Anaphora in Semantics and Pragmatics 2. Data: Binding Implicit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
! ! !"#$%&'()$%*+,-./'0)-+1#)'23' ! ! !"#$%&'()$%*+,-./'0)-+1#)'23' ' ' 4%#5%#%'67'8%#+))/'9:;'<1*)'=/'3>>?''@7'"' ' ' 4%#5%#%'67'8%#+))/'9:;'<1*)'=/'3>>?''@7'9' ! ! Lecture 12: Implicit Arguments and Point of View is interpreted as a variable bound by a variable-binding operator associated with the interpretation of every man . "#!$%&'()*+,-.!/,%01*)%!2,!345%,62&7!%,-!8)%(5%62&7########################################################## "! Unified treatments of these uses of pronouns became available with the work of Kamp on 9#!:%6%.!$2,-2,(!250;2&26!<%)2%=;47!2,!>+%,62?24-!&*,64@67####################################################### 9! Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp 1981) and Heim on File Change Semantics A#!!B*50462,(!0)*0*7%;7!?*)!%&&*+,62,(!?*)!7+&1!014,*54,%############################################### C! (Heim 1983). Extensions to temporal and locative anaphora, where similar ranges of A#"#!3252;%)26247!6*!0)*,*+,7############################################################################################################ C! behavior can be found, were immediately made (Bäuerle 1979, Cooper 1986, Hinrichs A#9#!D14!3E,6%&62&!F4;%62*,!G%)2%=;4!/00)*%&1######################################################################## H! 1981, Partee 1984b, von Stechow 1982). Some temporal examples are given below. A#A#!D14!8)%(5%62&!I,)2&154,6!/00)*%&1################################################################################# J! (4) Deictic past reference time: I didn’t turn off the stove. A#C#!D14!I@0;2&26!/00)*%&1################################################################################################################ J! (5) Discourse anaphora: Mary woke up sometime in the night. She turned on the A#K#!D14!3E,6%&62&!326+%62*,!G%)2%=;4!/00)*%&1 ###################################################################### J! light. A#H#!D14!L;*=%;!/00)*%&1 ################################################################################################################## M! (6) Bound reference time: Whenever John wrote a letter to Mary, she answered two C#!N1E!26!&%,O6!%;;!=4!0)%(5%62&7P!%,-!2-4,62?E2,(!&%747!61%6!%)4# ######################################### M! days later. K#!/)(+54,67!?*)!%,-!%(%2,76!250;2&26!4;454,67!2,!7E,6%@# ##################################################### M! H#!Q%74)7*1,!*,!0)4-2&%647!*?!04)7*,%;!6%764!%,-!%!RS+-(4T!0%)%5464)# #########################"U! In (Mitchell 1986) and (Partee 1989) it was argued that such a range of behavior can be J#!/--262*,%;!2,64)4762,(!4@%50;47# #################################################################################################"U! found among a broader class of contentful context-dependent elements, as in the case of J#"#!V+;620;E2,(!%5=2(+26247###########################################################################################################"U! the adjective local, and others have extended the list even farther (Section 2.) This has J#9#!V2@4-!6E047!*?!%,%01*)%!W2612,!%!72,(;4!;4@2&%;!2645 ################################################""! given rise to interesting debates. F4?4)4,&47 ##################################################################################################################################################""! (7) John visited a local bar. (Mitchell 1986) Readings (8) Every sports fan in the country was at a local bar watching the playoffs. (Partee (Partee 1989) Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts 1989), modifying an example of (Mitchell 1986) (Condoravdi and Gawron 1996) D14!&*,64@6X-404,-4,&E!*?!250;2&26!%)(+54,67 An issue that arises for words like local and for many other cases is this: should we posit (Lasersohn 2009) Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments a covert pronoun-like element in the syntax as an “implicit argument” of local, or perhaps (Elbourne In Press) Implicit content and the argument from binding something like a situation variable in its semantics, or might the context-dependency ABB,+,"*%&'#)%B,*C.' somehow all be in the pragmatics? I will discuss several recent proposals in Section 3. In (Lasersohn 2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Section 4 I show how the sensitivity of bound variable interpretations to linguistic (Lasersohn 2008) Quantification and Perspective in Relativist Semantics structure has been used to argue against a “pure pragmatics” account. Section 5 reviews (Elbourne 2008) Implicit content and sloppy identity arguments for and against several other accounts. Section 6 introduces Lasersohn’s idea (Bhatt and Pancheva 2006) Implicit arguments (a good survey of different sorts of implicit about including a “judge” parameter in the speech-act context for sentences with arguments; emphasis on syntax, but includes semantics as well) “predicates of personal taste” like tasty, fun. In Section 7, if time remains, we’ll look at more examples that raise puzzles for the syntax-semantics-pragmatics borderlines. !"