David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The meanings of donkey sentences cannot be captured using a procedure which, like Montague’s, uses the existential quantiﬁers of classical logic to translate indeﬁnites and the variables to translate pronouns. The treatment of these examples requires meanings which depend on the context in which sentences appear, and thus necessitates a logic which models this context to some extent. If context is represented as the information conveyed in discourse, and the meanings of pronouns are enriched to depend on this information, the result is the E-Type approach (ETA) adapted by Heim (1990) from proposals in Evans (1980) and Cooper (1979). If the context is represented as a list of potential referents, and the meanings of indeﬁnites are enriched to introduce new referents into this list, the result is a compositional formulation like Groenendijk and Stokhof’s (1990) of the discourse representation theory (DRT) of Kamp (1981) and Heim (1982). Either tack sufﬁces to capture the way in which the referents of he and it systematically correspond to the alternative possibilities described by the antecedent. Disjunction offers a parallel way of introducing alternatives in the antecedent of a conditional, as shown in (2).
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
Philippe Schlenker (2011). Donkey Anaphora: The View From Sign Language (ASL and LSF). [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395.
Similar books and articles
Reinhard Muskens (2011). A Squib on Anaphora and Coindexing. Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (1):85-89.
Adrian Brasoveanu (2008). Donkey Pluralities: Plural Information States Versus Non-Atomic Individuals. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2):129 - 209.
Kjell Johan Saeboe (1996). Anaphoric Presuppositions and Zero Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 19 (2):187 - 209.
Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621-657.
Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621 - 657.
Robin Clark & Prashant Parikh (2007). Game Theory and Discourse Anaphora. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (3):265-282.
Robert Stalnaker (1998). On the Representation of Context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (1):3-19.
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. 215--227.
Irene Heim (1990). E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13 (2):137--77.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads3 ( #297,395 of 1,102,742 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,833 of 1,102,742 )
How can I increase my downloads?