Advertisement

Cross-Categorial Donkeys

  • Simon Charlow
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7218)

Abstract

Data from surprising sloppy readings of verb phrase ellipsis constructions argue that ellipsis sites can partially or totally consist of dynamically bound pro-forms. I give an account, integrating Muskens’ CDRT with a focus-based theory of ellipsis and deaccenting.

Keywords

Natural Language Semantic Discourse Referent Negative Polarity Item Ellipsis Site Verb Phrase Ellipsis 
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. 1.
    Bos, J.: Focusing Particles & Ellipsis Resolution. Verbmobil Report 61, Universitat des Saarlandes (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elbourne, P.: E-type anaphora as NP deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9(3), 241–288 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Evans, F.: Binding into Anaphoric Verb Phrases. In: Proceedings of ESCOL (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fiengo, R., May, R.: Indices and identity. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hardt, D.: Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(2), 185–219 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heim, I.: Predicates or formulas? Evidence from ellipsis. In: Lawson, A., Cho, E. (eds.) Proceedings of SALT 7, pp. 19–221 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendriks, H.: Studied Flexibility. ILLC Dissertation Series, Amsterdam (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keenan, E.: Names, quantifiers, and the sloppy identity problem. Papers in Linguistics 4(2), 211–232 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kratzer, A.: The Representation of Focus. In: von Stechow, A., Wunderlich, D. (eds.) Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 825–832. de Gruyter, Berlin (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merchant, J.: Antecedent Contained Deletion in Negative Polarity Items. Syntax 3, 144–150 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muskens, R.: Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 143–186 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reinhart, T.: Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. U. of Chicago Press (1983)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rooth, M.: Association with Focus. UMass, Amherst dissertation (1985)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rooth, M.: Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In: Berman, S., Hestvik, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart (1992a)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rooth, M.: A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116 (1992b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rooth, M., Partee, B.: Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope “or”. In: Flickinger, D., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 353–362. Stanford University (1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sag, I.: Deletion and Logical Form. MIT dissertation (1976)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sauerland, U.: Copying vs. structure sharing: a semantic argument. In: van Craenenbroeck, J. (ed.) Linguistic Variation Yearbook, vol. 7, pp. 27–51. John Benjamins Publishing Company (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwarz, B.: Topics in Ellipsis. UMass, Amherst dissertation (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stone, M.: Or and anaphora. In: Proceedings of SALT 2, pp. 367–385 (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stone, M., Hardt, D.: Dynamic discourse referents for tense and modals. In: Bunt, H. (ed.) Computational Semantics, pp. 287–299. Kluwer (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tomioka, S.: A sloppy identity puzzle. Natural Language Semantics 7(2), 217–241 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tomioka, S.: A step-by-step guide to ellipsis resolution. In: Johnson, K. (ed.) Topics in Ellipsis, pp. 210–228. Cambridge University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wescoat, M.: Sloppy Readings with Embedded Antecedents. Stanford ms. (1989)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams, E.: Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139 (1977)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Charlow
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsNew York UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations