Anaphora in Intensional Contexts
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell 215--246 (1997)
In the semantic literature, there is a class of examples involving anaphora in intensional contexts, i.e. under the scope of modal operators or propositional attitude predicates, which display anaphoric relations that appear at first glance to violate otherwise well-supported generalizations about operator scope and anaphoric potential. In Section 1,I will illustrate this phenomenon, which, for reasons that should become clear below, I call modal subordination; I will develop a general schema for its identification, and show how it poses problems for most theories of scope and anaphoric relations. In Section 2, I will review the main approaches which have been considered in attempting to account for modal subordination and argue that only an approach involving accommodation can account for the full range of examples. The notion of accommodation is due to Lewis, who defines it as follows: If at time t something is said that requires presupposition P to be acceptable, and if P is not presupposed just before t, then - ceteris paribus and within certain limits - presupposition P comes into existence at t.(Lewis 1979: 340) The interesting question, of course, is what the limits on accommodation might be. I believe that the proper account of modal subordination has something to say about this. I will argue this briefly in section 3, where I draw some conclusions and also sketch some ...
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jon Robert Gajewski (2007). Neg-Raising and Polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):289-328.
Friederike Moltmann (2006). Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns: E-Type, Dynamic, and Structured-Propositions Approaches. Synthese 153 (2):199 - 260.
Patricia Amaral, Craige Roberts & E. Allyn Smith (2007). Review of the Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6):707-749.
Friederike Moltmann (2006). Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns: E-Type, Dynamic, and Structured-Propositions Approaches. Synthese 153 (2):199-260.
Similar books and articles
Edward N. Zalta (1997). The Modal Object Calculus and its Interpretation. In M. de Rijke (ed.), Advances in Intensional Logic. Kluwer 249--279.
Andrea Bonomi (1977). Existence, Presupposition and Anaphoric Space. Journal of Philosophical Logic 6 (1):239 - 267.
Craige Roberts (1989). Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (6):683 - 721.
Hazel Pearson, Presupposition Accommodation in Local Contexts: Why Global Accommodation is Not Enough.
Maria Bittner (2011). Time and Modality Without Tenses or Modals. In Renate Musan & Monika Rathert (eds.), Tense across Languages. Niemeyer 147--188.
Kjell Johan Saeboe (1996). Anaphoric Presuppositions and Zero Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 19 (2):187 - 209.
Adrian Brasoveanu, Structured Anaphora to Quantifier Domains: A Unified Account of Quantificational and Modal Subordination.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-04-22
Total downloads1 ( #742,428 of 1,789,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #420,676 of 1,789,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?