Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 407–444 | Cite as

Parasitic scope

Research Article


I propose the first strictly compositional semantic account of same. New data, including especially NP-internal uses such as two men with the same name, suggests that same in its basic use is a quantificational element taking scope over nominals. Given type-lifting as a generally available mechanism, I show that this follows naturally from the fact that same is an adjective. Independently-motivated assumptions extend the analysis to standard examples such as Anna and Bill read the same book via a mechanism I call PARASITIC SCOPE, in which the scope of same depends on the scope of some other scopetaking element in the sentence. Although I will initially discuss the analysis in terms of a familiar Quantifier Raising framework, I go on to implement the analysis within an innovative continuation-based Type-Logical Grammar. The empirical payoff for dealing in continuations is that a simple generalization of the basic analysis gives the first ever formal account of cases in which same distributes over objects other than NP denotations, as in the relevant interpretation of John hit and killed the same man.


Parasitic scope Quantification Continuations Quantifier raising Type logical grammar Same Different 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barker C. (1998). Individuation and quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4): 683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker C. (2002). Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics 10(3): 211–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker, C. (2004). Continuations in natural language. In H. Thielecke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth ACM SIGPLAN Continuations Workshop (CW’04). Technical Report CSR-04-1, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, C. (2007). Direct compositionality on demand. In C. Barker, & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 102–131). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barker C., Shan C.-C. (2006). Types as graphs: Continuations in type-logical grammar. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 15(4): 331–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker, C., & Shan, C.-C. (In prep). Reasoning about contexts in Lambek grammar.Google Scholar
  7. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers in natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck S. (2000). The semantics of different: Comparison operator and relational adjective. Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 101–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernardi, R., & Moortgat, M. (2007). Continuation semantics for symmetric categorial grammar. In D. Leivant, & R. de Queiros (Eds.), Proceedings 14th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation (WoLLIC’07), LNCS 4576. Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. Carlson G. (1987). Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10(4): 531–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dekker P. (2003). Meanwhile, within the Frege Boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dotlacil, J., & Nilsen, O. (2007). Expressions of non-identity in Dutch. Ms.Google Scholar
  13. Dowty, D. (1985). A unified indexical analysis of same and different: A response to Stump and Carlson. Paper Presented at University of Texas Workshop on Syntax and Semantics, Austin, Texas, March 22–24, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. van Eijck, J. (2003). Relations, types and scoping. Slides.Google Scholar
  15. van Eijck, J. (2004). Normal forms for characteristic functions on n-ary relations. Ms.Google Scholar
  16. de Groote, P. (2001). Continuations, type raising, and classical logic. In R. van Rooy, &M. Stokhof (Eds.), Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 97–101). Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  17. Hackl, M. (2001). Comparative quantifiers. PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms. (Available at Scholar
  19. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  20. Hendriks, H. (1993). Studied flexibility. ILLC Dissertation Series. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobson P. (1999). Towards a variable free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keenan E. (1992). Beyond the Frege Boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(2): 199–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keenan E., Faltz L. (1985). Boolean semantics for natural language. Dordrecht, D. ReidelGoogle Scholar
  24. Krifka M. (1990a). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 487–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krifka M. (1990b). Boolean and non-Boolean And. In L.Kálman, & L. Polos (Eds.), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language. Akadémiai Kiadó, 1990, Budapest, pp. 161–188.Google Scholar
  26. Lambek J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lasersohn, P. (2000). Same, models and representation. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 10.Google Scholar
  28. Moltmann F. (1992). Reciprocals and same/different: Towards a semantic analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(4): 411–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moortgat M. (1997). Categorial type logics. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds). Handbook of logic and language. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 93-177Google Scholar
  30. Nunberg G. (1984). Individuation in context. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2, 203–217Google Scholar
  31. Oehrle, R. (1996). Austinian pluralities. In J. Seligman, & D. Westerstahl (Eds.), Language, logic, and computation (pp. 433–441). Stanford, CSLI: distributed by Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Parson T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Partee, B. H. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Foris.Google Scholar
  34. Partee B.H., Rooth M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., von Stechow A. (eds). Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 361-383Google Scholar
  35. Restall, G. (2000). An introduction to substructural logics. Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Sauerland, U. (1998). Plurals, derived predicates and reciprocals. In U. Sauerland, & O. Percus (Eds.), The interpretive tract. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 25, 177–204.Google Scholar
  37. Schwarzschild R. (1996). Pluralities. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  38. Shan C.-C., Barker C. (2006). Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(1): 91–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steedman M. (2000). The syntactic process. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Stump, G. (1982). A GPSG fragment for ‘dependent nominals’. Unpublished Ohio State University Paper.Google Scholar
  41. Tovena, L., & Van Peteghem, M. (2002). Facets of ‘different’ in French: différent and autre. In C. Beyssade, et al. (Eds.), Actes de CSSP 2001: Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics. Paris: Presses Universitaires de la Sorbonne.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations