Continuations and Natural Language

Preface Notational conventions Acknowledgments Introduction PART I TOWERS: SCOPE AND EVALUATION ORDER 1. Scope and towers 2. Binding and crossover 3. From generalized quantifiers to dynamic meaning 4. Multi-level towers: Inverse scope 5. Movement as delayed evaluation: Wh-fronting 6. Reconstruction effects 7. Generalized coordination, Flexible Montague Grammar 8. Order effects in negative polarity licensing 9. Donkey anaphora and donkey crossover 10. Strategies for determiners 11. Other combinatory categorial frameworks 12. Computational connections PART II LOGIC, SAME, AND SLUICING 13. NLlambda 14. Parasitic scope for same 15. Scope versus discontinuity: Anaphora, VPE 16. Sluicing as anaphora to a continuation 17. Formal properties of NLlambda 18. Scope needs delimited continuations Afterword: The logic of evaluation order Notes on exercises References Index

[1]  Gregory M. Kobele,et al.  Importing Montagovian Dynamics into Minimalism , 2012, LACL.

[2]  Richard S. Kayne.  Overt vs. Covert Movements , 1998 .

[3]  Edward L. Keenan,et al.  Semantic Case Theory , 1989 .

[4]  Maribel Romero,et al.  Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases , 1998 .

[5]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Overt Scope in Hungarian , 2003 .

[6]  Jon Sprouse,et al.  A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects , 2012 .

[7]  Matthew Stone,et al.  'Or' and Anaphora , 1992 .

[8]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The syntactic process , 2004, Language, speech, and communication.

[9]  Philippe de Groote,et al.  Presupposition Accommodation as Exception Handling , 2010, SIGDIAL Conference.

[10]  Raffaella Bernardi,et al.  Optionality, Scope, and Licensing: An Application of Partially Ordered Categories , 2008, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[11]  Matthew Barros,et al.  Harmonic sluicing: Which remnant/correlate pairs work and why , 2013 .

[12]  Jason Merchant,et al.  The syntax of silence : sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis , 2001 .

[13]  Ekaterina Lebedeva,et al.  Expression de la dynamique du discours à l'aide de continuations , 2012 .

[14]  R. Bernardi.  Reasoning with Polarity in Categorial Type Logic , 2002 .

[15]  Daniel Büring,et al.  A Situation Semantics for Binding out of DP , 2001 .

[16]  Balder ten Cate,et al.  The partition semantics of questions, syntactically , 2002, ArXiv.

[17]  Philip Wadler,et al.  Call-by-Value Is Dual to Call-by-Name - Reloaded , 2005, RTA.

[18]  John Fry,et al.  Negative Polarity Licensing at the Syntax-Semantics Interface , 1997, ACL.

[19]  Greg N. Carlson,et al.  Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics , 1987 .

[20]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  Classical NEG Raising , 2014 .

[21]  Hotze Rullmann,et al.  Maximality in the semantics of wh -constructions , 1995 .

[22]  Philip Wadler,et al.  Monads and composable continuations , 1994, LISP Symb. Comput..

[23]  J. Lambek.  The Mathematics of Sentence Structure , 1958 .

[24]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Combinatory Grammar and Projection from the Lexicon , 1992 .

[25]  Veneeta Dayal.  Multiple‐Wh‐Questions , 2007 .

[26]  Henk Barendregt,et al.  The Lambda Calculus: Its Syntax and Semantics , 1985 .

[27]  Tristan Crolard,et al.  Deriving a Hoare-Floyd logic for non-local jumps from a formulae-as-types notion of control , 2011, ArXiv.

[28]  William A. Ladusaw.  Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations , 1980 .

[29]  Christoph Schwarze,et al.  Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language , 1983 .

[30]  R. May.  The grammar of quantification , 1978 .

[31]  Sandra Chung.  Syntactic Identity in Sluicing: How Much and Why , 2013, Linguistic Inquiry.

[32]  J. Gallart.  Theory of Discontinuous Lambek Calculus , 2012 .

[33]  Kyle Johnson,et al.  Recoverability of deletion , 2014 .

[34]  CHRIS BARKER,et al.  Introduction: Direct Compositionality. , 2007 .

[35]  John C. Reynolds,et al.  The discoveries of continuations , 1993, LISP Symb. Comput..

[36]  Pauline Jacobson.  Towards a Variable-Free Semantics , 1999 .

[37]  Hugo Herbelin,et al.  The duality of computation , 2000, ICFP '00.

[38]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  The gifted mathematician that you claim to be: Equational intensional ‘reconstruction’ relatives , 2007 .

[39]  M. Moortgat.  Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus , 1988 .

[40]  Arno Bastenhof.  Polarities in Logic and Semantics , 2011, Amsterdam Colloquium on Logic, Language and Meaning.

[41]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  STRUCTURED NOMINAL AND MODAL REFERENCE , 2008 .

[42]  Ken Safir,et al.  Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in -Chains , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[43]  Scott AnderBois,et al.  Sluicing as anaphora to issues , 2010 .

[44]  David R. Dowty.  The Role of Negative Polarity and Concord Marking in Natural Language Reasoning , 1994 .

[45]  M. Linebarger.  The grammar of negative polarity , 1981 .

[46]  Raffaella Bernardi,et al.  Generalized Quantifiers in Declarative and Interrogative Sentences , 2003, Log. J. IGPL.

[47]  Olivier Danvy,et al.  A Functional Abstraction of Typed Contexts , 1989 .

[48]  T. Reinhart.  Anaphora and semantic interpretation , 1983 .

[49]  Paul M. Postal,et al.  Cross-over phenomena , 1971 .

[50]  JOACHIM JACOBS,et al.  LEXICAL DECOMPOSITION IN MONTAGUE-GRAMMAR , 1980 .

[51]  William A. Ladusaw,et al.  Sluicing and logical form , 1995 .

[52]  Gilad Ben-Avi,et al.  A modular approach to intensionality , 2007 .

[53]  Jean-Yves Girard,et al.  Linear Logic , 1987, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[54]  Floris Roelofsen,et al.  Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics , 2009 .

[55]  I. Sag,et al.  Cognitive constraints and island effects , 2010, Language.

[56]  Floris Roelofsen,et al.  Attention! 'Might' in Inquisitive Semantics , 2009 .

[57]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Bound variables in syntax (Are there any , 1987 .

[58]  Salvador Mascarenhas,et al.  Inquisitive Semantics and Logic , 2009 .

[59]  A. Kratzer.  An investigation of the lumps of thought , 1989 .

[60]  Paul Elbourne,et al.  Bishop Sentences and Donkey Cataphora: A Response to Barker and Shan , 2009 .

[61]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  The Semantics Of Different: Comparison Operator And Relational Adjective , 2000 .

[62]  M. Krifka,et al.  The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items , 2003 .

[63]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[64]  Christian Barker,et al.  Explaining Crossover and Superiority as Left-to-right Evaluation , 2006 .

[65]  H. Kamp.  A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation , 2008 .

[66]  Jon Sprouse,et al.  Working-memory capacity and island effects: A reminder of the issues and the facts , 2012 .

[67]  Mats Rooth,et al.  Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity , 2008 .

[68]  Christopher Potts.  The logic of conventional implicatures , 2004 .

[69]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Computational Semantics with Functional Programming , 2010 .

[70]  Laura Staum Casasanto,et al.  Misapplying working-memory tests: A reductio ad absurdum , 2012 .

[71]  Norbert Hornstein,et al.  Logical Form: From Gb to Minimalism , 1995 .

[72]  C. Heycock.  Asymmetries in reconstruction , 1995 .

[73]  Uli Sauerland.  DP is Not a Scope Island , 2005, Linguistic Inquiry.

[74]  D. Cresti.  Extraction and reconstruction , 1995 .

[75]  Michael Moortgat,et al.  Categorial Type Logics , 1997, Handbook of Logic and Language.

[76]  Dominique Sportiche,et al.  Reconstruction, Binding, and Scope , 2007 .

[77]  Raffaella Bernardi,et al.  Principles of interdimensional meaning interaction , 2010 .

[78]  S. Shieber,et al.  Linguistic side effects , 2005 .

[79]  Chung-chieh Shan,et al.  A continuation semantics of interrogatives that accounts for Baker's ambiguity , 2002, ArXiv.

[80]  Greg Restall,et al.  An Introduction to Substructural Logics , 2000 .

[81]  Michael Moortgat,et al.  Continuation Semantics for Symmetric Categorial Grammar , 2007, WoLLIC.

[82]  Chris Barker,et al.  Types as Graphs: Continuations in Type Logical Grammar , 2006, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[83]  Timothy G. Griffin,et al.  A formulae-as-type notion of control , 1989, POPL '90.

[84]  Christian Barker,et al.  Association with distributivity and the problem of multiple antecedents for singular different , 2013 .

[85]  Ileana Comorovski,et al.  Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics interface , 1996 .

[86]  Yusuke Kubota,et al.  Against ellipsis: arguments for the direct licensing of ‘noncanonical’ coordinations , 2015 .

[87]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Quantifier Scope and Syntactic Islands , 1981 .

[88]  Veneeta Dayal.  Licensing "any" in Non-Negative / Non-Modal Contexts , 1995 .

[89]  Doris Penka,et al.  Split Scope of Negative Indefinites , 2012, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[90]  Michel Parigot,et al.  Lambda-Mu-Calculus: An Algorithmic Interpretation of Classical Natural Deduction , 1992, LPAR.

[91]  Paul D. Elbourne.  Situations and individuals , 2005 .

[92]  Friederike Moltmann,et al.  Reciprocals andsame/different: Towards a semantic analysis , 1992 .

[93]  Irene Heim,et al.  File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness , 2008 .

[94]  Daisuke Bekki,et al.  Representing Covert Movements by Delimited Continuations , 2009, JSAI-isAI Workshops.

[95]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  A cross-categorial semantics for coordination , 1980 .

[96]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Conditions on transformations , 1971 .

[97]  G. Evans.  Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses (l) , 1977, Canadian Journal of Philosophy.

[98]  C. Barker.  Parasitic scope , 2007 .

[99]  Laura Staum Casasanto,et al.  How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments?: A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips , 2012 .

[100]  J. Barwise,et al.  Generalized quantifiers and natural language , 1981 .

[101]  Reinhard Muskens,et al.  λ-Grammars and the Syntax-Semantics Interface ∗ , 2022 .

[102]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Anti-dynamics: presupposition projection without dynamic semantics , 2007, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[103]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[104]  Ken Safir,et al.  The Syntax of Anaphora , 2004 .

[105]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Taking Scope - The Natural Semantics of Quantifiers , 2011 .

[106]  Oriol Valentín,et al.  The Displacement Calculus , 2010, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[107]  Wataru Uegaki,et al.  Continuation-based semantics for Conventional Implicatures: The case of Japanese benefactives , 2009 .

[108]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  How indefinites choose their scope , 2011 .

[109]  Richard Montague,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English , 1973 .

[110]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Dynamic Montague grammar , 1990 .

[111]  C. L. Baker.  Indirect questions in English , 1974 .

[112]  Bart Geurts,et al.  On No , 1996, J. Semant..

[113]  Anthony S. Kroch,et al.  The semantics of scope in English , 1979 .

[114]  Chung-chieh Shan,et al.  Polarity Sensitivity and Evaluation Order in Type-Logical Grammar , 2004, NAACL.

[115]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Positive Polarity – Negative Polarity , 2004 .

[116]  Christopher Tancredi.  Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition , 1992 .

[117]  Barbara H. Partee,et al.  Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type‐shifting Principles , 2008 .

[118]  Henriëtte de Swart,et al.  Scope Ambiguities with Negative Quantifiers , 2000 .

[119]  Richard T. Oehrle,et al.  Term-labeled categorial type systems , 1994 .

[120]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives , 2009 .

[121]  Simon Charlow.  INVERSE LINKING, SUPERIORITY, AND QR , 2009 .

[122]  Gerhard Jager.  Indenites and Sluicing. A type logical approach , 2001 .

[123]  Gordon D. Plotkin,et al.  Call-by-Name, Call-by-Value and the lambda-Calculus , 1975, Theor. Comput. Sci..