Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF)
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 | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJan Eijck & Fer-Jan Vries (1992). Dynamic Interpretation and HOARE Deduction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1 (1).
Sissel Redse Jørgensen & Rani Lill Anjum (eds.) (2006). Tegn Som Språk. Gyldendal Akademisk.
Peter Pagin & Dag Westerståhl (1993). Predicate Logic with Flexibly Binding Operators and Natural Language Semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2 (2):89-128.
Rick Nouwen (2007). On Dependent Pronouns and Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2):123 - 154.
Adrian Brasoveanu (2008). Donkey Pluralities: Plural Information States Versus Non-Atomic Individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2):129-209.
Florian Schwarz (2012). Situation Pronouns in Determiner Phrases. Natural Language Semantics 20 (4):431-475.
Anna Szabolcsi (2003). Binding On the Fly: Cross-Sentential Anaphora in Variable— Free Semantics. In R. Oehrle & J. Kruijff (eds.), Resource Sensitivity, Binding, and Anaphora. Kluwer.
Gennaro Chierchia (1995). Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. University of Chicago Press.
Chris Westbury (2002). Blind Men, Elephants, and Dancing Information Processors. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):645-646.
Karen Emmorey (2005). Sign Languages Are Problematic for a Gestural Origins Theory of Language Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):130-131.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-12-21Total downloads15 ( #78,613 of 549,067 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,067 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
