Predicate order and coherence in copredication

References

• Apresjan, J. 1974. “Regular Polysemy.” Linguistics 14: 5–32.
   Google Scholar
• Arapinis, A. 2013. “Referring to Institutional Entities: Semantic and Ontological Perspectives.” Applied Ontology 8: 31–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arapinis, A. 2015. “Whole-for-part Metonymy, Classification, and Grounding.” Linguistics and Philosophy 38: 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arapinis, A., and L. Vieu. 2015. “A Plea for Complex Categories in Ontologies.” Applied Ontology 10: 285–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asher, N. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Asher, N. 2000. “Events, Facts, Propositions and Evolutive Anaphora.” In Speaking of Events, edited by J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi, and A. C. Varzi, 123–150. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asher, N. 2011. Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asher, N. 2015. “Types, Meanings and Coercions in Lexical Semantics.” Lingua 157: 66–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asher, N., and P. Denis. 2005. “Lexical Ambiguity as Type Disjunction.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon (GL2005), edited by P. Bouillon, and K. Kanzaki, 10–17. Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Bahramian, H., N. Nematollahi, and A. Sabry. 2017. Copredication in Homotopy Type Theory. Indiana: Ms. Indiana University Bloomington.
   Google Scholar
• Baillargeon, R. 2001. “Infants’ Physical Knowledge: of Acquired Expectations and Core Principles.” In Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, edited by E. Dupoux, 341–361. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, H. A., L. J. Otten, S.-T. Kousta, and G. Vigliocco. 2013. “Concreteness in Word Processing: ERP and Behavioral Effects in a Lexical Decision Task.” Brain and Language 125: 47–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bargh, J. A. 2006. “What Have We Been Priming all These Years? On the Development, Mechanisms, and Ecology of Nonconscious Social Behaviour.” European Journal of Social Psychology 36: 147–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benítez-Burraco, A., and E. Murphy. 2019. “Why Brain Oscillations are Improving Our Understanding of Language.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 13: 190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisetto, A., and C. Melloni. 2007. “Result Nominals: a Lexical-Semantic Investigation.” In Online Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5), edited by G. Booij, L. Ducceschi, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, and S. Scalise, 393–412. Bologna: University of Bologna.
   Google Scholar
• Boye, K. 2007. “Semantic Complexity vs. Conceptual Complexity: Why Cognitive Linguistics Needs an Instructional Semantics.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 39 (1): 69–82.
   Google Scholar
• Brandtner, R. 2008. “Meaning Transfer and the Compositional Semantics of Nominalizations.” In Working Papers of the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context 01, edited by F. Schäfer, 17–32. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
   Google Scholar
• Brandtner, R. 2009. Events and their Results: Pragmatic Constraints on Copredication. Talk held at Console XVIII, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, December 19.
   Google Scholar
• Brandtner, R. 2011. “Deverbal Nominals in Context: Meaning Variation and Copredication.” PhD thesis, Holzgartenstr. 16, 70174 Stuttgart: Universitat Stuttgart.
   Google Scholar
• Bréal, M. 1897. Essai de sémantique (Science des significations). Paris: Hachette.
   Google Scholar
• Buitelaar, P. 2000. “Reducing Lexical Semantic Complexity with Systematic Polysemous Classes and Underspecification.” Proceedings of NLP Complexity ‘00 NAACL-ANLP 2000 Workshop: Syntactic and Semantic Complexity in Natural Language Processing Systems 1: 14–19.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, S. 2009. The Origin of Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carston, R. 2021. “Polysemy: Pragmatics and Sense Conventions.” Mind & Language 36 (1): 108–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chao, Y. R. 1959. “Ambiguity in Chinese.” In Studia Serica Bernhard Karlgren Dedicate, edited by S. Egerod, and E. Glahn, 1–13. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
   Google Scholar
• Chatzikyriakidis, S., and Z. Luo. 2015. “Individuation Criteria, dot-Types and Copredication: a View from Modern Type Theories.” Proceedings of MOL2015, ACL anthology.
   Google Scholar
• Chatzikyriakidis, S., and Z. Luo. 2016. On the Interpretation of CNs: Types vs Predicates. Ms. University of Gothenburg, Royal Holloway, University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Chatzikyriakidis, S, & Luo, Z. (2018). Identity Criteria of Common Nouns and Dot-Types for Coprediation. Spalek, A.A., & Gotham, M. (Eds). Approaches to Coercion and Polysemy. Oslo Studies in Language, 10, 121-141.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, J. 2015. “Naturalism Without Metaphysics.” In Experimental Philosophy, Rationalism, and Naturalism, edited by E. Fischer, and J. Collins, 85–109. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, J. 2017a. “The Copredication Argument.” Inquiry 60: 675–702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, J. 2017b. “Is the Generative Conception of Language Cartesian?” Theoretical Linguistics 43: 233–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, J. 2019. “The Diversity of Fiction and Copredication: an Accommodation Problem.” Erkenntnis, doi:10.1007/s10670-019-00150-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Consten, M., and M. Knees. 2008. “Complex Anaphors in Discourse.” In Constraints in Discourse, edited by A. Benz, and M. Kühnlein, 181–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Consten, M., M. Knees, and M. Schwarz-Friesel. 2007. “The Function of Complex Anaphors in Texts.” In Anaphors in Texts, edited by M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten, and M. Knees, 81–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Consten, M., M. Knees, and M. Schwarz-Friesel. 2009. “Complex Anaphors: the Impact of Ontology, Context and Conceptual Knowledge.” In Studies in Language and Cognition, edited by J. Zlatev, M. Johansson Falck, C. Lundmark, and M. Andrén, 285–302. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Copestake, A., and T. Briscoe. 1992. “Lexical Operations in a Unification-Based Framework.” In Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation: Proceedings of the First SIGLEX Workshop, edited by J. Pustejovsky, and S. Bergler, 101–119. Berkeley, CA. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Copestake, A., and T. Briscoe. 1995. “Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension.” Journal of Semantics 12: 15–67.
   Google Scholar
• Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cruse, D. A. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Beaugrande, R., and W. Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Degand, L. 1998. “On Classifying Connectives and Coherence Relations.” Proceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse relations and Discourse markers, Montreal, Canada. 29–35.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon, M. R., Y. Huang, and E. S. Spelke. 2013. “Core Foundations of Abstract Geometry.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 14191–14195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dölling, J. 2020. “Systematic Polysemy.” In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, edited by L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann, T. E. Zimmermann, and D Gutzmann. London: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Elbourne, P. 2005. Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elbourne, P. 2011. Meaning: A Slim Guide to Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, V. 2006. “Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning-Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 17: 491–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, V. 2013. Language and Time: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, V. 2015. “A Unified Account of Polysemy Within LCCM Theory.” Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue internationale De Linguistique Generale 157: 100–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falkum, I. L. 2011. “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: A Relevance-theoretic Account.” PhD thesis. University College London.
   Google Scholar
• Falkum, I. L., and A. Vicente. 2015. “Polysemy: Current Perspectives and Approaches.” Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue internationale De Linguistique Generale 157: 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T., and S. E. Taylor, eds. 2013. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Frisson, S. 2009. “Semantic Underspecification in Language Processing.” Language and Linguistic Compass 3: 111–127.
   Google Scholar
• Girard, J.-Y. 1987. “Linear Logic.” Theoretical Computer Science 50: 1–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gotham, M. 2012. “Numeric Quantification in Copredication.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 24: 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Gotham, M. 2015. Copredication, Quantification and Individuation (PhD dissertation). University College London.
   Google Scholar
• Gotham, M. 2016. “Composing Criteria of Individuation in Copredication.” Journal of Semantics 34: 333–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., D. S. McNamara, and M. M. Louwerse. 2003. “What do Readers Need to Learn in Order to Process Coherence Relations in Narrative and Expository Text?” In Rethinking Reading Comprehension, edited by A. P. Sweet, and C. E. Snow, 82–98. New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Haber, J., and M. Poesio. 2020. “Assessing Polyseme Sense Similarity Through Co-Predication Acceptability and Contextualised Embedding Distance.” Proceedings of the Ninth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics 1: 114–124.
   Google Scholar
• Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heyman, T., B. Van Rensbergen, G. Storms, K. A. Hutchison, and S. De Deyne. 2015. “The Influence of Working Memory Load on Semantic Priming.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 41: 911–920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobbs, J. R. 1979. “Coherence and Coreference.” Cognitive Science 3: 67–90.
   Google Scholar
• Hoek, J. 2018. “Making Sense of Discourse: On Discourse Segmentation and the Linguistic Marking of Coherence Relations.” LOT Dissertation Series. Vol. 509. PhD diss., Utrecht University.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, P., M. A. Lambon Ralph, and T. T. Rogers. 2013. “Semantic Diversity: a Measure of Semantic Ambiguity Based on Variability in the Contextual Usage of Words.” Behavior Research Methods 45: 718–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogeweg, L., and A. Vicente. 2020. “On the Nature of the Lexicon: The Status of Rich Lexical Meanings.” Journal of Linguistics 56 (4): 865–891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyde, D. C., and E. S. Spelke. 2011. “Neural Signatures of Number Processing in Human Infants: Evidence for two Core Systems Underlying Numerical Cognition.” Developmental Science 14 (2): 360–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacquey, E. 2001. “Ambiguit´es Lexicales et Traitement Automatique des Langues: Mod´elisation de la Polyśemie Logique et Application aux d´everbaux d’action ambigus en Français.” Ph.D. Diss., Universite de Nancy 2.
   Google Scholar
• Jessen, F., R. Heun, M. Erb, D.-O. Granath, U. Klose, A. Papassotiropoulos, and W. Grodd. 2000. “The Concreteness Effect: Evidence for Dual Coding and Context Availability.” Brain and Language 74: 103–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jezek, E. 2016. “Generative Lexicon Theory and Lexicography.” In International Handbook of Modern Lexis and Lexicography, edited by P. Hanks, and G.-M. De Schrijver, 1–21. Berlin: Springer-Verlag GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Jezek, E., and C. Melloni. 2011. “Nominals, Polysemy and Co-Predication.” Journal of Cognitive Science 12: 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Jezek, E., and L. Vieu. 2014. “Distributional Analysis of Copredication: Towards Distinguishing Systematic Polysemy from Coercion.” First Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics 1: 219–223.
   Google Scholar
• Kallmeyer, L., and R. Osswald. 2017. “Modeling Quantification with Polysemous Nouns.” In IWCS 2017 – 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics – Short Papers, edited by C. Gardent, and R. Retoré, 1–9. Montpellier: IWCS.
   Google Scholar
• Kamalski, J., T. Sanders, and L. Lentz. 2008. “Coherence Marking, Prior Knowledge, and Comprehension of Informative and Persuasive Texts: Sorting Things out.” Discourse Processes 45: 323–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kinoshita, E., K. Mineshima, and D. Bekki. 2018. “Coercion as Proof Search in Dependent Type Semantic. Spalek, A.A., & Gotham, M. (Eds). Approaches to Coercion and Polysemy.” Oslo Studies in Language 10: 143–162.
   Google Scholar
• Klepousniotou, E., D. Titone, and C. Romero. 2008. “Making Sense of Word Senses: The Comprehension of Polysemy Depends on Sense Overlap.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34: 1534–1543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knott, A., and T. Sanders. 1998. “The Classification of Coherence Relations and Their Linguistic Markers: an Exploration of two Languages.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 135–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kripke, S. A. 2017. “‘And’ and ‘But’: a Note.” Thought 6: 102–105.
   Google Scholar
• Lefeuvre-Halftermeyer, A., R. Moot, and C. Retore. 2019. “A Computational Account of Virtual Travelers in the Montagovian Generative Lexicon.” In The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French, edited by M. Aurnague, and D. Stosic, 323–352. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Leivada, E., and E. Murphy. 2021. “Mind the (Terminological) Gap: 10 Misused, Ambiguous, or Polysemous Terms in Linguistics.” Ampersand 8: 100073.
   Google Scholar
• Liebesman, D., and O. Magidor. 2017. “Copredication and Property Inheritance.” Philosophical Issues 27 (1): 131–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebesman, D., and O. Magidor. 2019. “Copredication, Counting, and Criteria of Individuation: a Response to Gotham.” Journal of Semantics 36 (3): 549–561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, Z. 2012a. “Common Nouns as Types.” In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7351, edited by D. Bechet, and A. Dikovsky, 173–185. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Luo, Z. 2012b. “Formal Semantics in Modern Type Theories with Coercive Subtyping.” Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 491–513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maienborn, C. 2003. Die Logische Form von Kopula-Satzen. Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, W. C., and S. A. Thompson. 1988. “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8: 243–281.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, W. C., and S. A. Thompson, eds. 1992. Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund Raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, J. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• McCaughren, A. 2009. “Polysemy and Homonymy and Their Importance for the Study of Word Meaning.” The ITB Journal 10: 7.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, E. 2014. “Review of Definite Descriptions by Paul Elbourne.” The Linguistic Review 31: 435–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, E. 2016. “Phasal Eliminativism, Anti-Lexicalism, and the Status of the Unarticulated.” Biolinguistics 10: 21–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, E. 2017. “Acquiring the Impossible: Developmental Stages of Copredication.” Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, E. 2018. “Interfaces (Travelling Oscillations) + Recursion (Delta-Theta Code) = Language.” In The Talking Species: Perspectives on the Evolutionary, Neuronal and Cultural Foundations of Language, edited by E. Luef, and M. Manuela, 251–269. Graz: Unipress Graz Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, E. 2019. “Acceptability Properties of Abstract Senses in Copredication.” In Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: From Cognitive Processing to Semantic Representation and Linguistic Expression, edited by M. Bolognesi, and G. Steen, 145–165. Human Cognitive Processing Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, E. 2020. The Oscillatory Nature of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, E. 2021. “Linguistic Representation and Processing of Copredication.” PhD thesis, University College London. discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10119848.
   Google Scholar
• Norrick, N. R. 1981. Semiotic Principles in Semantic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Nunberg, G. 1978. The Pragmatics of Reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
   Google Scholar
• Nunberg, G. 1995. “Transfers of Meaning.” Journal of Semantics 12: 109–132.
   Google Scholar
• Nunberg, G. 2004. “The Pragmatics of Deferred Interpretation.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by L. Horn, and G. Ward, 344–364. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega-Andrés, M., and A. Vicente. 2019. “Polysemy and Co-Predication.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4: 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostler, N., and B. T. Atkins. 1992. “Predictable Meaning Shift: Some Linguistic Properties of Lexical Implication Rules.” In Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation, edited by J. Pustejovsky, and S. Bergler, 87–100. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, G., and A. Kehler. 2013. “Predicting the Presence of Discourse Connectives.” Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Seattle, Washington. 914–923.
   Google Scholar
• Pietroski, P. 2012. “Semantic Monadicity with Conceptual Polyadicity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, edited by W. Hinzen, E. Machery, and M. Werning, 129–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pietroski, P. 2018. Conjoining Meanings: Semantics Without Truth Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky, J. 1991. “The Generative Lexicon.” Computational Linguistics 17: 409–441.
   Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky, J., and O. Batiukova. 2019. The Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky, J., and B. Boguraev. 1993. “Lexical Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Processing.” Artificial Intelligence 63: 193–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky, J., and E. Jezek. 2008. “Semantic Coercion in Language: Beyond Distributional Analysis.” Rivista di Linguistica 21: 181–214.
   Google Scholar
• Quilty-Dunn, J. 2020. “Polysemy and Thought: Toward a Generative Theory of Concepts.” Mind & Language 36 (1): 158–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recanati, F. 2010. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rohaut, B., F.-X. Alario, J. Meadow, L. Cohen, and L. Naccache. 2016. “Unconscious Semantic Processing of Polysemous Words is not Automatic.” Neuroscience of Consciousness 1: niw10.
   Google Scholar
• Rothschild, D. 2011. “Explaining Presupposition Projection with Dynamic Semantics.” Semantics and Pragmatics 4 (3): 1–43.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M. 1997. “Semantic and Pragmatic Sources of Coherence: on the Categorization of Coherence Relations in Context.” Discourse Processes 24: 119–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., W. Spooren, and L. Noordman. 1992. “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations.” Discourse Processes 15: 1–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, P. B. 2013. “When Combinatorial Processing Results in Reconceptualization: Toward a new Approach of Compositionality.” Frontiers in Psychology 4: 677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, P. B., M. Consten, and M. Knees. 2010. “Constraints on Ontology Changing Complexation Processes: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials.” Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 840–865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spelke, E. S. 2016. “Core Knowledge and Conceptual Change: a Perspective on Social Cognition.” In Core Knowledge and Conceptual Change, edited by D. Barner, and A. S. Baron, 279–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spelke, E. S., and K. D. Kinzler. 2007. “Core Knowledge.” Developmental Science 10: 89–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spooren, W., and T. Sanders. 2008. “The Acquisition Order of Coherence Relations: on Cognitive Complexity in Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 2003–2026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srinivasan, M., and J. Snedeker. 2011. “Judging a Book by its Cover and its Contents: the Representation of Polysemous and Homophonous Meanings in Four-Year-old Children.” Cognitive Psychology 62: 245–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stockall, L., E. M. Husband, and A. Beretta. 2010. “The Online Composition of Events.” Queen Mary’s Occasional Papers Advancing Linguistics 19: 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Strictland, B. 2017. “Language Reflects “Core” Cognition: a new Theory About the Origin of Cross-Linguistic Regularities.” Cognitive Science 41 (1): 70–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taboada, M. 2009. “Implicit and Explicit Coherence Relations.” In Discourse, of Course, edited by J. Renkema, 125–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., and I. Gati. 1978. “Studies of Similarity.” Cognition and Categorization 1: 79–98.
   Google Scholar
• Vakulenko, S., M. de Rijke, M. Cochez, V. Savenkov, and A. Polleres. 2018. “Measuring Semantic Coherence of a Conversation.” In ISWC 2018: 17th International Semantic Web Conference. Vol. 11136, edited by D Vrandecic, 634–651. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and Context. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Vicente, A. 2015. “The Green Leaves and the Expert: Polysemy and Truth-Conditional Variability.” Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue internationale De Linguistique Generale 157: 54–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicente, A. 2017. “What Words Mean and Express: Semantics and Pragmatics of Kind Terms and Verbs.” Journal of Pragmatics 117: 231–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicente, A. 2018. “Polysemy and Word Meaning: an Account of Lexical Meaning for Different Kinds of Content Words.” Philosophical Studies 175: 947–968.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicente, A. 2019. “Chomskyan Arguments Against Truth-Conditional Semantics Based on Variability and co-Predication.” Erkenntis, doi:10.1007/s10670-019-00138-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viebahn, E. 2020. “Copredication, Polysemy and Context-Sensitivity.” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, doi:10.1080/0020174X.2020.1822911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, G. 2004. “Equatives and Deferred Reference.” Language 80: 262–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiemer-Hastings, K., and X. Xu. 2005. “Content Differences for Abstract and Concrete Concepts.” Cognitive Science 29: 719–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue, T., and Z. Luo. 2012. ‘Dot-types and Their Implementation.’ In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LACL 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 7351, edited by D. Béchet, and A. Dikovsky, 234–249. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar