Binding without variables: Solving the under-generation problems

The variable-free semantics of Jacobson (1999, 2000, 2014) derives binding relations by the local application of the z-rule. This rule, however, under- generates binding. This paper makes two contributions: (i) replacing the z-rule with a more flexible rule called i (a la the W-combinator of Szabolcsi 1992), which allows for more binding relations; (ii) enriching Jacobson’s variable-free system and proposing a two-dimensional analysis to account for the interactions between scoping and binding. Issues to be covered include binding into adjuncts, possessor binding, scope ambiguity, inverse linking, weak crossover, and ‘paycheck pronouns’.

Glue Semantics

Glue Semantics (Glue) is a general framework for semantic composition and the syntax–semantics interface. The framework grew out of an interdisciplinary collaboration at the intersection of formal linguistics, formal logic, and computer science. Glue assumes a separate level of syntax; this can be any syntactic framework in which syntactic structures have heads. Glue uses a fragment of linear logic for semantic composition. General linear logic terms in Glue meaning constructors are instantiated relative to a syntactic parse. The separation of the logic of composition from structural syntax distinguishes Glue from other theories of semantic composition and the syntax–semantics interface. It allows Glue to capture semantic ambiguity, such as quantifier scope ambiguity, without necessarily positing an ambiguity in the syntactic structure. Glue is introduced here in relation to four of its key properties, which are used as organizing themes: resource-sensitive composition, flexible composition, autonomy of syntax, and syntax/semantics non-isomorphism. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Linguistics, Volume 8 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: An investigation of English, Spanish, and Mandarin

Faced with a sentence like Every horse didn't jump over the fence as a description of a scenario in which one out of two horses jumped, adults readily endorse the utterance as a good description, while children overwhelmingly reject it. However, systematic changes to the task setup lead to marked increases in children's endorsement rates (Musolino & Lidz 2006; Viau et al. 2010). Savinelli et al.(2017) use a computational cognitive model of utterance endorsement in truth-value judgment tasks to analytically demonstrate that both children and adults' interpretation behavior is affected by pragmatic manipulations. We test a clear prediction of these models: manipulating the conversational goal (or Question Under Discussion) should lead to clear effects on utterance endorsement. In addition to investigating the predictions for English, we also investigate Spanish and Mandarin, where the status of the relevant ambiguity may be less clear.

On the scope of quantifier phrases in Chinese passive construction

Quantifier phrases (QP) can co-occur in a single sentence, which may cause ambiguity in terms of scope relation, viz. wide scope and narrow scope interpretations. Aoun & Li (1993) claim that quantifier scope ambiguity also exists in Chinese passive construction, such as yige nűren bei meige ren ma ‘a woman was scolded by everyone’. Following Lee (1986)’s proposal, it is argued in this paper that the scopal relations of Chinese QPs are not purely syntactic as in Aoun & Li’s analysis, but should be determined by the interaction between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Based on naturalistic data, it is shown that (i) Chinese QPs can be classified into whQP, distributive-universal QP and group-denoting QP, whose semantic properties determine the scope relations between them; (ii) in general, a QP is devoid of referentiality, yet it can acquire referentiality depending on its co-occurrence with other QPs or contextual factors; (iii) the subject definiteness constraint in Chinese, a language-specific constraint, would affect the interpretation of subject QPs in Chinese passive construction.

Negation and Presupposition

Over a century of scholarship on presupposition has worked towards reconciling two seemingly contrary properties of these types of inferences: the ability to project through embedding like negation, and the ability to be cancelled explicitly. Describing these properties has been key to not only diagnosing presuppositions, but also differentiating them from other types of inferences like implicatures and entailment and understanding how a theory of presupposition could apply cross-linguistically. This chapter outlines different accounts of presupposition and negation, focusing on six different broad approaches: scope ambiguity, trivalent ambiguity, underspecification, metalinguistic negation, cancellation, and accommodation. These accounts differ with respect to whether they account for default projection, the mechanisms through which projection is derived, and whether entailments and implicatures are targeted by the same negation operators as presuppositions.

Individual Differences in Processing of Negative Operators

This chapter argues that a focus on individual differences in sentence processing is key in understanding how bilinguals process negation and negative dependencies. That is, bilinguals, like monolinguals, have been shown to exhibit considerable variation in behavioral and neural responses to sentence perception. It draws on recent findings in the author’s lab, and elsewhere, to show that individual differences in interpretation for sentences exhibiting scope ambiguity can account for disparate results (across typologically different languages, such as Korean and English) regarding negation in monolinguals. Moreover, the chapter shows how the model of sentence processing as ‘Heuristic first, algorithmic second’ accounts for neural signatures associated with negative sentences. Finally, heuristic vs. algorithmic processing is linked to appropriate neural responses and theories of bilingual sentence perception, and implications regarding the study of bilingual neural architecture are discussed.

Pragmatics in the interpretation of scope ambiguities

This paper presents a corpus study of pragmatic factors involved in interpreting potentially ambiguous sentences with negation and universal quantifiers, as demonstrated by the Russian sentence Oni ne uspejut vsjo eto sdelat’ ‘They won’t have time to do all this.’ Ambiguity in such sentences results from potential differences in scope assignment. If negation scopes over the quantifier, we get the interpretation of partial negation: ‘They will manage to do some of these things, but not everything.’ If negation scopes over the verb, we get total negation: ‘They won’t manage to do anything.’ This study is based on Russian and English data extracted from a variety of corpora. We demonstrate that while syntactic conditions where scope ambiguity is possible are different for Russian and English, in situations when both languages allow it, speakers rely on the same pragmatic mechanisms for disambiguation that are based on Gricean cooperation principle and shared background knowledge. Disambiguation is facilitated by lexical markers, different for verb-negated and quantifier-negated readings, and similar in Russian and English. We show that the interpretation of the quantifier is pragmatically different for verb-negated and quantifier-negated readings (emphatic in the former case and quantificational in the latter), and lexical markers of each reading are semantically and pragmatically consistent with this difference. Namely, verb-negated readings occur primarily in the context of demonstrative pronouns in their pragmaticalized meaning of negative assessment and negatively connoted nouns, while quantifier-negated readings occur in the context of verbs with quantitative semantics and quantitative implicatures that consolidate the interpretation of quantification.