Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 109–158 | Cite as

Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inference in a dynamic setting

  • Makoto Kanazawa

Abstract

In this paper, I show that the availability of what some authors have called the weak reading and the strong reading of donkey sentences with relative clauses is systematically related to monotonicity properties of the determiner. The correlation is different from what has been observed in the literature in that it concerns not only right monotonicity, but also left monotonicity (persistence/antipersistence). I claim that the reading selected by a donkey sentence with a double monotone determiner is in fact the one that validates inference based on the left monotonicity of the determiner. This accounts for the lack of strong reading in donkey sentences with ↑ MON → determiners, which have been neglected in the literature. I consider the relevance of other natural forms of inference as well, but also suggest how monotonicity inference might play a central role in the actual process of interpretation. The formal theory is couched in dynamic predicate logic with generalized quantifiers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  2. van Benthem, J.: 1986.Essays in Logical Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. van Benthem, J.: 1987, ‘Meaning: Interpretation and Inference’,Synthese 73, 451–470.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G.: 1990, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Logic’, ITLI Prepublication Series LP-90-07, Institute for Language, Logic and Information, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G.: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’,Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183.Google Scholar
  6. Dekker, P.: 1993,Transsentential Meditations: Ups and Downs in Dynamic Semantics, dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. van Eijck, J. and F.-J. de Vries: 1992, ‘Dynamic Interpretation and Hoare Deduction’,Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1, 1–44.Google Scholar
  8. Evans, G.: 1977, ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers and Relative Clauses (I)’,Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7. Reprinted with emendations in M. Platts (ed.),Reference, Truth and Reality, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. Gawron, M., J. Nerbonne, and S. Peters: 1991, ‘The Absorption Principle and E-Type Anaphora’, in J. Barwise et al. (eds.),Situation Theory and Its Applications, Vol. 2, CSLI Lecture Notes No. 26, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  10. Geach, P. T.: 1962,Reference and Generality, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (third edition, 1980).Google Scholar
  11. Geach, P. T.: 1965, ‘On Complex Terms’,Journal of Philosophy 72. Reprinted inLogic Matters, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1980.Google Scholar
  12. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1990, ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar’, in L. Kálmán and L. Pólos (eds.),Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.Google Scholar
  13. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1991, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.Google Scholar
  14. Heim, I.: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, I.: 1990, ‘E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–177.Google Scholar
  16. Kadmon, N.: 1987,On Unique and Non-unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  17. Kadmon, N.: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.Google Scholar
  18. Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.),Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Reprinted in J. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.),Truth, Interpretation, and Information, Foris, Dordrecht, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. Kamp, H.: 1991, ‘Uniqueness Presuppositions and Plural Anaphora in DTT and DRT’, in M. Stokhof, J. Groenendijk, and D. Beaver (eds.),Quantification and Anaphora I, Edinburgh (DYANA deliverable R2.2A).Google Scholar
  20. Kanazawa, M.: 1993, ‘Dynamic Generalized Quantifiers and Monotonicity’, ILLC Prepublication Series LP-93-02, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam. Also to appear in M. Kanazawa and C. J. Piñón (eds.),Dynamics, Polarity, and Quantification, CSLI Lecture Notes, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  21. Neale, S.: 1990,Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  22. Partee, B. H.: 1989, ‘Many Quantifiers’, inProceedings of ESCOL '88.Google Scholar
  23. Rooth, M.: 1987, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gardenfors (ed.),Generalized Quantifiers, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  24. Schubert, L. K. and F. J. Pelletier: 1989, ‘Generically Speaking, or Using Discourse Representation Theory to Interpret Generics’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.),Properties, Types and Meaning II, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. de Swart, H.: 1991, ‘Quantification over Time’, in J. van der Does and J. van Eijck (eds.),Generalized Quantifier Theory and Applications, Dutch Network for Language, Logic and Information.Google Scholar
  26. Westerståhl, D.: 1989, ‘Quantifiers in Formal and Natural Languages’, in D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.),Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume IV, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Makoto Kanazawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations