Donkey sentence


Donkey sentence

Donkey sentences are sentences that contain a certain type of anaphora, such as:

  • Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.
  • Every police officer who arrested a murderer insulted him.

Donkey sentences became a major force in advancing semantic research in the 1980s, with the introduction of discourse representation theory (DRT). During that time, an effort was made to settle the inconsistencies which arose from the attempts to translate donkey sentences into first-order logic.

Donkey sentences present the following problem, when represented in first-order logic: The systematic translation of every existential expression in the sentence into existential quantifiers produces an incorrect representation of the sentence, since it leaves a free occurrence of the variable y in BEAT(x.y):

  \forall x\, (\text{FARMER} (x) \and \exists y \,( \text{DONKEY}(y) \and \text{OWNS}(x,y)) \rightarrow \text{BEAT}(x,y))

Trying to extend the scope of existential quantifier also does not solve the problem:

  \forall x \,\exists y\, (\text{FARMER} (x) \and \text{DONKEY}(y) \and \text{OWNS}(x,y) \rightarrow \text{BEAT}(x,y))

In this case, the logical translation fails to give correct truth conditions to donkey sentences: Imagine a situation where there is a farmer owning a donkey and a pig, and not beating any of them. The formula will be true in that situation, because for each farmer we need to find at least one object that either is not a donkey owned by this farmer, or is beaten by the farmer. Hence, if this object denotes the pig, the sentence will be true in that situation.

A correct translation into first-order logic for the donkey sentence seems to be:

  \forall x\, \forall y\, (\text{FARMER} (x) \and \text{DONKEY}(y) \and \text{OWNS}(x,y) \rightarrow \text{BEAT}(x,y))

Unfortunately, this translation leads to a serious problem of inconsistency. Indefinites must sometimes be interpreted as existential quantifiers, and other times as universal quantifiers, without any apparent regularity.

The solution that DRT provides for the donkey sentence problem can be roughly outlined as follows: The common semantic function of non-anaphoric noun phrases is the introduction of a new discourse referent, which is in turn available for the binding of anaphoric expressions. No quantifiers are introduced into the representation, thus overcoming the scope problem that the logical translations had.

See also

External links

References

  • Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  • Kadmon, N. 2001. Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Donkey pronoun — A donkey pronoun is a pronoun that is bound in semantics but not syntax.[1][2] Some writers prefer the term donkey anaphora, since it is the referential aspects and discourse or syntactic context that are of interest to researchers (see anaphora) …   Wikipedia

  • Donkey pronoun — Pronom donkey Un pronom donkey (anglais : donkey pronoun, littéralement pronom d âne) est un pronom lié sémantiquement, mais non syntaxiquement.[1],[2] Certains auteurs préfèrent le terme d « anaphore donkey », car ce sont les… …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Pronom donkey — Un pronom donkey (anglais : donkey pronoun, littéralement « pronom d âne ») est un pronom lié sémantiquement, mais non syntaxiquement[1],[2]. Certains auteurs préfèrent le terme d « anaphore donkey », car ce sont les… …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Pronom d'âne — Pronom donkey Un pronom donkey (anglais : donkey pronoun, littéralement pronom d âne) est un pronom lié sémantiquement, mais non syntaxiquement.[1],[2] Certains auteurs préfèrent le terme d « anaphore donkey », car ce sont les… …   Wikipédia en Français

  • List of linguistic example sentences — This is a list of linguistic example sentences. They illustrate various linguistic phenomena.Independence*Independence of syntax: *:Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. (Noam Chomsky)Ambiguity*Lexical ambiguity: *:Time flies like an arrow...… …   Wikipedia

  • Quantificational variability effect — (QVE) is the intuitive equivalence of certain sentences with quantificational adverbs (Q adverbs) and sentences without these, but with quantificational determiner phrases (DP) in argument position instead. *1. (a) A cat is usually smart. (Q… …   Wikipedia

  • Hans Kamp — (born 1940, Den Burg, Texel) is a Dutch philosopher, responsible for introducing Discourse representation theory (DRT), published in 1981. Kamp s doctorate, Tense Logic and the Theory of Linear Order (1968) was supervised by Richard Montague.ee… …   Wikipedia

  • Discourse representation theory — (DRT) is a framework for exploring meaning under a formal semantics approach. One of the main differences between DRT style approaches and traditional Montagovian approaches is that DRT style approaches include a level of abstract mental… …   Wikipedia

  • Jesus and Messianic prophecy — Christians commonly believe that many verses of the Hebrew Bible are prophecies of the Messiah and that these were fulfilled in the life of Jesus, with the rest to be fulfilled by his Second Coming. (A minority, called Full Preterists, believe… …   Wikipedia

  • Singular they — is a popular, non technical expression for uses of the pronoun they (and its inflected forms) when plurality is not required by the context. The Chicago Manual of Style notes: On the one hand, it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers …   Wikipedia


We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.