Homogeneity in donkey sentences

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 Kriz ( 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.

[1]  M. Krifka.  Pragmatic Strengthening in Plural Predications and Donkey Sentences , 1996 .

[2]  R. Muskens.  Meaning and Partiality , 1995 .

[3]  S. Peters,et al.  The absorption principle and E-type anaphora , 1991 .

[4]  Youngeun Yoon,et al.  Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations , 1996 .

[5]  R. Schwarzschild.  Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity , 1993 .

[6]  Makoto Kanazawa.  Singular Donkey Pronouns Are Semantically Singular , 2001 .

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

[8]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Anaphora and dynamic binding , 1992 .

[9]  R. Rooij.  Questioning to resolve decision problems , 2003 .

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

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

[12]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  The Dynamics of Description , 1993, J. Semant..

[13]  Craige Roberts.  Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated for-mal theory of pragmatics , 1996 .

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

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

[16]  David Lewis,et al.  Scorekeeping in a language game , 1979, J. Philos. Log..

[17]  Robert J. Stainton.  Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar , by Gennaro Chierchia , 1995 .

[18]  D.J.N. vanEijck.  Quantifiers and partiality , 1996 .

[19]  Mats Rooth.  Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics , 1987 .

[20]  Sebastian Löbner,et al.  Polarity in Natural Language: Predication, Quantification and Negation in Particular and Characterizing Sentences , 2000 .

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

[22]  Craige Roberts,et al.  Information Structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics , 2012 .

[23]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  Decomposing Modal Quantification , 2010, J. Semant..

[24]  Paul Dekker,et al.  Transsentential meditations : ups and downs in dynamic semantics , 1993 .

[25]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Donkey Business , 2002 .

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

[27]  Manuel Kriz,et al.  Homogeneity, Non-Maximality, and all , 2016, J. Semant..

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

[29]  Sophia A. Malamud.  The meaning of plural definites: A decision-theoretic approach , 2012 .

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

[31]  Emiel Krahmer.  Presupposition and Anaphora , 1998 .

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

[33]  Nissim Francez,et al.  E-type pronouns, i-sums, and donkey anaphora , 1994 .