Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF) [Book Review]

Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395 (2011)
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
Keywords Anaphora  E-type anaphora  Donkey anaphora  Dynamic semantics  Sign language
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,133
External links
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
Paul Elbourne (2010). On Bishop Sentences. Natural Language Semantics 18 (1):65-78.
P. T. Geach (1962/1968). Reference and Generality. Ithaca, N.Y.,Cornell University Press.

View all 19 references

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Jan Eijck & Fer-Jan Vries (1992). Dynamic Interpretation and HOARE Deduction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1 (1):1-44.
Rick Nouwen (2007). On Dependent Pronouns and Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2):123 - 154.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-12-21

Total downloads

17 ( #88,130 of 1,095,477 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #84,324 of 1,095,477 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.