Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focusing bound pronouns

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The presence of contrastive focus on pronouns interpreted as bound variables is puzzling. Bound variables do not refer, and it is therefore unclear how two of them can be made to contrast with each other. It is argued that this is a problem for both alternative-based accounts such as Rooth’s (Nat Lang Semantics 1:75–116, 1992) and givenness-based ones such as Schwarzschild’s (Nat Lang Semantics 7:141–177, 1999). The present paper shows that previous approaches to this puzzle face an empirical problem, namely the co-occurrence of additive too and focus on bound pronouns. Our account is based on the idea that the alternatives introduced by focused bound pronouns denote individuals. Putting forward the novel concept of compositional reconstruction, we show that a suitably modified Roothian analysis of focus licensing allows us to get bound pronouns to contrast with other bound pronouns. The reason for this is that the number of potential alternatives increases. We also suggest a modification of Rooth’s ~-operator: contrastiveness becomes a requirement of the operator, which is modelled as a definedness condition. It is argued that in the case of focused bound pronouns a ~-operator is necessarily inserted in the scope of the quantifier. If this is on the right track, it follows that the phenomenon of focused bound pronouns warrants both an operator interpreting focus as well as a semantic value for the contribution of focus. Any givenness-based analysis must include these two ingredients as well; we suggest a way in which this can be implemented more or less straightforwardly.

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

  • Beck S. (2006) Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1): 1–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S., Rullmann H. (1999) A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7(3): 249–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring D. (1997) The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th street bridge accent. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D. To appear. What’s new and (what’s given) in the theory of focus? In Proceedings of the 34th Berkeley Linguistics Society Meeting (2008), Berkeley, CA.

  • Chierchia G. (1990) Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 111–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia G. (1992) Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1(2): 181–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. In Syntax and semantics 10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, ed. F. Heny and H. Schnelle, 61–92. New York: Academic Press.

  • Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in Wh-quantification: questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Dimitriadis, A. 2001. Function domains in variable free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 11, ed. R. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolenszky, 134–151. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Elbourne, P.D. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Engdahl, E. 1986. Constituent questions. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Fintel, K. von 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Fintel, K. von 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. 1999. Focus, parallelism, and accommodation. In Proceedings of SALT 9, ed. T. Matthews and D. Strolovitch, 70–90. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Fox D. (2002) Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1): 63–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B., and van~der Sandt, R. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44.

  • Green, G.M. 1973. On too and either, and not just too and either, either. In Chicago Linguistic Society, Papers from the 4th Regional Meeting, 22–39. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Hamblin C. (1973) Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, ed. D.P. Flickinger, 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Heim, I. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2): 137–178.

  • Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, ed. D. Harbour, D. Adger, and S. Béjar, 35–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Heim, I., and Kratzer, A. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  • Horn, L. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Papers from the 5th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 98–108. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Jacobson, P. 2000. Paychecks, stress, and variable free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 10, ed. B. Jackson and T. Matthews, 65–82. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Kaplan, J. 1984. Obligatory too in English. Language 60(3): 510–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. 1969. Pronouns and variables. In Proceedings of the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. R.I. Binnick, 108–116. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistics Society.

  • Karttunen L. (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistic and Philosophy 1(1): 3–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. 1991. The representation of focus. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 825–834. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Kratzer, A. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tense. In Proceedings of SALT 8, ed. D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson, 92–110. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Kratzer, A., and Shimoyama, J. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: the view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, vol. 3, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

  • Krifka, M. 1999. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, ed. D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson, 111–128. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Mayr, C. 2010a. Contrastive salient alternatives: focus on bound pronouns. In Proceedings of (SALT 20), ed. N. Li and D. Lutz, 161–178. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Mayr, C. 2010b. The role of alternatives and strength in grammar. PhD thesis, Harvard University.

  • Montague, R. 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, ed. R.H. Thomason, 247–270. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Novel, M., and Romero, M. 2011. Movement, variables and Hamblin alternatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, ed. M. Prinzhorn, V. Schmitt, and S. Zobel, 322–338. Vienna: University of Vienna.

  • Partee, B. 1975. Deletion and variable binding. In Formal semantics of natural language, ed. E.L. Keenan, 16–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. PhD thesis, University of   Massachusetts at, Amherst.

  • Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rullmann, H. 2004. First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1): 159–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U. 1998. The meaning of chains. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Sauerland, U. 2000. The content of pronouns: evidence from focus. In Proceedings of SALT 10, B. Jackson and T. Matthews, 167–184. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Sauerland U. (2004) The interpretation of traces. NaturalLanguage Semantics 12: 63–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U. 2008. The silent content of bound variable pronouns. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. K. Johnson, 183–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Schwarzschild R. (1999) Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shan, Cc. 2004. Binding alongside Hamblin alternatives calls for variable-free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. R.B. Young, 289–304. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Stechow, A. von 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding. In Proceedings of NALS 33, ed. M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara, 133–157. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Truckenbrodt, H. 1995. Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Wagner, M. 2006. Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of SALT 16, ed. M. Gibson and J. Howell, 295–312. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Williams E. (1997) Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28(4): 577–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Wold, D.E. 1996. Long distance selective binding: the case of focus. In Proceedings of SALT 6, ed. F. Galloway and J. Spence, 311–328. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Schützenstraße 18, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Clemens Mayr

Authors
  1. Clemens Mayr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clemens Mayr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mayr, C. Focusing bound pronouns. Nat Lang Semantics 20, 299–348 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9083-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9083-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation