David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In R. Oehrle & J. Kruijff (eds.), Resource Sensitivity, Binding, and Anaphora. Kluwer. 215--227 (2003)
Combinatory logic (Curry and Feys 1958) is a “variable-free” alternative to the lambda calculus. The two have the same expressive power but build their expressions differently. “Variable-free” semantics is, more precisely, “free of variable binding”: it has no operation like abstraction that turns a free variable into a bound one; it uses combinators—operations on functions—instead. For the general linguistic motivation of this approach, see the works of Steedman, Szabolcsi, and Jacobson, among others. The standard view in linguistics is that reflexive and personal pronouns are free variables that get bound by an antecedent through some coindexing mechanism. In variable free semantics the same task is performed by some combinator that identifies two arguments of the function it operates on (a duplicator). This combinator may be built into the lexical semantics of the pronoun, into that of the antecedent, or it may be a free-floating operation applicable to predicates or larger chunks of texts, i.e. a typeshifter. This note is concerned with the case of cross-sentential anaphora. It adopts Hepple’s and Jacobson’s interpretation of pronouns as identity maps and asks how this can be extended to the cross-sentential case, assuming the dynamic semantic view of anaphora. It first outlines the possibility of interpreting indefinites that antecede non-ccommanded pronouns as existential quantifiers enriched with a duplicator. Then it argues that it is preferable to use the duplicator as a type-shifter that applies “on the fly”. The proposal has consequences for two central ingredients of the classical dynamic semantic treatment: it does away with abstraction over assignments and with treating indefinites as inherently existentially quantified. However, cross-sentential anaphora remains a matter of binding, and the idea of propositions as context change potentials is retained
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Yoad Winter & Eric Reuland, Binding Without Identity: Towards a Unified Semantics for Bound and Exempt Anaphors.
Peter Pagin & Dag Westerståhl (1993). Predicate Logic with Flexibly Binding Operators and Natural Language Semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2 (2):89-128.
Ash Asudeh (2005). Relational Nouns, Pronouns, and Resumption. Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (4):375 - 446.
Michael Böttner (1992). Variable-Free Semantics for Anaphora. Journal of Philosophical Logic 21 (4):375 - 390.
A. Szabolcsi (2013). Quantification and ACD: What is the Evidence From Real-Time Processing Evidence For? A Response to Hackl Et Al. (2012). Journal of Semantics (1):ffs025.
Adrian Brasoveanu, Structured Anaphora to Quantifier Domains: A Unified Account of Quantificational and Modal Subordination.
S. J. Barker (1997). E-Type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic Semantics and the Quantifier/Variable-Binding Model. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (2):195-228.
Philippe Schlenker (2011). Donkey Anaphora: The View From Sign Language (ASL and LSF). [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395.
Pauline Jacobson (1999). Towards a Variable-Free Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (2):117-185.
Jan van Eijck (2001). Incremental Dynamics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (3):319-351.
Henriëtte De Swart & Ivan A. Sag (2002). Negation and Negative Concord in Romance. Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (4):373 - 417.
Added to index2010-09-08
Total downloads95 ( #9,487 of 1,008,715 )
Recent downloads (6 months)31 ( #2,803 of 1,008,715 )
How can I increase my downloads?