Philosophical Studies

, Volume 176, Issue 4, pp 1055–1075 | Cite as

Propositional anaphors

  • Peter van ElswykEmail author


Propositions are posited to perform a variety of explanatory roles. One important role is being what is designated by a dedicated linguistic expression like a that-clause. In this paper, the case that propositions are needed for such a role is bolstered by defending that there are other expressions dedicated to designating propositions. In particular, it is shown that natural language has anaphors for propositions. Complement so and the response markers yes and no are argued to be such expressions.


Propositions Propositional anaphors That-clauses 


  1. Aelbrecht, L. (2010). The syntacic licensing of ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alamillio, A. R. (2009). Cross-dialectal variation in propositional anaphora: Null objects and propositional lo in Mexican and peninsular Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 21(3), 381–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, P., & Hacquard, V. (2014). Factivity, belief and discourse. In L. Crnic & U. Sauerland (Eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim (pp. 69–90). Cambridge: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  4. Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Authier, J.-M. (2013). Phase-edge features and the syntax of polarity particles. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(3), 345–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasoveanu, A. (2010). Decomposing modal quantification. Journal of Semantics, 27(4), 437–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brentano, F. (1904/1966). The true and the evident. Routledge: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Cappelen, H., & Hawthorne, J. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A crosslinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cornish, F. (1992). So be it: The discourse semantic roles of so and It. Journal of Semantics, 9(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushing, S. (1972). The semantics of sentence pronominalization. Foundations of Language, 9(2), 186–208.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, M. The corpus of contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990-present. 2008-present.Google Scholar
  14. Depiante, M. (2000). The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: A study of null complement anaphora and stripping/bare argument ellipsis. Ph.D. thesis, University of ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  15. DeRose, K. (2009). The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism, and context (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Egan, A. (2010). Relativism about epistemic modals. In S. Hales (Ed.), A companion to relativism, chapter 12 (pp. 219–241). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Fiengo, R., & May, R. (1994). Indices and identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Geach, P. (1962). Reference and generality: An examination of some medieval and modern theories. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 41–53.Google Scholar
  21. Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(3), 391–428.Google Scholar
  22. Holmberg, A. (2013). The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua, 128, 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hooper, J. B. (1975). On assertive predicates. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 4 (pp. 91–123). Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Houser, J. M. (2010) The syntax and semantics of Do So Anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, Unviversity of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaufmann, M. (2012). Interpreting imperatives. Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, J. C. (2007). The nature and structure of content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kramer, R., & Rawlins, K. (2012). Polarity particles: an ellipsis account. In S. Lima, K. Mullin, B. Smith (Eds.) Proceedings of NELS 39.Google Scholar
  28. Kratzer, A. (2006). Decomposing attitude verbs.
  29. Krifka, M. (2013). Response particles as propositional anaphors. T. Snider (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT (vol. 23, pp. 1–18).Google Scholar
  30. Krifka, M. (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lebens, S. (2017). Bertrand Russell and the nature of propositions: A history and defence of the multiple relation theory of judgment. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lobeck, A. (1995). Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merchant, J. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In van J. Craenenbroeck, T. Temmerman (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. Oxford University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  35. Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Merchant, J. (2013). Diagnosing ellipsis. In L. L.-S. Cheng & N. Corver (Eds.), Diagnosing syntax (pp. 537–542). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moltmann, F. (2013). Abstract objects and semantics of natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moulton, K. (2009) Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Masschusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  39. Moulton, K. (2015). CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(2), 305–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murray, S. (2014). Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Needham, S. (2012) Propositional anaphora in English: The relationship between so and discourse. Master’s thesis, Carleton University.Google Scholar
  42. Ninan, D. (2010). Semantics and the objects of assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(5), 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ninan, D. (2012). Propositions, semantic values, and rigidity. Philosophical Studies, 158(3), 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Partee, B. (1973). Some structual analogies between tenses and pronouns in english. Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Partee, B. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 70(3), 243–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peterson, P. (1997). Fact proposition event. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prior, A. (1967). Past present and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rabern, B. (2012). Against the identification of assertoric content with compositional value. Synthese, 189(1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Richard, M. (2008). When truth gives out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegerman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roberts, C. (1989). Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(6), 683–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roeper, T. (2011). How the emergence of propositions separates strict interfaces from general inference. Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung, 15, 1–21.Google Scholar
  53. Sailor, C. (2012). You can’t regret so (even if you think so). ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  54. Schaffer, J. (2012). Necessitarian propositions. Synthese, 189(1), 119–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schlenker, P. (2006). Ontological symmetry in language: A brief manifesto. Mind and Language, 21(4), 504–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simons, M. (2007). Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua, 117(6), 1034–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stojnic, U. (2017). One’s modus ponens: Modality, coherence and logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  59. Stone, M. (1997). The anaphoric parallel between tense and modality. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania, Instituate for Research in Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  60. Textor, M. (2011). Is ‘no’ a force-indicator? no!. Analysis, 71(3), 448–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Craenenbroeck, J. (2010). The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. van der Wurff, W. (2007). Imperative clauses in generative grammar: An introduction. In W. van der Wurff (Ed.), Imperative clauses in generative (pp. 1–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ward, G., & Kehler, A. (2005). Syntactic form and discourse accessibility. In A. Branco, T. McEnery, & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive and computational modeling (pp. 365–387). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Webber, B. (1988). Tense as discourse anaphor. Technical Reports (CIS) (pp. 1–28).Google Scholar
  65. Williams, E. (1975). Small clauses in English. In J. Kimball (Ed.) Syntax and semantics 4 (pp. 249–273).Google Scholar
  66. Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116(464), 983–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yli-Vakkuri, J. (2013). Propositions and compositionality. Philosophical Perspectives, 27(1), 526–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zanuttini, R. (1991). Syntactic properties of sentential negation: A comparative study of Romance languages. Ph.D. thesis, Unviversity of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations