205
edits
Donkey sentence: Difference between revisions
More understandable language
(Talk about where we are now) |
(More understandable language) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
== Dynamic approaches == | == Dynamic approaches == | ||
The entire premise for donkey pronouns being "illegal" is that a quantified variable can only bind things | The entire premise for donkey pronouns being "illegal" is that a quantified variable can only bind things that are in the same clause (in technical terms, only those things which it C-commands). But there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, "Someone left and she whistled" has a reading on which 'someone' binds 'she', even though they're in different clauses. | ||
There are a variety of theories that allow bindings to outlive their parent clause in some way. Linguists call these theories '''dynamic'''. Some of them invent a new form of predicate logic that gives formal meaning to variables that are out of scope, while others<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575015.001.0001 Continuations and Natural Language]</ref> make the bold claim that donkey pronouns are actually ''in scope'', and find some novel way to automatically compose the right meaning. As of 2024, this last approach is the one our scientists see the most promise in. | There are a variety of theories that allow bindings to outlive their parent clause in some way. Linguists call these theories '''dynamic'''. Some of them invent a new form of predicate logic that gives formal meaning to variables that are out of scope, while others<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575015.001.0001 Continuations and Natural Language]</ref> make the bold claim that donkey pronouns are actually ''in scope'', and find some novel way to automatically compose the right meaning. As of 2024, this last approach is the one our scientists see the most promise in. | ||