Case, Scope, and Binding investigates the relation between syntax and semantics within a framework which combines the syntactic Government-Binding theory with a novel cross-linguistic theory of case and semantics. It is argued that case assignment, agreement, syntactic binding relations, as well as the minimum scopes of operators, are all determined by the relations which hold at the level of s-structure. Cross-linguistic variation with respect to these phenomena is due to corresponding variations at the s-structure level. The minimum scope of an operator cannot exceed its c-command domain at s-structure, but may be reduced by certain semantic mechanisms. The availability of any wider scope option depends on the possibility of movement at LF. The proposed theory is tested in detail against the facts of Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut family), an ergative language with typologically unusual scope and binding relations. For linguists and philosophers interested in syntax, semantics, or the syntax-semantics interface.

Case, Scope, and Binding investigates the relation between syntax and semantics within a framework which combines the syntactic Government-Binding theory with a novel cross-linguistic theory of case and semantics. It is argued that case assignment, agreement, syntactic binding relations, as well as the minimum scopes of operators, are all determined by the relations which hold at the level of s-structure. Cross-linguistic variation with respect to these phenomena is due to corresponding variations at the s-structure level. The minimum scope of an operator cannot exceed its c-command domain at s-structure, but may be reduced by certain semantic mechanisms. The availability of any wider scope option depends on the possibility of movement at LF. The proposed theory is tested in detail against the facts of Inuit (Eskimo-Aleut family), an ergative language with typologically unusual scope and binding relations. For linguists and philosophers interested in syntax, semantics, or the syntax-semantics interface.

Temporality surveys the ways in which languages of different types refer to past, present, and future events, through an in-depth examination of four major language types: tense-based English, tense-aspect-based Polish, aspect-based Chinese, and mood-based Kalaallisut. * Cutting-edge research on directly compositional dynamic semantics of languages with and without grammatical tense * New in-depth analysis of temporal, aspectual, modal, as well as nominal discourse reference * Presents a novel logical language for representing linguistic meaning (Update with Centering) * Develops a unified theory of tense, aspect, mood, and person as different types of grammatical centering systems