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-
mantics 9(3), 241–288.
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
Philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50. [Translated as ‘On sense and refer-
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-
guistics 21: 203–225.
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-
gen¨ossischen Forschung, 487–535. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
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
Philosophy 22, 117–184.
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
the study of languages, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
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
of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.,
Semantics versus pragmatics, 165–285. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
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.
Linguistic Inquiry 35: 159–168.
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
& Language 15: 219–261.
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
and Contextual Expression, 295–318. Dordrecht: Foris.
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
Dostları ilə paylaş: |