Yasutada Sudo Dissertation Titles

  • Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (2001). A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 10(2), 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Beaver, D., & Zeevat, H. (2007). Accommodation. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 503–538). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bochvar, D. A. (1981). On a three-valued logical calculus and its application to the analysis of the paradoxes of the classical extended functional calculus. History and Philosophy of Logic2, 87–112. Translated by Merrie Bergmann [Originally published as ”Ob odnom trechznacnom iscislenii i ego primenenii k analizu paradoksov klassiceskogo rassirennogo funkcional’nogo iscislenija. Matematiceskij Sbornik, 4(46), 287–308 (1939).].Google Scholar

  • Breheny, R., Klinedinst, N., Romoli, J., & Sudo, Y. (2016). The symmetry problem: Current theories and prospects. London: Ms. University College London and Ulster University.Google Scholar

  • Büring, D. (2007). The least at least can do. In C. B. Chang & H. J. Haynie (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 26 (pp. 114–120). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • Chemla, E. (2008). An epistemic step for anti-presuppositions. Journal of Semantics, 25(2), 141–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Chemla, E. (2009). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection. Ms.Google Scholar

  • Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Chierchia, G. (2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “Logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), 535–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2012). Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 2297–2331). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Crnič, L. (2011). Getting even, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

  • Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–112). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Fox, D. (2008). Two short notes on Schlenker’s theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Fox, D., & Hackl, M. (2006). The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(5), 537–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19(1), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Gajewski, J. (2011). Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2), 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Gajewski, J., & Sharvit, Y. (2012). In defense of grammatical approach to local implicatures. Natural Language Semantics, 20(1), 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • George, B. (2008). A new predictive theory of presupposition projection. Proceedings of SALT, 18, 358–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Geurts, B. (2008). Implicture as a discourse phenomenon. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 11, 261–275.Google Scholar

  • Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind & Language, 24(1), 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Geurts, B. (2010). Quantitiy implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2, pp. 114–125.Google Scholar

  • Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 487–535). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators, Ph.D. thesis, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar

  • Horn, L. (1997). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Ivlieva, N. (2013) Scalar implicatures and the grammar of plurality and disjunction, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

  • Jacobson, P. (2012). The direct compositionality and “uninterpretability”: The case of (sometimes) “uninterpretable” features on pronouns. Journal of Semantics, 29(3), 305–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Karttunen, L. (1971). Implicative verbs. Language, 47(2), 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In C.-K. Oh & D. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Mayr, C., & Romoli, J. (2016). A puzzle for theories of redundancy: Exhaustification, incrementality, and the notion of local context. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9(7), 1–48.Google Scholar

  • Meyer, M.-C. (2013) Ignorance and grammar, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

  • Percus, O. (2006). Antipresuppositions, Technical report. Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Project No: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. 15320052.Google Scholar

  • Peters, S. (1979). A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition. Synthese, 40(2), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Potts, C. (2008). Wait a minute! What kind of discourse strategy is this? Annotated data. Ms. http://christopherpotts.net/ling/data/waitaminute/.

  • Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (2nd ed., pp. 168–202). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Romoli, J. (2012). Soft but strong: Neg-raising, soft triggers, and exhaustification, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar

  • Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

  • Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Rothschild, D. (2011). Explaining presupposition projection with dynamic semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4(3), 1–43.Google Scholar

  • Rullmann, H. (2003). Additive particles and polarity. Journal of Semantics, 20(4), 329–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Russell, B. (2006). Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 23(4), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(3), 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Sauerland, U. (2008). Implicated presuppositions. In A. Steube (Ed.), The discourse potential of underspecified structures. Language, context and cognition (pp. 581–600). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Sauerland, U. (2013). Presuppositions and the alternative tier. In Proceedings of SALT 23, pp. 156–173.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, P. (2008). Be Articulate! A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, P. (2009). Local contexts. Semantics & Pragmatics, 2, 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Schlenker, P. (2012). Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics, 20(4), 391–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Schwarz, B. (2016). Consistency preservation in quantifity implicature: The case of at least. Semantics & Pragmatics, 9(1), 1–47.Google Scholar

  • Sharvit, Y., & Gajewski, J. (2008). On the calculation of local implicatures. In WCCFL, Vol. 26, pp. 411–419.Google Scholar

  • Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (pp. 431–448).Google Scholar

  • Simons, M. (2006). Notes on the embedded implicatures. Pittsburgh: Ms. Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar

  • Singh, R. (2011). Maximize presupposition! and local contexts. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2), 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Spathas, G. (2010) Focus on anaphora, Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar

  • Spector, B. (2003). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In B. ten Cate (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th ESSLLI student session, Vienna, pp. 277–288.Google Scholar

  • Spector, B. (2007). Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. In M. Aloni, A. Butler, & P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in Dynamic Semantics (pp. 225–249). Emerald: Bingley.Google Scholar

  • Spector, B. (2014). Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics & Pragmatics, 7(11), 1–61.Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and Philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5–6), 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Sudo, Y. (2012). On the semantics of Phi features on pronouns, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

  • Sudo, Y. (2016). The existential problem of scalar implicatures and anaphora across alternatives. In C. Piñón (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 11 (pp. 225–244). http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss11/index_en.html.

  • Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2011). Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Ms., Ohio State University, University of Texas, Austin, and Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar

  • van der Sandt, R. (1988). Context and presupposition. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

  • van Rooij, R., & Schulz, K. (2004). Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13(4), 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • von Fintel, K. (1999). NPI licensing, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16(2), 97–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond (pp. 315–341). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accomodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • von Fintel, K., & Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review, 25(1–2), 139–201.Google Scholar

  • Zondervan, A. J. (2010). Scalar implicatures or focus: An experimental approach, Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar

  • On the semantics of phi features on pronouns


    Author:Sudo, Yasutada, Ph. D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/77805

    Other Contributors:Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy.

    Advisor:Danny Fox, Martin Hackl and Irene Heim.

    Department:Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy.

    Publisher:Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Date Issued:2012


    This thesis investigates three topics relating to the semantics of phi features on pronouns. Part I focuses on gender features on pronouns. Following previous studies (Cooper 1983, Heim & Kratzer 1998), I claim that they are presupposition triggers. Based on this assumption, I show that predicates containing bound gendered pronouns have an assertive meaning that does not entail the gender presupposition, and further point out that such predicates pose a serious challenge for existing theories of presupposition projection, especially with respect to quantified sentences. A conclusion drawn from this discussion is that the presupposition needs to be dissociated from the assertive meaning, as in Karttunen & Peters's (1979) two dimensional theory. However, such a theory is known to run into the so-called binding problem in quantified sentences. I propose a solution to the binding problem using the mechanism of cross-sentential anaphora, and show that the resulting theory nicely accounts for the projection properties of various quantificational determiners. Part II discusses the interpretation of person and number features on bound pronouns. It is known that some occurrences of phi features on bound pronoun behave as if they are semantically inert (Heim 2008b, Jacobson to appear, Kratzer 1998a, 2009, Partee 1989). One popular account of this phenomenon, the minimal pronoun account, claims that such phi features are purely morphological, and postulates a PF operation that transmits phi features of a binder onto each pronoun that it binds (Heim 2008b, Kratzer 1998a, 2009). I put forward an alternative account that dispenses with the PF operation, and instead puts most of the burden on syntax, by encoding more information in the indices than standardly assumed. As a result, all occurrences of phi features are semantically relevant. I offer both empirical and conceptual arguments for the proposed account over the minimal pronoun account. Part III deals with the phenomenon of indexical shifting where person features are systematically affected (Anand 2006, Anand & Nevins 2004, Schlenker 1999, 2003b). I discuss novel data from Uyghur and Japanese as well as data drawn from previous studies, particularly focusing on the universals and variation within and across languages.


    Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2012.; Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.; Includes bibliographical references (p. 246-260).


    Keywords:Linguistics and Philosophy.

    Show full item metadata

    Files in this item

    This item appears in the following Collection(s)

    0 Replies to “Yasutada Sudo Dissertation Titles”

    Lascia un Commento

    L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *