in Paul Dekker and Martin Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, 1993. University of Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy. pp. 349-369. i-within-i Effects in a Variable Free Semantics and a Categorial Syntax * Pauline Jacobson Brown University This paper is concerned with a semantics making no essential use of variables as proposed originally in Quine (1966) and explored in recent works such as Szabolcsi (1987, 1992), Hepple (1990), and Jacobson (1991, 1992a, 1992b). In particular, I take the implementation of this proposed in my previous papers and couple it with a Categorial syntax; the aspect of Categorial Grammar which is crucial here is the premise that there is a tight fit between the syntactic and the semantic combinatorics. Given this coupling, the phenomenon of so-called i-within-i effects follows from one independently motivated assumption about the syntax of common nouns. 1. The i-within-i Constraint By i-within-i effects, I mean the generalization that the pronoun within the complement of a relational noun cannot be "bound" by that noun: 1 1. a. *The/Every wife i of her i childhood sweetheart left. b. *The/Every wife i of the author of her i biography left. Notice that (1) contrasts sharply with corresponding cases like (2) which contain a relative clause; this is somewhat mysterious on purely semantic grounds since every wife of would seem to mean approximately the same thing as every woman who married: 2. a. The/Every woman i who i married her i childhood sweetheart left. b. The/Every woman i who i married the author of her i biography left.. Actually, the generalization is somewhat broader than that given above; a pronoun also cannot be within a genitive of either a relational noun (3a-b) or a non-relational noun (3c) (compare (3c) to (3d)): 3. a. *Her i childhood sweetheart's wife i came to the party. b. *The author of her i biography's wife i came to the party. c. *Its i best friend's dog i bit the mailman. d. The dog i that belongs to its i best friend bit the mailman. For the moment, however, however, we will concentrate only on the cases shown in (1); I will return to (3) in Sec. 6. 2 Before continuing, it is worth considering why these facts are mysterious. So, consider again (1). The common wisdom in most work in formal semantics is that ordinary common nouns like table have denotations of type