Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Proceedings From SALT X.Brendan Jackson & Tanya Matthews (eds.) - 2000 - CLC Publications.
  • Origins of weak crossover: when dynamic semantics meets event semantics.Gennaro Chierchia - 2020 - Natural Language Semantics 28 (1):23-76.
    Approaches to anaphora generally seek to explain the potential for a DP to covary with a pronoun in terms of a combination of factors, such as the inherent semantics of the antecedent DP, its scope properties, and its structural position. A case in point is Reinhart’s classic condition on bound anaphora, paraphrasable as A DP can antecede a pronoun pro only if the DP c-commands pro at S-structure, supplemented with some extra machinery to allow indefinites to covary with pronouns beyond (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Demonstratives as Individual Concepts.Paul Elbourne - 2008 - Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4):409-466.
    Using a version of situation semantics, this article argues that bare and complex demonstratives are interpreted as individual concepts.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   46 citations  
  • E-Type Anaphora as NP-Deletion.Paul Elbourne - 2001 - Natural Language Semantics 9 (3):241-288.
    This paper argues that donkey pronouns should be construed as definite articles, followed by an NP sister which has undergone deletion in the phonology. So Every man who owns a donkey beats it is claimed to share a Logical Form with Every man who owns a donkey beats the donkey, which means the same. There is independent evidence for assimilating pronouns to determiners, and for NP-deletion; so this theory explains E-type anaphora without postulating any special entity (`E-type pronoun') for the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • Paycheck Pronouns, Bach-Peters Sentences, and Variable-Free Semantics.Pauline Jacobson - 2000 - Natural Language Semantics 8 (2):77-155.
    This paper argues for the hypothesis of direct compositionality (as in, e.g., Montague 1974), according to which the combinatory syntactic rules specify a set of well-formed expressions while the semantic combinatory rules work in tandem to directly supply a model-theoretic interpretation to each expression as it is "built" in the syntax. (This thus obviates the need for any level like LF and, concomitantly, for any rules mapping surface structures to such a level.) I focus here on one related group of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • Supersloppy Readings: Indexicals as Bound Descriptions.Isabelle Charnavel - 2019 - Journal of Semantics 36 (3):453-530.
    This article explores understudied dependent readings in ellipsis and focus constructions and their theoretical consequences. The main focus is on “supersloppy” readings of person indexicals in VP-ellipsis, in which you can be bound by I and vice versa. The empirical properties of these cases, tested in a large-scale systematically controlled questionnaire, show that I and you can be construed as e-type pronouns dependent on each other. This challenges the Kaplanian fixity theory of indexicals in a new way: not only can (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Donkey Anaphora: The View From Sign Language (ASL and LSF).Philippe Schlenker - 2011 - Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • The (Dis)Organization of the Grammar: 25 Years. [REVIEW]Pauline Jacobson - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):601-626.
  • Crossover Situations.Daniel Büring - 2004 - Natural Language Semantics 12 (1):23-62.
    Situation semantics as conceived in Kratzer (1989) has been shown to be a valuable companion to the e-type pronoun analysis of donkey sentences (Heim 1990, and recently refined in Elbourne 2001b), and more generally binding out of DP (BOOD; Tomioka 1999; Büring 2001). The present paper proposes a fully compositional version of such a theory, which is designed to capture instances of crossover in BOOD.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • Anaphoric Pronouns in Very Late Medieval Supposition Theory.Terence Parsons - 1994 - Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (5):429 - 445.
    This paper arose from an attempt to determine how the very late medieval1 supposition theorists treated anaphoric pronouns, pronouns whose significance is derivative from their antecedents. Modern researches into pronouns were stimulated in part by the problem of "donkey sentences" discussed by Geach 1962 in a section explaining what is wrong with medieval supposition theory. So there is some interest in seeing exactly what the medieval account comes to, especially if it turns out, as I suspect, to work as well (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Dynamic Update Anaphora Logic: A Simple Analysis of Complex Anaphora.Ezra Keshet - 2018 - Journal of Semantics 35 (2):263-303.
    An antecedent relationship may hold between an indefinite and a pronoun across non-quantified sentences (‘Jane bought a book. She read it immediately.‘), from the restrictor to the nuclear scope of a single quantified sentence (‘Every woman who bought a book read it immediately.‘; Geach 1962), and even across two quantified sentences (‘Every woman bought a book. Most read it immediately.‘; Sells 1985). First-generation dynamic semantic systems (Kamp 1981; Heim 1983; Groenendijk & Stokhof 1991) cannot handle anaphora across quantified sentences, but (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • WCO, ACD and What They Reveal About Complex Demonstratives.Daniel Altshuler - 2007 - Natural Language Semantics 15 (3):265-277.
    This squib presents a rebuttal to two of King’s (Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001) arguments that complex demonstratives are quantifier phrases like every man. The first is in response to King’s argument that because complex demonstratives induce weak crossover effects, they are quantifier phrases. I argue that unlike quantifier phrases and like other definite determiner phrases, complex demonstratives in object position can corefer with singular pronouns contained in the subject DP. Although complex demonstratives could undergo (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Parasitic Gaps.Elisabet Engdahl - 1983 - Linguistics and Philosophy 6 (1):5 - 34.