Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Origins of weak crossover: when dynamic semantics meets event semantics

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Approaches to anaphora generally seek to explain the potential for a DP to covary with a pronoun in terms of a combination of factors, such as (i) the inherent semantics of the antecedent DP (i.e., whether it is indefinite, quantificational, referential), (ii) its scope properties, and (iii) its structural position. A case in point is Reinhart’s classic condition on bound anaphora, paraphrasable as A DP can antecede a pronoun pro only if the DP c-commands pro at S-structure, supplemented with some extra machinery to allow indefinites to covary with pronouns beyond their c-command domains. In the present paper, I explore a different take. I propose that anaphora is governed not by DPs and their properties; it is governed by predicates (i.e., in the unary case, objects of type <e, t>) and their properties. To use a metaphor from dynamic semantics: discourse referents can only be ‘activated’ by predicates, never by DPs (Dynamic Predication Principle). This conceptually simple assumption is shown to have far-reaching consequences. For one, it yields a new take on weak crossover, arguably worthy of consideration. Moreover, it leads to a further general “restatement of the anaphora question”, in Reinhart’s (Linguist Philos 6: 47–88, 1983) words.

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

  • Alsina, A., and S. Mchombo. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chichewa: Problems for a theta-theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8: 493–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C. 2002. Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 211–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C., and C.-C. Shan. 2008. Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics 1: 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylin, J. 2001. On scrambling: A reply to Boskovic and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 635–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H. 2005. The normal course of events. Structuring sense, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D. 2004. Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12 (1): 23–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published in 1980 by Garland, New York.

  • Cecchetto, C. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Italian. Studia Linguistica 53: 40–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cecchetto, C., and G. Chierchia. 1999. Reconstruction in dislocation constructions and the syntax-semantics interface. In Proceedings of WCCFL 17, ed. S. Blake, E. Kim, and K. Shahin, 132–146. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champollion, L. 2015. The interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (1): 31–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champollion, L., D. Bumford, and R. Henderson. 2018. Donkeys under discussion. Semantics and Pragmatics. https://semprag.org/index.php/sp.

  • Chierchia, G. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1(2): 181–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. 1995a. Dynamics of meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. 1995b. Individual level predicates as inherent generics. In The generic book, ed. G. Carlson and J. Pelletier, 176–223. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. 2017. Why does A-movement bleed weak crossover? Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 39: 59–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S. 1990. VP and verb movement in Chamorro. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8 (4): 559–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. 1977. The movement nature of left dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 397–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The logic of decision and action, ed. N. Rescher, 81–120. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, V. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 393–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, V. 2016. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P. 1993. Existential disclosure. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 561–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P. 1996. The value of variables in dynamic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 211–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P. 2012. Dynamic semantics. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirdache, H., and O. Percus. 2011. Resumptive pronouns, movement, and interpretation. In Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces, ed. A. Rouveret, 367–394. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, P. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, P. 2010. On bishop sentences. Natural Language Semantics 18: 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. 1999. Reconstruction, variable binding, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallin, D. 1975. Intensional and higher order modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach, P.T. 1970. A program for syntax. Synthese 22: 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B. 2002. Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 129–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1990. Dynamic montague grammar. In Papers from the second symposium on logic and language, ed. L. Kalman and L. Polos, 3–48. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published 1989 by Garland, New York.

  • Heim, I. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 679–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, P. 1977. The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Berkeley. Published in 1980 by Garland, New York.

  • Jacobson, P. 1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 117–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and discourse representation. In Formal methods in the study of language, part 1, ed. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa, M. 1994. Weak vs. strong readings of donkey sentences and monotonicity inferences in a dynamic setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17: 109–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. 1977. The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, H., and D. Sportiche. 1983. Variables and the bijection principle. The Linguistic Review 2: 139–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. 2003. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GU1NWM4Z.

  • Krifka, M., F.J. Pelletier, G. Carlson, A. ter Meulen, G. Chierchia, and G. Link. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The generic book, ed. G. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 1–122. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, R. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H., and T. Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, A. 1990. The A/A′-distinction and the theory of movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Marty, P. 2017. Implicatures in the DP domain. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Massam, D. 2010. V2 or V1? On the left in Niuean. Lingua 120 (2): 284–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, J. 2002. Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist program, ed. S.D. Epstein and T.D. Seely, 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, J. 2006. Resumption. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 4, ed. M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 94–117. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muskens, R. 1996. Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, D. 2004. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postal, P. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T. 1983. Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora question. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 47–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T. 1996. Quantifier scope. How to divide labor between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. 2005. On some properties of subjects and topics. In Proceedings of the 30th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, ed. Laura Brugé et?al. Venezia: Cafoscarina.

  • Rizzi, L., and U. Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, ed. H.-M. Gärtner and U. Sauerland, 115–160. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. 1987. Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published in 1991 by Garland, New York.

  • Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys, E. 2000. Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 513–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, K. 1984. Multiple variable binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 603–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, K. 2017. Weak crossover. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd ed, ed. M. Everaert and H. van Riejmsdijk. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, K. 2018. The A/A′-distinction as an epiphenomenon. Manuscript, Rutgers University. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002798.

  • Schlenker, P. 2005. Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of Binding Theory. Natural Language Semantics 13: 1–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, P. 2007. Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (3): 325–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shan, C.-C., and C. Barker. 2006. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 91–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titov, E. 2012. Information structure of argument order alternations. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.

  • Torrego, E. 1994. On the nature of clitic doubling. Anuario del Seminario de Filologia Vasca Julio de Urquijo; International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 28: 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 339–467.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Adriana Belletti, Ivano Caponigro, Keny Chatain, Veneeta Dayal, Patrick Eliot, Anamaria Falauš, Luigi Rizzi, Daniel Rothschild, Ken Safir, Uli Sauerland, Yasu Sudo, the audiences at ZAS (twice), Paris 7, and at the joint Harvard/MIT seminar co-taught with Irene Heim in 2017. The influence of Daniel Büring’s work and of his comments are visible throughout this paper. I am also grateful to two anonymous NALS referees. I was not able to incorporate into the final manuscript all the good feedback I got since this project started. Thanks to Christine Bartels for her masterful editorial work on my two most challenging papers, twenty years apart from each other. I’d like to dedicate this (very tentative) work to Tanya Reinhart, for the years of discussions and friendship we had.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Gennaro Chierchia

Authors
  1. Gennaro Chierchia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gennaro Chierchia.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chierchia, G. Origins of weak crossover: when dynamic semantics meets event semantics. Nat Lang Semantics 28, 23–76 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09158-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09158-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation