MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences - Cryptome

“Every linguist has read Syntactic Structures” at LF, and
because QR may iterate, the representations in (2) for
“Every linguist has read some book by Chomsky”.
(1) [ every linguist1 [ t1 has read Syntactic Structures]]
(2) a. [ every linguist1 [ some book by Chomsky2 [ t1 has
read t1 ]]]
b. [ some book by Chomsky2 [ every linguist1 [ t1 has
read t2 ]]]
With the aid of the syntactic notions of “trace of movement”
(t1 , t2 ) and “c-command” (both of which are independently
necessary within syntactic theory), the logically
significant distinctions of open and closed sentence, and of
relative scope of quantifiers, can be easily defined with
respect to the sort of representations in (1) and (2). Interpreting
the trace in (1) as a variable, “t1 has read Syntactic
Structures” stands as an open sentence, falling within the
scope of the c-commanding quantifier phrase “every
linguist1 ;” similar remarks hold for (2), except that (2a)
and (2b) can be recognized as representing distinct scope
orderings of the quantifiers (see Heim 1982; May 1985,
1989; Hornstein and Weinberg 1990; Fox 1995; Beghelli
and Stowell 1997; and Reinhart 1997 for further discussion
of the treatment of quantification within the LF
approach). A wide range of arguments have been made for
the LF approach to logical form. Illustrative of the sort of
argument presented is the argument from antecedent-contained
deletion (May 1985). A sentence such as “Dulles
suspected everyone that Angleton did” has a verb phrase
elided (its position is marked by the pro-form “did”). If,
however, the ellipsis is to be “reconstructed” on the basis
of the surface form, the result will be a structural regress,
as the “antecedent” verb phrase, “suspected everyone that
Angleton did” itself contains the ellipsis site. However, if
the reconstruction is defined with respect to a structure
derived by QR:
(3) everyone that Angleton did [Dulles suspected t],
the antecedent is now the VP “suspected t,” obtaining, properly,
an LF-representation comparable in form to that which
would result if there had been no deletion:
(4) everyone that Angleton suspected t [Dulles suspected t].
Among other well-known arguments for LF are weak
crossover (Chomsky 1976), the interaction of quantifier
scope and bound variable anaphora (Higginbotham 1980;
Higginbotham and May 1981), superiority effects with multiple
wh-constructions (Aoun, Hornstein, and Sportiche
1981) and wh-complementation in languages without overt
wh-movement (Huang 1982). Over the past two decades,
there has been active discussion in linguistic theory of the
precise nature of representations at LF, in particular with
respect to the representation of binding (see BINDING THE-
ORY) as this pertains to quantification and ANAPHORA, and
of the semantic interpretation of such representations (cf.
Larson and Segal 1995). This has taken place within a
milieu of evolving conceptions of SYNTAX and SEMANTICS
and has led to considerable refinement in our conceptions of
the structure of logical forms and the range of phenomena
Logical Form in Linguistics 487
that can be analyzed. Constant in these discussions has been
the assumption that logical form is integrated into syntactic
description generally, and hence that the thesis that natural
languages are logical is ultimately an empirical issue within
the general theory of syntactic rules and principles.
See also COMPOSITIONALITY; LOGICAL FORM, ORIGINS OF;
MORPHOLOGY; QUANTIFIERS; SYNTAX-SEMANTICS INTERFACE
—Robert C. May
References
Aoun, J., N. Hornstein, and D. Sportiche (1981). Some aspects of
wide scope quantification. Journal of Linguistic Research 1:
69–95.
Beghelli, F., and T. Stowell (1997). Distributivity and negation:
The syntax of each and every. In A. Szabolcsi, Ed., Ways of
Taking Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chomsky, N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic
Analysis 2: 303–351.
Cooper, R. (1983). Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Dowty, D., R. E. Wall, and S. Peters. (1981). Introduction to Montague
Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Fox, D. (1995). Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics
3: 283–341.
Higginbotham, J. (1980). Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic
Inquiry 11: 679–708.
Higginbotham, J., and R. May. (1981). Questions, quantifiers, and
crossing. The Linguistic Review 1: 41–79.
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun
Phrases. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hornstein, N., and A. Weinberg. (1990). The necessity of LF. The
Linguistic Review 7: 129–168.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory
of Grammar. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Larson, R., and G. Segal. (1995). Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
May, R. (1977). The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. (Facsimile edition published
by Garland Publishing, New York, 1991.)
May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
May, R. (1989). Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy
12: 387–435.
Montague, R. (1974). The proper treatment of quantification in
ordinary English. In R. Thomason, Ed., Formal Philosophy:
Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Partee, B. (1975). Montague grammar and transformational grammar.
Linguistic Inquiry 6: 203–300.
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided
between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy
20: 399–467.
Further Readings
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Fiengo, R., and R. May (1994). Indices and Identity. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Frege, G. (1892). On Sense and Reference, trans. by M. Black. In
P. Geach and M. Black, Eds., Translations from the Philosophical
Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell.