Counterfactual Donkey Sentences: A Strict Conditional Analysis

Andreas Walker, Maribel Romero

Abstract


We explore a distinction between ‘high’ and ‘low’ readings in counterfactual donkey sentences and observe three open issues in the current literature on these sentences: (i) van Rooij (2006) and Wang (2009) make different empirical predictions with respect to the availability of ‘high’ donkey readings. We settle this question in favour of van Rooij’s (2006) analysis. (ii) This analysis overgenerates with respect to weak readings in so-called ‘identificational’ donkey sentences. We argue that pronouns in these sentences should not be analysed as donkey pronouns, but as concealed questions or as part of a cleft. (iii) The analysis also undergenerates with respect to NPI licensing in counterfactual antecedents. We propose a strict conditional semantics for counterfactual donkey sentences that derives the correct licensing facts.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Asher, Nicholas & Eric McCready. 2007. Were, would, might and a compositional account of counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics 24(2). 93–129.

Büring, Daniel. 1998. Identity, modality, and the candidate behind the wall. In Devon Strolovich & Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 8, 36–54. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

Büring, Daniel. 2004. Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12(1). 23–62.

Büring, Daniel. 2011. Conditional exhaustivity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Ms. ZAS/Vienna .

Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. MIT Press.

von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI licensing, strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of semantics 16(2). 97–148.

von Fintel, Kai. 2001. Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. Current Studies in Linguistics Series 36. 123–152.

Geach, P. T. 1962. Reference and Generality. Cornell University Press.

Gillies, Anthony S. 2007. Counterfactual scorekeeping. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(3). 329–360.

Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1). 39–100.

Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and philosophy 13(2). 137–177.

Kadmon, Nirit & Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and philosophy 16(4). 353–422.

Lewis, David K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Blackwell.

Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular clauses. Specification, predication and equation. John Benjamins.

Romero, Maribel. 2004. Intensional noun phrases with know and be. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3(1). 147–178.

Romero, Maribel. 2005. Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6). 687–737.

van Rooij, Robert. 2006. Free choice counterfactual donkeys. Journal of Semantics 23(4). 383–402.

Root, Rebecca Louise. 1986. The semantics of anaphora in discourse. University of Texas Press.

Schubert, Lenhart K & Francis Jeffry Pelletier. 1987. Problems in the representation of the logical form of generics, plurals, and mass nouns. In E. Lepore (ed.), New

directions in semantics, 385–451. Academic Press.

Stalnaker, Robert C. 1968. A theory of conditionals. Americal Philosophical Quarterly 98–112.

Velleman, Dan, David Beaver, Emilie Destruel, Dylan Bumford, Edgar Onea & Liz Coppock. 2013. It-clefts are IT (inquiry terminating) constructions. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 441–460.

Wang, Y. 2009. Counterfactual donkey sentences: A response to Robert van Rooij. Journal of Semantics 26(3). 317–328.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3056