Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Crossover Situations

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Situation semantics as conceived in Kratzer (1989) has been shown to be a valuable companion to the e-type pronoun analysis of donkey sentences (Heim 1990, and recently refined in Elbourne 2001b), and more generally binding out of DP (BOOD; Tomioka 1999; Büring 2001). The present paper proposes a fully compositional version of such a theory, which is designed to capture instances of crossover in BOOD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bach, Emmon and Barbara H. Partee: 1980, ‘Anaphora and Semantic Structure’, in J. Kreiman and A. Ojeda (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, pp. 1–28. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, Emmon and Barbara H. Partee: 1984, ‘Quantification, Pronouns, and VP Anaphora’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Truth, Interpretation and Information, pp. 99–130. Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, Chris: 1995, Possessive Descriptions. CSLI Publications (Dissertations in Linguistics), Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, Chris: 2001, ‘Integrity: A Syntactic Constraint on Quantifier Scoping’, unpublished ms., UC San Diego.

  • Berman, Stephen R.: 1987, ‘Situation-based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification’, in A. Vainikka (ed.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 12, pp. 45–68. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büring, Daniel: 2001, ‘A Situation Semantics for Binding out of DP’, in R. Hastings et al., Proceedings from SALT 11, pp. 56–75. CLC, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro: 1995, Dynamics of Meaning. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam: 1976, ‘Conditions on Rules of Grammar’, Linguistic Analysis 2, 303–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Robin: 1979, ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’, in F. Heny and H. Schnelle (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 10, pp. 61–92. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, Paul: 2000a, ‘E-Type Pronouns as Definite Articles’, in R. Billerey and B. D. Lillehaugen (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 19, pp. 83–96. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, Paul: 2000b, ‘E-Type Pronouns as NP-Ellipsis’, unpublished manuscript, MIT.

  • Elbourne, Paul: 2001a, ‘E-Type Anaphora as NP-Deletion’, Natural Language Semantics 9, 241–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, Paul: 2001b, ‘On the Semantics of Pronouns and Definite Articles’, in L. Bar-el and K. Megerdoomian, Proceedings of WCCFL 20, pp. 101–114. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Gareth: 1980, ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach, Peter: 1962, Reference and Generality. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haïk, Isabelle: 1984, ‘Indirect Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 185–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene: 1982, The Semantics and Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene: 1990, ‘E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer: 1998, Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, James: 1980a, ‘Anaphora and GB: Some Preliminary Remarks’, Proceedings of NELS 20, pp. 223–235. University of Ottawa, Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, James: 1980b, ‘Pronouns and Bound Variables’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 679–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, James: 1983, ‘Logical Form, Binding, and Nominals’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 395–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, James: 1987, ‘On the Varieties of Cross-Reference’, in A. Cardinaletti et al. (eds.), Papers from the 1987 GLOW Conference. Annali di ca' Foscari 27, pp. 123–142. Distributed by Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, Norbert: 1995, Logical Form — From GB to Minimalism. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, Pauline: 1977, The Syntax of Crossing Coreference Sentences, PhD dissertation, UC Berkeley. (Published 1980 by Garland Press.)

  • Jacobson, Pauline: 1999, ‘Towards a Variable Free Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, Pauline: 2000, ‘Paycheck Pronouns, Bach-Peters Sentences, and Variable Free Semantics’, Natural Language Semantics 8, 77–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon, Nirit: 1987, On Unique and Non-unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehler, Andrew: 2002, Another Problem for Syntactic (and Semantic) Theories of VP-Ellipsis. Snippets 5, 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche: 1983, ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle’, The Linguistic Review 3, 139–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika: 1989, ‘An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard K.: 1987, ‘Quantifying into NP’, unpublished ms., MIT.

  • May, Robert: 1977, The Grammar of Quantification, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • May, Robert: 1985, Logical Form. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Robert: 1988, ‘Bound Variable Anaphora’, in R. Kempson (eds.), Mental Representations, pp. 85–104. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Jonathan E.: 1986, The Formal Semantics of Point of View, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

  • Montague, Richard: 1974, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in R. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy, pp. 247–270. Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, Stephen: 1990, Descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara H.: 1975, ‘Some Transformational Extensions of Montague Grammar’, in D. J. Hockney, W. L. Harper, and B. Freed (eds.), Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, pp. 195–220. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara H.: 1989, ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’, in C. Wiltshire et al. (eds.), Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting, pp. 342–365. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Percus, Orin: 2000, ‘Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax’, Natural Language Semantics 8, 173–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya: 1983, Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya: 1987, ‘Specifier and Operator Binding’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 130–167. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats: 1987, ‘Noun Phrase Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, and Situation Semantics’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers: Linguistic and Logical Approaches, pp. 237–268. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys, E. G.: 2000, ‘Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon’, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 513–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, Ken: 1984, ‘Multiple Variable Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 603–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sag, Ivan A.: 1976, Deletion and Logical Form, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Tomioka, Satoshi: 1997, Focusing Effects and NP Interpretation in VP Ellipsis, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomioka, Satoshi: 1999, ‘A Sloppy Identity Puzzle’, Natural Language Semantics 7, 217–241.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Box 951543, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1543, USA

    Daniel Büring

Authors
  1. Daniel Büring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Büring, D. Crossover Situations. Natural Language Semantics 12, 23–62 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALS.0000011144.81075.a8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALS.0000011144.81075.a8

Keywords

Search

Navigation