Donkey Pronouns: Void Descriptions?

In the traditional E-type approach to d-(onkey)-pronouns, these pronouns are interpreted as definite descriptions that contain a bound i-(ndividual)-variable (Evans, 1977; Cooper, 1979; Heim, 1990). Elbourne (2001, 2002); Büring (2004) have recently proposed a variant of the E-type approach which dispenses with i-variable binding for donkey anaphora resolution altogether, deriving covariance via s-(ituation)-variable binding. However, they still assume that d-pronouns contain descriptive content, while remaining somewhat vague with regard to what the content exactly is. I will clarify this point of vagueness, discussing examples of d-pronouns with multiple antecedents as well as ambiguous donkey-sentences. I will show that postulating descriptive content in d-pronouns is A) not necessary and B) problematic. I. Evans/Cooper proposal: it = “the donkey owned by himx” II. Elbourne/Büring proposal: it = “thes donkey” III. Present proposal: it = “thes entity” I thus argue that d-pronouns are void of descriptive content. This has interesting consequences for the theory of situations.