Advertisement

Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 327–333 | Cite as

Combining multiple information sources for ellipsis

  • Jennifer SpenaderEmail author
  • Petra Hendriks
Original Paper
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

What knowledge sources are necessary in the interpretation and generation of ellipsis? After a short background on earlier approaches we compare and discuss each of the four papers selected for this special issue, examining how they approach ellipsis generation or interpretation. We highlight areas where more research needs to be done: outlining how pragmatics affects ellipsis, empirical studies, and theoretical work on what the effect of ellipsis is in context.

Keywords

Ellipsis Ellipsis resolution Generation of ellipsis Cross-modular approaches Pragmatics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcantara M., Bertomeu N. (2005). Ellipsis in spontaneous spoken language. In Spenader J., Hendriks P.(eds) Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on cross-modular approaches to ellipsis. Edinburgh, UK, Heriot-Watt UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Dalrymple M. (2005). Against reconstruction in ellipsis. In Elugardo R., Stainton R.(eds) Ellipsis and non-sentential speech, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Berlin, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. Dalrymple M., Shieber S.M., Pereira F.C.N. (1991). Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(4): 399–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elugardo R., Stainton R. (2005). Introduction. In Elugardo R., Stainton R.(eds) Ellipsis and non-sentential speech, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 1–26Google Scholar
  5. Ericsson, S. (2005). Information enriched constituents in dialogue. Ph.D. thesis, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  6. Ericsson, S. Optimising elliptical utterances in dialogue. Research on Language and Computation, doi: 10.1007/s11168-006-9021-z.Google Scholar
  7. Fiengo R., May R. (1994). Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Frazier L., Clifton C., Jr. (2000). On bound variable interpretations: The LF-only hypothesis. Journal of Pyscholinguistics Research 29, 125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frazier L., Clifton C., Jr. (2001). Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax 4(1): 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hankamer J. (1979). Deletion in coordinate structure. New York, Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Hardt, D. (1999). VPE as proform: Some consequences for binding. Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 2: Selected papers from the colloque de syntaxe et semantique a Paris, The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
  12. Hendriks P. (2004). Coherence relations, ellipsis and contrastive topics. Journal of Semantics 21(12): 132–154Google Scholar
  13. Hendriks P., de Hoop H. (2001). Optimality theory semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hendriks P., Spenader J. (2005). Why be silent? Some functions of ellipsis in natural language. In Spenader J., Hendriks P. (eds) Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on cross-modular approaches to ellipsis. Edinburgh, UK: Heriot-Watt UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoeksema, J. Pseudogapping. Its syntactic analysis and cumulative effects on its acceptability. Research on Language and Computation, doi: 10.1007/s11168-006-9023-x.Google Scholar
  16. Kehler A. (2000). Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistic and Philosophy 23, 533–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  18. Kennedy, C. (2003). Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In K. Schwabe, & S. Winkler (Eds.), The interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. (pp 29–53). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Merchant J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, Islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer, C. F. (1995). Coordination ellipsis in spoken and written American English. Language Sciences, 17.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, P. (1990). Pseudogapping and do so substitution. In Proc. CLS 26, Chicago, pp. 293–305Google Scholar
  22. Repp, S. \({\neg}\) (A & B). Gapping, negation and speech act operators. Research on Language and Computation, doi: 10.1007/s11168-006-9022-y.Google Scholar
  23. Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  24. Shapiro L.P., Hestvik A. (1995). On-line comprehension of VP-ellipsis: Syntactic reconstruction and semantic influence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24, 517–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sorace A., Keller F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115(11): 1497–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spenader J., Hendriks P. (eds) (2005). Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on cross-modular approaches to ellipsis. Edinburgh, UK: Heriot-Watt UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Stainton, R. J. (2006). Neither fragments nor ellipsis. In L. Progova, K. Paesani, Casielles-Suarez, & E. Barton (Eds.) The syntax of nonsententials: Multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp 93–116). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Theune, M., Hielkema, F., & P. Hendriks. Performing agggregation and ellipsis using discourse structure. Research on Language and Computation, doi: 10.1007/s11168-006-9024-9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Center for Language and Cognition GroningenUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations