Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 129–156 | Cite as

Donkey Business

  • Bart Geurts

Abstract

In this paper I present experimental data showing that the interpretation of donkey sentences is influenced by certain aspects of world knowledge that seem to elude introspective observation, which I try to explain by reference to a scale ranging from prototypical individuals (like children) to quite marginal ones (such as railway lines). This ontological cline interacts with the semantics of donkey sentences: as suggested already by the anecdotal data on which much of the literature is based, the effect of world knowledge is by and large restricted to donkey sentences with non-intersective determiners. I outline a psychological model which incorporates both ontological and logical factors, and suggest that there may be something wrong with the standard assumption that a statement's receiving a truth value requires that it have a definite reading.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Barker, C.: 1999, 'Individuation and Quantification', Linguistic Inquiry 30, 683–691.Google Scholar
  2. Chierchia, G.: 1992, 'Anaphora and Dynamic Binding', Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, G.: 1995, Dynamics of Meaning, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, H. H.: 1974, 'Semantics and Comprehension', in T. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, 12. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 1291–1428.Google Scholar
  5. Conway, L. and S. Crain: 1995, 'Donkey Anaphora in Child Grammar', in J. N. Beckman (ed.), NELS 25, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, R.: 1979, 'The Interpretation of Pronouns', in F. Heny and H. Schnelle (eds.), Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, Academic Press, New York, pp. 61–92.Google Scholar
  7. Ericsson, K. A. and H. A. Simon: 1984, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  8. Fine, K.: 1982, 'Acts, Events and Things', in W. Leinfellner, E. Kraemer, and J. Schank (eds.), Language and Ontology: Proceedings of the Sixth International Wittgenstein Symposium, Vienna, pp. 97-105.Google Scholar
  9. Geach, P. T.: 1962, Reference and Generality, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  10. Geurts, B.: 1999, Presuppositions and Pronouns, Elsevier, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Gupta, A. K.: 1980, The Logic of Common Nouns, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  12. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  13. Heim, I.: 1990, 'E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora', Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–178.Google Scholar
  14. Horn, L. R.: 1989, A Natural History of Negation, Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Just, M. A. and P. A. Carpenter: 1971, 'Comprehension of Negation with Quantification', Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10, 244–253.Google Scholar
  16. Just, M. A.: 1974, 'Comprehending Quantified Sentences: The Relation between Sentencepicture and Semantic Memory Verification', Cognitive Psychology 6, 216–236.Google Scholar
  17. Kadmon, N.: 1990, 'Uniqueness', Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.Google Scholar
  18. Kamp, H.: 1981, 'A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation', in J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, and M. B. J. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre Tracts 135, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  19. Kamp, H.: 1991, 'Uniqueness Presuppositions and Plural Anaphora in DTT and DRT', in M. Stokhof, J. Groenendijk, and D. Beaver (eds.), Quantification and Anaphora, Part 1, DYANA deliverable R2.2A, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Kanazawa, M.: 1994, 'Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting', Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 109–158.Google Scholar
  21. Krifka, M.: 1990, 'Four Thousand Ships Passed Through the Lock: Object-induced Measure Functions on Events', Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 487–520.Google Scholar
  22. Krifka,M.: 1996, 'Pragmatic Strengthening in Plural Predications and Donkey Sentences', in T. Galloway and J. Spence (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) VI, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, pp. 136–153.Google Scholar
  23. Lappin, S.: 2000, 'An Intensional Parametric Semantics for Vague Quantifiers', Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 599–620.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, D. E.: 1970, 'On the Representation and Retrieval of Stored Semantic Information', Cognitive Psychology 1, 242–300.Google Scholar
  25. Parsons, T.: 1978, 'Pronouns as Paraphrases', Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  26. Rooth, M.: 1987, 'Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics', in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 237–268.Google Scholar
  27. Strawson, P.: 1950, 'On referring', Mind 59, 320–344.Google Scholar
  28. Van der Does, J.: 1993, 'The Dynamics of Sophisticated Laziness', in J. Groenendijk (ed.), DYANA Deliverable R22A, ILLC, University of Amsterdam. [Reference as given by Chierchia (1995).]Google Scholar
  29. Wason, P. C.: 1961, 'Response to Affirmative and Negative Binary Statements', British Journal of Psychology 52, 133–142.Google Scholar
  30. Yoon, Y.-E.: 1994, Weak and Strong Interpretations of Quantifiers and Definite NPs in English and Korean, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  31. Yoon, Y.-E.: 1996, 'Total and Partial Predicates and the Weak and Strong Interpretations', Natural Language Semantics 4, 217–236.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart Geurts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyHumboldt University, Berlin & University of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations