The Semantics of Ellipsis
Yüklə 152,99 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 4 Conclusion
- Bibliography
The Semantics of Ellipsis 101
3.4 Tomioka 1999 Tomioka 1999 analyzes binderless sloppy readings by proposing that the pro- nouns in such cases are actually donkey pronouns. He follows Cooper (1979) in supposing that donkey pronouns are interpreted as definite descriptions contain- ing bound variables. So the overt read him his rights in (110) means something like “read the person he arrested his rights,” with “he” bound by the subject. (110) The policeman who arrested John read him his rights, but the policeman who arrested Bill didn’t. We understand the same meaning at the ellipsis site and the correct reading is obtained. We know, however, that the descriptive content of donkey pronouns can- not be obtained so flexibly, just by picking up contextually salient relations. If it could, the following examples would have the same status (Heim 1990, Elbourne 2001): (111)
a. Every man who has a wife is sitting next to her. b. ?? Every married man is sitting next to her. In particular, (111b) would be fully felicitous, since her could mean “the person he is married to.” This is not the case, however, meaning that the mechanism relied on by Tomioka is problematic. There are also problems with the assump- tion that donkey pronouns can contain bound individual variables. See Elbourne 2001 for further discussion. Tomioka (1999) does not discuss ellipsis-containing antecedents or split an- tecedents. stipulation. Alphabetic variants are not equivalent in dynamic systems, unlike in traditional logics. It matters whether we say, for example, ∃xP x or ∃yP y, since the former but not the latter will be able to bind a syntactically free variable x that occurs in a later formula. As far as I can see, then, it is not only stipulative but actually illegal to solve the current problem by relying on the notion of alphabetic variance.
102 Paul Elbourne 3.5 Schwarz 2000 Schwarz (2000, Chapter 5) analyzes cases of ellipsis-containing antecedents that involve VP-ellipsis within VP-ellipsis by having the VPs scope out and bind variables in both their overt positions and the ellipsis sites. So (112) has the LF in (113). (112)
When John had to cook, he didn’t want to. When he had to clean, he didn’t either. (113) [cook] λQ[when John had to Q he didn’t want to Q] [clean] λQ[when he had to Q he didn’t want to Q] It can be seen that the correct interpretation would result, and the antecedent and elided VPs are now identical. But surely we should assume, unless forced to do otherwise, that LF movement of VPs respects what we know about islands. Phrases cannot, of course, generally move out of when-clauses. The theory ad- vocated in the current article does not posit any abnormal movement. Schwaz (2000) does not attempt to analyze binderless sloppy readings or split antecedents. 4 Conclusion I will refrain from summarizing my theory in this section, since I have done so already in (99). I will merely note two possible extensions of it that could profitably be explored in future research. The question at issue concerns to what extent the new definite description structure for VPs and NPs, which I have cau- tiously posited so far only in split antecedent cases of ellipsis, should extended to other syntactic categories and other kinds of occasion. First, since I have concentrated on VP-ellipsis and NP-deletion in this arti- cle, we should ask whether the LF apparatus introduced here has counterparts in other kinds of ellipsis too, such as pseudo-gapping and sluicing. The answer The Semantics of Ellipsis 103
presumably depends on whether other kinds of ellipsis display split antecedent effects, since it was these cases that necessitated the new structures for NPs and VPs in the current theory. A possible indicator in the case of sluicing is (114): (114)
Either John called someone or Mary called someone, but I don’t know who.
This seems to have a reading “. . . but I don’t know who was called by whichever one of them it was.” This split antecedent interpretation constitutes evidence for extending the present theory at least to sluicing. Second, we should ask whether some pronounced VPs and NPs might have the kind of definite description structure posited in this article. Evidence that this might be so comes from the so-called “respectively” readings of sentences like (115). (115)
You and I did everything that Mary and Jane did. Mary swam the En- glish Channel, and Jane climbed Kilimanjaro, and you and I swam the English Channel and climbed Kilimanjaro too. Fiengo and May (1994:197) point out this sentence has a reading “You and I swam the English Channel and climbed Kilimanjaro respectively.” In other words, we get the split antecedent interpretation without ellipsis in cases like this. Reverting to our former schema, we might paraphrase it “You and I per- formed the action or actions out of swimming the English Channel and climbing Kilimanjaro that were done by the person we were imitating.” This is strong ev- idence for elements of the VP structure posited in this article being present in a pronounced VP.
104 Paul Elbourne Bibliography Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MITWPL. Burge, Tyler. 1973. Reference and proper names. The Journal of Philosophy 70, 425–39. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cooper, Robin. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. In Frank Heny and Hel- mut Schnelle, eds., Syntax and Semantics 10: Selections from the Third Gr¨oningen Round Table, 61–92. New York: Academic Press. Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart Shieber and Fernando Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and high- er-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 399–452. Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Nicolas Resch- er, ed., The logic of decision and action, 81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Se-
Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Presuppositional demonstratives. Ms., Universit¨at Pots- dam. Elbourne, Paul. Forthcoming. Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fiengo, Robert and Robert May. 1994. Indices and Identity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. von Fintel, Kai. 2004. Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions.) In Anne Bezuidenhout and
The Semantics of Ellipsis 105
Marga Reimer, eds., Descriptions and beyond: an interdisciplinary col- lection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena, 315–341. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Frege, Gottlob. 1893. ¨ Uber Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift f¨ur Philosophie und
ence’, in Peter Geach and Max Black, eds., Translations from the philo- sophical writings of Gottlob Frege, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell.] Grosz, Barbara, Aravind Joshi and Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: a frame- work for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Lin-
Hankamer, Jorge and Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391–426. Hardt, Dan. 1999. Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 187–221. Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Phi- losophy 13, 137–177. Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Arnim von Stechow and Di- eter Wunderlich, eds., Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeit-
Heim, Irene. 1996. Lecture notes on ellipsis. Lecture notes, MIT. Heim, Irene. 2005. Features on bound pronouns: semantics or syntax? Talk given at Semantiknetzwerk workshop, ZAS, May 2005. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Ox- ford: Blackwell. Jacobson, Pauline. 1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and
106 Paul Elbourne Jacobson, Pauline. 2000. Paycheck pronouns, Bach-Peters sentences, and var- iable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8, 77–155. Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 439–479. Oxford: Blackwell. Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen and Martin Stokhof, eds., Formal methods in
Keenan, Edward. 1971. Names, quantifiers, and a solution to the sloppy identity problem. Papers in Linguistics 4(2). Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII, ed. by Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson, 92–110. Ithaca, N.Y.,: Cornell University, CLC Publications. Krifka, Manfred. 1990. Boolean and non-boolean and. In L´aszl´o K´alm´an and L´aszl´o P´olos, eds., Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Lan- guage. Budapest: Akad´emiai Kiad´o. Larson, Richard and Gabriel Segal. 1995. Knowledge of Meaning. An Introduc- tion to Semantic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, Conjunction and Events. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice- theoretical approach. In Rainer B¨auerle, Christoph Schwarze and Arnim von Stechow, eds., Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 302– 323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.[Also published in Godehard Link, Al- The Semantics of Ellipsis 107
gebraic semantics in language and philosophy, 11–34, Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998.] Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: a theory of N-move- ment in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609–665. May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Sluicing, islands, and the theory
Merchant, Jason. Forthcoming. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philos- ophy. Neale, Stephen. 1990. Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Neale, Stephen. 2005. Pragmatism and binding. In Zolt´an Gendler Szab´o, ed.,
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Postal, Paul. 1966. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In F. Dinneen, ed., Re- port on the seventeenth annual round table meeting on linguistics and language studies, 177–206. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Pr¨ust, Hub, Remko Scha and Martin van den Berg. 1994. Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 17: 261–327. Pylkk¨anen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Recanati, Franc¸ois. 1993. Direct reference. From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
108 Paul Elbourne Rooth, Mats. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Stephen Berman and Arild Hestvik, eds., Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 29. Heidelberg: IBM Germany. Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Rullmann, Hotze. 2004. First and second person pronouns as bound variables.
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Schwarz, Bernhard. 2000. Topics in ellipsis. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Stanley, Jason. 2000. Context and Logical Form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434. Stanley, Jason and Zoltan Szab´o. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind
Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter and Barbara Hall Partee. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1989. Bound variables in syntax: are there any? In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem and Peter van Emde Boas, eds., Semantics
Tenny, Carol, and James Pustejovsky, eds. 2000. Events as grammatical objects. The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Tomioka, Satoshi. 1999. A sloppy identity puzzle. Natural Language Semantics 7, 217–241. The Semantics of Ellipsis 109
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 79–123. Webber, Bonnie. 1978. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Doctoral the- sis, Harvard University. Wescoat, Michael. 1989. Sloppy readings with embedded antecedents. Ms., Stanford University. Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101– 139.
Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics. The interpre- tation of coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press. Paul Elbourne Department of Linguistics School of Modern Languages Queen Mary, University of London Mile End Road London E1 4NS United Kingdom p.d.elbourne@qmul.ac.uk Yüklə 152,99 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|