Abstract
This paper argues that a kinds-based analysis of bare plurals is incompatible with an analysis of donkey anaphors as variables. However, kinds are compatible with an E-type analysis.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Carlson, Greg: 1980, Reference to Kinds in English, Garland Publishing, New York.
Carlson, Greg: 1989, ‘On the Semantic Composition of English Generic Sentences’, in G. Chierchia et al. (eds.), Properties, Types and Meanings, Vol. II: Semantic Issues, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 167–192.
Chierchia, Gennaro: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15(2), 111–183.
Cooper, Robin: 1979, ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’, in F. Heny and H. Schnelle (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 10, Academic Press, New York, pp. 61–92.
Evans, Gareth: 1977, ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers and Relative Clauses’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 467–536.
Evans, Gareth: 1980, ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337–362.
Gerstner, Claudia and Manfred Krifka: 1987, ‘An Outline of Genericity’, Forschungsbericht 25 des Seminars für natürlich-sprachliche Systeme der Universität Tübingen.
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1990, ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar’, in L. Kálmán and L. Polos (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 3–48.
Kratzer, Angelika: 1995, ‘Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates’, in G. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 125–175.
Wilkinson, Karina: 1986, ‘Genericity and Indefinite NPs’, ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Wilkinson, Karina: 1991, Studies in the Semantics of Generic Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lasersohn, P. Bare Plurals and Donkey Anaphora. Natural Language Semantics 5, 79–86 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008295326010
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008295326010