Homogeneity in donkey sentences

Lucas Champollion

Abstract


Donkey sentences have existential and universal readings, but they are not often perceived as ambiguous. I extend the pragmatic theory of homogeneity in plural definites by Križ (2016) to explain how context disambiguates donkey sentences. I propose that a semantic theory produces truth value gaps in certain scenarios, and a pragmatic theory fills these gaps in context-dependent ways. By locating the parallel between donkey pronouns and definite plurals is located in the pragmatics rather than in the semantics, I avoid problems known to arise for some previous accounts according to which donkey pronouns and definite plurals both have plural referents (Krifka 1996; Yoon 1996). I sketch an extension of plural compositional DRT (Brasoveanu 2008) that delivers the required truth value gaps by building on concepts from error-state semantics and supervaluation quantifiers. 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Barker, Chris. 1996. Presuppositions for proportional quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 4(3). 237–259. doi:10.1007/bf00372821.

Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Donkey pluralities: Plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(2). 129–209. doi:10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0.

Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2010. Decomposing modal quantification. Journal of Semantics 27(4). 437–527. doi:10.1093/jos/ffq008.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1992. Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(2). 111–183. doi:10.1007/bf00635805.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226104515.001.0001.

Dekker, Paul. 1993. Transsentential meditations Ups and Downs in dynamic semantics: University of Amsterdam dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.392554.

van Eijck, Jan. 1993. The dynamics of description. Journal of Semantics 10(3). 239–267. doi:10.1093/jos/10.3.239.

van Eijck, Jan. 1996. Quantifiers and partiality. In Jaap van der Does & Jan van Eijck (eds.), Quantifiers, logic, and language, 105–144. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Gawron, Jean Mark, John Nerbonne & Stanley Peters. 1991. The absorption principle and E-type anaphora. In Jon Barwise, Jean Mark Gawron, Plotkin & Syun Tutiya (eds.), Situation theory and its applications, vol. 2, 335–362. Saarbrücken, Germany: CSLI Publications. http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2011/3581.

Geurts, Bart. 2002. Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(2). 129–156. doi:10.1023/a:1014624331450.

Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jA2YTJmN.

Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2). 137–178. doi:10.1007/bf00630732.

Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, vol. 135 Mathematical Center Tracts, 277–322. Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Kanazawa, Makoto. 1994. Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inference in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(2). 109–158. doi:10.1007/bf00984775.

Kanazawa, Makoto. 2001. Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(3). 383–403. doi:10.1023/a:1010766724907.

Krahmer, Emiel J. 1998. Presupposition and anaphora, vol. 89 CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/files/759751/presupposition-and-anaphora-book.pdf.

Krifka, Manfred. 1996. Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. In Teresa Galloway & Justin Spence (eds.), 6th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 6), 136–153. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University CLC Publications. doi:10.3765/salt.v6i0.2769.

Križ, Manuel. 2016. Homogeneity, non-maximality, and all. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 493–539. doi:10.1093/jos/ffv006.

Lappin, Shalom & Nissim Francez. 1994. E-type pronouns, i-sums, and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(4). 391–428. doi:10.1007/bf00985574.

Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 75(3). 522–551. doi:10.2307/417059.

Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1). 339–359. doi:10.1007/bf00258436.

Löbner, Sebastian. 2000. Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(3). 213–308. doi:10.1023/a:1005571202592.

Malamud, Sophia A. 2012. The meaning of plural definites: A decision-theoretic approach. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(3). 1–58. doi:10.3765/sp.5.3.

Muskens, Reinhard. 1995. Meaning and partiality Studies in Logic, Language, and Information. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Muskens, Reinhard. 1996. Meaning and partiality. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69. doi:10.3765/sp.5.6.

van Rooij, Robert. 2003. Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(6). 727–763. doi:10.1023/b:ling.0000004548.98658.8f.

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, 237–268. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.

Schubert, Lenhart K. & Francis Jeffry Pelletier. 1989. Generically speaking, or, using discourse representation theory to interpret generics. In Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee & Raymond Turner (eds.), Properties, types, and meaning, volume II: Semantic issues, vol. 39 Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 193-268. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2723-0_6.

Schwarzschild, Roger. 1993. Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics 2(3). 201–248. doi:10.1007/bf01256743.

Yoon, Youngeun. 1994. Weak and strong interpretations of quantifiers and definite NPs in English and Korean: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.

Yoon, Youngeun. 1996. Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations. Natural Language Semantics 4(3). 217–236. doi:10.1007/bf00372820.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3864

Add comment