Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 281–296 | Cite as

Non-sentential assertions and semantic ellipsis

  • Robert J. Stainton
Article

Conclusion

The restricted semantic ellipsis hypothesis, we have argued, is committed to an enormous number of multiply ambiguous expressions, the introduction of which gains us no extra explanatory power. We should, therefore, reject it. We should also spurn the original version since: (a) it entails the restricted version and (b) it incorrectly declares that, whenever a speaker makes an assertion by uttering an unembedded word or phrase, the expression uttered has illocutionary force.

Once rejected, the semantic ellipsis hypothesis cannot account for the many exceptions to the syntactic ellipsis hypothesis. So, we can safely infer that the Claim is true.

(1)The Claim: Speakers can make assertions by uttering ordinary, unembedded, words and phrases.

To the degree that the Claim reallyis in tension with the primacy of sentences (i.e., the view that (a) only sentences can be used to make assertions and (b) only sentences are meaningful in isolation) this doctrine must also be rejected.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Explanatory Power Original Version Computational Linguistic Enormous Number 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach, E.: 1989,Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, E.: 1990,Nonsentential Constituents, John Benjamins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, E.: 1989, ‘Nonsentential Constituents and Theories of Phrase Structure’, paper delivered to the Views on Phrase Structure Conference, University of Florida. Subsequently published (1991) in K. Leffel and D. Bouchard (eds.),Views on Phrase Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Brame, M. K.: 1979, ‘A Note on COMP S Grammar vs. Sentence Grammar’,Linguistic Analysis 5, 383–386.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G. and S. McConnell-Ginet: 1990,Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N.: 1986a,Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1986b,Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1982,Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N.: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Dalrymple, M.: 1991, ‘Against Reconstruction in Ellipsis’. CSLI manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford California.Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, D.: 1967, ‘Truth and Meaning’, reprinted (1984) inInquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Dowty, D., R. E. Wall and S. Peters: 1981,Introduction to Montague Semantics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  13. Dummett, M.: 1981,The Interpretation of Frege's Philosophy, Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
  14. Dummett, M.: 1973,Frege: Philosophy of Language, Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, G.: 1982,The Varieties of Reference, edited by J. McDowell, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Frege, G.: 1978,Foundations of Arithmetic, translated by J. L. Austin. 2nd revised edition, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Hacking, I.: 1975,Why does Language Matter to Philosophy? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Haegeman, L.: 1991, Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Jackendoff, R. S.: 1977,X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, Cambridge, MIT Press, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan, D.: 1977, ‘Demonstratives’, in J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein (eds.),Themes from Kaplan, 1989, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Katz, J. J.: 1980,Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force: A Study of the Contribution of Sentence Meaning to Speech Acts, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, D.: 1970, ‘General Semantics’, reprinted (1983) inPhilosophical Papers, Vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Morgan, J. L.: 1989, ‘Sentence Fragments Revisited’,Chicago Linguistics Society: Papers from the parasession on language in context 25, 228–241.Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, J. L.: 1973, ‘Sentence Fragments and the Notion of “Sentence”’, in B. B. Kachru et al. (eds.),Issues in Linguistics. Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
  25. Napoli, D. J.: 1982, ‘Initial Material Deletion in English’,Glossa 16, 85–111.Google Scholar
  26. Quirk, R. et al.: 1985,A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longmans, London.Google Scholar
  27. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1986,Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  28. Stainton, R. J.: (in preparation), ‘Remarks on Syntactic Ellipsis’, manuscript, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  29. Stainton, R. J.: 1994, ‘Using Non-Sentences: An Application of Relevance Theory’,Pragmatics & Cognition 2, 269–284.Google Scholar
  30. Stainton, R. J.: 1993,Non-Sentential Assertions, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  31. Stalnaker, R.: 1978, ‘Assertion’, in P. Cole (ed.),Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Yanofsky, N.: 1978, ‘NP utterances’,Chicago Linguistics Society: Papers from the Regional Meeting 14, 491–502.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Stainton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations