Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On bishop sentences

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article offers a critical examination of Kroll’s (Natural Language Semantics 16: 359–372, 2008) arguments against Elbourne’s (Situations and individuals, 2005) treatment of bishop sentences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barker C., Shan C (2008) Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics 1: 1–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. 1987. Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In Studies in semantics, Vol. 12 of University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, ed. Blevins, J. and Vainikka, A., 46–68. Amherst: GLSA.

  • Cooper, R. The interpretation of pronouns. In Syntax and semantics 10: Selections from the Third Gröningen Round Table, ed. Heny, F. and Schnelle, H., 61–92. New York: Academic Press.

  • Davies M. (1981) Meaning, quantification, necessity. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne P (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne P (2008) Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 409–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne P (2009) Bishop sentences and donkey cataphora: A response to Barker and Shan. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geach P (1962) Reference and generality. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B (1997) Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of Semantics 14: 319–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll N (2008) On bishops and donkeys. Natural Language Semantics 16: 359–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuroda S (1982) Indexed predicate calculus. Journal of Semantics 1: 43–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale S (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, S. 2004. This, that and the other. In Descriptions and Beyond, Reimer, M. and Bezuidenhout, A., 68–182. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Recanati F (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer S (1989) Remnants of meaning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer S (1995) Descriptions, indexicals, and belief reports: Some dilemmas (but not the ones you expect). Mind 104: 107–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommers F (1982) The logic of natural language. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Queen Mary, University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK

    Paul Elbourne

Authors
  1. Paul Elbourne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Elbourne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elbourne, P. On bishop sentences. Nat Lang Semantics 18, 65–78 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9051-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9051-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation