Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 65–78 | Cite as

On bishop sentences

  • Paul Elbourne
Article

Abstract

This article offers a critical examination of Kroll’s (Natural Language Semantics 16: 359–372, 2008) arguments against Elbourne’s (Situations and individuals, 2005) treatment of bishop sentences.

Keywords

Donkey anaphora Bishop sentences D-type pronouns Situation semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barker C., Shan C (2008) Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics 1: 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berman, S. 1987. Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In Studies in semantics, Vol. 12 of University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, ed. Blevins, J. and Vainikka, A., 46–68. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, R. The interpretation of pronouns. In Syntax and semantics 10: Selections from the Third Gröningen Round Table, ed. Heny, F. and Schnelle, H., 61–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Davies M. (1981) Meaning, quantification, necessity. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Elbourne P (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Elbourne P (2008) Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 409–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elbourne P (2009) Bishop sentences and donkey cataphora: A response to Barker and Shan. Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geach P (1962) Reference and generality. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  9. Geurts B (1997) Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of Semantics 14: 319–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heim I (1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Kratzer A (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kroll N (2008) On bishops and donkeys. Natural Language Semantics 16: 359–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuroda S (1982) Indexed predicate calculus. Journal of Semantics 1: 43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neale S (1990) Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Neale, S. 2004. This, that and the other. In Descriptions and Beyond, Reimer, M. and Bezuidenhout, A., 68–182. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Recanati F (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Schiffer S (1989) Remnants of meaning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Schiffer S (1995) Descriptions, indexicals, and belief reports: Some dilemmas (but not the ones you expect). Mind 104: 107–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sommers F (1982) The logic of natural language. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics, Queen MaryUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations