Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 519–547 | Cite as

Discourse and logical form: pronouns, attention and coherence

  • Una Stojnić
  • Matthew Stone
  • Ernie Lepore
Original Research

Abstract

Traditionally, pronouns are treated as ambiguous between bound and demonstrative uses. Bound uses are non-referential and function as bound variables, and demonstrative uses are referential and take as a semantic value their referent, an object picked out jointly by linguistic meaning and a further cue—an accompanying demonstration, an appropriate and adequately transparent speaker’s intention, or both. In this paper, we challenge tradition and argue that both demonstrative and bound pronouns are dependent on, and co-vary with, antecedent expressions. Moreover, the semantic value of a pronoun is never determined, even partly, by extra-linguistic cues; it is fixed, invariably and unambiguously, by features of its context of use governed entirely by linguistic rules. We exploit the mechanisms of Centering and Coherence theories to develop a precise and general meta-semantics for pronouns, according to which the semantic value of a pronoun is determined by what is at the center of attention in a coherent discourse. Since the notions of attention and coherence are, we argue, governed by linguistic rules, we can give a uniform analysis of pronoun resolution that covers bound, demonstrative, and even discourse bound (“E-type”) readings. Just as the semantic value of the first-person pronoun ‘I’ is conventionally set by a particular feature of its context of use—namely, the speaker—so too, we will argue, the semantic values of other pronouns, including ‘he’, are conventionally set by particular features of the context of use.

Keywords

Pronouns Logical form Intentionalism Convention Attention Coherence Discourse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alahverdzhieva, K., & Lascarides, A. (2011). An HPSG approach to synchronous deixis and speech. In S. Muller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th international conference on head-driven phase structure grammar (HPSG) (pp. 6–24). Seattle: USA.Google Scholar
  2. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bittner, M. (2007). Aspectual universals of temporal anaphora. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Chap. 11, pp 349–385. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. Bittner, M. (2014). Temporality: Universals and variation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Holland: Foris Publications (Reprint: 7th Edition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993).Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, S. (1998). Contextualist solutions to epistemological problems: Scepticism, Gettier, and the Lottery. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 76, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dekker, P. (2011). Dynamic semantics. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 923–945). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Dowell, J. L. (2011). Flexible Contextualist Account of Epistmeic Modals. Philosopers’ Imprint, 11, 1–25.Google Scholar
  9. Elbourne, P. (2008). Implicit content and the argument from binding. Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XVIII (SALT 18) (pp. 284–301). Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Fiengo, R., & May, R. (1994). Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fiengo, R., & May, R. (2006). De Lingua Belief. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.Google Scholar
  13. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Congitive. Science, 3, 67–90.Google Scholar
  15. Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Literature and cognition. CSLI lecture notes 21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kaiser, E. (2009). Effects of anaphoric dependencies and semantic representations on pronoun interpretation. In I. Hendrickx, A. Branco, S. Lalitha Devi & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing and applications, Proceedings of 7th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC 2009 (pp. 121–130). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Kameyama, M. (1996). Indefeasible semantics and defeasible pragmatics. In M. Kanazawa, C. Pinon & H. de Swart (Eds.), Quantifiers, deduction and context (pp. 111–138). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan, D. (1989a). Afterthoughts. In J. Almong, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 565–614). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan, D. (1989b). Demonstratives. In J. Almong, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, J. C. (2014a). The metasemantics of contextual sensitivity. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), Metasemantics: New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning (pp. 97–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King, J. C. (2014b). Speaker intentions in context. Noûs, 48, 219–237.Google Scholar
  25. King, J. C., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics and the role of semantic content. In Z. G. Szabó (ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics, (pp. 111–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Knott, A. (1996). A data driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  27. Kripke, S. A. (1977). Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. In P. A. French, T. E. Uehling Jr & H. K. Wettstein (Eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of language (pp. 255–296). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michaelson, E. (2013). This and that: A theory of reference for names, demonstratives, and things in between. Ph.D. thesis, UCLAGoogle Scholar
  31. Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14, 15–28.Google Scholar
  32. Neale, S. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Neale, S. (2004). This, that and the other. In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond (pp. 68–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Perry, J. (1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Reimer, M. (1992). Three views of demonstrative reference. Synthese, 93, 373–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberts, C. (2002). Demonstratives as definites. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (Eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation (pp. 87–137). Stanford: CSLI Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schiffer, S. (1981). Indexicals and the theory of reference. Synthese, 49(1), 43–100.Google Scholar
  39. Sidner, C. (1983). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In M. Brady & R. C. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse (pp. 267–330). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Smyth, R. (1994). Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 197–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stojnić, U. (2016). Context-sensitivity in a coherent discourse. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers Universtiy.Google Scholar
  42. Stojnić, U. (forthcoming). Discourse, context and coherence: The grammar of prominence. In G. Preyer (Ed.), Beyond semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stojnić, U., Stone, M., & Lepore, E. (2013). Deixis (even without pointing). Philosophical Perspectives, 27, 502–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stojnić U., Stone, M., & Lepore, E. (forthcoming). Distinguishing ambiguity from underspecification. In K. Turner, & L. Horn (Eds.), Pragmatics, Truth and Underspecification: Towards an Atlas of Meaning, Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface - CRiSPI. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  45. Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59, 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89, 66–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker, M. A., Masayo, I., & Cote, S. (1994). Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics, 20, 193–232.Google Scholar
  48. Webber, B. L. (1988). Tense and discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14, 61–73.Google Scholar
  49. Webber, B. L., Stone, M., Joshi, A., & Knott, A. (2003). Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 29, 545–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilkins, D. (2003). Why pointing with the index finger is not a universal (in Sociocultural and Semiotic Terms). In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 171–215). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  51. Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNYUNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and Center for Cognitive ScienceRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  4. 4.Department of Philosophy and Center for Cognitive ScienceRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations