Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 87–102

On appositives and dynamic binding

Original Paper

Abstract

Quantified appositives have a limited distribution which is reminiscent of quantified discourse anaphora. This article investigates whether this parallel can be fleshed out by means of a two-dimensional dynamic semantics. The proposal works towards an explanation of why quantified appositives are generally infelicitous. Crucial is the fact that variables bound by a strong quantifier have a singular value, while the antecedents for discourse anaphora introduced by the quantifier are plural.

Keywords

Appositives Quantifiers Dynamic binding Multi-dimensional semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asher N., Wang L. (2003). Ambiguity and anaphora with plurals in discourse. In proceedings of Semantics and linguistic theory 13 (SALT 13). Seattle, Washington : University of Washington.Google Scholar
  2. van den Berg, M. (1996). ‘Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse: The dynamics of nominal anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Elworthy D. (1995). A theory of anaphoric information. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 297–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Evans G. (1977). Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 467–536Google Scholar
  5. del Gobbo F. (2003a). Appositives and quantification. In: Kaiser E., Arunachalam S.(eds) Proceedings of the 26th annual Penn linguistics colloquium, (Vol. 9.1). pennsylvania working papers in linguistics. Pennsylvania, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  6. del Gobbo, F. (2003b). Appositives at the interface. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  7. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts. New York: AP.Google Scholar
  8. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jayez J., Rossari C. (2005). Parentheticals as conventional implicatures. In: Corblin F., de Swart H.(eds) Handbook of French semantics. Stanford, CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  10. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht, D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Karttunen L., Peters S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In: Oh C.-K., Dinneen D.A.(eds) Presupposition, syntax and semantics (Vol. 11). New York, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Krifka M. (1996). Parametrized sum individuals for plural reference and partitive quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 555–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCawley J. (1998). The syntaxtic phenomena of English. Chicago, Chicago University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Nouwen R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. No. 84 in Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations. Utrecht, LOTGoogle Scholar
  15. Nouwen, R. (2006). On dependent pronouns and dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic (to appear).Google Scholar
  16. Potts C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures, Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics (Vol. 7). Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetss, Amherst.Google Scholar
  18. Vermeulen K. (1993). Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2, 217–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Visser A. (2002). The donkey and the monoid. Dynamic semantics with control elements. Journal of Logic Language and Information 11(1): 107–131Google Scholar
  20. Visser A., Vermeulen C. (1996). Dynamic bracketing and discourse representation. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37, 321–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang L., McCready E., Asher N. (2006). Information dependency in quantificational subordination. In: von Heusinger K., Turner K.(eds) Where semantics meets pragmatics (Crispi 16). Amsterdam, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang L., Reese B., McCready E. (2005). The projection problem of nominal appositives. Snippets 10, 13–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht Institute of Linguistics (OTS)Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations