Semantics of Anaphora and its History Lecture 4. Implicit ... · Semantics of Anaphora and its History, Lecture 4 B. H. Partee, PSSP, June 19, 2015 PSSP15ParteeLec4.doc ! 3 An egocentric

Semantics of Anaphora and its History, Lecture 4 B. H. Partee, PSSP, June 19, 2015

PSSP15ParteeLec4.doc 1

Semantics of Anaphora and its History

Lecture 4. Implicit Anaphora, Implicit Binding, and the Dynamics of Context-Change and Context Dependence

1. Background: Anaphora in Semantics and Pragmatics ............................................................................... 1 2. Data: Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts ............................................................................ 2 3. For and against a ‘silent pronouns’ account ............................................................................................. 4

3.1. Similarities to pronouns ..................................................................................................................... 4 3.2. Differences from pronouns; alternative proposals ............................................................................. 5

4. Nominal and Temporal Anaphora ............................................................................................................. 6 5. Phenomena crucially affected by the structuring of local context. .......................................................... 10 5.1. Goal: ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

5.2. Context-dependence, context structure, and context change. .......................................................... 11 5.3 Parallels in "accessible anchorings" for context-dependent phenomena. ......................................... 11

References ................................................................................................................................................... 13

1. Background: Anaphora in Semantics and Pragmatics Today we begin from our earlier observations that third-person pronouns in English can have “pragmatic” uses with their value taken or constructed from non-linguistic or linguistic context and can also be understood as bound variables; we give some relatively clear cases in (1), (2), and (3) respectively.

(1) Pragmatic anaphora with non-linguistic context [PA N-L]1: She left me. (2) Discourse anaphora: A woman walked in. She sat down. (3) Bound variable: Every man believed that he was right. Unified treatments of these uses of pronouns became available with the work of Kamp on Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp 1981) and Heim on File Change Semantics (Heim 1983b), as discussed in Lecture 3. Extensions to temporal and locative anaphora, where similar ranges of behavior can be found, were immediately made (Bäuerle 1979, Cooper 1986, Hinrichs 1981, Partee 1984a, von Stechow 1982). Some temporal examples are given below.

(4) [PA N-L]: I didn’t turn off the stove. (5) Discourse anaphora: Mary woke up sometime in the night. She turned on the light. (6) Bound reference time: Whenever John wrote a letter to Mary, she answered two days

later.

In (Mitchell 1986) and (Partee 1989) it was argued that such a range of behavior can be found among a broader class of contentful context-dependent elements, as in the case of the adjective local, and others have extended the list even farther (Section 2.) This has given rise to interesting debates.

(7) John visited a local bar. (Mitchell 1986)

1 These were called deictic pronouns in Partee (1984) and Partee (1989), and assimilated to properly deictic cases like Who’s he?. but as we discussed on Monday, I later came to consider them just instances of pragmatic anaphora with non-linguistic ‘antecedents’, which I here abbreviate as PA N-L.



(8) Every sports fan in the country was at a local bar watching the playoffs. (Partee 1989), modifying an example of (Mitchell 1986)

A theoretical issue that arises for words like local and for many other cases is this: should we posit a covert pronoun-like element in the syntax as an “implicit argument” of local, or perhaps something like a situation variable in its semantics, or might the context-dependency somehow all be in the pragmatics? I’ll discuss some proposals2 and arguments in Section 3. And then is Section 4 I will show some interesting structural parallels among anaphora, presupposition, context-dependent anchorings (including implicit anaphora), and domain restriction. These parallels can be argued to support the dynamic perspective on context-dependence and context change of Stalnaker, Karttunen, Kamp, and Heim, since they represent different domains in which we can see the same linguistic restrictions on the workings of local contexts with limited lifespans and structurally restricted ‘accessibility’ relations.

2. Data: Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts The possibility of bound-variable-like dependence of open-class words like adjectives and nouns was first raised in the work of Jonathan Mitchell, with examples like (7-8) above. On one of its interpretations, the word local demands some reference location to anchor to, and means something close to “in the vicinity of [reference location]”. In example (7), the reference location could be the utterance location, or, if the utterance is part of a narrative about John, the reference location could be determined by the narrative. These represent non-linguistic pragmatic anchoring/anaphora and discourse anaphora respectively. While local in (8) could also be understood as anchored to the utterance location or some specific discourse location, the most likely interpretation, and the one I will consider here, is one with a “bound variable reference location” – a possibly different location for every sports fan. Examples (7-8) concerned implicit binding of a context-dependent part of the meaning of an adjective; Partee (1984b) observed that the same behavior can be found with “intransitive” uses of some relational nouns like enemy and friend.

(9) (a) An enemy is approaching. (Partee 1984) (b) John faced an enemy. (c) Every man faced an enemy. Enemy in (9a) is likely to be understood as my or our enemy. Note that approaching in (9a) is also context-dependent, and if the context supported a goal argument of approaching other than me/us, the interpretation of enemy would probably shift accordingly, especially if the example were put in the past tense. In (9b), it’s most likely an enemy of John or of John’s group. And in (9c) we have the possibility of a bound variable reading. The behavior of enemy raises interesting issues about the relation between 2-place enemy and 1-place enemy. The 2-place relation is clearly more general, but as Mitchell (1986) argued, it does not follow that every instance of the 1-place property is best analyzed as derived from the 2-place one by filling in or quantifying over one argument place. 2 For more on implicit variables, see handouts and readings in a seminar I taught at UMass Amherst in 2009 on Implicit Arguments. http://people.umass.edu/partee/720_09/.



An egocentric 1-place version of friend or enemy may be developmentally and ontogenetically prior to the 2-place version: small children and dogs may have only a 1-place version. See (Partee 1989) for some discussion.

Multiplying ambiguities The context-dependence of the word foreign gives rise to some interesting ambiguities, as noted in (Partee 1989). (10) (a) Most Europeans speak a foreign language. (b) Most foreigners speak a foreign language. (Gregory Ward) There are two very different ways to interpret (10a), depending on whether the implicit reference context for foreigner (foreign relative to whom?) is fixed as the speaker (the indexical interpretation) or bound to most Europeans. The result gives you either a language ‘foreign to me’ or a language ‘different from their native one’, i.e. ‘foreign to them.’ The first could be the complaint of the “ugly American” who wishes everyone spoke English. The second could be the wistful remark of the young American linguist envying how easily Europeans learn languages. And as Gregory Ward (p.c.) noted, the ambiguities multiply in (10b). First we interpret foreigners, most likely indexically – ‘foreign to me’. Then we can interpret foreign either with the same indexical anchor (the “ugly American’s complaint”), or with a bound-variable interpretation bound by the quantified subject.

We can also find similar phenomena with “null arguments” of some transitive verbs. Examples (11a,b) are from (Dowty 1982); (11c) is from (Partee 1989).

(11) a. Bill was nervously biting his nails. Everyone noticed. b. Every secretary made a mistake in his final draft. The good secretary corrected his

mistake. Every other secretary didn’t even notice. c. Every many who shaves off his beard expects his wife to notice.

Intransitive notice is interpreted like transitive notice with a contextually definite object, and this “implicit argument” can get a “PA N-L” interpretation as in (11a), a “pronoun of laziness” reading as in (11b), or a bound variable reading as in (11c). This contrasts with the many transitive verbs, like eat and read, whose intransitive variants are interpreted as having a narrow-scope existentially quantified object – ‘eat something’, ‘read something’ – especially when they are used in the progressive.

Jason Stanley has argued that whenever some implicit content can be bound by quantifiers or other such operators, there must be some variable at some syntactic level representing that content. I.e., if it can get a bound-variable reading, it must be a (pronoun-like) bound variable. I’m paraphrasing broadly; see (Stanley 2000, pp 409-413), and the discussion of the debate about “unarticulated constituents” between Recanati (2002, 2004) and Stanley in (Martí 2006). In addition to context-dependence with nouns, adjectives, and verbs, it’s easy to find examples involving temporal or locative expressions. Plain context-dependence is familiar in such cases; I add a pair of bound-variable examples from (Partee 1989); these are actually constructed on the model of “donkey-sentences” like Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it, and should



presumably be given an analysis analogous to one’s favorite treatment of donkey-sentence anaphora. (12) (a) Every man who stole a car abandoned it 2 hours later. (b) Every man who stole a car abandoned it 50 miles away. Anchoring situations can vary from expression to expression within a single evaluation situation: some of the above examples, and examples with overt indexicals and demonstratives: (13) (a) Real time: Now you see it, now you don't. (b) (Kaplan) Is that the same river as that? This phenomenon is important for the analysis of context-dependence in general and for arguments concerning the nature of “contexts” and their “lifespans”, as well as for designing the architecture of dynamic semantics (or dynamic semantics/pragmatics).

And we can find examples of mixed types of anaphora within a single lexical item. As observed in Partee (1989), the pronoun we not only allows all three of kinds of anaphoric interpretation illustrated for he/she in (1-3), but can have a mixture of the three types within a single occurrence. (14) John often comes over for Sunday brunch. Whenever someone else comes over too, we

(all) end up playing trios. (Otherwise we play duets.) The we in we (all) end up playing trios can very well include “me” (pragmatic with non-linguistic context, an invariant indexical part), John (a discourse anaphora part), and whoever else comes over (a “bound variable” part). Condoravdi and Gawron include such items in their account, which we’ll look at briefly in the next section.

3. For and against a ‘silent pronouns’ account

3.1. Similarities to pronouns Partee (1989) observed that the distribution and interpretation of many of these “implicit arguments” had much in common with the distribution and interpretation of pronouns, showing the same sorts of C-command restrictions, weak crossover, etc. But Partee (1989) argued against analyzing the examples as containing “unpronounced/empty/zero pronouns”, because of some observed differences between implicit arguments and overt pronouns.

First the similarities to pronouns. (15) a. Only the nearest photographer got a good picture of Reagan. b. #? Only the nearest photographer got a good picture of every senator. c. Every senator directed a smile at the nearest photographer.

(16) a. Only his top aide got a good picture of Reagan. b. #? Only his top aide got a good picture of every senator. c. Every senator directed a smile at his top aide. These similarities provide one argument for positing empty pronoun-like elements in the structures containing such context-dependent elements as nearest, local, later, enemy, notice.



3.2. Differences from pronouns; alternative proposals The main counter-argument in Partee (1989) was the impossibility of replacing the “implicit argument” by an overt pronoun in a number of examples, especially when it gets a bound-variable-type interpretation. (17) a. Not everyone who thinks their parents did a bad job of bringing them up actually switches to the opposite child-rearing method. b. Interpretation: … for each x, the child-rearing method opposite to the method used by x’s parents in bringing x up c. * …. the child rearing method opposite to it. Partee (1989) did not have any formal proposal as an alternative to positing silent pronouns, but informally suggested something like situation-parameters within a DRT-like (Kampian) framework. Most authors preferred positing silent pronouns. (But yesterday’s presentation by Lisa Bylinina of her work with Eric McCready and Yasutada Sudo develops an account more like the one proposed in Partee (1989).) Condoravdi and Gawron (1996) propose that the implicit argument in many such cases is not actually pronoun-like, but has more in common with definite descriptions. They agree that there are strong constraints on using a pronoun without an overt antecedent, and note that it’s much easier to use a definite description with an implicit antecedent that is accommodated via “bridging”. “Implicit arguments are like pronouns in their capacity to anchor to any kind of context; however, they are unlike pronouns and more like definite descriptions in not demanding an overt antecedent.” [p.10].

The sentences in (13) illustrate the way in which implicit arguments pattern with definite descriptions. Even without an overt antecedent denoting a bet, the sentences (13a) and (13b) share a reading on which every man won the wager he made on the outcome of the Superbowl. The pronoun in (13c) lacks this reading.

(13) a. Every man who bet on the Superbowl won. b. Every man who bet on the Superbowl won the bet. c. #Every man who bet on the Superbowl won it. Given the restriction on the quantifier, for every man in the domain of quantification there is entailed to be a bet and that is sufficient for the interpretation of the implicit argument of win. It is exactly this entailment that is responsible for the felicity of the dependent definite the bet in (13b) as well.” (pp.10-11)

As Condoravdi and Gawron note, the similarities observed by Partee (1989) between pronouns and implicit arguments are also shared by definite descriptions, and definite descriptions also have the full range of uses – “PA N-L”, discourse anaphoric, and bound – and their analysis does a good job of capturing both the similarities and differences between implicit arguments and pronouns observed by Partee (1989). Their proposal is built on Heim’s (1982) analysis of definite NPs. They interpret an implicit argument as including a relational predicate linking the ‘referent’ of the argument to some parameter in the context. They make a good case for splitting the notion of ‘context’ into two parts. One part is the “speech-act context”, which always provides its own salient “I”, “here”,



“now”, and possibly additional salient referents. The other part is what they call “information state”, their term for the kind of context that gets recursively manipulated in dynamic semantics if we take meanings as functions from contexts to contexts. It is the ‘information state’ that includes various ‘discourse referents’ as well as the propositions that are in the current common ground, and it is information states that correspond to Heim’s “files” and Kamp’s “DRS’s”. Splitting the notion of context into these two parts gives them a good way to put felicity conditions on different sorts of expressions that can anchor only to the utterance context or to any kind of context including ‘bound variable contexts’. Two nice conclusions of Condoravdi and Gawron are the following: “On our account, the indexical interpretation of an implicit argument functions as a kind of default. The utterance context is always present and the information it provides is always available via the information state. So in the absence of any linguistic context generating entailments to fill the implicit argument role, the utterance context will serve. It is perhaps no accident, then, that the vocabulary of implicit arguments is replete with words connected with space and time, when these are two of the principal features of the utterance context.” (p.22) “More generally, the kinds of contexts a dependent element can anchor to … depends on the specificity of its felicity conditions and need not be stated independently.” (p.22) See more discussion of their approach in Lecture 5 of my 2009 UMass seminar: http://people.umass.edu/partee/720_09/materials/720_09_5.pdf . Examples that have played an important role in these debates, in addition to some of those discussed above, include the following. (18) Everyone was asleep. (19) It’s raining. The context-dependent element in (18) is the “domain restrictor” on everyone, which might in a given context mean ‘everyone in the house’. In (19) it’s something like a spatial or spatiotemporal argument or modifier that specifies where and when it’s raining.

One outcome of these issues is that it’s clearly important to look at the relationship between pronouns and definite descriptions. The relation between pronouns and definite descriptions is an important topic in Heim’s work (Heim 1982, 1990). The idea that personal pronouns are morphosyntactic variants of definite articles goes back at least to Postal (1966), and was further expanded in Stockwell, Schachter, and Partee (1973). Elbourne has an excellent review of previous work in this area in the early parts of his book (Elbourne 2005), and then develops his own views in the book and in later papers. There have been interesting proposals by (von Fintel 1994), Stanley and Szabó (2000), and (2008a, Elbourne 2008b), among others. I won’t say any more about analyses here.

4. Nominal and Temporal Anaphora Partee (1973) observed a number of parallels between tenses and pronouns; in that paper I tried to account for them by using explicit variables over times and treating the tense morphemes Present and Past as directly analogous to pronouns. In Partee (1984c) I offered an improved account building on Reichenbach’s (1947) notion of “reference time” as developed in work by Bäuerle (1977) and especially Hinrichs (1981, 1986), and building on the unified treatment of



pronominal anaphora provided by the discourse representations of Kamp (1981) or the “file-card” semantics of Heim (1982). The task of unifying those advances was largely carried out by Hinrichs (1981); in Partee (1984) I showed how his work could be extended to cases of temporal quantification and to temporal analogs of ‘donkey anaphora’. The analogies: There are temporal analogs of PA N-L pronouns, anaphoric pronouns with definite and indefinite antecedents, ‘bound-variable’ pronouns, and ‘donkey-sentence’ pronouns. I don’t believe that tenses can be used for true deixis; like the third person neuter pronoun it in English, they cannot be stressed and cannot be used to pick out a previously non-salient temporal referent. For that, one needs to use a stressed adverbial like then. (Data below are from Partee (1973), repeated in Partee (1984).) Pronouns with non-linguistic antecedents:

(20) a. I didn’t turn off the stove. [Note: this became a famous example, useful for showing that Past tense in English is not simply an existential quantifier over past times.]

b. She left me. (nominal analog) Definite anaphors with definite antecedents: (21)a. Sam is married. He has three children. b. Sheila had a party last Friday and Sam got drunk. c. When John saw Mary, she crossed the street. d. At 3pm. June 21st, 1960, Mary had a brilliant idea. Indefinite antecedents:

(22)a. Pedro owns a donkey. He beats it. (Kamp, Heim) b. Mary woke up sometime during the night. She turned on the light.

Bound variables: (23)a. Every woman believes that she is happy. b. No woman fully appreciates her mother. (24)a. Whenever Mary telephoned, Sam was asleep. b. When Mary telephoned, Sam was always asleep. c. Whenever Mary wrote a letter, Sam answered it two days later. d. Whenever John got a letter, he answered it immediately. ‘Donkey anaphora’:

(25)a. If Pedro owns a donkey, he beats it. b. Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it. c. If Mary telephoned on a Friday, it was (always) Peter that answered. d. Whenever Mary telephoned on a Friday, Sam was asleep.

Parallels in “negative data”: the quantificational element cannot be inside the ‘restrictor’ clause, which is a scope island for both nominal and temporal quantificational operators (and all kinds of semantic operators). (26)a. #If every man owns a donkey, he beats it. b. #If Sheila always walks into the room, Peter wakes up.



(vs. OK b’: If Sheila walks into the room, Peter always wakes up.)

Representations using Kamp’s DRS structures. (One can do the same with Heim’s theory; for a better formalized account, see (Muskens 1995).)

Example (9), Partee (1984): If Pedro owns a donkey, he beats it. (nominal donkey anaphora).

Example (10) from Partee (1984): Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it. (also nominal donkey anaphora).



Temporal analog of (9) and (10): Example (27) from Partee (1984): Whenever Mary telephoned, Sam was asleep. Below is first a preliminary DRS(27’), then a more complete one, DRS(27), showing the steps of the derivation.



For other recent work, see (Enç 1986, 1987, Kratzer 1998, Muskens 1995, Stone and Hardt 1997, Webber 1979)

5. Phenomena crucially affected by the structuring of local context.

5.1. Goal: To explicate the parallels among the following sorts of phenomena, all of which relate to aspects of "accessible local structured context(s)".3

3 The perspective taken here draws on at least the following: Heim (1983a,b), Hajičová 1983, Rooth 1992, Krifka (1991, 1992, 1993), von Fintel 1994, Sgall et al 1986, Peregrin and Sgall (1986), Partee 1989, Partee 1991, Kratzer (1991), Koktova (1986), Berman (1989), Groenendijk and Stokhof 1990, 1991, Roberts (1995); and discussions with Petr Sgall, Eva Hajičová, and Jaroslav Peregrin, and participants in a Spring 1993 seminar on Quantification and Focus at UMass, Amherst; and fellow participants in Focus Conference, Wolfsbrunnen, June 1994.

In the rest of this handout, we show how the parallels between nominal and temporal anaphora extend to much broader ranges of phenomena with anaphoric properties.



(1) Presuppositions, their sources, and their "lifespans"; local vs. global "accommodation". (2) Anaphora; accessibility of potential antecedents; lifespans of "discourse referents". (3) Adverbs of quantification and the principles for establishing their domains (the "restrictive

clause" of tripartite structures). Domain selection as a species of anaphora (von Fintel 1994) (4) Context-dependence and the binding of implicit variables in "quantified contexts", quantified

point-of-view phenomena, quantification and ellipsis interpretation, etc. (5) "Association to focus" with focus-sensitive operators, argued by Rooth (1992) to be also a

species of anaphora.

5.2. Context-‐dependence, context structure, and context change. -- Interpretation is in general context-dependent.

-- Context is structured. There are well-known similarities and also differences between "layers" of structured non-linguistic context(s) and structures of discourse context and sentence-internal context. Degrees of "accessibility" of various aspects of context at a given point in a linguistic structure seem to be related to degrees of communicative dynamism in the sense of the Prague school. Early progress on articulating relation between grammatical structure and constructed context structures includes: Prague school (Hajičová 1983, Hajičová 1987, Hajičová 1988. vi, 516 pp., Sgall et al. 1986), Sidner & Webber (Sidner 1983, Webber 1980), Reinhart (1980, 1982, 1995), and others. On a dynamic perspective: context changes from one part of a discourse to another, and from one part of a sentence to another (Heim (1983a, 1983b), Kamp (1981), Groenendijk and Stokhof (1990, 1991, 1997), Muskens (1991, 1995).) See also the long history of Prague school research on the dynamics of the stock of shared knowledge and degrees of communicative dynamism. The connections between Kamp-Heirm “tripartite structures” and Prague school theories of topic-focus structure are explored in (Hajičová et al. 1998, Partee 1991).

5.3 Parallels in "accessible anchorings" for context-‐dependent phenomena. Claim: Accessibility of “antecedents” or “anchorings” patterns similarly for presupposition, anaphora, contextual anchoring, and those aspects of quantificational domain specification that similarly depend on local context.

5.3.1. Simple examples: generalization of limitations on "backwards anaphora". Anaphora

(6) (a) Some peoplei complain loudly in the middle of the night and theyi,j make so much noise upstairs that one can't sleep.

(b) They*i,j make so much noise upstairs that one can't sleep and some peoplei complain loudly in the middle of the night.



Presupposition (7) (a) Max imagines that there is a saboteur in the company and that the saboteur in the

company is putting bugs in his programs. (b) #Max imagines that the saboteur in the company is putting bugs in his programs and that

there is a saboteur in the company. Context-dependence (8) (a) Sam took the car, and two hours later Mary phoned. (b) Two hours later Mary phoned, and Sam took the car. (9) (a) The group went quickly through the west door, and there they encountered a dragon

guarding a gold ring. (b) There they encountered a dragon guarding a gold ring, and the group went quickly

through the west door. Domain Restriction (10) (a) Henrik likes to travel. He goes to France in the summer and he usually travels by car. He

goes to England for the spring holidays and he usually travels by ferry. (b) #Henrik likes to travel. He usually travels by car and he goes to France in the summer.

He usually travels by ferry and he goes to England for the spring holidays.

5.3.2 Semantically computed accessibility: Simple cases of "nested contexts" as in tripartite structures headed by quantifiers, etc., allow simple "paths" of accessibility (cf. classic DRS theory); propositional attitudes, modals, etc., lead to more complex accessibility (Heim 1992), tracking through accessible worlds as dictated by semantics of modals, etc. Where anchorings can "come from" patterns with where presuppositions can "come from", where antecedents to pronouns can "come from", and where domain restrictions can "come from." "Lifespans" of contexts: principles not simply "geometric" but intrinsically semantic. Presupposition (11) (a) John believes it's raining and wishes it would stop. (b) #John wishes it would rain and believes it will stop. Anaphora (12) (a) John believes there's a logician on the committee and wishes she were reasonable. (b) #John wishes there were a logician on the committee and believes she's reasonable. Context-dependence (13) (a) John believes that Susan hid a treasure (somewhere) in the forest and hopes that she left

tracks nearby. (b) #John hopes that Susan hid a treasure (somewhere) in the forest and believes that she left

tracks nearby. Domain restriction (14) (a) John knows that Susan goes to Maine in the summer and wishes that she would usually

travel by car. (b) John wishes that Susan would go to Maine every summer and knows that she usually



travels by car. Conclusions: What these examples illustrate, although I haven’t spelled out the arguments, is how Kamp and Heim’s work helps to elucidate major parallels among principles governing pronominal anaphora, temporal anaphora, presupposition projection, domain restriction, and other context-dependent phenomena.

References Bäuerle, R. 1977. Tempus, Temporaladverb und die temporale Frage, Universität Konstanz: Doctoral

Dissertation. Bäuerle, Rainer. 1979. Temporale Deixis – Temporale Frage. Tübingen: Narr. Berman, Stephen. 1989. An analysis of quantificational variability in indirect questions. In Papers on

Quantification, eds. Emmon Bach, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara Partee: Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Condoravdi, Cleo, and Gawron, Jean Mark. 1996. The context-dependency of implicit arguments. In Quantifiers, Deduction, and Context, eds. Makoto Kanazawa, Christopher Piñon and Henriëtte de Swart, 1-32. Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://www.stanford.edu/~cleoc/cdia.pdf.

Cooper, Robin. 1986. Tense and discourse location in situation semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:17-36.

Dowty, David. 1982. Quantification and the Lexicon: A Reply to Fodor and Fodor. In The Scope of Lexical Rules, eds. Teun Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst and Michael Moortgat, 79-106. Dordrecht: Foris.

Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Elbourne, Paul. 2008a. Implicit content and the argument from binding. In Proceedings of Semantics and

Linguistic Theory XVIII (SALT 18), eds. Tova Friedman and Satoshi Ito, 284–301. Ithaca: CLC Publications. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/13040.

Elbourne, Paul. 2008b. Implicit content and sloppy identity. Ms. Queen Mary, University of London. http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/pdelbourne/implicitsloppy.pdf.

Enç, Mürvet. 1986. Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:405-426.

Enç, Mürvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18:633-657. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1990. Dynamic Montague Grammar. In Papers from the

Second Symposium on Logic and Language, eds. L. Kálman and L. Pólos, 3-48. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. http://staff.science.uva.nl/~stokhof/dmg.pdf.

Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1991. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14:39-100. http://staff.science.uva.nl/~stokhof/dpl.pdf.

Groenendijk, Jeroen, Stokhof, Martin, and Veltman, Frank. 1997. Coreference and Modality in the Context of Multi-Speaker Discourse. In Context-Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning: Proceedings of the Workshops in Prague, February 1995 & Bad Teinach, May 1995. Volume I: Papers, eds. Hans Kamp and Barbara Partee, 195-215. Stuttgart: IMS.

Hajičová, Eva. 1983. Topic and focus. Theoretical Linguistics 10:268-276. Hajičová, Eva, Partee, Barbara, and Sgall, Petr. 1998. Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures,

and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Hajičová, Eva; Sgall, Petr. 1987. The Ordering Principle. Journal of Pragmatics 11:435-454. Hajičová, Eva; Sgall, Petr. 1988. vi, 516 pp. Topic and Focus of a Sentence and the Patterning of a Text. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, University of Massachusetts:

Ph.D. dissertation; published 1989, New York: Garland. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jA2YTJmN/Heim Dissertation with Hyperlinks.pdf.



Heim, Irene. 1983a. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2: Second Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. M. Barlow, D. Flickinger and M. Wescoat, 114-125: Stanford University. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 249-260 http://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/10-Heim-On.the.Projection.Problem.for.Presuppositions.djvu.

Heim, Irene. 1983b. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, 164-190. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 223-248. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 223-248 http://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/09-Heim-File.Change.Semantics.and.the.Familiarity.Theory.of.Definiteness.djvu.

Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13:137-179. Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics

9:183-222. Hinrichs, Erhard. 1981. Temporale Anaphora im Englischen, Universität Tübingen: Zulassungsarbeit. Hinrichs, Erhard. 1986. Temporal Anaphora and Discourses of English. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:63-

82. Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of

Language; Mathematical Centre Tracts 135, eds. J.A.G. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen and M.B.J. Stokhof, 277-322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre. Reprinted in: Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds.), 1984, Truth, Interpretation, Information, GRASS 2, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 1-41. Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 189-222 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Kamp1981-TT%26SR.pdf.

Koktova, Eva. 1986. Remarks on the semantics of sentence adverbials. Journal of Pragmatics 10:27-40. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The Representation of Focus. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der

zeitgenössischen Forschung, eds. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 825-834. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tense. In SALT VIII: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 1998, eds. Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson, 92-110. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdf.

Krifka, M. 1991. Focus, semantic partition, and dynamic interpretation. Paper presented at The 8th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam.

Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A framework for focus-sensitive quantification. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 2), eds. Chris Barker and David Dowty, 215-236. Columbus, Ohio.

Krifka, Manfred. 1993. Focus and presupposition in dynamic interpretation. Journal of Semantics 10:269-300. http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Publications/Krifka 1993 Dynamic Interpretation.PDF.

Martí, Luisa. 2006. Unarticulated constituents revisited Linguistics and Philosophy 29:135-166. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000044

Mitchell, Jonathan. 1986. The Formal Semantics of Point of View, University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Ph.D. dissertation.

Muskens, Reinhard. 1991. Anaphora and the logic of change. In Logics in AI. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 478, ed. Jan van Eijck, 412-428. Berlin: Springer. http://cogprints.org/4704/1/anaphora.pdf

Muskens, Reinhard. 1995. Tense and the logic of change. In Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language, eds. Urs Egli, E.P. Pause, Christoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechow and G. Wienold, 147-183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,. http://let.uvt.nl/general/people/rmuskens/pubs/cgdrt.pdf.

Partee, Barbara. 1984a. Nominal and Temporal Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7:243-286. http://bhpartee.narod.ru/Partee1984NomTemp.pdf



Partee, Barbara. 1984b. Compositionality. In Varieties of Formal Semantics, eds. Fred Landman and Frank Veltman, 281-312. Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 153-181 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee_1984Compositionality.pdf.

Partee, Barbara. 1989. Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts. CLS 25:342-365. Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 259-281 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee89_BindingImplicitVar.pdf.

Partee, Barbara H. 1984c. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7:243-286. http://bhpartee.narod.ru/Partee1984NomTemp.pdf

Partee, Barbara H. 1991. Topic, focus and quantification. In SALT I: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 1991, eds. Steven Moore and Adam Zachary Wyner, 159-187. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zM0MjNhO/ , http://elanguage.net/journals/index.php/salt/article/download/1.159/1557

Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70:601-609. Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 50-58 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-362X%2819731025%2970%3A18%3C601%3ASSABTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H or http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WUyZGJjY/Partee1973.pdf.

Peregrin, Jaroslav, and Sgall, Petr. 1986. An attempt at a framework for semantic interpretation of natural language. Theoretical Linguistics 13:37-73.

Postal, Paul. 1966. On So-Called 'Pronouns' in English. In Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 19, ed. Francis Dinneen, 177-206. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Recanati, François. 2002. Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25:299-345. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Recanati2002L%26P.pdf.

Recanati, François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York, London: MacMillan. Reinhart, Tanya. 1980. Conditions for text coherence. Poetics Today 1:161-180. Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27:53-94. Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface Strategies. OTS, Utrecht University.

http://www.let.uu.nl/~tanya.reinhart/personal/Papers/pdf/intrface1.pdf. Roberts, Craige. 1995. Domain restriction in dynamic semantics. In Quantification in natural language,

eds. Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara H. Partee, 661-700. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75-116. ftp://ftp.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/papers/mats/focus-interpretation.ps.gz

Sgall, Petr, Hajičová, Eva, and Panevová, Jarmila. 1986. The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Dordrecht/Prague: Reidel/Academia.

Sidner, Candace L. 1983. Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In Computational Models of Discourse, ed. Michael Brady and Robert C. Berwick, 267-330. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.

Stanley, Jason. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23:391–434. Reprinted in Stanley (2007), pp. 30-68 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Stanley2000L%26P.pdf.

Stanley, Jason, and Szabó, Zoltan. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15:219-261. Reprinted in Stanley 2007, pp. 69-110 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/StanleyAndSzabo2000OQR.pdf.



Stockwell, Robert P., Schachter, Paul , and Partee, Barbara H. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stone, Matthew, and Hardt, Daniel. 1997. Dynamic Discourse Referents for Tense and Modals. In Proceedings of IWCS 2, 287-299. http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~mdstone/pubs/iwcs97.pdf

von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Ph.D. dissertation. Distributed by GLSA, Amherst. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jA3N2IwN/fintel-1994-thesis.pdf.

von Stechow, Arnim. 1982. Three Local Deictics. In Speech, Place, and Action, eds. R. J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein, 73-99. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Webber, Bonnie. 1979. A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. New York: Garland Publishing. Webber, Bonnie Lynn. 1980. A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. New York: Garland.

Documents

Semantics of Anaphora and its History Lecture 4. Implicit ... · Semantics of Anaphora and its History, Lecture 4 B. H. Partee, PSSP, June 19, 2015 PSSP15ParteeLec4.doc ! 3 An egocentric