Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences

Jacobson, Pauline

doi:10.3765/salt.v4i0.2456

Cited by 103 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…38 See also Cecchetto (2001), who shows that this and other 'anti-connectivity' effects can be handled under the 'semantic' approach to reconstruction advocated by Jacobson (1994) and Sharvit (1999). 39 That the clefted XP can originate inside the cleft clause has also been argued by Schachter (1973), Chomsky (1977) and É .…”

Section: Evidence For a Raising Structurementioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The syntactic structure of English clefts

Reeve

2011

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Evidence For a Raising Structurementioning

confidence: 96%

“…Some examples are given in (54): (54a) shows connectivity for Principles A-C, (54b) for variable binding, (54c) for intensionality, and (54d) for quantifier scope (see e.g., Higgins, 1973;Jacobson, 1994;Kroch, 1999, 2002;Sharvit, 1999;Schlenker, 2003):…”

Section: Evidence For a Raising Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The syntactic structure of English clefts

Reeve

2011

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A fully worked-out account of functional readings in copular sentences as in (5) is given in Jacobson (1994. Jacobson claims that sentences like (5a) and (5b) cannot be treated by giving the noun phrase every man sentential scope, as informally illustrated below.…”

Section: Functional Readingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Jacobson (1994) lifts the denotation of the noun woman to a set of ee functions. However, in her variable-free treatment of anaphora, the denotation of the relative he loves, which should be intersected with the denotation of woman, is a binary relation.…”

Section: Further Motivation: a Note On Jacobson (2002)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is independently necessary for treating indefinites such as a certain woman he knows, where the pronoun he is bound from outside the indefinite. The second step is to modify the analysis in (Jacobson, 1994) of functional readings in variable-free semantics. The revised analysis allows the Skolem function mechanism of wide scope indefinites to apply to the restricting predicate also with functional copular sentences, while keeping the quantification over functions existential only.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Functional Quantification

Winter

2004

Research on Language and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a unified analysis of ''functional'' anaphora arid wide-scope indefinites. A new operator is added to Jacobson's variable-free semantics of functional readings, which leads to an analysis of theses readings using the general Skolem function interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. This accounts for the distriutional, technical and intuitive similarities between the two phenomena. Moreover, after formally characterizing the class of generalized quantifiers that are treated by the proposed mechanism, it is argued that this class is a good approximation of the quantifiers that empirically support functional readings.

show abstract

Weak Crossover

Safir

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weak crossover (WCO) effects may be described as arising in a syntactic configuration where pronouns cannot be interpreted as co‐construed with certain kinds of displaced or quantified antecedents. If it is correct to say that (i) the blocking of this co‐construal does not seem logically required, (ii) the effect is syntactically conditioned, (iii) the effect is widespread in the world's languages, and (iv) it does not appear to arise from instruction, then it is reasonable to assume that the WCO effect is a peculiar consequence of the human language capacity and a clue to the structure of that capacity. This chapter reviews and compares the history and prospects of syntactic theories that have been proposed as accounting for weak crossover, while setting certain thresholds of what any explanatory theory should account for. Issues concern theories about the nature of binding relations, in particular the distinction between A‐ and A'‐binding and bound variable interpretation, as well as attempts to reduce the WCO effect to principles that do not directly refer to the phenomenon. The role of c‐command, of constraining vs. licensing conditions, syntactic and semantic dependency, obviation, and the distribution of effects (or non‐effects) deemed related to WCO – such as weakest crossover, strong crossover, inverse linking, reconstruction, resumption, superiority, and functional readings of multiple quantifier sentences – are all considered. The explanatory force of several sorts of theories are explicated and compared.

show abstract

Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences

Abstract: No abstract.

Cited by 103 publications

References 19 publications

The syntactic structure of English clefts

The syntactic structure of English clefts

Functional Quantification

Weak Crossover

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About