Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) semantics (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: semantics


Is in goldstandard

1
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt71 - : When dealing with semantic analysis, the researcher can proceed from different angles and perspectives, such as from the level of the word to more complex units of analysis in semantics: the sentence, utterance, proposition and text .

2
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt144 - : Semantics studies word content which can be types, occurrences, and textual and non-textual signs, and defines as a sub-discipline of semiotics. The literary text is a group of textual signs to which the semantic analysis is of paramount importance if the analyst can establish a network of relations between terms and settles on a more or less one meaning. Todorov (1981) argues that semantics of literature is concerned with two main questions: "how does a text signify ? [and] what does a text signify?" (p.16). The former is the concern of linguistic semantics while the second of substantial semantics (Todorov, 1981). Linguistic semantics studies the compositionality aspect of the word and is more concerned with literal meaning. Substantial semantics, however, studies the variable distance between the signifier and signified and tries to establish semantic relations despite the indeterminacies of signs in the text.

3
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt144 - : Literary meaning does not hold the principle of necessary and sufficient conditions mainly because its lexical attribution is made restricted by the writer and the cognitive link between the signifier and signified is undetermined by the formal reading since words relate to each other in an order not delivered by their referents in the text. Just to illustrate and relate this to feature semantics, the following verses from Cummings' poetry show that there is no necessary and thus sufficient condition relating meaning of at least two words:

4
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt179 - : ARCHIVE AND SEMANTICS: ETHNOHISTORY OF THE GUAJES OF THE SUB-ANDEAN PIEDMONT IN THE COLOMBIAN AMAZON

5
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt260 - : This postposition means 'in the proximity of, close to'. In the example 5a, the transitive verb resulting from a causativization has subject and direct object, both represented in the nucleus of the verbal predication. The PP headed by «teg̃» does not have an argument function, as it is an adjunct, even though the semantics of the verb foresees a place to where the object will be taken:

6
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt14 - : Carston, R. The semantics -Pragmatics distinction: a view from relevance theory . University College London. Págs 1- 43 [ [41]Links ]

7
paper CO_Lenguajetxt122 - : Ullmann, S. (1976). Semántica, introducción a la ciencia del significado (Trad. J. Aguilar). Madrid: Aguilar S.A. Ediciones. (Traducción de Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning, 1962, Oxford: Blackwell ). [ [107]Links ]

8
paper CO_Íkalatxt49 - : This contribution focuses on structured content at the level of lexical semantics, such as:

9
paper CO_Íkalatxt49 - : In this connection, interoperability needs to be seen through the eyes of content - not only through the glasses of content management systems.Then it can be recognized that content interoperability goes beyond the concept of semantic interoperability, as it is generally seen. Content interoperability is the capability of content items/ entities (i.e. structured content at the level of lexical semantics) to be:

10
paper VE_BoletindeLinguisticatxt58 - : In Spanish, duplicated verb constructions are very common. In terms of its morphosyntactic codification, the duplicated verb appears in four different forms: with an auxiliary verb, without an auxiliary verb, with a plain inflected verb, and with an adverbial function. In terms of its semantics, this verbal form expresses two basic senses: iteration and emphasis . In the former, the duplicated verb denotes that a specific state of affairs, in certain linguistic contexts, is realized more than once in an undetermined way (except for states). In the latter, and within other linguistic circumstances, the duplicated verb carries only an emphatic value.

11
paper corpusRLAtxt59 - : SEMANTICS, SYNTAX AND PHONETICS: PROSODIC STRATEGIES OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH "UN ... QUE"

12
paper corpusRLAtxt173 - : Hino, Yasushi; Lupker, Stephen J. y Pexman, Penny M. (2002). Ambiguity and Synonymy Effects in Lexical Decision, Naming, and Semantic Categorization Task: Interactions Between Ortography, Phonology, and Semantics, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28 .4, 686-713. [ [91]Links ]

13
paper corpusRLAtxt188 - : [66]Figure 1 graphically illustrates the componential representation of idiom semantics:

14
paper corpusSignostxt453 - : ^3Because RRG is a monostratal theory, syntax and semantics are directly linked without abstract syntactic representations or deep structures. In RRG, there is only one level of representation from the semantic representation of a clause or logical structure to the actual order of constituents. Thus, the theory poses a linking algorithm that contains a number of principles that “illustrate the workings of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface” (^[169]Van Valin, 2005: 128 ). One of the distinguishing properties of the RRG linking algorithm is the fact that it is bidirectional, that is, it connects the semantic and syntactic representations as well as the syntactic and semantic representations.

15
paper corpusSignostxt336 - : There are cases in which a given lexical function represents one elementary meaning, as Oper, Func, Real, for which we have explained their meanings and listed examples. More functions representing elementary meanings have been discovered: Labor (Lat. laborare, to work, toil), Incep (Lat. incipere, to begin), Cont (Lat. continuare, to continue), Fin (Lat. finire, to cease), Caus (Lat. causare, to cause), Perm (Lat. permittere, to permit), Liqu (Lat. liquidare, to liquidate), etc. But there are still more cases when the verb’s semantic content in verb-noun collocations is complex and includes several elementary meanings. For example, consider the semantics of ‘begin to realize an action or begin to manifest an attribute’ from [31]Table 2, which consists of two elements:‘begin’ and ‘realize / manifest’ .To represent such compound meanings, complex lexical functions are used, those being combinations of elementary lexical functions, termed ‘simple lexical functions’. All lexical functions

16
paper corpusSignostxt319 - : We have seen that several researchers have tried to account for ser and estar based on syntactic, semantic and pragmatic approaches. This just shows how complex it is to characterize the behavior of the two Spanish copulas. Leaving aside the controversial topic of whether the relevant distinctions are encoded in the syntax, the semantics, the pragmatics of either, the copulas or the whole predication, most of the influential proposals seem to converge on the following general picture: Predicates with ser and estar give rise to different interpretations: ser predicates are generally (but not necessarily ) associated with properties that are perceived to last, to be permanent, to be inherent while estar predicates are commonly (but not always) associated with properties that are perceived as temporary, non-inherent and easy to change. Thus, most analyses agree that ser predicates are more relaxed than estar predicates in temporal terms. Importantly, ser is seen as disconnected from the

17
paper corpusSignostxt319 - : What exactly is the source of the difference between ser and estar is far from settled. According to Kratzer´s (1995) and Diesing´s (1992) proposals, in which ser and estar are assumed to be the lexical exponents of IL/SL predicates, the source of the difference is the presence/absence of a spatiotemporal argument. For Arche (2007), whose analysis also views ser and estar as the lexical exponents of the IL/SL distinction, ser and estar do not differ with respect to the spatiotemporal arguments they project (since both project spatiotemporal arguments) but rather on their lexical semantics: the linking nature of estar to a specific context is lexically encoded . For Maienborn (2003, 2005) the difference between ser and estar is only pragmatic while ser and estar have identical semantics. For Schmitt (1992, 1996, 2005) and Luján (1981), the difference lies in the aspectual properties of the predicates involving ser and estar. For Clements (2005) it is essential to consider not only the

18
paper corpusSignostxt201 - : Adele Goldberg, precursora y pionera de la gramática de las construcciones (Goldberg, 1995) aporta al volumen el innovador trabajo titulado Constructions, lexical semantics, and the correspondence principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments . El artículo introduce la tercera parte del libro denominada Lexical restrictions on syntax. La autora critica las investigaciones que tienden a proporcionar principios generalizadores para dar cuenta de algunas tendencias generales en la realización de los argumentos. En el capítulo, se defiende una revaloración del papel de las construcciones y de factores discursivos en dicha realización, de forma que las generalizaciones propuestas se vuelvan más adecuadas y productivas para predecir no solo el comportamiento de la realización argumental, sino también las distintas excepciones en ella.

19
paper corpusSignostxt309 - : "We were not ready for him. We had something of a grammar but we had no semantics. We had hardly a clear concept even of semantics as a stratum within the organization of language, that came partly that Bernstein was making our own work" (Halliday & Hasan, 2006: 21 ). (Véase Bernstein (1973) para una revisión de los conceptos sobre el lenguaje como socialización).

20
paper corpusSignostxt313 - : In an analysis carried out in the early 1980's regarding the linguistic behaviour of Romanian speakers, Pietreanu (1984) noticed that using salutation formulas was not only a matter of individual freedom, but also a matter of adhering to the norms of behaviour that exist in a particular linguistic community at a certain moment. What is more, salutation formulas must take into account "the specific semantics of the situations in which a formula is actually used" (Pietreanu, 1984: 24 ). As a speech act, a greeting is defined as "communicative behaviour, either gestural or verbal (or both), that has a certain significance for a social micro- or macro-group, by means of which attention is paid, respect or politeness is shown to a person or to a group" (Pietreanu, 1984: 29).

21
paper corpusSignostxt510 - : A partir de una concepción eminentemente generativa y, por tanto, computacional del lenguaje natural, la Teoría del Lexicón Generativo, desarrollada por ^[64]Pustejovsky en diversos trabajos (1991, ^[65]1995, ^[66]1998, ^[67]2013), reacciona contra el estatismo de las teorías semánticas al uso a mediados del siglo xx, en tanto que aboga por la naturaleza dinámica del lenguaje; en este sentido: “The difficulty here for semantics and computational lexicons is that word sense enumeration cannot characterize all the possible meanings of the lexical item in the lexicon” (^[68]Pustejovsky, 1998: 46 ; ^[69]Piera, 2009; ^[70]Pustejovsky, Bouillon, Isahara, Kanzaki & Lee, 2013).

22
paper corpusSignostxt510 - : “If the denotation of one sense of a lexical item is "dependent" on another, then that dependency is part of the semantic representation of that lexical item. A familiar example is father or mother, where the relational nature must be part of the semantics of the noun” (^[132]Pustejovsky & Anick, 1988: 519 ).

23
paper corpusSignostxt510 - : ^3No debe olvidarse, pues, que “The generative approach to lexical semantics derives its name from the use of generative devices instead of a fixed set of primitives. Much of the theory consists of structuring and integrating a number of well-known proposals on specific topics in lexical semantics and knowledge representation into one coherent theory” (Heylen, 1995: 129 ). Vid. De Miguel (2012, 2014) para un panorama actual sobre algunos proyectos lexicológicos en marcha.

Evaluando al candidato semantics:


1) lexical: 19 (*)
3) verb: 10 (*)
5) lat.: 7
6) predicates: 7 (*)
7) linguistic: 6 (*)
8) representation: 5 (*)
10) interoperability: 4
13) duplicated: 4
17) pustejovsky: 4
19) elementary: 4 (*)
20) syntactic: 4 (*)

