Ronald K. S. Macaulay
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195173819
- eISBN:
- 9780199788361
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195173819.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Sociolinguistics / Anthropological Linguistics
This work is a sociolinguistic study employing quantitative methods to explore age, gender, and social class differences in the use of a range of discourse features. It is based on a gender-balanced ...
More
This work is a sociolinguistic study employing quantitative methods to explore age, gender, and social class differences in the use of a range of discourse features. It is based on a gender-balanced sample of middle-class and working-class adolescents and adults, recorded under the same conditions in Glasgow, Scotland. Unlike studies of phonetic or morphological variation, the study of discourse variation requires samples of talk in action with speakers interacting with one another. The speakers, who knew each other, were recorded talking in the presence of the tape-recorder for approximately half an hour without the investigator being present. The recordings were transcribed in their totality and the transcripts searched for the occurrence of features such as the use of pronouns, adverbs, you know, I mean, as well as grammatical features such as questions and passive voice. The frequencies of use of the variables by the different social groups (e.g., middle-class women, adolescent boys) were calibrated and the results compared. Differences between adults and adolescents provided the greatest number of statistically significant results, followed by differences between males and females. The smallest number of statistically significant differences were related to social class. Qualitative analysis, however, revealed important social class differences in discourse styles. The study shows the danger of generalizing about social class or gender on the basis of a limited sample of a few discourse features.Less
This work is a sociolinguistic study employing quantitative methods to explore age, gender, and social class differences in the use of a range of discourse features. It is based on a gender-balanced sample of middle-class and working-class adolescents and adults, recorded under the same conditions in Glasgow, Scotland. Unlike studies of phonetic or morphological variation, the study of discourse variation requires samples of talk in action with speakers interacting with one another. The speakers, who knew each other, were recorded talking in the presence of the tape-recorder for approximately half an hour without the investigator being present. The recordings were transcribed in their totality and the transcripts searched for the occurrence of features such as the use of pronouns, adverbs, you know, I mean, as well as grammatical features such as questions and passive voice. The frequencies of use of the variables by the different social groups (e.g., middle-class women, adolescent boys) were calibrated and the results compared. Differences between adults and adolescents provided the greatest number of statistically significant results, followed by differences between males and females. The smallest number of statistically significant differences were related to social class. Qualitative analysis, however, revealed important social class differences in discourse styles. The study shows the danger of generalizing about social class or gender on the basis of a limited sample of a few discourse features.
R. M. Sainsbury
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- July 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199241804
- eISBN:
- 9780191602696
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199241805.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
This book concerns the nature of reference, and the theory it develops is intermediate between direct reference theories and descriptivist theories. A guiding thought is that just as truth conditions ...
More
This book concerns the nature of reference, and the theory it develops is intermediate between direct reference theories and descriptivist theories. A guiding thought is that just as truth conditions (rather than truth values) can throw light on the meaning of sentences so can reference conditions (rather than referents) throw light on the meaning of referring expressions. A reference condition need not be a descriptive condition, and it need not be satisfied. The first of these points marks the divergence from descriptivist theories, and the second, from direct reference theories. This idea is applied to proper names, pronouns, and definite descriptions (singular, plural and mass); problems of existential and fictional sentences are addressed; and, in the final chapter, an analogue of the main idea is applied to mental content.Less
This book concerns the nature of reference, and the theory it develops is intermediate between direct reference theories and descriptivist theories. A guiding thought is that just as truth conditions (rather than truth values) can throw light on the meaning of sentences so can reference conditions (rather than referents) throw light on the meaning of referring expressions. A reference condition need not be a descriptive condition, and it need not be satisfied. The first of these points marks the divergence from descriptivist theories, and the second, from direct reference theories. This idea is applied to proper names, pronouns, and definite descriptions (singular, plural and mass); problems of existential and fictional sentences are addressed; and, in the final chapter, an analogue of the main idea is applied to mental content.
