Abstract
There are two main approaches to the problem of donkey anaphora (e.g. If John owns a donkey, he beats it). Proponents of dynamic approaches take the pronoun to be a logical variable, but they revise the semantics of quantifiers so as to allow them to bind variables that are not within their syntactic scope. Older dynamic approaches took this measure to apply solely to existential quantifiers; recent dynamic approaches have extended it to all quantifiers. By contrast, proponents of E-type analyses take the pronoun to have the semantics of a definite description (with it ≈ the donkey, or the donkey that John owns). While competing accounts make very different claims about the patterns of coindexation that are found in the syntax, these are not morphologically realized in spoken languages. But they are in sign language, namely through locus assignment and pointing. We make two main claims on the basis of ASL and LSF data. First, sign language data favor dynamic over E-type theories: in those cases in which the two approaches make conflicting predictions about possible patterns of coindexation, dynamic analyses are at an advantage. Second, among dynamic theories, sign language data favor recent ones because the very same formal mechanism is used irrespective of the indefinite or non-indefinite nature of the antecedent. Going beyond this debate, we argue that dynamic theories should allow pronouns to be bound across negative expressions, as long as the pronoun is presupposed to have a non-empty denotation. Finally, an appendix displays and explains subtle differences between overt sign language pronouns and all other pronouns in examples involving ‘disjunctive antecedents’, and suggests that counterparts of sign language loci might be found in spoken language.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bahan B., Kegl J., MacLaughlin D., Neidle C. (1995) Convergent evidence for the structure of determiner phrases in American Sign Language. In: Gabriele L., Hardison D., Westmoreland R. (eds) FLSM VI, Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid- America Vol. 2. Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications, Bloomington, IN, pp 1–12
Beaver D. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford, CSLI
Brasoveanu, A. (2006). Structured nominal and modal reference. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Brasoveanu A. (2008) Donkey pluralities: Plural Information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 129–209
Charolles M. (1995) Comment repêcher les derniers? Analyse des expressions anaphoriques en ce dernier. Pratiques 85: 90–112
Chemla, E. (2009). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.
Chierchia G. (1995) Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Cooper R. (1979) The interpretation of pronouns. Syntax and Semantics, 10: 61–92
Corblin F. (1998) ≪ Celui-ci ≫ anaphorique : un mentionnel. Langue française 120: 33–43
Dekker P. (2004) Cases, adverbs, situations and events. In: Kamp H., Partee B. (eds) Contextdependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge MA
Elbourne P. (2010) On bishop sentences. Natural Language Semantics 18: 65–78
Emmorey K. (2002) Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Evans G. (1977) Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7: 467–536
Evans G. (1980) Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2): 337–362
Fox D. (2008) Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 237–252
Geach P. (1962) Reference and generality. Cornell University Press, Cornell
George, B. (2008a). Predicting presupposition projection: Some alternatives in the strong Kleene tradition. Manuscript, UCLA. Semantics Archive, http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DY0YTgxN/. Accessed 27 Nov 2011.
George, B. (2008b). Presupposition repairs: A static, trivalent approach to predicting presupposition. MA Thesis, UCLA. Semantics Archive, http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/2ZiYmEyN/. Accessed 27 Nov 2011.
Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1): 39–100
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Heim I. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177
Huang C.-T. J. (1984) On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574
Jacobson, P. (1977). The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. Ph.D. Dissertation, UC, Berkeley.
Jacobson, P. (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy. doi:10.1023/A:1005464228727.
Jacobon P. (2000) Paycheck pronouns, Bach–Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8(2): 77–155
Kamp H. (1981) A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk J.A.G., Janssen T.M.V., Stokhof M.J.B. (eds) Formal methods in the study of language. Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam
Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht
Kanazawa M. (2001) Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 383–403
Karttunen, L. (1969). Pronouns and variables. In The Proceedings of the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 108–116), Chicago.
Koralus, P. (2010). Semantics in philosophy and cognitive neuroscience: The Open instruction theory of attitude report sentences, descriptions, and the Necker cube. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.
Koulidobrova E. (2011) SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in American Sign Language (ASL). University of Connecticut, Manuscript
Krahmer E. (1998) Presupposition and Anaphora. CSLI Publications, Stanford
Liddell S.K. (2003) Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Lillo-Martin D. (1986) Two kinds of null arguments in american sign language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 415–444
Lillo-Martin D. (1990) Parameters for questions: Evidence from wh-movement in ASL. In: Lucas C. (eds) Sign language research—Theoretical questions. Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DC
Lillo-Martin D., Klima E.S. (1990) Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In: Fischer S.D., Siple P. (eds) Theoretical issues in sign language research Vol 1 Linguistics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 191–210
Lillo-Martin, D., & Meier, R. (to appear). On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign language. Theoretical Linguistics.
Ludlow P. (1994) Conditionals, events, and unbound pronouns. Lingua e Stile 29: 165–183
Neidle C., Kegl J., MacLaughlin D., Bahan B., Lee R.G. (2000) The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. Number 84 in Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations, LOT, Utrecht.
Reinhart T., Reuland E. (1993) ‘Reflexivity’. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720
Roberts, C. (2010). Context, accommodation and intention in collaborative inquiry. Handout of a talk given at the Budapest Summer School on Meaning, Context, Intention, July 26, 2010.
Sandler W., Lillo-Martin D. (2006) Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schein B. (1993) Plurals and events. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Schein B. (2002) Events and the semantic content of thematic roles. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Logical form and language. Oxford University Press, New York
Schlenker P. (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3): 157–212
Schlenker, P. (2009). Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3, 1–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3.
Schlenker, P. (2011). Singular pronouns with split antecedent. Snippets, Issue 23, May 2011, 13–15.
Schlenker, P. (to appear a). Temporal and modal anaphora in sign language in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Schlenker, P. (to appear b). quantifiers and variables: Insights from sign language (ASL and LSF). In B. H. Partee, M. Glanzberg, & J. Skilters (Eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics: Discourse, context, and models. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication (Vol. 6).
Schlenker, P. (to appear c). Iconic agreement. Commentary on Lillo-Martin and Meier’s “On the status of ‘agreement’ in sign language”. Theoretical Linguistics.
Sinha, S. (2008). A grammar of Indian Sign Language. Ph.D. thesis, submitted, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
Smyth R. (1994) Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23(3): 197–228
Stone M. (1992) Or and anaphora. Proceedings of SALT 2: 367–385
van den Berg, M. (1996a). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse: The dynamics of nominal anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
van den Berg M. (1996) Dynamic generalized quantifiers. In: Does J., Eijck J. (eds) quantifiers, logic and language Lecture Notes 54. Stanford, CSLI
Winston E. (1995) Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In: Emmorey K., Reilly J.S. (eds) Language, gesture, and space. Hillsdale NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 87–114
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Earlier versions of this work appear in the Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 2009 (Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science—roughly, Sects. 1–3 of the present article) and in the Proceedings of the NELS 2009, Special Session on Pronouns (roughly, Sects. 5–6 and Appendix 2 of this work). A summary of some of these results, intended for an audience of non-specialists, can be found in Schlenker, (to appear b).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schlenker, P. Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF). Linguist and Philos 34, 341–395 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9098-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9098-1