In this presentation, I will review some papers relevant to the issue.
In Chierchia's 1995 monograph, "Dynamics of Meaning", he regards
anaphora across inaccessible domains as evidence to motivate the use
of E-type pronouns in his theory. The sentences below are examples he
actually uses in the monograph:
a. Every man excepet John gave his paycheck(i) to his wife. John gave
it(i) to his mistress.
b. Morrill Hall doesn't have a bathroom(i) or it(i) is in a funny place.
c. It is not true that John doesn't have a car(i). It(i) is parked
outside.
d. John doesn't have a car(i) anymore. He sold it(i) last month.
I'm planning to argue that three out of the four above, namely those that
are coindexed with an indefinite within the scope of negation, are not
E-type pronouns. Instead, I will show that they can be interpreted as
variables finally bound by a dynamic existential quantifier offered by the
interpretation of the indefinite.
