28.4457, Diss: Pragmatics; Semantics; Syntax: Todd N. Snider: ''Anaphoric Reference to Propositions''

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4457. Thu Oct 26 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.4457, Diss: Pragmatics; Semantics; Syntax: Todd N. Snider: ''Anaphoric Reference to Propositions''

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sarah Robinson <srobinson at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:47:40
From: Todd Snider [todd.snider at gmail.com]
Subject: Anaphoric Reference to Propositions

 
Institution: Cornell University 
Program: Department of Linguistics 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2017 

Author: Todd N Snider

Dissertation Title: Anaphoric Reference to Propositions 

Linguistic Field(s): Pragmatics
                     Semantics
                     Syntax


Dissertation Director(s):
John B Whitman
Sarah E Murray
Mats Rooth
Will B Starr

Dissertation Abstract:

Just as pronouns like she and he make anaphoric reference to individuals,
English words like that and so can be used to refer anaphorically to a
proposition introduced in a discourse: That’s true; She told me so. Much has
been written about individual anaphora, but less attention has been paid to
propositional anaphora. This dissertation is a comprehensive examination of
propositional anaphora, which I argue behaves like anaphora
in other domains, is conditioned by semantic factors, and is not conditioned
by purely syntactic factors nor by the at-issue status of a proposition.

I begin by introducing the concepts of anaphora and propositions, and then I
discuss the various words of English which can have this function: this, that,
it, which, so, as, and the null complement anaphor. I then compare anaphora to
propositions with anaphora in other domains, including individual, temporal,
and modal anaphora. I show that the same features which are characteristic of
these other domains are exhibited by propositional anaphora as well.

I then present data on a wide variety of syntactic constructions—including
subclausal, monoclausal, multiclausal, and multisentential
constructions—noting which license anaphoric reference to propositions. On the
basis of this expanded empirical domain, I argue that anaphoric reference to a
proposition is licensed not by any syntactic category or movement but rather
by the operators which take propositions as arguments.

With this generalization in hand, I turn to how such facts can be formally
modeled: I review existing systems which track anaphora and/or which make use
of propositional variables, and then introduce a new formalism which
incorporates insights from these existing systems.

Finally, I turn to the interaction between a proposition’s availability for
anaphoric reference and its discourse status (in particular, its at-issue
status). Contrary to the prevailing assumption in the literature, I argue that
there is no tight linking between these two properties, and that one of the
tests frequently used to diagnose at-issueness in fact diagnoses only
anaphoric availability. I argue that propositional anaphora and at-issueness
are distinct, showing that at-issueness is neither necessary nor sufficient to
determine a proposition’s anaphoric potential.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4457	
----------------------------------------------------------