Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 153, Issue 2, pp 199–260 | Cite as

Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns: E-Type, Dynamic, and Structured-Propositions Approaches

  • Friederike Moltmann
Article

Abstract

Unbound anaphoric pronouns or ‘E-type pronouns’ have presented notorious problems for semantic theory, leading to the development of dynamic semantics, where the primary function of a sentence is not considered that of expressing a proposition that may act as the object of propositional attitudes, but rather that of changing the current information state. The older, ‘E-type’ account of unbound anaphora leaves the traditional notion of proposition intact and takes the unbound anaphor to be replaced by a full NP whose semantics is assumed to be known (e.g. a definite description). In this paper, I argue that there are serious problems with any version of the E-type account as well as the (original form of the) dynamic account. I will explore a new account based on structured propositions, which can be considered a conservative extension of a traditional proposition-based semantics, but which at the same time incorporates some crucial insights of the dynamic account.

Keywords

Relative Clause Propositional Attitude Parametric Object Embed Clause Dynamic Account 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asher, N. 1986‘Belief in Discourse Representation Theory’Journal of Philosophical Logic15127189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asher, N. 1987‘A Typology of Attitudinal Verbs and their Anaphoric Properties’Linguistics and Philosophy10125197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher, N. 1993Reference to Abstract Objects in DiscourseKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, S. J.: 1997, E-Type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic semantics, and the Quantifier/Variable Binding Model, Linguistics and Philosophy 20.Google Scholar
  5. Barwise, J., Perry, J. 1983Situations and AttitudesMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Barwise, J., Perry, J. 1985‘Shifting Situations and Shaken Attitudes’Linguistics and Philosophy8105161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berman, S. 1987‘Situation-Based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification’Blevins, J. eds. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 12University of MassachusettsAmherst4568Google Scholar
  8. Carnap, R. 1947Meaning and NecessityUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Chierchia, G.: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’, Linguistics and Philosophy 111–183.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, G. 1995Dynamics of MeaningChicago University PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, R. 1979‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’Heny, F.Schnelle, H. eds. Syntax and Semantics 10Academic PressNew York6192Google Scholar
  12. Cresswell, M. 1985Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional AttitudesMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Dekker, P.: 1997, ‘Cases, Adverbs, Situations, and Events’, in H. Kamp and B. Partee (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Context Dependence. IMS Stuttgart and UFAL, Prague.Google Scholar
  14. Dekker, P., Rooy, R. 1998‘Intentional Identity and Information Exchange’Cooper, R.Gamkrelidze, T. eds. Proceedings of the Second Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and ComputationTbilisi State UniversityTbilisiGoogle Scholar
  15. van der Does, J.: 1996, ‘Quantifiers, Contexts, and Anaphora’, Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Edelberg, W. 1985‘A New Puzzle about Intentional Identity’Journal of Philosophical Logic15125Google Scholar
  17. Elbourne, P. 2001‘E-type Anaphora as NP Deletion’Natural Language Semantics9241288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, G. 1985Collected PapersOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiengo, R., May, R. 1994Indices and IdentityMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Gawron, M. and S. Peters: 1990, Quantification and Anaphora in Situation Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes, Stanford.Google Scholar
  21. Geach, P. 1967‘Intentional Identity’Journal of Philosophy64627632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. 1991‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’.Linguistics and Philosophy143999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Groenendijk J. and Stokhof M., Veltman F. (1996a), ‘Coreference and Modality’. In: Lappin S. (ed), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory pp. 179–213Google Scholar
  24. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof F. Veltman: 1996b: ‘Coreference and Modality in the Context of Multi-Speaker Discourse’, in H. Kamp and B. Partee (eds.), Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning. IMS Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  25. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  26. Heim, I. 1990‘E-Type Pronouns and Donkey-Anaphora’Linguistics and Philosophy13137178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heim, I. 1992‘Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Reports’Journal of Semantics9183221Google Scholar
  28. Heim, I., Kratzer, A. 1998Semantics in Generative GrammarBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Kadmon, N.: 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification’. Ph D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  30. Kamp, H.,  et al. 1981‘A Theory of Truth and Representation’Groenendijk, J. eds. Truth, Interpretation and InformationForisDordrecht143Google Scholar
  31. Kamp, H. 1987‘Comments on Stalnaker: Belief Attribution and Context’Grimm, R.Merrill, R. eds. Contents of ThoughtUniversity of Arizona PressTucson156206Google Scholar
  32. Kamp, H., Reyle, U. 1993From Discourse to LogicKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanazawa, M. 1994‘Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey-Sentences’Linguistics and Philosophy12109158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kanazawa, M. 2001‘Singular Donkey Pronouns are Semantically Singular’Linguistics and Philosophy24383403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan D.: 1977, ‘Demonstratives’, in J. Almog et al. (ed.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford UP, Oxford, 1989, pp. 481–563.Google Scholar
  36. King J. (2001), ‘Structured Propositions’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, online.Google Scholar
  37. Kratzer, A. 1989‘An Investigation into the Lumps of Thought’Linguistics and Philosophy12607653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krifka, M. 1993‘Focus and Presupposition in Dynamic Interpretation’Journal of Semantics10269300Google Scholar
  39. Krifka, M. 1996‘Parametric Sum Individuals for Plural Anaphora’Linguistics and Philosophy19555598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krifka M. (2001), ‘For a Structured Meaning Account of Questions and Answers’, in C. Fery and W Sternefeld (eds.), Audiator Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 287–319.Google Scholar
  41. Lappin, S., Frances, N. 1995‘Pronouns, I-Sums and Donkey-Anaphora’Linguistics and Philosophy17391428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewis, D. (1972), ‘General Semantics’, in. D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  43. Ludlow, P., Neale, S. 1991‘Definite Descriptions: In Defense of Russell’Linguistics and Philosophy14171202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ludlow, P. 1994‘Conditionals, Events, and Unbound Pronouns’Lingua e Stile19320Google Scholar
  45. Moltmann, F. (to appear): ‘Presuppositions and Quantifier Domains’, Synthese.Google Scholar
  46. Neale, S. 1990DescriptionsMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  47. Roberts, C. (1987)Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity. Ph D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, C. 1989‘Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse’Linguistics and Philosophy12683721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts C.: 1996: ‘Anaphora in Intensional Contexts’, in S. Lappin (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 215–246.Google Scholar
  50. Salmon, N. 1986Frege’s PuzzleMIT PressCambride, MAGoogle Scholar
  51. Soames, S. 1986‘Incomplete Definite Descriptions’Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic27349375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soames, S. 1987, ‘Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content’, Philosophical Topics 15, 47–87. Reprinted in N. Salmon and S. Soames (eds.) 1988, Propositions and Attitudes. Oxford UP, Oxford, pp. 169–196.Google Scholar
  53. Soames, S. 1989‘Review of Gareth Evans: Collected Papers’The Journal of Philosophy1989141156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stalnaker, R. 1978‘Assertion’Cole, P. eds. Syntax and Semantics 9Academic PressNew York315332Google Scholar
  55. Stalnaker, R. 1984InquiryMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Stalnaker, R. 1987‘Belief Attribution and Context’Grimm, R.Merrill, R. eds. Contents and ThoughtUniversity of Arizona PressTucson143156Google Scholar
  57. Stalnaker, R. 1998‘On the Representation of Context’Journal of Logic, Language, and Information71319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strawson, P. 1952Introduction to Logical TheoryMethuenLondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Zimmermann, T. E. 1998‘On the Epistemic Role of Discourse Referents’Moss, L. eds. Logic, Language, and ComputationCSLI PublicationsStanfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut d’Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques (IHPST)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations