadmon, N.: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.Google Scholar
  49. Kadmon, N. and F. Landman: 1993, ‘Any’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 353–422.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Karttunen, L.: 1969, ‘Pronouns and Variables’, CLS 5.Google Scholar
  53. Karttunen, L.: 1973, ‘Presuppositions of Compound Sentences’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 169–193.Google Scholar
  54. Krifka, M.: 1998, ‘Pragmatic Strengthening in Plural Predications and Donkey Sentences’, in Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Lappin, S.: 1989, ‘Donkey Pronouns Unbound’, Theoretical Linguistics 15, 263–286.Google Scholar
  57. Lasnik, H. and T. Stowell: 1991, ‘Weakest Crossover’, Linguistic Inquiry 22(4), 687–720.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. Löbner, S.: 1987, ‘Definites’, Journal of Semantics 4, 279–326.Google Scholar
  61. Lyons, J.: 1977, Semantics, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Lyons, C.: 1999, Definiteness, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Milsark, G.: 1977, ‘Towards an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities in the Existential Construction in English’, Linguistic Analysis 3, 1–30.Google Scholar
  64. Neale, S.: 1990, Descriptions, MIT Press (Bradford Books), Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Poesio, M. and R. Vieira: 1997, ‘A Corpus-Based Investigation of Definite Description Use’, in cmp-lg e-print archive at, document cmp-lg/9710007.Google Scholar
  67. Postal, P.: 1969, ‘Anaphoric Islands’, CLS 5, 205–239.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. Reinhart, T.: 1982, Pragmatics and Linguistics: An analysis of Sentence Topics, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  71. Roberts, C.: 1995, ‘Domain Restriction in Dynamic Semantics’, in Bach et al. (eds.), pp. 661–700.Google Scholar
  72. Roberts, C.: 1996, ‘Anaphora in Intensional Contexts’, in S. Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell, pp. 215–246.Google Scholar
  73. 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.Google Scholar
  74. Roberts, C.: 1998, ‘The Place of Centering in a General Theory of Anaphora Resolution’, in Walker et al. (eds.), pp. 359–400.Google Scholar
  75. Roberts, C.: 2002, ‘Demonstratives as Definites’, in K. von Deemter and R. Kibble (eds.), Information Sharing, CSLI Publications, pp. 89–136.Google Scholar
  76. Roberts, C.: to appear in 2003, ‘Pronouns as Definites’, in A. Bezuidenhout and M. Reimer (eds.), On Descriptions, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Roberts, C.: forthcoming, ‘In Defense of a Satisfaction Theory of Presupposition’, Ms., The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Russell, B.: 1905, ‘On Denoting’, Mind 66, 479–493.Google Scholar
  80. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1986, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Stalnaker, R.: 1974, ‘Pragmatic Presuppositions’, in M. Munitz and D. Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, New York University Press, pp. 197–219.Google Scholar
  82. Stalnaker, R.: 1979, ‘Assertion’, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  83. Strawson, P. F.: 1950, ‘On Referring’, Mind 59, 320–344.Google Scholar
  84. 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.Google Scholar
  85. Szabo, Z.: 2000, ‘Descriptions and Uniqueness’, Philosophical Studies 101, 29–57.Google Scholar
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. von Fintel, K.: 1994, Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  89. Walker, M. A., A. K. Joshi, and E. F. Prince (eds.): 1998, Centering Theory in Discourse, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Welker, K.: 1994, Plans in the Common Ground: Toward a Generative Account of Implicature, Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  91. Zucchi, A.: 1995, ‘The Ingredients of Definiteness and the Definiteness Effect’, Natural Language Semantics 3, 33–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craige Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations