ࡱ > 4 6 - . / 0 1 2 3 @ S< bjbj & ؝ ؝
r
r
r
I I I 8 :I >J
@
J R : R p DS DS X Z @[ H ? $ J R n r
` 8X X ` ` DS DS z z z `
< DS r
DS 4 z ` z z b K | r
f DS J I I n 4
0 @
v
f
t "
r
D [ : \ z ] V^ [ [ [
$2 >A y
z $A Lecture 14. Binding, Quantification, and the
Dynamics of Context-Dependence
TOC \o "1-2" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043089" 1. Background PAGEREF _Toc199043089 \h 1
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043090" 1.1 Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts (Partee 1989) PAGEREF _Toc199043090 \h 1
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043091" 1.2. Nominal and Temporal Anaphora PAGEREF _Toc199043091 \h 2
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043092" 1.3. Contextdependent delimitation of quantificational domains PAGEREF _Toc199043092 \h 5
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043093" 2. Phenomena crucially affected by the structuring of local context. PAGEREF _Toc199043093 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043094" 2.1. Goal: PAGEREF _Toc199043094 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043095" 2.2. Contextdependence, context structure, and context change. PAGEREF _Toc199043095 \h 7
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043096" 2.3 Parallels in "accessible anchorings" among different contextdependent phenomena. PAGEREF _Toc199043096 \h 7
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043097" 3. The interconnections among topicfocus structure, anaphora, presupposition, domain selection, and dynamics of context change. PAGEREF _Toc199043097 \h 9
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043098" 3.1. Tripartite structures generalized: PAGEREF _Toc199043098 \h 9
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043099" 3.2 Prague school: TopicFocus Articulation (TFA) and Scale of Communicative Dynamism (CD) PAGEREF _Toc199043099 \h 9
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043100" 3.3 Which constructions are focussensitive? (Partee 1991) PAGEREF _Toc199043100 \h 9
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043101" 3.4. Connecting topicfocus structure and domain selection to presupposition and contextdependence. PAGEREF _Toc199043101 \h 11
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043102" 3.5. Topicfocus articulation and its significance in both pragmatic and dynamic semantic interpretation PAGEREF _Toc199043102 \h 11
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043103" 3.6. Connecting anaphora and contextdependence. PAGEREF _Toc199043103 \h 12
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043104" 3.7. Tripartite structures generalized, second version. PAGEREF _Toc199043104 \h 12
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199043105" References PAGEREF _Toc199043105 \h 12
Readings:
(1) ADDIN EN.CITE Partee1989882288225Barbara ParteeWiltshire, C.Music, B.Graczyk, R.Binding implicit variables in quantified contextsCLS 25: Papers from the Twenty Fifth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society342-3651989ChicagoChicago Linguistic Societyhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee89_BindingImplicitVar.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee89_BindingImplicitVar.pdf(Partee 1989) Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts
(2) ADDIN EN.CITE Partee19847033703317Barbara ParteeNominal and Temporal AnaphoraLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy243-28671984http://bhpartee.narod.ru/Partee1984NomTemp.pdf http://bhpartee.narod.ru/Partee1984NomTemp.pdf (Partee 1984b) Nominal and temporal anaphora
(3) ADDIN EN.CITE van der Sandt19925550555017van der Sandt, RobPresupposition projection as anaphora resolutionJournal of SemanticsJournal of SemanticsJournal of SemanticsJournal of SemanticsJournal of SemanticsJournal of Semantics332-37791992(van der Sandt 1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution
(4) ADDIN EN.CITE Heim1998858485845Heim, IreneSauerland, UliPercus, OrinAnaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approachThe Interpretive Tract. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25205-2461998Cambridge, MA.http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zZkNzIzO/HeimMITWPL25.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zZkNzIzO/HeimMITWPL25.pdf(Heim 1998) Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach
(5) ADDIN EN.CITE Heim1983833783375Heim, IreneBarlow, M.Flickinger, D.Wescoat, M.On the projection problem for presuppositionsWCCFL 2: Second Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics114-125Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 249-2601983Stanford Universityhttp://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/10-Heim-On.the.Projection.Problem.for.Presuppositions.djvu(Heim 1983a) The projection problem for presuppositions
(6) ADDIN EN.CITE Partee1991883588355Partee, Barbara H.Moore, StevenWyner, Adam ZacharyTopic, focus and quantificationSALT I: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 1991Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 10159-187topic, focus, presupposition, quantification1991Ithaca, N.Y.CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell Universityhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zM0MjNhO/ http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zM0MjNhO/ (Partee 1991) Topic, focus, and quantification
1. Background
1.1 Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts (Partee 1989)
(1) (a) John visited a local bar. ADDIN EN.CITE Mitchell19866968696832Mitchell, JonathanThe Formal Semantics of Point of View1986University of Massachusetts at AmherstPh.D. dissertation(Mitchell 1986)
(b) Every sports fan in the country was at a local bar watching the playoffs.
(2) (a) An enemy is approaching. ADDIN EN.CITE Partee1984422542255Partee, BarbaraFred LandmanFrank VeltmanCompositionalityVarieties of Formal Semantics281-3121984DordrechtForishttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee_1984Compositionality.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee_1984Compositionality.pdf(Partee 1984a)
(b) John faced an enemy.
(c) Every man faced an enemy.
(3) (a) Most Europeans speak a foreign language.
(b) Most foreigners speak a foreign language. (Gregory Ward, p.c.)
(4) (a) Every man who stole a car abandoned it 2 hours later.
(b) Every man who stole a car abandoned it 50 miles away
(5) John often comes over for Sunday brunch. Whenever someone else comes over too, we (all) end up playing trios. (Otherwise we play duets.)
(6) (Difference between "arrive here" and "arrive" anchored to 'here') Phone conversations:
(a) A: Joel hasn't arrived here.
B: David has (hasn't he?)
Unambiguously A's "here"; strict identity only. Here is normally only referential (unlike there).
(b) A: Joel hasn't arrived.
B: David has. Ambiguously A's or B's "here", strict or sloppy, referential or bound.
Anchoring situations can vary from expression to expression within a single evaluation situation: some of the above examples, and:
(7) (a) Real time: Now you see it, now you don't.
(b) Is that the same river as that? ADDIN EN.CITE Kaplan1979755075505Kaplan, DavidFrench, Peter A.Uehling, Theodore E., Jr.Wettstein, Howard K.On the logic of demonstrativesContemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language401-4121979University of Minnesota Press(Kaplan 1979)
(8) Few 19th century Shakespeare scholars tried to relate the work of contemporary authors to current/contemporary philosophical theories.
(Repeating the word "contemporary" suggests but does not require coanchoring; choosing a different word suggests but does not require otherwise.)
1.2. Nominal and Temporal Anaphora
Partee ADDIN EN.CITE 19737027702717Barbara ParteeSome structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in EnglishThe Journal of PhilosophyThe Journal of Philosophy601-609701973http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-362X%2819731025%2970%3A18%3C601%3ASSABTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H orhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WUyZGJjY/Partee1973.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WUyZGJjY/Partee1973.pdf(1973) observed a number of parallels between tenses and pronouns; in that paper I tried to account for them by using explicit variables over times and treating the tense morphemes Present and Past as directly analogous to pronouns. In Partee ADDIN EN.CITE 19847597759717Barbara H. ParteeNominal and temporal anaphoraLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy243-28671984http://bhpartee.narod.ru/Partee1984NomTemp.pdf http://bhpartee.narod.ru/Partee1984NomTemp.pdf (1984c) I offered an improved account building on Reichenbachs ADDIN EN.CITE 1947453545356Reichenbach, HansElements of Symbolic LogicLogic1947New York, London: MacMillan(1947) notion of reference time as developed in work by Buerle ADDIN EN.CITE 19778413841332Buerle, R.Tempus, Temporaladverb und die temporale Frage1977Universitt KonstanzDoctoral Dissertation(1977) and especially Hinrichs ADDIN EN.CITE 19818595859532Hinrichs, ErhardTemporale Anaphora im EnglischenTenseAnaphora1981TbingenUniversitt TbingenZulassungsarbeit19862396239617Hinrichs, ErhardTemporal Anaphora and Discourses of EnglishLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy63-829TenseAnaphora1986(1981, 1986), and building on the unified treatment of pronominal anaphora provided by the discourse representations of Kamp (1981) or the file-card semantics of Heim (1982). The task of unifying those advances was largely carried out by Hinrichs (1981); in Partee (1984) I showed how his work could be extended to cases of temporal quantification and to temporal analogs of donkey anaphora.
The analogies: There are temporal analogs of deictic pronouns, anaphoric pronouns with definite and indefinite antecedents, bound-variable pronouns, and donkey-sentence pronouns. Actually, what are called deictic pronouns in Partee (1984) are just pronouns with non-linguistic antecedents, which should better be called pragmatic or exophoric pronouns. I dont believe that tenses can be used for true deixis; like the third person neuter pronoun it in English, they cannot be stressed and cannot be used to pick out a previously non-salient temporal referent. For that one needs to use a stressed adverbial like then. (Data below are from Partee (1973), repeated in Partee (1984).)
Pronouns with non-linguistic antecedents:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. I didnt turn off the stove. [Note: this became a famous example, useful for showing that Past tense in English is not simply an existential quantifier over past times.]
b. She left me. (nominal analog)
Definite anaphors with definite antecedents:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Sam is married. He has three children.
b. Sheila had a party last Friday and Sam got drunk.
c. When John saw Mary, she crossed the street.
d. At 3pm. June 21st, 1960, Mary had a brilliant idea.
Indefinite antecedents:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Pedro owns a donkey. He beats it. (Kamp, Heim)
b. Mary woke up sometime during the night. She turned on the light.
Bound variables:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Every woman believes that she is happy.
b. No woman fully appreciates her mother.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Whenever Mary telephoned, Sam was asleep.
b. When Mary telephoned, Sam was always asleep.
c. Whenever Mary wrote a letter, Sam answered it two days later.
d. Whenever John got a letter, he answered it immediately.
Donkey anaphora:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. If Pedro owns a donkey, he beats it.
b. Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.
c. If Mary telephoned on a Friday, it was (always) Peter that answered.
d. Whenever Mary telephoned on a Friday, Sam was asleep.
Parallels in negative data: the quantificational element cannot be inside the restrictor clause, which is a scope island for both nominal and temporal quantificational operators (and all kinds of semantic operators).
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. #If every man owns a donkey, he beats it.
b. #If Sheila always walks into the room, Peter wakes up.
(vs. OK b: If Sheila walks into the room, Peter always wakes up.)
Representations using Kamps DRS structures (can do the same with Heims theory; for more recent and better formalized account, see ADDIN EN.CITE Muskens199510002100025Muskens, ReinhardEgli, UrsPause, E.P.Schwarze, Christophvon Stechow, ArnimWienold, G.Tense and the logic of changeLexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language147-1831995AmsterdamJohn Benjamins,http://let.uvt.nl/general/people/rmuskens/pubs/cgdrt.pdfhttp://let.uvt.nl/general/people/rmuskens/pubs/cgdrt.pdf(Muskens 1995).
Example (9), Partee (1984): If Pedro owns a donkey, he beats it. (nominal donkey anaphora).
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
Example (10) from Partee (1984): Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it. (also nominal donkey anaphora).
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
Temporal analog of (9) and (10): Example (27) from Partee (1984): Whenever Mary telephoned, Sam was asleep. Below is first a preliminary DRS(27), then a more complete one, DRS(27), showing the steps of the derivation.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
For other recent work, see ADDIN EN.CITE Stone199710001100015Stone, MatthewHardt, DanielDynamic Discourse Referents for Tense and ModalsProceedings of IWCS 2287-2991997http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~mdstone/pubs/iwcs97.pdf http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~mdstone/pubs/iwcs97.pdf En19866428642817Mrvet EnTowards a Referential Analysis of Temporal ExpressionsLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy405-4269198619871546154617En, MrvetAnchoring conditions for tenseLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry633-65718Tempus1987Webber1979767676766Webber, BonnieA Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora1979New YorkGarland PublishingKratzer1998869486945Kratzer, AngelikaStrolovitch, DevonLawson, AaronMore structural analogies between pronouns and tenseSALT VIII: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 199892-1101998Ithaca, N.Y.CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell Universityhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdfMuskens199510002100025Muskens, ReinhardEgli, UrsPause, E.P.Schwarze, Christophvon Stechow, ArnimWienold, G.Tense and the logic of changeLexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language147-1831995AmsterdamJohn Benjamins,http://let.uvt.nl/general/people/rmuskens/pubs/cgdrt.pdfhttp://let.uvt.nl/general/people/rmuskens/pubs/cgdrt.pdf(Webber 1979, En 1986, 1987, Muskens 1995, Stone and Hardt 1997, Kratzer 1998).
In the rest of this handout, we show how the parallels between nominal and temporal anaphora extend to much broader ranges of phenomena with anaphoric properties.
1.3. Contextdependent delimitation of quantificational domains
(9) (a) Most quadratic equations have two different solutions.
(b) Det'(CNP')(VP')
(c) Determiner Quantifiers: domain strongly constrained by syntax.
(10) Additional delimitation via focus effects:
Most ships pass through the lock at night. ADDIN EN.CITE Krifka19903160316017Krifka, ManfredFour thousand ships passed through the lock: object-induced measure functions on eventsLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy487-51913MeasureFunction, Event1990(Krifka 1990)
(Most ships that pass through the lock pass through the lock at night)
(11) Additional contextual narrowing:
(a) "simple" contextual effects:
Almost every student was sitting down.
(b) "quantified local context" contextual effects.
Whenever a teacher entered any classroom, almost every student was sitting down.
(12) (a) A quadratic equation usually has two different solutions. ADDIN EN.CITE Lewis1975345534555Lewis, DavidKeenan, E.L.Adverbs of quantificationFormal Semantics of Natural Language3-15Reprinted in Portner and Partee, eds., 2002, 178-188Quantification, most1975CambridgeCambridge University Presshttp://newstar.rinet.ru/~goga/biblio/essential-readings/07-Lewis-Adverbs.of.Quantification.djvu(Lewis 1975)
(b) Usually, x is a quadratic equation, x h a s t w o d i f f e r e n t s o l u t i o n s
( c ) A Q u a n t i f i e r : d o m a i n o f t e n [ s e e m s t o b e ] d e t e r m i n e d i n s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t b y t o p i c f o c u s s t r u c t u r e . A D D I N E N . C I T E <