#$%&'()*+,-.#/,%01*)%#2,#345%,62&7#%,-#8)%(5%62&7# It is well known that English third-person pronouns can function variously as deictic or 9"#:%6%.#$2,-2,(#250;2&26#<%)2%=;47#2,#>+%,62?24-#&*,64@67# demonstrative elements, as discourse anaphors, and as bound variables, as illustrated in The possibility of bound-variable-like dependence of open-class words like adjectives (1), (2), and (3) respectively. and nouns was first raised in the work of Jonathan Mitchell, with examples like (7-8) (1) Deictic or demonstrative: Who’s he? above. On one of its interpretations, the word local demands some reference location to (2) Discourse anaphoric: A woman walked in. She sat down. anchor to, and means something close to “in the vicinity of [reference location]”. In (3) Bound variable: Every man believed that he was right. example (7), the reference location could be the utterance location, or, if the utterance is part of a narrative about John, the reference location could be determined by the In a typical use of (1), the pronoun gets its value from the non-linguistic context of the narrative. These represent indexical/deictic anchoring and discourse anaphora utterance, the context in which the speech act occurs. This is sometimes called a respectively. While local in (8) could also be understood as anchored to the utterance pragmatic (use of the) pronoun (Partee 1978), sometime indexical or deictic (because of location or some specific discourse location, the most likely interpretation, and the one I its similarity to the typical uses of indexical I and deictic this, that). In discourse will consider here, is one with a “bound variable reference location” – a possibly anaphora, as in (2), the pronoun takes its value from the constructed discourse context different location for every sports fan. (Heim 1983, Kamp 1981, Karttunen 1976). In a bound variable case like (3), the pronoun MGU0912.doc "!! MGU0912.doc 9!! ! ! !"#$%&'()$%*+,-./'0)-+1#)'23' ! ! !"#$%&'()$%*+,-./'0)-+1#)'23' ' ' 4%#5%#%'67'8%#+))/'9:;'<1*)'=/'3>>?''@7'A' ' ' 4%#5%#%'67'8%#+))/'9:;'<1*)'=/'3>>?''@7'C' ! ! Examples (7-8) concerned implicit binding of a context-dependent part of the meaning of to show that Recanati’s paraphrase merely describes one possible situation in which (11) an adjective; Partee (1984a) observed that the same behavior can be found with can be true, not a linguistically distinct reading of (11). “intransitive” uses of some relational nouns like enemy and friend. (12) #Whenever Sally cooks mushrooms, John never eats. Instead, he eats pasta with (9) (a) An enemy is approaching. (Partee 1984) tomato sauce. (Martí 2006) (b) John faced an enemy. As Martí argues, if eat could have a bound variable argument as notice can, (12) would (c) Every man faced an enemy. not be anomalous. It would be able to have an interpretation saying that when Sally cooks Enemy in (9a) is likely to be understood as my or our enemy. Note that approaching in mushrooms, John never eats them, but instead eats pasta. But it can’t mean that – it can (9a) is also context-dependent, and if the context supported a goal argument of only mean that when she cooks mushrooms, he doesn’t eat anything. And because of that, approaching other than me/us, the interpretation of enemy would probably shift the continuation Instead, he eats pasta … is anomalous. accordingly, especially if the example were put in the past tense. In (9b), it’s most likely In addition to context-dependence with nouns, adjectives, and verbs, it’s easy to find an enemy of John or of John’s group. And in (9c) we have the possibility of a bound examples involving temporal or locative expressions. Plain context-dependence is variable reading. familiar in such cases; I add a pair of bound-variable examples from (Partee 1989); these • The behavior of enemy raises interesting issues about the relation between 2-place are actually constructed on the model of “donkey-sentences” like Every farmer who owns enemy and 1-place enemy. The 2-place relation is clearly more general, but as a donkey beats it, and should presumably be given an analysis analogous to one’s favorite Mitchell (1986) argued, it does not follow that every instance of the 1-place treatment of donkey-sentence anaphora. property is best analyzed as derived from the 2-place one by filling in or (13) (a) Every man who stole a car abandoned it 2 hours later. quantifying over one argument place. (b) Every man who stole a car abandoned it 50 miles away. • An egocentric 1-place version of friend or enemy may be developmentally and ontogenetically