The problem is that many natural language expression types lead a double life, simultaneously here and there, masquerading as a local lump but somehow interacting directly with distant elements. The two main examples discussed here are bound anaphora, in which an anaphor depends for its value on some distant binder; and quantification, in which some local element takes semantic scope over a properly containing constituent. Such action-at-a-distance confronts theories of the syntax–semantics interface with a dilemma: should we interpret these elements locally, where they enter into the syntactic structure, or globally, where they take semantic effect? Both approaches have staunch defenders. One well-established approach (e.g. Heim and Kratzer 1998) emphasizes the global perspective, relegating the interpretation of anaphors to variable assignment functions, and postponing ∗ This paper owes debts to three people: first and foremost, Pauline Jacobson, whose work inspired the workshop from which this paper developed, and who discussed many of the ideas below with me during my sabbatical visit to Brown in the fall of 2003. Second,DavidDowty,whoseremarksonth
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.