Linguistics and Philosophy

, 34:85 | Cite as

A squib on anaphora and coindexing

Open Access
Research Article


There are two kinds of semantic theories of anaphora. Some, such as Heim’s File Change Semantics, Groenendijk and Stokhof’s Dynamic Predicate Logic, or Muskens’ Compositional DRT (CDRT), seem to require full coindexing of anaphora and their antecedents prior to interpretation. Others, such as Kamp’s Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), do not require this coindexing and seem to have an important advantage here. In this squib I will sketch a procedure that the first group of theories may help themselves to so that they can interleave interpretation and coindexing in DRT’s way.


Dynamic semantics Anaphora Coindexing 



I would like to thank Corien Bary, one of whose many excellent questions about using Compositional DRT in theorizing about aspect in Ancient Greek led me to write this squib. See Bary (2009) for some of her results. The anonymous referees provided me with first-rate feedback.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


  1. Asher N., Lascarides A. (2003) Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bary, C. (2009). Aspect in ancient Greek: A semantic analysis of the aorist and imperfective. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  3. Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD thesis, Umass, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Marcus. M. P., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In Proceedings of the 21st ACL (pp. 129–136).Google Scholar
  8. Muskens R.A. (1996) Combining montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Reyle U. (1993) Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction. Journal of Semantics 10: 123–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. van Leusen, N. (2007). Description grammar for discourse. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  11. van Leusen N., Muskens R. (2003) Construction by description in discourse representation. In: Peregrin J. (Ed.) Meaning: The dynamic turn, volume 12 of current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 33–65Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations