Paychecks, Stress, and Variable-Free Semantics

Jacobson, Pauline

doi:10.3765/salt.v10i0.2727

Cited by 22 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first problem concerns why dependent plural pronouns are plural and cannot be singular. Relevant to this problem are other functional readings of pronouns, especially 'paycheck pronouns' (Elbourne 2005;Geach 1962;Jacobson 2000;Karttunen 1969). Although paycheck pronouns are very similar in meaning to dependent plural pronouns, they can be singular.…”

Section: Tying Up the Loose Endsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dependent plural pronouns with Skolemized choice functions

Sudo

2014

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper discusses two interesting phenomena concerning phifeatures on plural pronouns: (i) plural pronouns that denote atomic individuals ('dependent plural pronouns'), and (ii) plural pronouns with more than one binder ('partial binding'). A novel account of these two phenomena is proposed, according to which all occurrences of phi-features are both semantically and morphologically relevant. For such a 'uniformly semantic account' of phi-features, dependent plural pronouns constitute a theoretical challenge, while partial binding is more or less straightforwardly accounted for. In order to make sense of the semantic effects of the phi-features on dependent plural pronouns, the following idea is pursued: the phi-features on a dependent plural pronoun reflect the range of values that the pronoun takes, rather than the particular value it denotes at a time. This idea is implemented in a compositional semantics by making use of (Skolemized) choice functions. An appealing feature of the present account is that, unlike its predecessors, it accounts for dependent plural pronouns without c-commanding antecedents in essentially the same way as for those with c-commanding antecedents. It is also shown how this account of dependent plural pronouns can straightforwardly be augmented with set indices to account for partial binding.

show abstract

Section: Tying Up the Loose Endsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dependent plural pronouns with Skolemized choice functions

Sudo

2014

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With this new syntactic type B||A at hand, we can differentiate, in particular, between an expression containing an object pronoun B|n and an expression containing a subject pronoun B||n. 12 Consequently, despite the fact that the sentences in (14) and (15) 11 Jaeger's pronominal type does not distinguish between pre-and post-verbal position, this last difference being incorporated in the infinitive verb type in our previous proposal. As we have said before, Jaeger's proposal does not capture Principles A (locality) and B (antilocality) of the Binding Theory: that reflexive pronouns must be bound in their own clause and that accusative pronouns cannot take a c-commanding antecedent in their own clause.…”

Section: Preliminary Proposal: Unlifted Pronominal Typesmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…In order to take account of the pronominal position, we shall use lifted pronominal types, for example, (s|n) / (n\s) for pre-verbal subjects. 12 An anonymous reviewer observes that this difference could be made by using features instead of introducing a new connective. Although we could have chosen that option, both contain a free pronoun, they will have different types: s|n and s||n, respectively.…”

Section: Preliminary Proposal: Unlifted Pronominal Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…((wanted ((help p) x)) p). Considering that in BP the object pronoun can take the nominative form, it seems we have to take the sequence of types n, (n\s) / ((s||n) (n\s)) , n, (n\s) /n, n||n into account for the sentence in (12). But, it must to be remembered that infinitive subjects are usually preverbal in BP.…”

Section: Preliminary Proposal: Unlifted Pronominal Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Overtly Anaphoric Control in Type Logical Grammar

Corbalán

Morrill

2016

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we analyse anaphoric pronouns in control sentences and we investigate the implications of these kinds of sentences in relation to the Propositional Theory versus Property Theory question. For these purposes, we invoke the categorial calculus with limited contraction, a conservative extension of Lambek calculus that builds contraction into the logical rules for a customized slash type-constructor.

show abstract

“…Shan (2004), however, pointed out that this proposal, combined with the standard techniques for quantification and binding, leads to wrong empirical predictions. He furthermore argued that it is impossible to obtain the right set of functions in a principled way, and that an alternative-based notion of meaning therefore calls for a variable-free approach to meaning composition (Szabolcsi 1987;Jacobson 1999), which does entirely without abstraction. Novel and Romero (2010) argue that the cases which Shan deemed problematic could in fact be dealt with by enriching the underlying type theory with a new basic type for assignments for e-type variables, 4 and making certain assumptions about the meaning of wh-items.…”

Section: Abstractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composing alternatives

Ciardelli

Roelofsen

Theiler

2016

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a prominent line of work in natural language semantics, rooted in the work of Hamblin, in which the meaning of a sentence is not taken to be a single proposition, but rather a set of propositions-a set of alternatives. This allows for a more fine-grained view on meaning, which has led to improved analyses of a wide range of linguistic phenomena. However, this approach also faces a number of problems. We focus here on two of these, in our view the most fundamental ones. The first has to do with how meanings are composed, i.e., with the type-theoretic operations of function application and abstraction; the second has to do with how meanings are compared, i.e., the notion of entailment. Our aim is to reconcile what we take to be the essence of Hamblin's proposal with the more orthodox type-theoretic framework rooted in the work of Montague in such a way that both the explanatory utility of the former and the solid formal foundations of the latter are preserved. Our proposal builds on insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics, and it also contributes to the further development of this framework by specifying how the inquisitive meaning of a sentence may be built up compositionally. (2014) and . We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback, to Andreas Haida, Reinhard Muskens, Wataru Uegaki, and Yimei Xiang for helpful comments on earlier presentations of this material, and especially to Maria Aloni, Lucas Champollion, Liz Coppock, Donka Farkas, Jeroen Groenendijk, Edgar Onea, and Anna Szabolcsi for extensive discussion. This paper integrates and extends ideas and results from Theiler

show abstract

Paychecks, Stress, and Variable-Free Semantics

Abstract: No abstract.

Cited by 22 publications

References 3 publications

Dependent plural pronouns with Skolemized choice functions

Dependent plural pronouns with Skolemized choice functions

Overtly Anaphoric Control in Type Logical Grammar

Composing alternatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About