In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey of the space of possible analyses of the phenomenon of quantifier domain restriction, together with a set of considerations which militate against all but our own proposal. Among the many accounts we consider and reject are the ‘explicit’ approach to quantifier domain restriction discussed, for example, by Stephen Neale, and the pragmatic approach to quantifier domain restriction proposed by Kent Bach. Our hope is that the exhaustive discussion of this special case of context-dependence will provide guidelines for how to decide, for an arbitrary case of context-dependent discourse, whether it should be treated syntactically, semantically, or pragmatically.

This paper reports on an empirically based system that automatically resolves VP ellipsis in the 644 examples identified in the parsed Penn Treebank. The results reported here represent the first systematic corpus-based study of VP ellipsis resolution, and the performance of the system is comparable to the best existing systems for pronoun resolution. The methodology and utilities described can be applied to other discourse-processing problems, such as other forms of ellipsis and anaphora resolution. The system determines potential antecedents for ellipsis by applying syntactic constraints, and these antecedents are ranked by combining structural and discourse preference factors such as recency, clausal relations, and parallelism. The system is evaluated by comparing its output to the choices of human coders. The system achieves a success rate of 94.8%, where success is defined as sharing of a head between the system choice and the coder choice, while a baseline recency-based scheme achieves a success rate o,I:75.0 % by this measure. Other criteria for success are also examined. When success is defined as an exact, word-for-word match with the coder choice, the system performs with 76.0 % accuracy, and the baseline approach achieves only 14.6% accuracy. Analysis of the individual components of the system shows that each of the structural and discourse constraints used are strong predictors of the antecedent of VP ellipsis. 1.

Abstract not found

This paper argues that modal constructions are represented by a raising structure rather than a control structure. In particular, we challenge the claim that the epistemic vs. root distinction correlates with a raising vs. control structure. The basic epistemic/root distinction is illustrated in (1): epistemic modal statements express necessity or possibility relative to some state of knowledge or beliefs; root (sometimes also referred to as deontic) modal statements express forces like permission, obligation etc. relative to some normative system.

Making linguistic theory is like specifying a programming language...

Abstract not found

this paper. 2.4 Explaining an apparent exception Earlier I mentioned that generic sentences (Carlson, 1980) and sentences containing modals appear to be exceptions to the generalisation that when the adverbial is in initial position the sentence has only a p-definite interpretation. Consider the following:

P#CPCN[\GF#CU#KPXQNXKPI#QXGTV OQXGOGPV#QH#C#PWNN#QRGTCVQT#EQKPFGZGF#YKVJ#CP#KP#UKVW#YJ#XCTKCDNG#CV#5#UVTWEVWTG ##QWP#CPF#.K########%QNG#CPF#*GTOQP###########/CNC[#CPF##PECUJ#3WGEJWC# YJKEJ# FQ# PQV#QDUGTXG#OQXGOGPV#EQPUVTCKPVU##CTG#PQV#CPCN[\GF#CU#KPXQNXKPI OQXGOGPV##DWV#TCVJGT#KPVGTRTGVCVKQP#KP#UKVW##%QNG#CPF#*GTOQP##############9J#KP# UKVW#NCPIWCIGU#QHHGT#EQPVTCFKEVQT[#GXKFGPEG#CDQWV#VJG#NGXGN#CV#YJKEJ#VJG#UWDLCEGPE[ RTKPEKRNG#CRRNKGU##5#UVTWEVWTG#KP#%JKPGUG##*WCPI########CPF#,CRCPGUG##.CUPKM#CPF 5CKVQ#########.(#KP#*KPFK###5TKXCUVCX##############.CPIWCIGU#YKVJ#UGXGTCN#YJ# UVTCVGIKGU#UJQY#FKHHGTGPV#FGITGGU#QH#EQPUVTCKPKPI#GCEJ#UVTCVGI[##HQT#GZCORNG##KP 2 .GIGPFTG##9KNUQP##5OQNGPUM[##*QOGT###4C[OQPF # 1WT# CEEQWPV# KU# EQORCTCVKXGN[# UKORNG## D[#CV#NGCUV#VYQ#OGCUWTGU#QH#UKORNKEKV[##C##6JG EQPUVTCKPVU# CTG# UKORNG## HQT# GZCORNG## '%2# KU# TGFWEGF# VQ#JGCF#IQXGTPOGPV##DCTTKGTU#CTG#FGHKPGF#KP#VGTOU QH# .#O

This dissertation shows that there are syntactic constraints involved in the aspectual interpretation of the VP that involve the internal structure of the verbal complements. Although a simple compositional semantics would predict certain interpretations, the syntactic computational system has its own mechanisms, and the relevant configurations do not always obtain. Consequently, certain readings end up being blocked. Chapter 1 defines the relevant output conditions for aspectual interpretation based on the semantic work of Verkuyl (1995) and Krifka (1989), and proposes a syntactic configuration within the Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory (Chomsky 1993) at which aspect is calculated. Chapter 2 shows that two classic cases of apparent grammaticalization of aspect, Finnish and Slavic can be reduced to independently needed elements in the grammar: A-quantifiers and movement to AgrO for Case checking. Chapter 3 examines Accusative Clitic Doubling in Spanish and provides a new analysis which accounts for the aspectual interpretations of the construction. Chapter 4 proposes a theory of Determiner Transparency in which definite determiners in relative clauses, certain kinds of adjectives and demonstratives do not select for their head NP and as a result, durative reading of the VP predicate are obtained if the head is non-quantized. Chapter 5 extends the analysis to "type " expressions, measure phrases and possessives (genitives). Chapter 6 provides an aspectual analysis of the copula verbs 'ser' and 'estar' in Brazilian Portuguese, and argues against their being the grammaticalization of the stage-level and individual-level distinction.

this paper we will only propose them for universal principles, though there are some intriguing possibilities for language-particular application as well. But to make serious proposals along these lines, one would need to have a restrictive theory of what kinds of conditionals are found in natural-language grammars, something we will not attempt to provide here.