semantics
Lengua: eng
Frec: 688
Docs: 348
Nombre propio: 2 / 688 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 7
Puntaje: 7.693 = (7 + (1+6.22881869049588) / (1+9.42836017270429)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
semantics
: ------; y Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. London: Wiley.
: 1. Asher, N. & Sablayrolles, P. (1994). A Typology and Discourse semantics for Motion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French. Journal of Semantics, 12. Pp. 163 - 209.
: 10. Dahl, Östen. 1981. On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-nonbounded) distinction. En Philip Tedeschi y Annie Zaenen (eds.). Syntax and semantics.Vol. 14. Tense and aspect, 79-90. NewYork:Academic Press.
: 10. Levin & Rappaport (1993). Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, The MIT Press.
: 10. Raskin, V. (1985). Semantics Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reídle Publishing.
: 11.Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: 14. Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semántica. 6 (2): 222-254.
: 14. Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: 14. Matt, B. (1996). A Course in Semantics and Translation for Spanish Learners of English. Barcelona, España: Editorial Barcelona, EUB, S.L.
: 14. Paradis, C. (2005). Ontologies and Construals in Semantics. En Axiomathes. Number 15. Pp. 541 – 573.
: 16.Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.
: 17. Wolff, P., & Song, G. (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology, 47(3), 276-332.
: 18. Hovy, E. H. (2002). Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies. En Green, R., Bean, C.A. y Myaeng, S. H. (Eds.), The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 91-110). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
: 20. Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
: 21. Cruse, A. (1995). Polysemy and Related Phenomena. En Saint-Dizier, P. y Viegas, E. (Eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
: 22. Levin, Beth y Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the syntaxlexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
: 23. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: 25. Ward, Gregory y Betty Birner. 1993. The semantics and pragmatics of “and everything”. Journal of Pragmatics 19. 205-214.
: 28. van Dijk, T. (1977). Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. Londres: Longman.
: 3. Chierchia & McConnell. (1996). Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, The MIT Press.
: 31. Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. En John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol 4, 181-238. New York: Academic Press.
: 32. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. En P. Cole y J. Morgan (coords.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: 34. Cruise, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: 35. Cruise, D. A. (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford, Reino Unido: Oxford University Press.
: 39. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatic. The semantics of human interaction. Berlín-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
: 4. Cruse, D. A. (1995). Polysemy and Related Phenomena from a Cognitive Linguistics Viewpoint. En P. Saint-Dizier and E. Viegas (eds). Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
: 4.Harman, Gilbert. 1982. Conceptual role semantics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 23. 242-256.
: 5. Givón, Talmy. 1979. From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. En Talmy Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Discourse and
: 5. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. En P. Cole y J. L. Morgan (Comps.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: 5.Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. En Sociedad Lingüística de Corea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111-138. Seúl: Hanshin.
: 53. Tomlin, Russell, Linda Forrest, Ming Ming Pu y Myung Hee Kim. 1997. Discourse semantics. En Teun van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process, Vol I, 63-111. London: Sage.
: 53. Wolff, P. & Song, G. (2001). Models of Causation and the Semantics of Causal Verbs. The 42th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Orlando.
: 6. Coene, Martine e Yves D’Hulst. 2003. Introduction: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases: Theoretical background. En Martine Coene e Yves D’Hulst (eds.), From NP to DP, 1-46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: 6. Fintel, K. (1995). The formal semantics of grammaticalization. Proceedings from workshop on language acquisition and language change . Amherst, MA: University of Massachussets Amherst.
: 8. Grice, Herbert. 1975. Logic and conversation. En Peter Cole y Jerry Morgan, (eds.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
: 8. Gruber, J. (1975). Lexical Structure in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam, North Holland.
: 8. Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. Nueva York: Academic Press.
: 9. Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: 9. Landman, F. (1991). Structures For Semantics (studies in Linguistics and Philosophy). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
: Allan, Keith 2001 Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
: Anick, P. & Bergler, S. (1991). Lexical structures for linguistic inference. En J.Pustejovsky & S. Bergler (Eds.), Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation. Proceedings of the First SIGLEX Workshop (pp. 121-135). Berlín / Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
: Apresjan, J. (1974). Lexical Semantics. User's Guide to Contemporary Russian Vocabulary. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers.
: Apresjan, J. (1995). Lexical semantics. (In Russian). Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura RAN.
: Baker, C. (2014). FrameNet: A knowledge base for natural language processing. In Proceedings of Frame Semantics in NLP: A workshop in honor of Chuck Fillmore (1929-2014) (pp. 1-5). Baltimore, Maryland.
: Beck, S. (2001). Reciprocal are definites. Natural Language Semantics, 9(1), 69-138.
: Benedetti, G. (2009). The Meaning of the Basic Elements of Language in Terms of Cognitive Operations: Operational Semantics. Advanced Studies in Biology, 1(6), 255-305.
: Bierwisch, M. (1989). The semantics of gradation. En, M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.) Dimensional adjectives (pp. 71-261). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
: Bierwisch, M. 1989. "The semantics of gradation". En Bierwisch, B. y Lang, E. (eds.) Dimensional adjectives: Grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 71-261.
: Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Blühdorn, H. (2008). Subordination and coordination in syntax, semantics and discourse: Evidence from the Study of connectives. En C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), Subordination versus Coordination in Sentence and Text (pp. 59-85). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Booij, Geert, "Morphology, semantics and argument structure", Thematic structure its role in grammar, Iggy M. Roca (Ed.), Berlin - New Cork, Foris Publications, 1992, 47-64.
: Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
: Bosque, I. 2001. "Adjective position and the interpretation of indefinities". En Guitérrez-Rexach, J. y Silva-Villar, L. (eds.) Current issues in Spanish syntax and semantics. Nueva York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 17-37.
: Breheny, R. (2008). A New Look at the Semantics and Pragmatics of Numerically Quantified Noun Phrases. Journal of Semantics, 25(2), 93-139. [126]https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm016
