Abstract. We propose type systems that abstractly interpret small-step rather than big-step operational semantics. We treat an expression or evaluation context as a structure in a linear logic with hypothetical reasoning. Evaluation order is not only regulated by familiar focusing rules in the operational semantics, but also expressed by structural rules in the type system, so the types track control flow more closely. Binding and evaluation contexts are related, but the latter are linear. We use these ideas to build a type system for delimited continuations. It lets control operators change the answer type or act beyond the nearest dynamically-enclosing delimiter, yet needs no extra fields in judgments and arrow types to record answer types. The typing derivation of a directstyle program desugars it into continuation-passing style. 1

Davidson (1979) distinguished mixed quotation, as in (1) and (2), from pure, direct, and indirect quotation, as in (3)–(5). (1) (Mixed quotation) Quine says quotation ‘has a certain anomalous feature’. (2) (Mixed quotation) Bush is proud of his ‘eckullectic ’ reading list.

Quantifier scope challenges the mantra of Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) that all syntactic dependencies are local once syntactic recursion has been factored out. The reason is that on current TAG analyses, a quantifier and the furthest reaches of its scope domain are in general not part of any (unicomponent) elementary tree. In this paper, I consider a novel basic TAG operation called COSUBSTI-TUTION. In normal substitution, the root of one tree (the argument) replaces a matching non-terminal on the frontier of another tree (the functor). In cosubstitution, the syntactic result is the same, leaving weak and strong generative capacity unchanged, but the derivational and semantic roles are reversed: the embedded subtree is viewed as the functor, and the embedding matrix is viewed as its semantic argument, i.e., as its nuclear scope. On this view, a quantifier taking scope amounts to entering a derivation at the exact moment that its nuclear scope has been constructed. Thus the relationship of a quantifier and its scope is constrained by DERIVATIONAL LOCALITY rather than by elementary-tree locality. 1

Abstract 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.

[Same and different] appear to be totally resistant to a strictly compositional semantic analysis... Stump (1982:2) Abstract: Keenan (1992) proves there is no generalized quantifier that expresses the meaning the same two books. And indeed, previous analyses of adjectives like same have been heavily pragmatic (Dowty 1985, Beck 2000) or else deliberately non-compositional, either building syntactically discontinuous higher-order quantifiers (Keenan 1992, van Eijck 2003), or relying on side calculations (Stump 1982, Moltmann 1992). Building on insights of Carlson (1987), 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 typelifting as a generally available mechanism, I show that this follows naturally from the fact that same is an adjective. Independentlymotivated 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 scope-taking element in the sentence. Although I will initially discuss the analysis in terms of a familiar movement-based framework with Quantifier Raising in the style of Heim and Kratzer (1998), I go on to implement the analysis within a somewhat innovative continuation-based Type-Logical Grammar (e.g., Moortgat (1997)). 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. 1. A compositional semantic account of same This paper seeks to understand the semantic behavior of same (with more limited discussions of some related adjectives, notably different) in a variety of its most typical uses, including (1): (1) Anna and Bill read the same book.

The first part of this article focuses on the classical notions of scope and binding. It argues that once their semantic core is properly understood, it can be implemented in various different ways – with or without movement, with or without variables. The second part focuses on the empirical issues that have redrawn the map in the past two decades. It turns out that scope is not a primitive. Existential scope and distributive scope have to be distinguished, leaving few if any run-of-the-mill quantifiers. Scope behavior is also not uniform. At least three classes of expressions emerge: indefinites, distributive universals, and counters. Likewise, the bound variable interpretation of pronouns competes with co-variation with situations. As a result, the classical notions are likely to end up as building blocks in the varied mechanisms at work in “scope phenomenona” and “binding phenomena”, and not as self-contained analyses of those phenomena.