Donkey pluralities: plural information states versus non-atomic individuals

Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2):129-209 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The paper argues that two distinct and independent notions of plurality are involved in natural language anaphora and quantification: plural reference (the usual non-atomic individuals) and plural discourse reference, i.e., reference to a quantificational dependency between sets of objects (e.g., atomic/non-atomic individuals) that is established and subsequently elaborated upon in discourse. Following van den Berg (PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1996), plural discourse reference is modeled as plural information states (i.e., as sets of variable assignments) in a new dynamic system couched in classical type logic that extends Compositional DRT (Muskens, Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 143-186, 1996). Given the underlying type logic, compositionality at sub-clausal level follows automatically and standard techniques from Montague semantics become available. The idea that plural info states are semantically necessary (in addition to non-atomic individuals) is motivated by relative-clause donkey sentences with multiple instances of singular donkey anaphora that have mixed (weak and strong) readings. At the same time, allowing for non-atomic individuals in addition to plural info states enables us to capture the intuitive parallels between singular and plural (donkey) anaphora, while deriving the incompatibility between singular (donkey) anaphora and collective predicates. The system also accounts for empirically unrelated phenomena, e.g., the uniqueness effects associated with singular (donkey) anaphora discussed in Kadmon (Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 273-324, 1990) and Heim (Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 131-177, 1990) among others

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,227

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Plural Predication and the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis.Yoad Winter - 2001 - Journal of Semantics 18 (4):333-365.
Dynamics of Reflexivity and Reciprocity.Sarah E. Murray - 2007 - In Maria Aloni, Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam. pp. 157--162.
Donkey Demonstratives.Barbara Abbott - 2002 - Natural Language Semantics 10 (4):285-298.
On the logic of classes as many.Nino B. Cocchiarella - 2002 - Studia Logica 70 (3):303-338.
Relations as Plural-Predications in Plato.Theodore Scaltsas - 2013 - Studia Neoaristotelica 10 (1):28-49.
Pluralities and Plural Logic.Michael Rieppel - 2015 - Analysis 75 (3):504-514.
Dependent plural pronouns with Skolemized choice functions.Yasutada Sudo - 2014 - Natural Language Semantics 22 (3):265-297.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
170 (#114,849)

6 months
20 (#132,777)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Expressing Permission.William B. Starr - 2016 - Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26:325-349.
Anaphora.Jeffrey C. King & Karen S. Lewis - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF).Philippe Schlenker - 2011 - Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395.
How indefinites choose their scope.Adrian Brasoveanu & Donka F. Farkas - 2011 - Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (1):1-55.
Dynamic Semantics.Karen S. Lewis - 2017 - Oxford Handbooks Online.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations