The Interpretation of Pronouns

There is no overall consensus on the interpretation of pronouns, but recent research generally argues for one of three positions: that pronouns are individual variables, that they are covert definite descriptions, or that they are identity functions.

[1]  A. Belletti,et al.  Psych-verbs and θ-theory , 1988 .

[2]  D. Pesetsky.  Binding problems with experience verbs , 1987 .

[3]  Daniel Büring,et al.  Binding Theory by Daniel Büring , 2005 .

[4]  P. Schlenker.  A Plea For Monsters , 2003 .

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

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

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

[8]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Bound Variables and C‐Command , 2002, J. Semant..

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

[10]  Chien Yu-Chin,et al.  Children's Knowledge of Locality Conditions in Binding as Evidence for the Modularity of Syntax and Pragmatics , 1990 .

[11]  Pauline Jacobson.  Paychecks, Stress, and Variable-Free Semantics , 2000 .

[12]  Pauline Jacobson.  Paycheck Pronouns, Bach-Peters Sentences, and Variable-Free Semantics , 2000 .

[13]  DAVID LEBEAUX,et al.  LOCALITY AND ANAPHORIC BINDING , 1985 .

[14]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Representing Discourse in Context , 1997, Handbook of Logic and Language.

[15]  Christian Barker,et al.  Explaining Crossover and Superiority as Left-to-right Evaluation , 2006 .

[16]  A. Hestvik.  Subjectless binding domains , 1991 .

[17]  G. Nunberg.  Indexicality and deixis , 1993 .

[18]  Stephen Neale,et al.  Pragmatism and Binding , 2005 .

[19]  Paul Elbourne,et al.  On the Acquisition of Principle B , 2005, Linguistic Inquiry.

[20]  Noam Chomsky.  Language and Nature , 1995 .

[21]  C. Pollard.  Anhaphors in English and the scope of binding theory , 1992 .

[22]  Chris Barker,et al.  Types as Graphs: Continuations in Type Logical Grammar , 2006, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[23]  Paul Elbourne,et al.  E-Type Anaphora as NP-Deletion , 2001 .

[24]  E. Zweig.  When the donkey lost its fleas: persistence, minimal situations, and embedded quantifiers , 2007 .

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

[26]  P. Schlenker.  Non-Redundancy: Towards a Semantic Reinterpretation of Binding Theory , 2005 .

[27]  G. Nunberg.  The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy , 1979 .

[28]  Pauline Jacobson.  Towards a Variable-Free Semantics , 1999 .

[29]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  A theory of command relations , 1990 .

[30]  Paul M. Postal,et al.  Remarks on weak crossover effects , 1993 .

[31]  P. Sells.  Aspects of logophoricity , 1987 .

[32]  T. Reinhart,et al.  The innateness of binding and coreference , 1993 .

[33]  Irene Heim,et al.  Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation: A Reinterpretation of Reinhart's Approach * , 1998 .

[34]  E. G. Ruys,et al.  Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[35]  Daniel Büring.  Bound to Bind , 2005 .

[36]  G. Evans.  Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses (l) , 1977, Canadian Journal of Philosophy.

[37]  Ash Asudeh,et al.  Constraints on Linguistic Coreference: Structural vs. Pragmatic Factors , 2001 .