In R. Oehrle & J. Kruijff (eds.), Resource Sensitivity, Binding, and Anaphora. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 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||combinator variable-free pronominal anaphora dynamic semantics cross-sentential|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Binding Without Identity: Towards a Unified Semantics for Bound and Exempt Anaphors.Yoad Winter & Eric Reuland - unknown
Predicate Logic with Flexibly Binding Operators and Natural Language Semantics.Peter Pagin & Dag Westerståhl - 1993 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2 (2):89-128.
Relational Nouns, Pronouns, and Resumption.Ash Asudeh - 2005 - Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (4):375 - 446.
Variable-Free Semantics for Anaphora.Michael Böttner - 1992 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 21 (4):375 - 390.
Quantification and ACD: What is the Evidence From Real-Time Processing Evidence For? A Response to Hackl Et Al. (2012).Anna Szabolcsi - 2013 - Journal of Semantics (1):ffs025.
Structured Anaphora to Quantifier Domains: A Unified Account of Quantificational and Modal Subordination.Adrian Brasoveanu - manuscript
E-Type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic Semantics and the Quantifier/Variable-Binding Model.S. J. Barker - 1997 - Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (2):195-228.
Donkey Anaphora: The View From Sign Language (ASL and LSF). [REVIEW]Philippe Schlenker - 2011 - Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (4):341-395.
Towards a Variable-Free Semantics.Pauline Jacobson - 1999 - Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (2):117-185.
Incremental Dynamics.Jan van Eijck - 2001 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (3):319-351.
Added to index2010-09-08
Total downloads326 ( #8,916 of 2,169,105 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #27,761 of 2,169,105 )
How can I increase my downloads?