Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 5–17 | Cite as

On the denotations of anaphors

Original Paper


In the spirit of generalized quantifier theory, we provide direct interpretations for anaphors such as himself, herself, everyone but himself, no student but himself, both himself and the teacher, etc., as they occur in Ss like: Every worker criticized himself, No student criticized every student but himself, Some student criticized both himself and the teacher, etc. Then we provide a syntax independent definition of “anaphor” which enables us to non-circularly identify anaphors in different languages and to test the validity of claims such as “Anaphors are always locally c-commanded by their antecedents.” We also compute the sense in which anaphors increase logical expressive power by computing the size of the denotation set for anaphors as compared with mere non-anaphoric generalized quantifiers.


Anaphor Direct interpretation Determiner Generalized quantifier Invariant 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Büring D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Dukes, M. (1996). On the non-existence of anaphors and pronominals in tongan. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  3. Jacobson P. (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Keenan E., Westerståhl D. (1997). Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic’. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds). Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 837–893Google Scholar
  5. Keenan E. (1987). Lexical freedom and large categories. In: Groenendijk J., de Jongh D., Stokhof M. (eds). Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Keenan E. (1988). On semantics and the binding theory. In: Hawkins (eds). Explaining language universals. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 105–144Google Scholar
  7. Keenan E. (1993). Anaphor-antecedent asymmetry: a conceptual necessity?. In: Lahiri U., Wyner Z. (eds). Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory III. U. C. Irvine, California, pp. 117–134Google Scholar
  8. Keenan E. (1996). The semantics of determiners. In: Lappin S. (eds). The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 41–63Google Scholar
  9. Keenan E. (2003). An historical explanation of some binding theoretic facts in English. In: Moore J., Polinsky M. (eds). The nature of explanation in linguistic theory. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 153–189Google Scholar
  10. Keenan E., Stabler E. (2003). Bare grammar: Lectures on linguistic invariants. CSLI, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Keenan E., Stavi J. (1986), A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations