Derived Contexts: A New Argument for Their Usefulness

  • Josep MaciàEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10257)


This paper aims to vindicate the adequacy and usefulness of the notion of derived context (Stalnaker 1988), by showing how it helps to successfully account for phenomena that lay beyond the data that motivated Stalnaker to first introduce the notion. We will focus on phenomena related to Binding Theory (BT) principles (B) and (C) (Chomsky 1981, 1993). These principles account for an impressive array of data. They are subject, though, to well known counterexamples. As part of a more general attempt to defend standard BT, this paper will focus on one specific kind of counterexamples to the BT (some of which have not yet been considered in the literature), and will show how they can be successfully accounted for without any substantive departure from standard BT. All is needed is (1) to take the semantic restriction placed by the Binding Principles to be not that of co-reference (or co-valuation) but rather that of presupposed co-reference (or presupposed co-valuation) (as in Heim 1993), and (2) to appeal in the appropriate way to the existence of derived contexts.


Context Derived context Anaphora Binding principles Presupposition Co-reference 


  1. Chomsky, N.: Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht (1981)Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N.: A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Hale, K., Keyser, S. (eds.) The View From Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993). (Reprinted in: Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995))Google Scholar
  3. Evans, G.: Pronouns. Linguist. Inq. 11, 337–362 (1980). (Reprinted in: Evans: Collected Papers. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1985))Google Scholar
  4. Heim, I.: Anaphora and semantic interpretation: a reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. SfS-Report-07-93, University of Tubingen (1993). (Reprinted in: Sauerland, U., Percus, O. (eds.) The Interpretative Tract, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 25. MITWPL, Cambridge (1998))Google Scholar
  5. Higginbotham, J.: Anaphoric reference and common reference (1992, unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
  6. Karttunen, L.: Presupposition and linguistic context. Theor. Linguist. 1, 181–194 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Macià, J.: Binding theory, semantic interpretation and context. Catalan Work. Papers Linguist. 5(1), 81–112 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. Macià, J.: Natural language and formal languages. MIT, Doctoral dissertation (1997)Google Scholar
  9. Postal, P.: On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguist. Inq. 1, 439–500 (1970)Google Scholar
  10. Reinhart, T.: Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Croom Helm, London (1983)Google Scholar
  11. Reinhart, T.: Strategies of anaphora resolution. In: Bennis, H., Evaraert, M., Reuland, E. (eds.) Interface Strategies. North Holland, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  12. Stalnaker, R.: Presupposition. J. Philos. Log. 2, 77–96 (1973). (Reprinted in: Stalnaker, pp. 31–46 (1999))CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stalnaker, R.: Pragmatic presuppositions. In: Munitz, M., Unger, P. (eds.) Semantics and Philosophy, New York (1974). (Reprinted in: Stalnaker, pp. 47–62 (1999))Google Scholar
  14. Stalnaker, R.: Belief attribution and context. In: Grimm, M. (ed.) Contents of Thoughts. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (1988). (Reprinted in: Stalnaker, pp. 117–129 (1999). Page numbers refer to the reprinted version)Google Scholar
  15. Stalnaker, R.: Context and Content. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de FilosofiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations