ࡱ > + - & ' ( ) * @ bjbj 3 ؝ ؝ 'W 1
r
r
r
g g g 8 g T i
R5 i : u : 8v 8v 8v x T| } h V" X" X" X" ? " g+ 74 $ D8 R : n [4 r
?~ |x x ?~ ?~ [4 8v 8v D 5 ?~ z < 8v r
8v :8
?~ V" | r
8v i Z0 g D D "5 0 R5 * ; ] Z ;
" ; r
< } } } } } } } [4 [4
d6 lK $ .
H Lecture 15. Null Anaphora, Ellipsis, and Fragments
TOC \o "1-2" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631620" 1. Null anaphora and bound variables PAGEREF _Toc199631620 \h 1
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631621" 1.1 Background: Deep and surface anaphora (Hankamer & Sag 1976) PAGEREF _Toc199631621 \h 2
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631622" 1.2. Sloppy identity in deep anaphora PAGEREF _Toc199631622 \h 3
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631623" 1.3. The interpretation of null pronouns PAGEREF _Toc199631623 \h 3
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631624" 1.4 The Zero Pronoun Hypothesis PAGEREF _Toc199631624 \h 5
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631625" 2. Ellipsis issues: on what level(s) is what kind of structure present? PAGEREF _Toc199631625 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631626" 2.1. Analyses of VP Ellipsis in English PAGEREF _Toc199631626 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631627" 2.2 Bound variable pro-VP! Higher-order strict/sloppy identity ambiguity. PAGEREF _Toc199631627 \h 7
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631628" 2.3. Ellipsis resolution via equation-solving: the HOU approach. PAGEREF _Toc199631628 \h 8
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631629" 2.4. Ellipsis vs. fragments PAGEREF _Toc199631629 \h 9
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631630" 3. Typological issue: VP deletion and null complement anaphora PAGEREF _Toc199631630 \h 12
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631631" 4. Further issues. Complexities in the data. Formal theories. PAGEREF _Toc199631631 \h 13
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc199631632" References PAGEREF _Toc199631632 \h 13
Readings: (1) ADDIN EN.CITE Hojims. 2003100211002136Hoji, HajimeSloppy Identity in Surface and Deep Anaphora9ms. 2003Los Angeles: University of Southern CaliforniaHandouthttp://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdfhttp://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdf(Hoji ms. 2003) Sloppy Identity in Surface and Deep Anaphora (a handout with a nice concise summary of issues; omits the Japanese data and Japanese-specific issues found in the longer paper ADDIN EN.CITE Hoji200310020100205Hoji, HajimeBarss, AndrewSurface and deep anaphora, sloppy identity, and experiments in syntaxAnaphora: A Reference Guide172-2362003OxfordBlackwellhttp://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdfhttp://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdf(Hoji 2003).
(2) ADDIN EN.CITE Dalrymple19911253125317Dalrymple, MaryShieber, Stuart M.Pereira, Fernando C. N.Ellipsis and higher-order unificationLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy399-452141991http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/cmp-lg9503008.pdfhttp://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/cmp-lg9503008.pdf(Dalrymple et al. 1991) Ellipsis and higher-order unification.
(3) ADDIN EN.CITE Stainton200610011100115Stainton, Robert J.Progovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenNeither fragments nor ellipsisThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives93-1162006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjaminshttp://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/Neither_Fragments_Nor_Ellipsis.pdfhttp://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/Neither_Fragments_Nor_Ellipsis.pdf(Stainton 2006b) Neither fragments nor ellipsis.
(4) ADDIN EN.CITE Merchant2007100101001036Merchant, JasonThree kinds of ellipsis: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic?2007Chicago, University of ChicagoManuscript for a semantics workshop at Rutgers University October 2008http://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdfhttp://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdf(Merchant 2007) Three kinds of ellipsis: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic?
(5) ADDIN EN.CITE Hoji1998100221002217Hoji, HajimeNull object and sloppy identity in JapaneseLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry127-152291998https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/HojiLI1998.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/HojiLI1998.pdf(Hoji 1998) Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese
(6) ADDIN EN.CITE Gardent2000100291002917Gardent, ClaireDeaccenting and Higher-Order UnificationJournal of Logic, Language and InformationJournal of Logic, Language and InformationJournal of Logic, Language and Information313-3389.332000https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Gardent2000JoLLI.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Gardent2000JoLLI.pdf(Gardent 2000) Deaccenting and Higher-Order Unification
(7) ADDIN EN.CITE Kratzer1998869486945Kratzer, AngelikaStrolovitch, DevonLawson, AaronMore structural analogies between pronouns and tenseSALT VIII: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 199892-1101998Ithaca, N.Y.CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell Universityhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdf(Kratzer 1998) More structural analogies between pronouns and tense
Optional additional readings:
(8) ADDIN EN.CITE Partee1975922992295Partee, Barbara H.Edward KeenanDeletion and variable bindingFormal Semantics of Natural Languages16-341975CambridgeCambridge University Presshttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tk0ZDc1Z/(Partee 1975) Deletion and variable binding
(9) ADDIN EN.CITE Hoji200310020100205Hoji, HajimeBarss, AndrewSurface and deep anaphora, sloppy identity, and experiments in syntaxAnaphora: A Reference Guide172-2362003OxfordBlackwellhttp://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdfhttp://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdf(Hoji 2003) Surface and deep anaphora, sloppy identity, and experiments in syntax
(10) ADDIN EN.CITE Progovac2006100041000428Progovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenAbraham, Wernervan Gelderen, EllyThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives2006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Pub. Co.Progovac200610005100055Progovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenProgovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenIntroductionThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives1-92006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaBenjaminsProgovac200610006100065Progovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenProgovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenEpilogue: Wherefrom and whereto?The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives323-3532006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn BenjaminsMerchant200610009100095Merchant, JasonProgovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, Ellen"Small structures": A sententialist perspectiveThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives73-912006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins(Merchant 2006, Progovac et al. 2006a, Progovac et al. 2006c, Progovac et al. 2006b) (I have the book)
(11) ADDIN EN.CITE Stanley20007253725317Jason StanleyContext and logical formLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy391434232000https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Stanley2000L%26P.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Stanley2000L%26P.pdf(Stanley 2000) Context and logical form
(12) ADDIN EN.CITE Frazier2006100121001217Frazier, LynClifton, Charles, Jr.Ellipsis and discourse coherenceLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy315-346292006https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/FrazierClifton2006L%26P.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/FrazierClifton2006L%26P.pdf(Frazier and Clifton 2006) Ellipsis and discourse coherence
(13) ADDIN EN.CITE Asher2001100131001317Asher, NicholasHardt, DanielBusquets, JoanDiscourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguityJournal of SemanticsJournal of SemanticsJournal of Semantics1812001http://www.id.cbs.dk/~dh/papers/jpaper1.pdfhttp://www.id.cbs.dk/~dh/papers/jpaper1.pdf(Asher et al. 2001) Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity
(14) ADDIN EN.CITE Jger1997267726775Jger, GerhardDekker, PaulStokhof, MartinVenema, YdeAnaphora and ellipsis in type logical grammarProceedings of the eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium175-1801997ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdamhttp://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/paperac97.pdfhttp://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/paperac97.pdf(Jger 1997) Anaphora and ellipsis in type logical grammar parts of it are impossible to read without background in type-logical grammar, but its short and has great examples that illustrate important issues.
(15) ADDIN EN.CITE Rooth1992467646765Rooth, MatsBerman, Steve Hestvik, Arild Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancyProceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, "Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen fr die Computerlinguistik"Bericht Nr. 291992HeidelbergIBM Germanyftp://ftp.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/papers/mats/ellipsis.ps.gz (Rooth 1992) Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy.
(16) ADDIN EN.CITE Hardt19939844984432Hardt, DanielVerb Phrase Ellipis: Form, Meaning, and ProcessingPh.D.1993PhiladelphiaUniversity of PennsylvaniaPh. D. dissertation, published as Technical Report No. IRCS-93-23http://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/182/http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=ircs_reports(Hardt 1993) Verb Phrase Ellipis: Form, Meaning, and Processing
(17) ADDIN EN.CITE Partee1981785078505Partee, Barbara H.Bach, EmmonJ. GroenendijkT. JanssenM. StokhofQuantification, pronouns and VP anaphoraFormal Methods in the Study of Language445-4811981AmsterdamMathematisch Centrumhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdf(Partee and Bach 1981) Quantification, pronouns and VP anaphora
Four classics that I dont think are downloadable online:
(18) ADDIN EN.CITE Keenan19718670867017Keenan, Edward L.Names, quantifiers, and a solution to the sloppy identity problemPapers in LinguisticsPapers in Linguistics4.11971(Keenan 1971) Names, quantifiers, and a solution to the sloppy identity problem.
(19) ADDIN EN.CITE Williams19775848584817Williams, EdwinDiscourse and logical formLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry101-13981Ellipsis1977(Williams 1977) Discourse and logical form
(20) ADDIN EN.CITE Sag19764760476032Sag, IvanDeletion and logical formGappingFocusConjunctionEllipsis1976M.I.T.Ph.D. dissertationhttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16401 to read online onlyhttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16401 to read online only(Sag 1976) Deletion and logical form (you can read this online at an MIT site)
(21) ADDIN EN.CITE Hankamer19767517751717Hankamer, JorgeSag, IvanDeep and surface anaphoraLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry391-42671976(Hankamer and Sag 1976) Deep and surface anaphora (You can read it online using Google Scholar. Just do a search on the two words Hankamer Sag.)
1. Null anaphora and bound variables
Issue: Is there a special connection between null anaphora (anaphora expressed by a zero element, or by deletion of some kind) and bound variable anaphora? I will draw in part on the good handout ADDIN EN.CITE Hojims. 2003100211002136Hoji, HajimeSloppy Identity in Surface and Deep Anaphora9ms. 2003Los Angeles: University of Southern CaliforniaHandouthttp://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdfhttp://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdf(Hoji ms. 2003), which includes good background material as well as his own recent research. (The handout does not include his work on Japanese, but the longer paper ADDIN EN.CITE Hoji200310020100205Hoji, HajimeBarss, AndrewSurface and deep anaphora, sloppy identity, and experiments in syntaxAnaphora: A Reference Guide172-2362003OxfordBlackwellhttp://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdfhttp://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdf(Hoji 2003) does.) But since he gets into some difficult issues and controversial judgments, I wont follow his handout to the end.
1.1 Background: Deep and surface anaphora (Hankamer & Sag 1976)
ADDIN EN.CITE Hankamer19767517 :392751717Hankamer, JorgeSag, IvanDeep and surface anaphoraLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry391-42671976(Hankamer and Sag 1976:392)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) A: Im going to [VP* stuff this ball through this hoop]
B: Its not clear that youll be able to [VP* ].
B Its not clear that youll be able to [VP* do it ].
Observation: The three instances of VP* in ( REF ImGoingToStuffThisBall 1) seem to mean the same thing.
Question: Does this mean that the forms in ( REF YoullBeAbleTo 2) can have the same LF representation?
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Youll be able to.
b. Youll be able to do it.
c. Youll be able to stuff this ball through this hoop.
Answer: No. ( REF YoullBeAbleTo 2a) and ( REF YoullBeAbleTo 2c) can have the same LF representation (i.e. VP ellipsis (VPE) can be thought of as involving a silent VP pro-form interpreted as a copy of the antecedent VP, for instance), but ( REF YoullBeAbleTo 2a) and ( REF YoullBeAbleTo 2b) do not. The null VP (VPE) and do it in English are different.
The initial difference: Surface anaphora (including VPE) requires a linguistic antecedent, while deep anaphora (like do it, do the same thing) does not.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) (Hankamer attempts to stuff a 9-inch ball through a 6-inch hoop.)
Sag: # Its not clear that youll be able to.
Sag: OK Its not clear that youll be able to do it.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Phonetic form (PF) representation for ( REF ImGoingToStuffThisBall 1B) : [VP* ].
b. LF representation for ( REF ImGoingToStuffThisBall 1B) : [VP* stuff this ball through this hoop].
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Phonetic form (PF) representation for ( REF ImGoingToStuffThisBall 1B) : [VP* do it ].
b. LF representation for ( REF ImGoingToStuffThisBall 1B) : [VP* do it ].
As Carlson ADDIN EN.CITE 2006992999295Carlson, GregoryAnaphoraWiley Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science2006https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Carlson2006anaphora.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Carlson2006anaphora.pdf(2006)notes, another important property of surface anaphora is that not only does it require a linguistic antecedent, but the form of the linguistic antecedent makes a crucial difference to the possibility and/or the form of the anaphoric expression. In the case of deep anaphora, on the other hand, what seems to be required is some salient semantic content, and it may be provided by linguistic or non-linguistic means, and in the case of a linguistic antecedent, its syntactic form is not so tightly constrained as in the case of surface anaphora.
First hypothesis: Only surface anaphora is governed by strong syntactic constraints such as Principle A; and only surface anaphora can express bound variable anaphora. Hence we expect sloppy identity to arise only in surface anaphora.
But sloppy identity has been found in cases of deep anaphora (deep anaphora by the test of allowing for a non-linguistic antecedent) ADDIN EN.CITE Dalrymple1991100341003427Dalrymple, MaryAgainst Reconstruction in Ellipsis: Xerox Technical Report1991Palo Alto, CAXerox PARC(Dalrymple 1991). Two kinds of approaches to try to save the hypothesis: (i) argue that those arent really deep anaphora, but involve an accommodated linguistic antecedent; or (ii) argue that there are different kinds of sloppy identity in the two cases ADDIN EN.CITE Hojims. 2003100211002136Hoji, HajimeSloppy Identity in Surface and Deep Anaphora9ms. 2003Los Angeles: University of Southern CaliforniaHandouthttp://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdfhttp://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdf(Hoji ms. 2003).
1.2. Sloppy identity in deep anaphora
ADDIN EN.CITE Dalrymple199110034: 211003427Dalrymple, MaryAgainst Reconstruction in Ellipsis: Xerox Technical Report1991Palo Alto, CAXerox PARC(Dalrymple 1991: 21)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) (John touches his finger to his nose. He says to Bill: ) Now you do it.
a. Sloppy: Bill touches his own nose.
b. Strict: Bill touches Johns nose.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) (Observing John touch his own nose) Bill did it/that too. (can be strict or sloppy)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) (Observing someone putting soy sauce on a hamburger)
My brother does the same thing. (no ling. antecedent, so this is deep anaphora)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Strict/sloppy ambiguity with do the same thing:
A. John washed his car on that rainy day.
B. Bill did the same thing. (washed Johns/ washed his own car on that rainy day.)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Strict/sloppy ambiguity with do the same thing with no linguistic antecedent.
(Speaker observing John touch his finger to his (Johns) nose): Bill did the same thing.
the same thing = the same thing the speaker just observed, which may understood as either
(i) the act of touching ones finger to ones nose (sloppy identity), or
(ii) the act of touching ones finger to Johns nose (strict identity)
Hojis goals: general goal: show how we can distinguish grammatical and non-grammatical contributions to our linguistic intuitions.
specific goal: argue that the nature of the sloppy identity in surface anaphora is distinct from that in deep anaphora.
In this work, Hoji gets into a very specific issue, ends up arguing that English VPE sometimes behaves like deep anaphora. The issues are tricky and his judgments about the data have in some cases been challenged. So lets just leave this at this introductory point.
1.3. The interpretation of null pronouns
Overt anaphoric expressions are more likely to be able to have referential interpretations (as evidenced by strict identity readings and other tests), while null anaphora is more likely to get a bound interpretation (as evidenced by sloppy identity readings and other tests). If there are scales, then they correlate as follows:
morpho-phonologically weaker form < ---------------------------------- > morph-phon. stronger form
more referentially dependent (more bound) < ---------------------------------- > more ref. independent
Kratzer: fewer interpretable features (none means Zero Pronoun) < ------ > more interpretable features
From ADDIN EN.CITE Grel200310041100415Grel, AyseJuana M. Liceras et al. Is the Overt Pronoun Constraint universal? Evidence from L2 TurkishProceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002)130-1392003Somerville, MACascadillahttp://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/6/paper1037.pdfhttp://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/6/paper1037.pdf(Grel 2003):
Empty categories are defined as syntactically observable but phonetically null elements. Much research has focused on the identification of the precise status of empty elements. Within the framework of Government and Binding (GB) (Chomsky, 1981, 1982), the typology of empty categories is established as follows:
(1 ) Overt elements Empty elements
a. [+anaphor, -pronominal] anaphor NP-trace
b. [-anaphor, +pronominal] pronoun pro
c. [+anaphor, +pronominal] PRO
d. [-anaphor, -pronominal] R-expressions wh-trace
In Grels investigation, she is concerned with the empty category pro and its overt counterpart. The empty element pro is a pure pronominal like its overt counterpart. It is allowed only in languages where it can be identified (e.g., Spanish, Japanese or Turkish). The crucial assumption here is that empty categories mirror their overt counterparts:
1. An empty category (() is a variable iff it is locally A-bound and is in an A-position.
2. If ( is not a variable, then it is an anaphor.
3. ( is a pronominal iff it is free or locally A-bound by an anteceden t ( ( ) w i t h a n i n d e p e n d e n t - r o l e . ( C h o m s k y , 1 9 8 1 , p . 3 3 0 ) .
M o n t a l b e t t i s O v e r t P r o n o u n C o n s t r a i n t
M o n t a l b e t t i ( 1 9 8 4 ) o b s e r v e s t h a t o v e r t p r o n o u n s c a n n o t h a v e a b o u n d r e a d i n g w h e n a c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o n - o v e r t f o r m i s a v a i l a b l e . I n S p a n i s h ( a n d I t a l i a n ) t h i s excludes overt BV pronouns in subject position; in Japanese ADDIN EN.CITE Saito1983100441004417Saito, MamoruHoji, HajimeWeak Crossover and Move-alpha in JapaneseNatural Language and Linguistic TheoryNatural Language and Linguistic TheoryNatural Language and Linguistic Theory245-25911983(Saito and Hoji 1983) the same restriction bans overt BV pronouns throughout, since Japanese allows pro in object and oblique positions as well as in subject position.
From Alsono-Ovalle and dIntrono (2001):
Montalbetti (1984) points out certain semantic differences between phonetically full and phonetically empty pronouns (henceforth full and null pronouns) that challenge the traditional interpretive parallelism between empty and full categories (see Chomsky 1981, 1982). He shows that both in subject (1) and object position (2), while null pronouns can be interpreted as bound variables (as in (1a) and (2a)), full pronouns cannot (as in (1c) and (2c)).
(1) a. Nadiei sabe que proi vendr.
Nobody know:3S that pro come:3SFUT
Nobodyi knows that hei will come.
b. ~(x ( person (x) & ( know (x) ( come(x) ) )
c. *Nadiei sabe que li vendr.
Nobody know:3S that pro come3SFUT
Nobodyi knows that hei will come.
d. ~(x ( person (x) & ( know (x) ( come(y) ) )
(2) a. Nadiei sabe que el profesor lo vigila proi
Nobody know:3S that the teacher HIM-CL watch-over:3S pro
Nobodyi knows that the teacher watches over himi.
b. ~(x ( person (x) & know (x) (watch-over (p) (x) ) )
c. *Nadiei sabe que el profesor lo vigila a li.
Nobody know:3S that the teacher HIM-CL watch-over:3s him
Nobodyi knows that the teacher watches over himi.
d. ~(x ( person(x) & know (x) (watch-over (p) (y) ) )
Contrasts like those under (1) and (2) at first seem to suggest that a principle equivalent to (3) has to be taken to describe the strategy responsible for anaphora resolution in Spanish.
(3) Variable binding is restricted to null pronouns.
However, it has been shown that in order for (3) to predict the actual anaphoric behavior of Spanish pronouns it has to be refined in a series of finer-grained generalizations that still remain largely unrelated (Lujn 1985, 1986; Rigau 1986, 1988; Fernndez Soriano 1989).
So (3) has been modified to the weaker version in (8), which amounts to Montalbettis Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC).
(Montalbetti 1984): The Overt Pronoun Constraint:
(8) Full pronouns cannot be interpreted as bound variables except for those syntactic environments where null pronouns are not allowed. (for instance, under focus or in PPs BHP)
Ovalle and dIntronos paper aims to show that these generalizations are all derivable from the Zero Pronoun Hypothesis of Kratzer ADDIN EN.CITE 1998869486945Kratzer, AngelikaStrolovitch, DevonLawson, AaronMore structural analogies between pronouns and tenseSALT VIII: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 199892-1101998Ithaca, N.Y.CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell Universityhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdf(1998), which they state as in (4):
(4) a. Pronouns can have lexical content (L-pronouns) or not (Zero-pronouns).
b. Zero-pronouns can have phonetic content (full) or not (null).
1.4 The Zero Pronoun Hypothesis
(Alonso-Ovalle and dIntrono, continued:) The Zero Pronoun Hypothesis (Kratzer 1998), was originally motivated for the nominal domain by (16):
(16) a. Only I got a question that I understood. (Heim)
b. The speaker in a context d is the only person that got a question that the speaker in d understood.
c. The speaker in a context d is the only individual that has the property of being an x such that x got a question that x understood.
(16) has two readings that differ with respect to the interpretation assigned to the deictic. (16b) is the result of interpreting I as a pure deictic that picks up the speaker in the utterance context. In (16c), however, the second occurrence of I is not purely deictic: its person and number features are not interpreted at all and, interestingly enough, it has obligatorily a bound-variable interpretation, that, as shown in (17), is subject to some locality condition, since only (17a), where there is no intervening different antecedent, can have a bound-variable reading.
(17) a. Only I got a question that I thought I could answer.
b. Only I got a question that you thought I could answer.
Then, in (16c) we face a pronoun that resembles a deictic but can semantically behave as a bound-variable. Furthermore, it behaves as if it did not have any lexical features at all. In order to capture this, and under the plausible assumption that (interpretable) lexical features cannot be deleted in the process of deriving Logical Form representations, Kratzer proposes that certain pronouns do not have lexical content in the lexicon, and dubs them Zero Pronouns.
As we said before, Zero pronouns differ from lexically full pronouns (Lpronouns) in that they have no lexical features. Since it is currently held that lexical features of pronouns contribute a set of presuppositions (Heim 1982), Zero pronouns can be easily distinguished from L-pronouns because, lacking lexical content, they are not presuppositional.
Notice that Zero pronouns do not have to be confused with null pronouns, since the classification of a pronoun as a Zero pronoun has to do only with its lack of lexical content. Zero pronouns can be full pronouns: they surface as the weakest possible phonological alternative, where weakest is to be defined in a language-specific basis (Kratzer 1998:3). Consequently, their phonetic distribution can be seen as subject to the following economy condition:
(18) Minimize the phonetic content of Zero pronouns up to crash. (I.e. make it the least phonetic content consistent with the derivation not crashing altogether. - BHP)
Obviously, (18) is just a specific subcase of a very general economy principle ranging over the whole computational system, as that proposed in Cardinaletti and Starke 1995:
(19) Minimize ( u p t o c r a s h .
w h e r e ( r a n g e s o v e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , d e r i v a t i o n s , e v e n f e a t u r e s .
B e i n g n u l l i s g e n e r a l l y t h e w e a k e s t p h o n o l o g i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a n a r g u m e n t i n S p a n i s h . G i v e n t h a t S p a n i s h a l l o w s n u l l a r g u m e n t s i n s u b j e c t a n d o b j e c t p o s i t i o n , i n t h e s e p o s i tions Spanish Zero pronouns are null. However, there are two environments where being full is the weakest phonological alternative: when focused (as in (20b)) and within PPs (as in (9a), repeated here as (20)).
(20) a. Quin lleg?
Who come:3SPAST
Who came?.
b. Lleg l /*pro.
arrive:3SPAST he[+Focus}
He arrived.
(20) a. Pedro vino con l/ *pro.
Pedro come:3SPAST with him
Pedro came with him.
This idea of an economy principle restricted by certain conflicting factors naturally links with data presented above in the sense that minimizing the phonetic content of Zero pronouns, obeying (18), makes the derivation crash in the contexts described by Montalbettis and Lujns Generalizations. (I.e., a null pronoun in those contexts is impossible. BHP)
Main online references for this topic: ADDIN EN.CITE Hoji200310020100205Hoji, HajimeBarss, AndrewSurface and deep anaphora, sloppy identity, and experiments in syntaxAnaphora: A Reference Guide172-2362003OxfordBlackwellhttp://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdfhttp://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdfPartee1975922992295Partee, Barbara H.Edward KeenanDeletion and variable bindingFormal Semantics of Natural Languages16-341975CambridgeCambridge University Presshttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tk0ZDc1Z/Hojims. 2003100211002136Hoji, HajimeSloppy Identity in Surface and Deep Anaphora9ms. 2003Los Angeles: University of Southern CaliforniaHandouthttp://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdfhttp://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdf(Partee 1975, Hoji 2003, Hoji ms. 2003) Additional references, lots of typological work and work on acquisition: ADDIN EN.CITE Alonso-Ovalle2002100401004017Alonso-Ovalle, LuisFernndez-Solera, SusanaFrazier, LynClifton, Charles, Jr.Null vs. overt pronouns and the Topic-Focus Articulation in SpanishRivista di LinguisticaRivista di LinguisticaRivista di Linguistica14.22002http://people.umass.edu/cec/nullversusovert.pdfhttp://people.umass.edu/cec/nullversusovert.pdfMontalbetti19846978697832Mario MontalbettiAfter Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns1984MITPh.D. DissertationGrel200310041100415Grel, AyseJuana M. Liceras et al. Is the Overt Pronoun Constraint universal? Evidence from L2 TurkishProceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002)130-1392003Somerville, MACascadillahttp://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/6/paper1037.pdfhttp://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/6/paper1037.pdfOtsuka2001100421004217Otsuka, YukioEmpty Categories in Tuvaluan: NP-trace, PRO, pro, or variable?Oceanic LinguisticsOceanic Linguistics342-36540.222001Matsuo2007100431004317Matsuo, AyumiDiffering interpretations of empty categories in English and Japanese VP Ellipsis contextsLanguage AcquisitionLanguage Acquisition3-2914.112007Saito1983100441004417Saito, MamoruHoji, HajimeWeak Crossover and Move-alpha in JapaneseNatural Language and Linguistic TheoryNatural Language and Linguistic TheoryNatural Language and Linguistic Theory245-25911983Alonso-Ovalle200110045100455Alonso-Ovalle, Luisd'Introno, FrancescoHctor Campos et al.Full and null pronouns in Spanish: the Zero Pronoun HypothesisHispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millenium189-2102001Sommerville, MACascadilla Presshttp://www.alonso-ovalle.net/papers/Pronouns.pdfhttp://www.alonso-ovalle.net/papers/Pronouns.pdf(Saito and Hoji 1983, Montalbetti 1984, Alonso-Ovalle and d'Introno 2001, Otsuka 2001, Alonso-Ovalle et al. 2002, Grel 2003, Matsuo 2007)
2. Ellipsis issues: on what level(s) is what kind of structure present?
2.1. Analyses of VP Ellipsis in English
Early syntactic theories: VP ellipsis as syntactic deletion.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) John loves Mary and Bill does too.
derived from the structure: John Pres [VPlove Mary] and Bill Pres [VPlove Mary] too.
Two transformations: VP Deletion, do-support. (insert do if the Aux is only Tense).
The terms Strict/Sloppy Identity ADDIN EN.CITE Ross19677154715432John Robert RossConstraints on Variables in Syntax1967CambridgeMITPh.D. dissertation(Ross 1967) come from this period, because Ross observed instances where deletion of an identical VP tolerated less than full identity, as in ( REF IfJohnCanStandOnHisHead 12):
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) If John can stand on his head, Im sure you can too.
The missing VP can be stand on your head, which gives a more likely interpretation than stand on Johns head (which is also possible, just less likely, and in retrospect causes a reinterpretation of the first clause into something exceedingly unlikely!) It was Keenan ADDIN EN.CITE 19718670867017Keenan, Edward L.Names, quantifiers, and a solution to the sloppy identity problemPapers in LinguisticsPapers in Linguistics4.11971(1971) who first observed that sloppy syntactic identity corresponds to strict semantic identity of a reading involving bound variable anaphora.
More recent alternatives
Positing a pro-VP element. One of the approaches to this issue is the Pro-VP approach, according to which the missing VP is represented as some kind of silent proform, analogous to a pronoun but its not a pronoun, its a pro-VP -- whose semantic value is retrieved via a meaning recovery strategy similar to pronominal anaphora resolution. The advocates for this thesis include Bach and Partee (1980) ADDIN EN.CITE Partee1981785078505Partee, Barbara H.Bach, EmmonJ. GroenendijkT. JanssenM. StokhofQuantification, pronouns and VP anaphoraFormal Methods in the Study of Language445-4811981AmsterdamMathematisch Centrumhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdf(Partee and Bach 1981), Rooth ADDIN EN.CITE 198110047100475Rooth, MatsChao, WynnWheeler, DeirdreA comparison of three different theories of verb phrase ellipsisUMass Occasional Papers in Linguistics (UMOP)1981AmherstGLSA, UMass(1981), Klein ADDIN EN.CITE 1987304430445Klein, EwanGroenendijk, Jeroende Jongh, DikStokhof, MartinVP Ellipsis in DR theoryStudies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers161-1871987DordrechtForis(1987), and most recently Hardt ADDIN EN.CITE 19939844984432Hardt, DanielVerb Phrase Ellipis: Form, Meaning, and ProcessingPh.D.1993PhiladelphiaUniversity of PennsylvaniaPh. D. dissertation, published as Technical Report No. IRCS-93-23http://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/182/http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=ircs_reports1999100481004817Hardt, DanielDynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsisLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy187-221221999(1993, 1999).
Full-fledged syntactic structure at LF: Another approach, which Tomioka ADDIN EN.CITE to appear10046100465Tomioka, SatoshiJohnson, KyleA step-by-step guide to VP Ellipsis resolutionTopics in Ellipsisto appearCambridgeCambridge University Presshttp://www.ling.udel.edu/stomioka/papers/tomioka_CUP.pdfhttp://www.ling.udel.edu/stomioka/papers/tomioka_CUP.pdf(to appear), who Im quoting with minor editing in this section, calls the LF Structure approach, posits full-fledged syntactic structure for the missing VP at the level of Logical Form (LF).
Within this approach, there are two variants. In the PF-Deletion analysis, a missing constituent begins its life in the derivation with fully represented structure, which will be deleted in the phonological component but remain intact at LF ADDIN EN.CITE Chomsky19931013cf. 10135Chomsky, NoamLasnik, HowardJacobs, JoachimStechow, Arnim v.Sternefeld, WolfgangVennemann, TheoPrinciples and Parameters TheorySyntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research506-56911993Berlinde Gruyter(cf. Chomsky and Lasnik 1993), ADDIN EN.CITE Fox2000174717476Fox, DannyEconomy and semantic interpretation2000Cambridge, Mass.MIT Press(Fox 2000) . The other variant, including Fiengo and May ADDIN EN.CITE 199410049100496Fiengo, RobertMay, RobertIndices and Identity1994CambridgeMIT Press(1994), treats the missing material to be truly missing at the beginning but copied from its antecedent at LF.
The debate between the Pro-form and the LF Structure camps has a long history and is still on-going. Tomiokas paper concentrates on a particular phenomenon which is considered by many to be one of the most convincing arguments in favor of the Pro-form approach. Here we just review the very interesting phenomenon, and not the theoretical debates about how to deal with it.
2.2 Bound variable pro-VP! Higher-order strict/sloppy identity ambiguity.
Quoting Tomioka (to appear) again: Hardt (1999) and Schwarz ADDIN EN.CITE 20008088808832Schwarz, BernhardTopics in EllipsisLinguisticsLinguistics2000AmherstUniversity of MassachusettsPh.D.(2000) independently noted that, when an elided VP is contained within anothe r e l i d e d V P , t h e f i r s t V P c a n g e t t h e s l o p p y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H e r e a r e t h e e x a m p l e s t h a t H a r d t a n d S c h w a r z p r e s e n t .
( 2 ) ( = S c h w a r z 2 0 0 0 , C h a p t e r 4 ( 3 5 ) )
A : W h e n J o h n h a d t o c o o k , h e d i d n t w a n t t o .
B : W h e n h e h a d t o c l e a n , h e d i d n t , e i t h e r .
S t r i c t i d e n t i t y : s e c o n d i s w a n t t o c o o k , t r e a t i n g f i r s t a s h a v i n g a s p e c i f i c v a l u e .
S l o p p y i d e n t i t y : s e c o n d i s w a n t t o c l e a n , t r e a t i n g f i r s t a s a b o u n d v a r i a b l e .
( 3 ) ( = H a r d t 1 9 9 9 , ( 1 7 ) )
I l l h e l p y o u i f y o u w a n t m e t o . I w i l l k i s s y o u e v e n i f y o u d o n t .
T h e e l i d e d V P i n B s u t t e r a n c e i n ( 2 ) c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d t o m e a n w a n t t o c l e a n , a n d s i m i l a r l y , t h e m i s s i n g V P i n ( 3 ) c a n b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s w a n t m e t o k i s s y o u . F o r a t h e o r y o f e l l i p s i s w h i c h a s s u m e s f u l l - f l e d g e d L F s t r u c t u r e f o r e l i d e d m a terial, these examples are problematic. The second VP ellipsis which contains another elided VP fails to satisfy the LF identity condition. Take (2), for instance. Its LF representation should look like (4), in which the material within { } corresponds to the unpronounced VPs.
(4) A: When John had to cook, he didnt want to {cook}.
B: When he had to clean, he didnt {want to clean}, either.
The first VP ellipsis (i.e., in As utterance) can be successfully represented as [VP cook] since there is an identical VP in the preposed adjunct clause. However, the second VP ellipsis creates a problem. The sloppy interpretation requires that the elided VP be of the form [VP want to clean].
However, the preceding sentence furnishes no such VP. Intuitively, the second VP in As utterance, [VP want to ] , s h o u l d c o u n t a s a n a n t e c e d e n t , b u t i t s L F r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , [ V P w a n t t o
{ c o o k } ] , w o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e m i s s i n g V P u n d e r a n y t h e o r y o f L F i d e n t i t y .
T h e s e c o n d d i f f i c u l t y , p o i n t e d o u t b y S c h w a r z ( 1 9 9 9 ) i s t h a t t h e s l o p p y i n t e r p r e t a t i on is not possible when the first sentence does not have ellipsis. In (5), for instance, the missing VP is only understood to mean want to cook although this strict reading is rather odd pragmatically.
(5) A: When John had to cook, he didnt want to cook. (= Schwarz 1999 (37))
B: When he had to clean, he didnt, either.
As far as the LF representations are concerned, (4) and (5) should be identical. Therefore, the LF structure approach fails to distinguish them, leaving the contrast completely unaccounted for.
[End quotation of Tomioka.]
2.3. Ellipsis resolution via equation-solving: the HOU approach.
A quite different and very interesting approach to the resolution of VP ellipsis, which has been developed for a number of other phenomena as well, is an equation-solving approach ADDIN EN.CITE Dalrymple19911253125317Dalrymple, MaryShieber, Stuart M.Pereira, Fernando C. N.Ellipsis and higher-order unificationLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy399-452141991http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/cmp-lg9503008.pdfhttp://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/cmp-lg9503008.pdf(Dalrymple et al. 1991). This can be thought of as a version of the pro-VP approach, since it does not assume invisible syntactic structure at the ellipsis site.
Dalrymple et al start from the observation that on most previous approaches to VP ellipsis, an ambiguity like the standard strict-sloppy ambiguity of a sentence like ( REF DanLikesHisWifeAndGeorgeDoesToo 13) requires one to analyze the antecedent as ambiguous in order to account for the ambiguity of the missing VP.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Dan likes his wife, and George does too.
a. x [ l i k e s ( x , w i f e - o f ( d a n ) ] ( s t r i c t ; r e f e r e n t i a l o r f r e e v a r i a b l e p r o n o u n )
b . . x [ l i k e s ( x , w i f e - o f ( x ) ] ( s l o p p y ; b o u n d v a r i a b l e p r o n o u n )
T h e m i s s i n g V P h a s t w o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ( R E F D a n L i k e s H i s W i f e A n d G e o r g e D o e s T o o 1 3 a ) a n d ( R E F D a n L i k e s HisWifeAndGeorgeDoesToo 13b), and on most usual analyses, the antecedent VP is claimed to have the same two interpretations; this is the intuition behind the insight that sloppy identity is also a kind of strict semantic identity. On Dalrymple et als approach, there is no need to consider the antecedent ambiguous if there is no independent reason to do so; ambiguity arises when there is more than one solution to the equations that must be satisfied by the antecedent and the ellipsis.
The approach developed by Dalrymple et al (1991) is perspicuously described by Gardent ADDIN EN.CITE 2000100291002917Gardent, ClaireDeaccenting and Higher-Order UnificationJournal of Logic, Language and InformationJournal of Logic, Language and InformationJournal of Logic, Language and Information313-3389.332000https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Gardent2000JoLLI.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Gardent2000JoLLI.pdf(2000), who also shows how it can be extended to examples which have deaccenting rather than ellipsis.
Sentence ( REF DanLikesHisWifeAndGeorgeDoesToo 13) can be represented with the following schematic equations:
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. like (dan, wife-of (dan)) & R(george) (R is a variable of type )
b. R(dan) = like (dan, wife-of (dan))
The formula in ( REF LikeDanWifeOfDanAndRGeorge 14a) is just like the formula one would get on an analysis that treats the missing VP as a pro-VP: R is a variable over VP-type meanings that has to somehow get its value from the antecedent VP. The novelty comes in the idea that we dont find a specific VP-meaning in the antecedent and copy it. Rather we look at the whole antecedent sentence and introduce the requirement that if we apply the value of R to its subject, dan, we should get a result equivalent to that sentence meaning. Thats what ( REF LikeDanWifeOfDanAndRGeorge 14b) says. And then the strict-sloppy identity ambiguity arises from the fact that there are two distinct solutions to the equation in ( REF LikeDanWifeOfDanAndRGeorge 14b). Those two solutions are precisely ( REF DanLikesHisWifeAndGeorgeDoesToo 13a) and ( REF DanLikesHisWifeAndGeorgeDoesToo 13b): if you apply either of them to the subject dan, you get back like (dan, wife-of (dan)).
Gardent (2000) shows that the same strategy can account for the ambiguity observed by Rooth ADDIN EN.CITE Rooth1992467646765Rooth, MatsBerman, Steve Hestvik, Arild Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancyProceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, "Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen fr die Computerlinguistik"Bericht Nr. 291992HeidelbergIBM Germanyftp://ftp.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/papers/mats/ellipsis.ps.gz (Rooth 1992) in cases of the phonetic reduction of redundant material in examples like ( REF JohnTookHisWifeToTheStationNoBill 15), where the deaccented material has the same strict/sloppy ambiguity that ellipsis would have.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) A: John took his wife to the station.
B. No, BILL took his wife to the station. (italics represents deaccenting)
This equation-solving technique is formalized as Higher Order Unification (HOU). It extends techniques that have long been used in the framework of Unification, an approach to interpretation that is used in logic programming languages like PROLOG ADDIN EN.CITE Clocksin1981105510556Clocksin, WilliamMellish, ChristopherProgramming in Prolog1981BerlinSpringerGazdar1989972497246Gazdar, GeraldMellish, ChristopherNatural Language Processing in Prolog1989Addison-WesleyPereira1987428342836Pereira, Fernando C.N. Shieber, Stuart M.Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis101987Stanford SR:CSLI Lecture NotesChicago University Press(Clocksin and Mellish 1981, Pereira and Shieber 1987, Gazdar and Mellish 1989) and has been applied in computational linguistics with considerable success ADDIN EN.CITE Pereira19854278427810Pereira, Fernando C.N.Parsing and deductionProceedings of an International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, University of RennesProceedings of an International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, University of Rennes1985Pereira1987428342836Pereira, Fernando C.N. Shieber, Stuart M.Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis101987Stanford SR:CSLI Lecture NotesChicago University PressPereira19854280428010Pereira, Fernando C.N.A structure-sharing representation for unification-based grammar formalismsACL Proceedings, 23rd Annual MeetingACL Proceedings, 23rd Annual Meeting137-1441985Pereira1986 (1980)428142815Pereira, Fernando C.N.; Warren, David H.D.Barbara J. Grosz, Karen Sparck-Jones and Bonnie Lynn WebberDefinite clause grammars for language analysisReadings in Natural Language Processing101-1241986 (1980)Los AltosMorgan KaufmannShieber19854994499417Shieber, Stuart, e.a.Notes from the Unification Underground: A Compilation of Papers on Unification-Based Grammar Formalisms SRI International, Technical Note 327Unification1985Shieber1986499949996Shieber, Stuart M.An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar1986ChicagoUniversity of Chicago PressKay1985287428745Kay, MartinDavid R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen and Arnold M. ZwickyParsing in functional unification grammarNatural Language Parsing251-2781985CambridgeCambridge University PressKay1985287528755Kay, MartinVeronica Dahl and Patrick Saint-DizierUnification in grammarNatural Language Understanding and Logic Programming233-2401985AmsterdamNorth-HollandBouma198871571517Bouma, GosseModifiers and Specifiers in Categorial Unification GrammarLinguisticsLinguisticsLinguisticsLinguistics21-4626Categorial GrammarUnification Grammar1988Gardent19961821182127Gardent, ClaireKohlhase, MichaelHigher-order coloured unification and natural language semantics1996SaarbrckenComputerlinguistik an der Universitt des Saarlandes76Joshi1987274527455Joshi, Aravind K.Unification and some new grammatical formalismsTINLAP-3TINLAP-343-481987Kasper19902845284517Kasper, Robert T.; Rounds, William C.The Logic of Unification in GrammarLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy35-58131990Uszkoreit1986548954895Uszkoreit, HansCategorial unification grammarCOLING-86COLING-86187-1941986Carpenter1992796179616Carpenter, BobThe Logic of Typed Feature Structures : With Applications to Unification Grammars, Logic Programs, and Constraint ResolutionCambridge tracts in theoretical computer science ; 32viii, 270Data structures (Computer science)Logic programming1992Cambridge ; New YorkCambridge University Press0521419328(Kay 1985b, Kay 1985a, Pereira 1985a, Pereira 1985b, Shieber 1985, Shieber 1986, Uszkoreit 1986, Pereira 1986 (1980), Joshi 1987, Pereira and Shieber 1987, Bouma 1988, Kasper 1990, Carpenter 1992, Gardent and Kohlhase 1996).
2.4. Ellipsis vs. fragments
Issue: We have been discussing ellipsis and null pronouns as if we can always tell when something is missing. But its not always straightforward to distinguish between ellipsis or other null material on the one hand, and fragments, or subsententials, expressions that may have nothing missing, but are simply smaller than a standard sentence, on the other hand.
There are very interesting debates about various examples; one important conclusion reached by many ADDIN EN.CITE Progovac200610005100055Progovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenProgovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenIntroductionThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives1-92006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaBenjaminsBarton1998100351003517Barton, EllenThe grammar of telegraphic structures: Sentential and nonsentential derivationJournal of English LinguisticsJournal of English Linguistics37-67261998Morgan198910036100365Morgan, JerryMusic, B.Graczyk, R.Wiltshire, C.Sentence fragments revistedCLS Parasession on Language in Context228-2411989ChicagoChicago Linguistics Society(Morgan 1989, Barton 1998, Progovac et al. 2006c) is that they arent all alike. And theories and terminology are not all alike either, so even describing the alternative possibilities is not simple. First lets assemble some candidates that we can ask about.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) Various kinds of examples that may involve ellipsis/ null anaphora/ fragments
a. VP Ellipsis (VPE). John left. Mary will, too.
b. Short answers. Who made this salad? Robs mom.
Where are you going? To the store.
c. Sluicing. She has invited someone, but I dont know who.
d. Sluicing fragments. Shes bringing someone with her. Who?
e. Null Complement Anaphora. Mary didnt notice.
Im eating.
I havent eaten yet.
I really tried.
f. Independent-seeming fragments that can be discourse-initial:
(i) Thief! Thief!
(ii) Your turn.
(iii) Higher!
(iv) (announcement of entry) Count Vorontsov.
(v) Three beers, please.
(vi) (in various contexts, identification or explanation:) Robs mom.
2.4.1. Arguments that favor ellipsis
Kinds of arguments that favor an ellipsis analysis ADDIN EN.CITE Barton200610037100375Barton, EllenProgovac, LiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenToward a nonsentential analysis in generative grammarThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary Perspectives11-312006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins(Barton 2006), citing ADDIN EN.CITE Morgan197310039100395Morgan, JerryKachru, B.Lees, R.Malkiel, Y.Pietrangeli, A.Saporta, S.Sentence fragments and the notion 'sentence'Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Rene Kahane719-7511973Urbana, ILUniversity of Illinois Press(Morgan 1973):
Syntactic connectivity arguments.
Subcategorization
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) A: What does John think? B: That Tricia is happy. / * For Tricia to be happy.
Compare: John thinks that Tricia is happy / *John thinks for Tricia to be happy.
Also compare: A: What does John want? B: For Tricia to be happy. /* That
A well-formed full-sentence source predicts a well-formed fragment.
Binding; islands; complete constituenthood
Three particularly strong kinds of arguments from Morgan ADDIN EN.CITE 197310039100395Morgan, JerryKachru, B.Lees, R.Malkiel, Y.Pietrangeli, A.Saporta, S.Sentence fragments and the notion 'sentence'Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Rene Kahane719-7511973Urbana, ILUniversity of Illinois Press(1973): (i) fragments that include binding phenomena, as in ( REF WhoDoesJohnWantToShave 18); (ii) island phenomena, as in ( REF DidTheManWhoArrestedMartha 19); and evidence that fragments have to constitute complete constituents that could occur in their source sentences, as illustrated in ( REF DoesMaryLikeTheSoprano 20) and ( REF DoesJohnWantToKissMartha 21).
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Who does Johni want to shave?
b. Himselfi. (Johni wants to shave himselfi.)
c. *Himi. (*Johni wants to shave himi.)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. A: Did the man who arrested Martha leave town?
B: No, the man who arrested Thelma.
b. B: *No, Thelma. (*No, Thelma, the man who arrested left town.) [but OK as correction rather than direct answer]
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. A: Does Mary like the soprano?
B: No, the tenor. (No, Mary likes the tenor.)
b. B: *No, tenor. (*No, Mary likes tenor.)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. A: Does John want to kiss Martha?
B: No, (to) hit her. (No, John wants to hit her.)
b. B: *No, (to) hit. (*No, John wants to hit.)
As Merchant ADDIN EN.CITE 200110007100076Merchant, JasonThe Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis2001OxfordOxford University Press2004100081000817Merchant, JasonFragments and ellipsisLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy661-738272004200610009100095Merchant, JasonProgovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, Ellen"Small structures": A sententialist perspectiveThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives73-912006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins2007100101001036Merchant, JasonThree kinds of ellipsis: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic?2007Chicago, University of ChicagoManuscript for a semantics workshop at Rutgers University October 2008http://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdfhttp://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdf(2001, 2004, 2006, 2007) has argued, Sluicing and Short Answers offer even stronger connectivity arguments in favor of an ellipsis analysis than VP ellipsis, since there are very clear constraints involving case, preposition selection, etc., which clearly rest on the details of the syntax of a given language.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. Mit wem hast du gesprochen? (German; Merchant 2006, p. 17)
with whom.dat have you spoken
With whom did you speak?
b. Mit Hans.
with Hans
c. *Hans
Hans
English would allow both. Merchant argues that this can be explained by the fact that English allows preposition-stranding and German does not; he argues that the constituent that forms a short answer must be moved to sentence initial position before the rest of the sentence is deleted. Merchants work is interesting and sometimes controversial.
2.4.2. Arguments that favor small structures
The key kinds of arguments that favor directly generating small structures ADDIN EN.CITE Barton200610037100375Barton, EllenProgovac, LiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenToward a nonsentential analysis in generative grammarThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary Perspectives11-312006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins(Barton 2006) consist of the syntactic and semantic independence of many nonsententials, ones that have no obvious anaphoric dependence, connectivity effects, or matching effects to any full-sentence sources in the discourse context.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) a. The time? [at a bus stop to a stranger]
b. Thief! Thief! [as a thief is running away]
c. Teamwork. [after winning tennis doubles.]
d. Your move. [during a chess game.]
Barton ADDIN EN.CITE 199010050100506Barton, EllenNonsentential Constituents: A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation1990Amsterdam/ PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins(1990) found examples for which a well-formed sentential source seems very problematic.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) A: The White House staff doesnt visit the Speaker of the House in his office.
B: Old grudge.
cf: *The White House staff doesnt visit the Speaker of the House in his office because of old grudge. (an article is required: because of an old grudge.)
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \l 1 ) A: Our classmate John is probably making a million a year by now.
B: John a successful businessman? Dont make me laugh.
As Barton notes, expressions like old grudge and John a successful businessman can certainly appear as parts of well-formed sentences; but an ellipsis theory would have to say more than that it would have to have general and predictable patterns relating the fragments to their putative sentential sources.
Morgan ADDIN EN.CITE 198910036100365Morgan, JerryMusic, B.Graczyk, R.Wiltshire, C.Sentence fragments revistedCLS Parasession on Language in Context228-2411989ChicagoChicago Linguistics Society(1989) and Barton ADDIN EN.CITE 1998100351003517Barton, EllenThe grammar of telegraphic structures: Sentential and nonsentential derivationJournal of English LinguisticsJournal of English Linguistics37-67261998(1998) both argued that some derivations should involve ellipsis and others should involve direct generation of nonsentential expressions, but they differ in emphasis. Morgan argued that most fragments should be derived through deletion, and only certain pragmatically immediate nonsententials should be derived through base generation. Barton argued that most nonsententials should be base generated, reserving ellipsis for those that show overt evidence of sentential derivation.
The Stainton-Merchant debate
The philosopher Robert Stainton ADDIN EN.CITE Stainton1995100151001517Stainton, R.J.Non-sentential assertions and semantic ellipsisLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy281-2961831995200410019100195Stainton, Robert J.Horn, LaurenceWard, GregoryThe pragmatics of non-sentencesHandbook of Pragmatics266-287. In L. Horn & G. Ward (eds.) . Oxford : , 2004, pp. .2004OxfordBlackwellhttp://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/The_Pragmatics_of_Non_Sentences.pdfhttp://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/The_Pragmatics_of_Non_Sentences.pdfStainton200610011100115Stainton, Robert J.Progovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenNeither fragments nor ellipsisThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives93-1162006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjaminshttp://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/Neither_Fragments_Nor_Ellipsis.pdfhttp://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/Neither_Fragments_Nor_Ellipsis.pdf200610038100386Stainton, Robert J.Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language2006OxfordOxford University PressElugardo2005100171001728Elugardo, ReinaldoStainton, Robert J.Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech2005DordrechtSpringer200510018100185Elugardo, ReinaldoStainton, Robert J.Elugardo, ReinaldoStainton, Robert J.IntroductionEllipsis and Nonsentential Speech2005DordrechtSpringerhttp://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/Ellipsis_and_NonSentential_Speech.pdfhttp://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/Ellipsis_and_NonSentential_Speech.pdf(Stainton 1995, 2004, Elugardo and Stainton 2005b, 2005a, Stainton 2006b, 2006a) argues that genuine speech acts such as asserting, asking, ordering, advising, etc., can be performed with the use of subsentential expressions, and argues for the need for a theory that allows for the combination at some pragmatic level of concepts that result from linguistic interpretation of overt linguistic forms and concepts that arise in other ways from interpreting the context. (Cf. the example we discussed in class one day of a deaf child making the sign for my/mine on a toy: the complete predication combined a linguistic sign for a predicate with a non-linguistic entity filling the semantic role of its subject. Stainton advocates interpreting a hearing childs one-word utterance Mine! similarly.)
Staintons position is disputed by a number of scholars including the philosopher Jason Stanley ADDIN EN.CITE 20007253725317Jason StanleyContext and logical formLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy391434232000https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Stanley2000L%26P.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Stanley2000L%26P.pdf(2000) and the linguist Jason Merchant ADDIN EN.CITE 2004100081000817Merchant, JasonFragments and ellipsisLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy661-738272004200610009100095Merchant, JasonProgovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, Ellen"Small structures": A sententialist perspectiveThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives73-912006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins2007100101001036Merchant, JasonThree kinds of ellipsis: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic?2007Chicago, University of ChicagoManuscript for a semantics workshop at Rutgers University October 2008http://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdfhttp://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdf(2004, 2006, 2007).
Let me follow Merchant ADDIN EN.CITE 2007100101001036Merchant, JasonThree kinds of ellipsis: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic?2007Chicago, University of ChicagoManuscript for a semantics workshop at Rutgers University October 2008http://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdfhttp://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdf(2007) in introducing the issues and three main alternatives. Merchant describes Staintons distinction among syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic ellipsis. We can illustrate them using the example of VP ellipsis in English: (example from Merchant 2007)
(4) a. Bill should collect butterflies. Jill should, too.
b. Bill should collect butterflies. Jill should collect butterflies, too.
(i) Full syntactic and semantic sentential structure present; only phonologically deleted. (This is a real ellipsis analysis.) Syntactic ellipsis or ellipsissyntactic in the terminology of Stainton ADDIN EN.CITE 200610038100386Stainton, Robert J.Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language2006OxfordOxford University Press(2006a) and Merchant 2007. Examples (4a) and (4b) are alike except for their pronunciation.
(ii) Syntactically there is no structure there, just something like an empty VP. Semantically, all the same semantic content is there in (4b) as in (4a), somehow copied from the antecedent. Semantic ellipsis or ellipsissemantic in the terminology of Stainton ADDIN EN.CITE 200610038100386Stainton, Robert J.Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language2006OxfordOxford University Press(2006a) and Merchant 2007. (This way of looking at it makes most sense if there is some semantic representation, like a level of LF or a Jackendovian level of conceptual structure. It makes no clear sense in model-theoretic semantics, where it has been more common to propose a single VP-type variable for the missing VP, which can get its value from the antecedent -- see ADDIN EN.CITE Partee1981785078505Partee, Barbara H.Bach, EmmonJ. GroenendijkT. JanssenM. StokhofQuantification, pronouns and VP anaphoraFormal Methods in the Study of Language445-4811981AmsterdamMathematisch Centrumhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdf(Partee and Bach 1981) and the earlier works cited there.)
(iii) Pragmatic ellipsis or Fragment analysis: Neither syntactically nor semantically is there a VP or a VP meaning present. Both syntactically and semantically, (4a) and (4b) are different: the second sentence in (4b) expresses a full proposition, whereas the linguistic expression in the second part of (4a) is something less than a sentence and expresses something that would need to be combined with a VP meaning to make a proposition. If the context provides a suitable VP-type meaning, it can be combined with the overt content of (4b) to form a full proposition the same one that is expressed overtly by (4a). Stainton calls this Pragmatic ellipsis or ellipsispragmatic. What is special in Pragmatic ellipsis is that one constituent of the final resulting proposition is derived linguistically and the other part non-linguistically.
In the case of VP ellipsis, there are a number of classic arguments for syntactic ellipsis; and Stainton and Barton both agree that arguments for ellipsis in that case and in the case of Sluicing are quite strong, though there have been counter-arguments as well. But for some other kinds of fragments, such as the various short and possibly discourse-initial expressions in ( REF ListOfEllipsisAndFragmentExamples 16f) and ( REF BartonFragmentList 22) the case for pragmatic ellipsis is quite strong and no clear arguments against it have been found. It seems likely that all three sorts are real.
For discussion of interesting mismatches between theoretical predictions and experimental findings with VP ellipsis, see ADDIN EN.CITE Frazier2006100121001217Frazier, LynClifton, Charles, Jr.Ellipsis and discourse coherenceLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy315-346292006https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/FrazierClifton2006L%26P.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/FrazierClifton2006L%26P.pdf(Frazier and Clifton 2006). Note: in addition to the references that exist online, I have and can xerox for anyone interested the book ADDIN EN.CITE Progovac2006100041000428Progovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenAbraham, Wernervan Gelderen, EllyThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives2006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Pub. Co.(Progovac et al. 2006a), which contains, among other things, ADDIN EN.CITE Progovac200610005100055Progovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenProgovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenIntroductionThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives1-92006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaBenjaminsProgovac200610006100065Progovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenProgovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenEpilogue: Wherefrom and whereto?The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives323-3532006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn BenjaminsMerchant200610009100095Merchant, JasonProgovac, LjiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, Ellen"Small structures": A sententialist perspectiveThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives73-912006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn BenjaminsBarton200610037100375Barton, EllenProgovac, LiljanaPaesani, KateCasielles, EugeniaBarton, EllenToward a nonsentential analysis in generative grammarThe Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary Perspectives11-312006Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins(Barton 2006, Merchant 2006, Progovac et al. 2006c, Progovac et al. 2006b).
3. Typological issue: VP deletion and null complement anaphora
One of the difficult cases, and one for which there is interesting cross-linguistic variation, concerns Null Complement Anaphora, illustrated above with ( REF ListOfEllipsisAndFragmentExamples 16e).
Typological issue: What is the relationship among English VP deletion and the use of bare verb anaphora in other languages: Japanese, Korean, Russian, other?
There are debates about whether null complement anaphora in Romance is deep or surface anaphora; see the abstract HYPERLINK "http://www.ulcl.leidenuniv.nl/content_docs/conferences/2004/goingromance/cyrino_and_matos.pdf" http://www.ulcl.leidenuniv.nl/content_docs/conferences/2004/goingromance/cyrino_and_matos.pdf. Other very relevant references include ADDIN EN.CITE Hoji1998100221002217Hoji, HajimeNull object and sloppy identity in JapaneseLinguistic InquiryLinguistic Inquiry127-152291998https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/HojiLI1998.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/HojiLI1998.pdf(Hoji 1998), ADDIN EN.CITE Depiante2001100511005117Depiante, M.On null complement anaphora in Spanish and ItalianProbusProbus193-221132001(Depiante 2001), and a paper on Korean that I have but havent put on the web because its a 6MB file -- ADDIN EN.CITE Kang2007100321003217Kang, Nam-KilSloppy identity, VP ellipsis, and null anaphoraThe Jungang Journal of English Literature and LinguisticsThe Jungang Journal of English Literature and Linguistics1-2092007(Kang 2007).
4. Further issues. Complexities in the data. Formal theories.
Advanced topic: More complex data involving strict and sloppy identity, mixed readings, etc. Also relations between ellipsis and deaccenting.
Main references: ADDIN EN.CITE Dalrymple19911253125317Dalrymple, MaryShieber, Stuart M.Pereira, Fernando C. N.Ellipsis and higher-order unificationLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy399-452141991http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/cmp-lg9503008.pdfhttp://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/cmp-lg9503008.pdfShieber1996100301003017Shieber, StuartPereira, Fernando C. N.Dalrymple, MaryInteractions of scope and ellipsisLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy527-55219.551996http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/quant-ellipsis.pdfhttp://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/quant-ellipsis.pdfRooth1992467646765Rooth, MatsBerman, Steve Hestvik, Arild Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancyProceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, "Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen fr die Computerlinguistik"Bericht Nr. 291992HeidelbergIBM Germanyftp://ftp.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/papers/mats/ellipsis.ps.gz (Dalrymple et al. 1991, Rooth 1992, Shieber et al. 1996)
Additional references: ADDIN EN.CITE Jger1997267726775Jger, GerhardDekker, PaulStokhof, MartinVenema, YdeAnaphora and ellipsis in type logical grammarProceedings of the eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium175-1801997ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdamhttp://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/paperac97.pdfhttp://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/paperac97.pdf(Jger 1997) difficult to read without background in type-logical grammar, but short with great bunch of examples illustrating issues.
ADDIN EN.CITE Dahl197410027100275Dahl, stenHow to open a sentenceLogical Grammar Report, number 121974GothenburgUniversity of GothenburgGardent199710028100285Gardent, ClaireParallelism, HOU and deaccentingClaus Report 85Claire Gardent. Parallelism, HOU and deaccenting. Claus Report 85, 1997.
Universitat des Saarlandes, Saarbrucken.1997Saarbrcken: Universitt des SaarlandesSzabolcsi1987894189415Szabolcsi, A.Groenendijk, J.Stokhof, M.Veltman, F.Bound variables in syntax: are there any?Proceedings of the 6th Amsterdam Colloquium331-3511987AmsterdamITLI, University of Amsterdamhttp://homepages.nyu.edu/~as109/Szabolcsi_Bound%20Variables_1987.pdfhttp://homepages.nyu.edu/~as109/Szabolcsi_Bound%20Variables_1987.pdfJger200110031100315Jger, GerhardMoortgat, MichaelAnaphora and quantification in Categorial GrammarLogical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 201470-902001Springerhttp://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/lacl.pdfhttp://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/lacl.pdf(Dahl 1974, Szabolcsi 1987, Gardent 1997, Jger 2001)
Other miscellaneous references to make sure theyre included in the References list: ADDIN EN.CITE Lasnik2006100261002636Lasnik, HowardOn ellipsis: Is material that is phonetically absent but semantically present present or absent syntactically? 2006Handout: 22nd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, University of Aalborg.Handout: 22nd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, University of Aalborg.http://www.ling.umd.edu/~lasnik/Lasnik%20manuscripts/Lasnik%20Denmark%20ms%20A4.pdfhttp://www.ling.umd.edu/~lasnik/Lasnik%20manuscripts/Lasnik%20Denmark%20ms%20A4.pdfLasnik200710025100255Lasnik, HowardOn Ellipsis: The PF Approach to Missing ConstituentsUniversity of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 151431532007College Park, MDJohnson2001984598455Johnson, KyleMark BaltinChris Collins What VP ellipsis can do, what it can't, but not why The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory439-4792001OxfordBlackwell Publishershttp://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/what_vpe_can_do.pdfhttp://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/what_vpe_can_do.pdfHardt19939844984432Hardt, DanielVerb Phrase Ellipis: Form, Meaning, and ProcessingPh.D.1993PhiladelphiaUniversity of PennsylvaniaPh. D. dissertation, published as Technical Report No. IRCS-93-23http://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/182/http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=ircs_reportsFrazier2006100121001217Frazier, LynClifton, Charles, Jr.Ellipsis and discourse coherenceLinguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy315-346292006https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/FrazierClifton2006L%26P.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/FrazierClifton2006L%26P.pdfCulicover2005983798376Culicover, Peter W.Jackendoff, RaySimpler syntaxOxford linguistics.xvii, 589Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax.2005Oxford ; New YorkOxford University Press0199271089 (hbk.)
0199271097 (pbk.)P291 .c795 2005
P291Asher2001100131001317Asher, NicholasHardt, DanielBusquets, JoanDiscourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguityJournal of SemanticsJournal of SemanticsJournal of Semantics1812001http://www.id.cbs.dk/~dh/papers/jpaper1.pdfhttp://www.id.cbs.dk/~dh/papers/jpaper1.pdfPartee1975922992295Partee, Barbara H.Edward KeenanDeletion and variable bindingFormal Semantics of Natural Languages16-341975CambridgeCambridge University Presshttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tk0ZDc1Z/Partee1989882288225Barbara ParteeWiltshire, C.Music, B.Graczyk, R.Binding implicit variables in quantified contextsCLS 25: Papers from the Twenty Fifth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society342-3651989ChicagoChicago Linguistic Societyhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee89_BindingImplicitVar.pdfhttps://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee89_BindingImplicitVar.pdfPartee1981785078505Partee, Barbara H.Bach, EmmonJ. GroenendijkT. JanssenM. StokhofQuantification, pronouns and VP anaphoraFormal Methods in the Study of Language445-4811981AmsterdamMathematisch Centrumhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdfhttp://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdf(Partee 1975, Partee and Bach 1981, Partee 1989, Hardt 1993, Asher et al. 2001, Johnson 2001, Culicover and Jackendoff 2005, Frazier and Clifton 2006, Lasnik 2006, Lasnik 2007)
References
ADDIN EN.REFLIST Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, and Francesco d'Introno. 2001. Full and null pronouns in Spanish: the Zero Pronoun Hypothesis. In Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millenium, ed. Hctor Campos et al., 189-210. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. HYPERLINK "http://www.alonso-ovalle.net/papers/Pronouns.pdf" http://www.alonso-ovalle.net/papers/Pronouns.pdf
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis et al. 2002. Null vs. overt pronouns and the Topic-Focus Articulation in Spanish. Rivista di Linguistica 14.2. HYPERLINK "http://people.umass.edu/cec/nullversusovert.pdf" http://people.umass.edu/cec/nullversusovert.pdf
Asher, Nicholas, Daniel Hardt, and Joan Busquets. 2001. Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity. Journal of Semantics 18. HYPERLINK "http://www.id.cbs.dk/~dh/papers/jpaper1.pdf" http://www.id.cbs.dk/~dh/papers/jpaper1.pdf
Barton, Ellen. 1990. Nonsentential Constituents: A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barton, Ellen. 1998. The grammar of telegraphic structures: Sentential and nonsentential derivation. Journal of English Linguistics 26:37-67.
Barton, Ellen. 2006. Toward a nonsentential analysis in generative grammar. In The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, eds. Liljana Progovac et al., 11-31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bouma, Gosse. 1988. Modifiers and Specifiers in Categorial Unification Grammar. Linguistics 26:21-46.
Carlson, Gregory. 2006. Anaphora. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Carlson2006anaphora.pdf
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures: With Applications to Unification Grammars, Logic Programs, and Constraint Resolution: Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science; 32. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and Parameters Theory. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, eds. Joachim Jacobs et al., 506-569. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Clocksin, William, and Christopher Mellish. 1981. Programming in Prolog. Berlin: Springer.
Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax: Oxford linguistics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, sten. 1974. How to open a sentence. In Logical Grammar Report, number 12. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Dalrymple, Mary. 1991. Against Reconstruction in Ellipsis: Xerox Technical Report. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox PARC.
Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart M. Shieber, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14:399-452. HYPERLINK "http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/cmp-lg9503008.pdf" http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/cmp-lg9503008.pdf
Depiante, M. 2001. On null complement anaphora in Spanish and Italian. Probus 13:193-221.
Elugardo, Reinaldo, and Robert J. Stainton. 2005a. Introduction. In Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech, eds. Reinaldo Elugardo and Robert J. Stainton. Dordrecht: Springer. HYPERLINK "http://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/Ellipsis_and_NonSentential_Speech.pdf" http://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/Ellipsis_and_NonSentential_Speech.pdf
Elugardo, Reinaldo, and Robert J. Stainton eds. 2005b. Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech. Dordrecht: Springer.
Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Frazier, Lyn, and Charles Clifton, Jr. 2006. Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy 29:315-346. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/FrazierClifton2006L%26P.pdf
Gardent, Claire, and Michael Kohlhase. 1996. Higher-order coloured unification and natural language semantics. Saarbrcken: Computerlinguistik an der Universitt des Saarlandes.
Gardent, Claire. 1997. Parallelism, HOU and deaccenting. In Claus Report 85. Saarbrcken: Universitt des Saarlandes.
Gardent, Claire. 2000. Deaccenting and Higher-Order Unification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9.3:313-338. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/Gardent2000JoLLI.pdf
Gazdar, Gerald, and Christopher Mellish. 1989. Natural Language Processing in Prolog: Addison-Wesley.
Grel, Ayse. 2003. Is the Overt Pronoun Constraint universal? Evidence from L2 Turkish. In Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002), ed. Juana M. Liceras et al., 130-139. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. HYPERLINK "http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/6/paper1037.pdf" http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/6/paper1037.pdf
Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7:391-426.
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb Phrase Ellipis: Form, Meaning, and Processing, University of Pennsylvania: Ph. D. dissertation, published as Technical Report No. IRCS-93-23. HYPERLINK "http://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/182/" http://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/182/
Hardt, Daniel. 1999. Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:187-221.
Hoji, Hajime. 1998. Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29:127-152. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/HojiLI1998.pdf
Hoji, Hajime. 2003. Surface and deep anaphora, sloppy identity, and experiments in syntax. In Anaphora: A Reference Guide, ed. Andrew Barss, 172-236. Oxford: Blackwell. HYPERLINK "http://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdf" http://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~ueyama/ggesdocu/GGESpapers-public/HajimeHoji/Arizona6-03-01Usual.pdf
Hoji, Hajime. ms. 2003. Sloppy Identity in Surface and Deep Anaphora. Ms. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. HYPERLINK "http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdf" http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~hoji/Syntax+_031029-4.pdf
Jger, Gerhard. 1997. Anaphora and ellipsis in type logical grammar. In Proceedings of the eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium, eds. Paul Dekker et al., 175-180: ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam. HYPERLINK "http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/paperac97.pdf" http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/paperac97.pdf
Jger, Gerhard. 2001. Anaphora and quantification in Categorial Grammar. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2014, ed. Michael Moortgat, 70-90. Springer. HYPERLINK "http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/lacl.pdf" http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/gjaeger/publications/lacl.pdf
Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, what it can't, but not why. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, eds. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 439-479. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. HYPERLINK "http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/what_vpe_can_do.pdf" http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/what_vpe_can_do.pdf
Joshi, Aravind K. 1987. Unification and some new grammatical formalisms. In TINLAP-3, 43-48.
Kang, Nam-Kil. 2007. Sloppy identity, VP ellipsis, and null anaphora. The Jungang Journal of English Literature and Linguistics 9:1-20.
Kasper, Robert T.; Rounds, William C. 1990. The Logic of Unification in Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 13:35-58.
Kay, Martin. 1985a. Unification in grammar. In Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, ed. Veronica Dahl and Patrick Saint-Dizier, 233-240. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kay, Martin. 1985b. Parsing in functional unification grammar. In Natural Language Parsing, ed. Lauri Karttunen and Arnold M. Zwicky David R. Dowty, 251-278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keenan, Edward L. 1971. Names, quantifiers, and a solution to the sloppy identity problem. Papers in Linguistics 4.1.
Klein, Ewan. 1987. VP Ellipsis in DR theory. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk et al., 161-187. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tense. In SALT VIII: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 1998, eds. Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson, 92-110. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University. HYPERLINK "http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdf" http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY1NDFkM/Tenses.and.Pronouns.pdf
Lasnik, Howard. 2006. On ellipsis: Is material that is phonetically absent but semantically present present or absent syntactically? Ms. Handout: 22nd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, University of Aalborg. HYPERLINK "http://www.ling.umd.edu/~lasnik/Lasnik%20manuscripts/Lasnik%20Denmark%20ms%20A4.pdf" http://www.ling.umd.edu/~lasnik/Lasnik%20manuscripts/Lasnik%20Denmark%20ms%20A4.pdf
Lasnik, Howard. 2007. On Ellipsis: The PF Approach to Missing Constituents. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 143153. College Park, MD.
Matsuo, Ayumi. 2007. Differing interpretations of empty categories in English and Japanese VP Ellipsis contexts. Language Acquisition 14.1:3-29.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:661-738.
Merchant, Jason. 2006. "Small structures": A sententialist perspective. In The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives, eds. Ljiljana Progovac et al., 73-91. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Merchant, Jason. 2007. Three kinds of ellipsis: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic? Ms. Chicago, University of Chicago. HYPERLINK "http://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdf" http://home.uchicago.edu/~merchant/pubs/erniefest.pdf
Montalbetti, Mario. 1984. After Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
Morgan, Jerry. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion 'sentence'. In Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Rene Kahane, eds. B. Kachru et al., 719-751. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Morgan, Jerry. 1989. Sentence fragments revisted. In CLS Parasession on Language in Context, eds. B. Music et al., 228-241. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Otsuka, Yukio. 2001. Empty Categories in Tuvaluan: NP-trace, PRO, pro, or variable? Oceanic Linguistics 40.2:342-365.
Partee, Barbara. 1989. Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In CLS 25: Papers from the Twenty Fifth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. C. Wiltshire et al., 342-365. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. [Reprinted in Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 259-281]. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee89_BindingImplicitVar.pdf
Partee, Barbara H. 1975. Deletion and variable binding. In Formal Semantics of Natural Languages, ed. Edward Keenan, 16-34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HYPERLINK "http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tk0ZDc1Z/" http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tk0ZDc1Z/
Partee, Barbara H., and Emmon Bach. 1981. Quantification, pronouns and VP anaphora. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, eds. J. Groenendijk et al., 445-481. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. [Reprinted in J.Groenendijk, T.Janssen, and M.Stokhof, eds., Truth, Information and Interpretation: Selected Papers from the Third Amsterdam Colloquium, Dordrecht: Foris, 99-130.]. HYPERLINK "http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdf" http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jAwNjhhM/BHP_Bach81QuantificationPronounsVPAnaphora.pdf
Pereira, Fernando C.N. 1985a. Parsing and deduction. Paper presented at Proceedings of an International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, University of Rennes.
Pereira, Fernando C.N. 1985b. A structure-sharing representation for unification-based grammar formalisms. Paper presented at ACL Proceedings, 23rd Annual Meeting.
Pereira, Fernando C.N., and Stuart M. Shieber. 1987. Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis.vol. 10. Stanford SR:CSLI Lecture Notes: Chicago University Press.
Pereira, Fernando C.N.; Warren, David H.D. 1986 (1980). Definite clause grammars for language analysis. In Readings in Natural Language Processing, ed. Karen Sparck-Jones and Bonnie Lynn Webber Barbara J. Grosz, 101-124. Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.
Progovac, Ljiljana et al. eds. 2006a. The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Progovac, Ljiljana et al. 2006b. Epilogue: Wherefrom and whereto? In The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives, eds. Ljiljana Progovac et al., 323-353. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Progovac, Ljiljana et al. 2006c. Introduction. In The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives, eds. Ljiljana Progovac et al., 1-9. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Rooth, Mats. 1981. A comparison of three different theories of verb phrase ellipsis. In UMass Occasional Papers in Linguistics (UMOP), eds. Wynn Chao and Deirdre Wheeler. Amherst: GLSA, UMass.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, "Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen fr die Computerlinguistik", eds. Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik. Heidelberg: IBM Germany. HYPERLINK "ftp://ftp.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/papers/mats/ellipsis.ps.gz" ftp://ftp.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/papers/mats/ellipsis.ps.gz
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax, MIT: Ph.D. dissertation.
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form, M.I.T.: Ph.D. dissertation. HYPERLINK "http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16401" http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16401 to read online only
Saito, Mamoru, and Hajime Hoji. 1983. Weak Crossover and Move-alpha in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1:245-259.
Schwarz, Bernhard. 2000. Topics in Ellipsis, Linguistics, University of Massachusetts: Ph.D.
Shieber, Stuart, Fernando C. N. Pereira, and Mary Dalrymple. 1996. Interactions of scope and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 19.5:527-552. HYPERLINK "http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/quant-ellipsis.pdf" http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/quant-ellipsis.pdf
Shieber, Stuart, e.a. 1985. Notes from the Unification Underground: A Compilation of Papers on Unification-Based Grammar Formalisms SRI International, Technical Note 327.
Shieber, Stuart M. 1986. An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stainton, R.J. 1995. Non-sentential assertions and semantic ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 18:281-296.
Stainton, Robert J. 2004. The pragmatics of non-sentences. In Handbook of Pragmatics, eds. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 266-287. Oxford: Blackwell. HYPERLINK "http://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/The_Pragmatics_of_Non_Sentences.pdf" http://publish.uwo.ca/~rstainto/papers/The_Pra
3 4 5 6 M N O P l m n o |nenK|n@ hica mH nH u 2j hL hica >*B*UmH nH ph u hica mH nH uhL hica 0J mH nH u$j hL hica 0J UmH nH u hy j hy UhB hH CJ aJ +h: hH 5CJ \aJ fH q
+hM hM 5CJ \aJ fH q
h: hH 5CJ aJ hM 5CJ aJ h: hpQ 5CJ aJ h: h^ 5CJ aJ 4 5 7
l
` o O
@ e s # ' + + . <