Skip to main content

Donkey pluralities: plural information states versus non-atomic individuals

Linguistics and Philosophy volume 31, pages 129–209 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

The paper argues that two distinct and independent notions of plurality are involved in natural language anaphora and quantification: plural reference (the usual non-atomic individuals) and plural discourse reference, i.e., reference to a quantificational dependency between sets of objects (e.g., atomic/non-atomic individuals) that is established and subsequently elaborated upon in discourse. Following van den Berg (PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1996), plural discourse reference is modeled as plural information states (i.e., as sets of variable assignments) in a new dynamic system couched in classical type logic that extends Compositional DRT (Muskens, Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 143–186, 1996). Given the underlying type logic, compositionality at sub-clausal level follows automatically and standard techniques from Montague semantics become available. The idea that plural info states are semantically necessary (in addition to non-atomic individuals) is motivated by relative-clause donkey sentences with multiple instances of singular donkey anaphora that have mixed (weak and strong) readings. At the same time, allowing for non-atomic individuals in addition to plural info states enables us to capture the intuitive parallels between singular and plural (donkey) anaphora, while deriving the incompatibility between singular (donkey) anaphora and collective predicates. The system also accounts for empirically unrelated phenomena, e.g., the uniqueness effects associated with singular (donkey) anaphora discussed in Kadmon (Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 273–324, 1990) and Heim (Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 131–177, 1990) among others.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Abusch D. (1994) The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2: 83–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher N., Wang L. (2003) Ambiguity and anaphora with plurals in discourse. In: Young R., Zhou Y. (eds) Proceedings of SALT XIII. CLC Publications, Ithaca, pp 19–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker C. (1996) Presuppositions for proportional quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 4: 237–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J. (1987) Noun phrases, generalized quantifiers and anaphora. In: Gärdenfors P. (eds) Generalized quantifiers. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers in natural languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäuerle, R., & Egli, U. (1985). Anapher, Nominalphrase und Eselssätze. Papier 105 des Sonderforschungsbereichs 99, Universität Konstanz.

  • Beaver D., Zeevat H. (2006) Accommodation. In: Ramchand G., Reiss C. (eds) Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner M. (2007) Online update: Temporal, modal and De Se anaphora in polysynthetic discourse. In: Barker C., Jacobson P. (eds) Direct compositionality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 363–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Brasoveanu, A. (2007). Structured nominal and modal reference. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.

  • Brasoveanu, A., & Farkas, D. F. (2008). Exceptional scope as discourse reference to quantificational dependencies. In Proceedings of the 7th International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (to appear).

  • Chierchia G. (1995) The dynamics of meaning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia G. (2001) A puzzle about indefinites. In: Cecchetto C., Chierchia G., Guasti M.T. (eds) Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora and aspect. CSLI, Stanford, pp 51–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia G. (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “Logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R. (1979) The interpretation of pronouns. In: Henry F., Schnelle H. (eds) The nature of syntactic representations, syntax and semantics, volume 10 (Selections from the Third Gröningen Round Table). Academic Press, New York, pp 61–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., McHombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P. (1993). Transentential meditations: Ups and downs in dynamic semantics. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Elworthy D. (1995) A theory of anaphoric information. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 297–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans G. (1977) Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses (I). The Journal of Canadian Philosophy 7: 467–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans G. (1980) Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans G. (1985) Collected papers. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas D.F. et al (1981) Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In: Hendrik R. (eds) Proceedings of CLS 7. CLC Publications, Ithaca, pp 59–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas D.F. (2002) Varieties of indefinites. In: Jackson B. (eds) Proceedings of SALT XII. CLC Publications, Ithaca, pp 59–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor J.D., Sag I. (1982) Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional and higher-order modal logic with applications to Montague semantics. North-Holland Mathematics Studies.

  • Geurts B. (2002) Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 129–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, UMass Amherst [published in 1988, New York: Garland].

  • Heim I. (1983) On the projection problem for presuppositions. In: Barlow M., Flickinger D., Wescoat M. (eds) Proceedings of WCCFL 2. Stanford University, Stanford, pp 114–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim I. (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I. (1991) Artikel und Definitheit. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. PhD dissertation, UMass Amherst.

  • Kadmon N. (1990) Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 273–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp H. (1981) A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk J., Janssen T., Stokhof M. (eds) Formal methods in the study of language, Part 1. Mathematical Center, Amsterdam, pp 277–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa M. (1994) Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inference in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17: 109–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa, M. (1994b). Dynamic generalized quantifiers and monotonicity. In M. Kanazawa & C. Pinón (Eds.), Dynamics, polarity and quantification (pp. 213–249). CSLI Lecture Notes 48. Stanford: CSLI.

  • Kanazawa M. (2001) Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 383–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen L. (1976) Discourse referents. In: McCawley J.D. (eds) Syntax and semantics, volume 7: Notes from the linguistic underground. Academic Press, New York, pp 363–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen L., Peters S. (1979) Conventional implicature. In: Oh C.-K., Dineen D.A. (eds) Syntax and semantics: Presupposition Vol. 11. Academic Press, London, pp 1–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1998) Scope or pseudo-scope: Are there wide-scope indefinites?. In: Rothstein S. (eds) Events in grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 163–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka M. (1996) Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. In: Galloway T., Spence J. (eds) Proceedings from SALT VI. CLC Publications, Ithaca, pp 136–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka M. (1996) Parametric sum individuals for plural anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 555–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lappin S., Francez N. (1994) E-type pronouns, i-sums and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 17: 391–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1975) Adverbs of quantification. In: Keenan E. (eds) Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Link G. (1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 302–323

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Moltmann F. (2006) Unbound anaphoric pronouns: E-type, dynamic and structured-propositions approaches. Synthese 153(2): 199–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague R. (1974) The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Thomason R. (eds) Formal philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 247–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Muskens R. (1995) Tense and the logic of change. In: Egli U., Pause P., Schwarze C., Stechow A., Wienold G. (eds) Lexical knowledge in the organisation of language. Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, pp 147–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muskens, R. (2005). Natural language semantics, ESSLLI 17th course notes, Edinburgh. Available at http://let.uvt.hl/general/people/rmuskas/courses.htm.

  • Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, LOT Dissertation Series 84.

  • Parsons, T. (1978). Pronouns as paraphrases, UMass Amherst, ms.

  • Partee B., Rooth M. (1983) Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bauerle R., Schwartze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 361–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier F.J., Schubert L.K. (1989) Generically speaking or using Discourse Representation Theory to interpret generics. In: Chierchia G., Partee B.H., Turner R. (eds) Properties, types and meanings, Vol. 2. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 193–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters S., Westerståhl D. (2006) Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C. (2003) Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth M. (1987) Noun phrase interpretation in Montague grammar, file change semantics and situation semantics. In: Gärdenfors P. (eds) Generalized quantifiers. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 237–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland U. (2003) A new semantics for number. In: Young R., Zhou Y. (eds) Proceedings of SALT XIII. CLC Publications, Ithaca, pp 258–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Scha, R. (1981). Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Part 2 (pp. 483–512). Mathematical Centre Tracts 136, University of Amsterdam.

  • Schein, B. (2003). Adverbial, descriptive reciprocals. In J. Hawthorne (Ed.), Language & philosophical linguistics, philosophical perspectives 17.1 (pp. 333–367).

  • Schwarzschild R. (1992) Types of plural individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 641–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild R. (1996) Pluralities. Springer, Dordrecht/Boston/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild R. (2002) Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19: 289–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M. (2007). Surface-compositional scope-alternation without existential quantifiers. University of Edinburgh ms.

  • Stone M. (1992) Or and anaphora. In: Barker C., Dowty D. (eds) Proceeding of SALT II (OSU Working papers in linguistics 40). OSU, Columbus, pp 367–385

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, M. (1994). A direct definition of generalized dynamic quantifiers. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.

  • van den Berg, M. (1996). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. The dynamics of nominal anaphora. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • van der Does, J. (1993). The dynamics of sophisticated laziness. ILLC, University of Amsterdam, ms.

  • van der Sandt R. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eijck J., de Vries F.-J. (1992) Dynamic interpretation and Hoare deduction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1: 1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD dissertation, UMass Amherst.

  • Winter Y. (1997) Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter Y. (2000) Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics 8: 27–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Adrian Brasoveanu

Authors
  1. Adrian Brasoveanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Brasoveanu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brasoveanu, A. Donkey pluralities: plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguist and Philos 31, 129–209 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0

Keywords

  • Plurals
  • Anaphora
  • Weak and strong donkey readings
  • Uniqueness effects
  • Compositional dynamic semantics
  • Type logic