Pragmatic Strengthening in Plural Predications and Donkey Sentences

Abstract

The classical analysis of donkey sentences like (1.a,b) in Kamp (1981) and Heim (1982) assigns them truth conditions as given in (2.a). That is, they are treated as quantifications over farmer-donkey pairs. Partee (1984) and Kadmon (1987) have pointed out that the proper reading of (1.b), and a preferred reading of (1.a), is rather a quantification over farmers, as illustrated in (2.b).

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,907

External links

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

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-22

Downloads
52 (#313,595)

6 months
6 (#581,938)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

The dynamics of loose talk.Sam Carter - 2019 - Noûs 55 (1):171-198.
Uniqueness in definite noun phrases.Craige Roberts - 2003 - Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (3):287-350.
Anaphora.Jeffrey C. King & Karen S. Lewis - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Descriptions.Peter Ludlow - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Donkey business.Bart Geurts - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (2):129-156.

View all 21 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora.Irene Heim - 1990 - Linguistics and Philosophy 13 (2):137--77.
Anaphora and dynamic binding.Gennaro Chierchia - 1992 - Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (2):111--183.

Add more references