More or less final version. To appear in Natural Language Semantics. According to the alternative semantics for focus, the semantic reflex of intonational focus is a second semantic value, which in the case of a sentence is a set of propositions. We examine a range of semantic and pragmatic applications of the theory, and extract a unitary principle specifying how the focus semantic value interacts with semantic and pragmatic processes. A strong version of the theory has the effect of making lexical or construction-specific stipulation of a focus-related effect in association with focus constructions impossible. Furthermore, while focus has a uniform import, the sources of meaning differences in association with focus are various.

This thesis presents accounts of a range of linguistic phenomena in an extended categorial framework, and develops proposals for processing grammars set within this framework. Linguistic phenomena whose treatment we address include word order, grammatical relations and obliqueness, extraction and island constraints, and binding. The work is set within a flexible categorial framework which is a version of the Lambek calculus (Lambek, 1958) extended by the inclusion of additional type-forming operators whose logical behaviour allows for the characterization of some aspect of linguistic phenomena. We begin with the treatment of extraction phenomena and island constraints. An account is developed in which there are many interrelated notions of boundary, and where the sensitivity of any syntactic process to a particular class of boundaries can be addressed within the grammar. We next present a new categorial treatment of word order which factors apart the specification of the order of a h...

In this paper, I argue that the grammar of English extraction constructions is better analyzed without wh-traces. At stake here is

Syntactic structure constrains the possible "coreference " relations between the noun phrases in a sentence. Since the early days of generative syntax, we have learned a great deal about the nature of these structural constraints. Much of this syntactic theorizing has been possible with only a vague and informal understanding of what it really is in semantic terms that is being constrained here. Everyone agrees that it is not coreference in a literal sense, i.e., sameness of referents. But to specify in positive and semantically precise terms what it is instead has turned out to be non-trivial. Those authors that have given serious attention to the semantic import of syntactic constraints on so-called "coreference " have arrived at rather different conclusions. 1 A particularly elegant and well-elaborated proposal in this regard is due to Tanya Reinhart (1983a; 1983b). I ts central thesis is that only one type of "coreference " relation is syntactically represented and directly constrained by principles of grammar, and this is the well-understood relation of variable binding in the sense of formal logic. Other semantic relations, in particular such

Data from child language comprehension shows that children make errors in interpreting pronouns as late as age 6;6, yet correctly comprehend reflexives from the age of 3;0. On the other hand, data from child language production shows that children correctly produce both pronouns and reflexives from the age of 2 or 3. Current explanations of this asymmetric delay in comprehension have either rejected the comprehension data outright or have argued that the problems are pragmatic or caused by processing limitations. In contrast, our account, formulated in the framework of Optimality Theory, handles the comprehension data as well as the production data by arguing that children acquire the ability to take into account the alternatives available to their conversational partner relatively late. It is this type of bidirectional optimization, we argue, that is necessary for correctly interpreting pronouns. 2 1. Children’s grasp of binding principles 1.1. Children’s comprehension of reflexives and pronouns There is a well-known asymmetry in children’s pattern of acquisition of the binding principles A and B. Children correctly interpret reflexives like adults from the age of 3;0 but they continue to perform poorly on the interpretation of pronouns even up to the age

This paper is formal and quite difficult for readers untrained in modal logic; I have no illusions about this and I apologize in advance if I fail to make things as clear and simple as I should. I do believe, however, that much of the complexity in this paper is unavoidable and anything that is simpler will be so at the cost of precision. Almost everything will be defined here, so that the discussion will on the whole be self-contained. But this is really not to say much when it come to mathematical topics. The reader who is seriously interested should perhaps read an introductory book on modal logic and the lucid survey article [ Bull and Segerberg, 1984 ] to get enough background. I can also recommend [ Blackburn, 1993 ] as an introduction into modal logic in connection with avms. It is impossible to go through all technical proofs in great detail; this would be tantamount to writing a book on this topic. But, I hope, the line of argumentation can be understood even without a proper understanding of the technical points. For the message is of wider importance. If I am right, then modal logic, where it fails, fails necessarily Is there a genuine modal perspective on feature structures? 3 -- and no other framework I know of will not under these circumstances. Secondly, it provides enough technical apparatus to allow to prove significant results. To those who remain unimpressed I can only appeal to their sense of beauty and naturalness. Among the persons who have quite generally helped to shape my views on syntax and logic I wish to thank explicitly those who have contributed to the present paper. These are Mark Ellison and two anonymous referees, who had the questionable pleasure of reading an earlier version of this paper. Moreover, the results on modal feature logic...

The resolution of ambiguities is one of the central problems for Machine Translation. In this paper we propose a knowledge-based approach to disambiguation which uses Description Logics (DL) as representation formalism. We present the process of anaphora resolution implemented in the Machine Translation system FAST and show how the DL system BACK is used to support disambiguation. The disambiguation strategy uses factors representing syntactic, semantic, and conceptual constraints with different weights to choose the most adequate antecedent candidate. We show how these factors can be declaratively represented as defaults in BACK. Disambiguation is then achieved by determining the interpretation that yields a qualitatively minimal number of exceptions to the defaults, and can thus be formalized as exception minimization.

1.1 Accounting for disjoint reference Obviation versus Blocking. Two approaches to the distribution of anaphors and pronominals have been explored in Binding Theory. The OBVIATION approach, originating in Lasnik 1976 and extensively developed in the GB tradition, posits autonomous disjoint reference principles which directly filter out illicit coindexations in certain structural domains. The BLOCKING approach treats disjoint reference derivatively, by making anaphors obligatory under coreference in the binding domain, and invoking a syntactic or pragmatic principle that forces disjoint reference pronominals in the “elsewhere ” case. 1 1 My interest in reflexive pronouns comes partly from historical syntax and partly from the Case theory that Dieter Wunderlich and I have been thinking about since 1991. The first version of this paper was written that year, and I was fortunate to be able to discuss it with Dieter at the time, who made insightful suggestions especially about the Swedish material. I then set it aside for some years, realizing that many of the things I was trying to do were being done in a more sophisticated way by Reinhart & Reuland and by Burzio. Still, my conclusions differed from theirs on some points, and so I returned to the paper in 1996, adding the OT analysis, which was presented at an OT syntax conference at Stanford, and revising it once more for this publication in honor of Dieter Wunderlich. I am grateful to Cleo Condoravdi for her detailed comments on several drafts of this paper and for her advice and encouragement over the years. Special thanks also to Annie Zaenen and Peter Sells for their guidance, and to Ekkehard König and Tomas Riad for the interest they have take in this work. Many people have been generous with their

Abstract not found

Abstract not found