Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 239–282 | Cite as

Sluicing and logical form

  • Sandra Chung
  • William A. Ladusaw
  • James McCloskey
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a novel analysis of Sluicing, an ellipsis construction first described by Ross (1969) and illustrated by the bracketed portion ofI want to do something, but I'm just not sure [what _]. Starting from the assumption that a sluice consists of a displaced Wh-constituent and an empty IP, we show how simple and general LF operations fill out the empty IP and thereby provide it with an interpretable Logical Form. The LF operations we appeal to rely on the influential theory of indefinites developed by Irene Heim and Hans Kamp, and are in harmony with certain aspects of Chomsky's Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. The analysis accounts directly for the familiar properties of Sluicing, as well as some facts which have not previously been observed.

Keywords

Logical Form Linguistic Theory Minimalist Program Influential Theory Familiar Property 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berman, Stephen: 1991,On the Semantics and Logical Form of WH-Clauses, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, distributed by Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  2. Chao, Wynn: 1987,On Ellipsis, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, distributed by Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1992, ‘Questions with Quantifiers’,Natural Language Semantics 1(2), 181–234.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, Noam: 1963,Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, Noam: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam: 1986,Barriers, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam: 1993, ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.),The View from Building 20 — Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
  8. Engdahl, Elisabet: 1986,Constituent Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Engdahl, Elisabet: 1988, ‘Relational Interpretation’, in R. Kempson (ed.),Mental Representations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 63–82.Google Scholar
  10. Fiengo, Robert and Robert May: 1994,Indices and Identity, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 24, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  11. Fillmore, Charles: 1986, ‘Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora’, V. Nikiforidou et al. (eds.),Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, pp. 95–107.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, Janet and Ivan Sag: 1982, ‘Referential and Quantificational Indefinites’,Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3), 355–398.Google Scholar
  13. Ginzburg, Jonathan: 1992,Questions, Queries and Facts: A Semantics and Pragmatics for Interrogatives, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  14. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1982, ‘Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements’,Linguistics and Philosophy 5(2), 175–233, reprinted in Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984), pp. 77–164.Google Scholar
  15. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1984,Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Hamblin, C. L.: 1973, ‘Questions in Montague English’,Foundations of Language 10(1), 41–53, reprinted in B. Partee (ed.),Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York, 1976, pp. 247–259.Google Scholar
  17. Hankamer, Jorge: 1978, ‘On the Nontransformational Derivation of Some Null VP Anaphors’,Linguistic Inquiry 9(1), 66–74.Google Scholar
  18. Hankamer, Ivan and Ivan Sag: 1976, ‘Deep and Surface Anaphora’,Linguistic Inquiry 7(3), 391–426.Google Scholar
  19. Heim, Irene: 1982,The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, distributed by Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; published in the Distinguished Dissertations in Linguistics Series, Garland Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, Irene: 1987, ‘Where Does the Indefiniteness Restriction Apply? Evidence from the Definiteness of Variables’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.),The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
  21. Higginbotham, James and Robert May: 1981, ‘Questions, Quantifiers and Crossing’,The Linguistic Review 1(1), 41–79.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, Charles: 1990, ‘Some Wh/Operator Interactions’,Linguistic Inquiry 21(4), 577–588.Google Scholar
  23. Kamp, Hans: 1984, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stockhof (eds.),Truth, Interpretation and Information, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  24. Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle: 1991,From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 42, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. Karttunen, Lauri: 1977, ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’,Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1), 3–44.Google Scholar
  26. Kennedy, Christopher: 1994, ‘Argument Contained Ellipsis’, Working Paper LRC-94-03, Linguistics Research Center, University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  27. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche: 1982, ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle’,The Linguistic Review 2(2), 139–160.Google Scholar
  28. Lahiri, Utpal: 1991,Embedded Interrogatives and Predicates That Embed Them, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport: 1986, ‘The Formation of Adjectival Passives’,Linguistic Inquiry 17(4), 623–661.Google Scholar
  30. Levin, Lori: 1982, ‘Sluicing: a Lexical Interpretation Procedures’, in J. Bresnan (ed.),The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 590–654.Google Scholar
  31. Li, Yen-hui Audrey: 1992, ‘IndefiniteWh in Mandarin Chinese’,Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1(2), 125–156.Google Scholar
  32. Lobeck, Anne: 1991, ‘The Phrase Structure of Ellipsis’, in S. D. Rothstein (ed.),Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Syntax and Semantics 25, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 81–103.Google Scholar
  33. Lobeck, Anne: 1992, ‘Licensing and Identification of Ellipted Categories in English’, in S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.),Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, “Sprach-theoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik,” Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  34. May, Robert: 1985,Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 12, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  35. May, Robert: 1988, ‘Ambiguities of Quantification and WH: A Reply to Williams’,Linguistic Inquiry 19(1), 118–135.Google Scholar
  36. Nishigauchi, Taisuke: 1986,Quantification in Syntax, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, distributed by Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  37. Nishigauchi, Taisuke: 1990,Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  38. Pesetsky, David: 1987, ‘Wh-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.),The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 98–129.Google Scholar
  39. Rosen, Carol: 1976, ‘Guess what about?’ in A. Ford, J. Reighard, and R. Singh (eds.),Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Linguistics Society, GLSA, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 205–211.Google Scholar
  40. Ross, John R.: 1969, ‘Guess who?’ in R. Binnick et al. (eds.),Proceedings of the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., pp. 252–286.Google Scholar
  41. Wasow, Thomas: 1972,Anaphora in Generative Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, published by E. ‘Story’-Scientia, Ghent, 1979.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, Edwin: 1977, ‘Discourse and Logical Form’,Linguistic Inquiry 8(3), 101–139.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, Edwin: 1988, ‘Is LF Distinct from S-structure? A Reply to May’,Linguistic Inquiry 19(1), 135–146.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Chung
    • 1
  • William A. Ladusaw
    • 1
  • James McCloskey
    • 1
  1. 1.Board of Studies in LinguisticsUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations