Complement Anaphora and Dynamic Binding

Kibble, Rodger

doi:10.3765/salt.v7i0.2783

Cited by 29 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Crucially, this descriptive generalization is shared by all existing proposals (Corblin 1996, Kibble 1997, Nouwen 2003, Kotek 2008 Nouwen (2003) notes that it cannot refer exclusively to properties of the actual quantificational elements, i. e. the (modified) determiners, but must make reference to the entire DP. 4 In particular, he points out that while CA in (3d) above is not licensed, it is possible in (6a), albeit the modified quantificational determiner is identical -and non-proportional -in both cases.…”

Section: Tying Ca To the Logical Properties Of The Quantifiermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As noted in Moxey & Sanford 1993;Sanford et al 1994;Kibble 1997;Nouwen 2003 a. o., it is by no means random which choice speakers make in a particular context. CA in particular is clearly restricted: Whereas it is possible in (1c), it is blocked in (2), which has a strong contradictory flavor.…”

Section: The Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moxey & Sanford 1993;Sanford et al 1994;Corblin 1996;Kibble 1997;Nouwen 2003;Kotek 2008), irrespective of their individual differences, answer this question by appealing to the logical properties of the quantifier. Broadly speaking, what sets (1c) and (2) apart according to this view is that while 'very few' in (1c) is right-downward-monotone (i. e. licenses superset-to-subset inferences in its nuclear scope), 'most' in (2) isn't.…”

Section: The Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Glossing over the differences in their actual proposals, Kibble (1997) and Nouwen (2003) (based on previous discussion in Moxey & Sanford 1993;Sanford et al 1994) come up with the descriptive generalization in (4) -with the relevant notions of downward-monotonicity and proportionaliy given in (5a) and (5b) respectively. (For the sake of simplicity, a quantifier (an object in D at t ), is called 'proportional' if it is the result of applying a proportional function to an element from D at .)…”

Section: Tying Ca To the Logical Properties Of The Quantifiermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kibble 1997 andNouwen 2003 assume that all instances of CA pick out the CompSet. I. e. the antecedent for 'they' in (3a), repeated in (10), is the set of all MPs that did not attend the meeting (cf.…”

Section: Ca and Compset Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Restrictions on complement anaphora

Schmitt

Onea

Buch

2017

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the semantic status and the restrictions on complement anaphora, i. e. pronouns that are anaphorically related to quantifiers and seem to refer to the 'complement set' of the latter -the set of those individuals that are in the restrictor but not in the nuclear scope of the quantifier. Our main empirical point, motivated by data from German, is that contrary to the claims in the literature, true complement set reference is not exclusively determined by the logical properties of the quantifier but also by its the syntactic context. Based on this observation, we argue that plural quantifiers provide anaphoric antecendents by a particular inference mechanism, which is sensitive to syntactic information: We submit that speakers employ verifying strategies for sentences with plural quantifiers where a 'test' discourse referent is inserted in the 'syntactic slot' the plural quantifier originally occurs in. If a discourse referent, when inserted in this slot, yields truth-conditions for the resulting sentence that are equivalent to those of the original sentence, it can be used as an antecendent for anaphora.

show abstract

Section: Tying Ca To the Logical Properties Of The Quantifiermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tying Ca To the Logical Properties Of The Quantifiermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ca and Compset Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Restrictions on complement anaphora

Schmitt

Onea

Buch

2017

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Denials as Controllers of Negative Quantifier Focus

Moxey

Sanford

Dawydiak

2001

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complement Anaphora in Spanish: Proportional References and Discourse Relations

Hernández

2017

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although still disputed by some authors, complement anaphora interpretations are widely accepted today. However, they are marked and subject to strict interpretation conditions. Most commonly, monotone decreasing quantifiers facilitate a salient complement set interpretation that is suitable for subsequent anaphoric reference, whereas monotone increasing quantifiers appear to block such interpretation. In this paper, I investigate the possibilities of anaphoric reference to complement sets in Spanish quantified expressions of type QUANTIFIER(A)(B) and argue that Spanish aligns with the general pattern observed cross-linguistically according to which anaphoric reference to the reference set (refset) is default regardless of monotonicity type, and that anaphoric reference to the complement set (compset) is only possible with monotone decreasing quantifiers. My claim is that the observed discrepancy can be explained in terms of the different proportions denoted by the quantifiers, and propose an explanation based on discourse relations. My approach provides additional cross-linguistic evidence in favor of the general observed pattern, and a promising path for future investigation into the refset/compset divide.

show abstract

Complement Anaphora and Dynamic Binding

Abstract: No abstract.

Cited by 29 publications

References 4 publications

Restrictions on complement anaphora

Restrictions on complement anaphora

Denials as Controllers of Negative Quantifier Focus

Complement Anaphora in Spanish: Proportional References and Discourse Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About