Cover not available

In:The Noun Phrase in English: Past and present
Edited by Alex Ho-Cheong Leung and Wim van der Wurff
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 246] 2018
► pp. 1146

Get fulltext from our e-platform
References (42)
References
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 1996. The Puzzle of Apposition. Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 2009. Aspects of the grammar of close apposition and the structure of the noun phrase. English Language and Linguistics 13: 453–481. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2: 119–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breban, Tine, Davidse, Kristin & Ghesquière, Lobke. 2011. Types of phoric relations expressed by complex determiners in English. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2689–2703. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1975. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 13: 391–419.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, Chris. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 63–64]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1994. Fact projection. In Perspectives on English: Studies in Honour of Professor Emma Vorlat, Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds), 259–286. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 2003. A corpus check of the factive presupposition. In Configurations of Culture: Essays in Honour of Michael Windross, Aline Remael & Katja Pelsmaekers (eds), 115–126. Apeldoorn: Garant.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Eirian. 2001. Propositional attitudes. Functions of Language 8: 217–251. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven & Dordrecht: Leuven University Press & Foris. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delacruz, Enrique. 1976. Factives and proposition level constructions in Montague Grammar. In Montague Grammar, Barbara Partee (ed.), 177–199. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donellan, Keith. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 60: 281–304. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, Gill. 1993. A corpus-driven approach to grammar. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 138–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentens, Caroline. 2016. The Factive-Reported Distinction in English: Representational and InterpersonalSemantics. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: ArnoldGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1988. Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalisation in Halliday’s Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 24: 137–174. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina. 2010. Belief will create fact: On the relation between givenness and presupposition, and other remarks. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 199–208. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1971. Fact. In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Danny Steinberg & Leon Jakobovits (eds), 345–369. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1970. Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. In Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics, Presented to Shiro Hattori on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Roman Jakobson & Shigeo Kawamoto (eds), 348–373. Tokyo: TEC Corporation for Language and Educational Research.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1992 The place of circumstantials in systemic-functional grammar. In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds), 136–149. London: Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. London: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Modality: Studies in Form and Function, Alex Klinge & Henrik Høeg-Müller (eds), 5–38. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information-status. In Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-raising Text [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 16], Sandra Thompson & William Mann (eds), 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven & Davidse, Kristin. 2009. The emergence and structure of be like and related quotatives: A constructional account. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 777–807. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy. 1994. Determiners as heads? Cognitive Linguistics 5: 243–259. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy. 2007. Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2007. Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy: Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
WB: Collins WordBanks Online. <[URL]>
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gentens, Caroline
2019. The Diachrony of the Fact That-Clauses. English Studies 100:2  pp. 220 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue