Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Division of Labor in Explanations of Verb Phrase Ellipsis.Christina S. Kim & Jeffrey T. Runner - 2018 - Linguistics and Philosophy 41 (1):41-85.
    In this paper, we will argue that, of the various grammatical and discourse constraints that affect acceptability in Verb Phrase Ellipsis, only the structural parallelism constraint is unique to VPE. We outline systematic problems that arise for classical structural accounts of VPE resolution, and discuss efforts in recent research on VPE to reduce explanations of acceptability in VPE to general well-formedness constraints at the level of information structure [e.g. Kehler, 2000, 2002, Kertz, 2013, Kehler, 2015]. In two magnitude estimation experiments, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dynamic Update Anaphora Logic: A Simple Analysis of Complex Anaphora.Ezra Keshet - 2018 - Journal of Semantics 35 (2):263-303.
    An antecedent relationship may hold between an indefinite and a pronoun across non-quantified sentences (‘Jane bought a book. She read it immediately.‘), from the restrictor to the nuclear scope of a single quantified sentence (‘Every woman who bought a book read it immediately.‘; Geach 1962), and even across two quantified sentences (‘Every woman bought a book. Most read it immediately.‘; Sells 1985). First-generation dynamic semantic systems (Kamp 1981; Heim 1983; Groenendijk & Stokhof 1991) cannot handle anaphora across quantified sentences, but (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Coherence and the Resolution of Ellipsis.Andrew Kehler - 2000 - Linguistics and Philosophy 23 (6):533-575.
    Despite the attention that various forms of ellipsis have received inthe literature, the conditions under which a representation of anutterance may serve as a suitable referent for interpreting subsequentelliptical forms remain poorly understood. This fundamental questionremains as a point of contention, particularly because there are datato support various conflicting approaches that attempt to characterizethese conditions within a single module of language processing. Weshow a previously unnoticed pattern in VP-ellipsis data with respectto the type of coherence relation extant between the antecedentand (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Do We Need Dynamic Semantics?Karen S. Lewis - 2014 - In Alexis Burgess & Brett Sherman (eds.), Metasemantics: New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning. Oxford University Press. pp. 231-258.
    I suspect the answer to the question in the title of this paper is no. But the scope of my paper will be considerably more limited: I will be concerned with whether certain types of considerations that are commonly cited in favor of dynamic semantics do in fact push us towards a dynamic semantics. Ultimately, I will argue that the evidence points to a dynamics of discourse that is best treated pragmatically, rather than as part of the semantics.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Three Kinds of Ellipsis: Syntactic, Semantic, Pragmatic?Jason Merchant - 2010 - In Francois Recanati, IIsidora Stojanovic & Neftali Villanueva (eds.), Context-Dependence, Perspective, and Relativity (pp. 141-192).
    The term ‘ellipsis’ can be used to refer to a variety of phenomena: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. In this article, I discuss the recent comprehensive survey by Stainton 2006 of these kinds of ellipsis with respect to the analysis of nonsententials and try to show that despite his trenchant criticisms and insightful proposal, some of the criticisms can be evaded and the insights incorporated into a semantic ellipsis analysis, making a ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy to the properties of nonsententials feasible after all. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What It Can't, but Not Why.Kyle Johnson - 2001 - In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell. pp. 439--479.
  • Designing Meaningful Agents.Matthew Stone - 2004 - Cognitive Science 28 (5):781-809.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dynamic Discourse Referents for Tense and Modals.Matthew Stone & Daniel Hardt - 1999 - In Harry Bunt & Reinhard Muskins (eds.), Computing Meaning. Kluwer. pp. 302-321.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Declarative Programming for Natural Language Generation.Matthew Stone - manuscript
    Algorithms for NLG NLG is typically broken down into stages of discourse planning (to select information and organize it into coherent paragraphs), sentence planning (to choose words and structures to fit information into sentence-sized units), and realization (to determine surface form of output, including word order, morphology and final formatting or intonation). The SPUD system combines the generation steps of sentence planning and surface realization by using a lexicalized grammar to construct the syntax and semantics of a sentence simultaneously.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Interpretation of Traces.Uli Sauerland - 2004 - Natural Language Semantics 12 (1):63-127.
    This paper argues that parts of the lexical content of an A-bar moved phrase must be interpreted in the base position of movement. The argument is based on a study of deletion of a phrase that contains the base position of movement. I show that deletion licensing is sensitive to the content of the moved phrase. In this way, I corroborate and extend conclusions based on Condition C reconstruction by N. Chomsky and D. Fox. My result provides semantic evidence for (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • WCO, ACD, and the Positions of Subjects.Jason Merchant - manuscript
    This paper presents a brief argument from the interaction of weak crossover (WCO), antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), and other facts of VP-ellipsis that subjects are base-generated in a predicateinternal position but move through an intermediate A-position on their way to their final landing site (the specifier of TP) and can take scope in this intermediate position.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Ellipsis and Discourse Coherence.Lyn Frazier & Charles Clifton - 2006 - Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (3):315-346.
    VP ellipsis generally requires a syntactically matching antecedent. However, many documented examples exist where the antecedent is not appropriate. Kehler, 533–575. 2002, Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammer, CSLI Publications. Stanford.) proposed an elegant theory which predicts a syntactic antecedent for an elided VP is required only for a certain discourse coherence relation, not for cause-effect relations. Most of the data Kehler used to motivate his theory come from corpus studies and thus do not consist of true minimal pairs. (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Grammar Versus Pragmatics: Carving Nature at the Joints.Luisa Martí - 2015 - Mind and Language 30 (4):437-473.
    I argue that the debate on the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics, at least as it pertains to pragmatic free enrichment, needs to be better grounded empirically. Often, only a reduced set of facts from English is used to substantiate claims regarding pragmatic free enrichment. But considering a reduced set of facts from a single language can only afford limited results, because we can merely see whatever this one language chooses to express. Two cases studies are presented: adjectival (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Condition B Effects in Two Simple Steps.Floris Roelofsen - 2010 - Natural Language Semantics 18 (2):115-140.
    This paper is concerned with constraints on the interpretation of pronominal anaphora, in particular Condition B effects. It aims to contribute to a particular approach, initiated by Reinhart (Anaphora and semantic interpretation, 1983) and further developed elsewhere. It proposes a modification of Reinhart’s Interface Rule, and argues that the resulting theory compares favorably with others, while being compatible with independently motivated general hypotheses about the interaction between different interpretive mechanisms.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark