Structured Anaphora to Quantifier Domains: A Unified Account of Quantificational and Modal Subordination

The paper proposes an account of the contrast (noticed in [9]) between the interpretations of the following two discourses: Harvey courts a girl at every convention. {She is very pretty. vs. She always comes to the banquet with him.}. The initial sentence is ambiguous between two quantifier scopings, but the first discourse as a whole allows only for the wide-scope indefinite reading, while the second allows for both. This cross-sentential interaction between quantifier scope and anaphora is captured by means of a new dynamic system couched in classical type logic, which extends Compositional DRT ([16]) with plural information states (modeled, following [24], as sets of variable assignments). Given the underlying type logic, compositionality at sub-clausal level follows automatically and standard techniques from Montague semantics become available. The paper also shows that modal subordination (A wolf might come in. It would eat Harvey first) can be analyzed in a parallel way, i.e. the system captures the anaphoric and quantificational parallels between the individual and modal domains argued for in [23]. In the process, we see that modal/individual-level quantifiers enter anaphoric connections as a matter of course, usually functioning simultaneously as both indefinites and pronouns.

[1]  Alessandro Zucchi,et al.  On Telescoping , 1992 .

[2]  Craige Roberts,et al.  Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity , 1990 .

[3]  M. H. van den Berg,et al.  Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. The dynamics of nominal anaphora , 1996 .

[4]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  De re belief generalized , 1982 .

[5]  D. Abusch Sequence of Tense and Temporal de re , 1997 .

[6]  Georgia M. Green Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding , 1989 .

[7]  A. Kratzer Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites? , 1998 .

[8]  Greg N. Carlson,et al.  Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics , 1987 .

[9]  J. Hintikka On denoting what? , 2005, Synthese.

[10]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Evaluation Indices and Scope , 1997 .

[11]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Dynamic predicate logic , 1991 .

[12]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  Discourse Referents , 1969, COLING.

[13]  E. G. Ruys,et al.  The scope of indefinites , 1992 .

[14]  M. Krifka Parametrized sum individuals for plural anaphora , 1996 .

[15]  H. Kamp A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation , 2008 .

[16]  Chris Barker,et al.  Possessive Weak Definites , 2004 .

[17]  Pranav Anand,et al.  De de se , 2006 .

[18]  U. Sauerland A New Semantics for Number , 2003 .

[19]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  STRUCTURED NOMINAL AND MODAL REFERENCE , 2008 .

[20]  H. Kamp,et al.  On Context Dependence In Modal Constructions , 1997 .

[21]  C. Reiss,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces , 2007 .

[22]  D. Pesetsky,et al.  ON THE INTERPRETATION OF WIDE-SCOPE INDEFINITES* , 1999 .

[23]  Daniel Gallin,et al.  Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic, With Applications to Montague Semantics , 1975 .

[24]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Anaphora and Attitudes De Se , 1989 .

[25]  Massimo Poesio,et al.  Weak Definites , 1994 .

[26]  I. I. N. Kamp Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation , 1996 .

[27]  Barry Schein,et al.  Adverbial, Descriptive Reciprocals , 2001 .

[28]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language , 1983 .

[29]  E. Keenan Beyond the frege boundary , 1992 .

[30]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar , 1995 .

[31]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Quantifier Scope and Syntactic Islands , 1981 .

[32]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Specificity Distinctions , 2002, J. Semant..

[33]  Christian Barker Presuppositions for proportional quantifiers , 1996 .

[34]  Edward L. Keenan,et al.  Formal Semantics of Natural Language , 1975 .

[35]  Donald Nute,et al.  Counterfactuals , 1975, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[36]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers , 1984 .

[37]  Friederike Moltmann,et al.  Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns: E-Type, Dynamic, and Structured-Propositions Approaches , 2006, Synthese.

[38]  Makoto Kanazawa Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inference in a dynamic setting , 1994 .

[39]  B. Geurts Presuppositions and Pronouns , 1999 .

[40]  E. McCready,et al.  Modal Subordination in Japanese: Dynamics and Evidentiality , 2006 .

[41]  A. Kratzer The Notional Category of Modality , 2008 .

[42]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Referential and quantificational indefinites , 1982 .

[43]  B. H Slater,et al.  ATTITUDES DE DICTO AND DE SE , 1999 .

[44]  B. Geurts Indefinites and Choice Functions , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[45]  Roger Schwarzschild,et al.  Singleton Indefinites , 2002, J. Semant..

[46]  Richard Montague,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English , 1973 .

[47]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Dynamic Montague grammar , 1990 .

[48]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  The Semantics Of Different: Comparison Operator And Relational Adjective , 2000 .

[49]  G. L. Collected Papers , 1912, Nature.

[50]  I. Heim E-Type pronouns and donkey anaphora , 1990 .

[51]  P. Sells Restrictive and non-restrictive modification , 1985 .

[52]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Varieties of Indefinites , 2002 .

[53]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  Donkey pluralities: plural information states versus non-atomic individuals , 2008 .

[54]  Maria Bittner,et al.  Topical Referents for Individuals and Possibilities , 2001 .

[55]  Rob A. van der Sandt,et al.  Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution , 1992, J. Semant..

[56]  Craige Roberts Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse , 1989 .

[57]  T. Reinhart Quantifier Scope: How labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions , 1997 .

[58]  Rick Nouwen,et al.  Plural pronominal anaphora in context , 2003 .

[59]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From Discourse to Logic - Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory , 1993, Studies in linguistics and philosophy.

[60]  Barbara H. Partee,et al.  Properties, types and meaning , 1988 .

[61]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Ontological Symmetry in Language: A Brief Manifesto , 2006 .

[62]  Barbara H. Partes Nominal and temporal anaphora , 1984 .

[63]  H. D. Swart,et al.  Adverbs of quantification , 1991 .

[64]  Y. Winter,et al.  Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites , 1997 .

[65]  Craige Roberts,et al.  Domain Restriction in Dynamic Semantics , 1995 .

[66]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[67]  Robert A.M. van Rooyy Modal Subordination in Questions , 2007 .

[68]  Peter Alrenga Dimensions in the semantics of comparatives , 2007 .

[69]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  Exceptional Wide Scope as Anaphora to Quantificational Dependencies , 2007 .

[70]  Craige Roberts Uniqueness in Definite Noun Phrases , 2003 .

[71]  Kai-Uwe Von Fintel,et al.  Restrictions on quantifier domains , 1994 .

[72]  B. Partee Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English , 1973 .

[73]  I. Willis Pronouns , 2004, Encyclopedia of Queer Studies in Education.

[74]  Lenhart K. Schubert,et al.  Generically Speaking, or, Using Discourse Representation Theory to Interpret Generics , 1989 .

[75]  Utpal Lahiri,et al.  Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts , 2002 .

[76]  Kyle Rawlins,et al.  Possessive Antecedents to Donkey Pronouns , 2006 .

[77]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Propositional attitudes and indexicality : a cross categorial approach , 1999 .