Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 49–67 | Cite as

Binding effects with scope control

Original Paper
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

We present a predicate-logic like system with explicit scope control that captures the possibilities of a diverse range of natural language like binding effects, as well as the limits on when the effects arise. Phenomena covered include: inter-sentential (dynamic) binding, intra-sentential (non-)locality restrictions, control effects, scoping options, crossover effects, and effects of transitive binding versus co-binding. Also the approach fosters the emergence of grammatical roles (e.g. subject as more privileged than object), and a role for canonical forms or explicit name marking (e.g. case agreement).

Keywords

Scope Binding Locality Grammatical relations Canonical forms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berkling, K. (1976). A symmetric complement to the lambda-calulus. Interner Bericht ISF-76-7, GMD, St. Augustin, Germany.Google Scholar
  2. Büring D. (2005). Bound to bind. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler A., Mathieu E. (2004). The syntax and semantics of split constructions: a comparative study. Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  4. Cresswell M.J. (2002). Static semantics for dynamic discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 545–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dekker P. (2002). Meaning and use of indefinite expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 11, 141–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heim, I. (1993). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s Approach. Technical Report SfS-Report-07-93, University of Tubingen.Google Scholar
  7. Hendriks, D., & van Oostrom, V. (2003). λ-calculus. Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  8. Higginbotham J. (1983). Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 395–420Google Scholar
  9. Progovac L. (1994). Negative and positive polarity. A binding approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Vermeulen C. (1993). Sequence semantics for Dynamic Predicate Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2, 217–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations