Abstract: "This thesis is concerned with the formal semantic analysis of discourse and anaphora. A formal model-theoretic semantic framework, Graph-Theoretic Semantics (GTS), is developed covering simple extensional English discourse involving singular and plural noun phrase anaphora. In opposition to previous theories of discourse anaphora, (such as Kamp's DRT or Groenendijk and Stokhof's DPL) anaphoric antecedent information is stored and manipulated within the denotational space. Graph-theoretic denotations are utilized for this purpose. Graph vertices describe individuals identified by the interpretation of a discourse. Graph edges describe constraints amongst the individuals described by the graph vertices. The GTS framework treats these denotation graphs as constraint networks in order to correctly handle the various anaphor- antecedent relations that have been proposed within the literature. The framework is best viewed as a theory of anaphoric analysis. That is, the framework determines how, in certain discourses, appropriate information for anaphoric reference can be derived and, given particular references, how appropriate interpretations can be provided. The framework does not impose a particular set of constraints on anaphoric reference. However, it does provide through the representational and denotational domains the means for providing appropriate constraints on anaphoric reference to allow for the development of particular theories of anaphoric reference. Some example theories of anaphoric reference are provided. As well as providing a formally precise semantic framework, attention has been paid to theoretical and practical computational issues. The semantic representation is described with unification feature-structures, providing a flexible, powerful and extensible representational foundation for the semantic interpretation. The construction of appropriate semantic representations from an example grammar is illustrated within the PATR unification grammar formalism. The denotational description of language as graphs which are treated as constraint networks allows the extensive research into the efficient solution of constraint satisfaction problems to be utilized. An implementation of the framework is provided."

In The Dynamics of Meaning, Gennaro Chierchia tackles central issues in dynamic semantics and extends the general framework. Chapter 1 introduces the notion of dynamic semantics and discusses in detail the phenomena that have been used to motivate it, such as "donkey" sentences and adverbs of quantification. The second chapter explores in greater depth the interpretation of indefinites and issues related to presuppositions of uniqueness and the "E-type strategy." In Chapter 3, Chierchia extends the dynamic approach to the domain of syntactic theory, considering a range of empirical problems that includes backwards anaphora, reconstruction effects, and weak crossover. The final chapter develops the formal system of dynamic semantics to deal with central issues of definites and presupposition. Chierchia shows that an approach based on a principled enrichment of the mechanisms dealing with meaning is to be preferred on empirical grounds over approaches that depend on an enrichment of the syntactic apparatus. Dynamics of Meaning illustrates how seemingly abstract stances on the nature of meaning can have significant and far-reaching linguistic consequences, leading to the detection of new facts and influencing our understanding of the syntax/semantics/pragmatics interface.

I n order to appreciate properly what we are doing in this book it is necessary to realize that our approach to linguistic theorizing differs from the prevailing views. Our approach can be described by indicating what distinguishes it from the methodological ideas current in theoretical linguistics, which I consider seriously misguided. Linguists typically construe their task in these days as that of making exceptionless generalizations from particular examples. This explanatory strategy is wrong in several different ways. It presupposes that we can have "intuitions" about particular examples, usually examples invented by the linguist himself or herself, reliable and sharp enough to serve as a basis of sharp generalizations. It also presupposes that we cannot have equally reliable direct access to general linguistic regularities. Both assumptions appear to me extremely dubious, and the first of them has in effect been challenged by linguists like Dwight Bol inger. There is also some evidence that the degree of unanimity among linguists is fairly low when it comes to less clear cases, even in connection with such relatively simple questions as grammaticality (acceptability). For this reason we have tried to rely more on quotations from contemporary fiction, newspapers and magazines than on linguists' and philosophers' ad hoc examples. I also find it strange that some of the same linguists as believe that we all possess innate ideas about general characteristics of humanly possible grammars assume that we can have access to them only via their particular consequences.

"This was a different man," said Mr Welbecker. "Listen! This man was called Hamlet and his uncle had killed his father because he wanted to marry his mother.""What did he want to marry his mother for?" said William. "I've never heard of anyone wanting to marry their mother."*In almost any conversation the meaning of what is said depends on the listener seeing how some words refer to what has already been said, and that others must be related to the characteristics of time, place, or person of the situation around which the conversation revolves. These modes ofreference, anaphora and deixis respectively, involve surprisingly complicated cognitive and syntactic processes, which people (normally) perform easily and unerringly. But they present formidable problems for the linguist and cognitive scientist trying to explain precisely how comprehension isachieved. Anaphora and deixis are thus a central research focus in syntactic theory, while understanding and modelling their operation in discourse are important targets in computational linguistics and cognitive science. In this ambitious work, Francis Cornish sets out an original theory ofanaphora and deixis, and proposes a new and elegant theoretical model to represent the transfer of meaning in discourse.Dr Cornish considers anaphoric reference in discourse from both psychological and linguistic perspectives. He argues that anaphora and deixis are essentially parts of integrative discourse procedures that facilitate the linking of representations held in working memory. He brings together work bylinguists, formal semanticists, psychologists, and researchers in artificial intelligence, as well as drawing on his own extensive experimental work on a variety of corpora of different genres in French and English.Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding will interest researchers and advanced students in a variety of fields within and outside linguistics, including cognitive science, artificial intelligence, syntactic theory, formal semantics, and the analysis of discourse.[* from William - The Pirate by Richmal Crompton, London, Macmillan, 1932]

This volume contains a careful selection of papers concerned with actual research questions on anaphoric reference, a subject of current interest with various linguistic subdisciplines. This is reflected in this book as it methodically covers broadly invested approaches from cognitive, neurolinguistic, formal and computational perspectives, each contribution representing the respective 'state of the art' on a high theoretical and empirical level. The volume contains three thematic parts: Anaphors in Cognitive, Text- and Discourse Linguistics; The Syntax and Semantics of Anaphors; and Neurolinguistic Studies on the reception of anaphoric reference. The contributions investigate several Indo-European languages.

The notions of reference and anaphoric relations have been discussed since antiquity and they are still one of the most challenging subjects in linguistics, logics and philosophy of language. The quest for a satisfying account of anaphoric reference has initiated a wide range of new and interesting approaches in formal semantics; and recent research confirms the old insight that reference and anaphoricity are closely interrelated issues. This volume brings together fifteen original research articles on the representation and interpretation of indefinite and definite noun phrases, anaphoric pronouns, and closely related issues such as scope and quantifier movement. The analyses are worked out within discourse representation theory, file change semantics, and dynamic logic, a family of recent frameworks developed for the formal analysis of discourse semantics. Particular attention is paid to E-type theories of pronouns and to the use of choice functions in the semantics of noun phrases. The papers collected in this volume shed light on the question of how linguistic expressions establish reference and anaphoric relations. The use of choice function approaches within dynamic semantics opens new research perspectives on these questions. Audience: This book will be of interest to scholars and students of linguistics, logicians, philosophers of language, computational linguists, and computer scientists with an interest in the semantics of natural language.

First published in 1983, this book examines anaphora — a central issue in linguistic theory as it lies at the crossroads of several major problems. On the one hand it is believed that the same conditions that govern the interpretation of anaphora also govern syntactic movement rules but on the other, while anaphora is known to interact with various discourse and semantic considerations, it also provides a clear instance of the dependency of the semantic interpretation of sentences upon semantic properties of natural language. This book has two major goals: the first is a comprehensive analysis of sentence-level anaphora that addresses the questions posed above, and the second is an examination of the broader issues of the relations between the structural properties of sentences and their semantic interpretation within the hypotheses of the autonomy of syntax and of interpretative semantics shown by Chomsky.