: Briscoe, T. & Copestake, A. (1991). Sense Extensions as lexical Rules. In Proceedings of ACL SIGLEX Workshop on Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation (pp. 88-101). California: Berkeley.
: COLE, P. (1975). Syntax and Semantics 3 Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
: Cann, R. (1993). Formal semantics. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Caponigro, Ivano. (2001). On the semantics of indefinite free relatives. En Marjo van Koppen, Joanna Sio y Mark de Vos (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE 10 (pp. 49-62). Leiden, Holanda: SOLE.
: Caponigro, Ivano. (2003). On the semantics of free relatives and wh-words cross-linguistically. Tesis doctoral. California, Estados Unidos: UCLA.
: Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. Em R. Kempson, (Ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality (pp. 155-181). Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.
: Cattell, Ray (1984), Composite Predicates in English (Syntax and Semantics, 17), Sídney/Nueva York/Londres, Academic Press Australia.
: Chierchia, G. (1982). Nominalization and Montague grammar: A semantics without types for natural languages. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 303-54.
: Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to Kinds Across Languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339-405.
: Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation, em D. Steinberg et al. (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
: Chu, C. C. (1996). Source and management: Two tiers of information structure. En T. F. Cheng y H. J. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of NACCL-7 and ICCL- 4, Volume 1: Pragmatics, Syntax and Semantics (pp. 37-53). Los Angeles: GSIL, University of Southern California.
: Cifuentes, P. (2010). The semantics of the English and the Spanish motion verb lexicons. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 8(2), 233-271.
: Cifuentes-Férez, Paula. 2009. A crosslinguistic study on the semantics of motion verbs in English and Spanish. Munich, Lincolm.
: Cipria, A. & Roberts, C. (2000). Spanish imperfecto y pretérito: Truth conditions and aktionsart effects in a situation semantics. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 297-347.
: Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. En T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27-63). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Clements, J. (1988). The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Spanish Construction. Linguistics, 26, 779-882.
: Clements, J. C. (2005). 'Ser' and 'estar' in the predicate adjective construction. In J. C. Clements & J. Yoon (eds.), Functional approaches to Spanish syntax: Lexical semantics, discourse, and transitivity (pp. 161-202). London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
: Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London & Canberra: Croom Helm.
: Coffin, C. (2002). The voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text & Talk, 22(4), 503-528. [156]http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1515/text.2002.020
: Cohen, L. J. (1979). «The semantics of metaphor». In A. Ortony. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
: Coleman, L. & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language, 57(1), 26-44.
: Copestake, A. (1995). The representation of group denoting nouns in a lexical knowledge base. En P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational lexical semantics (pp. 217-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Cornillie, B. (2010). On conceptual semantics and discourse function. the case of spanish modal adverbs in informal conversation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 300-320.
: Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Cresswell, M. (1985). Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
: Cresswell, M. 1976. "The semantics of degree". En Partee, B. H. (ed.) Montague grammar. Nueva York: Academic Press, pp. 261-292.
: Croft, W. (1993). Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. En J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 55-72). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
: Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
: Cruse, D. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Curnow, T. J. (1993). Semantics of Spanish causatives involving HACER. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 13(2), 165-184.
: Dalrymple, Mary y Mofu, Suriel 2012 "Plural Semantics, Reduplication, and Numeral Modification in Indonesian". Journal of Semantics, 29 (2), 229-260. [75]https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffr015.
: Dipper, S., Götze, M. & Skopeteas, S. (2007). Information Structure in Cross-Linguistic Corpora: Annotation Guidelines for Phonolog y, Morpholog y, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure. ISIS Working Papers of the SFB Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
: Dixon, R. (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone? And other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Mouton De Gruyter.
: Dixon, R. M. W. (2009). The Semantics of Clause Linking in Typological Perspective. En R. M. W. Dixon y A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Semantics of Clause Linking (pp. 1-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Donnellan, K. (1971). Reference and definite descriptions. En D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 100-114). Inglaterra: Cambridge University Press.
: Doron, Edit (2003), “Agency and voice: the semantics of the Semitic templates”, Natural Language Semantics, 11, pp. 1-67.
: Dotlacil, J. (2013). Reciprocals distribute over information states. Journal of Semantics, 30, 423-477.
: Downing, A. (1996). The semantics of get-passives. En R. Hasan, D. Butt & C. Cloran (Eds.), Functional descriptions: Linguistic form and linguistic theory (pp. 179-205). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.
: Duranti, A. & Ochs, E. (1979). Left dislocation in Italian conversation. En T. Givón (Ed.), syntax and semantics 12. Discourse and syntax (pp. 337-416). New York: Academic Press.
: Egg, M. (1995). The intergressive as a new category of verbal Aktionsart. Journal of Semantics, 12, 311-356.
: Escandell, M. & Leonetti, M. (2002). Coercion and the Stage / Individual Distinction. En J. Gutiérrez-Rexach J. (ed.), From Words to Discourse. Trends in Spanish Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 159-179). Nueva York: Elsevier.
: Eschenbach, C. (1993). Semantics of number. Journal of Semantics, 10(1), 1-31.
: Faller, M. (2007). The ingredients of reciprocity in Cuzco Quechua. Journal of Semantics, 24(3), 255-288.
: Fawcett, R. (2000c). In place of Halliday's 'verbal group'. Part 2: Evidence from generation, semantics and interruptability'. Word, 51(3), 327-75.
: Filip, Hanna. 1996. "Integrating Telicity, Aspect and NP Semantics: The Role of Thematic Structure". En Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. Ed., J. Toman. Michigan Slavic publications, 66-99.
: Fillmore, C. & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. En A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Fillmore, C. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. En A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing (pp. 55-81). Ámsterdam: North Holland.
: Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. En Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seúl, Hanshin Publishing Co.
: Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica.
: Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.). Linguistic Structures Processing, (pp. 55-81). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
: Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. En Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981 (pp. 111-137). Seúl: Hanshin.
: Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222-254.
: Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. En The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111-137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
: Fillmore, Ch. & Atkins, S. (1992). Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors. En A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp. 75-102). Hilldale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Fillmore, Ch. (1982). Frame semantics. En Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111-138). Seoul: Hanshin.
: Firth, J. (1935). The technique of semantics. Meeting of the Philological Society, 34(1), 36-72.
: Fraurud, K. (1990). Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics 7, 395-433.
: Frawley, W. (1991). Linguistic semantics. Nueva Jersey: Routledge.
: Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
: Frishkoff, G., & Tucker, D. (2000). Anatomy of the N400: Brain Electrical Activity in Propositional Semantics. Brain Electrophysiology Lab, University of Oregon Electrical Geodesics, Inc.
: GIVON, T. (Ed.). (1979) Discourse and Syntax. Syntax and Semantics, Vol.12 New York: Academy Press.
: GRICE, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. En P. Cole y J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics, vol. III) (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
: Gavins, J. (2005). (Re)thinking modality: A text-world perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 34, 79-93.
: Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
: Geeraerts, Dirk 1997 Diachronic Prototype Semantics. A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Gennari, S. (2002). Spanish past and future tenses: Less (semantics) is more. En J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics (pp. 21-36). Ámsterdam: Elsevier.
: Givón, Talmy (1979)“From Discourse to Syntax: Grammar as a Processing Strategy”. En Syntax and Semantics. Discourse and Syntax. Ed. Talmy Givón. New York: Academic Press, 81-112.
: Glynn, Dylan y Justina Robinson. (2014). Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 43, 7, 205-238.
: Goddard, C. (2004), The Ethnopragmatic and Semantics of ‘Active Metaphors’. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1211-1230. [106]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.011
: Goldberg, Adele. (2010). Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. En Edit Doron y Ivy Sichel (eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structures (pp. 39-58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Grice, H. (1975). Logic and Conversation. En P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3 (pp. 41-58). New York, Academic Press.
: Grice, L. (1975) "Logic and conversation", en Cole y Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, New York: Academic Press, 178-188.
: Grice, P (1975). Logic and conversation. En P. Cole y J. Morgan (eds.), Speech and semantics, 3: Speech acts (pp. 41- 58). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Griffiths, P. (2006). An introduction to English semantics and pragmatics. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
: Grinstead, J., McCurly, D., Pratt, T., Obregon, P. & Flores, B. (2013). The semantics of the tense deficit in child Spanich SL. Ohio: John Benjamins.
: Groenendijk, J. A. & Stokhof, M. J. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Tesis de doctorado, Universidad de Ámsterdam, Ámsterdam, Holanda.
: Groenendijk, Jeroen y Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers, Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Amsterdam. [en línea] Disponible en [102]https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1989717/27444_Proefschrift_001_257.PDF
: Grosu, Alexander y Landman, Fred. (1998). Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 125-170.
: Grosu, Alexander. (2004). The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions. En Olga Miseska Tomic (Ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics (pp. 405-438). Amsterdam, Holanda: John Benjamins.
: Haverkate, H. (2002). The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series). John Benjamins Publishing.
: Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases (tesis de doctorado). Universidad de Massachussets, Amherst, Estados Unidos.
: Heim, Irene. 1979. Concealed questions, en R. Bäuerle y otros (eds.), Semantics from different points of view, Berlín, Springer: 51-60.
: Heinämäki, O. (1978). Semantics of English Temporal Connectives. Helsinki: Universidad de Helsinki.
: Heylen, D. (1995). Lexical functions, generative lexicons and the world. En P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.). Computational lexical semantics (pp. 125-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
: Hinrichs, E. (1986). A compositional semantics for Aktionsarten and NP-reference in English. Tesis Doctoral, Ohio State University, Columbus.
: Hoeksema, J., y Zwarts, F. (1991). Some remarks on Focus adverbs. Journal of Semantics, 8, 5170. University of Groningen.
: Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1975. "On assertive predicates". En: J.P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 4. New York/London: Academic Press, pp. 91-124.
: Hopper, J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. En T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 213-241). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Hopper, P. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. Syntax and semantics, 12, 213-241. [119]https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_010
: Hopper, P. (1982). Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. John Benjamins. [88]https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.1
: Horn, L. R. (1992). The Said and the Unsaid. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 163-191. [140]https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v2i0.3039
: Hovav, M. R., Doron, E., & Sichel, I. 2010. Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
: Huang, Y. & Pinker, S. (2010). Lexical semantics and irregular inflection. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1411-1461. doi: 10.1080/01690961003589476
: Hurford, J. and Heasley, B., 1988. Semantics: a coursebook. Cambridge, CUP.
: Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1325-1353.
: Ingria, R. J. P & George, L. M. (1993). Adjectives, nominals, and the status of arguments. En J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 107-127). Dordrecht/Boston/Londres: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
: Israeli, A. (1997). Semantics and pragmatics of the reflexive verbs in Russian. Slavistische Beiträge. München: Verlag Otto Sagner.
: Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge-Londres: MIT Press.
: Jaszczolt, K. (2005). Default Semantics. Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
: Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to modeltheoretical semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
: Kamp, J. A. W. (1975). Two theories of adjectives. En, E. Keenan (Ed.) Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 123-155). Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
: Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions, Linguistics and Philosophy, 1: 3-44.
: Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H. & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1-44.
: Kehler, Andrew, Laura Kertz, Hannah Rohde e Jeffrey L. Elman. 2008. Coherence and Coreference Revisited, Journal of Semantics, 25, 1: 1-44.
: Kennedy, C. & McNally, L. (1999). From event structure to scale structure: Degree modification in deverbal adjectives. In T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX (pp. 163-180). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
: Kennedy, C. & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification and the semantics of gradable adjectives. Language, 81, 345-381.
: Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective. The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Nueva York, USA: Garland Press.
: Kennedy, C. y L. McNally, 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates, Language, 81(2): 345-381.
: Kennedy, Christopher y Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. En Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse. Eds., Louise McNally y Chris Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 156-182.
: Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1971. Fact, en D. Steinberg y L.A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 345-369.
: Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for possitive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 1-45.
: Korzybski, Alfred. (1948). An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics. Lakeville, Connecticut: International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company.
: Kos, M., Vosse, T., van Den Brink, D., Hagoort, P., et al. (2010). About edible restaurants: Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-11.
: Kratzer, Angelika (2005), “Building resultatives”, en C. Maienborn y A. Wöllstein-Leisten (eds.), Event Arguments in Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse, Tubinga, Niemeyer, pp. 178-212.
: Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. 1992. Structures of visual representations. Journal of Literary Semantics, 21(2), 91-117.
: Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics. En Semantics and Contextual Expressiones. Eds. Renate Barsch, Johan van Benthem y Peter van Emde Boas. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 75-115.
: Kövecses, Z., & Szabó, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 326-355. [116]https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.3.326
: LADD, D.R., (1979) . "Light and Shadow. A study of the syntax and semantics of sentence is English" , in WAUGH, LR- & VAN COETSEN, F. (EDS.), Contributions to Grammatical studies, Semantics and Syntax, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
: Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In, D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.) Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology (pp. 232-296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
: Lakoff, G. (2003). Metaphor and semantics. En W.J. Frawley (Ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics 3 (pp. 53-54). Oxford: Oxford University Press .
: Landman, F. (1992). Structures for semantics. Dordrechts: Kluwer.
: Landman, Fred y Susan Rothstein. 2010. "Incremental homogeneity and the semantics of aspectual for phrases". En Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure. Eds., M. Rappaport Hovav, I. Sichel y E. Doron. Oxford: OUP.
: Langacker, R. (1997). The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. En J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 229-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Langacker, R. (1998). Indeterminacy in semantics and grammar. En J.L. Cifuentes (Ed.), Estudios de Lingüística Cognitiva II (pp. 649–672). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
: Langacker, R. (2000). Why a mind is necessary. Conceptualization, grammar and linguistic semantics. En L. Albertazzi (ed.), Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 25-38). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Lascarides, A. & Asher, N. (2008). Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. En H. Bunt & R. Muskens (Eds.), Computing meaning (pp. 87-124). Dordrecht: Springer.
: Lemke, J. (1988). Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientations in text semantics. Functions of Language, 5(1), 33-56. [132]https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.5.1.03lem
: Lemke, J. (1989). Semantics and social values. Word, 40(1-2), 37-50.
: Lemke, J. (1998). Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientation in text semantics. Functions of Language, 5, 33-56. [146]https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.5.1.03lem
: Leonetti, M. & V. Escandell Vidal (2002). Coercion and the Stage / Individual distinction. In J. Gutiérrez Rexach (eds.), From words to discourse. Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics (pp. 159-180). Oxford: Elsevier.
: Levin, B. & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 26.
: Levin, B. & Rappaport, M. (1992). The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity. En I. M. Roca (Ed.),Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar (pp. 247-269). Foris: Berlin.
: Levin, Beth y Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995), Unaccusativity. At the syntax-lexical semantics interface, Cambridge, Mass. / Londres, The MIT Press.
: Link, G. (1998). Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
: Longobardi, G. (2001). How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 335-369.
: Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Löbner, S. (1985). Definites. Journal of Semantics, 4, 279-326.
: Löbner, S. (2002). Understanding Semantics. Londres: Arnold.
: MacKay, D. G. & James, L. E. 2001. "The binding problem for syntax, semantics, and prosody: H. M. ‘s selective sentences-reading deficits and theoretical syndrome approach". En Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, pp. 419-460.
: Mangialavori Rasia, María Eugenia. 2015. "Verbs, semantics and (L)syntax: A proposal for Iberian Romance meaningful copulas". Conferencia presentada en el XXIX Going Romance, Radboud University. Nijmegen/ Molenhoek (Holanda). 10-12 de diciembre de 2015.
: Martin, J.R. (2017). The Discourse Semantics of Attitudinal Relations: Continuing the Study of Lexis. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 21(1), 22-47. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-1-22-47
: Marín, R. (2010). Spanish adjectives within bounds. En P. Cabredo Hofherr & O. Matushansky (Eds.), Adjectives. Formal analyses in syntax and semantics (pp. 307-331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument Structure: Relational construal at the syntax semantics interface. PhD Dissertation. Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
: McCawley, J. (1971). Tense and time reference in English. En C. Fillmore & D. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 97-114). Nueva York: Holt, Rinehart y Winston.
: McNally, L. y Kennedy, C. (2008). Adjectives and adverbs. Syntax, semantics, and discourse. Oxford University Press.
: Meij, E., Weerkamp, W. & de Rijke, M. (2012). Adding Semantics to Microblog Posts. Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 563-572). Seattle, Washington, USA: ACM.
: Mejías-Bikandi, E. (2002). Space accessibility and the pragmatic status of propositions. En J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.). From words to discourse: Trends in spanish semantics and pragmatics (pp. 145-158). Oxford: Elsevier.
: Mikkelsen, Line. 2011. Copular clauses, en C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger y P. Portner (ed.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning, volumen 2, Berlín, De Gruyter Mouton: 1805-1829.
: Morgan, Jerry. 1978. "Two types of convention in indirect speech acts". En Peter Cole (ed.) Syntax and semantics. Vol 9: Pragmatics. Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Musolino, J. (2004). The Semantics and Acquisition of Number Words: Integrating Linguistic And Developmental Perspectives. Cognition, 93(1), 1-41. [148]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.002
: Ni, W., Crain, S. & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics, and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283-334.
: Nippold, M. A. (2000). Language development during the adolescent years: Aspects of pragmatics, syntax, and semantics. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(2), 15-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200020020-00004
: Ostermann, Carolin. 2015. Cognitive lexicography. A new approach to lexicography making use of congnitive semantics, Berlin, De Gruyter.
: Palmer, F. (1979). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Palmer, F.R., 1976. Semantics. New York: CUP.
: Papafragou, A. & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86(3), 253-282.
: Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
: París, L. (2006). Implicating and focusing on underspecifed lexical information. En K. von Heusinger & K. Turner (Eds.), When semantics meets pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
: Pennacchiotti, M. & Pantel, P. (2009). Entity extraction via ensemble semantics. En Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Singapore: ACL.
: Perek, F. (2016). Using Distributional Semantics to Study Syntactic Productivity in Diachrony: A Case Study. Linguistics. 54(1), pp. 149-88.
: Periñán-Pascual, C. & Arcas-Túnez, F. (2007a). Deep semantics in an NLP knowledge base. Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Spanish Association for Artificial Intelligence (pp. 279-288). Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.
: Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1987). Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Volume I: Fundamentals. Stanford: CSLI.
: Posio, P. (2011). Spanish subject pronoun usage and verb semantics revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 777-798.
: Posio, P. (2011). Spanish subject pronoun usage and verb semantics revisited: First and second person singular subject pronouns and focusing of attention in spoken Peninsular Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 777-798. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.012.
: Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 458-470.
: Pustejovsky, J. (1995). Linguistic Constraints on Type Coercion. En P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics (pp. 71-97), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Pustejovsky, J. (1996). The semantics of Complex Types. Conferencia presentada en VIII European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI’ 96), Praga, República Checa.
: PÊCHEUX, M. (1982). Language, Semantics and Ideology: Stating the Obvious. Londres y Basingstoke: Macmillan.
: Querido, A. (1976). The semantics of copulative constructions in Portuguese. In M. Luján & F. Hensey (Eds.), Current studies in Romance linguistics (pp. 343-366). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
: Rappaport Hovav, M., Doron, E. & Sichel, I. (2010). Introduction. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
: Rappaport, M., Doron, E. & Siche, I. (2010). Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure. London & New York: OUP.
: Reyes , Anna. 1974. The semantics of direct and indirect discourse, Paper in Linguistics, 7,3-4: 267-307.
: Riemer, N. (2010). Introducing semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Rohde, A. (2001). Analyzing path: The Interplay of Verbs, Prepositions and Construcional Semantics Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University, Department of Linguistics, Houston, Estados Unidos.
: Romero, E. & Soria, B. (2005b). Cognitive Metaphor Theory Revisited. Journal of Literary Semantics, 34, 1-20.
: Romero, Maribel. 2007. On concealed questions, en M. Gibson y J. Howell (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVI, Ithaca (Nueva York), CLC Publications: 208-227.
: Rothbart, D. (1984). "The semantics of metaphor and the structure of science", Philosophy of Science 51(4), 595-615.
: Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
: Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives. Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 259-288.
: Rozwadowska, Bozena. 1988. Thematic Restrictions on Derived Nominals in Thematic Relations. Syntax and semantics. 21, 147-165.
: Ruimy, N., Gola, E. & Monachini, M. (2001). Lexicography informs lexical semantics: The SIMPLE experience. En P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.) The language of word meaning (pp. 350-362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: SEUREN, P.A.M. (1985) Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
: SHACHTER, P. (1977). Reference-related and Role-related Properties of Subjects. En Cole, P. & Sadock, J. M. (Eds.) Grammatical Relations, Syntax and Semantics, 8 (pp. 279-305). New York: Academic Press.
: Saeed, J. I. (2016). Semantics. 4th ed. Chichester, WS: Wiley Blackwell.
: Sauerland, U. & Stateva, P. (2007). Scalar vs. epistemic vagueness. En M. Gibson & T. Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Ithaca: CLC Publications .
: Schmitt, C. (2005). Semi-copulas: Event and aspectual composition. In P. Kemp-chinsky and R. Slabakova (eds.), The syntax, semantics and the acquisition of aspect (pp. 121-145). Springer: Kluwer.
: Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. En P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59-82). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Sevi, A. (1998). A semantics for ‘barely’ and ‘almost’. Tesis de magíster, Universidad de Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel.
: Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causatives constructions: A conceptus. En M. Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics. The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 6 pp. 1-40). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. Syntax and semantics, vol. IV: The grammar of causative constructions, New York, Academic Press.
: Sinclair, J. M. (1998). The lexical item. En E. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics (pp. 1-24). Ámsterdam-Filadelfia: John Benjamins.
: Soares da Silva, A. (2003). Image schemas and category coherence: The case of the Portuguese verb deixar. En H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven y J. R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (pp. 281-298). Berlín / Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Staroverov, P. (2007). Relational nouns and reciprocal plurality. En T. Friedman & M. Gibson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Semantics and Linguistic Theory conference (pp. 300-316). Nueva York: Cornell University.
: Stechow, A. von. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1-77.
: Stubbs, M. (2000). Using very large text collections to study semantics schemas: A research note [En línea]. Disponible en: http://www.uni-trier.de/uni/fb2/anglistik/Projekte/stubbs/largtext.htm
: Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases. Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
: Studler, R. (2014). "The Morphology, Syntax and Semantics of Definite Determiners in Swiss German". En P. Cabredo y A. Zribi-Hertz (Eds.). Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference (pp. 143-171). Leiden/Boston: Brill.
: Suñer, Margarita. 1982. The Syntax and Semantics of Presentational Sentence-Types in Spanish. Georgetown University Press.
: Syrett, K. (2007). Learning about the structure of scales: Adverbial modification and the acquisition of the semantics of gradable adjectives. PhD dissertation. Northwestern University.
: Talmy, L. (2000). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol. 1, pp. 409-470). Cambridge: MIT Press.
: Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. (Vols. 1 y 2) Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
: Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept Structuring Systems (1^ra edic, vol. I). Cambridge, EE.UU: The MIT Press.
: Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Talmy, Leonard (1976), “Semantic causative types”, en M. Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions, Nueva York, Academic Press, pp. 43-116.
: Talmy, Leonard. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.
: Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, 2 volumes, Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
: Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: MIT.
: Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341-376.
: Tomioka, S. (2003). The semantics of Japanese full pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. En K. Schwabe, & S. Winkler (Eds.), The interfaces: deriving and interpreting omitted structures (pp. 321-340). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: [205]https://doi.org/10.1075/la.61.16tom
: Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions. Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
: Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics. An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.
: Van Dijk, T. (1977). Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
: Van Dijk, T. (1995). "Discourse semantics and ideology". Discourse and society 6.2: 243-289.
: Van Valin, R. (2005). Exploring the sintax- semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Van Voorst, Jan (1992), “The aspectual semantics of psychological verbs”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, pp. 65-92.
: Von Fintel, K., Fox, D., & Iatridou, S. (2014). Definiteness as Maximal Informativeness. En Crnic, L., & Sauerland, U. (Eds.), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim (pp. 165-174). MIT Press.
: Von Heusinger, K. & G. A. Kaiser. (2007). Differential object marking and lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. En Kaiser, G. A. y M. Leonetti, Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance languages (pp. 85-110). Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.
: Von-Fintel, K. (1993). Exceptive constructions. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 123-148.
: Vázquez Rozas, Victoria (2006) “Gustar”. En Functional approaches to Spanish syntax. Lexical semantics, discourse and transitivity. Eds., J. Clancy Clements y Jiyoung Yoon. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins , 80-114.
: Walchi, B., & Cysouw, M. (2012). Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50-3, 671-710.
: White, P. (2000). Dialogue and inter–subjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. En M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill & F. Rock (Eds.), Working with dialogue (pp. 67–80). Tubingen: Neimeyer.
: White, P.R.R. (2006). Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse - a new framework for analysis. En I. Lassen (Ed.). Mediating Ideology in Text and Image: Ten critical studies, (pp. 37-69). Amsterdam, Netherlads: John Benjamins.
: Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interactions. Berlín-New York, Germany - USA: Walter de Gruyter.
: Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
: Wolff, P. & Song, G. (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology, 47(3), 276-332.
: Wolff, P. & Ventura, T. (2009). When Russians learn English: How the semantics of causation may change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 153-176.
: Wolff, P. , & Song, G. 2003. Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cogn Psychol, 47 (3), 276-332.
: Yoon, Y. (1996). Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 217-236.
: Yule, G. (1982). Interpreting anaphora without identifying reference. Journal of Semantics, 1, 315-322.
: Zondervan, A. (2009). Experiments on QUD and focus as a contextual constraint on scalar implicature calculation. En U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 94-112). Houndmills (Basingstoke): Palgrave Macmillan.
: Zucchi, A. (1993). The language of propositions and events. Issues in the syntax and semantics of nominalization. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
: Zucchi, S. (1999). Incomplete events, intensionality and imperfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 179-215.
: [118]Levin, Beth y Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the syntax-lexical semantics interface, Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press.
: [142]Langacker, Roland W. 1982. Remarks on English Aspect, en P.J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics & Pragmatics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 265-304.
: [144]Levin, Beth y Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1992. The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity, en I. M. Roca (ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, Berlin, Foris: 247–269.
: [151]Farkas[152], Donka. 2002. Specificity Distinctions, Journal of Semantics 19: 213-243.
: [152]Manzini, Maria Rita. 1986. On italian si, em Hagit Borer (org.) Syntax and semantics: the syntax of pronominal clitic, New York, Academic Press: 241-262.
: [154]Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew, en Susan Rohstein (ed.), Syntax and semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure, New York, Academic Press: 37-62.
: [156]Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Tesis de doctorado, University of Massachusetts.
: [160]Jaeggli[161], Osvaldo. 1986. Three Issues in the Theory of Clitics: Case, Doubled NPs, and Extraction, en Hagit Borer (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 19.The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Orlando, Academic Press: 15-42.
: [160]Talmy, Len. 1975. Semantics and Syntax of Motion, en J. Kimball, Syntax and Semantics 4, Cambridge, CUP: 181-238.
: [161]Lyons[162], John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
: [162]Talmy, Len. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Cambridge, MIT Press.
: [169]Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in Noun Phrases: evidence from modern Hebrew, en S. Rothstein (ed). Perspectives on phrase structure, Number 26, Syntax and Semantics, New York, Academic Press: 37-62.
: [174]Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese (Syntax and semantics 22), San Diego, Calif., Academic Press.
: [177]Lehrer, Adrienne. 1998. Scapes, holics and thons: the semantics of combining forms, American Speech, 73 (1): 3-28.
: [177]Pujalte, Mercedes y Andrés Saab. 2012, Syncretism as PF-repair: the case of SE insertion in Spanish, en Ma C. Cuervo y Y. Roberge (eds.), The end of argument structure?, Syntax and Semantics 38, Bingley, Emerald: 229-260.
: [201]-------. 1992. Agreement and Case in past participle clauses in Italian, Syntax and Semantics, 26: 21-44.
: [221]Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice, Amherst, University of Massachusetts.
: [225]Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a study of subatomic semantics, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
: [52]Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics (vol. 1). Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
: [54]Wierzbicka, Anna. 2003. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
: [68]Li, Charles N. e Sandra A. Thompson. [69]1979. Third-person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse, em T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics: discourse and syntax, vol. 12, Academic Press: 311-335.
: [77]Ochs, Elinor. 1979. Planned and unplanned discourse, in T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol.12, Discourse and Syntax, Academic Press, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
: [87]Herskovits, Annette. 1985. Semantics and Pragmatics of Locative Expressions, Cognitive Science, 9/3: 341-378.
: [99]Bolinger[100], Dwight. 1979. Pronouns in discourse, en T. Givón (ed.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 12, New York, Academic Press: 289-309.
: ______. 1977. The case for case reopened, em P. Cole and P. Sadock, Syntax and semantics: grammatical relations, vol. 08, New York, Academic Press: 59-82.
: van Dijk, T. (1977 Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse, London: Longman.