Abstract
Traditionally, pronouns are treated as ambiguous between bound and demonstrative uses. Bound uses are non-referential and function as bound variables, and demonstrative uses are referential and take as a semantic value their referent, an object picked out jointly by linguistic meaning and a further cue—an accompanying demonstration, an appropriate and adequately transparent speaker’s intention, or both. In this paper, we challenge tradition and argue that both demonstrative and bound pronouns are dependent on, and co-vary with, antecedent expressions. Moreover, the semantic value of a pronoun is never determined, even partly, by extra-linguistic cues; it is fixed, invariably and unambiguously, by features of its context of use governed entirely by linguistic rules. We exploit the mechanisms of Centering and Coherence theories to develop a precise and general meta-semantics for pronouns, according to which the semantic value of a pronoun is determined by what is at the center of attention in a coherent discourse. Since the notions of attention and coherence are, we argue, governed by linguistic rules, we can give a uniform analysis of pronoun resolution that covers bound, demonstrative, and even discourse bound (“E-type”) readings. Just as the semantic value of the first-person pronoun ‘I’ is conventionally set by a particular feature of its context of use—namely, the speaker—so too, we will argue, the semantic values of other pronouns, including ‘he’, are conventionally set by particular features of the context of use.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alahverdzhieva, K., & Lascarides, A. (2011). An HPSG approach to synchronous deixis and speech. In S. Muller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th international conference on head-driven phase structure grammar (HPSG) (pp. 6–24). Seattle: USA.
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bittner, M. (2007). Aspectual universals of temporal anaphora. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Chap. 11, pp 349–385. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bittner, M. (2014). Temporality: Universals and variation. New York: Wiley.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Holland: Foris Publications (Reprint: 7th Edition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993).
Cohen, S. (1998). Contextualist solutions to epistemological problems: Scepticism, Gettier, and the Lottery. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 76, 289–306.
Dekker, P. (2011). Dynamic semantics. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 923–945). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Dowell, J. L. (2011). Flexible Contextualist Account of Epistmeic Modals. Philosopers’ Imprint, 11, 1–25.
Elbourne, P. (2008). Implicit content and the argument from binding. Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XVIII (SALT 18) (pp. 284–301). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Fiengo, R., & May, R. (1994). Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fiengo, R., & May, R. (2006). De Lingua Belief. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts
Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Congitive. Science, 3, 67–90.
Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Literature and cognition. CSLI lecture notes 21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kaiser, E. (2009). Effects of anaphoric dependencies and semantic representations on pronoun interpretation. In I. Hendrickx, A. Branco, S. Lalitha Devi & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing and applications, Proceedings of 7th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC 2009 (pp. 121–130). Heidelberg: Springer.
Kameyama, M. (1996). Indefeasible semantics and defeasible pragmatics. In M. Kanazawa, C. Pinon & H. de Swart (Eds.), Quantifiers, deduction and context (pp. 111–138). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam.
Kaplan, D. (1989a). Afterthoughts. In J. Almong, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 565–614). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, D. (1989b). Demonstratives. In J. Almong, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
King, J. C. (2014a). The metasemantics of contextual sensitivity. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), Metasemantics: New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning (pp. 97–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
King, J. C. (2014b). Speaker intentions in context. Noûs, 48, 219–237.
King, J. C., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics and the role of semantic content. In Z. G. Szabó (ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics, (pp. 111–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knott, A. (1996). A data driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.
Kripke, S. A. (1977). Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. In P. A. French, T. E. Uehling Jr & H. K. Wettstein (Eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of language (pp. 255–296). University of Minnesota Press.
Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.
Michaelson, E. (2013). This and that: A theory of reference for names, demonstratives, and things in between. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA
Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14, 15–28.
Neale, S. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Neale, S. (2004). This, that and the other. In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond (pp. 68–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perry, J. (1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13, 3–21.
Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reimer, M. (1992). Three views of demonstrative reference. Synthese, 93, 373–402.
Roberts, C. (2002). Demonstratives as definites. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (Eds.), Information sharing: Reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation (pp. 87–137). Stanford: CSLI Press.
Schiffer, S. (1981). Indexicals and the theory of reference. Synthese, 49(1), 43–100.
Sidner, C. (1983). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In M. Brady & R. C. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse (pp. 267–330). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Smyth, R. (1994). Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 197–229.
Stojnić, U. (2016). Context-sensitivity in a coherent discourse. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers Universtiy.
Stojnić, U. (forthcoming). Discourse, context and coherence: The grammar of prominence. In G. Preyer (Ed.), Beyond semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stojnić, U., Stone, M., & Lepore, E. (2013). Deixis (even without pointing). Philosophical Perspectives, 27, 502–525.
Stojnić U., Stone, M., & Lepore, E. (forthcoming). Distinguishing ambiguity from underspecification. In K. Turner, & L. Horn (Eds.), Pragmatics, Truth and Underspecification: Towards an Atlas of Meaning, Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface - CRiSPI. Leiden: Brill.
Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59, 320–344.
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89, 66–109.
Walker, M. A., Masayo, I., & Cote, S. (1994). Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics, 20, 193–232.
Webber, B. L. (1988). Tense and discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14, 61–73.
Webber, B. L., Stone, M., Joshi, A., & Knott, A. (2003). Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 29, 545–587.
Wilkins, D. (2003). Why pointing with the index finger is not a universal (in Sociocultural and Semiotic Terms). In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 171–215). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. London: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stojnić, U., Stone, M. & Lepore, E. Discourse and logical form: pronouns, attention and coherence. Linguist and Philos 40, 519–547 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9207-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9207-x