Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 341–395

Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF)

Research Article

Abstract

There are two main approaches to the problem of donkey anaphora (e.g. If John owns a donkey, he beats it). Proponents of dynamic approaches take the pronoun to be a logical variable, but they revise the semantics of quantifiers so as to allow them to bind variables that are not within their syntactic scope. Older dynamic approaches took this measure to apply solely to existential quantifiers; recent dynamic approaches have extended it to all quantifiers. By contrast, proponents of E-type analyses take the pronoun to have the semantics of a definite description (with itthe donkey, or the donkey that John owns). While competing accounts make very different claims about the patterns of coindexation that are found in the syntax, these are not morphologically realized in spoken languages. But they are in sign language, namely through locus assignment and pointing. We make two main claims on the basis of ASL and LSF data. First, sign language data favor dynamic over E-type theories: in those cases in which the two approaches make conflicting predictions about possible patterns of coindexation, dynamic analyses are at an advantage. Second, among dynamic theories, sign language data favor recent ones because the very same formal mechanism is used irrespective of the indefinite or non-indefinite nature of the antecedent. Going beyond this debate, we argue that dynamic theories should allow pronouns to be bound across negative expressions, as long as the pronoun is presupposed to have a non-empty denotation. Finally, an appendix displays and explains subtle differences between overt sign language pronouns and all other pronouns in examples involving ‘disjunctive antecedents’, and suggests that counterparts of sign language loci might be found in spoken language.

Keywords

Anaphora E-type anaphora Donkey anaphora Dynamic semantics Sign language 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bahan B., Kegl J., MacLaughlin D., Neidle C. (1995) Convergent evidence for the structure of determiner phrases in American Sign Language. In: Gabriele L., Hardison D., Westmoreland R. (eds) FLSM VI, Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid- America Vol. 2. Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications, Bloomington, IN, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  2. Beaver D. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford, CSLIGoogle Scholar
  3. Brasoveanu, A. (2006). Structured nominal and modal reference. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
  4. Brasoveanu A. (2008) Donkey pluralities: Plural Information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 129–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charolles M. (1995) Comment repêcher les derniers? Analyse des expressions anaphoriques en ce dernier. Pratiques 85: 90–112Google Scholar
  6. Chemla, E. (2009). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Under revision for Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia G. (1995) Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper R. (1979) The interpretation of pronouns. Syntax and Semantics, 10: 61–92Google Scholar
  9. Corblin F. (1998) ≪ Celui-ci ≫ anaphorique : un mentionnel. Langue française 120: 33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dekker P. (2004) Cases, adverbs, situations and events. In: Kamp H., Partee B. (eds) Contextdependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Elbourne P. (2010) On bishop sentences. Natural Language Semantics 18: 65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emmorey K. (2002) Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans G. (1977) Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7: 467–536Google Scholar
  15. Evans G. (1980) Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2): 337–362Google Scholar
  16. Fox D. (2008) Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geach P. (1962) Reference and generality. Cornell University Press, CornellGoogle Scholar
  18. George, B. (2008a). Predicting presupposition projection: Some alternatives in the strong Kleene tradition. Manuscript, UCLA. Semantics Archive, http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DY0YTgxN/. Accessed 27 Nov 2011.
  19. George, B. (2008b). Presupposition repairs: A static, trivalent approach to predicting presupposition. MA Thesis, UCLA. Semantics Archive, http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/2ZiYmEyN/. Accessed 27 Nov 2011.
  20. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1): 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  22. Heim I. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang C.-T. J. (1984) On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574Google Scholar
  24. Jacobson, P. (1977). The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. Ph.D. Dissertation, UC, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  25. Jacobson, P. (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy. doi:10.1023/A:1005464228727.
  26. Jacobon P. (2000) Paycheck pronouns, Bach–Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8(2): 77–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamp H. (1981) A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk J.A.G., Janssen T.M.V., Stokhof M.J.B. (eds) Formal methods in the study of language. Mathematical Centre, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. D. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kanazawa M. (2001) Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 383–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karttunen, L. (1969). Pronouns and variables. In The Proceedings of the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 108–116), Chicago.Google Scholar
  31. Koralus, P. (2010). Semantics in philosophy and cognitive neuroscience: The Open instruction theory of attitude report sentences, descriptions, and the Necker cube. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  32. Koulidobrova E. (2011) SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in American Sign Language (ASL). University of Connecticut, ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  33. Krahmer E. (1998) Presupposition and Anaphora. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Liddell S.K. (2003) Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Lillo-Martin D. (1986) Two kinds of null arguments in american sign language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 415–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lillo-Martin D. (1990) Parameters for questions: Evidence from wh-movement in ASL. In: Lucas C. (eds) Sign language research—Theoretical questions. Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Lillo-Martin D., Klima E.S. (1990) Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In: Fischer S.D., Siple P. (eds) Theoretical issues in sign language research Vol 1 Linguistics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 191–210Google Scholar
  38. Lillo-Martin, D., & Meier, R. (to appear). On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign language. Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
  39. Ludlow P. (1994) Conditionals, events, and unbound pronouns. Lingua e Stile 29: 165–183Google Scholar
  40. Neidle C., Kegl J., MacLaughlin D., Bahan B., Lee R.G. (2000) The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. Number 84 in Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations, LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Reinhart T., Reuland E. (1993) ‘Reflexivity’. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720Google Scholar
  43. Roberts, C. (2010). Context, accommodation and intention in collaborative inquiry. Handout of a talk given at the Budapest Summer School on Meaning, Context, Intention, July 26, 2010.Google Scholar
  44. Sandler W., Lillo-Martin D. (2006) Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Schein B. (1993) Plurals and events. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. Schein B. (2002) Events and the semantic content of thematic roles. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Logical form and language. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Schlenker P. (2008) Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3): 157–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schlenker, P. (2009). Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3, 1–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3.
  49. Schlenker, P. (2011). Singular pronouns with split antecedent. Snippets, Issue 23, May 2011, 13–15.Google Scholar
  50. Schlenker, P. (to appear a). Temporal and modal anaphora in sign language in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
  51. Schlenker, P. (to appear b). quantifiers and variables: Insights from sign language (ASL and LSF). In B. H. Partee, M. Glanzberg, & J. Skilters (Eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics: Discourse, context, and models. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication (Vol. 6).Google Scholar
  52. Schlenker, P. (to appear c). Iconic agreement. Commentary on Lillo-Martin and Meier’s “On the status of ‘agreement’ in sign language”. Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
  53. Sinha, S. (2008). A grammar of Indian Sign Language. Ph.D. thesis, submitted, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  54. Smyth R. (1994) Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23(3): 197–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stone M. (1992) Or and anaphora. Proceedings of SALT 2: 367–385Google Scholar
  56. van den Berg, M. (1996a). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse: The dynamics of nominal anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  57. van den Berg M. (1996) Dynamic generalized quantifiers. In: Does J., Eijck J. (eds) quantifiers, logic and language Lecture Notes 54. Stanford, CSLIGoogle Scholar
  58. Winston E. (1995) Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In: Emmorey K., Reilly J.S. (eds) Language, gesture, and space. Hillsdale NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 87–114Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut Jean-Nicod, CNRSParisFrance
  2. 2.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations