Skip to main content
Log in

Anaphora and dynamic binding

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S.: 1987, ‘A Situation Based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification’, in J. Blevins and A. Vainikka (eds.),University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 12, GLSA, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S.: 1990, ‘Towards the Semantics of Open sentences: WH-phrases and Indefinites’, in M. Stokhof and L. Torenvliet (eds.),Proceedings of the 7th Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, University of Amsterdam.

  • Carlson, G.: 1977,Reference to Kinds in English, Indiana University Linguistic Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Also published in 1979 by Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G.: 1988, ‘Dynamic Generalized Quantifiers and Donkey Anaphora,’ in M. Krifka (ed.)Genericity in Natural Language, University of Tübingen.

  • Chierchia, G.: 1990, ‘Intensionality and Context Change’, ms., Cornell University.

  • Chierchia, G. and M. Rooth: 1984, ‘Configurational Notions in DRT’, in C. Jones and P. Sells (eds.)Proceedings of NELS 14, GLSA, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1965,Aspects of a Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1970, ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.)Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Blaisdell, Waltham, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R.: 1979, ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’ in F. Heny and H. Schnelle (eds.)Syntax and Semantics 10, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D.: 1967, ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’, in N. Rescher (ed.),The Logic of Decision and Action, University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Dekker, P. (1990a) “The scope of Negation in Discourse” in M. Stokhof, J. Groenendijk and D. Beaver (eds)Quantification and Anaphora I, Dyana Deliverable R2.2A, University of Edinburgh.

  • Dekker, P. (1990b) “Existential Disclosure”, paper presented at the Third Symposium on Logic and Language, Réfvulop, Hungary. To appear in the proceedings of the conference.

  • De Hoop, H. and De Swart, H.: 1989, ‘Over Indefiniete Objecten en to Relatie tussen Syntaxis en Semantiek’,Glot 12.

  • Diesing, M.: 1988, ‘Bare Plural Subjects and the Stage/Individual Contrast’ in M. Krifka (ed.),Genericity in Natural Language, University of Tübingen.

  • Engdahl, E.: 1986,Constituent Questions, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G.: 1980, ‘Pronouns’,Linguistic Inquiry,11(2), 337–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G.: 1980, ‘A Cross-categorial Semantics for Coordination’,Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 407–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1990, ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar’, in L. Kalman and L. Poles (eds.)Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1991, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1990, ‘E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2), 137–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N.: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13(3), 273–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Gorenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.)Formal methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L.: 1976, ‘Discourse Referents’ in J. McCawley (ed.)Syntax and Semantics 7, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E. and L. Faltz: 1985,Boolean Semantics for Natural Language, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E. and J. Stavi: 1986, ‘A Semantic Characterization of Natural Language Determiners’,Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1989a, ‘An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5), pp. 607–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1989b, ‘Individual-level vs. Stage-level Predicates’, unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M.: 1991, ‘A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions’, unpublished manuscript, University of Texas, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri, U.: 1991, ‘Quantificational Variability in Embedded Interrogatives’, paper presented at SALT 1, Cornell University.

  • Lappin, S.: 1989, ‘Donkey Pronouns Unbound’,Theoretical Linguistics 15.

  • Lewis, D.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.)Formal Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R.: 1977,The Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muskens, R.: 1989,Meaning and Partiality, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Neale, S.: 1991,Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. and M. Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwartze and A. von Stechow (eds.)Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T.: 1991,Events in the Semantics of English, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, J. and L. Schubert: 1989, ‘Generically Speaking’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee and R. Turner (eds.),Properties, Types and Meaning, vol 2, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portner, P.: 1991: ‘Gerunds and Types of Events’, paper presented at SALT 1, Cornell University.

  • Roberts, C.: 1987,Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, R.: 1986, The Semantics of Anaphora in Discourse, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M.: 1985,Association with Focus, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M.: 1987, ‘NP Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gardenförs (ed.),Generalized Quantifiers, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M.: 1991, ‘Indefinites, Adverb of Quantification and Focus’; unpublished manuscript, AT&T Bells Labs, Murray Hill, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastav, V.: 1990a,WH-dependencies in Hindi and the Theory of Grammar; Ph.D. Diss., Cornell University.

  • Srivastav, V.: 1990b, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Correlatives’, forthcoming inNatural Language and Linguistic Theory.

  • Stalnaker, R.: 1979, ‘Assertion’ in P. Cole (ed.),Syntax and Semantics 9 — Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, G.: 1981,Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Free Adjuncts and Absolutes, Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University. A revised version was published in 1985 by Kluwer with the titleThe Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions.

  • van Benthem, J.: 1989, ‘Polyadic Quantifiers’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 437–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E.: 1981, ‘Argument Structure and Morphology’,The Linguistic Review,1, 81–114.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This paper evolves from one which was originally presented with the title “Anaphora and Dynamic Logic“ at the 1989 Amsterdam Colloquium on Formal Semantics. Subsequently, it circulated as an ITLI prepublication and various versions of it have also been presented at the University of Edinburgh and at the University of Stuttgart. I am indebted to those audiences as well as to many other people for comments and criticisms. In particular, I am indebted to R. Cooper, P. Dekker, D. Dowty, J. Groenendijk, H. Kamp, N. Kadmon, M. Krifka, F. Landman, M. Rooth, M. Stokhof and two L&P referees. I. Heim's detailed and pointed criticisms were also extremely helpful to me. I know that problems and possibly errors are still likely to be there in spite of so much good advice and they are my fault alone. This research was partially supported by theDyana project (EBRA 3715) and by NSF Grant n. BN55-9007804.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chierchia, G. Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguist Philos 15, 111–183 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00635805

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00635805

Keywords

Navigation