Demonstratives as individual concepts

Linguistics and Philosophy

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 409-466

  Elbourne, Paul ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Demonstratives; Individual concepts; Pronouns; Situation semantics

Indexed keywords

EID: 58849093962     PISSN: 01650157     EISSN: 15730549     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10988-008-9043-0     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Abney, S. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD Dissertation, MIT Press.
2. M. Aloni 2005 Individual concepts in modal predicate logic Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 1 64
3. D. Altshuler 2007 WCO, ACD and what they reveal about complex demonstratives Natural Language Semantics 15 265 277
4. Austin J.L. (1961) Truth. In: Urmson J.O., Warnock G.J. (eds) Philosophical papers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 117-133
5. E. Bach 1970 Problominalization Linguistic Inquiry 1 121 122
6. Barwise J., Perry J. (1983) Situations and attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge
7. Bäuerle R. (1983) Pragmatisch-semantische Aspekte der NP-Interpretation. In: Faust M., Harweg R., Lehfeldt W., Wienold G. (eds) Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Textlinguistik. Festschrift für Peter Hartmann. Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, pp 121-131
8. Berman S. (1987) Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In: Blevins J., Vainikka A. (eds) Studies in semantics. Amherst, GLSA, pp 46-68
9. E. Borg 2000 Complex demonstratives Philosophical Studies 97 229 249
10. D. Braun 1994 Structured characters and complex demonstratives Philosophical Studies 74 193 219
11. Buchanan, R. (2002). Understanding complex demonstratives. Ms.
12. R. Buchanan G. Ostertag 2005 Has the problem of incompleteness rested on a mistake? Mind 114 889 913
13. D. Büring 2004 Crossover situations Natural Language Semantics 12 23 62
14. Büring D. (2005) Binding theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
15. Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
16. Chierchia G. (1995) Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
17. Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht
18. Chomsky N. (1993) A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Hale K., Keyser S.J. (eds) The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1-52
19. Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge
20. Cooper R. (1979) The interpretation of pronouns. In: Heny F., Schnelle H. (eds) Syntax and semantics 10: Selections from the Third Gröningen Round Table. Academic Press, New York, pp 61-92
21. Cresswell M. (1985) Structured meanings. MIT Press, Cambridge
22. Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, Dordrecht
23. W. Edelberg 1994 Propositions, circumstances, objects Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 1 34
24. P. Elbourne 2001 E-type anaphora as NP-deletion Natural Language Semantics 9 241 288
25. Elbourne, P. (2001b). On the semantics of pronouns and definite articles. In L. Bar-el & K. Megerdoomian (Eds.), WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 164-177). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
26. Elbourne, P. (2003). Indistinguishable participants. In P. Dekker & R. van Rooij (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 105-110). Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.
27. P. Elbourne 2005 On the acquisition of Principle B Linguistic Inquiry 36 333 365
28. Elbourne P. (2005b) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge
29. Elbourne, P. (2008). The existence entailments of definite descriptions. Ms.
30. Farkas D. (1997) Evaluation indices and scope. In: Szabolcsi A. (eds) Ways of scope taking. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 183-215
31. K. von Fintel 1993 Exceptive constructions Natural Language Semantics 1 123 148
32. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
33. von Fintel K. (2004) Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 315-341
34. Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge
35. D. Fox 2002 Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement Linguistic Inquiry 33 63 96
36. G. Frege 1892 Über Sinn und Bedeutung Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100 25 50
37. M. Glanzberg S. Siegel 2006 Presupposition and policing in complex demonstratives Noûs 40 1 42
38. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1990) Dynamic Montague Grammar. In: Kálmán L., Pólos L. (eds) Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp 3-48
39. B. Grosz A. Joshi S. Weinstein 1995 Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse Computational Linguistics 21 203 225
40. H. Harley 2002 WCO, ACD, and QR of DPs Linguistic Inquiry 33 659 664
41. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
42. I. Heim 1990 E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora Linguistics and Philosophy 13 137 177
43. Heim I. (1991) Artikel und Definitheit. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, pp 487-535
44. Heim, I. (1993). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. University of Tübingen Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft working paper series (SfS-Report-07-93).
45. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford
46. Heim, I., Kratzer, A., & von Fintel, K. (1998). Introduction to intensional semantics. Class notes, MIT.
47. Higginbotham, J., & May, R. (1981). Crossing, markedness, pragmatics. In Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore de Pisa.
48. Hindley J.R., Seldin J.P. (1986) Introduction to combinators and λ-calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
49. Jacobson, P. (1977). The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
50. Jacobson, P. (1991). Bach-Peters sentences in a variable-free semantics. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 283-302). Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
51. P. Jacobson 2000 Paycheck pronouns, Bach-Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics Natural Language Semantics 8 77 155
52. K. Johnson E. Lepore 2002 Does syntax reveal semantics? A case study of complex demonstratives Philosophical Perspectives 16 17 41
53. Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
54. Kaplan D. (1989a) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481-563
55. Kaplan D. (1989b) Afterthoughts. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 565-614
56. L. Karttunen 1971 Definite descriptions with crossing coreference Foundations of Language 7 157 182
57. Kayne R. (1984) Connectedness and binary branching. Foris, Dordrecht
58. E. Keenan 1972 On semantically based grammar Linguistic Inquiry 3 413 461
59. King J. (2001) Complex demonstratives. MIT Press, A quantificational account. Cambridge
60. Kitagawa, Y. (1986). Subjects in Japanese and English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
61. A. Kratzer 1989 An investigation of the lumps of thought Linguistics and Philosophy 12 607 653
62. Kratzer, A. (2004). Covert quantifier restrictions in natural languages. Ms.
63. Kripke S. (1972) Naming and necessity. In: Davidson D., Harman G. (eds) Semantics of natural languages. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 253-355
64. Kripke S. (1979) Speaker's reference and semantic reference. In: French P.A., Uehling T., Wettstein H. (eds) Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 6-27
65. Ladusaw, W. (1979).Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
66. Larson R., Segal G. (1995) Knowledge of meaning. An introduction to semantic theory. MIT Press, Cambridge
67. H. Lasnik T. Stowell 1991 Weakest crossover Linguistic Inquiry 22 687 720
68. D. Lewis 1968 Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic Journal of Philosophy 65 113 126
69. Link G. (1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 302-323
70. G. Longobardi 1994 Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form Linguistic Inquiry 25 609 665
71. May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. PhD Dissertation, MIT Press.
72. May R. (1985) Logical form. Its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge
73. R. May 1989 Interpreting logical form Linguistics and Philosophy 12 387 436
74. Neale S. (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge
75. Neale S. (1993) Term limits. In: Tomberlin J.E. (eds) Philosophical perspectives 7: Logic and language. Atascadero, Ridgeview Publishing, pp 89-123
76. S. Neale 2005 A century later Mind 114 809 871
77. Neale S. (2005b) Pragmatism and binding. In: Szabó Z.G. (eds) Semantics versus pragmatics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 165-285
78. S. Neale 2007 Heavy hands and scene-reading traps European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3 77 130
79. G. Nunberg 1979 The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy Linguistics and Philosophy 3 143 184
80. G. Nunberg 1993 Indexicality and deixis Linguistics and Philosophy 16 1 43
81. Nunberg G. (2004) Descriptive indexicals and indexical descriptions. In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 261-279
82. Partee B., Rooth M. (1983) Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 362-383
83. O. Percus 2000 Constraints on some other variables in syntax Natural Language Semantics 8 173 229
84. Postal P. (1966) On so-called 'pronouns' in English. In: Dinneen F. (eds) Report on the seventeenth annual round table meeting on linguistics and language studies. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 177-206
85. Quine W.V.O. (1969) Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New York
86. Recanati F. (1993) Direct reference. Blackwell, From language to thought. Oxford
87. Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
88. Recanati F. (2005) Deixis and anaphora. In: (eds) Semantics versus pragmatics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 286-316
89. Roberts C. (2002) Demonstratives as definites. In: Deemter K., Kibble R. (eds) Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation. CSLI Press, Stanford, pp 89-136
90. C. Roberts 2003 Uniqueness in definite Noun Phrases Linguistics and Philosophy 26 287 350
91. Roberts C. (2004) Pronouns as definites. In: Bezuidenhout A., Reimer M. (eds) Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 503-543
92. B. Russell 1905 On denoting Mind 14 479 493
93. Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form. PhD Dissertation, MIT Press.
94. P. Schlenker 2003 A plea for monsters Linguistics and Philosophy 26 29 120
95. Seligman J., Moss L. (1997) Situation theory. In: Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) The handbook of logic and language. Elsevier/MIT Press, Amsterdam/Cambridge, pp 239-309
96. S. Soames 1987 Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content Philosophical Topics 15 47 87
97. Sperber D., Wilson D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell, Oxford
98. J. Stanley 2002 Review of King 2001 The Philosophical Review 111 605 609
99. Stockwell R., Schachter P., Partee B.H. (1973) The major syntactic structures of English. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
100. P. Strawson 1950 On referring Mind 59 320 344
101. Takahashi, E., Conroy, A., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2006). Early mastery of constraints on binding and coreference. Ms.
102. Taylor B. (1980) Truth-theory for indexical languages. In: Platts M. (eds) Reference, truth and reality. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp 182-198
103. Thornton R., Wexler K. (1999) Principle B, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge
104. J. Uriagereka 1995 Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance Linguistic Inquiry 26 79 123
105. van Benthem J. (1995) Language in action. Categories, lambdas and dynamic logic. MIT Press, Cambridge
106. van Eijck J., Kamp H. (1997) Representing discourse in context. In: Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier/MIT Press, Amsterdam/Cambridge, pp 179-237
107. Wolter, L. (2006). That's that: The semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative noun phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.