Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 481–497 | Cite as

Such: Binding and the pro-adjective

  • Muffy E. A. Siegel
Article

Conclusion

The facts aboutsuch, then, indicate not just thatsuch is a pro-adjective, but also that binding conditions apply broadly to pro-ADJs and pro-CNs, as well as to a wide range of pro-arguments. If this is true, the CN binding process accomplished by rules (40) and (41) might better be expressed in a system that uses a Cooper (1979) store mechanism. In fact, Stump (p. 144) notes that this could easily be done. Meanings of the type ofP n could be stored, just as NP meanings are, until an appropriate binding CN phrase was encountered. Binding conditions would simply require that aP n meaning not come out of storage until the derivation had emerged from its governing category. The behavior of the pro-adjectivesuch suggests that an expression of any category, if it is legitimately translatable as a variable, may be a fullfledged proform; many principles and mechanisms described to account for the widely studied pronouns in fact apply to nonargument categories.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Binding Process Binding Condition Store Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach, Emmon, and Barbara Partee: 1980, ‘Anaphora and Semantic Structure’, in Jody Kreiman and A. E. Ojeda (eds.),Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Bresnan, Joan W.: 1973, ‘Syntax of the Comparative Clause Construction in English’,Linguistic Inquiry 4(3), 275–343.Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, Gregory N.: 1980,Reference to Kinds in English, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Chierchia, Gennaro, and Sally McConnell-Ginet: 1990,Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, Noam: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, Robin: 1979, ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’, in Frank Heny and Helmut S. Schnelle (eds.),Syntax and Semantics, Volume 10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Lakoff, George: 1968/1976, ‘Pronouns and Reference’, distributed 1968 by Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Linguistics Club. Reprinted 1976 in J. McCawley (ed.),Notes from Linguistic Underground, Syntax and Semantics, vol. 7, pp. 275–336.Google Scholar
  9. Montague, Richard: 1974, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in Richmond H. Thomason (ed.)Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  10. Nerbonne, John, and Masayo Iida, and William Ladusaw: 1991, ‘Semantics of Common Noun Phrase Anaphora’, in Aaron L. Halpern (ed.),Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  11. Partee, Barbara H.: 1978, ‘Bound Variables and Other Anaphors’, in D. Waltz (ed.),Proceedings of TINLAP-2, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  12. Partee, Barbara H., and Emmon Bach: 1981, ‘Quantification, Pronouns, and VP Anaphora’, in Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen and Martin Stokhof (eds.),Truth, Interpretation, and Information. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  13. Perry, John: 1979, ‘The Problem of the Essential Indexical’,Nous 13, 3–21.Google Scholar
  14. Siegel, Muffy E. A.: 1976, ‘Capturing the Russian Adjective’, in Barbara H. Partee (ed.),Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Siegel, Muffy E. A.: 1979, ‘Measure Adjectives in Montague Grammar’, in Steven Davis and Marianne Mithun (eds.),Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  16. Siegel, Muffy E. A.: 1980,Capturing the Adjective, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Stump, Gregory: 1978,Common Noun Anaphora as Variable Binding in Montague Grammar, Unpublished MA thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muffy E. A. Siegel
    • 1
  1. 1.Linguistics ProgramTemple University 022-29Philadelphia

Personalised recommendations