Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 527–552 | Cite as

Interactions of scope and ellipsis

  • Stuart M. Shieber
  • Fernando C. N. Pereira
  • Mary Dalrymple
Article

Abstract

Systematic semantic ambiguities result from the interaction of the two operations that are involved in resolving ellipsis in the presence of scoping elements such as quantifiers and intensional operators: scope determination for the scoping elements and resolution of the elided relation. A variety of problematic examples previously noted - by Sag, Hirschbüihler, Gawron and Peters, Harper, and others - all have to do with such interactions. In previous work, we showed how ellipsis resolution can be stated and solved in equational terms. Furthermore, this equational analysis of ellipsis provides a uniform framework in which interactions between ellipsis resolution and scope determination can be captured. As a consequence, an account of the problematic examples follows directly from the equational method. The goal of this paper is merely to point out this pleasant aspect of the equational analysis, through its application to these cases. No new analytical methods or associated formalism are presented, with the exception of a straightforward extension of the equational method to intensional logic.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’,Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  2. Cooper, R.: 1983,Quantification and Syntactic Theory, Vol. 21 ofSynthese Language Library, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Dalrymple, M., J. Lamping, F. Pereira, and V. Saraswat: 1993, ‘A Deductive Account of Quantification in LFG’, in M. Kanazawa, C. Piñón, and Henrietta de Swart (eds.),Quantifiers, Deduction, and Context, 57 in CSLI Lecture Notes, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California. Distributed by University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dalrymple, M., S. M. Skieber, and F. C. N. Pereira: 1991, ‘Ellipsis and Higher-order Unification’, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399–452.Google Scholar
  5. Fiengo, R. and R. May: 1994,Indices and Identity, Vol. 24 ofLinguistic Inquiry Monographs, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. Gallin, D.: 1975,Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic, Vol. 19 ofNorth-Holland Mathematics Studies, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Gamut, L. T. F. [pseud.]: 1991,Logic, Language, and Meaning, Vol. 2, University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  8. Gawron, M. and S. Peters: 1990,Anaphora and Quantification in Situation Theory, No. 19 in CSLI Lecture Notes, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California. Distributed by University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harper, M.: 1988, ‘Representing Pronouns in Logical Form: Computational Constraints and Linguistic Evidence’Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Saint Paul, Minnesota, pp. 712–717.Google Scholar
  10. Hestvik, A.: 1992, ‘Subordination and Strict Identity of Reflexives’, inProceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  11. Hirshbühler, P.: 1982, “VP Deletion and Across-the-Board Quantifier Scope’, in J. Pustejovsky and P. Sells (eds),Proceedings of NELS 12, GLSA, University of Massachussetts-Amherst, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  12. Huet, G.: 1975, ‘A Unification Algorithm for Typed A-Calculus’,Theoretical Computer Science 1, 27–57.Google Scholar
  13. Janssen, T. M. V.: 1986,Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar – Part 2: Applications to Natural Language, Vol. 28 ofCWI Tract, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  14. Kehler, A.: 1993, ‘The Effect of Establishing Coherence in Ellipsis and Anaphora Resolution’, inProceedings of the 31st Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-93), Columbus, Ohio, June.Google Scholar
  15. Kempson, R. M. and A. Cormack: 1983, ‘Type Lifting Rules and VP Anaphora’, in M. T. Barlow, D. P. Flickinger, and T. Wescoat (eds),Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2, pp. 140–152.Google Scholar
  16. Montague, R.: 1973, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in J. Himikka, J. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes (eds)Approaches to Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Muskens, R.: 1989,Meaning and Partiality, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  18. Nealea, S.: 1990,Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  19. Pereira, F. C. N.: 1990, ‘Categorial Semantics and Scoping’,Computational Linguistics 16(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  20. Sag, I. A.: 1976,Deletion and Logical Form, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  21. Williams, Edwin: 1977, ‘Discourse and Logical Form’,Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 101–139.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart M. Shieber
    • 1
  • Fernando C. N. Pereira
    • 2
  • Mary Dalrymple
    • 3
  1. 1.Harvard UniversityUSA
  2. 2.AT&T Bell LaboratoriesUSA
  3. 3.Xerox PARCUSA

Personalised recommendations