Semantics With Assignment Variables Alex Silk

download

https://ebookbell.com/product/semantics-with-assignment-
variables-alex-silk-42670510

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Semantics With Applications An Appetizer 1st Edition Hanne Riis

Nielson

https://ebookbell.com/product/semantics-with-applications-an-
appetizer-1st-edition-hanne-riis-nielson-2379516

Computational Semantics With Functional Programming Van Eijck J

https://ebookbell.com/product/computational-semantics-with-functional-
programming-van-eijck-j-2049042

Concrete Semantics With Isabellehol 1st Edition Tobias Nipkow

https://ebookbell.com/product/concrete-semantics-with-isabellehol-1st-
edition-tobias-nipkow-4972790

Enriched Meanings Natural Language Semantics With Category Theory

Paperback Ash Asudeh Gianluca Giorgolo

https://ebookbell.com/product/enriched-meanings-natural-language-
semantics-with-category-theory-paperback-ash-asudeh-gianluca-
giorgolo-36451350
Semantics Engineering With Plt Redex 1st Matthias Felleisen Robert
Bruce Findler

https://ebookbell.com/product/semantics-engineering-with-plt-
redex-1st-matthias-felleisen-robert-bruce-findler-4705214

The Interfaces Of Chinese Syntax With Semantics And Pragmatics 1st

Edition Yicheng Wu

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-interfaces-of-chinese-syntax-with-
semantics-and-pragmatics-1st-edition-yicheng-wu-5753834

Logic With A Probability Semantics Including Solutions To Some

Philosophical Problems Hailperin

https://ebookbell.com/product/logic-with-a-probability-semantics-
including-solutions-to-some-philosophical-problems-hailperin-11821574

Social Networks With Rich Edge Semantics 1st Edition Quan Zheng

https://ebookbell.com/product/social-networks-with-rich-edge-
semantics-1st-edition-quan-zheng-6750324

Social Networks With Rich Edge Semantics Quan Zheng David Skillicorn
Zheng

https://ebookbell.com/product/social-networks-with-rich-edge-
semantics-quan-zheng-david-skillicorn-zheng-28685646
 Semantics with Assignment Variables

This pioneering study combines insights from philosophy and linguistics to develop a
novel framework for theorizing about linguistic meaning and the role of context in
interpretation. A key innovation is to introduce explicit representations of context —
assignment variables — in the syntax and semantics of natural language The proposed
theory systematizes a spectrum of “shifting” phenomena in which the context relevant
for interpreting certain expressions depends on features of the linguistic environment
Central applications include local and nonlocal contextual dependencies with
quantifiers, attitude ascriptions, conditionals, questions, and relativization The result
is an innovative, philosophically informed compositional semantics compatible with
the truth conditional paradigm At the forefront of contemporary interdisciplinary
research into meaning and communication, Semantics with Assignment Variables is
essential reading for researchers and students in a diverse range of fields

a l e x s i l k is a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Birmingham and

the author of Discourse Contextualism. He has earned international recognition for
research in philosophy of language, normative theory, and linguistic semantics. He is
the recipient of the Sanders Prize in Metaethics and grants from the Arts and
Humanities Research Council and Leverhulme Foundation.
Semantics with Assignment Variables

Alex Silk
University of Birmingham
 University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314 321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi 110025, India
79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108836012
DOI: 10.1017/9781108870078
© Alex Silk 2021
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2021
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Silk, Alex, author.
Title: Semantics with assignment variables / Alex Silk.
Description: New York : Cambridge University Press, 2021 | Includes
bibliographical references and indexes.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020042259 (print) | LCCN 2020042260 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781108836012 (hardback) | ISBN 9781108799126 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781108870078 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Semantics. | Grammar, Comparative and general–Quantifiers.
Classification: LCC P325 .S5443 2021 (print) | LCC P325 (ebook) | DDC 401/.43 dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020042259
LC ebook record available at https://lccn loc gov/2020042260
ISBN 978-1-108-83601-2 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Contents
Preface page ix

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Parameters and Operators: A (Ptolemaic) Road Not Taken . . 7

Part I

2 Preliminaries 17
2.1 Formal Overview: Semantic Values, Models,
Domains, Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Preliminary Derivation: Pronouns, Quantifiers,
Quantification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3 Standardizing Quantification 23
3.1 Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Type-Driven Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 Complementizers: World-Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4 Modals, Attitude Verbs: Assignment-Binding . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5 Generalized Binder-Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4 Attitude Ascriptions 33
4.1 Intensionality, Local/Global Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 De Re/De Dicto, Specific/Nonspecific: Global vs. Local
Readings of World Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.3 Quantified Modal Attitude Ascription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3.1 Standardizing Quantification: Binding with Pronouns
and Traces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3.2 Assignment Modification and Bound Pronouns . . . . 40
4.3.3 Context-Sensitive Expressions and Local/Global
Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4 Pierre and Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.5 Recap: Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

v
vi Contents

Part II

5 Relative Clauses (I) 57

5.1 Head Raising: Syntax and Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.1.1 Syntax (Preliminary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.1.2 Trace Conversion? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.1.3 Assignment Quantification and Choice-Function
Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.2 Donkey Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.2.1 Pronouns, Copies, and Nominal Complements . . . . . 68
5.2.2 Asymmetric, Universal, and Existential Readings . . . 74
5.3 Recap: Features and Bugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

6 Quantifiers 79
6.1 “Specificity” (I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.2 Genitives and Restrictive Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.3 Bound Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.4 Donkey Crossings: Weak Crossover, Inverse Linking,
Genitive Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

7 Noun Phrases 111

7.1 A Layered n Analysis of Noun Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.2 “Specificity” Revisited (II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.2.1 Presuppositional and Nonpresuppositional Uses . . . . 114
7.2.2 Sources of “Specificity” and the Nominal Spine . . . . 120
7.2.3 Sources of Specificity II: “Weak” vs. “Strong”
Quantifiers and Existential ‘There’ Sentences . . . . . 122
7.2.4 Sources of Specificity III: Modal (In)dependence . . . 129
7.3 Taking Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
7.4 Relative Clauses, Revised: Internal Heads and Intensional Gaps 139
7.4.1 A Matching Account of Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . 139
7.4.2 Intensional Gap Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.4.3 Donkey Pronouns in Intensional Contexts . . . . . . . 148
7.4.4 Relativization and Operator Movement . . . . . . . . 152
7.5 Appendix: Verb Phrases, Events, and the Structure of Predication 155

Part III

8 Conditionals 171
8.1 Local and Global Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
 Contents vii

8.2 ‘If’-Clauses as Plural Definite Descriptions of Possibilities . . . 173

8.3 Adnominal Conditionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.4 Sentence-Final ‘If’-Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.5 Sentence-Initial ‘If’-Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.6 Modalized Conditionals: Restricting and Shifting . . . . . . . . 187
8.6.1 Direct Restriction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
8.6.2 Indirect Modification: “Double Modal” and “Information-
Sensitive” Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.7 Correlatives and Proforms: Individual and Conditional . . . . 192
8.7.1 Individual Correlatives and Proforms . . . . . . . . . . 193
8.7.2 Conditional Correlatives and ‘Then’ . . . . . . . . . . . 199

9 Interrogatives 203
9.1 Syntax, Semantics, Metasemantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
9.2 Interrogative Flip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
9.3 Wh Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
9.3.1 Recap: Choice-Function Pronouns across Categories
and Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
9.3.2 Aside: Weak Crossover Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
9.4 Conditional and Correlative Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
9.4.1 Relevance Conditional Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
9.4.2 Correlative Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.4.3 Hypothetical Conditional Questions . . . . . . . . . . 225
9.5 Recap: Standardizing Quantification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

10 Taking Stock 230

Bibliography 233
Languages Index 263
Subject Index 264
1

Introduction
This book develops a syntactic and semantic framework for natural language.
The principal focus is a spectrum of “shifting” phenomena in which the context
relevant for interpreting certain expressions depends on features of the linguistic
environment. A key innovation is to introduce explicit representations of context
in linguistic structure and meaning. Positing variables for context in the syntax —
formally, assignment variables — can help account for a wide range of linguistic
phenomena which have resisted systematic explanation. Central applications
include local and nonlocal contextual dependencies with quantifiers, attitude
ascriptions, conditionals, questions, and relativization. The project integrates
insights from philosophy of language, formal tools from theoretical syntax and
semantics, and empirical data in linguistic typology. The proposed theory affords
a standardization of quantification across domains and an improved framework
for theorizing about linguistic meaning and the role of context in interpretation.
The result will be a novel philosophically and empirically informed compositional
semantics compatible with the truth-conditional paradigm.

1.1 Overview
A distinctive feature of human language is displacement (Hockett and Altmann
1968). We use language to communicate about things other than what is
happening in the current context. An utterance of (1.1) makes a claim about
a raining event in the here and now. In (1.2), the string in (1.1) is used to make
a claim about a raining event in possibilities compatible with Gabe’s beliefs.

(1.1) It’s raining.

(1.2) Gabe thinks it’s raining.

Such linguistic shifting, where the interpretation of an expression depends on

features of the linguistic environment, is pervasive in natural language. It can be
observed across semantic domains and types of expression — e.g., with worlds,
as with the nominal and verbal predicates in (1.2) (1.3); times, as with tense
in (1.4); individuals, as with the personal and demonstrative pronouns in (1.5)
(1.6); norms, as with the deontic modal in (1.7). For instance, the truth of the

1
2 1.1 Overview

belief ascription in (1.3) is independent of whether there are monsters in the

world of the discourse context.

(1.3) Timmy thinks Bert is a monster.

(1.4) Whenever it rains, Timmy cries.
(1.5) Every child who got a toy liked it.
(1.6) je mee-Ti okhane dãRie ache Se lOmba.
which girl there.deict stand be that.anaph tall
(lit. ‘Which girl is standing over there, that is tall’)
‘The girl who is standing over there is tall.’
(Bagchi 1994: ex. 3; Bangla (Indo-Aryan))
(1.7) I wonder whether Bert should give to charity.

Despite extensive cross-disciplinary interest in such phenomena, theoretical work

has been largely piecemeal and insulated from developments in associated
domains. This has led to hasty conclusions and a proliferation of resources for
capturing the different cases. The aim in this book is a more systematic theory
which integrates insights from philosophy of language, technical innovations in
theoretical syntax and semantics, and crosslinguistic work in linguistic typology
to deepen our understanding of linguistic shifting and the nature of linguistic
meaning.
The present project pursues a fundamental reorientation in theorizing about
context-sensitivity. The traditional approach takes unshifted readings for context-
sensitive expressions as paradigmatic. Here is Kaplan: “What is common to
[indexical words] is that the referent is dependent on the context of use and
that the meaning of the word provides a rule which determines the referent in
terms of certain aspects of the context” (1989: 490). Recent debates have focused
on shifting contrasts between paradigm context-sensitive expressions such as
indexicals, and expressions such as epistemic modals, deontic modals, predicates
of personal taste (Yalcin 2007, Weatherson 2008, Lasersohn 2009, Dowell 2011,
Silk 2013, 2016a, 2017). When embedded under ‘think’ in (1.8), the pronoun
‘I’ and perspectival expression ‘local’ can receive their interpretation from the
discourse context; yet there seems to be no reading of (1.8) which ascribes to Al
a belief about the information available in the discourse, sc .

(1.8) Bo: Ali thinks Ic mighti/∗c be at a locali/c bar.

≉ “Al thinks it’s compatible with sc that Bo is at a bar local to Al/Bo”

Many theorists have responded by adopting revisionary theories and reconceiv-

ing the nature of truth, meaning, and communication (see also Yalcin 2011,
 Introduction 3

MacFarlane 2014). Such reactions are premature. Shifted interpretations may

be optional, obligatory, or unavailable. Possibilities for shifted/unshifted inter-
pretations may vary for different expressions in a given category and for a given
expression in different linguistic contexts. In (1.3) the modal interpretation of
the nominal predicate is obligatorily linked to the attitude state; the attitude
ascription can only be interpreted as saying that Bert is a monster in the
possibilities compatible with Timmy’s beliefs. In (1.9) the nominal ‘murderer’
can receive shifted or non-shifted modal interpretations when used with ‘every’;
yet it can only receive the (sadistic) shifted interpretation in (1.10) when used
with ‘sm’ (unstressed ‘some’).

(1.9) [It would be better]i if every murdereri/c was a priest.

a. ≈ “for all worlds u in which every murderer in u is a priest in u, things
are better in u”
b. ≈ “it would be better if everyone who is actually a murderer was a
priest”

(1.10) [It would be better]i if sm murderersi/∗c were priests.

a. ≈ “for all worlds u in which some murderers in u are priests in u,
things are better in u”
b. ≉ “it would be better if some people who are actually murderers were
priests”

As a counterpoint to indexical pronouns, classically understood — expressions

which must receive their interpretation from the discourse context — common
across language families are conventionalized anaphoric pronouns (dedicated
reflexive and reciprocal forms aside). In (1.11), whereas the 3rd-person pronoun
ea ‘he’ cannot receive the shifted interpretation, the reduced form a cannot be
used referentially (see also Gair 1998, Gair et al. 1999, Bhat 2004, Dixon 2010:
251–252). Such intralinguistic and crosslinguistic variation can be observed even
with paradigmatic referential expressions. Unlike in English, the proper name in
(1.12) can receive a bound-variable interpretation.

(1.11) a. Gestan hot eac /∗ac gsunga.

Yesterday has he sung
‘Yesterday he sang.’
b. Neta do Honsi hot a Frog kriagt wos ai /∗eai vastondn hot
Only det Hans has a question gotten which he understood has
‘Only Hansi got a question which hei understood.’
(Wiltschko 2016: exs. 35, 37; Upper Austrian German)
4 1.1 Overview

(1.12) Gye’eihlly-dihsi r-ralloh r-yulààa’z-ënn Gye’eihllyi

Mike-only hab-think hab-like-1pl Mike
‘Only Mike thinks we like him’ (i.e., no other person x thinks we like x)
(Lee 2003: ex. 61; Zapotec)

The project in this book is to develop a compositional semantic framework better

suited to the rich array of shifting phenomena that we find in natural language.
Following Stalnaker (1970), Kamp (1971), Lewis (1980), and Kaplan (1989),
it is standard in formal semantics to interpret expressions with respect to two
general parameters: to a first approximation, a context c which takes expressions
to intensions, and a circumstance (index) i which takes intensions to extensions.
To handle quantification and the interpretation of free pronouns, the context may
be treated as determining an assignment function gc , which maps typed numerical
indices ⟨n, τ ⟩ (abbreviated: nτ ) to items in the model. Roughly put, (1.13) says
that S = ‘It7e jumped’ is true in c (written: JSKgc ,i = 1) iff such-and-such individual
relevant in c, gc (7e), jumped in the circumstance i (type e for individuals, 7 an
arbitrary syntactic index).1

(1.13) a. [ S it7e jumped]

b. JSKgc ,i = 1 iff gc (7e) jumped in i

Diverse linguistic data have led many theorists to posit reference to various
parameters of interpretation in the syntax (e.g., Partee 1973, Cresswell 1990,
Percus 2000, Schlenker 2003, 2006, Hacquard 2006, 2010). For instance, tenses
may be treated as pronouns referring to times; modals may be treated as binding
implicit world pronouns. Compositional semantic details aside, the interpretation
function, now J⋅Kgc , may return a semantic value as in (1.14), where gc (1m) is a
time earlier than the time of the context (type m for times, ignoring worlds).

