David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 153 (2):199 - 260 (2006)
Unbound anaphoric pronouns or ‘E-type pronouns’ have presented notorious problems for semantic theory, leading to the development of dynamic semantics, where the primary function of a sentence is not considered that of expressing a proposition that may act as the object of propositional attitudes, but rather that of changing the current information state. The older, ‘E-type’ account of unbound anaphora leaves the traditional notion of proposition intact and takes the unbound anaphor to be replaced by a full NP whose semantics is assumed to be known (e.g. a definite description). In this paper, I argue that there are serious problems with any version of the E-type account as well as the (original form of the) dynamic account. I will explore a new account based on structured propositions, which can be considered a conservative extension of a traditional proposition-based semantics, but which at the same time incorporates some crucial insights of the dynamic account.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Logic Metaphysics Philosophy of Language|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Jon Barwise & John Perry (1981). Situations and Attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 78 (11):668-691.
David Kaplan (1989). Demonstratives. In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press 481-563.
Nathan U. Salmon (1986). Frege's Puzzle. Ridgeview.
Citations of this work BETA
James Pryor (forthcoming). Mental Graphs. Review of Philosophy and Psychology:1-33.
Adrian Brasoveanu (2008). Donkey Pluralities: Plural Information States Versus Non-Atomic Individuals. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2):129 - 209.
Alex Grzankowski (2015). Pictures Have Propositional Content. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (1):151-163.
Chuansheng He (2013). E-Type Interpretation Without E-Type Pronoun: How Peirce's Graphs Capture the Uniqueness Implication of Donkey Pronouns in Discourse Anaphora. Synthese 192 (4):1-20.
Adrian Brasoveanu (2008). Donkey Pluralities: Plural Information States Versus Non-Atomic Individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2):129-209.
Similar books and articles
Adrian Brasoveanu, Structured Anaphora to Quantifier Domains: A Unified Account of Quantificational & Modal Subordination and Exceptional Wide Scope.
Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621 - 657.
Philippe Schlenker (2011). Donkey Anaphora: The View From Sign Language (ASL and LSF). [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395.
Adrian Brasoveanu, Structured Anaphora to Quantifier Domains: A Unified Account of Quantificational and Modal Subordination.
Rick Nouwen (2007). On Dependent Pronouns and Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2):123 - 154.
Tim Fernando (2001). A Type Reduction From Proof-Conditional to Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (2):121-153.
S. J. Barker (1997). E-Type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic Semantics and the Quantifier/Variable-Binding Model. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (2):195-228.
Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621-657.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads58 ( #69,823 of 1,789,824 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #82,832 of 1,789,824 )
How can I increase my downloads?