[
Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz. 1935. “Die syntaktische konnexit¨at”. Studia Logica 1: 1–27. In Polish Logic: 1920–1939. [1967]. Translated by B. Grushman and edited by S. McCall. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 207–31.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bach, Kent. 1994. “Semantic slack: what is said and more”. In Foundations of Speech Act Theory. S. L. Tsohatzidis (ed.). New York: Routledge: 267–91.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1953. “A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description”. In Language 29: 47–58. (Reprinted in Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. [1964]. Language and Information. Bar-Hillel (ed.). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley: 61–74.)10.2307/410452
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bresnan, Joan. 1978. “A realistic transformational grammar”. In Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, & George A. Miller (eds.). Cambridge, Mass. :The MIT Press: 1–59.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Carston, Robin. 1988 “Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics”. In Mental Representations: The interface between language and reality. R. M. Kempson (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 155–81.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton and Company (Janua Linguarum: Series Minor n. 4).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cummins, Sarah and Roberge, Yves. 2004. “Null objects in French and English”. In Contemporary approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Language. Augier, Julie, Clements J. Clancy & Vance, Barbara (eds.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company (Current issues in linguistic theory: n. 258): 121–38.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dowty, David. 1981. “Quantification and the lexicon: a reply to Fodor and Fodor”. In The Scope of Lexical Rules M. Moortgat, H. v. d. Hulst & T. Hoekstra (ed.). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton: 79–106.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fodor, Jerry and Fodor, Janet Dean. 1980. “Functional structure, quantifiers and meaning postulates”. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 759–69.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gillon, Brendan S. 2012. “Implicit complements: a dilemma for model theoretic semantics”. Linguistics and Philosophy 35(4): 313–59.10.1007/s10988-012-9120-2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gillon, Brendan S. 2019. Natural Language Semantics: Formation and Valuation. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Iten Corinne; Junker, Marie-Odile; Pyke, Aryn, Stainton, Robert and Wearing, Catherine. 2004. “Null complements: licensed by syntax or by semantics”. Actes du Congrèennuel de l’Association Canadienne de Linguistique / Proceedings of the 2004 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ihde, Aaron John. 1964. The Development of Modern Chemistry. New York, New York: Harper and Row.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Junker, Marie-Odile, Stainton, Robert and Wearing, Catherine. 2006. “The semantics and syntax of null complements”. Carleton University Cognitive Science Technical Report: 2006-03. http://www.carleton.ca/ics/TechReports.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kempson, Ruth (ed.). 1988. Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman Group Limited.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lambek, Joachim. 1958. “The mathematics of sentence structure”. American Mathematical Monthly 65(3): 154–70. (Reprinted in Categorial Grammar. [1988]. Buszkowski, Wojciech Witold Marciszewski & Johan van Benthem (eds.). Amesterdam, The Netherlands: John Bejamin Publishing Company: 57–84.)
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lemmon, Edward. 1966. “Sentences, statements and propositions”. In British Analytical Philosophy. Williams, Bernard Arthur Owen & Montefiore, Alan (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 87–107.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Neale, Stephen. 2004. “This, that, and the other”. In Descriptions and Beyond. Reimer M. & Bezuidenhout A. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 68–188.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Partee, Barbara 1989 ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’. Papers from Twenty-fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 342–65.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Perry, John. 1986. “Thought without representation Part 1”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: Supplementary Volumes 60: 137–51.10.1093/aristoteliansupp/60.1.137
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Recanati, François. 2002 “Unarticulated constituents”. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345.10.1023/A:1015267930510
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Robinson, Cyril Edward. 1948. Hellas: A Short History of Ancient Greece. New York, New York: Pantheon Books.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sag, Ivan, Wasow, Thomas and Bender, Emily M. 1999. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford, California: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI lecture notes: no. 152): 2nd edition [2003].
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stanley, Jason. 2000. “Context and logical form”. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434.10.1023/A:1005599312747
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tarski, Alfred. 1935. “The concept of truth in formalized languages. In Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Translated by J. H. Woodger. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 152–278.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vallée, Richard. 2012. “On local bars and imported beer”. Pragmatics & Cognition 20: 62–87. (Reprinted in Words and Contents [2018]: ch. 6.)10.1075/pc.20.1.03val
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139042864
]Search in Google Scholar