(1.14) a. [ S past1m [it7e jump]]

b. JSKgc = 1 iff gc (7e) jumped at gc (1m)

This book investigates the prospects for a linguistic framework that that goes the
further step of positing object-language pronouns for context — formally, assign-
ment variables. Although there are precedents for introducing a semantic type for
assignments (Sternefeld 1998, Kobele 2010, Rabern 2012b, Kennedy 2014) and
for introducing pronouns for items determining shifted interpretations of refer-
ential expressions (Percus and Sauerland 2003, Elbourne 2005, Johnson 2012,

1
Some authors distinguish the context c and assignment gc , reserving c for specific features of
discourse contexts such as speaker, addressee, etc. For present purposes I simplify by identifying the
context coordinate with the contextually determined assignment.
 Introduction 5

Charlow and Sharvit 2014), the project of developing a syntax/semantics with

assignment variables — variables for the sort of item responsible for interpreting
context-sensitive language generally — hasn’t been pursued. I will argue that
by representing the assignment function in the syntax, we can capture a wide
range of linguistic phenomena previously explained by varied syntactic and
semantic mechanisms. A theory with assignment variables affords a unified
analysis of the context-sensitivity of various theoretically recalcitrant expressions,
and systematizes a spectrum of seemingly disparate shifting data across domains.
One way of understanding the assignment-variable-based approach is as
formally implementing Stalnaker’s (1988, 2014) seminal “multiple context”
treatment of attitude ascriptions (cf. Swanson 2011). On Stalnaker’s view,
there are multiple contexts “available to be exploited” (Stalnaker 1988: 156) in
describing individuals’ states of mind — the “basic” (“global”) discourse context,
and a “derived” (“local,” “subordinate”) context representing the attitude state.
In the embedded clause in (1.15), although the discourse context c1 supplies
the interpretation of the pronoun, the derived context c2 representing (what is
presupposed to be) Tom’s beliefs is also available for interpreting the change-of-
state verb. In (1.16) the discourse context and the derived context are available
for interpreting the positive-form relative gradable adjective ‘rich’ (where ‘o is
d-wealthy’ abbreviates that o’s degree of wealth is at least d). In the unshifted
“global” reading the relevant standard for counting as rich is the standard in the
discourse, dc1 ; in the shifted “local” reading it is the standard in the dream, dc2 .

(1.15) [Context: We’re talking about Bo. It’s presupposed that Bo never smoked.]
Alice believes hec1 quitc2 smoking.
≈ “Alice believes that Bo used to smoke and no longer smokes”
(cf. Swanson 2011: ex. 31)
(1.16) Alice dreamt that Zoe was richc1 /c2 .
≈ “Alice dreamt that Zoe was dc1 /dc2 -wealthy”

Stalnaker doesn’t offer a specific implementation of these ideas. One could

perhaps attempt a pragmatic explanation of the shifts in interpretation, say
drawing on a general pragmatic account of local context (cf. Schlenker 2010). Or
one might treat attitude verbs as context-shifting operators, and introduce
mechanisms to capture different ways shifting can occur within a clause (cf. Cum-
ming 2008, Santorio 2010, 2012, Ninan 2012). An alternative approach — the
approach I wish to pursue in this book — is to posit variables for the differ-
ent contexts. The “multiple contexts” with respect to which context-sensitive
expressions may be interpreted are represented via object-language variables for
assignments.
6 1.1 Overview

Adding assignment variables to the object language is far from trivial. Yet
we will see how positing representations of context in the syntax can help
systematically account for diverse linguistic shifting phenomena, and provide
a framework for theorizing about possibilities for (un)shifted readings. The
proposed theory affords a unified analysis of the context-sensitivity of expressions
such as pronouns, epistemic modals, etc., in the spirit of contextualist theories;
yet it improves in compositionally deriving certain recalcitrant shifting data,
as desired by revisionary theories. The result will be a novel philosophically
informed framework for compositional semantics compatible with the classical
paradigm.
An overview of the book is as follows. §2 provides a formal overview of
the basic syntax and semantics. §3 motivates a general clausal architecture
for an assignment-variable-based theory, drawing on independent work on
the syntax–semantics interface. The proposed syntax/semantics standardizes
quantification and binding across domains via a generalized (type-flexible, cross-
categorial) binder index feature, which attaches directly to moved expressions.
Construction-specific parameters, composition rules, or interpretive principles
aren’t required. §4 applies the account to several examples with quantifiers
and attitude ascriptions. Topics of discussion include quantification in the
metalanguage, distinctions between de re vs. de dicto and specific vs. nonspecific
readings, binding with pronouns vs. traces, alternative bases for constraints on
readings, and a choice-function analysis of names. An improved formalization
of assignment modification captures binding relations in examples with long-
distance binding.
§§5–9 explore how the assignment-variable-based framework may be extended
to other constructions, such as various types of quantified and non-quantified
noun phrases (§§5–7), conditionals (§8), and questions (§9). Nominal quantifiers
are treated as introducing quantification over assignments, binding pronouns
such as relative pronouns in relative clauses, bound-variable pronouns, and
donkey pronouns (§§5–6). The assignment-variable-based account of quantifiers
and nominal predicates is integrated in a more detailed layered n/v analysis
of noun phrases and verb phrases (§7). A semantics with events is briefly
considered as a basis for future research. ‘If’-clauses are treated as free relatives,
interpreted as plural definite descriptions of assignments (possibilities) (§8).
Interrogative sentences denote a set of possible answers, with answers conceived
as sets of assignments (possibilities) (§9). Compositional derivations of various
types of shifting phenomena are provided involving pronoun binding, donkey
anaphora, weak vs. strong quantifiers, indexical shift, information-sensitivity,
and interrogative flip.
 Introduction 7

A principal aim of this book is a more cohesive theory of linguistic shifting

with improved empirical coverage and explanatory power. Certain features
of the treatments of modals, noun phrases, relativization, conditionals, and
questions may be of more general interest — e.g., unified analyses of apparent
non-c-command anaphora with donkey pronouns, genitive binding, inverse
linking, and correlatives; a distinction between trace-binding and pronoun-
binding, with applications to weak crossover; parallel phase-based analyses of
noun and verb phrases, with applications to specificity, possessive constructions,
and existential sentences; uniform compositional semantics for ‘if’-clauses in post-
nominal, sentence-final, and sentence-initial positions, and in conditionals with
declarative or interrogative main clauses, with or without a main-clause modal or
‘then’; a unified approach to conditional, correlative, and interrogative clauses;
and choice-function analyses of relative words, wh words, and certain indefinites
and anaphoric proforms. The treatments of quantifier raising, relativization,
and questions avoid introducing additional composition rules or interpretive
principles (e.g., Predicate Abstraction, Trace Conversion). The semantics is fully
compositional.
A methodological remark: The aim of this book isn’t to provide a possi-
bility proof; the question isn’t whether it is possible to construct a formal
syntax/semantics with object-language variables for assignments. I would be
surprised if it wasn’t. The project is to investigate the prospects for a specific
type of syntax/semantics of natural language as a concrete basis for future
theory comparison. Contextually determined assignment functions are an already
needed theoretical posit. We will see that giving them syntactic representation
can help systematically account for diverse linguistic shifting phenomena across
syntactic categories and semantic domains. Some of the data will be new, though
in many cases the aim will be to provide a new take on old facts — integrating
data from diverse literatures in new ways, and systematizing phenomena inde-
pendently familiar yet often not jointly considered in theorizing. Sustained
investigation into a variety of linguistic phenomena is required. One must ensure
that particular choice points and analyses generalize across the spectrum of
examples, and can be integrated in an overall account that plausibly rivals
accounts in more familiar frameworks. The devil is in the details (lambdas, trees).
I hope that the preliminary developments in this book illustrate the fruitfulness
of an assignment-variable-based framework for linguistic theorizing.

1.2 Parameters and Operators: A (Ptolemaic) Road Not Taken

Recent decades have seen an expansion of resources for capturing different
types of linguistic shifting phenomena. Before beginning our constructive project,
8 1.2 Parameters and Operators

this section briefly considers how certain of the data might be captured in a
familiar operator-based semantics, which analyzes expressions such as modals,
attitude verbs, etc. as operators that shift relevant contextual features, construed
as parameters of interpretation. To fix ideas I focus on two prominent approaches
from the literature — traditional context-index-style frameworks, and recent
treatments of indexical shift that introduce assignment-quantification in the
metalanguage. The aim isn’t to develop the accounts in depth, or to show that no
alternative can succeed. The aim is simply to highlight certain prima facie costs
so as to further motivate the book’s central constructive project. Readers satisfied
with the motivations in §1.1 may proceed to §2.
Literatures on epistemic modals have highlighted that the relevant body of
information for interpreting epistemic modals under attitude verbs is generally
shifted to the subject’s information (Stephenson 2007, Silk 2016a, 2017). In
quantified epistemic attitude ascriptions the relevant information shifts with the
quantificational subject, as reflected in (1.17). There is apparently no reading of
(1.17) that ascribes to the contestants a belief about the information ic accepted
in the discourse context.

(1.17) Every contestant thinks they must be crazy.

≈ “for every contestant x, x’s beliefs imply that x is crazy”

A prominent (though controversial) approach to capturing this is to add an

informational coordinate to the index of evaluation (Stephenson 2007, Yalcin
2007, Hacquard 2010, MacFarlane 2014). A first approximation for a simple
epistemic attitude ascription is in (1.18), where DOXx,w is the set of worlds
compatible with x’s beliefs in w.2

(1.18) Al thinks Bo might win.

a. [ S Al thinks [might [Bo win]]]
′
b. Jmight ϕKg;w,s = 1 iff ∃w′ ∈ s∶ JϕKg;w ,s = 1
′ ′
Jthink ϕKg;w,s = λxe . ∀w′ ∈ s′ ∶ JϕKg;w ,s = 1, where s′ = DOXx,w
JSKg,s = 1 iff ∀w′ ∈ DOXAl,w ∶ ∃w′′ ∈ DOXAl,w ∶ Bo wins in w′′
iff ∃w′′ ∈ DOXAl,w ∶ Bo wins in w′′

(1.18) characterizes Al’s beliefs as being compatible with Bo winning. The

attitude verb obligatorily shifts the informational coordinate in the index to the
subject’s belief state.
2
For simplicity I treat the informational parameter as a set of worlds, and I bracket details about
the compositional semantics for different flavors of modality. For present purposes I assume that
worlds are in the index. An abstraction rule such as Heim and Kratzer’s (1998) Intensional Function
Application can be used in combining modals/attitude verbs with their (type t) complements.
 Introduction 9

Such a semantics may work well for expressions for which local (shifted)
readings are conventionalized. The approach is awkward for expressions permit-
ting both local (shifted) and global (unshifted) readings — that is, most context-
sensitive expressions. Recall the standard-sensitivity associated with positive
form relative gradable adjectives (cf. (1.16)). The attitude ascription in (1.19)
can be used to characterize Al’s beliefs about Rita’s degree of wealth and/or Al’s
standard for counting as rich, depending on the context.

(1.19) Al thinks that Rita is rich.

a. [Context: We agree that one must be a millionaire to count as rich.
We’re talking about Al’s beliefs about Rita’s financial situation. Al
thinks Rita is a millionaire.]
≈ “Al thinks Rita is at least dc -rich”
b. [Context: We accept possibly different standards for richness. Rita’s
income counts as rich by Al’s lights.]
≈ “Al thinks Rita is at least dA -rich”

Since ‘rich’ is compatible with unshifted readings, it won’t do to interpret it

directly with respect to an additional coordinate in the index, analogously to
the treatment of ‘might’ in (1.18). So suppose we treat ‘rich’ as having an
argument place which may be filled alternatively by a contextually supplied
standard-pronoun d, representing global readings, or an element D referring to a
posited standards coordinate in the index, representing local readings. First-pass
analyses are in (1.20)–(1.21), where DOX∗x,w is now a set of world-standard pairs
compatible with x’s belief state in w (type d for degrees). The truth condition in
(1.21b) for the local reading in (1.19b) says, roughly, that for all worlds w′ and
standards d′ compatible with Al’s belief state, Rita is d′ -wealthy in w′ .3

(1.20) a. [ S Al thinks [Rita [rich d3 ]]]

b. [ S Al thinks [Rita [rich D]]]
(1.21) JrichKg;w,s,d = λdd .λxe . x is at least d-rich in w
JDKg;w,s,d = d
′ ′ ′
Jthink ϕKg;w,s,d = λxe . ∀⟨w′ , d′ ⟩ ∈ s∗ ∶ JϕKg;w ,s ,d = 1,
where s∗ = DOX∗x,w and s′ = {w′′ ∣ ∃d′′ ∶ ⟨w′′ , d′′ ⟩ ∈ DOX∗x,w }
a. J(1.20a)Kg;w,s,d = 1 iff ∀⟨w′ , d′ ⟩ ∈ DOX∗Al,w ∶ Rita is g(3d)-rich in w′
b. J(1.20b)Kg;w,s,d = 1 iff ∀⟨w′ , d′ ⟩ ∈ DOX∗Al,w ∶ Rita is d′ -rich in w′

3
I ignore context-sensitivity from comparison classes, and I bracket issues regarding the internal
syntax/semantics of the positive form (Kennedy 2007). An extended version of Intensional Function
Application incorporating standards may be used in combining the attitude verb and its complement.
10 1.2 Parameters and Operators

Analogous moves can be made for other expressions optionally taking shifted or
unshifted readings. A first approximation for quantifiers and domain variables
(von Fintel 1994, Stanley and Szabó 2000, Stanley 2002) is in (1.22)–(1.24),
DOX∗x,w now a set of world-standard-domain triples. In (1.22b) the restricted
domain is shifted to a set of individuals considered relevant by the attitude
subject, as reflected in (1.24b). (For simplicity I treat the domain argument as a
set of individuals (type ⟨e, t⟩), and I leave ‘can-vote’ unanalyzed. In lexical entries
and derivations I will often use ‘f(x)’ to abbreviate ‘f(x) = 1’. I use metalanguage
predicates such as ‘personu ’ for the set of persons in u.)

