Explaining Crossover and Superiority as Left-to-right Evaluation.
We present a general theory of scope and binding in which both crossover and superiority violations are ruled out by one key assumption: that natural language expressions are normally evaluated (processed) from left to right. Our theory is an extension of Shan’s (2002) account of multiple- wh questi...
| Publicado en: | Linguistics & Philosophy Vol. 29; no. 1; pp. 91 - 135 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Feb2006
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=20976599&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 20976599 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01650157 OJI jtl: Linguistics & Philosophy issn: 01650157 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb2006 vid: 29 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 20976599 10.1007/s10988-005-6580-7 ppf: 91 ppct: 44 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 422KB tig: atl: Explaining Crossover and Superiority as Left-to-right Evaluation. aug: au: Chung-Chieh Shan Barker, Chris affil: Department of Computer Science and Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 110 Forlinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA 0108 Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA su: Theory (Philosophy) Semantics Philosophical analysis Form (Logic) Language & languages Comparative linguistics sug: subj: Theory (Philosophy) Semantics Philosophical analysis Form (Logic) Language & languages Comparative linguistics ab: We present a general theory of scope and binding in which both crossover and superiority violations are ruled out by one key assumption: that natural language expressions are normally evaluated (processed) from left to right. Our theory is an extension of Shan’s (2002) account of multiple- wh questions, combining continuations (Barker, 2002) and dynamic type-shifting. Like other continuation-based analyses, but unlike most other treatments of crossover or superiority, our analysis is directly compositional (in the sense of, e.g., Jacobson, 1999). In particular, it does not postulate a level of Logical Form or any other representation distinct from surface syntax. One advantage of using continuations is that they are the standard tool for modeling order-of-evaluation in programming languages. This provides us with a natural and independently motivated characterization of what it means to evaluate expressions from left to right. We give a combinatory categorial grammar that models the syntax and the semantics of quantifier scope and wh-question formation. It allows quantificational binding but not crossover, in-situ wh but not superiority violations. In addition, the analysis automatically accounts for a variety of sentence types involving binding in the presence of pied piping, including reconstruction cases such as Whose criticism of his mother did each person resent? pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Linguistics & Philosophy is a copyright of Springer, 2006. All Rights Reserved. item: Linguistics & Philosophy holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2006 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|