Thomas J. McKay
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199278145
- eISBN:
- 9780191707971
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278145.003.0010
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
This chapter focuses on the significance of the account of descriptions for the development of a theory of English pronouns, especially E-type pronouns. The uses of pronouns, pronouns as bound ...
More
This chapter focuses on the significance of the account of descriptions for the development of a theory of English pronouns, especially E-type pronouns. The uses of pronouns, pronouns as bound variables, and referential pronouns, and donkey sentences are discussed.Less
This chapter focuses on the significance of the account of descriptions for the development of a theory of English pronouns, especially E-type pronouns. The uses of pronouns, pronouns as bound variables, and referential pronouns, and donkey sentences are discussed.
Donna K. Byron, Sarah Brown-Schmidt, and Michael K. Tanenhaus
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780195331639
- eISBN:
- 9780199867981
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331639.003.0007
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics
This chapter explores pragmatic distinctions between personal pronouns such as ‘it’ and demonstrative pronouns such as ‘that’ in English. These two categories of pronoun are typically employed in ...
More
This chapter explores pragmatic distinctions between personal pronouns such as ‘it’ and demonstrative pronouns such as ‘that’ in English. These two categories of pronoun are typically employed in contexts that vary based on how attentionally prominent the pronoun's referent is; however, many authors have observed that they are occasionally used by speakers in contexts where the other pronoun would have been predicted. This chapter analyzes such cases using data from two studies, and concludes that the attentional salience is only one of a set of factors that comes into play when a speaker chooses which pronominal form to employ. Conceptual structures used by the addressee in interpretation can override the normal implication of salience signaled by the pronoun's category.Less
This chapter explores pragmatic distinctions between personal pronouns such as ‘it’ and demonstrative pronouns such as ‘that’ in English. These two categories of pronoun are typically employed in contexts that vary based on how attentionally prominent the pronoun's referent is; however, many authors have observed that they are occasionally used by speakers in contexts where the other pronoun would have been predicted. This chapter analyzes such cases using data from two studies, and concludes that the attentional salience is only one of a set of factors that comes into play when a speaker chooses which pronominal form to employ. Conceptual structures used by the addressee in interpretation can override the normal implication of salience signaled by the pronoun's category.
Maximilian de Gaynesford
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199287826
- eISBN:
- 9780191603570
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199287821.003.0011
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
I satisfies its expressive use in the deictic mode. It is the expressive use of any singular term to express thoughts. This requires that the speaker know the positive answer to ...
More
I satisfies its expressive use in the deictic mode. It is the expressive use of any singular term to express thoughts. This requires that the speaker know the positive answer to the question: ‘which individual is being spoken of?’, that is, the term must achieve discriminability of reference for the speaker. Deictic terms require salience if they are to achieve discriminability of reference for the speaker, i.e., it is as the individual made salient that one must identify the referent of a use of a deictic term. It is as the individual made salient that one must identify the referent of a use of I.Less
I satisfies its expressive use in the deictic mode. It is the expressive use of any singular term to express thoughts. This requires that the speaker know the positive answer to the question: ‘which individual is being spoken of?’, that is, the term must achieve discriminability of reference for the speaker. Deictic terms require salience if they are to achieve discriminability of reference for the speaker, i.e., it is as the individual made salient that one must identify the referent of a use of a deictic term. It is as the individual made salient that one must identify the referent of a use of I.
Maximilian de Gaynesford
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199287826
- eISBN:
- 9780191603570
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199287821.003.0012
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
I fulfils its communicative role in the deictic mode. It is the communicative role of any singular term to communicate thoughts. This requires that the audience know the ...
More
I fulfils its communicative role in the deictic mode. It is the communicative role of any singular term to communicate thoughts. This requires that the audience know the positive answer to the question: ‘which individual is being spoken of?’, that is, the term must achieve discriminability of reference for the audience. Deictic terms require salience if they are to achieve discriminability of reference for the audience, i.e., it is as the individual made salient that one must identify the referent of a use of a deictic term. It is as the individual made salient that one must identify the referent of a use of I.Less
I fulfils its communicative role in the deictic mode. It is the communicative role of any singular term to communicate thoughts. This requires that the audience know the positive answer to the question: ‘which individual is being spoken of?’, that is, the term must achieve discriminability of reference for the audience. Deictic terms require salience if they are to achieve discriminability of reference for the audience, i.e., it is as the individual made salient that one must identify the referent of a use of a deictic term. It is as the individual made salient that one must identify the referent of a use of I.
Maximilian de Gaynesford
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199287826
- eISBN:
- 9780191603570
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199287821.003.0013
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
I has the logical character, inferential role, referential function, expressive use, and communicative role of a deictic term. Uses of I share the referential security and ...
More
I has the logical character, inferential role, referential function, expressive use, and communicative role of a deictic term. Uses of I share the referential security and identificatory ease of certain uses of other deictic terms. I has a distinct character within the group due to kind salience, expressive demonstration, communicative demonstration, and certain other features. These findings show that the whole standard account of indexicals and demonstratives, due to Kaplan, rests on two false principles and must be replaced. More positively, these findings offer new ways to explore first-personal thinking and self-knowledge, together with broader questions dependent on them such as practical reasoning, belief-acquisition, and belief-ascription.Less
I has the logical character, inferential role, referential function, expressive use, and communicative role of a deictic term. Uses of I share the referential security and identificatory ease of certain uses of other deictic terms. I has a distinct character within the group due to kind salience, expressive demonstration, communicative demonstration, and certain other features. These findings show that the whole standard account of indexicals and demonstratives, due to Kaplan, rests on two false principles and must be replaced. More positively, these findings offer new ways to explore first-personal thinking and self-knowledge, together with broader questions dependent on them such as practical reasoning, belief-acquisition, and belief-ascription.
Maximilian de Gaynesford
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199287826
- eISBN:
- 9780191603570
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199287821.003.0007
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
The logical character of I is obligatorily deictic. Some variant devices have obligatory anaphoric reference, some are free, and some again have obligatory deictic reference. It is by singling out ...
More
The logical character of I is obligatorily deictic. Some variant devices have obligatory anaphoric reference, some are free, and some again have obligatory deictic reference. It is by singling out individuals made salient in the extra-sentential context that uses of this third sort refer. Substitution instances reveal and matching constraints confirm that each use of I (together with singular You) must fall into this third category.Less
The logical character of I is obligatorily deictic. Some variant devices have obligatory anaphoric reference, some are free, and some again have obligatory deictic reference. It is by singling out individuals made salient in the extra-sentential context that uses of this third sort refer. Substitution instances reveal and matching constraints confirm that each use of I (together with singular You) must fall into this third category.
Maximilian de Gaynesford
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199287826
- eISBN:
- 9780191603570
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199287821.003.0008
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
The inferential role of I is irreducibly deictic. The inferential roles of singular terms are distinguished by appeal to the different mechanisms required to guarantee co-reference in a ...
More
The inferential role of I is irreducibly deictic. The inferential roles of singular terms are distinguished by appeal to the different mechanisms required to guarantee co-reference in a knowledge-advancing way. Co-typicality is insufficient for variant terms. Anaphoric structures are insufficient for I and other terms used deictically; they depend on identity-judgements and keeping track. The inferential role of I and other deictic terms is irreducibly deictic: it is by singling out individuals made salient in the extra-sentential environment that their uses contribute systematically to what entails what.Less
The inferential role of I is irreducibly deictic. The inferential roles of singular terms are distinguished by appeal to the different mechanisms required to guarantee co-reference in a knowledge-advancing way. Co-typicality is insufficient for variant terms. Anaphoric structures are insufficient for I and other terms used deictically; they depend on identity-judgements and keeping track. The inferential role of I and other deictic terms is irreducibly deictic: it is by singling out individuals made salient in the extra-sentential environment that their uses contribute systematically to what entails what.
Maximilian de Gaynesford
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199287826
- eISBN:
- 9780191603570
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199287821.003.0009
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
The referential function of any singular term is to provide a positive answer to the question: ‘which individual is being spoken of?’, that is, to achieve determinacy of reference. What enables a ...
More
The referential function of any singular term is to provide a positive answer to the question: ‘which individual is being spoken of?’, that is, to achieve determinacy of reference. What enables a singular term to carry out this function is the ‘determinant’ of the term. Demonstration is not the determinant of deictic terms because they can fulfil their referential function by appeal to utterance-relative uniqueness, or by leading candidacy given the surrounding discourse or perceptual environment.Less
The referential function of any singular term is to provide a positive answer to the question: ‘which individual is being spoken of?’, that is, to achieve determinacy of reference. What enables a singular term to carry out this function is the ‘determinant’ of the term. Demonstration is not the determinant of deictic terms because they can fulfil their referential function by appeal to utterance-relative uniqueness, or by leading candidacy given the surrounding discourse or perceptual environment.
D.N.S. BHAT
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199230242
- eISBN:
- 9780191710124
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230242.003.0012
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics
This chapter provides a summary of the major conclusions of the book, namely (i) using the distinction between personal pronouns and proforms for providing a satisfactory definition for the words ...
More
This chapter provides a summary of the major conclusions of the book, namely (i) using the distinction between personal pronouns and proforms for providing a satisfactory definition for the words that are traditionally included under the category of ‘pronouns’; (ii) establishing a distinction between plurality and conjunction in order to account for some of the idiosyncratic characteristics of non-singular personal pronouns; (iii) using a distinction between semantic and pragmatic identifications for resolving certain problems concerning definiteness and referentiality; and (iv) resolving the puzzle concerning the affinity between indefinite, interrogative, and relative proforms by regarding constituent questions of many languages as not containing an interrogative proform.Less
This chapter provides a summary of the major conclusions of the book, namely (i) using the distinction between personal pronouns and proforms for providing a satisfactory definition for the words that are traditionally included under the category of ‘pronouns’; (ii) establishing a distinction between plurality and conjunction in order to account for some of the idiosyncratic characteristics of non-singular personal pronouns; (iii) using a distinction between semantic and pragmatic identifications for resolving certain problems concerning definiteness and referentiality; and (iv) resolving the puzzle concerning the affinity between indefinite, interrogative, and relative proforms by regarding constituent questions of many languages as not containing an interrogative proform.
Johan Rooryck and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199691326
- eISBN:
- 9780191731785
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691326.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Theoretical Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This book adopts the strong Minimalist thesis that grammar contains no rules or principles specifically designed to account for anaphors and pronouns. Lexically, anaphors have unvalued φ-features, ...
More
This book adopts the strong Minimalist thesis that grammar contains no rules or principles specifically designed to account for anaphors and pronouns. Lexically, anaphors have unvalued φ-features, which need to be valued under Agree. This leads to the novel assumption that anaphors c-command their antecedents. This idea underlies the analysis of both simplex and complex reflexives. Simplex reflexives are merged in a configuration of inalienable possession, with the simplex reflexive c-commanding its antecedent inside a possessive small clause. Self-reflexives share the syntax of self-intensifiers and floating quantifiers, raising to a vP-adjoined position to c-command their antecedents. In contrast to anaphors, pronouns have lexically valued φ-features. Postsyntactic lexical insertion accounts for absence of Principle B effects observed in many languages. The behaviour of pronouns and self-forms in snake-sentences is related to the nature of the Axpart projection of the locative preposition. Semantically, the difference between simplex and complex reflexives derives from the way they refer to spatiotemporal stages of their antecedents.Less
This book adopts the strong Minimalist thesis that grammar contains no rules or principles specifically designed to account for anaphors and pronouns. Lexically, anaphors have unvalued φ-features, which need to be valued under Agree. This leads to the novel assumption that anaphors c-command their antecedents. This idea underlies the analysis of both simplex and complex reflexives. Simplex reflexives are merged in a configuration of inalienable possession, with the simplex reflexive c-commanding its antecedent inside a possessive small clause. Self-reflexives share the syntax of self-intensifiers and floating quantifiers, raising to a vP-adjoined position to c-command their antecedents. In contrast to anaphors, pronouns have lexically valued φ-features. Postsyntactic lexical insertion accounts for absence of Principle B effects observed in many languages. The behaviour of pronouns and self-forms in snake-sentences is related to the nature of the Axpart projection of the locative preposition. Semantically, the difference between simplex and complex reflexives derives from the way they refer to spatiotemporal stages of their antecedents.
Bettelou Los
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199274765
- eISBN:
- 9780191705885
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.003.0010
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Historical Linguistics
This chapter presents an account of an unexpected victim of both the rise of the to-infinitive and the loss of verb-second: the ‘ultra-indefinite’ pronoun man. Two factors almost completely destroyed ...
More
This chapter presents an account of an unexpected victim of both the rise of the to-infinitive and the loss of verb-second: the ‘ultra-indefinite’ pronoun man. Two factors almost completely destroyed the niche occupied by man in Old English. With to-infinitive clauses increasing at the expense of finite embedded clauses, the frequency of man, as the subject of those finite clauses also decreases, its function taken over by its non-overt counterpart, arbitrary PRO. The second factor is the loss of verb-second, which affected the information structure of the clause and promoted the use of various passive constructions over the use of an active construction with a man subject. Subjects came to play a far more prominent role in maintaining textual cohesion. This left little scope for the indefinite pronoun man, whose main role had been to provide a contentless subject, functionally equivalent to a passive.Less
This chapter presents an account of an unexpected victim of both the rise of the to-infinitive and the loss of verb-second: the ‘ultra-indefinite’ pronoun man. Two factors almost completely destroyed the niche occupied by man in Old English. With to-infinitive clauses increasing at the expense of finite embedded clauses, the frequency of man, as the subject of those finite clauses also decreases, its function taken over by its non-overt counterpart, arbitrary PRO. The second factor is the loss of verb-second, which affected the information structure of the clause and promoted the use of various passive constructions over the use of an active construction with a man subject. Subjects came to play a far more prominent role in maintaining textual cohesion. This left little scope for the indefinite pronoun man, whose main role had been to provide a contentless subject, functionally equivalent to a passive.
Ronald K. S. Macaulay
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195173819
- eISBN:
- 9780199788361
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195173819.003.0011
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Sociolinguistics / Anthropological Linguistics
There are no social class differences in the use of the definite and indefinite articles, but they are used significantly more frequently by males. The articles are used much less frequently by the ...
More
There are no social class differences in the use of the definite and indefinite articles, but they are used significantly more frequently by males. The articles are used much less frequently by the adolescents. The adolescents, however, use personal pronouns significantly more often than the adults. Females use pronouns much more frequently than males, particularly the pronoun she. The middle-class speakers use WH-relative pronouns much more frequently than the working-class speakers. Females also have a much higher frequency of reference to named persons, while males are more likely to name places.Less
There are no social class differences in the use of the definite and indefinite articles, but they are used significantly more frequently by males. The articles are used much less frequently by the adolescents. The adolescents, however, use personal pronouns significantly more often than the adults. Females use pronouns much more frequently than males, particularly the pronoun she. The middle-class speakers use WH-relative pronouns much more frequently than the working-class speakers. Females also have a much higher frequency of reference to named persons, while males are more likely to name places.
Steven Sloman
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195183115
- eISBN:
- 9780199870950
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183115.003.0011
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind
This chapter discusses how we use aspects of language. It shows that we use causal models to produce and understand speech even when we have no idea that we are doing so. Two aspects of language are ...
More
This chapter discusses how we use aspects of language. It shows that we use causal models to produce and understand speech even when we have no idea that we are doing so. Two aspects of language are considered that illustrate this usage: what pronouns refer to and the meaning of conjunctions like and if. The meaning of if is especially complicated, and the details of the causal model framework are particularly helpful for understanding it.Less
This chapter discusses how we use aspects of language. It shows that we use causal models to produce and understand speech even when we have no idea that we are doing so. Two aspects of language are considered that illustrate this usage: what pronouns refer to and the meaning of conjunctions like and if. The meaning of if is especially complicated, and the details of the causal model framework are particularly helpful for understanding it.
Nathan Salmon
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199284726
- eISBN:
- 9780191713774
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199284726.003.0002
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
This chapter investigates three related philosophical puzzles: (1) the Richard-Soames problem: If someone believes that Hesperus outweighs Phosphorus, why does he/she not infer that there is ...
More
This chapter investigates three related philosophical puzzles: (1) the Richard-Soames problem: If someone believes that Hesperus outweighs Phosphorus, why does he/she not infer that there is something x such that x outweighs x; (2) the puzzle of reflexives in attitude attributions: If someone believes that Hesperus outweighs Phosphorus, why does he/she not also believe that Hesperus outweighs itself; and (3) Church's paradoxical proof that for every x and y, if someone believes that x and y are distinct, then they are. Solutions compatible with Millianism are proposed.Less
This chapter investigates three related philosophical puzzles: (1) the Richard-Soames problem: If someone believes that Hesperus outweighs Phosphorus, why does he/she not infer that there is something x such that x outweighs x; (2) the puzzle of reflexives in attitude attributions: If someone believes that Hesperus outweighs Phosphorus, why does he/she not also believe that Hesperus outweighs itself; and (3) Church's paradoxical proof that for every x and y, if someone believes that x and y are distinct, then they are. Solutions compatible with Millianism are proposed.
Nathan Salmon
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199284726
- eISBN:
- 9780191713774
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199284726.003.0003
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
In this sequel to the previous chapter's essay, competing accounts of reflexive pronouns (e.g., ‘himself’) are considered and contrasted. The theory that reflexive-pronoun occurrences are typically ...
More
In this sequel to the previous chapter's essay, competing accounts of reflexive pronouns (e.g., ‘himself’) are considered and contrasted. The theory that reflexive-pronoun occurrences are typically bound variables is defended as the most likely of the accounts considered.Less
In this sequel to the previous chapter's essay, competing accounts of reflexive pronouns (e.g., ‘himself’) are considered and contrasted. The theory that reflexive-pronoun occurrences are typically bound variables is defended as the most likely of the accounts considered.
Johan Rooryck and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199691326
- eISBN:
- 9780191731785
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691326.003.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Theoretical Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This introductory chapter presents the main thesis adopted in this book: there are no grammatical rules that are specifically designed to account for the distribution of anaphors and pronouns in the ...
More
This introductory chapter presents the main thesis adopted in this book: there are no grammatical rules that are specifically designed to account for the distribution of anaphors and pronouns in the grammar. Instead, the syntax of simplex and complex reflexives are related to that of constructions that share morphological and distributional properties with them. Anaphoricity is derived by the syntactic mechanism of Agree. This chapter also contains an outline of the rest of the chapters, which serves as a roadmap for the book.Less
This introductory chapter presents the main thesis adopted in this book: there are no grammatical rules that are specifically designed to account for the distribution of anaphors and pronouns in the grammar. Instead, the syntax of simplex and complex reflexives are related to that of constructions that share morphological and distributional properties with them. Anaphoricity is derived by the syntactic mechanism of Agree. This chapter also contains an outline of the rest of the chapters, which serves as a roadmap for the book.
Johan Rooryck and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199691326
- eISBN:
- 9780191731785
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691326.003.0008
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Theoretical Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This chapter wraps up the main results of the book. These are as follows. Absence of Principle B effects can be elegantly accounted for in terms of Distributed Morphology. Simplex reflexives are ...
More
This chapter wraps up the main results of the book. These are as follows. Absence of Principle B effects can be elegantly accounted for in terms of Distributed Morphology. Simplex reflexives are merged in a configuration of inalienable possession under unaccusative syntax, and their binding properties are derived by Agree. Self-reflexives share the syntax of floating quantifiers, raising to an adjoined position from which they probe their antecedent under Agree. Simplex and complex reflexives in PPs behave differently, depending on the adjunction site of the PP. French, Italian, German, and Swedish se reflexives are morphologically complex, and can figure in both the configurations of simplex zich and complex zichzelf in Dutch. The simple reflexive zich represents a spatiotemporal stage of its antecedent, thus disallowing dissociation readings that are available for the complex self-reflexive. The apparent lack of complementarity between pronoun and self-form in snake-sentences is related to the double-faced syntactic behavior of the Axpart projection of the locative preposition.Less
This chapter wraps up the main results of the book. These are as follows. Absence of Principle B effects can be elegantly accounted for in terms of Distributed Morphology. Simplex reflexives are merged in a configuration of inalienable possession under unaccusative syntax, and their binding properties are derived by Agree. Self-reflexives share the syntax of floating quantifiers, raising to an adjoined position from which they probe their antecedent under Agree. Simplex and complex reflexives in PPs behave differently, depending on the adjunction site of the PP. French, Italian, German, and Swedish se reflexives are morphologically complex, and can figure in both the configurations of simplex zich and complex zichzelf in Dutch. The simple reflexive zich represents a spatiotemporal stage of its antecedent, thus disallowing dissociation readings that are available for the complex self-reflexive. The apparent lack of complementarity between pronoun and self-form in snake-sentences is related to the double-faced syntactic behavior of the Axpart projection of the locative preposition.
Jeanette Gundel and Nancy Hedberg
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780195331639
- eISBN:
- 9780199867981
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331639.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics
The ability to produce and understand referring expressions is basic to human language use and human cognition. Reference comprises the ability to think of and represent objects (both real and ...
More
The ability to produce and understand referring expressions is basic to human language use and human cognition. Reference comprises the ability to think of and represent objects (both real and imagined/fictional), to indicate to others which of these objects we are talking about, and to determine what others are talking about when they use a nominal expression. The articles in this volume are concerned with some of the central themes and challenges in research on reference within the cognitive sciences—philosophy (including philosophy of language and mind, logic, and formal semantics), theoretical and computational linguistics, and cognitive psychology. The papers in the volume address four basic questions: What is reference? What is the appropriate analysis of different referring forms, such as definite descriptions? How is reference resolved? and How do speaker/writers select appropriate referring forms, such as pronouns vs. full noun phrases, demonstrative vs. personal pronouns, and overt vs. null/zero pronominal forms? Some of the papers assume and build on existing theories, such as Centering Theory and the Givenness Hierarchy framework; others propose their own models of reference understanding and/or production. The articles examine reference from a number of disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives, informed by different research traditions and employing different methodologies. While the contributors to the volume were primarily trained in one of the four represented disciplines—computer science, linguistics, philosophy and psychology, and use methodologies typical of that discipline — each of them bridges more than one discipline in their work and their approach.Less
The ability to produce and understand referring expressions is basic to human language use and human cognition. Reference comprises the ability to think of and represent objects (both real and imagined/fictional), to indicate to others which of these objects we are talking about, and to determine what others are talking about when they use a nominal expression. The articles in this volume are concerned with some of the central themes and challenges in research on reference within the cognitive sciences—philosophy (including philosophy of language and mind, logic, and formal semantics), theoretical and computational linguistics, and cognitive psychology. The papers in the volume address four basic questions: What is reference? What is the appropriate analysis of different referring forms, such as definite descriptions? How is reference resolved? and How do speaker/writers select appropriate referring forms, such as pronouns vs. full noun phrases, demonstrative vs. personal pronouns, and overt vs. null/zero pronominal forms? Some of the papers assume and build on existing theories, such as Centering Theory and the Givenness Hierarchy framework; others propose their own models of reference understanding and/or production. The articles examine reference from a number of disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives, informed by different research traditions and employing different methodologies. While the contributors to the volume were primarily trained in one of the four represented disciplines—computer science, linguistics, philosophy and psychology, and use methodologies typical of that discipline — each of them bridges more than one discipline in their work and their approach.