(1.22) Al thinks everyone can vote.

a. [Context: We’re considering Al’s beliefs about the legal status of
certain minority groups G, who we think are relevant in questions
about voting rights. We know nothing about Al’s own moral/legal
views.]
≈ “Al thinks everyone in G is legally permitted to vote”
b. [Context: We’re considering Al’s moral/legal views. We know he is
aware that certain minority groups aren’t legally permitted to vote.]
≈ “Al thinks everyone in the groups he considers relevant to questions
about voting rights is legally permitted to vote”
(1.23) a. [ S Al thinks [[everyone P5 ] can-vote]]
b. [ S Al thinks [[everyone G] can vote]]
(1.24) JeveryoneKg;w,s,d,G = λPet .λQet . ∀x∶ (x is a person in w ∧ P(x)) → Q(x)
JGKg;w,s,d,G = G
′ ′ ′ ′
Jthink ϕKg;w,s,d,G = λxe . ∀⟨w′ , d′ , G′ ⟩ ∈ s∗ ∶ JϕKg;w ,s ,d ,G = 1,
where s∗ = DOX∗x,w and s′ = {w′′ ∣ ∃d′′ ∃G′′ ∶ ⟨w′′ , d′′ , G′′ ⟩ ∈ DOX∗x,w }
a. J(1.23a)Kg;w,s,d,G = 1 iff ∀⟨w′ , d′ , G′ ⟩ ∈ DOX∗Al,w ∶ ∀x∶ (personw′ (x) ∧
g(5et)(x)) → x can vote in w′
b. J(1.23b)Kg;w,s,d,G = 1 iff ∀⟨w′ , d′ , G′ ⟩ ∈ DOX∗Al,w ∶ ∀x∶ (personw′ (x) ∧
G′ (x)) → x can vote in w′

The preceding semantics captures the relevant shifted readings of context-

sensitive expressions by proliferating coordinates in the index. A concern is that
such an approach obscures one of the original motivations for distinguishing the
index parameter in points of evaluation. Following Lewis (1980), the index con-
sists of those contextual features that can be shifted by operators. If the majority
of contextual features can be shifted — arguably even features determining the
interpretation of paradigm indexicals such as ‘I’ (see e.g. Santorio 2012) — one
might wonder if a simpler theoretical apparatus and analysis is available.4
4
It isn’t evident that the approach to (shiftable) contextual domain restrictions will generalize
 Introduction 11

An alternative approach is to abandon the index parameter and treat expres-

sions such as attitude verbs as assignment-shifters (cf. Cumming 2008, Santorio
2010, 2012, Ninan 2012). Previous accounts have focused on cases of indexical
shift with individual pronouns, though the approach can be generalized to
shifting with other context-sensitive expressions. Just as the attitudes and circum-
stances of interlocutors in a concrete discourse are assumed to be representable
by an abstract “contextually determined assignment” which determines values for
pronouns, quantifier domain restrictions, degree standards, etc. (also Heim and
Kratzer 1998, Schlenker 2003, Heim 2008, Silk 2018), so too, we can assume,
for concrete attitude states more generally.5 The attitude verb in (1.25) is now
treated as quantifying over assignments compatible with the subject’s state of
mind.
′
(1.25) Jthink ϕKg,a = λxe .λws . ∀⟨w′ , a′ ⟩ ∈ DOXx,w ∶ JϕKg,a (w′ ) = 1

Adapting the semantics from Santorio (2010), suppose that the interpretation
function is relativized to an ordinary assignment g as well as an assignment a
shifted by (e.g.) attitude verbs. The syntactic indices interpreted with respect to

to examples with multiple quantifier phrases. For examples such as (i), one could perhaps represent
the index coordinate instead as a function from NP-meanings to domain restrictions, roughly as
∗
in (ii), where JG∗Kg;G ,... = G∗ is type ⟨et, et⟩. G∗(catw ) represents a set of individuals relevant
in considering cats, G∗(dogw ) represents a set of individuals relevant in considering dogs, etc.
(Following Heim and Kratzer 1998, ⋋i is the assumed object-language binder index resulting from
QR, interpreted syncategorematically via Predicate Abstraction. We will return to this.)
(i) Every cat likes every dog.
∗
(ii) Jevery dog G∗ ⋋2 [every cat G∗ likes t2 ]Kg;w,G ,... = 1 iff ∀y∶ (dogw (y) ∧ G∗(dogw )(y)) →
(∀x∶ (catw (x) ∧ G∗(catw )(x)) → x likes y)
However, examples such as (iii), where different occurrences of the same quantified expression
receive different shifted restrictions, remain problematic.
(iii) [Context: A panel survey is being conducted to discern sentiments about the fairness of the
University’s practices in distributing a certain award. The panel members — Alice, Bert, and
Chloe — have different views on who should be allowed to be nominated for the award, and
who should be allowed to vote in deciding the winner. Alice thinks that the award should be
reserved for undergraduates, and that only graduate students and faculty should be allowed
to vote for the winner; and she thinks that the award procedure in fact proceeds accordingly.
Bert thinks that the award should be open to graduate students too, and that undergrads,
grads, and faculty should all be allowed to vote; and he thinks that the award procedure in
fact proceeds accordingly. Chloe thinks that the award should be open to all members of the
University, but she thinks that faculty are wrongfully excluded from being nominated. When
asked about how the University is doing regarding sentiments about the award practices,
you report:]
Quite well. Most people think that everyone can vote for everyone.
I won’t consider further epicycles here.
5
We will return to metasemantic issues regarding what it is for an assignment to be compatible
with an attitude state in the following chapters.
12 1.2 Parameters and Operators

a can be distinguished accordingly with a [+a] feature. A simplified derivation

for the shifted reading in (1.19b) might proceed roughly as in (1.26a).

(1.26) a. [S Al thinks [Rita [rich d3[+a] ]]]

b. Jd3[+a] Kg,a = a(3d)
JrichKg,a = λdd .λxe .λws . x is d-rich in w
JSKg,a (wc ) = 1 iff ∀⟨w′ , a′ ⟩ ∈ DOXAl,wc ∶ Rita is a′ (3d)-rich in w′

The embedded adjective ‘rich’, on the relevant local reading, is interpreted with
respect to assignments a′ compatible with Al’s state of mind.
A challenge for both of the previous types of operator-based accounts comes
from intermediate readings, where the interpretation is determined nonlocally
but with respect to an environment distinct from the discourse context. Consider
(1.27), on the reading where the relevant standard for richness is the standard
accepted by the quantificational subject. Identifying the richness-standard argu-
ment d? in (1.28) as di would represent the global reading, where the standard
is supplied by the contextually determined assignment g; and identifying the
variable as di[+a] (on the assignment-shifting analysis) or D (on the context-index
analysis) would represent the local reading, where the standard is supplied by
the assignment representing the possibility compatible with Zoe’s dream state.

(1.27) [Context: Alice, Bert, and Chip each accepts a particular standard for
how rich one must be to count as rich — say, dA , dB , dC , respectively.
Alice thinks that Zoe dreamt that Rita was at least dA -wealthy; Bert thinks
that Zoe dreamt that Rita was at least dB -wealthy; Chip thinks that Zoe
dreamt that Rita was at least dC -wealthy. Talking about Alice’s, Bert’s,
and Chip’s beliefs:]
Everyone thinks Zoe dreamt that Rita was rich.
(1.28) [everyone P5 thinks [Zoe dreamt [Alice rich d? ]]]

Such examples can be multiplied. On the intermediate reading of ‘everyone’

in (1.29), the implicit domain restriction represents, for each bigot x, the set
of individuals considered relevant by x in matters of voting rights, as reflected
in (1.30).

(1.29) [Context: Arnie, Betty, and Chuck are bigots, prejudiced in favor of their
respective groups GA , GB , GC . Arnie thinks Al thinks that all (and only)
the GA s (individuals in GA ) can vote; Betty thinks Al thinks that all (and
only) the GB s can vote; Chuck thinks Al thinks that all (and only) the
GC s can vote. Talking about Arnie’s, Betty’s, and Chuck’s beliefs:]
Every bigot thinks that Al thinks everyone can vote.
 Introduction 13

(1.30) [every bigot P4 thinks [Al thinks [everyone P? can-vote]]]

This says that every bigot x is optimistic about Al’s beliefs about whether anyone
is improperly excluded (by x’s lights) from being legally permitted to vote.
Analogous phenomena that have led theorists to posit syntactic world variables
and object-language quantification over worlds can thus be observed with
features associated with various context-sensitive expressions. This raises a
challenge for accounts providing distinct treatments of shifting with worlds and
individuals, versus other context-sensitive expressions. One might respond by
further complicating the aforementioned sorts of operator-based analyses (see
von Fintel and Heim 2011 for related general discussion). I suggest that we put
such epicycles to the side.
The traditional framework takes unshifted readings for context-sensitive
expressions as paradigmatic. Though such an approach might seem initially
plausible for English expressions such as ‘I’ or ‘here’, it is awkward when one
considers the rich array of shifting phenomena in natural languages — hence the
plethora of mechanisms for capturing intensionality, quantification, and local
readings across context-sensitive expressions. Indeed Kaplan goes so far as to
treat referential readings and bound-variable readings as uses of homonyms
(1989: 489–490).6 The notion of a crosslinguistic class of specialized anaphoric
pronouns — pronouns conventionally excluded from receiving their interpreta-
tion from the discourse context (§1.1) — is a borderline conceptual impossibility
from a classical perspective.
It is time to rethink the foundational assumptions about context-sensitivity
motivating the traditional formalism. Our understanding of the richness of

6
Lest one scoff, note that Kratzer’s (1998a, 2009) “minimal pronoun” account of apparent
bound-variable (“fake indexical”) uses of 1st-/2nd-person pronouns is a homonym account. Further,
whereas local fake indexicals are treated as minimal pronouns (mere indices) interpreted via
an ordinary λ-binder ((i)), long-distance fake indexicals are treated as fully specified pronouns
interpreted via distinct context-shifting λ-binders ((ii)), syncategorematically defined as in (iii). The
“true” and “fake” indexical uses of the string ‘you’ in (ii) are homonyms; the local and long-distance
fake indexical uses of ‘you’ in (i) and (ii), respectively, are homonyms; and the binder indices in
(i)–(ii) trigger distinct interpretation rules.
(i) a. Only you got a question that you understood.
b. [Only [2nd]] ⋋2 got a question that ∅2 understood
(ii) a. You are the only one who knows somebody who understands your paper.
b. [2nd] … ⋋[2nd] know somebody who understands [2nd]’s paper
(iii) a. J[2nd]Kg,c = addressee(c)
J∅n Kg,c = g(n)
′
b. J⋋n αKg,c = λx.JαKg ,c , where g′ is like g, except possibly that g′ (n) = x
′
J⋋[1st] αK = λx.JαKg,c , where c′ is like c, except possibly that speaker(c′ ) = x
g,c
′
J⋋[2nd] αKg,c = λx.JαKg,c , where c′ is like c, except possibly that addressee(c′ ) = x
(cf. Kratzer 1998a: 94–95; 2009: 213–214)
14 1.2 Parameters and Operators

contextual dependencies in natural language — indexicality, intensionality,

logophoricity, perspective, projection, local context — has come a long way since
Kaplan’s (in)famous ban on “monsters.” The theory in this book encourages a
reorientation in theorizing about context and linguistic shifting. Shiftability for
context-sensitive expressions is the default; unshiftability and obligatory shifting
on the poles of the spectrum are what call for special explanation. The proposed
syntax and semantics with assignment variables provides unified analyses of
shifted and non-shifted readings, and a fully compositional standardization
of quantification across domains. I encourage the development of alternative
overall theories with which the following assignment-variable-based account may
be compared.
Part I
2

Preliminaries
2.1 Formal Overview: Semantic Values, Models, Domains, Variables
I begin with formal elements of the basic syntax and semantics.
Instead of using a traditional interpretation function (J Kg )g∈G parameterized
by assignments (worlds, etc.), we use an unrelativized interpretation function
J K . The semantic values of expressions are given in terms of sets of assignments,
included in the model. (I ignore elements such as times and events.)

(2.1) Models M
– E: set of entities
– T: set of truth-values (represented {0, 1})
– W: set of worlds
– G: set of assignments

Theoretically, I treat assignments as representing a possibility. This interpretation

is in keeping with common appeals to contextually determined assignments
representing what world is actual, objects’ relative saliences, speaker intentions,
etc. (Heim and Kratzer 1998, Schlenker 2003, Heim 2008). For instance, a
syntactic representation it7e and assignment mapping ⟨7, e⟩ to Fluffy might
represent an intention to refer to Fluffy with a token use of ‘it’ and a possibility
in which Fluffy is the center of attention.
Care must be taken in our formalization of assignments and semantic types.
Including assignment variables and variables of arbitrary types has the poten-
tial for paradox or non-wellfoundedness (cf. Groenendijk and Stokhof 1991,
Chierchia 1994). For instance, one cannot have a case where g(i) = g, for some
assignment-index i, lest there be assignments g in their own codomain. Likewise,
we cannot allow ourselves to ask whether an assignment g is in the value it
assigns to an index k for a set of assignments, i.e. whether g ∈ g(k). Given that
functions are sets of ordered pairs, a case where ⟨k, S⟩ ∈ g ∧ g ∈ S, for some set
of assignments S, would violate standard set-theoretic bans on ∈-chains.
Let the set of assignments G in the model be a set of ordinary assignments h —
functions from typed numerical indices ⟨n, τ ⟩, for any non-assignment type τ ,
to elements of the model. For instance, h(⟨4, e⟩) returns an entity o ∈ E, say

17
18 2.1 Formal Overview

Fluffy; h(⟨4, et⟩) returns (the characteristic function of) a set of entities in E,
say {Fluffy, Fido}; and so on. Ordinary assignments h ∈ G are undefined for
indices for assignments or functions involving assignments. I let the domain
of assignments Dg be a set of assignments whose domain also includes indices
⟨n, a⟩ for assignments — i.e., where dom(g) = dom(h) ∪ {⟨n, a⟩ ∶ n ∈ N}, and
range(g) = range(h) ∪ G. For instance, for some g ∈ Dg , g(⟨2, a⟩) is an ordinary
assignment h ∈ G; g(⟨2, e⟩) is an entity o ∈ E, say Fido; and so on. (Hereafter I
will generally omit the brackets in indices, e.g. abbreviating ‘⟨i, α⟩’ with ‘iα’.)
The present system avoids the worries regarding non-wellfoundedness and
∈-chains. Since assignments gg return elements in the model, there is no case of
an assignment being in its own codomain. For h ∈ G, h(ia) is undefined; and for
g ∈ Dg , g(ia) = h ≠ g. Since high-type assignment indices aren’t in the domain of
assignments in Dg or G, expressions such as h(iat), g(iat), g(ia)(iat), etc. are
undefined. Such a restriction in assignments’ domains is motivated by our
understanding of assignment-variables as an object-language mechanism for
tracking the interpretation of context sensitive expressions; yet the assumption
that there are no pronouns for sets of assignments is ultimately an empiri-
cal one. (There may be other expressions of type ⟨a, t⟩, etc.; we will return
to this.)
It is common to identify basic semantic types with sets in the model. Given our
approach to expressions’ semantic values, it will simplify our formalism to define
semantic types in terms of functions from assignments (cf. Kobele 2010; contrast
Sternefeld 1998). For instance, functions from assignments to truth-values in
T are type t, and functions from assignments to entities in E are type e. Our
semantic types are as follows, where the set of assignmentsM G and domain
of assignmentsD Dg are defined as previously. (For purposes of the present
exposition, I will refer to ordinary assignments h ∈ G as “assignmentsM ” (for
assignments in the Model), and to the richer assignments g ∈ Dg as “assignmentsD ”
(for assignments in the Domain). When the distinction is irrelevant I ignore the
subscripts; context should disambiguate.)

(2.2) Domains/Semantic types

– Dg = domain of assignmentsD
– De = EDg
– Dt = {0, 1}Dg
– Ds = WDg
– Da = GDg
– Dαβ = DD β
α
 Preliminaries 19

Unlike previous accounts with semantic types for assignments (§1.1), I let the
object language include variables for assignments. A natural preliminary idea
would be to identify variable denotations with functions from assignments to
elements in the model — e.g., treating the denotation of a world-variable Jwi K
as λgg .g(is), where g(is) ∈ W. (I will reserve gi for assignment-variables, wi
for world-variables.) Such a move is unavailable in the system as developed
thus far. For instance, an assignment-variable denotation (function a ∶ Dg → G)
couldn’t combine via function application or function composition with functions
x ∶ Dg → E (individual-variable denotations), p ∶ Dg → 2W (proposition-variable
denotations), etc.
Instead, I treat non-assignment variables as having an initial argument of
type a; semantic composition proceeds via function application. Variables viα
for basic non-assignment types α denote functions Jviα K ∈ Daα such that for any
aa , gg , Jviα K(a)(g) = a(g)(iα) — e.g., Jw1 g1 K = Jw1 K(Jg1 K) = λgg .g(1a)(1s).
Variables of complex types may be defined via a metalanguage “down”-style
operator ↓ which maps an element of a domain to an item composed out of
associated lowered elements of the model:

(2.3) For γ of (possibly basic) type σ = ⟨σn , ⟨. . . , σ0 ⟩ ⋯ ⟩, ↓ γ is defined by the

condition that, for any gg :
(↓ γ)(g) = the (possibly nullary) function f ∈ M s.t. for any γσn n . . . γσ1 1 ,
γ(γ n ) . . . (γ 1 )(g) = f((↓ γ n )(g)) . . . ((↓ γ 1 )(g))

For the degenerate case where γβ is of basic type β ∈ {e, s, t, a}, ↓ γ is a function
from an assignmentD gg to the item in the model that is the image under γ of
g. For instance, for x ∈ De , (↓ x)(g) is the individual (nullary function) o ∈ E
such that o = x(g), i.e. (↓ x)(g) = x(g). For P ∈ D⟨e,t⟩ , (↓ P)(g) is the function
f ∶ E → T such that for any xe , P(x)(g) = f((↓ x)(g)) = f(x(g)); and so on.
The denotations of viσ of complex types σ = ⟨σn , ⟨. . . , σ0 ⟩ ⋯ ⟩ can be defined
accordingly as functions Jviσ K ∈ Daσ such that, for any gg , aa , γσn n , . . . , γσ1 1 ,
Jviσ K(a)(γ n ) . . . (γ 1 )(g) = a(g)(iσ)((↓ γ n )(g)) . . . ((↓ γ 1 )(g)). For instance, a
pronoun [p2st g1 ] for a set of worlds denotes a function Jp2st K(Jg1 K) ∈ Dst such
that for any ws , gg , g(1a)(2st)((↓ w)(g)) = g(1a)(2st)(w(g)); a choice-function
pronoun [F1ete g1 ] denotes a function JF1ete K(Jg1 K) ∈ D⟨⟨e,t⟩,e⟩ such that for any
P⟨e,t⟩ , gg , the individual g(1a)(1ete)((↓ P)(g)) ∈ E is in (the characteristic set of)
(↓ P)(g), where (↓ P)(g) is the function f ∶ E → T such that f(x(g)) = P(x)(g) for
any xe ; and so on. The semantic values of traces lack the initial type a argument,
e.g. Jt1e K = λgg .g(1e). For complex type σ = ⟨σn , ⟨. . . , σ0 ⟩ ⋯ ⟩, trace t, and
20 2.2 Preliminary Derivation

pronoun-variable v (variables of basic types could be understood degenerately

where n = 0 and σ0 ∈ {e, s, t, a}):7

(2.4) Jviσ K = λaa .λγσn n . . . λγσ1 1 .λgg . a(g)(iσ)((↓ γ n )(g)) . . . ((↓ γ 1 )(g))
a. For α ∈ {e, s, t}, Jviα K = λaa .λgg . a(g)(iα) b. Jgi K = λgg . g(ia)
(2.5) Jtiσ K = λγσn n . . . λγσ1 1 .λgg . g(iσ)((↓ γ n )(g)) . . . ((↓ γ 1 )(g))
a. For β ∈ {e, s, t, a}, Jtiβ K = λgg . g(iβ)

(Note that variables gi for assignments are type a (functions Dg → G); there
are no denotations of type g. For a pronoun [viσ gk ], I sometimes call viσ the
“pronoun-variable.” I use ‘pronoun’ both in the technical sense for [viσ gk ], and
for vocabulary items such as ‘it’, ‘she’, etc.; context should disambiguate.)

2.2 Preliminary Derivation: Pronouns, Quantifiers, Quantification

To get a feel for the basic system it will be instructive to consider a preliminary
derivation. Consider (2.6), with a subject-position quantifier and free individual
pronoun. (For present purposes I ignore the internal structure and person
restriction with ‘everyone’. g− is, intuitively, the counterpart assignmentM h ∈ G
of g. Further intermediate calculations are left to the reader.)8

7
I will use traces in representing displacement (cf. Chomsky 1981), though the framework is
compatible with a minimalist syntax that rejects traces as theoretical primitives (cf. Chomsky 1995;
more on this in §3). The account isn’t committed to a fundamental distinction between traces and
pronoun-variables. For instance, all variables could be interpreted as in (2.4), and the definition of QR
could be adapted so that remnants of movement are sister to an identity function on assignments. A
simpler option is afforded by the treatment of indices as features. The rules in (2.4)–(2.5) amount to
saying that J K returns the values in (i) for number-type feature sets. The pronoun complexes [viσ gj ]
in the main text may thus be understood as representing terminal feature bundles {[⟨i, σ⟩], [⟨j, a⟩]}.
(i) For feature set F ⊆ N × Θ, and ⟨i, σ⟩ ∈ F,
⎧
⎪ λγσn n . . . λγσ1 1 .λgg . g(iσ)((↓ γ n )(g)) . . . ((↓ γ 1 )(g)), if ∣F∣ = 1
⎪
⎪
JFK = ⎨ λγσn n . . . λγσ1 1 .λgg . g(ja)(iσ)((↓ γ n )(g)) . . . ((↓ γ 1 )(g)), if ∣F∣ = 2 ∧ [⟨j, a⟩] ∈ F
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ undefined otherwise
8
The asterisk in ‘S∗’ is used to distinguish the different S nodes; it has no theoretical import. I
often use ‘S’ multiply for root sentences, TP, ModP, v∗P. I will ignore tense, aspect, voice. In lexical
entries and derivations I often write “∀x = y∶ . . .” for “∀x∶ (x = y) → . . .”, and abbreviate “f(x) = 1”
with “f(x).” To a first approximation, g[i/n] is the unique assignment g′ that maps n to i and is
otherwise identical to g; I return to assignment-modification in §4. We will reconsider the semantic
types of individual pronouns and the argument structure of nominal and verbal predicates in Part II.
22 2.2 Preliminary Derivation

First, pronouns are sister to assignment-variables, which determine their inter-

pretation. I assume that sentences have a topmost assignment-binder T⟨i,a⟩ ,
which functions to map variables sister to assignment-variables gi to the values
provided by the input assignment. This anchors intuitively free pronouns to the
discourse via the definition of truth-in-a-context (cf. Percus 2000, von Fintel and
Heim 2011). The individual pronoun ‘it’ refers to the contextually relevant indi-
vidual g− c (1e); the implicit world pronoun refers to the contextually relevant
−
world gc (1s). For now one may assume that in the intended interpretation the
first-positioned world g(1s) is the world of the possibility represented by g; a more
complex clausal architecture and derivation is provided in §3. In §3.5 we will
see how the semantic values of binder expressions such as T⟨i,a⟩ can be derived
compositionally from a generalized (cross-categorial, type-flexible) binder-index
feature ⟨i,σ⟩ .
Importantly, the outputs of assignments are items in the model. What is loved
according to (2.6) isn’t a function y ∈ De but an individual o ∈ E — say, Fluffy.
Although the quantification in the metalanguage is over functions x ∶ Dg → E, the
items in terms of which the condition is stated are images of the given assignment
g under x, i.e. individuals o ∈ E in the model. The universal quantification over xe
includes functions mapping g to object o1 ∈ E, functions mapping g to o2 ∈ E, etc.
The quantificational condition ∀xe ∶ . . . in (2.6) is satisfied iff regardless of which
such function we look at, its value o ∈ E loves g− c (1e) (=Fluffy). If there was an
oi ∈ E that didn’t love Fluffy, then any function xi ∈ De mapping gc to oi would
be such that xi (gc ) doesn’t love g−c (1e) (=Fluffy), falsifying the condition; and
if there was a function xj ∈ De such that xj (gc ) doesn’t love g− c (1e), then there
would be an oj ∈ E, namely xj (gc ), that doesn’t love Fluffy (=g− c (1e)). In this
way the universal quantification over functions x ∈ De makes a claim about every
object o ∈ E in the set of entities (cf. Kobele 2010).
So, the sentence S is true in c iff every o ∈ E loves the contextually relevant
individual g− c (1e) ∈ E, Fluffy.
24 3.1 Preamble

This represents an unattested reading where the embedded individual pro-

noun receives a local reading (sister to an assignment-variable coindexed with
‘think’), and the embedded world pronoun receives a global reading (sister to an
assignment-variable coindexed with the topmost assignment-binder).
It is important not to overstate the explanatory burdens specific to theories
positing object-language variables for worlds, times, assignments. Take ‘it’.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the interpretation of ‘it’ cannot be shifted
in examples such as (3.1). Such a constraint might be formalized, à la Kaplan,
by analyzing ‘it’ as a variable that receives its interpretation from a contextual
parameter i on the interpretation function, which cannot be shifted by attitude
verbs. An explanatory inquiry isn’t far behind. What makes it the case that that
formalism correctly represents the conventional meaning and use of the string
‘i-t’ in the given community? Why can the contextual parameter i not be shifted
in modal contexts, though it can be shifted by elements such as determiner
quantifiers? Why can other pronouns and context-sensitive expressions receive
modally shifted readings? Is the constraint associated with ‘it’ associated with
analogous pronouns across languages? If so, what general features of human
cognition, sociality, conversation, etc. explain the crosslinguistic universal?
There is much one might say in response. Given the paucity of descriptive
content of ‘it’, shifted readings under attitude verbs would seem generally
unretrievable. Addressees aren’t in general privy to speakers’ assumptions about
what some attitude subject takes to be relevantly salient. For frameworks with
unshiftable or selectively shiftable parameters on the interpretation function,
such stories may be understood at the “presemantic” level of what formal objects
represent the shifting possibilities for a given string. Yet all types of theories must
ultimately provide an explanation of tendencies — and in some cases convention-
alized constraints — for shifted/unshifted readings across expressions, in English
and crosslinguistically. Of course not all ways of carving up the explanatory
terrain are empirically or theoretically on a par — hence the present project.
We will see that introducing assignment-variables into the syntax and semantics
affords diverse empirical and theoretical advantages. In semantics as in tailoring
(so I’m told), it is often easier to start big and take in.
This chapter focuses on one type of constraint on readings to begin reining
in the system’s flexibility: the constraint that the world argument of a clause’s
main predicate be bound by the closest world-binder (Percus 2000). The aim is
to derive that the main predicate’s world argument receives an obligatory shifted
reading, and to do so in a way that allows other embedded variables to receive
unshifted readings linked to the discourse context. The next chapter applies the
 Standardizing Quantification 25

account to shifting phenomena with worlds, individuals, and modals in attitude

ascriptions.

3.2 Type-Driven Movement

There is a familiar story about what generates binding relations with object-
position quantifiers over individuals. The quantifier undergoes Quantifier Raising
because of a type mismatch, and a binder-index binds a coindexed trace. A pre-
liminary implementation in our assignment-variable framework is in (3.3) (n. 7).
Roughly put, the binder-index combines with ‘everyone’ so that the quantifier’s
scope argument becomes the set of individuals that make the proposition JS∗∗K
true when returned as the value for ⟨2, e⟩. (For now, I again ignore the person
restriction associated with ‘everyone’, and I treat names as constants. We will
examine the compositional semantic details shortly.)9

9
Note that the argument of the raised quantifier is type t, rather than property type (cf. Heim
and Kratzer 1998, Kobele 2010, Kennedy 2014). The binder-index attaches directly to the moved
expression, rather than occupying its own node and triggering a special composition rule such as
Predicate Abstraction (Heim and Kratzer 1998). We will return to this. For expository purposes I will
use traces in representing displacement (cf. Chomsky 1981), though the framework is compatible
with a syntax that rejects treating traces as theoretical primitives. Remnants of movement may be
understood as copies of the moved expression, as in a copy theory of movement (Chomsky 1993,
1995, Sauerland 1998, Fox 2000, 2002, Hornstein 2001, Nunes 2004; see Takahashi 2010 for a
comparative overview). We can assume that non-semantically-driven movement is undone at LF, and,
in a copy theory, that any copies not necessary for semantic composition are deleted. In movement
for type reasons, i.e. Quantifier Raising QR (May 1985), the chain might be interpreted via an LF-
interface rule that replaces the lowest copy with a coindexed variable, or deletes all parts of the
lower copy except its number-type features, as reflected in (i)–(ii) (n. 7; cf. Kratzer 2004). (I use ‘∧ ’
to indicate binder features.)
(i) QR (alternative): Copy α⟨i,σ⟩ from A, and Merge with A.
(ii) a. ⋮
everyone∧ ⟨5, e⟩
[Alice defeated everyone∧ ⟨5, e⟩]
[everyone∧ ⟨5, e⟩ [Alice defeated everyone∧ ⟨5, e⟩]]
b. LF ≈ [everyone∧ ⟨5, e⟩ [Alice defeated ⟨5, e⟩]]
The framework is also compatible with different views on the theoretical status of indices, and the
representation of chain relations in the narrow syntax and interfaces. Indices could be explicitly
represented in lexical item tokens in a lexical array (or a device for identifying complex syntactic
objects individuated in terms of such indices), or treated as representing the syntactic relations on
which (co)indexing in the interfaces supervenes (see Collins and Stabler 2016, Larson 2016).
 Standardizing Quantification 29

3.4 Modals, Attitude Verbs: Assignment-Binding

I treat notionally modal elements as introducing quantification over assignments.
To fix ideas I focus on the top-level assignment-binder T, doxastic attitude verbs
such as ‘think’, and modal verbs such as ‘may’. For T the quantification is over
the assignment a such that a(g) = g− for any g; with ‘may’ the quantification is
over a such that a(g) is in the set of accessible possibilities; and with ‘think’ the
quantification is over a such that a(g) is compatible with the subject’s state of
mind.12

(3.9) JTK = λA⟨a,t⟩ .λgg . ∀aa = [λgg .g ]∶ A(a)(g)

(3.10) JmayK =
a. λws .λr⟨s,at⟩ .λA⟨a,t⟩ .λgg . ∃aa ∶ r(w)(a)(g) ∧ A(a)(g)
b. λA′⟨a,t⟩ .λA⟨a,t⟩ .λgg . ∃aa ∶ A′ (a)(g) ∧ A(a)(g)
(3.11) JthinkK = λws .λA⟨a,t⟩ .λxe .λgg . ∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with x(g)’s state
of mind in w(g) → A(a)(g)

As we will see in the compositional derivations in §4, the set of worlds at which
a clause is evaluated is determined by the assignment-quantification introduced
by the modal. With T, the main clause is evaluated at a singleton set. The lexical
entry for T ensures that coindexed assignment-variables are mapped to the the
assignment g− c representing the discourse context, and the modal domain for the
main clause is the actual world, @(a(g− −
c )) = @(gc ). With modals/attitude verbs,
the modal domain is the set of worlds compatible with the modality/attitude. The
meaning for the modal verb in (3.10) can be understood as adapting a familiar
Kratzer-style semantics, where modals quantify over a set of contextually relevant
possibilities (Kratzer 1977, 1981). For simplicity I use a basic accessibility
relation r (“modal background”), which maps the world argument to a set of
assignments. The alternative entries in (3.10) correspond to alternative argument
structures. The (a)-option represents an argument structure where the modal
takes the world and modal background pronouns as independent arguments;
the (b)-option represents an argument structure where the world and modal-
background pronouns combine, yielding a world-indexed set of possibilities
which combines with the modal (cf. von Fintel and Heim 2011). To fix ideas I will
assume the latter option in (3.10b). As usual, the meaning for ‘think’ in (3.11)
lexically specifies the set of possibilities being quantified over. The complement
is evaluated at the worlds @(a(g)) of possibilities compatible with the subject’s
state of mind.

12
We will revisit the argument structure of modals and attitude verbs in §§7–8.
30 3.5 Generalized Binder-Index

I have said that assignments are theoretically interpreted as representing

possibilities — what world is actual, foci of attention, objects’ relative saliences,
etc. Work in metasemantics may provide additional resources for reining in
the system’s flexibility. Every account requires metasemantic assumptions —
general or specific to particular discourses — about the intended interpretations
of syntactic indices and relations among values assigned by shifted assignments.
In §2.2 we assumed that the first-positioned world in gc was identified with
the world of the possibility represented by gc . Or one might require that
the first-positioned individual in an assignment h representing an epistemic
possibility determined by gc be an epistemic counterpart of the first-positioned
individual in gc , who is the speaker of c. Generalizing, one might require that
the syntactic indexing determined by the concrete discourse be such that, for
any relevant index ⟨i, σ⟩, h(iσ) represents an epistemic counterpart of gc (iσ) —
more pedantically, that if a concrete discourse c determines that a particular
syntactic indexing ⟨i, σ⟩ and abstract assignment gc would represent an intention
to pick out such and-such item s in the model with a use in c, then for any
assignment h representing an epistemic possibility (or possibility compatible
with so-and-so’s state of mind), h(iσ) is an epistemic (doxastic) counterpart
of gc (iσ) = s. Any overall theory invoking a notion of the “assignment of the
context” gc , or an “assignment determined by” “the physical and psychological
circumstances” (Heim and Kratzer 1998: 243; cf. Schlenker 2003, Cumming
2008, Santorio 2010, 2012, Ninan 2012, Silk 2018) must ultimately address the
metasemantics of what makes it the case that an assignment or set of assignments
represents a particular content-bearing state, such as a discourse situation, body
of information, or state of mind. Yet for purposes of developing the formal
syntax and semantics, which takes as given an abstract representation such as
an assignment function, I put the metasemantics to the side. Work on indexical
shift and concept generators may afford additional grammatical, lexical, and
metasemantic resources (cf. §1.2).

3.5 Generalized Binder-Index

The account in this book provides a fully compositional semantics for quantifi-
cation and binding. This contrasts with prominent analyses of Quantifier Raising
(QR) — including implementations in trace theories (e.g. Heim and Kratzer
1998), copy theories (e.g. Fox 2002), and multidominant theories (e.g. Johnson
2012) which are typically syncategorematic. Following the traditional view
in syntax, indices are represented as features on expressions. The binder-index
attaches directly to moved expressions, rather than occupying its own node
and triggering a specialized interpretation rule (Predicate Abstraction, Trace
Conversion). Previous definitions of object-language binder indices have been
 Standardizing Quantification 31

limited to DPs and binding of individual-variables (Kobele 2010, Kennedy 2014).

The syntax/semantics in this chapter affords a means of standardizing quantifi-
cation via a generalized binder-index, attaching to quantificational expressions
of various categories and semantic types, as reflected in (3.12)–(3.15) — where
χτ is a variable for the type of what is being quantified over, σ is the type of the
mother node (i.e. the result of combining the binding expression with its scope
argument), and γσ1 1 . . . γσn n are variables for any intermediate arguments.

(3.12) Generalized binder-index feature

J⟨i,τ ⟩ K = λα⟨⟨τ,⟨1 σ1 ⋯σn , t⟩1 ⋯⟩n ⟩,σ⟩ . λβ⟨1 σ1 ⋯σn , t⟩1 ⋯⟩n .
α(λχτ .λγσ1 1 ⋯λγσn n .λgg . β(γ 1 )⋯(γ n )(g[(↓ χ)(g)/iτ ]))
⟨i,e⟩
(3.13) J[everything] K = J⟨i,e⟩ K(JeverythingK)
= λTt .λgg . ∀xe ∶ T(g[x(g)/ie])
(3.14) J[that tja ]⟨i,s⟩ K = J⟨i,s⟩ K(Jthat tja K)
= λTt .λgg . ∀ws = λg′g .@(g′ (ja))∶ T(g[w(g)/is])
(3.15) J[think tjs ]⟨i,a⟩ K = J⟨i,a⟩ K(Jthink tjs K)
= λTt .λxe .λgg . ∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with x(g)’s state of mind
in g(js) → T(g[a(g)/ia])

Roughly put, the binder-index ⟨i,τ ⟩ takes an expression α that quantifies over
items of type τ , and feeds α the set of τ -type items that verify its sister β when
returned as the value for ⟨i, τ ⟩.
Important advances in syntax have come from explaining movement opera-
tions in terms of more fundamental grammatical principles — e.g., treating QR as
an instance of Move α, α any category (Chomsky 1981, May 1985), or analyzing
Move in terms of Merge (“remerge,” “copy and merge”) (Chomsky 1993, 1995,
Fox 2000, Collins and Stabler 2016). The assignment-variable-based account
developed here follows in the spirit of such developments. The compositional
semantics of QR (type-driven movement) proceeds via function application: the
expression α undergoing QR combines with the binder-index via function appli-
cation, and the QR’d expression α⟨i,τ ⟩ combines with its sister via function
application. Syntactically, the movement operations in QR proceed via Merge:
α merges with the binder-index in its base position, yielding α⟨i,τ ⟩ , which is
remerged/copied-and-merged later in the derivation.13 The lower copy may

13
In a model such as that in Groat and O’Neil 1996, type-driven overt vs. covert movements
(e.g., with attitude verbs vs. object-position nominal quantifiers) would be distinguished in terms of
whether phonological features are moved to the head of the chain. In a theory with local morpho-
phonological spell-out, covert QR would take place after spell-out (cf. Nissenbaum 2000, Cecchetto
2004, Tanaka 2015; more on this in §7.2.4).
32 3.5 Generalized Binder-Index

be replaced with a coindexed variable directly, as in a trace theory, or via a

general replacement/deletion rule in the semantic component (n. 9). The binder-
index feature would thus be what triggers QR syntactically, and allows for
combination via function application semantically. The result is a syntax and
compositional semantics of type-driven movement in terms of feature-driven
Merge and function application.14

14
Contrast the present simplified derivation for QR in (i) with the trace-theoretic, copy-theoretic,
and multidominant alternatives in (ii)–(iv). For concreteness, in (i) I assume a copy theory with a
replacement/deletion rule in the semantic component (n. 9). Fox’s Trace Conversion in (iii) converts
the lower copy to a definite description by replacing the quantifier (here ‘every’) with ‘the’ and
inserting an identity predicate and coindexed pronoun in the complement, yielding [the [boy [= o5 ]]
from [every boy]5 (more on this in §5.1.2). In the multidominant syntax in (iv), remerged syntactic
objects are literally in both positions — hence Johnson’s (2012) need to generate the quantifier (here
∀) in the higher position independently. Johnson assumes that, by some morphosyntactic principles,
the syntactically displaced ∀ and ‘the’ get pronounced as ‘every’. I don’t know how such an approach
would generalize across varieties of type-driven movement.
(i) Merge + Function Application
a. [every boy]∧ ⟨5, e⟩
⋮
[Alice defeated [every boy]∧ ⟨5, e⟩]
[[every boy]∧ ⟨5, e⟩ [Alice defeated [every boy]∧ ⟨5, e⟩]] (by Merge)
b. LF ≈ [[every boy]∧ ⟨5, e⟩ [Alice defeated ⟨5, e⟩]]
c. ≈ “for every boy o, Alice defeated o” (by FA)
(ii) Traces + QR + Predicate Abstraction (PA) (cf. Heim and Kratzer 1998)
a. [every boy]
⋮
SS: [Alice defeated [every boy]5 ] (by Merge)
b. LF: [[every boy] [5 [Alice defeated t5 ]]] (by QR)
● QR: [. . . αi . . . ] ⇒ [αi [i [. . . ti . . . ]]]
c. ≈ “for every boy o, Alice defeated o” (by PA, FA)
(iii) Copies + Trace Conversion (TC) + Predicate Modification (PM) + PA∗ (cf. Fox 2002, 2003)
a. [every boy]5
⋮
[Alice defeated [every boy]5 ]
[[every boy]5 [Alice defeated [every boy]5 ]] (by Merge)
b. LF: [[every boy]5 [Alice defeated [the [boy [= o5 ]]]]] (by TC)
c. ≈ “for every boy o, Alice defeated the o′ s.t. o′ is a boy ∧ o′ = o” (by PA∗, PM, FA)
● PA∗: JDPi [. . . DPi . . . ]Kg = JDPKg (λx.J. . . DPi . . .Kg[x/i] )

(iv) Multidominance + Decomposed scattered ‘every’ + Agreement∗+ PA∗ (cf. Johnson 2012)
a. [DP [the∗ o5 ] boy]
⋮
[Alice defeated [DP [the∗ o5 ] boy]]
[Alice defeated [DP [the∗ o5 ] NP]] [QP ∀ NP] (by Merge)
● NP: identical token of [NP boy], sister to both D0 and Q0 (multidominance)
b. LF: [[Alice defeated [DP [the∗ o5 ] NP]] [QP5 ∀ NP]] (by Merge, Agreement∗ )
● Agreement∗: QPi must have the same index as the sister to D0 in the [D0 oi ] that is
sister to the lower occurrence of the NP sister to Q0 .
c. ≈ “for every boy o, Alice defeated o, provided o is a boy” (by PA∗, FA)
● Jthe∗ K = λxλP ∶ P(x) . x
34 4.1 Intensionality, Local/Global Readings

JCP∗ K = λgg . ∀ws = λg′g .@(g′ (2a))∶ g[w(g)/2s](1a)(2e) smiled in w(g)

JVPK = J[think t1s ]⟨2,a⟩ K(JCP∗ K)

= λxe .λgg . ∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with SOMx(g), g(1s) →
∀ws = λg′g .@(g′ (2a))∶
g[a(g)/2a][w(g)/2s](1a)(2e) smiled in w(g[a(g)/2a])
≈ λxe .λgg . ∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with SOMx(g), g(1s) →
g(1a)(2e) smiled in @(a(g))
JCPK = J[Cd t1a ]⟨1,s⟩ K(JVPK(λg′g .g′ (1a)(1e)))
≈ λgg . ∀w′s = λg′g .@(g′ (1a))∶
∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with SOMg(1a)(1e), w′ (g) →
g(1a)(2e) smiled in @(a(g))
≈ λgg . ∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with SOMg(1a)(1e), @(g(1a)) →
g(1a)(2e) smiled in @(a(g))
JSK = JT⟨1,a⟩ K(JCPK) = λgg . ∀a′a = λg′′g .g′′− ∶ JCPK(g[a′ (g)/1a])
≈ λgg . ∀a′a = λg′′g .g′′− ∶ ∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with SOMa′ (g)(1e), @(a′ (g)) →
a′ (g)(2e) smiled in @(a(g))
≈ λgg . ∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with SOMg−(1e), @(g−) →
g−(2e) smiled in @(a(g))

Suppose Bert and Fluffy are the contextually relevant individuals represented
by 1 and 2, respectively. Then the attitude ascription is true in c according to
(4.1), JSK(gc ) = 1, iff Fluffy (=g− c (2e)) smiled in the world of every possibility
compatible with Bert’s (=g− c ( 1e ) ’s) state of mind in the actual world @(g− c ).
(Hereafter for readability I will often omit the superscript in ‘g− c ’, though it should
be understood (§2.2).)
Parallel to the movement of the nominal quantifier in (3.3), the movement
of the complementizer from the world-argument position of the clause’s main
predicate leaves a trace tis , and the binder-index attaches to the moved expression
⟨i,s⟩
C0 . The raised embedding modal elements, T⟨1,a⟩ , [think t1s ]⟨1,a⟩ , determine
the local modal domain for each clause. The obligatory local reading of the
clause’s main predicate (§3.1) is captured via general mechanisms of type-driven
movement.
Though the world argument in the embedded clause is obligatorily shifted
under the attitude verb, being supplied directly by the world-trace t2s , the
embedded individual pronoun can receive a global reading. The intuitively
free reading of ‘it’ is reflected in being sister to an assignment-variable g1
 Attitude Ascriptions 35

coindexed with the topmost assignment-binder. This anchors its interpretation

to the discourse context via gc [a′ (gc )/1a](1a)(2e) = a′ (gc )(2e) = g−
c (2e).
16

As discussed in §2.2, although the items quantified over are functions —

here, functions in Ds , Dg — the conditions are placed on elements (worlds u,
assignments h) in the model. The condition placed by the attitude verb is a
condition on ways a of mapping the discourse assignment gc to an assignment
a(gc ) ∈ G representing a possibility compatible with the subject’s state of mind.
Following Stalnaker (1988, 2014), shifted “contexts” are derived, in the sense of
being determined by the discourse. Which features of a subject’s state of mind
are relevant for interpreting embedded material can depend on features of the
discourse context. Likewise, the lexical entries for ‘think’ and Cd /‘that’ restrict
the modal quantification to functions w mapping gc to worlds w(gc ) = @(a(gc ))
of the possibilities compatible with the subject’s state of mind. The truth of
the attitude ascription requires that gc (2e) (=Fluffy) smiled in any such world
@(a(gc )) ∈ W.

4.2 De Re/De Dicto, Specific/Nonspecific: Global vs. Local Readings

of World Arguments
§4.1 highlights a contrast between pronouns and traces. The trace supplying
the world argument of a clause’s main predicate is necessarily coindexed with
the nearest c-commanding world-binder due to movement of the complemen-
tizer. Pronouns, in contrast, receive their interpretation from an assignment-
variable. Absent further constraints (§7), world arguments of embedded non-
main predicates may receive optional local or global readings, as reflected infor-
mally in (4.2)–(4.3) with the world-pronoun associated with ‘a friend of mine’.
(I leave the predicate unanalyzed.)

(4.2) Alice thinksi that a [friend of mine]i/c laughed.

(4.3) a. [ DP a [ NP friend-of-mine [wj gk ]]]
b. JaK = λP⟨e,t⟩ .λQ⟨e,t⟩ .λgg . ∃xe ∶ P(x)(g) ∧ Q(x)(g)
JDPK = λQ⟨e,t⟩ .λgg . ∃xe ∶ x(g) is a friend of mine in
g(ka)(js) ∧ Q(x)(g)

Alternative binding configurations with world-pronouns afford a locus for cap-

turing classic contrasts between de re vs. de dicto and specific vs. nonspecific
readings. The LF in (4.4), where the embedded world-pronoun [w1 g2 ] is locally

16
More precisely, an intuitively “free” reading of a pronoun [viσ gj ] is reflected in an LF
where (i) the nearest c-commanding ⟨j,a⟩ -binder (if any) is T⟨j,a⟩ , and (ii) there is no ⟨i,σ⟩ -binder
c-commanded by the topmost world-binder that c-commands the pronoun.
 Attitude Ascriptions 39

JSK ≈ λgg . ∀a′′a = λgg .g− ∶

∀ye ∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with SOMy(g), @(a′′ (g)) →
(∃a′a ∶ a(g)(1r)(@(a(g)))(a′ (g)) ∧
∃xe ∶ g[a′′ (g)/1a][y(g)/1e](1a)(1e) loves x(g) in @(a′ (g)))
≈ λgg . . . . ∃xe ∶ a′′ (g[y(g)/1e])(1e) loves x(g) in @(a′ (g))
≈ λgg . . . . ∃xe ∶ g[y(g)/1e]− (1e) loves x(g) in @(a′ (g))
≈ λgg . ∀ye ∀aa ∶ a(g) is compatible with SOMy(g), @(g−) →
∃a′a ∶ a(g)(1r)(@(a(g)))(a′ (g)) ∧ ∃xe ∶ y(g) loves x(g) in @(a′ (g))

Roughly put, this says that (4.7) is true iff every individual o is such that for every
possibility h compatible with o’s beliefs, there is a possibility h′ accessible from h
such that there is some individual o′ whom o loves in the world of h′ .

4.3.1 Standardizing Quantification: Binding with Pronouns and Traces

Bound readings of pronouns, shifting under modal expressions, and context-
sensitivity are captured in a unified way via quantification over individuals,
worlds, and assignments. First, obligatory binding relationships may be estab-
lished by movement. The cross-categorial binder-index combines via function
application with expressions raising for type reasons. The complementizer moves
from the main predicate’s world argument position, leaving a coindexed world-
trace, and a modal element moves from the complementizer’s assignment
argument position, leaving a coindexed assignment-trace. This coindexing-via-
movement derives the local reading of each clause’s main predicate: the “loving”
occurs in worlds @(a′ (gc )) compatible with the relevant information; the rele-
vant information is determined relative to worlds @(a(gc )) compatible with the
subject’s attitude state; the subject’s attitude state is assessed at the world @(gc )
of the discourse context.
In contrast, the optional bound reading of ‘they’ is represented via the pronoun
complex [they1e g1 ]. Coindexing between they1e and everyone⟨1,e⟩ requires that
the pronoun be interpreted with respect to the input assignment modified to take
⟨1, e⟩ to y(g), the individuals being quantified over. Although embedded under
multiple assignment shifters, the pronoun is linked to individuals in the actual
world via the assignment-variable g1 coindexed with T⟨1,a⟩ . Analogously, the
variable r1 in the modal verb’s epistemic modal background pronoun receives its
interpretation from an assignment-variable g2 coindexed with the attitude verb.
The shifted modal background a(gc )(1r) represents a doxastic counterpart of the
modal background gc (1r) that would be determined by the discourse — i.e., an
epistemic modal background determined by the possibility a(gc ). The set of
accessible possibilities is determined relative to the worlds @(a(gc )) compatible
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
bow. I promise to lead the way back here at the first opportunity."
He rose to his feet from the position which he had taken, and turned
on his heel. There was no protest, no argument, no attempt to alter
his friend's decision, or to shake his determination to stay. For Philip
was beginning to find out that this huge friend of his, who played
and laughed like a boy, was a clever fellow at times, skilled in
stratagems, and fertile in resource.
"I suppose he has been thinking it over as he went round," he said
to himself as he plunged into the trees. "Anyway, I fancy he is in the
right."
He left Roger comfortably seated on the trunk of a tree within sight
of the edge of the clearing, and in such a position that he could
watch without danger of being seen.
 CHAPTER V
A Valuable Capture
Three hours passed after Philip's departure before Roger saw
anything of the Spaniards and their slaves. For the noonday heat
was great, and all were indulging in a siesta, the slaves even being
allowed this luxury, simply because without their masters to watch
over them and to flog them no work was to be expected.
"Better dine and rest myself," thought Roger. "Then I shall be ready
for anything. But I must not sleep, though I feel drowsy enough. It
would be different were there no Spaniards about. But there are
none, and I have nothing to look at save that big brown mound of
earth, and the forest trees with a curling line of logs passing out
amongst them. Let me see what I have with me; and I must look for
water."
He remembered then that as he sat or lay full length in the bush he
had heard the tinkle of a stream somewhere near at hand, and at
once he was on his feet and in search of the fluid; for though the
leaves above sheltered him from the glare of the sun, it must be
remembered that for a month he had been unused to much
exertion, and particularly had walked very little. On this day,
however, he had scrambled through the underwood, putting aside
brambles and creepers at every step. Then he found that in spite of
the shade the heat was very great. It was close and sultry beneath
the trees, and long ago he had been forced to open his doublet at
the neck and sleeves, while the perspiration poured from his
forehead. So that it was not to be wondered at that he desired a
drink of water. A hundred yards to the right he found the stream,
and falling full length, lowered his lips to the surface.
"A good place for an out-of-doors meal," he said to himself; "and as
I can see the houses from here, I shall stay."
He took the biscuit and cheese from his pocket, and the junk of salt
meat from the satchel carried over one shoulder. Then he cut the
latter into two parts with his dagger, and one of the halves into thin
slices. A little later a figure startled him, and he observed a tall
native emerge into the clearing. He was almost naked, and his dark
brown skin was stained with marks of the toil with which he had
been engaged. In his hand he carried a bag made of woven grass,
while his eyes sought for some shady nook in which he might rest.
He saw the big bush which had sheltered Roger and Philip, and he
sauntered to it, throwing himself down in the shade.
"Lucky I moved away from the edge of the clearing," said Roger,
"and still more fortunate that I kept the clearing in sight. That fellow
might see our marks. Sir Thomas tells me that he has heard that
they can track any one with the intelligence and quickness of a dog,
that a crushed leaf, or a broken twig has a story for them. I wonder
what the result would be supposing he happened to discover that
some one had been in the bush behind him? He would follow, and
perhaps come as far as the ship. That must be prevented. If he
moves I will meet him, and will speak to him. If he runs——"
He debated whether he ought to fire a shaft at the native under
those circumstances.
"Why should I?" he said. "The poor beggar is obviously a slave, and
must hate the Spaniards, for he was one of those who was lashed as
we arrived. I wonder whether he speaks Spanish, or whether the
Spaniards have learned the native language."
He was still debating the matter when a movement on the part of
the native arrested his attention. He dived into his bag, and
produced a long rod of wood. Had Roger been nearer he would have
seen that this rod pierced the centre of a flat circular stone bored for
the purpose, and that a cross piece provided with leather strings was
attached. There was also a piece of hard wood, with a little hollow in
it, while from one corner of the bag some brown powder was
produced, consisting of dried wood. Roger, in fact, was about to
observe the native method of obtaining fire, and marvelled as the
man patiently twirled his weighted stick till smoke burst from the
hollow in the hard wood. Then he added some of the powder, and as
it caught and smouldered, placed a piece of dried and rotten stick
against the flame. But our hero opened his eyes still wider in utter
amazement when the native rolled something between his brown
hands, licked the object carefully and critically, and then placing one
end to his lips, applied the other to the flame. Smoke burst from the
mouth and nostrils of this strange man, while he leaned back easily
and contentedly, slowly putting out the fire with his other hand, and
replacing the stick and the whole paraphernalia in his bag.
"Marvellous!" thought Roger, sitting up in his amazement. "The
fellow looks as if he were on fire. What can it all mean? And he
seems so contented and happy, for he leans back with closed eyes,
and puffs at that long brown stick. Now he is sitting up. Ah! He
burned his hand against the end, and that made him start. He is
rubbing the place with a leaf, and——"
His words were cut short, while he himself fell flat on the ground, for
that accidental burn was like to be his undoing. The native,
dissatisfied with the first leaf which came to his hand, turned and
sought for some special kind in the grass and herbage growing in
the bush, and gave vent to a cry of astonishment. He knelt upon his
knees and searched the grass around the bush diligently, and in a
manner which showed that his interest was aroused. Then, catching
up his bag, he slung it over one arm and rose to his feet, still puffing
at the long cigar which he had manufactured; for that, in fact, was
the nature of the article which he had in his hand, and Roger was
probably the very first Englishman to witness this native custom—a
custom which has now become almost universal. But he had other
matters to occupy his attention, for it was obvious that the native's
curiosity was thoroughly aroused.
"He is coming into the forest," exclaimed Roger, in alarm, "He is
bending low, and following the tracks left by Philip and myself as if
he were a dog, or as if they were as clearly outlined as any road. Ah,
he has stopped! That must be the point at which I struck off for this
stream."
Discovery seemed certain, but in the hope of escaping observation
Roger threw himself into the long grass and undergrowth, and
burrowed his way into the thickest part. Then he drew his sword, for
even now it was not certain that the native would be friendly.
"He must take his chance," said Roger between clenched teeth. "We
have too great a stake at issue to risk the ship and all our lives for
the sake of one native. If he discovers me I shall speak in Spanish,
and order him to be silent. If he refuses, and attempts to run——"
Could Roger cut him down in cold blood? Could he, taller even than
this tall native, set upon him, knowing him to be a slave, for he had
so recently seen him cringe beneath the lash of the Spaniards? No!
Roger knew well that he could not do that, even for the sake of all
his comrades, and for the safety of the expedition.
"Poor beggar!" he thought. "I will not harm him; but at the same
time I will not allow him to betray us. I will sheathe the sword, and,
if he runs, will jump upon his back and capture him."
By now the native had turned aside, and was creeping along the
narrow track left by Roger. He halted every now and again, and
picked up a piece of stick, or bent closer to inspect the ground. Once
even his face showed traces of astonishment and fear, and it looked
as if he would turn back to the clearing. But at heart, and when no
whip dominated him, he was a courageous fellow, and presently he
came on again till he was close to Roger. Instantly his frame became
rigid with apprehension, and he was about to run, for his eyes had
detected the figure lying in the undergrowth.
"Stand and be silent," said Roger, sternly. "Do not run, or harm will
come to you. I am no Spaniard, but come from another part where
the people do not love your masters."
He scrambled to his feet and stood up before the astonished native,
who eyed him fearfully, and looked for a moment as if he would
have bolted. But Roger's youth saved the situation. He looked no
villain, no cruel taskmaster, but what he was—a jovial, overgrown
young fellow, given to kindness to all.
"Not Spanish? There are no others, so we have been taught,"
exclaimed the native. "Our masters tell us that they rule the world,
and they have made slaves of us here as if by natural right. We are
forced to work for them, even to learn their tongue that we may
understand them. Not Spanish? Then what?"
"English!" exclaimed Roger, proudly lifting his head. "We are subjects
of King Henry the Eighth, and we are as good, and better than these
Spaniards. Why should you slave for them? Why not drive them from
your island if they treat you so?"
"Because we are too weak to do so. Years ago it might have been
possible, when first they appeared, and in small numbers. Now there
are more than a thousand, and they are too strong with their guns
and their horses. Yes, their horses carry them so swiftly after us, and
run us down so easily. Then, too, the vengeance of our masters is so
fierce. They punish us with barbarous tortures, and slay us and our
wives and children. Life is one long hardship under them. But tell me
where you come from? I marked your tracks, and followed. Then, as
I turned in this direction, the track told me that a big man had gone
this way. I feared it was a Spaniard, for there were prints of boots
such as these tyrants wear. It might have been one of the soldiers
come here for a quiet rest, and had I wakened him the lash would
have followed. But I came on, and—hush, I hear voices! I must be
going, for they have started to work at the mine again."
Roger would have kept him, would have asked him to come to this
same spot again. But the native turned quickly and left, as if fearful
of being late for his work, knowing well, without doubt, that the lash
would be his reward. But he was not to reach the clearing without
trouble, for it happened that as he entered the forest in search of
the strangers who had left their tracks, one of the Spaniards had
sauntered from the houses, and caught sight of the retreating figure.
Desertions from amongst the slaves were very common, and the
Spaniard at once came to the conclusion that the native was about
to make an attempt to get away. He crept after him, therefore, and
so quietly that neither Roger nor the man heard his approach.
Suddenly, however, as the native ran back towards the clearing, he
rose from the path and accosted him.
"What now!" he demanded violently. "A runaway! You will teach the
others to give us the slip, and will give us the trouble of following,
and setting on the dogs. A lesson is wanted, and you shall see that it
is unwise to attempt to leave us so hurriedly. Work at the mine may
not meet your fancy, but there are other matters which are less
pleasant."
He eyed the trembling native till Roger thought that the poor fellow
would have sunk to the ground in his terror, while he slowly
extracted a knife from his belt. Then he searched for a suitable
sapling, and having chosen one which was stout and whippy, he cut
it off, and severed the smaller branches.
"A whip may sting for a while," he said, with a brutal laugh, "but for
long memories, give me a cane after this sort. The pain of the bruise
lasts, and every movement is a reminder. Now, come hither, slave,
and receive what is your due. Hanging were too good for you."
He seized the poor fellow, and brought his stick down with all his
strength, till the native shrieked. Roger's blood boiled. Up till now he
remained unseen by the Spaniard. But he could not lie there, a big
fellow such as he was, and see a human being treated with such
cruelty.
"Why, one would not beat a savage dog so!" he said. "And,
moreover, the poor native was not attempting to be gone, though
none would blame him had he done so. I won't put up with such
brutality."
He leapt to his feet impulsively, forgetting all about the safety of the
expedition and his comrades—forgetful of everything save the
unhappy native and the Spanish coward who thrashed him. With a
bound he was on the path, and in a twinkling he was before the
Spaniard, his face flushed with anger, and his pulses beating with
excitement. There was a loud cry of amazement; the Spaniard let go
his hold of the native, and stared at the stranger till, suddenly,
Roger's fist flew out, and, crashing into the Spaniard's face, sent him
rolling into the underwood.
 "ROGER SENT HIM ROLLING INTO THE
UNDERWOOD"

"An enemy! The English! The English! Rally!"

The man picked himself up with the agility of a monkey, and gave
vent to the warning at the top of his voice. Then his sword swished
from the scabbard, and he stepped towards Roger.
"So that is what brought this sneaking cur over into the forest!" he
said, with an oath. "He has been parleying with you—you men of
England, of whom we have heard. And you and your comrades are
here, hoping to snatch this island of Cuba from us. We shall see, and
you shall learn that a man of less than six feet is more than a match
for one of your height. Yield now, or wait till my comrades come. It
makes no difference. You will be taken, and later on the Governor
will roast you on the square at Santiago."
Roger did not wait to argue with the man, nor did he accept the
invitation to surrender. He heard shouts from the clearing, and
caught sight of a number of armed men running towards the forest.
In two minutes they would be there, and his escape would be out of
the question. Indeed, already he was almost cut off, and unless he
moved now he would never get away. Doubtless he would then be
burned on the square at Santiago, according to the barbarous
custom of the Spaniards. In an instant, therefore, his plan of action
was taken. While the Spaniard stood glaring at him, hesitating to
attack him, our hero sprang forward so suddenly that his opponent
was unable to raise the point of his sword. Roger clutched at his
enemy, and, lifting him above his head, threw him against the trunk
of a tree.
"Come with me," he said to the native. "If you remain you will be
killed or tortured by these brutes. Come with us, and you will be
kindly dealt with."
There was no time for further discussion, for by now the shouts
were sensibly nearer. He darted forward, therefore, and, following
the track through the grass, made for the spot where the long line of
blazings commenced.
"Master, let me go before you," he heard the native exclaim. "I will
come with you, for to remain is to be killed. Let me run in front, and
I shall be able to find the track and follow it without loss of time."
"Then get ahead," said Roger, shortly. "You will find that we have
marked the trees, so as to show us how to reach the ship again; and
if you follow that line we shall be safe. Now hasten, for the
Spaniards are near, and I fancy their comrade will be able to speak
to them, and tell them what has happened. I missed my aim, for
had he hit the tree as I meant he would have been silenced for
many a day."
The Spaniard had, in fact, hit the trunk at which Roger had thrown
him with the broad of his back, and though the concussion had
momentarily stunned him, and knocked the breath out of his body,
he was able to speak when his comrades ran to his side.
"Follow!" he gasped. "I came hither after one of the slaves, and
found him parleying with a huge Englishman. Their ship—the one we
heard of—must have touched on the coast somewhere near at hand,
and they sent a scout in to see where we were. Follow, and cut the
fellow to pieces."
The effort was almost too much for him, for he fell back at the foot
of the tree and lapsed into unconsciousness. But he had been able
to give valuable information, and his comrades acted upon it with
alacrity. Fortunately for them, all were fully armed, and therefore
they set off into the forest without hesitation and without the loss of
a moment. One of their number happened to catch a sight of the
fugitives, and this giving them the direction, they burst their way
through the forest at a rapid rate. They had no need to follow any
particular line, for the noise made by the two fugitives was sufficient
indication of the course of their flight. The Spaniards therefore
simply rushed through the underwood, careless of the brambles
which grew here and there, their eyes seeking for Roger and the
native, while their ears listened for sounds of their flight. As for the
latter, thanks to the acuteness of the native—an acuteness which
Roger marvelled at—they ran on into the depths of the forest almost
without a halt. But their progress was hardly as rapid as that of the
enemy, for the simple reason that Roger and Philip had made an
occasional détour to avoid the thick underwood. Then, again, their
progress through the forest had not been as direct as it might have
been, because they Were unused to travelling in such a place. So
that, though they ran fast and did not delay, the enemy steadily
approached them.
"They are striking to the right again, because of some thick bushes,"
called out one of the Spaniards who led the pursuit. "Come after me,
and I will take you by a route which will cut into their course."
He was a man who had spent many years in the Indies, and was
well accustomed to the forests. Indeed, his comrades said of him
that he could track out a native as well even as the best of native
trackers could have done, and that bloodhounds were hardly
necessary if Sebastian were with the party. He plunged, therefore,
into the thick of the underwood, thrusting the brambles and twigs
aside savagely, and leaping over obstacles such as the fallen trunks
of trees. Then he burst into a glade, and swinging to the left, led the
party straight ahead, till his eye caught a mark on one of the trees.
"Halt!" he said, holding his pike in the air. "We are ahead of them, I
think. Listen! There is the sound of broken sticks as they run, and it
is behind us."
"Are you certain? I thought that I heard sounds ahead," exclaimed
one of his comrades, standing beside him and breathing deeply, for
the sudden call for exertion, their indolent lives, and the weight of
their weapons and clothing had told upon them. "There! Listen you,
Sebastian! Those sounds are ahead, I wager anything upon it!"
"And I swear that they are behind," burst in another, hotly. "Listen,
there is the noise."
"Hush! You will give them the warning. There are men in advance, I
think," admitted Sebastian, "but I am sure that these fugitives, this
slave and the Englishman, are behind us. Perhaps there are others
near at hand, and they will have had no warning. Silence, I say! Let
us line the path which is here. You can see the blaze marks on the
trees. Then, when we have cut down the fugitives, we will teach the
others a lesson."
"A lesson to leave the Indies alone; to meddle with nothing which
belongs to his Most Catholic Majesty, Ferdinand."
"Silence, fool!" Sebastian turned upon the man with a snarl which
caused the offender to close his lips. Then he crept forward on to
the track left by Roger and Philip, and disposed his men so as to
catch them in a trap.
"Let there be no hesitation. If the man is armed cut him down, but
do not give a mortal blow if it can be helped. We may get
information from him. Now, to your places."
Meanwhile Roger and the native had been hurrying along through
the forest, their eyes picking out the trees which were marked. So
occupied were they with this that they hardly noted the progress
made by the enemy, and they would undoubtedly have plunged into
the trap set for them had not the acuteness of the native suddenly
arrested their flight.
"Lie down," he said abruptly, catching Roger by the sleeve and
drawing him to the ground. "There, you can hear their voices. We
have been going in a circle, while they have cut straight through.
They are on the path before us."
"Then we must cut our way through them. How many were there?"
The native counted the enemy off on the fingers of his two hands,
giving the number in the broken Spanish which he spoke.
"Thirteen, I think, master," he said. "There are fifteen at the mine,
and one you threw against the tree. One is with the slaves at the
works, and that will leave thirteen to attack us. Surely it is
impossible to cut a way through them?"
"It must be done!" answered Roger, with decision. "We will creep
along till close to where they hide, and if possible we will pass them.
If they spy us out we must run, and cut down whoever opposes us.
Here is a dagger. Make use of it."
"Hush!" The native stopped Roger with a movement. "More sounds,"
he said. "Wait while I listen."
Creeping along the ground, he placed his ear against the trunk of a
big tree, and stood there for more than a minute. Then he returned
to Roger's side and whispered in his ear.
"I hear men moving," he said. "They seem to come towards us, and
they are making much noise. I do not think that they are the
Spaniards, for these sounds come from beyond the spot where I last
heard them."
"Then they must be friends," exclaimed Roger, his heart beating
faster at the thought. "I had sent for them, and expected them
before this. Can we get round to them?"
For a moment the two looked into one another's eyes, Roger longing
for the native's answer, while the latter debated whether it would be
possible for this big, clumsy Englishman to creep through the forest
without alarming the enemy.
"There will be great risk of discovery," he said, "and I advise that I
creep through to your friends. Give me a token, and I will hasten to
them with it. What message shall I take?"
"Tell them that I have been discovered; that the Spaniards lie
between me and them, and that I am cut off. If we have heard their
coming, then the enemy have very likely become aware of their
presence in the forest. But they do not know their numbers.
Therefore we shall still have some chance of surprising them. Tell my
comrades to advance, while I will come towards them from this side.
Bid them be sure that none of the Spaniards escape, and lest they
should do so do you return in this direction and lie in wait. None of
these enemies must return to the clearing. But—" He suddenly
recollected that the native could not speak English. "Then you must
sign to them and bring them along," he said quickly. "Take this
whistle, and go."
He lay full length in the underwood, his eyes peering amongst the
trees and brambles, while he listened intently. For who could say
whether the Spaniards were already coming towards him? No doubt
they were accustomed to warfare in these woods, for they had had
many a brush with the natives. Then perhaps they were stalking
him, and would come just as silently as his native comrade had
gone.
Roger shivered at the thought. Then his courage returned, and with
that his old assurance. His hand gripped the hilt of his sword, while
he lay in such a posture that in a moment he could rise to his feet.
Click! A twig snapped near at hand, and his grip tightened. Was it
friend or enemy? There it was again, and Roger became certain that
some one was approaching.
"It must be a Spaniard," he thought, "and as I have been still and
silent since I dropped in this place the chances are that he does not
quite know my whereabouts. I have something which will stop him."
Very softly his hand sought for his crossbow and a shaft. Then he
pulled back the bow and waited. Click! The very faintest sound
reached his ear, followed by the rustle of dried leaves. He turned his
head to the left, and his eye fell upon the tip of a pike. Then he saw
the ridge of a steel cap, and behind it the legs of a Spaniard. It was
Sebastian, who, conscious of his superiority, had left his comrades to
discover the whereabouts of the fugitives, and with the intention of
capturing them alone if possible. The sudden cessation of sounds
had surprised him, and he had rapidly guessed that the fugitives had
halted and were in hiding, or were endeavouring to creep silently
away.
"Strange! I do not see them, and there is now not a sound," he
suddenly said to himself, as he halted. "A little while ago there were
noises from this direction, and we heard other men deeper in the
forest. Now none are to be heard, and none to be seen."
He sat up cautiously and looked round him. But only leaves and
forest trunks were in sight. Only leaves! No! His eye suddenly caught
the glitter of a steel bow, while behind that bow was a steel cap
much the same as he wore. Sebastian was startled. Then he leaped
to his feet, and taking his pike in both hands, charged down upon
Roger with a roar which startled the echoes.
"The Englishman!" he shouted at the top of his voice. "Follow!
Follow!"
Roger made no movement. He did not even flinch as he saw the
point of the pike lowered and the man rushing upon him. Instead,
his eye went to the bow, and he aimed steadily for his man. Very
gently the tip of the bow went up till it was directed full upon the
Spaniard's throat. Then our hero pressed the trigger, and in less than
a second Sebastian was down amidst the moss and the ferns and
bracken, his pike and his enmity forgotten, while his feeble hands
clutched convulsively at a shaft which had passed right through his
neck. He attempted to call for help, but failed. For a moment or two
he rolled over and over, struggling dreadfully. Then a sigh escaped
him, and he became silent; his head fell back, and he lay with arms
spread out to their full extent, a victim of his own rashness. He had
hardly fallen before a babel of shouts broke the silence of the forest,
while the heavy trampling of feet and the snapping of twigs came to
Roger's ears. He leaped to his feet, and drawing his sword, thrust
the point into the ground. Then he fitted another shaft into his
crossbow and waited. A few seconds later two of the Spaniards
appeared, and, catching sight of him, ran forward. Then a third was
seen, and he came to an abrupt halt, and levelling his arquebus,
made ready to fire it.
"Better get behind a tree," thought Roger; "then the gun cannot do
me harm, and I shall be ready for the others. Ah, there is a fourth! I
trust that my comrades will be coming soon."
"He has slain Sebastian. Fall on him! Cut him down!" shouted the
first of the enemy, catching sight of his dead comrade and halting
for a moment. "Now, comrade, we will run him through together.
Lower your pike and rush."
Sheltered behind a huge trunk, Roger watched them cautiously, and
out of the tail of his eye saw the man with the arquebus blowing at
his fuse, while he endeavoured to hold the ponderous weapon
steadily at his shoulder. A second later the fuse was ready, and he
fired, the bullet striking the tree with an ugly thud. But no damage
was done to Roger, and at once his head and shoulders appeared,
and his crossbow twanged, one of the charging Spaniards falling
instantly. The other kept on without a pause, and, seeing that he
was determined to come to close quarters, Roger dropped his
crossbow and snatched at his sword.
"Yield!" cried the Spaniard. "You are surrounded, and your friends
cannot help you. Throw down your sword and surrender."
"Never!" answered Roger, quietly. "Yield yourself, for it is you who
are surrounded. Now, up with your hands, or I will cleave you to the
chin."
The Spaniard gave vent to a hoarse laugh, for he was amused at the
insolence of the Englishman. Then he lowered the point of his pike
and lunged, striking Roger on the arm. But the hurt was only a slight
one, and was returned instantly. Pike parried sword thrust, while the
point of Roger's weapon prevented his adversary from approaching
too close. He had just succeeded in wounding the man slightly for
the second time, when the appearance of five more of the Spaniards
made the affair wear a serious look. He cut savagely at his
opponent, and was in the act of following the stroke up when an
arquebus roared, and the unfortunate fellow who opposed him fell to
the ground. Then shouts came to his ear—English shouts—and at
the sound of his comrades voices he dashed forward, and fell upon
the Spaniards furiously, his sword playing swiftly.
"He is here. He is alive and well. Come forward and surround these
men."
It was Philip's voice which he heard, and a moment later that
individual appeared, sword in hand. Then a second comrade from
the brigantine came to view on the right, while others came pushing
through the trees.
"Fall on them and cut them down!" shouted Roger; "and see that
none escape. Philip, come to my side, and let four others rally here.
Now we will make haste to the clearing."
"There is one of the Spaniards stealing off," suddenly cried Philip, as
he ran to his friend's side, "Stop him, whoever happens to be in that
direction, or he will give the alarm."
But they had no need for anxiety, though none of the Englishmen
appeared in answer to his warning cry. Instead, the tall native thrust
his way to the front, and at a nod from Roger set off after the
Spaniard. And while he raced through the underwood, the men of
the brigantine, headed by Roger, fell upon the Spaniards. There was
a fierce fight, swords flashed in the air, lopping twigs from the
bushes, and striking heavy blows at the enemy. Three of the latter
quickly fell, and within five minutes those who survived had thrown
down their arms.
"Form a guard round them, and follow swiftly," said Roger. "We will
go to the clearing and capture the store of gold which is there. Now
hurry, for we must not waste time."
"What if the man who fled has given the alarm?" demanded Philip,
coming breathless to Roger's side. "That would wreck all our hopes,
for then we could not stay."
"We could manage to get the worst of the damage to the ship
repaired. But wait; here comes the tall native whose acquaintance I
first made. Now, what is the tale?" he demanded.
"The man ran fast, and, turning, struck at me as I came near. But I
fell suddenly, pretending to be hurt, and he turned again to kill me. I
seized my opportunity, and sprang upon him with the dagger. He is
dead. Has my lord further orders?"
"Run fast to the mine, and bid your friends capture this other
Spaniard. We will follow quickly."
Roger waved him away, and then gathered his comrades about him.
There were twenty in all, and none had received more than the most
trifling wounds.
"All fit for duty, then," he said. "Let ten guard the prisoners, while
the remainder come with me. The prisoners and their guard will
remain here, for we do not wish them to know what is happening at
the mine."
There was a tone of authority in his voice, and, young though he
was, the men from the brigantine obeyed him with alacrity.
"He's won his place, and will keep it," said one.
"Nay, he'll not keep it," protested another, as they marched through
the trees. "The lad's bound to rise. You can see that he's cut out for
a leader. He keeps his head, and is a capable manager. A groat on it
that he'll go higher, maybe top the tree, just as he overstands us all
in height. A burly young giant, with a good heart and a better head.
I, for one, follow him willingly."
"And I. And I."
The men answered eagerly, while they followed the figure of their
tall young leader till the clearing was reached. Arrived there, they
found the last of the enemy in the hands of the slaves, who had
disarmed and pinioned him.
"Were we to deal justice to him, to repay cruelty with cruelty, we
should have strangled him slowly ere you arrived," said the native
who had come so unexpectedly to be Roger's friend, and whose
name was Tamba. "But I knew my lord's wishes, and I will always
follow them, for do I not owe him my life?"
"You have done well," said Roger, shortly. "Now gather your friends,
and ask them whether they will serve us. But first, tell me, is this
mine far from your masters—from their other settlements?"
"Two days' journey, my lord. A Spaniard would take three."
"And there are no other natives in the neighbourhood?"
"None, my lord."
"Then ask the question and return."
A few seconds later Tamba came back with the information that his
comrades were eager to serve their new masters.
"We long to escape from this slavery and ill-treatment," he said
earnestly. "We will come with you on the ship if you wish it. What
directions will you be pleased to give?"
"Let ten of your friends remain here for a time; and, Philip, take
command of them till I can return. Let the others gather the gold in
the storehouse and come with us. We will go to the brigantine
immediately."
All was movement at once, and very soon the party was returning,
laden with their capture. As for Roger, he had no hesitation in giving
the order to take the gold, for they were now open enemies of the
Spaniards, and in those days such a capture was looked upon as
perfectly legitimate. Therefore every bar and every sack of the
precious metal was packed upon the backs of the natives, and the
whole party returned through the wood with their prisoners. They
were hailed with joy when they reached the brigantine, and at once
Sir Thomas demanded the full tale from his lieutenant.
"You have done us valuable service," he said, "and already the gold
obtained pays for the expedition. We shall not forget your courage,
nor your resource, and shall find a responsible place for you in the
future."
Nor was it long before Roger's services were again in requisition,
with what result we shall presently see.
 CHAPTER VI
A Stranger comes Aboard
Three weeks passed rapidly in the little cove to which the brigantine
had sailed when she had given the big Spaniard the slip; and those
three weeks had worked wonders for the men under Sir Thomas's
command, and for the vessel. The latter had been run close into the
shore, which was sandy and free from rocks. Then a couple of stout
trees had been selected, growing close to the edge of the water, and
to these ropes were passed from the caps of the lower masts. The
whole crew then set to work at the capstan, and hove at the ropes
through a block till the ship careened over and lay gently on her
side. That done, those who had training as carpenters prepared to
mend the shot-rents in her side, while others, less accomplished,
went to the forest with a few of the natives and felled trees which
had been selected. Meanwhile, precautions against surprise were not
neglected.
"We must hope that no one has been able to communicate the news
of our coming here," said Sir Thomas, as he walked on the sands
with Roger, for since the capture of the mine he had become very
friendly with our hero. "But in case the tale has gone to Santiago,
which is their main port farther east, we must keep a guard at the
mine. I give you the conduct of it, and you may take whatever
natives you like, and doubt not that Tamba will accompany you. The
fellow is like a dog. He follows you everywhere. But to return to the
mine. You had better make your own arrangements there, and I
think I would counsel you to despatch men into the forest, so as to
have timely warning of an enemy's approach. Here we shall watch
for their coming by sea, and my guards will be stationed on the
point of the cliff."
And so for three weeks the work continued undisturbed. A fort was
formed on the cliff, and there all the wounded and sick from the
brigantine were sent to recuperate, while Roger and Philip, and the
ever-faithful Tamba, went to the mine and passed their days in the
forest. Then came the time for departure.
"All our rents are mended, and for the past three days we have been
busily loading water and fruit on the ship," said Roger to Philip, as
the two sat before a fire which blazed in front of one of the huts, for
though the heat was not required, the smoke served to keep the
myriad insects away. "To-morrow we sail for the unknown, for this
Terra Firma, this New Spain, the goal of our ambitions."
"And we sail not empty-handed, eh, Roger?" laughed his friend.
"Why, already we have a king's ransom below our decks, and that in
itself is a prize."
"Sufficient, in fact, to tempt others to follow our endeavour should
we be forced to return now," agreed Roger. "'Tis strange that we
English, who at home are professed friends of the Spaniards, though
few feel much liking for them—and 'tis whispered that the King's
Majesty is not too well disposed toward the country—should out
here be at daggers drawn, ready to rend one another, and to fall on
one another's necks with violence when the opportunity offers. 'Tis
passing strange."
"But the cause is not far to seek," said Philip. "The greed of gold,
mayhap of new lands, makes us enemies. Spain covets all these
Indies, and, like a dog with a bone, snarls over this fair land. But we
will pick some of the finest parts, and, mark my words, should we
return successful, then others will follow, others better armed, with
bigger cannon, ready to wrest the Indies from Spain. Heigho! I shall
feel sorry indeed when the moment comes to part with Cuba 'Tis an
enchanted land. But let us try this habit again. Tamba tells us that
the natives commence to smoke when barely youths."
"Then I will have none of it," answered Roger, with a wry face. "To
those born to the custom it may be well enough, but to me—ugh!
my head swims and my stomach sickens when I make the attempt."
Philip, too, had had as little success, and after two attempts had
given up all thought of tobacco. Nor was it to be wondered at, for in
those days the habit was looked upon by Europeans who happened
to be in the Indies as one fit only for savages. However, the two
young fellows had plenty of other matters to occupy themselves
with, for a careful watch had to be kept, and this was accomplished
by cutting a new road through the forest to an elevated peak, the
summit of which commanded the adjacent country. And from this,
one or other of them, in the company of natives, kept a look-out
throughout every day. The remainder of their time was spent in the
forest, shooting wild beasts and birds with their crossbows, and in
gathering knowledge of the wild fruits and flowers which grew in
profusion all round them. At last, however, this enjoyable time came
to an end, and they marched to the sea once more. There the fort
on the point was found to be abandoned, the ship upright, and
wearing a coat of rough paint, while her only connection with the
shore was a strong rope. All entered the solitary boat and went
aboard. The rope was cast off, and the brigantine, catching the
breeze, made for the open water.
"A fair wind is a fine omen," said Sir Thomas in his hearty voice,
smacking Roger on the back. "The breeze comes from the east, and
our course is due west. What could be more advantageous? We put
out for the last part of our voyage with hale men, with natives who
loathe the Spaniards, and who make up for our losses, and with a
store of fresh water and provisions aboard."
"With gold in addition," Roger ventured to remind him.
"Ay, with abundance of gold. Now, Sir Giant, you will command one
of the watches, and when we first sight this Terra Firma it will be
your task to gather tidings of this strange city. Maybe this Tamba,
who speaks Spanish, also has some few words of the language of
the natives of these parts for which we sail. It is not impossible. For,
consider: how came these men on the island of Cuba and
elsewhere? Were they there some little while after the flood of which
the Bible speaks? Some say so, while others hold that the nations of
the earth come from a common stock, which slowly increased, while
many migrated. In course of time their languages have changed,
and also their appearances. Climates and circumstances have
brought the alteration, and may it not be that these same natives
whom we have aboard are first cousins to these others on the Terra
Firma, alike to them in looks, and perhaps in somewhat of their
tongue?"
The commander of the brigantine was silent for a few minutes while
he considered the question; for he was a naturally thoughtful man,
and, in those days, a much-travelled one. Presently he turned to
Roger again.
"You shall go ashore," he said, "and with you will go the golden
plaque which we have treasured. Then, with the help of this Tamba,
you will search for some of the natives, and make friends with them
by means of gifts. Perhaps some will have been to this wonderful
city which stands within a lake. Who knows? Perhaps we may come
upon the very shores of the lake, for I hold that it must be within
easy distance of the coast, or else how did this Fernando Cortes
come to possess the plaque? Till we sight the land, you will
command one of the watches."
Two mornings later, as Roger was preparing to call the relief, who
would take his place on deck, a strange object in the distance
caught his attention, and he called Peter Tamworth to him.
"A boat—a small boat," said the latter, with assurance bred of long
service to the sea. "There is a sail too, but it hangs ragged, and the
boat steers herself. Yes, she floats in a circle, for she cannot be said
to sail, though her canvas catches the wind on occasion."
The two looked long and steadily at the strange object, and soon
Roger felt sure that Peter had made no mistake.
"A boat out here!" he said in astonishment—"in these seas which I
thought to be deserted, for we have seen nothing but horizon these
last two days, since we dropped the coast of Cuba."
"But Spaniards control these waters; do not forget that," was the
answer. "Therefore it requires no wit to guess at the owners. 'Tis a
Spanish boat—a derelict, maybe, dropped from some vessel, or
broken from its moorings at Santiago."
"Then you think that no one is aboard?"
"As certainly as I guess that she's Spanish. Still, who can say, Master
Roger, the lieutenant? There may be a crew of cut-throats aboard
her, in which case we shall run them over with our prow and never
miss them."
"But what if they are storm-beaten?" demanded Roger. "I even think
that I see a form aboard. Wait till I have climbed the mast, for from
there I shall get a finer view."
He ran along the deck, and clambered up to the trees, where he
remained for a few minutes.
"As I thought," he said. "There is one solitary figure aboard, and he
lies across the thwarts as if he were dead. We must succour him. Go
you to Sir Thomas with the news."
An hour later, when the brigantine came up with the boat, those
aboard the former saw that the derelict was of Spanish manufacture,
and that a Spaniard lay in a heap, half on the thwarts and half in the
bottom. His head was sunk on his breast, and he took no notice of
the strangers.
"Lost at sea, and dead perhaps," said Sir Thomas. "It shall not be
said of us that we treated Spaniards badly; for did we not feed our
prisoners in Cuba and release them ere we sailed? We will succour
this poor fellow. Run us closer, master, and let two of the men be
prepared to drop down into her."
A few minutes later they were running gently alongside the tiny
boat, and, thanks to the care of the steersman, two of the sailors
were able to drop into her. A rope was heaved to them, and in a
little while the stranger was towing at the stern.
"Not dead, but far gone, it seems," was the report of one of the
men. "There is not a scrap of food aboard, and only a wooden bowl
to show that he had water, but now it is as dry as a bone."
"Then we will fashion a sling and pull him up," said Sir Thomas; "or,
better, do you, Roger de Luce, lean well over the side, and others
shall hold you; then those aboard the boat can pull alongside and
hand the fellow up. Now, let us not bungle the matter; we will take
the greater pains because he is a Spaniard."
It required but a little time to carry out the operation, and very soon
the stranger lay under an awning on the deck, while Peter Tamworth
knelt beside him.
"I warrant he has not been overlong at sea," he said, eyeing the
man critically, "for his clothes are not oversoiled, and he is not so
thin. Then, too, his lips are not swollen, as I have seen before in
other cases. 'Twere well to be sure that he were no spy."
"Tush, man! Why think of such a thing?" demanded Sir Thomas,
angrily. "Who would risk almost certain death in such a manner? We
might have sailed some leagues to north or south. We might so
easily have lost him, or he us, to follow your reasoning. And if we
had, could he live to reach the land?"
The argument seemed conclusive, and, moreover, though this
Spaniard did not appear to be at the last extremity, he seemed to
have lost his senses.
"This sun blazing on his head would be sufficient for that," said Sir
Thomas. "The man is a derelict, and it matters not to us whether he
is in extremes or but lately become unconscious; we will succour him
all the same. Come, now, let an old campaigner give advice. Give
him water first, but in little sips, and not much at that; later, he shall
have his fill, when he is able to eat. Roger de Luce and the surgeon
will look to him, while we see that the boat is hoisted. There was
nothing else aboard?"
"Nothing," was the answer.
"And he has no papers about him?"
"I have searched," answered Roger. "His pockets are empty; there is
nothing on him."
"Then he is deserving of our compassion. Let us deal with him as we
would wish to be dealt with were we in like predicament. Let him
have water, as I said, and later his fill of meat."
That evening the Spaniard was able to sit up, and even to struggle
to his feet, but he was as yet too weak to give an account of himself.
However, on the following morning Roger questioned him in the
presence of the commander.
"Let us hear where you come from," he said kindly. "We discovered
you in the middle of the ocean, far from land, and without food or
water."
"Would I had died!" was the answer, as the man stared at Roger,
astounded to find one aboard an English ship who spoke his
language. "Would I had died! For it seems that I have fallen from
the hands of one enemy into those of another."
"But why?" demanded Roger. "We are enemies to your countrymen,
for the simple reason that they attacked us on the high seas; but to
you—never! We have saved you from death, and, when the time
comes, we will hand you back to your comrades."
"And to sure death," was the reply. "Listen, senor. I am deemed a
traitor. It is thought that I have conspired against the Governor of
Santiago, and my punishment was this——"
He stopped as if he were fatigued, and sipped at the vessel of water
beside him.
"I was condemned to put to sea in an open boat," he said faintly, as
if the memory of his trouble was too great for him. "I was taken
aboard a galleon a week ago, and dropped into this boat. There I
was left, with little food and water, with no chart, and no knowledge
of the ways of the sea; and all around me, when the galleon went
out of sight, was water. Oh, the awful horror of it!"
He shuddered, and buried his face in his hands. Then, regaining
courage, he proceeded—
"I take Heaven to witness that I was no traitor and no conspirator.
But what use is it to repine? A week ago I thought that death stared
me in the face, and when a few days had gone I longed for the end
to come. But one struggles even for the most miserable of lives, for
existence is dear to us all. I steered the boat as well as I could, in
what direction I knew not. Then my arm tired, my strength failed,
and the sun overpowered me. I knew no more till I found myself
beneath this awning. And you will befriend me? Doubtless you are
bound for England?"
There was silence on the deck, while the commander nodded to
Roger.
"Did I not say so?" he asked, after a little while. "A spy would know
that that was not our intention."
"Unless he acted a part," answered Roger, quietly. "That supposition
is still open."
"Not to us," was the stern answer. "We will give the man full trust, or
none at all. His tale is true on the face of it. But bid him continue,
and ask him of this far country to which we are bound. Let him know
that we are for the Terra Firma."
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com