Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

212 ReferencesGrice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, pp. 41–58. New York: AcademicPress.Grønn, A. (2003). The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Russian FactualImperfective. Ph. D. thesis, University of Oslo.Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguisticsand Philosophy 14(1), 39–100.Hawkins, J. (1991). On (in)definite articles: implicatures and(un)grammaticality predictions. Journal of Linguistics 27, 405–442.Heim, I. (1982). On the Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases.Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Herodotus (1957-1963). Histories. Translated by A. D. Godley. Loeb. London:Heinemann.Hettrich, H. (1976). Kontext und Aspekt in der altgriechischen ProsaHerodots. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Hewson, J. and V. Bubenik (1997). Tense and Aspect in Indo-EuropeanLanguages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Hinrichs, E. (1981). Temporale Anaphora im Englischen. ZulassungsarbeitUniversität Tübingen.Hinrichs, E. (1986). Temporal anaphora and discourses of English. Linguisticsand Philosophy 9, 63–82.Joosten, J. (2002). Do the finite verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew expressaspect? Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 29, 49–70.Kamp, H. (1980). Some remarks on the logic of change. In C. Rohrer (Ed.),Time, Tense and Quantifiers, pp. 103–114. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk,T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal Methods in the Studyof Language, pp. 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Kamp, H. (1992). Temporal reference in French. Unpublished progressreport.Kamp, H. (2006). Temporal reference inside and outside propositional attitudes.In K. von Heusinger and K. Turner (Eds.), Where SemanticsMeets Pragmatics, pp. 439–472. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Kamp, H. and U. Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Kamp, H. and C. Rohrer (1983). Tense in texts. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze,and A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language,pp. 250–269. Berlin: de Gruyter.
References 213Kamp, H., J. van Genabith, and U. Reyle (2005). Discourse RepresentationTheory. In D. M. Gabbay and F. Günthner (Eds.), Handbook ofPhilosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Springer.Klein, W. (1994). Time in Language. London and New York: Routledge.Klimek-Jankowska, D. (2008a). Aspect in Quantified and Bare Habitual Contexts:Semantics, Discourse and Micro-variation in a Cross-linguisticPerspective. Ph. D. thesis, Wroc̷law University.Klimek-Jankowska, D. (2008b). On an analogie between English nominaland Polish aspectual manifestations of genericity. In A. Grønn (Ed.),Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, pp. 318–336. Oslo: ILOS.Koschmieder, E. (1929). Zeitbezug und Sprache. Ein Beitrag zur Aspekt- undTempusfrage. Leipzig: Teubner.Koschmieder, E. (1930). Durchkreuzungen von Aspekt- und Tempussystemim Präsens. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 7, 341–358.Koschmieder, E. (1945). Zur Bestimmung der Funktionen grammatischerKategorien. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Krifka, M. (1989a). Nominal reference and quantification in event semantics.In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semanticsand Contextual Expression, pp. 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Krifka, M. (1989b). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. München: Fink.Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events andGrammar, pp. 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Kühner, R. and B. Gerth (1898). Ausfürliche Grammatick der GriechischenSprache, Volume 2.1. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.van Lambalgen, M. and F. Hamm (2004). The Proper Treatment of Events.London: Routledge.Landeweerd, R. (1998). Discourse Semantics of Perspective and TemporalStructure. Ph. D. thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Landman, F. (1992). The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1, 1–32.Lascarides, A. (1991). The progressive and the imperfective paradox. Synthese87(6), 401–447.Lascarides, A. and N. Asher (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relationsand commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 437–493.Latecki, L. and M. Pinkal (1990). Syntactic and semantic conditionsfor quantifier scope. Technical report, Universität des Saarlandes,Saarbrücken.
Page 3:
Aspect in Ancient GreekA semantic a
Page 6 and 7:
viNick Asher, David Beaver, the lat
Page 9:
Contentsix8 Conclusions and discuss
Page 12 and 13:
2 Chapter 1. Introductiongroundbrea
Page 14 and 15:
4 Chapter 1. Introduction(4) µετ
Page 16 and 17:
6 Chapter 1. Introductionimperfecti
Page 19 and 20:
1.3 Organisation of the thesis 9In
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 2The interpretations of aor
Page 23 and 24:
2.3 Additional interpretations of t
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31:
2.5 The challenge 21scriptions of h
Page 34 and 35:
24 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52:
Page 57 and 58:
3.2 The perfective-imperfective dis
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
3.3 Aspectual coercion 673.3.1 Aspe
Page 79 and 80:
3.3 Aspectual coercion 69bials ((88
Page 81 and 82:
3.3 Aspectual coercion 71the term c
Page 83 and 84:
3.3 Aspectual coercion 73in the ext
Page 86 and 87:
76 Chapter 4. An analysis of aorist
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
100 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
122 Chapter 5. Aspect and performat
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
134 Chapter 6. The temporal structu
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
158 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 170 and 171:
160 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 172 and 173: 162 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 182 and 183: 172 Chapter 8. Conclusions and disc
Page 188 and 189: 178 Appendix A: The language of Com
Page 202 and 203: 192 Appendix B: Examples spelled ou
Page 216 and 217: 206 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 218 and 219: 208 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 220 and 221: 210 References(Eds.), Cross-linguis
Page 224 and 225: 214 ReferencesLemmon, E. J. (1962).
Page 226 and 227: 216 Referencesvan der Sandt, R. (19
Page 228 and 229: 218 References
Page 230 and 231: 220 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
Page 232 and 233: 222 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
show all

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?