Gaps in the interpretation of pronouns

Keny Chatain

Abstract


Donkey sentences receive either existential or universal truth-conditions. This paper presents two new data points going against standard dynamic approaches to this ambiguity: first, I show that the ambiguity extends beyond quantified environments, to cross-clausal anaphora. Second, I show that donkey sentences can give rise to narrow pseudo-scope readings, where the pronoun's implicit quantification takes scope below some operator in the sentence. Neither of these facts is predicted by standard dynamic accounts. Together, they suggest a different analysis in which the ambiguity arises when the pronoun has multiple referents to pick from. Inspired by Champollion (2017), I propose that when such circumstances arise, the pronoun receives vague reference. Using standard rules of projection is then sufficient to derive the existential/universal ambiguity as well as the two problematic data points.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Berg, Martin Van Den. 1996. Dynamic Generalized Quantifiers. Quantifiers, Logic and Language 63–94.

Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2007. Structured Nominal and Modal Reference. New Jersey: Rutgers University dissertation. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

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 & Donka F Farkas. 2011. How indefinites choose their scope. Linguistics and Philosophy VO - 34 (1). 1.

Champollion, Lucas, Dylan Bumford & Robert Henderson. 2017. Homogeneity in donkey anaphora.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of Meaning. University of Chicago Press.

Cooper, Robin. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. Syntax and semantics 10. 61–92.

Foppolo, Francesca. 2008. The puzzle of donkey anaphora resolution. In Proceedings

of NELS 38.

Fox, Danny. 1995. Economy and scope. Natural language semantics 3(3). 283–341.

Geach, Peter Thomas. 1964. Reference and generality .

Geurts, Bart. 2002. Donkey Business. Linguistics and philosophy 25(2). 129–156.

Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1). 39–100. doi:10.1007/BF00628304. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628304.

Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: dissertation.

Kamp, Hans & Barbara Partee. 1995. Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57(2). 129–191.

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.

Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2017. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Contrastiveness in information structure, alternatives and scalar implicatures, 123–143. Springer.

Križ, Manuel. 2016. Homogeneity, Non-Maximality, and all. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 493–539. doi:10.1093/jos/ffv006. https://academic.oup.com/jos/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jos/ffv006.19

Muskens, Reinhard. 1996. Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation. Linguistics and philosophy 19(2). 143–186. doi:10.1007/BF00635836. http://cogprints.org/4715/.

Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and philosophy 20(4). 335–397.

Root, Rebecca Louise. 1986. The semantics of anaphora in discourse. Austin, Texas: University of Austin, Texas dissertation.

Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.

Schlenker, Philippe. 2012. The semantics/pragmatics interface. In Cambridge Handbook of Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Solomon, Mike. 2012. Donkey Readings and Delayed Quantification.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v28i0.4405

Copyright (c) 2018 Keny Chatain