The Locality of Interpretation: The Case of Binding and Coordination (original) (raw)

2015, Semantics and Linguistic Theory

AI-generated Abstract

This paper elucidates the direct relationship between surface structures and model-theoretic interpretation, arguing against the necessity of deeper syntactic representations. It introduces the hypothesis of local interpretation, asserting that every surface syntactic expression has inherent meaning. Evidence is presented through analyses of constructions like Right Node Raising and their compatibility with local interpretation, suggesting that meaning can be assigned without transformations into deeper structures.

Sign up for access to the world's latest research.

checkGet notified about relevant papers

checkSave papers to use in your research

checkJoin the discussion with peers

checkTrack your impact

ON SOME MECHANISMS OF REPRESENTATION OF MEANING IN NATURAL LANGUAGES

The aim of this research is to try to understand the mental mechanisms involved in understanding natural language by observing and simulating on computer the re lationships between texts and corresponding formal structures in small problem a reas where tasks for the computer are sufficiently clear.

Semantics in Generative Grammar

Language, 1999

1 1.2 Frege on compositionality 2 1.3 Tutorial on sets and functions 3 1.3.1 Sets 4 1.3.2 Questions and answers about the abstraction notation for sets 5 1.3.3 Functions 10 2 Executing the Fregean Program 13 2.1 First example of a Fregean interpretation 13 2.1.1 Applying the semantics to an example 16 2.1.2 Deriving truth-conditions in an extensional semantics 2.1.3 Object language and metalanguage 2.2 Sets and their characteristic functions 2.3 Adding transitive verbs: semantic types and denotation domains 2.4 Schonfinkelization 2.5 Defining functions in the i\.-notation 3 Semantics and Syntax 3.1 Type-driven interpretation 3.2 The structure of the input to semantic interpretation 3.3 Well-formedness and interpretability 3.4 The a-Criterion 3.5 Argument structure and linking 4 More of English: Nonverbal Predicates, Modifiers, Definite Descriptions 4.1 Semantically vacuous words 4.2 Nonverbal predicates VI Contents 4.3 Predicates as restrictive modifiers 63 4.3.1 A new composition rule 65 4.3.2 Modification as functional application 66 4.3.3 Evidence from nonintersective adjectives? 4.4 The definite article 73 4.4.1 A lexical entry inspired by Frege 73 4.4.2 Partial denotations and the distinction between presupposition and assertion 75 4.4.3 Uniqueness and utterance context 80 4.4.4 Presupposition failure versus uninterpretability 81 4.5 Modifiers in definite descriptions Contents 6.5.1 A little history 6.5.2 Relational and Sch O nfinkeled denotations for determine r s vii 147 6.6 Forma l properties of relational determiner meanings 6.7 Presuppositional quantifier phrases 6.7. 1 "Both" and "neither" 6.7.2 Presuppositionality and the relational theory 6.7.3 Other examples of presupposing DPs 157 6.8 Presuppositional quantifier phrases: controversial cases 6.8.1 Strawson's reconstruction of Aristotelian logic 6.8.2 Are all determiners presuppositional? 6.8.3 Nonextensional interpretation 6.8.4 Nonpresuppositional behavior in weak determiners 7 Quantification and Grammar 7.1 The problem of quantifiers in ob j ect position 7.2 Repairing the type mismatch in situ 7.2.1 An example of a "flexible types" approach 7.2.2 Excursion: flexible types for connectives 7.3 Repairing the type mismatch by movement 7. 4 Excursion: quantifiers in natural language and predicate logic 7.4.1 Separating quantifiers from variable binding 7.4.2 l-place and 2-place quantifiers 7.5 Choosing between quantifier movement and in situ interpretation : three standard arguments 7.5.1 Scope ambiguity and "inverse " scope 7.5.2 Antecedent-contained deletion 7. 5. 3 Quantifiers that bind pronouns 8 Syntactic and Semantic Constraints on Quantifier Movement 8.1 Which DPs may move, and which ones must? 8.2 How much moves along? And how far can you move? 8.3 What are potential landing sites for moving quantifiers ? 8.4 Quantifying into VP 8.4.1 Quantifiers taking narrow scope with respect to auxiliary negation , 8.4.2 Quantifying into W, VP-internal subjects , and flexible types 8.5 Quantifying into PP, AP, and NP 221 8.5.1 A problem of undergeneration 221 8.5.2 PP-internal subjects 8.5. 3 Subjects in all lexically headed XPs? 228 viii Contents 8.6 Quantifying into DP 230 8.6.1 Readings that can only be represented by DP adjunction? 232 8.6.2 Indirect evidence for DP adjunction : a problem with free IP adjunction? 233 8.6.3 Summary 234 9 Bound and Referential Pronouns and Ellipsis 239 9.1 Referential pronouns as free variables 239 9.1.1 Deictic versus anaphoric, referential versus bound-variable pronouns 23 9 9.1 .2 Utterance contexts and variable assignments 9.2 Co-reference Or binding ? 9.3 Pronouns in the theory of ellipsis 9.3.1 Background: the LF Identity Condition on ellipsis 9. 3.2 Referential pronouns and ellipsis 9.3.3 The "sloppy identity" puzzle and its solution

On the interface of syntax and semantics in the interpretation of1

The purpose of this article is to study the behavior of two grammatical modules, syntax and semantics in order to analyze and interpret the sequence of "to be +past participle" (Etre +participle passé) in French grammar. With presenting numerous examples in different contexts, we showed that lots of factors intervene in the syntactic and semantic analysis of this grammatical sequence. These are mainly due to the lexical and semantic properties of the main verb and the adjectival behavior of the essential element of this sequence that is past participle. The choice of past participle as an adjectival form or verbal one would result in passive, aspectual or resultative interpretations or constructions. To distinguish notions such as passive, resultative or aspectual, we applied adverbial test. It is necessary to note that these distinctions are not always clear-cut. What is of great importance is that this analysis places at the intersection of syntax and semantics of French language.

On the role of person in the mapping of syntactic features onto their interpretable counterparts

Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 2019

This paper argues that the traditional notion of person feature refers to two fundamentally distinct objects. One is a feature present in narrow syntax, the other one is an object created as part of labelling by the syntax-semantics interface. The latter one arises via a formal association of the syntactic feature with a semantic index. Crucially, the interface object can give rise to new values of presuppositional φ-features (modulo Maximize Presupposition). In turn, we can identify two classes of number and gender features that differ in their locality properties and their semantic interpretability. Gender and number valued from the lexicon is present throughout the narrow syntax derivation and is not semantically interpreted. Gender and number introduced via person at the syntax-semantics interface appear only in larger syntactic domains (they become available only after a phase has been labelled by the syntax-semantics interface) and are always semantically interpreted (via their presuppositional content). The paper thus contributes to our understanding of mapping of narrow-syntax features onto the interfaces, division of labour among the modules and advances our understanding of some puzzling properties of person features cross-linguistically.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.