Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-gsx72 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2026-02-20T05:38:44.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Equatives and Deferred Reference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Gregory Ward
Gregory Ward*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University, 2016 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-4090 [gw@northwestern.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous accounts of DEFERRED REFERENCE (e.g. Nunberg 1995) have argued that all (nonostensive) deferred reference is the result of MEANING TRANSFER, a shift in the sense of a nominal or predicate expression. An analysis of deferred equatives (I'm the pad thai) suggests an alternative account based on the notion of PRAGMATIC MAPPING: a contextually licensed mapping operation between (sets of) discourse entities, neither of which undergoes a transfer of meaning. Moreover, the use of a deferred equative requires the presence of a contextually licensed OPEN PROPOSITION whose instantiation encodes the particular mapping between entities, both of which remain accessible to varying degrees within the discourse model. Finally, it is shown how a complete account of deferred reference must provide for transfers of reference as well as sense.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 262 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, Barbara. 2004. Definiteness and indefiniteness. Handbook of pragmatics, ed. by Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, 122–49. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Juri D. 1974. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 142. 5–32.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J., Kaplan, Jeffrey P.; and Ward, Gregory. 2001. Open propositions and epistemic would. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC, January 2001.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J., and Ward, Gregory. 1994. Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 93–102.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J., and Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1992. On the morphology of reflexives and impersonals. Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics, ed. by Lauefer, Christiane and Morgan, Terrell, 399–414. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.74.26burCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology, ed. by Steinberg, Danny and Jakobovits, Leon, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1977. Bridging. Thinking: Readings in cognitive science, ed. by Johnson-Laird, Philip and Wason, Peter, 411–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, and Briscoe, Ted. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12. 15–67.10.1093/jos/12.1.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.1017/CBO9780511624582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, Peter T. 1962. Reference and generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara, and Sidner, Candace L.. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12. 175–204.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, and Fretheim, Thorstein. 2004. Topic and focus. Handbook of pragmatics, ed. by Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, 175–96. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.10.2307/416535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27. 405–42.10.1017/S0022226700012731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Kroch, Anthony. 1997. Inversion and equation in copular sentences. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 10. 71–87.10.21248/zaspil.10.1998.697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Francis Roger. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1978. Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure. Linguistic theory and psychological reality, ed. by Halle, Morris, Bresnan, Joan, and Miller, George A., 201–28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1979. On the agreement of reflexive forms in English. Linguistics 17. 519–23.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 1990. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 273–324.10.1007/BF00627710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, and Ward, Gregory. 1999. On the semantics and pragmatics of ‘identifier so’. The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface 1), ed. by Turner, Ken, 233–56. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, and Ward, Gregory. 2004. Constraints on ellipsis and event reference. Handbook of pragmatics, ed. by Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory, 383–403. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1972/1980. Naming and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1984. Active zones. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 172–88.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8. 339–59.10.1007/BF00258436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2001. Condition R. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 123–40.10.1162/002438901554603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1990. On the organization of the lexicon. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1848. A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive; being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Norvig, Peter, and Lakoff, George. 1987. Taking: A study in lexical network theory. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 195–205.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1977. The pragmatics of reference. New York: City University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3. 143–84.10.1007/BF00126509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12. 109–32.10.1093/jos/12.2.109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostler, Nicholas, and Atkins, B. T. S.. 1992. Predictable meaning shift: Some linguistic properties of lexical implication rules. Lexical semantics and knowledge representation, ed. by Pustejovsky, James and Bergler, Sabine, 87–100. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/3-540-55801-2_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1978. Bound variables and other anaphors. Proceedings of TINLAP-2, 79-85.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1969. Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5. 205–39.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 223–54. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1986. On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions. Chicago Linguistic Society 22. 208–22.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fundraising text, ed. by Thompson, Sandra and Mann, William, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.16.12priCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François. 2003. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 287–350.10.1023/A:1024157132393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sigla.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14. 479–93.10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1981. Formal semantics and extralinguistic context. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 273–94. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sidner, Candace. 1979. Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Stallard, David. 1993. Two kinds of metonymy. Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 87–94. Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Verspoor, Cornelia Maria. 1997. Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory. 1988. The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Sproat, Richard; and McKoon, Gail. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67. 439–74.10.1353/lan.1991.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory, and Tilsen, Sam. 2002. Deferred equatives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco, January 2002.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie L. 1979. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. New York: Garland.Google Scholar