Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 107–156 | Cite as

Gapping as hypothetical reasoning

  • Yusuke KubotaEmail author
  • Robert Levine
Article

Abstract

The scope anomaly observed in sentences like Mrs. J can’t live in Boston and Mr. J in LA (¬◊>∧) and No dog eats Whiskas or cat Alpo (¬∃>∨) is known to pose difficult challenges to many analyses of Gapping. We provide new arguments, based on both the basic syntactic patterns of Gapping and standard constituency tests, that the so-called ‘low VP coordination analysis’—the only extant analysis of Gapping in contemporary syntactic theories which accounts for this scope anomaly—is empirically untenable. We propose an explicit alternative analysis of Gapping in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar, a variant of categorial grammar which builds on both the Lambek-inspired tradition and a more recent line of work modelling word order via a lambda calculus for the prosodic component. The flexible syntax-semantics interface of this framework enables us to characterize Gapping as an instance of like-category coordination, via a crucial use of the notion of hypothetical reasoning. This analysis of the basic syntax of Gapping is shown to interact with independently motivated analyses of scopal operators to immediately yield their apparently anomalous scopal properties in Gapping, offering, for the first time in the literature, a conceptually simple and empirically adequate solution for the notorious scope anomaly in Gapping.

Keywords

Gapping Coordination Type-Logical Categorial Grammar Scope Split scope 

Notes

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we would like to thank our NLLT editor Louise McNally for her very thoughtful editorial guidance, which made going through the reviewing process an intellectually quite challenging, but an utterly pleasant process. Thanks are also due to the three reviewers for NLLT in this regard, whose comments were extremely useful in shaping both the content and the structure of the paper in the final form. In addition, the paper has benefited from discussions and comments from Kyle Johnson, Michael Moortgat, Glyn Morrill, Carl Pollard and William Schuler. We have presented parts of the paper at NELS 44, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics 2012, and Formal Grammar 2013. We thank the abstract reviewers and participants of these conferences, as well as the participants of the LLIC discussion group at OSU for their feedback. The first author was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS; PD 2010–2013 and Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research Abroad 2013–2014) when he worked on this paper, and would like to thank JSPS for its financial support. The second author thanks the Department of Linguistics and College of Arts and Sciences for grant support during the course of the research for this paper over the past two years.

References

  1. Abeillé, Anne, Gabriela Bîlbîie, and Francois Mouret. 2014. A Romance perspective on Gapping constructions. In Romance in construction grammar, eds. Hans C. Boas and Francisco Gonzalvez Garcia, 227–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  2. Abels, Klaus, and Luisa Martí. 2010. A unified approach to split scope. Natural Language Semantics 18: 435–470. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter, Bob. 1997. Type-logical semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  4. Coppock, Elizabeth. 2001. Gapping: in defense of deletion. In Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 37, eds. Mary Andronis, Christoper Ball, Heidi Elston, and Sylvain Neuvel, 133–147. Chicago: University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  5. Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart M. Shieber, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(4): 399–452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Groote, Philippe. 2001. Towards abstract categorial grammars. In Association for Computational Linguistics, 39th Annual Meeting and 10th Conference of the European Chapter, 148–155. Google Scholar
  8. Deane, Paul. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2(1): 1–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dowty, David. 2007. Compositionality as an empirical problem. In Direct compositionality, eds. Chris Barker and Pauline Jacobson, 23–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, Janet Dean. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 9(3): 427–473. Google Scholar
  11. Fodor, Janet Dean. 1983. Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 163–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31(1–2): 1–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gengel, Kristen. 2013. Pseudogapping and ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 4(1): 17–68. Google Scholar
  15. Hendriks, Petra. 1995. Ellipsis and multimodal categorial type logic. In Formal grammar: European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI), Barcelona, 1995, eds. Glyn V. Morrill and Richard T. Oehrle, 107–122. Google Scholar
  16. Hofmeister, Philip, and Ivan A. Sag. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86(2): 366–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofmeister, Philip, Laura Staum Casasanto, and Ivan Sag. 2012a. How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments?: A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language 88: 390–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofmeister, Philip, Laura Staum Casasanto, and Ivan Sag. 2012b. Misapplying working memory tests: A reductio ad absurdum. Language 88: 408–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang, C. T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24(1): 103–138. Google Scholar
  20. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2(1): 21–35. Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs, Joachim. 1980. Lexical decomposition in Montague grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 7(1/2): 121–136. Google Scholar
  22. Jayaseelan, K. A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and Gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20(1–2): 64–81. Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, Kyle. 2000. Few dogs eat Whiskers or cats Alpo. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers (23), eds. Kiyomi Kusumoto and Elisabeth Villalta, 47–60. Amherst: GLSA Publications. Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, Kyle. 2004. In search of the English middle field. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/middle_field.pdf.
  25. Johnson, Kyle. 2009. Gapping is not (VP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 289–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, Kyle. 2014. Gapping. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  27. Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  28. Kluender, Robert. 1992. Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. In Island constraints: Theory, acquisition, and processing, eds. Helen Goodluck and Michael Rochemont, 223–258. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kluender, Robert. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In The limits of syntax, eds. Peter Culicover and Louise McNally. Vol. 29 of Syntax and Semantics, 241–279. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  30. Kubota, Yusuke. 2010. (In)flexibility of constituency in Japanese in Multi-Modal Categorial Grammar with Structured Phonology. Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  31. Kubota, Yusuke. 2014. The logic of complex predicates: A deductive synthesis of ‘argument sharing’ and ‘verb raising’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32(4): 1145–1204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kubota, Yusuke. 2015. Nonconstituent coordination in Japanese as constituent coordination: An analysis in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 46(1): 1–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kubota, Yusuke, and Robert Levine. 2012. Gapping as like-category coordination. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics 2012, eds. Denis Béchet and Alexander Dikovsky, 135–150. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kubota, Yusuke, and Robert Levine. 2015, to appear. Against ellipsis: Arguments for the direct licensing of ‘non-canonical’ coordinations. Linguistics and Philosophy. Google Scholar
  35. Kubota, Yusuke, and Robert Levine. 2013a. Coordination in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar. In OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 60, 21–50. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  36. Kubota, Yusuke, and Robert Levine. 2013b. Determiner gapping as higher-order discontinuous constituency. In Formal Grammar 2012 and 2013, eds. Glyn Morrill and Mark-Jan Nederhof, 225–241. Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
  37. Kubota, Yusuke, and Robert Levine. 2014a. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics 2014, eds. Nicholas Asher and Sergei Soloviev, 122–137. Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
  38. Kubota, Yusuke, and Robert Levine. 2014b. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. ms. Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  39. Kubota, Yusuke, and Robert Levine. 2014c. Unifying local and nonlocal modelling of respective and symmetrical predicates. In Formal Grammar 2014, eds. Glyn Morrill, Reinhard Muskens, Rainer Osswald, and Frank Richter, 104–120. Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
  40. Kubota, Yusuke, and Robert Levine. 2014d. Scope anomaly of Gapping. In North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 44 GLSA, 247–260. Google Scholar
  41. Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Gapping: A functional analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 300–318. Google Scholar
  42. Lambek, Joachim. 1958. The mathematics of sentence structure. The American Mathematical Monthly 65: 154–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Pseudogapping puzzles. In Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping, eds. Shalom Lappin and Elabbas Benmamoun, 141–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  44. Levin, Nancy S., and Ellen F. Prince. 1986. Gapping and causal implicature. Papers in Linguistics 19: 351–364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lin, Vivian. 2000. Determiner sharing. In West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 19, eds. Roger Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 274–287. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  46. Lin, Vivian. 2001. A way to undo A movement. In West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 20, eds. Karine Megerdoomian and Leora Anne Bar-el, 358–371. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  47. Lin, Vivian. 2002. Coordination and sharing at the interfaces. Ph.D. diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  48. McCawley, James D. 1993. Gapping with shared operators. In Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. David A. Peterson, 245–253. Berkeley: University of California. Google Scholar
  49. Mihaliček, Vedrana. 2012. Serbo-Croatian word order: A logical approach. Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  50. Mihaliček, Vedrana, and Carl Pollard. 2012. Distinguishing phenogrammar from tectogrammar simplifies the analysis of interrogatives. In Formal Grammar 2010/2011, eds. Philippe de Groote and Mark-Jan Nederhof, 130–145. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to Natural Language: 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics, eds. Jaakko Hintikka, Julius M. E. Moravcsik, and Patrick Suppes, 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moortgat, Michael. 1988. Categorial investigations: Logical and linguistic aspects of the Lambek calculus. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  53. Moortgat, Michael. 1997. Categorial Type Logics. In Handbook of logic and language, eds. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 93–177. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moot, Richard. 2014. Hybrid type-logical grammars, first-order linear logic and the descriptive inadequacy of lambda grammars. ms., Laboratoire Bordelais de Recherche en Informatique. Google Scholar
  55. Morrill, Glyn. 1994. Type Logical Grammar: Categorial logic of signs. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morrill, Glyn, Oriol Valentín, and Mario Fadda. 2011. The displacement calculus. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20: 1–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Muskens, Reinhard. 2001. Categorial Grammar and Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) ’01, eds. Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/6/lfg01.html. Google Scholar
  58. Muskens, Reinhard. 2003. Language, lambdas, and logic. In Resource sensitivity in binding and anaphora, eds. Geert-Jan Kruijff and Richard Oehrle, 23–54. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Muskens, Reinhard. 2007. Separating syntax and combinatorics in categorial grammar. Research on Language and Computation 5(3): 267–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Oehrle, Richard T. 1971. On Gapping. ms., MIT. Google Scholar
  61. Oehrle, Richard T. 1987. Boolean properties in the analysis of gapping. In Syntax and semantics: Discontinuous constituency, eds. Geoffrey J. Huck and Almerindo E. Ojeda, Vol. 20, 203–240. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  62. Oehrle, Richard T. 1994. Term-labeled categorial type systems. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(6): 633–678. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Partee, Barbara, and Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, eds. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 361–383. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  64. Penka, Doris. 2011. Negative indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  65. Pogodalla, Sylvain, and Florent Pompigne. 2012. Controlling extraction in Abstract Categorial Grammars. In Formal Grammar 2010/2011, eds. Philippe de Groote and Mark-Jan Nederhof, 162–177. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pollard, Carl. 2014. What numerical determiners mean: A non-ambiguity analysis. Talk presented at the Workshop on Semantics of Cardinals, Ohio State University, March 6, 2014. Google Scholar
  67. Pollard, Carl, and E. Allyn Smith. 2012. A unified analysis of the same, phrasal comparatives and superlatives. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 2012, 307–325. Google Scholar
  68. Pollard, Carl J., and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Studies in contemporary linguistics. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  69. Repp, Sophie. 2006. ¬(A&B). Gapping, negation and speech act operators. Research on Language and Computation 4(4): 397–423. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Repp, Sophie. 2009. Negation in Gapping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. diss., MIT. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club. Google Scholar
  72. Ross, John Robert. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. In Progress in linguistics, eds. Manfred Bierwisch and Karl E. Heidolph, 249–259. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  73. Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. diss, MIT. Google Scholar
  74. Sag, Ivan A., Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow, and Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(2): 117–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Siegel, Muffy E. A. 1984. Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 15(3): 523–530. Google Scholar
  76. Siegel, Muffy A. 1987. Compositionality, case, and the scope of auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 10(1): 53–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Steedman, Mark. 1985. Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61(3): 523–568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Steedman, Mark. 1990. Gapping as constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2): 207–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  80. Steedman, Mark. 2012. Taking scope. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  81. Takahashi, Shoichi. 2004. Pseudogapping and cyclic linearization. In North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 34, eds. Keir Moulton and Matthew Wolf, 571–585. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Google Scholar
  82. Tomioka, Satoshi. 2011. Review of Negation in Gapping by Sophie Repp. Language 87(1): 221–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2013a. Corrective but coordinates clauses not always but sometimes. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 827–863. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2013b. Gapping is low coordination (plus VP-ellipsis): A reply to Johnson. ms., MIT. Google Scholar
  85. Vicente, Luis. 2010. On the syntax of adversative coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 381–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ward, Gregory, and Andrew Kehler. 2005. Syntactic form and discourse accessibility. In Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational modelling, eds. António Branco, Tony McEnery, and Ruslan Mitkov, 365–384. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Winkler, Susanne. 2005. Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Worth, Chris. 2014. The phenogrammar of coordination. In European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL) 2014 Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics (TTNLS), 28–36. Gothenburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W14–1404. Google Scholar
  89. Yoshida, Masaya, Honglei Wang, and David Potter. 2012. Remarks on “gapping” in DP. Linguistic Inquiry 43(5): 475–494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesUniversity of TsukubaIbarakiJapan
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations