Skip to main content
Log in

Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF)

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 itthe 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford, CSLI

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charolles M. (1995) Comment repêcher les derniers? Analyse des expressions anaphoriques en ce dernier. Pratiques 85: 90–112

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R. (1979) The interpretation of pronouns. Syntax and Semantics, 10: 61–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Corblin F. (1998) ≪ Celui-ci ≫ anaphorique : un mentionnel. Langue française 120: 33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker P. (2004) Cases, adverbs, situations and events. In: Kamp H., Partee B. (eds) Contextdependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne P. (2010) On bishop sentences. Natural Language Semantics 18: 65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmorey K. (2002) Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans G. (1977) Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7: 467–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans G. (1980) Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2): 337–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox D. (2008) Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 237–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geach P. (1962) Reference and generality. Cornell University Press, Cornell

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang C.-T. J. (1984) On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa M. (2001) Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 383–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer E. (1998) Presupposition and Anaphora. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddell S.K. (2003) Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillo-Martin D. (1986) Two kinds of null arguments in american sign language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 415–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein B. (1993) Plurals and events. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker P. (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3): 157–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone M. (1992) Or and anaphora. Proceedings of SALT 2: 367–385

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Schlenker.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9098-1

Keywords

Navigation