A squib on anaphora and coindexing

Abstract

There are two kinds of semantic theories of anaphora. Some, such as Heim’s File Change Semantics, Groenendijk and Stokhof’s Dynamic Predicate Logic, or Muskens’ Compositional DRT (CDRT), seem to require full coindexing of anaphora and their antecedents prior to interpretation. Others, such as Kamp’s Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), do not require this coindexing and seem to have an important advantage here. In this squib I will sketch a procedure that the first group of theories may help themselves to so that they can interleave interpretation and coindexing in DRT’s way.

References

  1. Asher N., Lascarides A. (2003) Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bary, C. (2009). Aspect in ancient Greek: A semantic analysis of the aorist and imperfective. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD thesis, Umass, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.

  6. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  7. Marcus. M. P., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In Proceedings of the 21st ACL (pp. 129–136).

  8. Muskens R.A. (1996) Combining montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Reyle U. (1993) Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction. Journal of Semantics 10: 123–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. van Leusen, N. (2007). Description grammar for discourse. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.

  11. van Leusen N., Muskens R. (2003) Construction by description in discourse representation. In: Peregrin J. (Ed.) Meaning: The dynamic turn, volume 12 of current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 33–65

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Corien Bary, one of whose many excellent questions about using Compositional DRT in theorizing about aspect in Ancient Greek led me to write this squib. See Bary (2009) for some of her results. The anonymous referees provided me with first-rate feedback.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reinhard Muskens.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Muskens, R. A squib on anaphora and coindexing. Linguist and Philos 34, 85–89 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9091-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dynamic semantics
  • Anaphora
  • Coindexing