Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 285–298 | Cite as

Donkey Demonstratives

  • Barbara Abbott
Article

Abstract

Donkey pronouns (e.g., it in Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it) are argued to have an interpretation more similar to a demonstrative phrase (e.g., . . . beats that donkey) than to any of the other alternatives generally considered (e.g., . . . the donkey(s) he owns, . . . a donkey he owns). Like the demonstrative phrase, the pronoun is not equivalent to Evans' E-type paraphrase, nor to either the weak or the strong reading sometimes claimed for donkey sentences. A consequence is to narrow the range of formal analyses.

Keywords

Formal Analysis Strong Reading Donkey Sentence Donkey Pronoun 
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. Barker, Chris: 1996, 'Presuppositions for Proportional Quantifiers', Natural Language Semantics 4, 237-259.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, S. J.: 1997, 'E-type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic Semantics and the Quantifier/Variable-Binding Model', Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 195-228.Google Scholar
  3. Burge, Tyler: 1974, 'Demonstrative Constructions, Reference, and Truth', Journal of Philosophy 71, 205-223.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1992, 'Anaphora and Dynamic Binding', Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111-184.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1995, Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, Robin: 1979, 'The Interpretation of Pronouns', in F. Heny and H. S. Schnelle (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, pp. 61-92. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Donnellan, Keith S.: 1966, 'Reference and Definite Descriptions', Philosophical Review 77, 281-304.Google Scholar
  8. Elbourne, Paul: 2001a, 'E-type Anaphora as NP-Deletion', Natural Language Semantics 9, 241-288.Google Scholar
  9. Elbourne, Paul: 2001b, 'On the Semantics of Pronouns and Definite Articles', in K. Megerdoomian and L. A. Bar-el (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 20, pp. 164-177. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. Elbourne, Paul: 2001c, 'When Is Situation Semantics Allowed?', in R. Hastings, B. Jackson and Z. Zvolenszky (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 11, pp. 152-171. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, Gareth: 1977, 'Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses', Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 467-536.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, Gareth: 1980, 'Pronouns', Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337-362.Google Scholar
  13. Haspelmath, Martin: 1999, 'Explaining Article-Possessor Complementarity: Economic Motivation in Noun Phrase Sytax', Language 75, 227-243.Google Scholar
  14. Heim, Irene: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, Irene: 1990, 'E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora', Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137-178.Google Scholar
  16. Von Heusinger, Klaus: 1997, 'Definite Descriptions and Choice Functions', in S. Akama (ed.), Logic, Language and Computation, pp. 61-92. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Kadmon, Nirit: 1990, 'Uniqueness', Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273-324.Google Scholar
  18. Kanazawa, Makoto: 1994, 'Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting', Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 109-158.Google Scholar
  19. Kanazawa, Makoto: 2001, 'Singular Donkey Pronouns Are Semantically Singular', Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 383-403.Google Scholar
  20. King, Jeffrey C.: 2001, Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  21. Lappin, Shalom and Nissim Francez: 1994, 'E-type Pronouns, I-sums, and Donkey Anaphora', Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 391-428.Google Scholar
  22. Larson, Richard and Gabriel Segal: 1995, Knowledge of Meaning, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  23. Lepore, Ernest and Kirk Ludwig: 2000, 'The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives', Mind 109, 199-240.Google Scholar
  24. Neale, Stephen: 1990, Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  25. Peacocke, Christopher: 1975, 'Proper Names, Reference, and Rigid Designation', in S. Blackburn (ed.), Meaning, Reference, Necessity, pp. 109-132, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Reprinted in G. Ostertag (ed.), 1998, Definite Descriptions: A Reader, pp. 201-224, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  26. Rooth, Mats: 1987, 'Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics', in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, pp. 237-268. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  27. Schubert, Lenhart K. and Francis Jeffry Pelletier: 1989, 'Generically Speaking, Or, Using Discourse Representation Theory to Interpret Generics', in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, Vol. 2: Semantic Issues, pp. 193-268. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Slater, B. H.: 1997, 'The Epsilon Calculus' Problematic', in S. Akama (ed.), Logic, Language and Computation, pp. 39-60. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  29. Slater, B.H.: 2000, 'Quantifier/Variable-Binding', Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 309-321.Google Scholar
  30. Wilson, George M.: 1984, 'Pronouns and Pronominal Descriptions: A New Semantical Category', Philosophical Studies 45, 1-30.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, George M.: 1991, 'Reference and Pronominal Descriptions', Journal of Philosophy 88, 359-387.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Abbott
    • 1
  1. 1.Linguistics and LanguagesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations