Klaus von Heusinger A 'Variety' Analysis of Anaphoric Expressions In: T. Childers et al. (eds.). Logica ´96 Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium. Prag, 250-262   (Schloß Liblice)

• Abstract
• Contents
• Introduction
• PDF-File (65K)

Abstract

In this paper I propose an extension of a dynamic semantics with choice functions in order to describe how a variety of possible anaphoric expressions refer to one and the same antecedent in a uniform way. In the mini-discourse A farmer walks. X whistles we can replace X by different anaphoric expressions: he, the farmer who walks, the farmer, the man, the man who walks, and the walker. In order to account for this variety, I define the meaning of a sentence an F is G as its potential to change the values of the choice function or “representatives” for the following sets: the set of Fs and its supersets and their intersections with the set of G. Thus, all mentioned anaphoric expressions are resolved to refer to the same object, although via different, but connected sets.

Contents

1. Anaphoric Reference
2. Anaphora as Binding
3. Anaphora as Definite Descriptions
4. Definiteness and Salience
5. Choice Functions and Dynamic Interpretation
6. The Salience Change Potential of Predicates
References

Introduction (Anaphoric Reference)

Anaphoric expressions are one of the most important tools for creating coherent texts. There is a great variety of these expressions connecting terms of time, space or content in a discourse. In this paper I shall only analyze anaphoric relations that connect expressions of individuals or objects. But even in this restricted domain, there are several different strategies that can create an anaphoric linkage to the antecedent expression, as illustrated in (1a-f). The form walker is analyzed as a short form of the more complex a thing/person that walks.

(1a) A farmer walks. He whistles.
(1b) A farmer walks. The farmer who walks whistles.
(1c) A farmer walks. The farmer whistles.
(1d) A farmer walks. The man whistles.
(1e) A farmer walks. The man who walks whistles.
(1f) A farmer walks. The walker whistles.

The first sentence introduces a new object into the discourse, and the second refers back to this object or referent by a different expression, which can be classified according to the groups (i)-(iv):

• (i) In (1a) the pronoun he in the second sentence refers to the indefinite NP a farmer (of course, another reference of the pronoun is also possible). The use of anaphoric pronouns is restricted in several ways. Since they do not contain any descriptive material, they can only be used in the direct environment of the antecedent expression.
• (ii) Definite NPs that are reconstructed with material from the antecedent sentence can differ in the amount of material they incorporate into the definite NP, as illustrated in (1b) and (1c).
• (iii)  Definite NPs can also be built with material other than that given in the antecedent sentence.
• (iv)  A special case is constituted by (1f) in which the object introduced by an indefinite NP is anaphorically linked to an definite NP that consists exclusively of material from the predicate of the antecedent sentence.

In general, current theories give different analyses for the cases (i) and (ii) and no analysis for (iii) and (iv). Centering on anaphora like (i) or on anaphora like (ii), two main groups of theories have been developed: dynamic theories represent anaphora by bound variables, whereas E-type theories assume that anaphoric expressions can be analyzed as definite descriptions.

PDF-File (65K)

Zurück an den Beginn der Seite