Weak Familiarity and Anaphoric Accessibility in Dynamic Semantics

  • Scott Martin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7395)


The accessibility constraints imposed on anaphora by dynamic theories of discourse are too strong because they rule out many perfectly felicitous cases. Several attempts have been made by previous authors to rectify this situation using various tactics. This paper proposes a more viable approach that involves replacing Heim’s notion of familiarity with a generalized variant due to Roberts. This approach is formalized in hyperintensional dynamic semantics, and a fragment is laid out that successfully deals with some problematic examples.


Anaphora accessibility familiarity dynamic semantics discourse 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beaver, D.I.: Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. CSLI Publications (2001)Google Scholar
  2. Chierchia, G.: Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chierchia, G.: The Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. University of Chicago Press (1995)Google Scholar
  4. Church, A.: A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5, 56–68 (1940)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper, R.: The interpretation of pronouns. Syntax and Semantics 10, 61–92 (1979)Google Scholar
  6. Evans, G.: Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 467–536 (1977)Google Scholar
  7. Geurts, B.: Presuppositions and Pronouns. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, vol. 3. Elsevier (1999)Google Scholar
  8. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Dynamic Montague grammar. In: Stokhof, M., Groenendijk, J., Beaver, D. (eds.) DYANA Report R2.2.A: Quantification and Anaphora I. Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh (1991)Google Scholar
  9. de Groote, P.: Towards a Montagovian account of dynamics. In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 16 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. de Groote, P.: Typing binding and anaphora: Dynamic contexts as λμ-terms. Presented at the ESSLLI Workshop on Symmetric Calculi and Ludics for Semantic Interpretation (2008)Google Scholar
  11. de Groote, P., Lebedeva, E.: Presupposition accommodation as exception handling. In: Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2010: the 11th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (2010)Google Scholar
  12. Heim, I.: The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1982)Google Scholar
  13. Heim, I.: File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In: Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1983)Google Scholar
  14. Henkin, L.: Completeness in the theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 15, 81–91 (1950)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kamp, H.: A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T., Stokhof, M. (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam (1981)Google Scholar
  16. Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanazawa, M.: Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inference in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(2), 109–158 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lambek, J., Scott, P.: Introduction to Higher-Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge University Press (1986)Google Scholar
  19. Lewis, D.: Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, S., Pollard, C.: Hyperintensional dynamic semantics: Analyzing definiteness with enriched contexts. In: Proceedings of The 15th Conference on Formal Grammar. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science (in press) (to appear)Google Scholar
  21. Martin, S., Pollard, C.: A higher-order theory of presupposition. Studia Logica Special Issue on Logic and Natural Language (to appear)Google Scholar
  22. Montague, R.: The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka, K., Moravcsik, J., Suppes, P. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1973)Google Scholar
  23. Muskens, R.: Categorial grammar and discourse representation theory. In: Proceedings of COLING (1994)Google Scholar
  24. Muskens, R.: Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 143–186 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pollard, C.: Hyperintensional Questions. In: Hodges, W., de Queiroz, R. (eds.) WoLLIC 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5110, pp. 272–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollard, C.: Hyperintensions. Journal of Logic and Computation 18(2), 257–282 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roberts, C.: Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 683–721 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts, C.: Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(3), 287–350 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts, C.: Pronouns as definites. In: Reimer, M., Bezuidenhout, A. (eds.) Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford University Press (2004)Google Scholar
  30. Rooth, M.: Noun phrase interpretation in Montague grammar, file change semantics, and situation semantics. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Generalized Quantifiers. Reidel, Dordrecht (1987)Google Scholar
  31. van der Sandt, R.A.: Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stalnaker, R.: Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315–332 (1978)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations