Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 299–348 | Cite as

Focusing bound pronouns

Article
  • 319 Downloads

Abstract

The presence of contrastive focus on pronouns interpreted as bound variables is puzzling. Bound variables do not refer, and it is therefore unclear how two of them can be made to contrast with each other. It is argued that this is a problem for both alternative-based accounts such as Rooth’s (Nat Lang Semantics 1:75–116, 1992) and givenness-based ones such as Schwarzschild’s (Nat Lang Semantics 7:141–177, 1999). The present paper shows that previous approaches to this puzzle face an empirical problem, namely the co-occurrence of additive too and focus on bound pronouns. Our account is based on the idea that the alternatives introduced by focused bound pronouns denote individuals. Putting forward the novel concept of compositional reconstruction, we show that a suitably modified Roothian analysis of focus licensing allows us to get bound pronouns to contrast with other bound pronouns. The reason for this is that the number of potential alternatives increases. We also suggest a modification of Rooth’s ~-operator: contrastiveness becomes a requirement of the operator, which is modelled as a definedness condition. It is argued that in the case of focused bound pronouns a ~-operator is necessarily inserted in the scope of the quantifier. If this is on the right track, it follows that the phenomenon of focused bound pronouns warrants both an operator interpreting focus as well as a semantic value for the contribution of focus. Any givenness-based analysis must include these two ingredients as well; we suggest a way in which this can be implemented more or less straightforwardly.

Keywords

Focus Bound variables Alternatives Two-dimensional semantics Givenness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beck S. (2006) Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1): 1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck S., Rullmann H. (1999) A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7(3): 249–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Büring D. (1997) The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th street bridge accent. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Büring, D. To appear. What’s new and (what’s given) in the theory of focus? In Proceedings of the 34th Berkeley Linguistics Society Meeting (2008), Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia G. (1990) Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 111–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chierchia G. (1992) Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1(2): 181–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, R. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. In Syntax and semantics 10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, ed. F. Heny and H. Schnelle, 61–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in Wh-quantification: questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Dimitriadis, A. 2001. Function domains in variable free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 11, ed. R. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolenszky, 134–151. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Elbourne, P.D. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Engdahl, E. 1986. Constituent questions. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  12. Fintel, K. von 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  13. Fintel, K. von 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.Google Scholar
  14. Fox, D. 1999. Focus, parallelism, and accommodation. In Proceedings of SALT 9, ed. T. Matthews and D. Strolovitch, 70–90. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Fox D. (2002) Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1): 63–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geurts, B., and van~der Sandt, R. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44.Google Scholar
  17. Green, G.M. 1973. On too and either, and not just too and either, either. In Chicago Linguistic Society, Papers from the 4th Regional Meeting, 22–39. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  18. Hamblin C. (1973) Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53Google Scholar
  19. Heim, I. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, ed. D.P. Flickinger, 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, I. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2): 137–178.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.Google Scholar
  22. Heim, I. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, ed. D. Harbour, D. Adger, and S. Béjar, 35–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heim, I., and Kratzer, A. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Horn, L. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Papers from the 5th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 98–108. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  25. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jacobson, P. 2000. Paychecks, stress, and variable free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 10, ed. B. Jackson and T. Matthews, 65–82. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, J. 1984. Obligatory too in English. Language 60(3): 510–518.Google Scholar
  28. Karttunen, L. 1969. Pronouns and variables. In Proceedings of the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. R.I. Binnick, 108–116. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  29. Karttunen L. (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistic and Philosophy 1(1): 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kratzer, A. 1991. The representation of focus. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 825–834. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Kratzer, A. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tense. In Proceedings of SALT 8, ed. D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson, 92–110. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Kratzer, A., and Shimoyama, J. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: the view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, vol. 3, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  33. Krifka, M. 1999. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, ed. D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson, 111–128. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Mayr, C. 2010a. Contrastive salient alternatives: focus on bound pronouns. In Proceedings of (SALT 20), ed. N. Li and D. Lutz, 161–178. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Mayr, C. 2010b. The role of alternatives and strength in grammar. PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  36. Montague, R. 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, ed. R.H. Thomason, 247–270. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Novel, M., and Romero, M. 2011. Movement, variables and Hamblin alternatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, ed. M. Prinzhorn, V. Schmitt, and S. Zobel, 322–338. Vienna: University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  38. Partee, B. 1975. Deletion and variable binding. In Formal semantics of natural language, ed. E.L. Keenan, 16–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. PhD thesis, University of   Massachusetts at, Amherst.Google Scholar
  40. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rullmann, H. 2004. First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1): 159–168.Google Scholar
  42. Sauerland, U. 1998. The meaning of chains. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  43. Sauerland, U. 2000. The content of pronouns: evidence from focus. In Proceedings of SALT 10, B. Jackson and T. Matthews, 167–184. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Sauerland U. (2004) The interpretation of traces. NaturalLanguage Semantics 12: 63–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sauerland, U. 2008. The silent content of bound variable pronouns. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. K. Johnson, 183–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schwarzschild R. (1999) Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shan, Cc. 2004. Binding alongside Hamblin alternatives calls for variable-free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. R.B. Young, 289–304. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Stechow, A. von 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding. In Proceedings of NALS 33, ed. M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara, 133–157. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  49. Truckenbrodt, H. 1995. Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  50. Wagner, M. 2006. Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of SALT 16, ed. M. Gibson and J. Howell, 295–312. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Williams E. (1997) Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28(4): 577–628Google Scholar
  52. Wold, D.E. 1996. Long distance selective binding: the case of focus. In Proceedings of SALT 6, ed. F. Galloway and J. Spence, 311–328. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für Allgemeine SprachwissenschaftBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations