Page 405 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

yields a parameter restricted to be anchored to its utterer. Anaphoric pronouns are simply reusedpar- ameters, with additional restrictions due to their gender.
An interesting possibility is that an anaphoricpro- noun may pick up a parameter associated with either theargumentslotofaverborthenounphrasethat fills the argument slot. This enables Gawron and Peters to treat so-called 'sloppy' readings of sentences like 'Only John expected that he would lose.' On the sloppy reading John is the only one that expected 'himself to lose. Here the pronoun is linked up with the subject- argument-role of the EXPEcr-relation. On the strict reading, where the pronoun is coparametric with the subject'John'itself,nobodyexpectedthatJohnwould lose, except John.
Gawron and Peters (1990) also treat quantified noun phrases. A quantified phrase like 'Every N' is analyzed in terms of a determiner relation with a domain-type constructed from the common noun N. A determiner is a relation between properties and this relation is said to hold of the domain-type and the property expressed by the surrounding utterance. Cir- cumstances determine which part of the utterance is in the scope of the quantifier, and hence resolve possible scope ambiguities. Essential in this treatment is the restriction that a determiner like EVERY holds of two properties P\ and P2 if all objects that have property P! also have property P2. Again, the first property (the domain-type) is constructed relative to a resource situation for the utterance.
In their contribution to Cooper, et al. (1990), Gawron and Peters treat quantified noun phrases more on a par with nonqualified noun phrases. Quantified noun phrases initially contribute a par- ameter r to the interpretation of an utterance, with a restriction imposed by their common noun. The determiner is interpreted as a property of properties P which relates the appropriate anchors of r (the anchors that satisfy the restriction on jc) to the objectshaving P. A generalization of this mechanism allows a treat- ment of the so-called 'donkey-anaphor' // in a sentence like 'Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.'
For alternative treatments of quantification within situation semantics see Barwise and Perry in Cooper (1985: 144-147); Cooper (1987); Devlin in Cooper, et al. (1990). Fenstad, et al. (1987) account for donkey- anaphora as well. Dynamic approaches to semantics are also treated by Ruhrberg, who discusses the con- cept of simultaneous abstraction in Seligman and Westerstahl (1996). Ter Meulen (1995) studies the rep- resentation of temporal information in a related framework, as do Seligman and ter Meulen (1995). Conditionals are addressed in Barwise (1989) and Cavedon (1995, also in Seligman and Westerstahl 1996). Poesio addresses definite descriptions in Aczel, et al. (1993). Glasbey provides a situation theoretic account of the progressive, Cooper and Ginzburg deal
with attitude reports, both in Seligman and W es- terstahl (1996).
5. Suggestions for Further Reading
In addition to the books and papers that werereferred to above, Seligman and Moss (1997) is recommended to the reader who would like to know more about situation theory (rather than situation semantics, which we have been mainly concerned with). Another introduction to that topic is Devlin (1991). Cooper (1991) could be read as an introduction to situation semantics. The majority of research papers in situ- ation theory and situation semantics are contained in collections entitled 'Situation Theory and its Appli- cations,'volumes1,2and3(Cooper,etal.1990; Barwise, et al. 1991; Aczel, et al. 1993), and 'Logic, Language and Computation' (Seligman and W es- terstahl, 1996). These contain selections of papers pre- sented at a biannual conference. The name of that conference was changed in 1994 to 'Information-The- oretic Approaches to Language, Logic and Compu- tation.'
Bibliography
Aczel P 1988 Non-Well-Founded Sets. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
Aczel P, Israel D, Katagiri Y, Peters S (eds.) 1993 Situation Theory and Its Applications, vol. 3. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
Austin J L 1961 Truth. In: Urmson J O, Warnock G J (eds.) Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press, Oxford Barwise J 1989 The Situation in Logic. CSLI Publications,
Stanford, CA
Barwise J, Etchemendy J 1987 The Liar. An Essay on Truth
and Circularity. Oxford University Press, New York Barwise J, Gawron J M, Plotkin G, Tutiya S (eds.) 1991 Situation Theory and Its Applications, vol. 2. CSLI Pub-
lications, Stanford, CA
Barwise J, Perry J 1983 Situations and Attitudes. Bradford
Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Cavedon L 1995 A Channel-Theoretic Approach to C o n -
ditional Reasoning. (PhD Thesis, Centre for Cognitive
Science, University of Edinburgh)
Cooper R (ed.) 1985 Situations and attitudes. aPh 8: 1 Cooper R 1987 Preliminaries to the treatment of generalized
quantifiers in situation semantics. In: Gardenfors P(ed.)
Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical
Approaches. Reidel, Dordrecht
Cooper R 1991 Three lectures on situation theoretic gram-
mar. In: Filgeiras M, et al. (eds.) EAJA 90 Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Volume 476.Spr- inger, New York
Cooper R, Mukai K, Perry J (eds.) 1990 Situation Theory and its Applications, vol. 1. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
DevlinK1991LogicandInformation. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge
Dretske F I 1981Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Fenstad J E, Halvorsen P K, Langholm T, Van Benthem J (eds.) 1987 Situations, Language and Logic. Reidel, Dor- drecht
Situation Semantics
383