ANAPHORIC REFERENCE TO PROPOSITIONS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Todd Nathaniel Snider December 2017 c 2017 Todd Nathaniel Snider ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ANAPHORIC REFERENCE TO PROPOSITIONS Todd Nathaniel Snider, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 Just as pronouns like she and he make anaphoric reference to individuals, English words like that and so can be used to refer anaphorically to a proposition introduced in a discourse: That’s true; She told me so. Much has been written about individual anaphora, but less attention has been paid to propositional anaphora. This dissertation is a com- prehensive examination of propositional anaphora, which I argue behaves like anaphora in other domains, is conditioned by semantic factors, and is not conditioned by purely syntactic factors nor by the at-issue status of a proposition. I begin by introducing the concepts of anaphora and propositions, and then I discuss the various words of English which can have this function: this, that, it, which, so, as, and the null complement anaphor. I then compare anaphora to propositions with anaphora in other domains, including individual, temporal, and modal anaphora. I show that the same features which are characteristic of these other domains are exhibited by proposi- tional anaphora as well. I then present data on a wide variety of syntactic constructions—including sub- clausal, monoclausal, multiclausal, and multisentential constructions—noting which li- cense anaphoric reference to propositions. On the basis of this expanded empirical do- main, I argue that anaphoric reference to a proposition is licensed not by any syntactic category or movement but rather by the operators which take propositions as arguments. With this generalization in hand, I turn to how such facts can be formally modeled: I review existing systems which track anaphora and/or which make use of propositional variables, and then introduce a new formalism which incorporates insights from these existing systems. Finally, I turn to the interaction between a proposition’s availability for anaphoric ref- erence and its discourse status (in particular, its at-issue status). Contrary to the prevail- ing assumption in the literature, I argue that there is no tight linking between these two properties, and that one of the tests frequently used to diagnose at-issueness in fact di- agnoses only anaphoric availability. I argue that propositional anaphora and at-issueness are distinct, showing that at-issueness is neither necessary nor sufficient to determine a proposition’s anaphoric potential. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Todd Snider received his B.A. in Linguistics and Mandarin Chinese from Carnegie Mellon University, during which time he also studied abroad at Shanghai International Studies University. He wrote his B.A. Honors Thesis, “The Semantics of Prepositions: An ex- ploration into the uses of at and to”, under the advisement of Mandy Simons. He is graduating from Cornell University with a Ph.D. in Linguistics and a graduate minor in Cognitive Science, working under co-chairs Sarah Murray and Mats Rooth, as well as Will Starr (Philosophy) and John Whitman. During his time as a Ph.D. student, Todd has presented at distinguished international conferences in his area, including Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB), and the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL). While at Cornell, Todd coordinated the interdisciplinary Semantics Research Group for 3 years, edited the Proceedings of SALT, and served as a voting member of the Graduate & Professional Students Assembly. Starting in the Fall, he’ll start a Postdoctoral Research Fellowship at the Language, Logic, and Cognition Cen- ter at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. iv To those who exercise empathy. To those who are, above all else, kind. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to everyone who has helped me to get to where I am today, to everyone who has helped me to become who I am today. This dissertation may be finished, but I am not: I still have work to do. These acknowledgments are bound to be incomplete, but here goes. To my committee members, who have helped me locate and traverse this dissertation, and on whose shoulders I am humbled to stand: Sarah Murray, whose insight and wisdom have been a blessing for me since before I even began at Cornell. Sarah has been generous with her time, judicious in her feed- back, and through it all an example of the sort of linguist, nay academic, nay person, that I can only aspire to be. She manages to consistently raise the bar for excellence—in her research, in her teaching, and in her contributions to the communities of which she’s part—all while inviting others to join her at that high level of excellence. Sarah chaired my first qualifying paper committee, hired me as a Research Assistant, and taught many courses and seminars that I was fortunate enough to attend. Among them, I am especially grateful for the seminar, co-taught with Will Starr, and accompanying instance of the Cor- nell Workshop in Linguistics and Philosophy, whose topic—Propositions—was selected at least in part in support of this dissertation. In this way I was availed not only of the wisdom of my Cornell peers and faculty, but also of the visiting scholars who came to speak and comment, all on the weight of Sarah and Will’s invitation. I am also grateful to Sarah for her course on Native American Languages, and for inviting me to collaborate on a project about the expression of comparison in Cheyenne, which ultimately included joining her to work in the Cheyenne community of Lame Deer, Montana. I am indebted to Sarah and to the Cheyenne community members, who welcomed me with open arms. Throughout my time at Cornell, Sarah has been a role model, a mentor, and a friend. Graduate students tend to have horror stories about working with their advisors; I am immensely fortunate to have none to share. vi Mats Rooth, whose thoughtful engagement with my work has never ceased to im- press me, and which kept me motivated throughout my time at Cornell. Mats has been a guiding presence on all three of my committees, including chairing my second qualify- ing paper. That paper grew out of the many discussions we had during and after one of the many courses taught by Mats that I was fortunate enough to attend. I was honored when Mats trusted me enough to serve as his Teaching Assistant for Computational Lin- guistics, and learned perhaps as much from that collaboration as from having taken the course with him just two years prior. In addition to his interest and feedback on my many projects throughout the years, Mats was especially generous in making himself available to me even when he was on leave and/or traveling abroad. I am deeply grateful as well for his support, and his confidence in me, throughout my job search process. I was ex- cited about the plans we had been making for collaborating in this upcoming year, and it is only for the best reasons that I have now put them on hold; I hope we continue that work together in the future. Will Starr, who is an “external” member in name only, as his perspective and knowl- edge has been central to my growth and success here since my first day on campus. Will has always made the time to meet with me on my various projects, and has never treated my work or my time as secondary, despite having his own students and his own depart- ment to worry about. He is invariably insightful, asking questions that tap into deep issues that might not be addressed otherwise, and his perspective and broad knowledge (of both the philosophical and linguistic literature) have been invaluable to me. His en- gagement not just with me, but with the linguistics community as a whole, represents the interdisciplinary collaborative environment that should be the norm across the academy. I was fortunate enough to take many courses and seminars led by Will, and it’s no surprise that the questions raised by one such course led to my collaboration and coauthorship with Adam Bjorndahl. Will’s generosity has also been noted two paragraphs above. For that, and for much more, I am grateful. vii John Whitman, whose breadth and depth of knowledge never stopped him from tak- ing my work seriously and with an open mind. John’s enthusiasm in my work has been a consistent source of encouragement, which is the icing on the cake alongside his insightful questions, potential counterexamples, and always-relevant references. Chapter 3 in par- ticular could not have come together without John’s input and expertise, though I will admit to getting a special kick out of having intrigued him in the questions of discourse pragmatics of Chapter 5. John’s broad knowledge across languages (and language fami- lies) was also key to beginning the crosslinguistic investigation of propositional anaphora which will remain for future work. In addition to advising this dissertation, John taught a Field Methods class, which was one of the most engaging, challenging, and useful parts of my time at Cornell, in no small part due to John’s hands-off yet highly supportive teaching style. In my first year as a graduate student, there was some speculation about whether John would in fact return to Ithaca; I am exceedingly fortunate that he did. To the other Cornell Linguistics faculty who have had a role in guiding my research: John Bowers, who ultimately served on none of my committees but who was happy to consult on all of my projects and to puzzle through any syntactic puzzles that I would bring to his door.