Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621-657 (2001)
|Abstract||In this paper I argue that anaphoric pronouns should always be interpreted exhaustively. I propose that pronouns are either used referentially and refer to the speaker's referents of their antecedent indefinites, or descriptively and go proxy for the description recoverable from its antecedent clause. I show how this view can be implemented within a dynamic semantics, and how it can account for various examples that seemed to be problematic for the view that for all unbound pronouns there always should be a notion of exhaustivity/uniqueness involved. The uniqueness assumption for the use of singular pronouns is also shown to be importantto explain what the discourse referents used in dynamic semantics represent.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
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.
Philippe Schlenker (2011). Donkey Anaphora: The View From Sign Language (ASL and LSF). Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395.
Irene Heim (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Dissertation, UMass Amherst
Barbara Hall Partee (1970). Opacity, Coreference, and Pronouns. Synthese 21 (3-4):359 - 385.
Rick Nouwen (2007). On Dependent Pronouns and Dynamic Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2):123 - 154.
Friederike Moltmann (2006). Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns: E-Type, Dynamic, and Structured-Propositions Approaches. Synthese 153 (2):199 - 260.
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 downloads9 ( #113,901 of 548,951 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?