INTRODUCTION Linguists who work within the tradition of transformational generative grammar tend to regard semantics as an intractable, perhaps ultimately ...

I might summarize this section by saying that the English tenses, according to this analysis, form quite a motley group. PAST, PRES and FUT serve to relate reference time to speech time, while WOULD and USED-TO behave like Priorian operators, shifting the point of evaluation away from the reference time. HAVE also shifts the point of evaluation away from the reference time, but in a more complicated way. And FUT, in contrast to PRES and PAST, is a substitution operator, putting (...) the reference time of its clause in the plate of the speech time of subordinate clauses. (shrink)

The distinction between COMPLEMENTS and ADJUNCTS has a long tradition in grammatical theory, and it is also included in some way or other in most current formal linguistic theories. But it is a highly vexed distinction for several reasons, one of which is that no diagnostic criteria have emerged that will reliably distinguish adjuncts from complements in all cases — too many examples seem to fall into the crack between the two categories, no matter how theorists wrestle with them.

Let us suppose that thematic roles, or something very much like them, are needed to describe lexical and semantic patterns in the behavior of verbal predicates. But what about nouns? Is there evidence independent of verbal constructions motivating a system of nominal thematic relations? We suggest that the general problem of argument selection does in fact motivate a set of quintessentially nominal thematic proto-roles which we call Proto- Part and Proto-Whole. These nominal proto-roles are parallel to but distinct from the (...) verbal proto-roles of Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient proposed by Dowty (1991) to account for argument selection in verbal predicates. The resulting theory of nominal argument selection is properly semantic, that is, it distinguishes between argument positions purely on the basis of the semantic entailments of the predicates involved. Furthermore, it is non-dynamic, that is, it describes static patterns of lexicalization without hypothesizing any productive grammatical process that maps semantic arguments to syntactic arguments during the derivation of a sentence. (shrink)

(2) Type Logical Grammar (Moortgat & Oehrle 1994, Morrill 1994. Moortgat 1996): i. Grammar as a deductive system; variant of linear logic; two deductive rules for each type constructor (=; n; ): elimination ( modus ponens) and introduction ( rule of conditional proof).

(Though it is now known that many pronouns once lumped under ”bound variables” are in fact referential indefinites or other phenomena better accounted for in a DRT-like view of referents, there remain many true instances of sentenceinternally bound anaphora: this talk concerns only the latter.) Almost all versions of categorial grammar (CG) are differentiated from other syntactic theories in treating a multi-argument verb as an Ò-place predicate phrase (PrdP) that combines with a NP or other argument to yield a (Ò-1)-place (...) PrdP (which, if (n–1) 1, then combines with another argument to yield a ´Ò ¾µ-place PrdP, until a sentence (0-place PrdP) results) – a ”curried function” account of argument structure. (In CG, Ú ÔÜ ÒÔ · ÒÔ Üµ. A number of CG analyses of Ú Ô bound anaphora (Bach & Partee 1980, Chierchia 1988, Szabolcsi 1992, Jacobson 1991, Dowty 1993, Jacobson 1999), though otherwise diverse, have in common that they treat anaphoric binding as a process that affects (only) a predicate phrase (PrdP) — usually (finite or non-finite) Ú Ô, else ÚÔ ÒÔ — by binding an internal pronoun, i.e. ”binding at the VP level”; semantically, this is usually indicated ´Üµ . The result of this binding is that the next argument the.. (shrink)

Fish abound in the pond Garlic reeked on his breath The pond abounds with fish His breath reeked with garlic Such sentences were first noted in Jespersen, then were introduced in Generative Grammar by Fillmore and Anderson. The most extensive treatment, from which some of the data below is taken, is Salkoff’s ”Bees are Swarming in the Garden”, Language 59.2, 288-346; cf. also Boons & Leclere, and see Levin for further references. For convenience in referring to the two kinds of (...) sentences, I will adopt this terminology: Agent-Subject Form: “Bees are swarming in the garden” Location-Subject Form: “The garden is swarming with bees” The swarm-alternation should be distinguished carefully from the spray-load -alternation. (shrink)