Linguistics and Philosophy:1-59 (forthcoming)

Authors
Karen S. Lewis
Barnard College
Abstract
Both definite descriptions and pronouns are often anaphoric; that is, part of their interpretation in context depends on prior linguistic material in the discourse. For example: A student walked in. The student sat down. A student walked in. She sat down. One popular view of anaphoric pronouns, the d-type view, is that pronouns like ‘she’ go proxy for definite descriptions like ‘the student who walked in’, which are in turn treated in a classical Russellian or Fregean fashion. I argue for a novel version of the d-type view in which anaphoric definites are restricted existential quantifiers that presuppose discourse uniqueness, which is uniqueness of discourse referent in the context, rather than uniqueness of object in the world. In other words, the anaphoric definites ‘the student’ and ‘she’ in and presuppose that there is a single object under discussion that is a student who walked in. I further argue that, by contrast, non-anaphoric definites are restricted existential quantifiers that presuppose worldly uniqueness, that is, that there is a unique object in the world that satisfies the descriptive information. The semantics for anaphoric and non-anaphoric definites accounts for the differences in truth conditions in discourses involving the two different types of definites, improving on existing accounts. It is further supported by crosslinguistic data. The semantics is formally implemented in a static system employing quantifier domain restriction in the style of Stanley and Szabo :219–261, 2000) and extended to account for bridging definites and donkey sentences.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10988-021-09325-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,811
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Anaphora.Jeffrey C. King & Karen S. Lewis - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Witnesses.Matthew Mandelkern - forthcoming - Linguistics and Philosophy.
Definiteness Projection.Matthew Mandelkern & Daniel Rothschild - 2019 - Natural Language Semantics:1-33.
Pronouns as Demonstratives.Kyle Blumberg - 2021 - Philosophers' Imprint 21 (35).

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Reply to Szabó’s “Descriptions and Uniqueness”.Barbara Abbott - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 113 (3):223 - 231.
Pronouns as Demonstratives.Kyle Blumberg - 2021 - Philosophers' Imprint 21 (35).
Towards a Phenomenology of Pronouns.Tze-wan Kwan - 2007 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15 (2):247 – 268.
Denoting Phrases and Definite Descriptions.James W. Austin - 1976 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 14 (4):393-399.
Descriptions and Beyond.Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.) - 2004 - Oxford University Press.
A Formal Semantics for Some Discourse Anaphora.Jeffrey C. King - 1985 - Dissertation, University of California, San Diego
Anaphora and negation.Karen S. Lewis - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 178 (5):1403-1440.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-07-30

Total views
22 ( #500,835 of 2,463,173 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
22 ( #36,908 of 2,463,173 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes