No abstract

N/A

No abstract

This paper develops a semantic analysis of three constructions: (i) the subject-oriented adverb construction (Wisely, John left early), (ii) the ‘Adj+toInf’ construction (John was wise to leave early), and (iii) the ‘Adj+ofNP’ construction (It was wise of John to leave early), which all involve three semantic components: (i) an individuala(John), (ii) a propertyP1that describes a mental/behavioral propensity (wise), and (iii) another propertyP2which typically describes an action (leave early). I argue that the three constructions share a meaning along the lines of ‘P2(a), and from this it is possible to infer thatP1(a)’, whereP1is forced to receive the transitory interpretation, but they differ as to which component they assert/presuppose. I further demonstrate that this analysis allows us to solve two well-known semantic puzzles concerning these constructions (the ‘entailment puzzle’ and the ‘embeddability puzzle’). The three constructions are highly amenable to the Construction Grammar approach, because their meaning cannot be derived from the intuitive meanings of their constituents and regular semantic rules only. I provide formal analyses of the three constructions in the framework of Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG).

It is well known that the notions of "logophoricity" and "point of view" are crucial factors for the licensing of certain anaphoric expressions. These terms, however, have had varied definitions and often have been confounded with each other. In this article, I argue that the three types of linguistic point of view: (1) empathy (à la Kuno), (2) logophoricity, and (3) spatio-temporal ("deictic") perspective must be kept apart, and that the empathic and logophoric perspectives play important but separate roles in binding. I also discuss implications of the logophoric/empathic distinction on the general typology of anaphora, and propose a preliminary formal analysis of anaphora based on empathy.