Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 241–264

Scope control and grammatical dependencies

Original Article

Abstract

This paper develops a semantics with control over scope relations using Vermeulen’s stack valued assignments as information states. This makes available a limited form of scope reuse and name switching. The goal is to have a general system that fixes available scoping effects to those that are characteristic of natural language. The resulting system is called Scope Control Theory, since it provides a theory about what scope has to be like in natural language. The theory is shown to replicate a wide range of grammatical dependencies, including options for, and constraints on, ‘donkey’, ‘binding’, ‘movement’, ‘Control’ and ‘scope marking’ dependencies.

Keywords

Grammatical dependencies Dynamic semantics Donkey anaphora Binding theory Control Movement Scope marking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aloni M., Butler A., Dekker P. (2007). Questions in dynamic semantics. Amsterdam, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach E., Partee B. (1980). Anaphora and semantic structure. In Kreiman J., Ojeda A.(eds) Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 1–28Google Scholar
  3. van den Berg, M. H. (1996). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse: The dynamics of nominal anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Butler A., Mathieu E. (2004). The syntax and semantics of split constructions: A comparative study. Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler A., Mathieu E. (2005). Split-DPs, the generalized EPP and visibility. In McGinnis M., Richards N (eds) Perspective on phases, Vol. 49 of MIT working papers in linguistics. MA, MIT, pp. 49–67Google Scholar
  6. Cheng, L. (1991). On the typology of WH-questions. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. Published by Garland, New-York, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. Cresswell M. (2002). Static semantics for dynamic discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 545–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dekker P. (2002). Meaning and use of indefinite expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11, 141–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. du Plessis H. (1977). WH-movement in Afrikaans. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 723–726Google Scholar
  10. Evans G. (1977). Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses (I). Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, 467–536Google Scholar
  11. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1): 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heim I. (1990). E-type pronouns and donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hollenberg M., Vermeulen C. (1996). Counting variables in a dynamic setting. Journal of Logic and Computation 6, 725–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Honcoop, M. (1998). Dynamic excursions on weak islands. Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University/HIL.Google Scholar
  15. Kamp H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk J., Janssen T., Stokhof M.(eds) Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam, Mathematical Centre, pp. 277–322Google Scholar
  16. Kamp H. (1990). Prolegomena to a structural theory of belief and other attitudes. In: Anderson C.A., Owens J.(eds) Propositional attitudes: The role of content in logic, language and mind. Stanford, CSLI, pp. 27–90Google Scholar
  17. Postal P. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
  18. van Rooij, R. (1997). Attitudes and changing contexts. Ph.D. thesis, IMS, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  19. Stalnaker R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vermeulen C. (1993). Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2, 217–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vermeulen C. (2000). Variables as stacks: A case study in dynamic model theory’. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9, 143–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Visser A., Vermeulen C. (1996). Dynamic bracketing and discourse representation. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37, 321–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Williams E. (1994). Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, Mass, MITGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations