Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 391–428 | Cite as

E-type pronouns, i-sums, and donkey anaphora

  • Shalom Lappin
  • Nissim Francez


Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Donkey Anaphora 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  2. Chierchia, G.: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’,Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, R.: 1979, ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’, in F. Heny and H. Schnelle (eds.),Syntax and Semantics 10, Academic Press, New York, pp. 61–92.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, R.: 1983,Quantification and Syntactic Theory, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Evans, G.: 1980, ‘Pronouns’,Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337–362.Google Scholar
  6. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1990, ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar’, in L. Kalman and L. Polos (eds.),Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp. 3–48.Google Scholar
  7. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1991, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’,Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.Google Scholar
  8. Heim, I.: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Heim, I.: 1990, ‘E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–177.Google Scholar
  10. Kadmon, N.: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’,Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.Google Scholar
  11. Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Interpretation’ in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.),Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Center, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  12. Kanazawa, M.: 1994, ‘Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting’,Linguistics and Philosophy,17.Google Scholar
  13. Landman, F.: 1989a, ‘Groups, I’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559–605.Google Scholar
  14. Landman, F.: 1989b, ‘Groups, II’,Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 723–744.Google Scholar
  15. Lappin, S.: 1989, ‘Donkey Pronouns Unbound’,Theoretical Linguistics 15, 263–286.Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, D.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.),Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  17. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach’, in R. Baeuerle et al. (eds.),Meaning, Use, and Interpretation, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 302–323.Google Scholar
  18. Link, G.: 1987, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Plurals’, in Peter Gärdenfors (ed.),Generalized Quantifiers, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 151–180.Google Scholar
  19. Loebner, S.: 1987, ‘Natural Language and Generalized Quantifier Theory’, in Peter Gärdenfors (ed.),Gerneralized Quantifiers, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 181–201.Google Scholar
  20. Neale, S.: 1990,Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  21. 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

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shalom Lappin
    • 1
  • Nissim Francez
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics School of Oriental and African StudiesUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science Technion-IIIHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations