Reference and Anaphoric Relations (review)

This edited collection of fifteen original research articles has its roots in the workshop ‘Reference and Anaphoric Relations’ (University of Konstanz, June 1996). The papers deal with the representation and interpretation of indefinite and definite noun phrases; anaphoric pronouns; and several closely related issues such as reference, scope, quantifier movement, and the relation between context and meaning.

The book begins with an overview article by the editors, ‘Introduction: Reference and the semantics of anaphora’, which surveys the motivation for the development of new semantic formalisms in the last decades and gives a general outline of the articles in the volume. The book is divided into five parts.

In Part 1, ‘Historical aspects of anaphoric relations’ (15–76), the contributors consider the Stoic and scholastic treatment of reference and anaphora. Egli implements the Stoic view on anaphora and quantified sentences into a dynamic semantics. Reinhard Hülsen shows that medieval logicians advanced a fairly consistent and comprehensive theory of the semantics of ‘relativa grammaticalia’. Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof illustrate some basic concepts of dynamic semantics and suggest an analysis of anaphoric (in)definite descriptions as contextually dependent quantificational expressions.

The issues of scope and quantifier movement are considered in Part 2, ‘Quantification and scope’ (77–154). Donka Farkas reviews the main tasks that a theory of scope has to solve and develops a nonconfigurational, nonmovement based account of scope. Henriëtte de Swart investigates the relation between scope, lexical composition, and properties of generalized quantifiers. She argues against a lexical decomposition account of negative quantifiers in German and Dutch, suggesting instead a higher order interpretation of the determiners. Elena Paducheva provides an analysis of definiteness effects in English and Russian. Stephen Neale examines an inconsistency which arises from the conjunction of three commonly accepted hypotheses regarding persistence, polarity, and plurality.

In Part 3, ‘Anaphoric reference’ (155–90), two papers by Robert van Rooy and Hartley Slater concentrate on the problem of intentional identity and the semantics of Hob-Nob sentences.

Part 4, ‘Choice functions and the semantics of indefinites’ (191–266), contains three papers on the representation of indefinites by means of choice functions. Arnim von Stechow compares the in situ approach of choice functions with the classical movement approach of quantifier raising at LF, while Yoad Winter argues convincingly that the semantics of indefinites involves choice functions by appealing to universals of generalized quantifier theory. Klaus von Heusinger contends that the complex referential nature of indefinites must be reflected in their semantic representation.

In Part 5, ‘Representation and interpretation’ (267–338), Jaroslav Peregrin investigates the related concepts of reference and inference, arguing that reference is parasitic on inference, contrary to what is commonly assumed. Paul Dekker discusses the relation between interpretation and representation and develops a weakly representational system of dynamic epistemic predicate logic that offers a unified treatment of anaphoric and demonstrative pronouns. Closing the volume, Reinhard Muskens investigates the interaction between representation and interpretation with respect to underspecified structures.

This beautifully produced book reflects the increasing interest in the semantics of anaphoric expressions and is highly recommended to all those interested in formal semantics and the syntax-semantics interface.