Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Pronouns are a special subclass of presuppositional expressions that almost always must be bound rather than accommodated.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Discourse-new pronouns in 'bridging' and 'lazy' anaphora cases (Karttunen 1969, van der Sandt 1992) demonstrate accommodation without prior explicit antecedents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If accommodation were categorically unavailable to pronouns, deictic and recognitional uses of 'he' or 'she' in out-of-the-blue contexts would be systematically uninterpretable, yet they are not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The binding-only thesis conflates the preference for bound readings with a categorical constraint, obscuring the gradient nature of accommodation costs across presupposition types.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Postal (1966) and Jackendoff (1972) established that pronouns carry descriptive content via phi-features (gender, number, animacy), supplying sufficient material for accommodation of a novel discourse referent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van der Sandt's (1992) binding-as-anaphora theory treats accommodation as a last resort on a preference hierarchy, not a logical impossibility, contradicting the claim that accommodation is unavailable rather than merely dispreferred for pronouns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All presupposition triggers prefer to be bound to an already-available discourse referent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pronouns are descriptively attenuated and therefore cannot be construed via accommodation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because accommodation is unavailable to pronouns, binding is the only viable resolution strategy for pronouns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.