Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns: E-Type, Dynamic, and Structured-Propositions Approaches

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Unbound anaphoric pronouns or ‘E-type pronouns’ have presented notorious problems for semantic theory, leading to the development of dynamic semantics, where the primary function of a sentence is not considered that of expressing a proposition that may act as the object of propositional attitudes, but rather that of changing the current information state. The older, ‘E-type’ account of unbound anaphora leaves the traditional notion of proposition intact and takes the unbound anaphor to be replaced by a full NP whose semantics is assumed to be known (e.g. a definite description). In this paper, I argue that there are serious problems with any version of the E-type account as well as the (original form of the) dynamic account. I will explore a new account based on structured propositions, which can be considered a conservative extension of a traditional proposition-based semantics, but which at the same time incorporates some crucial insights of the dynamic account.

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

  • N. Asher (1986) ArticleTitle‘Belief in Discourse Representation Theory’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 127–189 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00305490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N. Asher (1987) ArticleTitle‘A Typology of Attitudinal Verbs and their Anaphoric Properties’ Linguistics and Philosophy 10 125–197 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00584317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N. Asher (1993) Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse Kluwer Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, S. J.: 1997, E-Type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic semantics, and the Quantifier/Variable Binding Model, Linguistics and Philosophy 20.

  • J. Barwise J. Perry (1983) Situations and Attitudes MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Barwise J. Perry (1985) ArticleTitle‘Shifting Situations and Shaken Attitudes’ Linguistics and Philosophy 8 105–161 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00653379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Berman (1987) ‘Situation-Based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification’ J. Blevins (Eds) University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 12 University of Massachusetts Amherst 45–68

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Carnap (1947) Meaning and Necessity University of Chicago Press Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G.: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’, Linguistics and Philosophy 111–183.

  • G. Chierchia (1995) Dynamics of Meaning Chicago University Press Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Cooper (1979) ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’ F. Heny H. Schnelle (Eds) Syntax and Semantics 10 Academic Press New York 61–92

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Cresswell (1985) Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P.: 1997, ‘Cases, Adverbs, Situations, and Events’, in H. Kamp and B. Partee (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Context Dependence. IMS Stuttgart and UFAL, Prague.

  • P. Dekker R. Rooy Particlevan (1998) ‘Intentional Identity and Information Exchange’ R. Cooper T. Gamkrelidze (Eds) Proceedings of the Second Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation Tbilisi State University Tbilisi

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Does, J.: 1996, ‘Quantifiers, Contexts, and Anaphora’, Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

  • W. Edelberg (1985) ArticleTitle‘A New Puzzle about Intentional Identity’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Elbourne (2001) ArticleTitle‘E-type Anaphora as NP Deletion’ Natural Language Semantics 9 IssueID3 241–288 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1014290323028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G. Evans (1985) Collected Papers Oxford University Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Fiengo R. May (1994) Indices and Identity MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawron, M. and S. Peters: 1990, Quantification and Anaphora in Situation Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes, Stanford.

  • P. Geach (1967) ArticleTitle‘Intentional Identity’ Journal of Philosophy 64 627–632 Occurrence Handle10.2307/2024459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Groenendijk M. Stokhof (1991) ArticleTitle‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’. Linguistics and Philosophy 14 39–99 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00628304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk J. and Stokhof M., Veltman F. (1996a), ‘Coreference and Modality’. In: Lappin S. (ed), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory pp. 179–213

  • Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof F. Veltman: 1996b: ‘Coreference and Modality in the Context of Multi-Speaker Discourse’, in H. Kamp and B. Partee (eds.), Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning. IMS Stuttgart.

  • Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • I. Heim (1990) ArticleTitle‘E-Type Pronouns and Donkey-Anaphora’ Linguistics and Philosophy 13 137–178 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00630732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I. Heim (1992) ArticleTitle‘Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Reports’ Journal of Semantics 9 183–221

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Heim A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar Blackwell Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N.: 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification’. Ph D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • H. Kamp (1981) ‘A Theory of Truth and Representation’ J. Groenendijk (Eds) et al. Truth, Interpretation and Information Foris Dordrecht 1–43

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Kamp (1987) ‘Comments on Stalnaker: Belief Attribution and Context’ R. Grimm R. Merrill (Eds) Contents of Thought University of Arizona Press Tucson 156–206

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Kamp U. Reyle (1993) From Discourse to Logic Kluwer Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Kanazawa (1994) ArticleTitle‘Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey-Sentences’ Linguistics and Philosophy 12 109–158 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00984775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Kanazawa (2001) ArticleTitle‘Singular Donkey Pronouns are Semantically Singular’ Linguistics and Philosophy 24 383–403 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1010766724907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D.: 1977, ‘Demonstratives’, in J. Almog et al. (ed.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford UP, Oxford, 1989, pp. 481–563.

  • King J. (2001), ‘Structured Propositions’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, online.

  • A. Kratzer (1989) ArticleTitle‘An Investigation into the Lumps of Thought’ Linguistics and Philosophy 12 607–653 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00627775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Krifka (1993) ArticleTitle‘Focus and Presupposition in Dynamic Interpretation’ Journal of Semantics 10 269–300

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Krifka (1996) ArticleTitle‘Parametric Sum Individuals for Plural Anaphora’ Linguistics and Philosophy 19 555–598 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00632708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka M. (2001), ‘For a Structured Meaning Account of Questions and Answers’, in C. Fery and W Sternefeld (eds.), Audiator Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 287–319.

  • S. Lappin N. Frances (1995) ArticleTitle‘Pronouns, I-Sums and Donkey-Anaphora’ Linguistics and Philosophy 17 391–428 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00985574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1972), ‘General Semantics’, in. D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht, Reidel.

  • P. Ludlow S. Neale (1991) ArticleTitle‘Definite Descriptions: In Defense of Russell’ Linguistics and Philosophy 14 171–202 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00627402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Ludlow (1994) ArticleTitle‘Conditionals, Events, and Unbound Pronouns’ Lingua e Stile 19 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, F. (to appear): ‘Presuppositions and Quantifier Domains’, Synthese.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (1987)Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity. Ph D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • C. Roberts (1989) ArticleTitle‘Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse’ Linguistics and Philosophy 12 683–721 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00632602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C.: 1996: ‘Anaphora in Intensional Contexts’, in S. Lappin (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 215–246.

  • N. Salmon (1986) Frege’s Puzzle MIT Press Cambride, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Soames (1986) ArticleTitle‘Incomplete Definite Descriptions’ Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27 IssueID3 349–375 Occurrence Handle10.1305/ndjfl/1093636680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soames, S. 1987, ‘Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content’, Philosophical Topics 15, 47–87. Reprinted in N. Salmon and S. Soames (eds.) 1988, Propositions and Attitudes. Oxford UP, Oxford, pp. 169–196.

  • S. Soames (1989) ArticleTitle‘Review of Gareth Evans: Collected Papers’ The Journal of Philosophy 1989 141–156 Occurrence Handle10.2307/2027117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Stalnaker (1978) ‘Assertion’ P. Cole (Eds) Syntax and Semantics 9 Academic Press New York 315–332

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Stalnaker (1984) Inquiry MIT Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Stalnaker (1987) ‘Belief Attribution and Context’ R. Grimm R. Merrill (Eds) Contents and Thought University of Arizona Press Tucson 143–156

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Stalnaker (1998) ArticleTitle‘On the Representation of Context’ Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7 13–19 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1008254815298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Strawson (1952) Introduction to Logical Theory Methuen London

    Google Scholar 

  • T. E. Zimmermann (1998) ‘On the Epistemic Role of Discourse Referents’ L. Moss (Eds) Logic, Language, and Computation CSLI Publications Stanford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut d’Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques (IHPST), 13 Rue du Four, 75006, Paris, France

    Friederike Moltmann

Authors
  1. Friederike Moltmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Friederike Moltmann.

Additional information

Previous versions have been presented at a graduate seminar at CUNY, the University of Amsterdam, the University of Stuttgart, the University of Tuebingen, the University of Berlin, and the University Paris 7. A much older version had been circulated under the title ‘E-type and Dynamic Approaches to Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns’. The paper throughout its various versions has profited from discussions with or comments from Brad Armour-Garb, Bob Fiengo, Kit Fine, Hans Kamp, Jeroen Groenendijk, Polly Jacobson, Gary Ostertag, Brian, Loar, Peter Ludlow, Francois Recanati, Stephen Schiffer, Robert Stalnaker, Martin Stokhof, and especially Paul Dekker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moltmann, F. Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns: E-Type, Dynamic, and Structured-Propositions Approaches. Synthese 153, 199–260 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-5469-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-5469-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation