Journal of Semantics 20 (1):73-113 (2003)

Rick Nouwen
Utrecht University
Quantificational sentences D(A)(B) allow for subsequent plural anaphoric reference to three sets associated with them: the maximal set A, the reference set A ∩ B and, sometimes, the complement set A ∩ −B. The latter case, where an anaphor refers to the set‐theoretical difference of restrictor and scope, has been studied by both psycholinguists and formal semanticists. The phenomenon is particularly interesting because the conditions under which complement anaphora (as this case of anaphora is called) is acceptable depend on formal properties of the antecedent determiner. This paper concentrates on the interpretation of complement anaphora. First, the possibility of reducing complement anaphora to quasi‐generic reference to the maximal set (A) is dismissed. Then, I argue that interpreting complement anaphora involves a conflict of several pragmatic constraints. A preliminary optimality theoretic analysis of the paradigm shows that if a strict principle disallowing empty complement set reference is obeyed, complement anaphora can overrule a general preference for reference to A ∩ B in order to save consistency. Finally, I argue that this non‐emptiness condition ought to be reduced to inferability of the existence of a complement set. The contrast between pronominal complement anaphors and other pronouns that link to quantificational sentences is thus explained in terms of a contrast between pronouns with an inferred antecedent and pronouns that choose a salient antecedent
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jos/20.1.73
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,248
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Anaphora.Jeffrey C. King & Karen S. Lewis - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The structure of communicative acts.Sarah E. Murray & William B. Starr - 2021 - Linguistics and Philosophy 44 (2):425-474.
The Comparative and Degree Pluralities.Jakub Dotlačil & Rick Nouwen - 2016 - Natural Language Semantics 24 (1):45-78.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
38 ( #300,784 of 2,518,510 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #408,186 of 2,518,510 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes