& Volume 12, Article 18, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.18

This is an early access version of

Kroll, Margaret. 2019. Polarity reversals under sluicing. Semantics and Prag- matics 12(18). 1–49. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.18.

This version will be replaced with the final typeset version in due course. Note that page numbers will change, so cite with caution.

©2019 Margaret Kroll This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). early access

Polarity reversals under sluicing*

Margaret Kroll University of California, Santa Cruz

Abstract This paper presents novel English sluicing data that challenge even the most successful existing theories of the relationship between antecedent and elided content in sluicing constructions. The data supply robust evidence for a previously unobserved phenomenon in which the elided content and antecedent content in a sluicing construction contain opposite polarity. The data challenge current accounts of identity conditions on ellipsis by demonstrating that a greater mismatch between antecedent and elided content is possible than previously thought; specifically, the paper shows that the identity condition for sluicing must be sensitive to pragmatic — i.e. non-truth-conditional — content as well as to semantic content. This observation motivates a proposal in which sluicing is treated as a pragmatics- sensitive phenomenon licensed by local contextual entailment.

Keywords: ellipsis, sluicing, polarity, , salience, pragmatics

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview of the current project

Sluicing, first noted by Ross(1969), is an ellipsis phenomenon in which the TP of an is elided under some identity condition, stranding an overt wh-phrase in the CP domain. An example is given in (1).

(1) Bernie knows that someone in Iowa voted, but he doesn’t know who.

* Thank you to Pranav Anand, Jim McCloskey, and Rachelle Boyson for bringing this phenomenon to my attention and for inspiring/providing the project’s core data. I am especially grateful to Pranav Anand for his help in guiding this project from its start many years ago. Thank you also to Sandy Chung, Dan Hardt, Bill Ladusaw, and Jim McCloskey for invaluable discussion of the ideas presented here, as well as audiences at UCSC, UC Berkeley, and SuB21. I am indebted to the undergraduate annotators of the Santa Cruz Ellipsis Project for their work in classifying the original corpus data. Finally, thank you to Liz Coppock for detailed and thoughtful feedback, and to multiple anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. This project has in part been supported by a UC Santa Cruz Institute of Humanities Research cluster grant to the Santa Cruz Ellipsis Consortium, and by the National Science Foundation Grant No. 1451819: The Implicit Content of Sluicing. early access 2 1 calneee h otsuccessful most the even challenge (3) and (2) like data possible, believed not were aionawl comply will California h miia otiuino h ae st nrdc liigpeoeo that phenomenon sluicing a introduce to is paper the of contribution empirical The (2) sluicing. for condition licensing the of of nature the The question, 2013). latter Barker the 2001 , on Sag is & (cf. Ginzburg paper 2001 1995 , this Merchant al. underlying in et of presented Chung account as 1993, an form Hardt con- assume phonological not I at does and elided paper structure question, This syntactic former elision. the licenses characterize to new should that anything we condition tribute how identity and the site, of ellipsis not nature the or the in whether present questions: material major two syntactic least) is (at there on focuses mainly sluicing on Research i hc h neeetadelpi ie include sites ellipsis and antecedent the which odd. in pragmatically (2) is in reading site this ellipsis but the clause, polarity of matrix of reading the “reversal” a actual is no there see, that will Note we As convenience. for place. dynamic and takes pre-theoretically from label theories this on contextual use draws on I account rely The sluices sites. that elision proposing their by license site to elision entailment the the previous in and material of sluice between antecedent relationship the successes the an preceding many in flexibility and the greater on allows content but builds conditions, elided licensing here the presented require between account that The theories identity under discourse. strict for that accounted of show be type to I any unable Specifically, are sluicing. data for reversal condition polarity the licensing the of theories mismatches existing such Because possible. thought previously been has than content elided (3) site, ellipsis the polarity. of interpretation the while polarity, negative (3) , in antecedent presumed the Similarly, , (2) in antecedent site, presumed and the (A) example, For content polarity. antecedent in differ presumed (E) the site which ellipsis in the sluices as are this reversals to refer Polarity I’ll unnoticed; gone previously has h oaiyrvra aaso rae imthbtenatcdn and antecedent between mismatch greater a show data reversal polarity The aionawntcomply won’t California pedhe.Teei omr ett onsnm.TeT says: TA a The on name. John’s name to their next to mark next no did they is problem There which spreadsheet. mark to required were but Context: comply] will [California California that think don’t I hc one which Sluice: ihr[John Either tdnswr ie h pint oa xr rdtproblem, credit extra an do to option the given were Students i won’t [ he a oiieplrt hl h nepeaino h ellipsis the of interpretation the while polarity positive has , j did comply] do j a eaiepolarity. negative has , intd netacei problem] credit extra an do didn’t t i ] E E . . 2 ondd’ oa xr rdtproblem credit extra an do didn’t John oaiyrvrasudrsluicing under reversals polarity 2 A u o’ nwwy[ why know don’t I but , edddo did he A rhe or , a positive has , j intmark didn’t has , Kroll TP . 1 early access The why 4 3 6 5 However, the tools used here have been independently established and Q: How long? Context: Taken from a blog postCyrus about has a announced particular she kind will of hold: concert Miley for example, ‘why.”’ “Miley has yet to confirm the news or provide further details — including, 3 interpretation available, but merely that they are a felicitous, freely available Additionally, I exclude here two types of sluices that, to my knowledge, have Root sluices are interrogative forms that do not occur as complements of question-embedding verbs. only in root (non-embedded) contexts. (5) I exclude these sluices hereembedded because sluices. their For range example, of there use issluice is no in clearly obvious(5), wider linguistic though than antecedent the that for meaning of the of the sluice is recoverable in context. While root (4) A: John bought a new sailboat. only interpretation in the context in which the sluice was foundnot or been constructed. explicitly excluded fromthose previous in analyses.(4) Theand first(5): is root sluices, like research assistants with a facultyused supervisor. The here specific were examples additionally and discussed judgments two and faculty verified members by and a four separate graduateMany research students, of group in of the consultation examples with presented naïve here speakers. have more than one possible interpretation. here were reviewed by at leastinitial eight round members of of the annotation Santa was Cruz conductedresearch Ellipsis by assistants Project. two and to the three results independentannotations were undergraduate reviewed were by reviewed a in faculty supervisor. a The second initial phase by three additional undergraduate new and initially challenging datatheories can of be ellipsis accounted with for insights by from combining other areas traditional in the literature. 1.2 Methodological preliminaries Polarity reversals under sluicing semantics and discourse coherence, whichellipsis. are traditionally largely unconnected with The claim here is not that the interpretations provided for these examples are the A methodological aside on the data used throughout: The corpus examples given well-motivated in their individual domains. Overall, this paper demonstrates that While it is debated whether or not root sluices are derived via TP deletion (Bechhofer 1976, Hankamer 1977, Merchant ),2001 they are distinct from the examples under consideration here in occurring 3 Though see Elliott &4 Sudo https://babel.ucsc.edu/SCEP/ 2016 for an exception5 for . 6 http://jezebel.com/a-miley-cyrus-nude-concert-is-the-most-miley-idea-ever-1736444064 early access 7 adaemr eetydiscussed recently more are and 1969 Ross as back far as go examples these Although 1 ysoigta h hoymkstecretpeitos n 2 ysoigthat showing by (2) and predictions, correct the makes theory the that showing by (1) hysol ecniee eaaeyfo h xmlsdiscussed examples the from separately considered be who! should guess they – 2014, partner Barros climbing in new a got Mary (6) that from separate be should analysis their detail, here. in given studied be to deserve sluices vnaahrcacut eyo oeseie eainhpbtenteitrrtto fteellipsis the of interpretation the discourse. between preceding relationship the specified and some site climbs] on rock rely [Sally accounts anaphoric Even (7) enough restrictive interpretations. attested but impossible for (7), most allow in out to mismatch rule enough finiteness to flexible the is as it such as mismatches, weight structural of much entailment that held semantic has is the The condition , 2001 literature site. identity Merchant recent in ellipsis the proposed the Originally in entailment. of approaches semantic interpretation many underlying the condition and identity of antecedent elision salient the licenses some that between discourse preceding between the material. relationship and site’s the site the is literature ellipsis what the an licensing: in of of debate content syntactic question the the the of original around part the oriented large been A since has 1969. proposed Ross in been given have approach isomorphy sluicing of theories Numerous literature the in Sluicing 2 concludes. that §7 possibility and sluices, the non-isomorphic discusses are §6 sluices sluicing, reversal of polarity accounts concerns non-structural addresses for 5 arise Section that predictions. incorrect make ways: would two theories alternative in theory four current for the derivations motivates provides which 4 of Section each examples, literature. examples reversal the sluicing polarity in for discussed predictions been correct have the Given- makes that Local it called polarity that theory the alternative demonstrates for an and account ness, proposes to 3 unable Section are data. they sluicing that reversal demonstrates and sluicing of ories here. aside them put appear I examples requirements, these licensing Because different contexts. have out-of-the-blue to antecedent in linguistic acceptable no being requiring in in special and are examples these obviously, Most here. (6): in that like uses semi-idiomatic is exclude I sluices of group second The h ae rcesa olw.Scin2poie noeve feitn the- existing of overview an provides 2 Section follows. as proceeds paper The 7 rdtoal,ti iesn a enapoce sarelationship a as approached been has licensing this Traditionally, A h ere o [ how learned She . 4 to rock climb] E rmhrmother. her from Kroll early access 9 or The is e- 8 α remnant E has a salient iff can be deleted only if α A TP 5 type-shifting, i) A entails F-clo(E), and ii) E ∃ An expression E counts as e-GIVEN , that has moved up and out of the TP prior to the TP’s deletion. GIVEN. e-: antecedent A and, modulo entails F-clo(A). Focus condition on TP-ellipsis: The semantic identity condition of e-GIVENness is permissive enough to al- an expression with variables and existentially closing the result (Schwarzschild 1999). The theory presented hereellipsis, adopts but I this refer approach thethe and reader syntactic to discusses proposal. Merchant only2001 theandExistential much licensing closure subsequent is conditions work a for for type-shifting a operationunfilled thorough that arguments. raises defense Existential-F-Closure expressions of (F-clo) to is type the t result by of existentially replacing F(ocus)-marked phrases in Note that the entailment requirementGIVENness, here does is not that leave of room semantic for entailment contextual and, entailment. unlike low for certain observed syntactictecedents, mismatches such between ellipsis as sites tense and (Merchant their);2001 an- however, the bidirectional entailment e-GIVENness modifies the GIVENness theorylipsis of (Rooth deaccenting1985, into1992, aRomero theorycondition1997) of from by a el- modifying contextual, the unidirectional GIVENnesssemantic entailment entailment condition entailment to condition. a Specifically, e-GIVENness bidirectional proposesa that TP in to order be for elided it must stand in a bidirectional semantic entailment relationship wh-remnant licensing condition of e-GIVENness isof indebted to GIVENness,(1999)’sSchwarzschild which theory is notcenting. itself GIVENness a proposes theory that of anfocus ellipsis, expression closure can but is be one contextually deaccented of entailed if focus by its and the existential deac- of an antecedent. Merchant’s theory of ellipsis, calledand e-GIVENness, the is licensing a conditions theory for ofsluiced ellipsis both clauses constructions. the e-GIVENness contain proposes syntactic that structurenounced, within that the is, ellipsis is site deleted thatthe at goes phonological ellipsis unpro- form. site The unpronounced consists structure of within a TP missing a wh-constituent, called a condition as well as thecondition. predictions of theories that rely in part on such an identity 2.1 e-GIVENness Polarity reversals under sluicing I show here that afor semantic the entailment polarity identity reversal condition data, is and too therefore restrictive cannot to be account the identity condition we need. This section discusses the predictions of Merchant(2001)’s semantic entailment with some salient antecedent. The account is given formally as follows: 8 9 0Fradsuso fterlvneo h e-asn rpryo h aa e §4.1-§4.2. see data, the of property neg-raising the of relevance the of discussion a For 10 early access esol osdrteetr rtcnuc ob h neeet sdigs will so doing as antecedent, the be to conjunct first entire the consider should we following: the yields (E) and (A) to e-GIVENness Applying (8). as repeated (2), (8) at again look Let’s mismatches. polarity for allow to restrictive too is requirement (9) entailment semantic yield not does direction. still negation either expanding matrix in shows, the (9) include as However, to expression. antecedent antecedent the the in negation the capture elide to able be not should we TP. that the predicts incorrectly e-GIVENness so and other, (8), in given antecedent the of instead that, propose might reader skeptical A the entails (8) in expression elided the nor expression antecedent the Neither California [ California [ that think don’t I = A = A -l()= F-Clo(A) = F-Clo(A) -l()= F-Clo(E) = E E = F-Clo(E) A = E E A TP en en en en o’ hn htClfri ilcomply] will California that think don’t I λ λ λ λ tails tails tails tails w w w w . . 0 . ¬ ¬ . comply ¬∀ F F 10 F F comply comply won’t won’t - - - - l() No. clo(A): No. clo(A): λ λ l() No. clo(E): No. clo(E): λ λ w w w w w [ w . . 0 . ¬ ¬ . comply (c)( ¬∀ ∈ comply] comply] comply comply (c)( (c)( TP DOX(s)( w w w w [ aionawl comply] will California ) w ) ) (c)( ∈ (c)( (c)( E E . . DOX(s)( w w’ w w ) ) )) ) → 6 comply w’ ) → comply (c)( A A w u o’ nwwy[ why know don’t I but , u o’ nwwy[ why know don’t I but , )] (c)( w )] Kroll TP TP early access and 11 . (see also E . E left] John] which man kicked i t , doesn’t even remember who [ i A , but I don’t know who [ A 7 . E blood] , but I don’t know who A cold in killed is replaced with the d-linked wh-expression once he who #Joe, [who once killed a[ man in cold blood] Recent work has challenged the inquisitive semantic entailment account on Barros(2014) observes that (12) above,remnant modified in ,(13) isdiscussion acceptable in when §5.3). the The results show that while speakersthem in no the worse experiment than did the not equivalent judge pre-sluice the examples. examples highly, they judged cannot entail the inquisitive contentfor of discussion). the question CP (see AnderBois §3.4 and §4 empirical grounds. Collins et al.(2014)out provide experimental of evidence doubly-negated that sluices constructions and appositives are indeed possible, entailment over CPs (Groenendijk & Roelofsen ment2009). is Inquisitive a semantic entail- more examples restrictive(11) identityand requirement(12): neither than antecedent e-GIVENness contains and inquisitive content rules and out therefore that while examples (11) and (12) satisfy bidirectional entailment, they(11) are not #[It’s not the case that no one left] as well. 2.3 Inquisitive entailment of sluicing out of doubly-negated indefinites and appositives. AnderBois argues Merchant and Chung propose to rulesyntactic out restrictions sluices such on as sluicing (10) inbycondition addition including of to substantive e-GIVENness. the As bidirectional the semantic accounts entailment presented in these worksregarding are the by too-restrictive their nature of e-GIVENness apply equally to these accounts, )Merchant(2013b and 2013)Chung( argue thatidentity e-GIVENness condition alone on is sluicing, too as weakactive/passive it an mismatch fails in to(10). rule out impossible sluices such(10) as the #[John was kicked] (12) Polarity reversals under sluicing 2.2 Hybrid Theories very purpose more restrictive than e-GIVENness, the objections in the last section AnderBois proposes a modified account of sluicing based on inquisitive semantic well-formed sluices (AnderBois :2014 pp. 19 & 23, respectively, brackets added): AnderBois(2014) criticizes e-GIVENness for failing to predict the impossibility 11 early access hc h indefinite the which entailment restrictive more a be to created was Entailment Inquisitive Additionally, ctgra)gamrta losatgtcneto ewe ytci n semantic and syntactic between connection tight a allows that grammar (categorial) hssoefc olw ntesse fsoaiiybcueasucn neeetis antecedent sluicing a because scopability of system the in follows fact This rae opeitasbe ftoecntutospeitdb -IEns salso is e-GIVENness was by that predicted account constructions an those too of that subset is follows a e-GIVENness it predict sluices, that to reversal created shown polarity have permit I to As restrictive e-GIVENness. than account identity (13) lue n new utattew-haefo h lie h eanesms be must remainders the sluice, the antecedent from the wh-phrase from the antecedent subtract inner [of we requirement the once entailment and subtract mutual clause, we the once of that effect is net e-GIVENness] the . . restriction “. same means: the argues different effectively Barker through imposing condition, by overgeneration entailment avoids semantic scopability the that rejects scopability While data. over wide-scope take must clause. book] antecedent [a selected the correlate [everyone of indefinite antecedent rest the the the that over means scope this take (14), to In correlate the clause. allowing antecedent by the created over scope take must wh-remnant) the to (their corresponds correlate that the tion constructions, book. sluicing which in know don’t that tecedent I propose but al. book, et a selected Chung Everyone (14) in reading a allows only 191). (14) p. like 2013: example an that notice al. et Chung 1995. al. et therefore sluicing system. in the behavior from matching naturally case out and fall scope about facts Certain content. called syntactic analysis, internal This no site. but ellipsis proforms the silent in and structure clause gaps a contain (a of constructions removed remnant sluicing been semantic has the subconstituent to a which from as sluicing analyzes (2013) Barker Scopability 2.4 to possibilities. condition sluicing identity of an range strict full too the predict is correctly Entailment Inquisitive regarding clauses, particularly disjunctive sluicing, of of out insights pragmatics many and contributing semantics while Thus, the reversals. into polarity the permit to restrictive too ru htsoaiiy o,i o etitv ocpueteplrt reversal polarity the capture to restrictive too is too, scopability, that argue I Chung in observed originally sluicing of facts scope the on focuses Scopability h pinlypeetcntteti h neeeto liigconstruc- sluicing a of antecedent the in constituent optionally-present the : o,[h nekle a ncl blood] cold in [ man man a killed once [who Joe, he once book a killed ae iesoeoe h quantifier the over scope wide takes in cold blood] ;tesoefcste olwnaturally. follow then facts scope the ]; 8 E . A scopability os’ vnrmme which remember even doesn’t , .Udrti proposal, this Under ). ssatp logical type a uses , everyone which ne an- inner (Barker sluices Kroll early access The 12 9 is infelicitous, or pragmatically anomalous (in this case, because it contains In summary, bidirectional semantic entailment accounts such as e-GIVENness, sluice in (15b) is also infelicitous. Note that Ginzburg & Sag (2001) and syntacticBarros(2014) and take pragmatic a constraints. slightly different approach, combining sluice — or, the unelided formpropose of the that sluice infelicitous — is pre-sluices also will unacceptable. They yield therefore infelicitous sluices.two generally For contradictory example, clauses). It is not surprising, then, that the corresponding independently from our sluicing licensinga condition. particular There sluice are may many be reasonsbecause unacceptable, why of and, its importantly, failure the to reason satisfy is an ellipsis not licensing always condition. Dayal & Schwarzschild theory specifically. Section 3.2 then proposescalled a Local new Givenness, identity which condition argues on thatentailment. sluicing sluices Section are 3.2 licensed also by spells localnon-polarity out contextual reversal the sluicing assumptions example. of the account, and derives a 3.1 The Well-Formedness Condition posed in Dayal & Schwarzschild to 2010 motivatethat a explains bidirectional certain entailment data account.be that I ruled have propose been out that used on since independent these data grounds, can they should not be ruled out by a sluicing and theories that impose semanticare identity between too an restrictive ellipsis and site failnext and to section its predict antecedent, proposes the an existence alternative of accountthe polarity that accounts reversal builds discussed data. off here. the insights provided by 3 A modified account equivalency between a sluicecondition and which its imposes antecedent. semantic However,antecedent we is equivalency too have between restrictive seen to an thatsluices. predict ellipsis the a novel site data and contributed by its polarity reversal Polarity reversals under sluicing semantically equivalent — exactly what isanalysis” guaranteed (213). by Indeed, the it anaphoric is [scopability] clear that Barker intends scopability to deliver semantic This subsection shows that we can rule out certain forms of unacceptable sluices This section proceeds in two parts. The first subsection discusses a constraint pro- (2010) observe that one reason a sluice may be unacceptable is(15a) because its pre- 12 cmsfo h neiiyo sigaqeto htarayhas already that question a asking of infelicity the from comes (15a) like examples of infelicity The 13 early access h motneo hsosraini hti ue u eti xmlsta edo we that examples certain out rules it that is observation this of importance The empir- both knowledge, my of extent the to is, Condition Well-Formedness The h edrwoi aiirwt yai hoiso otx paecnsfl skip safely can update context of theories dynamic with familiar is who reader The assumptions formal basic the outlines first The parts. three in proceeds section This a led setdta h a ensm iesta a ttezo hc saprilase to answer partial a is which zoo, the at day that tigers some seen has she that asserted already has A 2012, Ginzburg , 2005 Fitzpatrick 1997, (Romero discourse the in available answer partial a least) (at h usin‘htaiasddyusetdya h zoo?’. the at today see you did animals ‘What question the (see Condition Well-Formedness the observation this call I , of ease For a. (15) .Freape ’ usini i siflctu ihu h nlso of inclusion the without infelicitous is (i) in question B’s example, For 2014). Barros Givenness. Local on section second the sluice. third reversal to non-polarity The a Givenness. to Local it called applying theory paper, by sluicing this theory the in the at motivates for pass independently argued first and a developed presents is second The that account. current the in used Givenness Local ellipsis. 3.2 of theory our in sluices such Well- for the account like adopting examples to By out need for. rule the account to obviating to able needs scope are sluicing the we of considering Condition, theory to when Formedness any specific mind that not in data is keep observation the to The of helpful out. is rule but to sluices, theory reversal sluicing polarity our force to elided. want not partially when that infelicitous question remain a will that overtly desirable uttered seems when infelicitous It is satisfying. intuitively and verifiable ically (16) and 1992 , Tancredi 2010, Schwarzschild & 2013a): Dayal Merchant 1998, Romero in discussions i :Iswsm iestdya h zoo. the at today tigers some saw I A: (i) :Wa/hc (TE)aiasddyusetdya h zoo? the at today see you did animals #(OTHER) What/which B: well-formed. b. fapesuc siflctu,te h orsodn liewl o be not will sluice corresponding the then infelicitous, is pre-sluice a If Condition Well-Formedness The os’ nwwhere know doesn’t Hillary lives. President the where know doesn’t #Hillary i i nw httePeietlvsi h ht os,btshe but House, White the in lives President the that knows nw httePeietlvsi h ht os,btshe but House, White the in lives President the that knows j #[ the 10 : President lives t j ]. (15b) independently, 13 other because , Kroll i i early access 11 contexts, contexts at which the current sentence is interpreted, global contexts, contexts at which the current clause (or possibly some smaller to distinguish them from global contexts, though the reader is asked to keep in local L In Heim(1983b)’s CCP system, the context is defined as a set of worlds (or, alter- In order to be able to clearly refer to the context of an entire sentence versus c derivations incrementally. natively, as a set of world-assignmentsemantics, pairs). operators Instead contribute of a a context change standardtion potential, from truth-conditional which contexts is to a contexts. Contextbecause partial change func- a potentials new express partial context functions is defined only when the of the entering discourse. Note that this meansnecessarily that, a throughout continually a discourse, narrowing set aas of local context worlds. is I not notate localmind contexts that throughout this serves merely as a reminder that we are concerned with updating our of processing parsimony in the Schlenker local2009, context in2010 , which2011a.global a context clause As of is mentioned its interpreted above, containing istwo sentence. not types One necessarily of effect identical context of to is distinguishing the being that between entered the into can be the entered discourse into common local ground contexts or without context set (Stalnaker 2002), i.e. the context in which atinguished particular clause is interpreted, from (1973)Karttunen first dis- constituent) is interpreted. This terminologymon is2001 adoptedunder in aHeim similar 1983b meaning.and ItKad- is further developed under the motivation of incremental updating have beenprojection of (Stalnaker particular, 1973 interest1974, in Karttunen studies1974, of Gazdar 1979, Karttunen & Evans Peters 1977, Roberts 1989, Heim Nouwen 1990 , 2007, KampMurray &2014, Reyle a.m.o.). 1993, van Rooij 1997/2006, clauses. For example, the contextas need in not be a updated static only system;at at instead, the semantic the end content completion of can of a incrementallying, a sentence update the the second context clause or of earlier.clauses a Because — sentence can — of be such this interpreted as in in incrementalsentence, a a updat- and sentence different in context containing a from conjoined different the context first from clause the of global the conversational same context. Theories I use here a dynamicFile interpretation Card system Semantics outlined (Heim in 1983a)Kadmon of and 2001 Heim theand Context based.1983b Change on Dynamic Potential interpretationsational (CCP) systems context system such incrementally. as They CCPinterpretation aim update may to the crucially capture conver- rely the on observation the that interpretation clausal of previous intrasentential Polarity reversals under sluicing 3.2.1 Context update and dynamic interpretation systems without being accepted as true by the speakers of the discourse for purposes of the 1979, Heim 1983b, Soames 1989 , Beaver 2001, a.o.) and anaphora (Geach 1962 , 15 14 early access a h lissdrvtosta ocr shr.IueabscHiinaccount Heimian basic a use I here. us concern that derivations ellipsis the way sHi oe,acmoaini o ehns ftefra ytm u nta natta a that act an instead but system, formal the of mechanism a not is accommodation notes, Heim As e fwrd,etimn sdfie ytesbe eain uhta facontext a with if intersecting, that or such conjoining, relation, subset the proposition by a defined entails is entailment worlds, of set follows: basic as The given accommodated. are are here or make context), I the assumptions by (entailed defined are expression yai paesses hr eea rtrafrterpeitosaedsusdi et htthis that depth a in in discussed cover. extensively are to used predictions unable are their unfortunately contexts for is Local criteria context. paper updates general global material where the antecedent systems, in the update preserved which substantivelydynamic not in is is cases context but is, context, licensing that local local context; the the The SCEP. licensing which the global in by the examples found from by motivated examples different existing is sluicing use reversal contexts I polarity local constructions. of of category language use every natural describe under-generate of or to set over rules full might CCP the here documented presented exhaustively theory have the that we acknowledge once I thus, CCPs; of 401). set (pg. complete communication in breakdown a avoid to the do of to chooses accommodation speaker of possibility the for allows Karttunen also reference of (1979), presuppositions to Lewis following encouraged we (1988), is data Heim reader the capture interested to The sufficient is with. and concerned known widely are is crucial account any CCP in the impact because not does rules the of implementations differing the rules, these their of potentials change context constituents. the complex of from these compositionally interpretation of derived potentials the are change from expressions context resulting the context Importantly, expression. the entire or the context, sentence global the of (see 2001): here Kadmon given 1983b, are Heim operators 1974, propositional Karttunen English e.g. basic for rules Heimian Some eiwrak bu h rdcaiiyo h oa otx.Tefil osntcretyhv a have currently not does field The context. local the of predictability the about asks reviewer A context A hl hr sdbt nteltrtr vrtecretfraiaino oeof some of formalization correct the over literature the in debate is there While updating an is context the to rules these applying of results final the that Note Conjunction: Negation: If b. If a. update Context Disjunction: Conditional: 15 c c c nal h rspoiin of presuppositions the entails osnteti h rspoiin of presuppositions the entail not does p n proposition a and if c c sudfie.Acmoaini enda follows: as defined is Accommodation undefined. is p + then , c c c ¬ ( + ( + ( + : p = If p p c ∨ p ∧ c ⊆ , q \ q q ( = ) = ) p ( ( = ) p c otx sudtdwt e proposition new a with updated is context A . otx paigi enda follows: as defined is updating Context . + p c c p r enda eso ols Because worlds. of sets as defined are c \ + ) + ( c 12 p p + ( + ) + ) p p \ q then , c (( ( + c + c c \ p p + p + ) then , + ) p q = q )) c ) c ∩ sundefined is c p + p ( = c ∩ ps( 14 p c )) Kroll p sa is ∩ by p c . early access L c expresses is entered. ) p g K α J ( ExClo iff can be deleted 13 ; that is, the context into which α p A TP . p ⊆ L c such that p The example was chosen to display the generalizability of the theory and 16 Because the theory uses contextual entailment as its licensing requirement, there example. not a requirement of thethought theory. The of propositions more labelled accurately as ascontent antecedents licensers, constraining should in the be that local they context provideantecedent of the requirements the main propositional sluiced built proposition. into There theimpacts are account, the no however, local other actual context than of what the content elided proposition. 3.2.3 Application of Local Givenness is no reliance on antecedentsdeference built to into the the historical theory.use For importance expositional antecedent antecedents clarity labels hold and throughout in in inthe accounts reader the of to derivations ellipsis, please of I keep sluices in in mind, though, this that paper. this I is ask a notational convenience and is used to indicate theFormally, local Local context Givenness of is expressed as follows: Local Givenness (preliminary): a proposition discussed and to the contextualgiven entailment an allowance that exposition, was in included,(1999)’sSchwarzschild propose though GIVENness that not theory. the Informally, TP I ofexpressed an by interrogative can the be TP, modulo elided existential ifthe closure, and sentence is only expressing entailed if the by the proposition the proposition would context be in uttered. which Recall that the notation processing, such as Schlenker 2009, , 2010 2011a. 3.2.2 Local Givenness based entailment. The spirit of the proposal is indebted to those accounts already However, the account developed heresystem. Other does developed not dynamic rely theories,Representation on such Theory the as (Kamp use the1981) closely ofLogic and related anyGroenendijk ( Discourse its particular & expansions Stokhof and1990),alternatives could Dynamic are alternatively Predicate non-dynamic be accounts used. that Also use available local as contexts to compute incremental Polarity reversals under sluicing as well as the respective benefits and drawbacks of different rule formalizations. This subsection applies the theory of Local Givenness to a non-polarity reversal The theory of sluicing presented here eschews semantic identity in favor of pragmatics- 1974, Heim , 1983b Kadmon , 2001 Schlenker 2010, 2011b for additional discussion, 16 I thank a reviewer for noting that a discussion of such an example would be helpful. 18 17 early access hl ancas otn saddi h oa otx n nrdcda proposal a as introduced and context local the in added is main while steeaen nevnn pae n nevnn prtr rpooiin) the propositions), or operators intervening (no updates intervening no are there As ,sadi naahrcrfrnilrltosi ihtermi clause main their with relationship referential anaphoric an in stand 2005), (Potts yeGVNes u losucsta h iietoa naletcniini too is condition entailment bidirectional capture. the to predicted that restrictive sluices sluices semantic those also bidirectional only but not e-GIVENness, the predicts by than it condition e-GIVENness, restrictive of less condition entailment a condition is (see entailment reversals Givenness contextual polarity Local the not Because of are examples). that additional examples for for 2019 accounts Kroll correctly it that show to l etitoso h e nodrt etteetimn odto utb eeae ytecontent the by generated be must as condition theory, entailment the the facing In meet case worlds. difficult to sluice. possible most order the all the in preceding of is set set worlds the the possible of is all restrictions context of all the context that starting assumption a the our assuming want about fact, we concern why a on raises above reviewer they discussion example.A borders, See this over specifically. derive ellipsis sluicing to of out theory occurrence rule ellipsis free to 2014 the global AnderBois for allows on the account rely to (2015)’s al. identical et is AnderBois appositive While the following expression the for context local (17) (17). 2015). in al. repeated et is (13) AnderBois example 2014, of (Murray version context simplified global the context, update global the to to added automatically is content appositive that in content superscript clause the by here propositional (notated are Rys- clauses anchor & relative Kroll appositive 2015 , that al. here et assume AnderBois I 2014, a.o.). Koev appear, & (Potts to Syrett behavior ling 2007, conditional circumstances al. truth right et and the Amaral projection in their 2005, also in can content Appositives at-issue man- like content. same behave the at-issue in or — matrix ellipsis including as that are — observed ner activities appositives widely level While been discourse has in (13). it participate in content, they available not-at-issue be empirically to be considered to canonically shown is as positives, (iii) Teeitnilcoueo E sa follows: as is (E) of closure existential The (ii) sosta h con orcl rdcssucn u fap- of out sluicing predicts correctly account the that shows (17) Example (i) { ExClo { c context is global generality the maximal updates for (17) of content appositive The killed Joe w w = : : W x ∃ j ∃ [who , x x ( { ∩ [ t J [ man i man E in K w g cold : = ) x ( ( x ildamni odblood] cold in man a killed ∃ x )( )( x { [ w blood] w man w ) ) : ∧ ∧ ∃ ili odblood cold in kill ( ili odblood cold in kill x x E [ )( man . W w ) : ∧ 18 ( x ili odblood cold in kill )( 14 w x ,addfe rmmain from differ and 2007), (Nouwen ) ) ∧ ili odblood cold in kill ( ( x x A )( )( os’ nwwihman which know doesn’t , j j )( )( w w )] )] ( } x ⊆ } )( j )( ExClo w ( x )] c )( hc assume I which , } j = ( )( J 17 w E K )] slightly A g } ) i Kroll [ he j early access TP doubt with the think correlates. The paucity of , but I don’t know why [ A which NP and why 15 . E comply] . While the neg-raising and non-neg-raising interpretations The categories are formed by grouping the data based on 19 hope won’t 20 I don’t think thatCalifornia [California will comply] . versals . Instead, the only available interpretation is the matrix clause reading, given in Note that entering the appositive content immediately into the global context in until See Kroll 2019 Appendices Aand and B for derivations ofMany polarity polarity reversal examples reversal containing examples given herecorrelate contain types may raise concernsgeneralizable that to polarity a reversals wider comprise theory agreater of restricted class sluicing. set of Polarity of remnants. reversal data See examples andKroll are, are2019, however, not available(51), with and a (55). comparison in (19) and .(20) non-neg Example raising (20) verb swaps the neg-raisingare verb both available for (19), (20) cannot receive the polarity reversal interpretation in repeated as (18): (18) 4.1 Polarity reversals are not semantic entailment: Neg-raisingOne polarity class of re- polarity reversal sluices contains neg-raising verbs. For example, (2) is a salient similarity. For example, polarity reversal sluicesI are believe easily that constructed these categorizationsmitted hold to theoretical them significance, as I holding remainsubcategorization. final uncom- explanatory power or as comprising an exhaustive next section turns to deriving polarity reversal sluices. 4 Deriving polarity reversal sluices larity reversal sluices. this way correctly predicts theof projection behavior anaphoric of and appositives ellipsis and the possibilities existence across appositive and2014, main Schlenker clause2013, content. and AnderBois et al. 2015, a.o. for additional details. The Polarity reversals under sluicing context, and we correctly predict entailment and elision of the sluiced clause in step That neg-raising is the relevant property in (18) can be seen by the minimal pair The following sub-sections apply Local Givenness to three main categories of po- The interested reader is referred to Potts , 2005 Del Gobbo , 2007 Nouwen 2007, (20a) (20b). (iii). with neg-raising verbs, so one category is Neg-Raising Polarity Reversals. While 19 20 1Iakm ytcial-nlndraest laepeiw§. oasaeojcin oti choice. this to objections assuage to §4.2 preview please to readers syntactically-inclined my ask I 21 early access hc antb acle.Sf rge rspoiin r are ypeiae that predicates by carried are presuppositions trigger Soft cancelled. be cannot which eas- are that presuppositions are presuppositions soft-trigger Abusch’s 2009. Abusch htteifrnefo h iea nepeaino e-asn etnelike sentence neg-raising a of interpretation literal the from inference the that (1973) eb r doycaial itiue cosdfeetlanguages. different across distributed idiosyncratically are verbs a. (20) a. (19) aino h etneadtengrie nepeaino h etne nsummary, In sentence. the of interpre- interpretation literal neg-raised the the are invoked and alternatives sentence the the verbs, of is neg-raising alternatives tation of the case of the one In that true. presupposition of pragmatic invocation a The triggers convention. alternatives of these matter a as alternatives presuppositions, lexically-stipulated hard-trigger invoke from distinct are such as and context in of cancellable sense ily the in presupposition soft-trigger a as verbs neg-raising of presupposition verb the why verb for stronger given epistemically is the others explanation while and no neg-raise verbs example, can neg-raising For are 1978). verbs (Horn some that not why is can- are for account given is original is reading Bartsch’s reason neg-raised against principled the leveled no why criticism explains The context. also in and negation celable low how explains interpreted will involved California be reasoning that to the belief comes of a nature presupposition has pragmatic this (18) The with in comply. speaker is combined not the it (18) that that of entails believes antecedent pragmatically or the then true, of is verb assertion the The of false. complement the the contains by that expressed (18) proposition in antecedent the like verb sentence as neg-raising a presupposition For middle inference. excluded pragmatic an Specifically, a license inference. verbs pragmatic neg-raising interpre- a that neg-raised is argues the scope, Bartsch to embedded scope, takes matrix negation takes where negation tation, where (18), in antecedent the the in given of neg-raising one of is account it the here As use clause. 2007. I Gajewski embedded literature, an the in in scope approaches reading dominant takes a negation allow matrix negated which when that in verbs clause-embedding are verbs Neg-raising aesipooe oalvaeti beto yctgrzn h xlddmiddle excluded the categorizing by objection this alleviate to proposes Gajewski b. b. h [ why #[ why [ why [ why aydenthp htClfri ilcml,btsecntexplain can’t she but comply, will California that hope doesn’t Mary explain can’t she but comply, will California that hope doesn’t Mary explain can’t she but comply, will California that think doesn’t Mary explain can’t she but comply, will California that think doesn’t Mary 21 think Bartsch from idea an on importantly draws account Gajewski’s she she California California h rspoiini httesbetete eivsta the that believes either subject the that is presupposition the , i i doesn’t doesn’t won’t won’t hope think comply.] California California comply.] 16 E . E . will will know comply.] comply.] ant rwyneg-raising why or cannot, E E . . think Kroll .

early access )]] )]] w w ( )( p TP c ( → ¬ ) 0 w comply )( s ( → ¬ ) 0 meets the following w DOX )( ∈ s ( w [ think w , but I don’t know why [ DOX ∨∀ = A : )] ∈ )] w g A w K w [ )( entails that the speaker in (18) has ( c w p ( ∨∀ → think ) )] 0 w w 17 comply )( )( c s ( ( → . ) E 0 and returns a set such that for any function w DOX f )( s ∈ comply )]] ( w w [ ( → . This is merely a notational convenience, which allows comply] p w } ) 0 assumed here is given as follows (following Uegaki 2015): 1 ∀ DOX [ w . → 0 ∈ )( ) w 0 s ) = won’t w ( think λ w [ w . ( s w )( f s λ ( . : ¬∀ DOX p . 0 w W ∈ λ ) indicates the set of worlds compatible with the doxastic state of the { w , (A) presupposes that the world of evaluation of I don’t think that California will comply = w w DOX California [I don’t think that California will comply] J λ = [ c g w ∈ ) = K ∀ f think [ w ( . (i) Starting Context: With this theoretical background in place we can return to example (18). I have [ 0 that takes a given function C w w , think ∀ f λ J us to move between function and set notation. sition is false, thethe presupposition second of disjunct (A) of andreading the the that presupposition. assertion the This of speaker entailment uttering (A) produces(18) together thehas entail stronger a belief that California will not comply. Because (A) expresses that the first disjunct of the excluded middle presuppo- DOX(s)( speaker. Via the excluded middle presupposition conventionally associated with the restriction: Excluded middle presupposition of (18)’s antecedent the belief that California will not comply. Formally, this(21) is expressed as follows: described in Bartsch’s account while providing a more principled explanation for proposed that the assertion ofmiddle the presupposition antecedent invoked in by(18) thecombined verb with the excluded- Polarity reversals under sluicing Gajewski proposes to treat neg-raisingmatic predicates excluded-middle as presupposition. soft This triggers proposal that intends invoke a to capture prag- the behavior [ verb The of The following steps apply Local Givenness to (18). I use throughout a function why some verbs allow neg-raising and others do not. C 23 22 early access ilntcomply. not will ilntcml.Teutrneo A hsasrstesrntee enn ie in given meaning strengthened the asserts thus (A) of utterance The comply. not will (iv). verb h eia tm hc noe lentvsa atro ovnin hn o oarvee for reviewer a to by you introduced Thank convention. is step. of but this matter context, on a the clarification as of (2009)’s requesting alternatives requirement Abusch invokes definedness in which citations. a "soft" item, given not is lexical the is presupposition the to presupposition the reader the because interested is, here the That fail refer the sense. not beyond I does add and derivation to question, the nothing this that has on Note 2001, project literature Merchant This the 1999, 2016). of Schwarzschild Thoms state (see & current literature Messick the , 2014 in Barros discussion 2011, ongoing Hartman an utterance of part the is of ellipsis point main the as or true either more as a complement of clausal part as their is such assert example verbs This discussions embedding recent 2014). that for Hacquard observation context; & general global (although Anand context a and local to 2010 a up Schlenker in projected see true necessarily as not complement is their truth assert the to able be to observed California that believes that speaker believes the speaker that the (iii) that from true follows it not comply, is will it California that asserts (ii) California Because that interpretation: believes or comply will California verb that believes the either with speaker associated the conventionally — that (A) presupposition by middle carried excluded (iii) pragmatic in The comply. will California that believes h bevto htadjunct that observation The LclGivenness: Local (vii) Ecue idePeupsto f(A): of Presupposition Middle Excluded (iii) Dntto f(E): of Denotation (vi) Srntee e-asdItrrtto f(A): of Interpretation Neg-Raised Strengthened (iv) Smni eoaino (A): of Denotation Semantic (ii) LclCnetfr(E): for Context Local (v) tp i-i)pamtclyasr htClfri ilntcml.Tematrix The comply. not will California that assert pragmatically (i)-(iv) Steps speaker the that true not is it that asserts (ii) step in (A) of denotation semantic The think W c ExClo λ ∀ λ J A LE w w w ∩ K [ 0 0 si h e fcmuiaieasrievrs hc aeln been long have which verbs, assertive communicative of set the in is w g . . { ⊆ C ∀ [ ∀ = ∈ w ( ( w λ J [ λ w DOX w [ E w w 23 w : K . ∈ g ¬ 0 ∈ ¬ . tp i)ad(i)tgte eietesrntee neg-raised strengthened the derive together (iii) and (ii) Steps = ) ¬∀ comply DOX comply ( DOX s )( w { [ w w wh w ( 22 ( 0 s : ) s )( ∈ tae ontpriiaei eatcprleimrltosisin relationships parallelism semantic in participate not do -traces ( )( ¬ ( ¬ → c w c DOX )( comply w )( 0 ) 0 w ) w ¬ → comply )= )) → ) ( } s comply )( ( comply W c w )( 18 0 ( { ∩ ) w c → )( ) w } ( w c ( comply : c )]] )( )( ¬ w comply w see )] )] ∨ , ( think c )( ( w c and , )] )( w ) } believe = think c LE requires — r beto able are Kroll early access ) p ¬ ( φ . → ) p ( φ ¬ remember in which the worlds L c polarity reversals ], but I really can’t remember scared . Indeed, the classic analysis of neg- ) Remember p ¬ ( 19 wasn’t φ I → ) p ( 24 φ ¬ [O]n the day the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor, Hummel was “I don’t know why [ Context: choice but to stay andto help, defend harassing a Japanese small patrols patch bySluice: of night land and against trying a communistbeing takeover. scared.” [Hummel] said. “It all seemed like great fun.” rounded up and locked inforeigners. an . . internment So camp he along and with aof about British Nationalist 2,000 friend guerrillas other engineered concealed an nearby.and escape He with walked crawled the most over help barbed-wire ofmilitary the training. But night he and was the handed a next small day. Belgian He pistol, and was he 20 had little and had no Example (22) is a corpus polarity reversal sluice containing The pragmatic assertion of (iv) creates a local context must, at least in some cases, be pragmatic in nature. (22) [Corpus example 91594, Santa Cruz Ellipsis Project] This can be achieved formally2015 viaand aKadmon form of2001: local Ch. accommodation, 9. see discussions in Roberts 1989, raising — originally advanced by, amongand others, revivedFillmore(1963) recently and by (1973), Ross Collins & Postal(2014) — argues for a syntactica explanation. semantic entailment account of sluicing. Instead, the inference dismissed the possibilitytion of for a the inference syntactic from account of neg-raising as an explana- under consideration are only thosestep in (v). which Step California does (vi) notand shows comply, step the given (vii) in set shows of that Local worlds Givenness in is which satisfied California becausefelicitous the does elision local not of context the comply, in TP in (18). 4.2 Polarity reversals are not syntactic: and questioned independently of theat matrix length clause. elsewhere, Because and this because issuetopic, the is I current discussed assume theory here has existing noentering proposals new into contribution and to the treat this local the context. complements of such verbs as Polarity reversals under sluicing behave in discourse as independent propositions that can be asserted, responded to, This section shows that an appeal to a syntactic account of neg-raising will not save The reader may at this point raise the objection that the previous example wrongly (v) entails the elided proposition given by (E). The theory therefore predicts the (Higginbotham , 1975 Simons , 2007 2013). These clausal complements can therefore 24 26 25 early access 1996). ihagrn opeetcrisa obligatory an carries complement gerund a with .. ru htti supini stronger is assumption this that argue I a.o.) 2009 , Geurts 2004, Schulz & Rooij (van eit n hti a ihra vn fbigsae ra vn fbigntsae.Aohrway Another scared. not being of event an or scared being of event an either was it that and exists (22) Idntrmme en crd u paetyIwas! I apparently but scared, being remember don’t I (24) (23) grammatical is (24) in A’s unwieldy. utterance A’s bit example, while a For acceptable, but verbs. perfectly more is neg-raising is (23) by inference in the carried utterance indeed, that and, than literature dependent the in contextually verb neg-raising examples: a neg-raising as the classified like behave to appears it ¬ that in illustrative is (22) Example oapoc hsi osyta h pae ihrrmmesteevent the remembers either speaker the that in say eventuality question to in is event this the approach that to assume and events, the negative contexts, about such concerns in from expected here as away hold; abstract to I fail assumptions both which inference in contexts find easily can We Higginbotham’s in as event, of particular subject the the which in cases in implicatures the scalar computing to in analogous researchers is by This used discussion. is by under that event represented Assumption the Competence event about particular informed the is about speaker the memory a has speaker assumptions. contextual the defeasible inference two 7&10] the by 2003 that licensed [Higginbotham propose is movies. I the discussions, to these going on remembered Based John movies. the to going his remembered John (27) (26) movies. the to possible going a himself both has (26) se while de example, For PRO. is subject door. the that shut proposes to (2003) remember didn’t Higginbotham I door. the shut not did she (25) that believing to speaker the commits sentence the of complement: infinitival an ¬ taking when properties following classifies (1971) Karttunen eebrp remember p remember crisol the only carries (27) reading, ¬ Idnttikta aewn otepryls ih,btta’ eas I because that’s but night, night. last last party whereabouts her the about to anything went know don’t Jane that think don’t ?I eebrp remember S faleventualities all of ¬ → sitrrtdi otx sentailing as context in interpreted is p teei togitiinta h assertion the that intuition strong a is there (25) in example, For . ¬ → p lofist hold. to fails also e’ remember nterlvn iepro and period time relevant the in remember ese de remember san as 20 edn,udrwihJh eebr he remembers John which under reading, ese de srmmeigteroneprec of experience own their remembering is implicative xmls h eodasmto is assumption second The examples. aogwith (along ese de ¬ 25 p edn hnteembedded the when reading However, . ¬ h rtasmto sthat is assumption first The eebrp remember e eb ssc,i a the has it such, As verb. e * rrmmestemaximal the remembers or S imagine ere de d Swart de 1989, (Krifka eebrp remember remember n possible a and nisusage its in ) ¬ → p . 26 p htis, That (22) in snot is → Kroll p , early access ∈ ) w )]] [ w w w )( e ∨∀ )( )]] )]] t )]] ( w w w )( )( )( AT e e e ∧ )( } )( )( t ) t t ( )] ( ( w w )( AT )( AT AT e e ∧ ∧ ∧ )( )]] ) )( s ) ) t w ( = w ( w w LE )( } )( )]) = c )( )( e e )] AT e e w = )( )( w ∧ )( t )( )( s } } ⊆ } ( s s scared e ) ( )( [ ( ( )] )] )] e t w )( AT t ∃ w w w )( )( ( e t ∧ e )( )( )( ( e e e ) )( AT scared scared s scared w )( )( )( AT → ∃ ( ¬ ∧ t t t ¬ ¬ [ ) )( ( ( ( [ [ ) ∧ 0 t 27 e t 21 t ) ∃ w w ∃ ∃ e )( AT AT AT w e e )( s )( ( e ∧ ∧ ∧ s )( scared ( ) ) ) e )( → ∃ ¬ → ∃ s w w w → ∃ [ )( ) ( t ) s 0 ) 0 )( )( )( 0 ∃ ( e e e w e w scared w MEM [ ∃ )( )( )( )( t )( )( s s s s ∈ s : ∃ s ( ( ( ( ( ( e scared w ) w [ scared ¬ g { [ w K ¬ t [ E → ∃ ∃ t MEM DOX J MEM e ¬∀ ) ∃ ) = scared scared scared ( . 0 ∃ e g 0 ∈ ∈ ∈ ¬ ¬ ¬ . K w [ [ [ ∃ w w t t t E w w w )( : [ [ [ λ ∃ ∃ ∃ J λ s ( e e e ( w w w ( w ExClo = ∃ ∃ ∃ ∀ ∀ ∀ C W . . . g 0 0 0 : : : ⊆ K ∩ ∩ { w w w = w w w L A λ c MEM J λ λ { ExClo c { { W W (i) Starting Context: The pragmatic assumption associated with (A) is that the speaker has a memory (v) Assumption of Speaker Consistency: (ii) Assumption of Speaker Memory: (iv) Enriched Denotation of (A): (vi) Context Update: (iii) Semantic Denotation of (A): (vii) Existential Closure of (E): (viii) Local Givenness: of the particular event beingscared. discussed, This namely is an given event of inacts being the as scared Assumption an or of information being Speaker state not Memory of in the step speaker (ii); containing MEM(s)( all those worlds compatible the way the actual worldcontext was in be the taken past. as An doxasticeventuality, assertion and of evidence can memory for license can or inferences therefore from againstare in memory defeasible a to in description belief. that of These a assumptions a speaker particular can have the reliability of their memory challenged. Polarity reversals under sluicing based on the idea thatabout insofar those as eventualities, our a memory speaker’s of memory eventualities represents track the with speaker’s our beliefs beliefs about The following steps apply Local Givenness to (22). with the memory of the speaker. The semantics of (A) given in (iii) expresses that 27 Contextual domain restriction assumed throughout. 28 early access ol,w ne h rpsto n()fo i) tp()pamtclyasrsthat asserts pragmatically (v) Step (iv). from (v) in proposition the infer we world, that proposition the entail in together period) (iii) time and relevant (ii) the Steps (in event scared. no was was speaker there the speaker which the of memory the with asrsta ihr()Jh intd nec rbe r()John (E) or problem e.c. an do didn’t John (A) either that asserts (28) of utterance An E,adse vi)sosta h xseta lsr f()i naldb t local its by entailed is (E) of closure existential the that shows (viii) step and (E), speaker’s the that assumption the Under (iv). in given proposition the expresses (A) h eoreu edrmgta hspitojc ht nta fjtioigour jettisoning of instead that, object point this at might reader resourceful The eoiso h atrpeettesekrsblesaottehsoyo h actual the of history the about beliefs speaker’s the represent of past assertion the an of Therefore, memories scared. not being his of event an remembers speaker the compatible worlds the all in scared: being of event an remember not does speaker the .1 htngto rsn nteatcdn fasucn osrcinrqie a requires in construction made sluicing claim site. a the of ellipsis to antecedent the counter the in run in present data present negation these negation corresponding that that out 15 pointing p. update for 2013a: (p.c.) the Merchant Merchant for Jason predictions to correct an you the the Thank instance, make whether this to tell in fail collapse to would cases principle disjunction two of in the rule unable inclusive as are exclusive, we or inclusive Although is time. both disjunction same cannot they the propositions: at contrary site. true contains ellipsis be disjunction the The in problem. not e.c. but an antecedent did the in present is negation that see we (28), In Consider data. reversal polarity (28) of range full disjunction. the containing generate (28) example to entailment fails bidirectional enriched still pragmatically semantic a account the merely that enrich not shows and simply section pragmatic This to content. include is to path condition simpler entailment a bidirectional account, entailment bidirectional familiar Disjunc- entailment: pragmatic bidirectional not are reversals Polarity 4.3 (E). of elision felicitous of predict closure correctly existential we the and provides context, (vii) (vi) Step in proposition (18). example this in with as updated manner then same is context the the in scared; not was speaker the inplrt reversals polarity tion hc one which smre onudrJh’ ae h Asy oteprofessor: the to nothing says that TA see The and Sluice: name. spreadsheet John’s the under have at down would look marked class, They is the problem. in a student do a Both TA. to John, and chosen that professor thought course’s TA that the and problem by professor the accessible the of spreadsheet number a the on mark did to they required were and problem, credit Context: ihr[John Either tdnsi eatc ls eegvnteoto od nextra an do to option the given were class semantics a in Students i [ TP he j did j intd netacei problem] credit extra an do didn’t t i ] E . 22 A rhe or , j intmark didn’t Kroll 28 early access } } )] } )] w )] w )( : j w )( c j )( )( j x )( ( x )( ( x do } ⊆ ( intersected with the do )] ∧ c do ) ∧ w } ) ∧ w )] )( j ) w w )( w )( x )( )( ( x j x )( ( ( x )( ( x do 30 ( ∧ ) do is uttered in a context w ∧ ) )( x of the conversation at the time at which w ( 23 c p or q )( x ( extra credit problem ) [ p The dynamic literature provides an existing rule for extra credit problem such that x is d-linked in the sense of Pesetsky 1987, meaning that it ranges [ extra credit problem ∃ x \ q [ 29 , x : c ) = p g w K ¬∃ + ( ¬¬∃ { , E c c : : J which one ( w = = w ) = extra credit problem { g [ p q W K x ∩ { E = extra credit problem [ J ) = for for ExClo -phrase W c ( x g L L K ¬¬∃ ∃ c c wh = ⊆ = W A : : J A = ( Disjunction for Propositions: For propositions w w L LE LE c ExClo c c c { { C (i) Starting Context: The proposal says that the local context for the first disjunct of an exclusive (v) Local Givenness: (ii) Denotation of (A): (iv) Local Contexts for (A) and (E): (iii) Denotation and Existential Closure of (E): -phrases are referential and therefore leave behind a referentially indexed trace. Existentially is uttered. The local context for the second disjunct is Note that the over a salient set inwh the discourse. One couldclosing assume over this here, trace following wouldCinque bound then1989 , variable restrict that can the d-linked refer possible identity tod-linking of a is the member orthogonal thing of to to a the which particular example the set here, existentially present I in suppress the this discourse. issue for However, as the the sake of expositional clarity. first disjunct, in order tofollowing correctly steps predict show that how the Local second Givennesssluice correctly disjunct in predicts is(28). the defined. availability The of the disjunction construction is the context p complement of the first disjunct.for The intuition the for second this disjunct proposal must is be that allowed the context to include worlds incompatible with the Polarity reversals under sluicing of the local context of exclusive(28). disjunction, however, that we can use in this case (Karttunen 1974, Heim 1983b, Kadmon ). 2001 29 Note that this fact30 holds regardless of whether the example contains ellipsis. 1Itaka nnmu eiwrfrecuaigteicuino uha example. an such of inclusion the encouraging for reviewer anonymous an thank I 31 early access de o naltepooiinta onddayetacei rbes as problems, credit extra any did John that proposition context the global entail The not account. does current the (28) in of entailment contextual local of necessity the doubly a which predict (E). in correctly of logic therefore elision We classical felicitous equivalent. unnegated a its assuming equals proposition (E), negated by expressed proposition the eesleape r lofudi hc eaini de noteelpi site. ellipsis the (30): into in polarity added example Second, corpus is LF. modified negation at the which example, lower in For or found raise and also 2011 not are Sichel does examples & reversal negation Iatridou is, discus- in That early discussions an 2013 ). recent (see more Potsdam modals negation and of and 1988 scope quantifiers Ladusaw the unlike in that position, sion observed surface been its time by some fixed for is has it First, account. ment predict sluice. would the account entailment of bi-directional possibility standard the a construction, a such In form: LF following view the this (29) using of derived Proponents is form. above nega- logical example that at the is antecedent that relevant possibility argue the third might of A out data. to reversal scoped fail polarity is possibilities the tion both of entirety that the shown enriched for have pragmatically account ex- I a be and to might or account, neg-raising examples entailment of reversal bi-directional accounts polarity syntactic the to that appeals by concerns plained addressed disjunction far More so LF: have at I entailment not are reversals Polarity 4.4 themselves. (E) and (A) of change content context propositional its the contributes not factor which — and licensing operator yield — potential disjunctive will crucial the (28) the is in example Instead, (E) this and propositions. in (A) the of of content entailment semantic the bidirectional data, of reversal enrichment polarity pragmatic the no explain to as pragmatically-enriched insufficient credit extra a is any account that show do entailment didn’t (28) bidirectional John as which such entailed, examples in is worlds Furthermore, the problems those problems. of credit excludes context extra context local did local the John the in that as only proposition is the having It that not possibilities. disjunct him as second of entertained and being problems are credit — extra any done done having John of — possibilities both h osblt fplrt eeslsucsi ijnto osrcin illustrates constructions disjunction in sluices reversal polarity of possibility The entails (E) for context local the because (v) step in satisfied is Givenness Local hr r w esn h hspsiiiyde o aeab-ietoa entail- bi-directional a save not does possibility this why reasons two are There one [John [not Either i [ TP he j did t i j ] i netacei problem] credit extra an did E . 24 31 A ,o he or ], j intmr which mark didn’t Kroll early access by } ⊆ ) w )( b license } ( ) w = the )( } ) b } ( ) w w )( grant b )( ( b ( not } } ) ) did w w )( )( b b ( ( Board the 25 grant the license by December 15 ¬ : w grant the license by December 15 { ¬ : ) = grant the license by December 15 g w K grant the license by December 15 ¬ { E : ]’ and the commission jumped to it and did it that very day,” : J ( w w ) = 15 { On Dec. 10, Senator McCain sent a letter to the FCC urging the g W K “Senator McCain said, ‘Either the Board grants the license by ∩ { E = J ) = ExClo grant the license by December 15 grant the license by December 15 W c ( g K ¬ ¬ = ⊆ = W A : : J A = ( w w five-member board to end twoPaxson years Communications of should deliberations be and given decide a whether license for a Pittsburghthat station. McCain’s letter likely ‘tipped’ theSluice: scales in favor of theDecember decision. 15 or itDecember explains why [ Campbell told the Globe. Context: L LE LE Angela J. Campbell, an attorney for opponents to the deal, told the Globe c ExClo c c { c { C (i) Starting Context: Local Givenness is satisfied in step (v) because the local context for (E) entails (v) Local Givenness: (ii) Denotation of (A): (iv) Local Context for (A) and (E): (iii) Denotation and Existential Closure of (E): and sluices; however, while the sluice in (28) is acceptable, the sluice in (31) is not. impossible ellipsis site. Examples (28) and (31) contain minimally different contexts the proposition expressed by (E,) ascorrectly they predict express felicitous identical elision propositions. of We therefore (E). 4.5 Failure to license because it is unpronounced, thesite. negation The is uncontroversially following inside steps of apply the Local ellipsis Givenness to the disjunction in (30). of (28). There is no possibility of scoping the negation out of the elided phrase; Polarity reversals under sluicing (30) [modified corpus example] This section provides an example of the account’s ability to correctly rule out an This example contains a positive antecedent and a negative elided phrase, the reverse early access hl h xml sacpal nisu-lddfr,tesucdinterpretation sluiced the form, un-elided its in acceptable is example the While ( h nlssta a enpooe ofri eesrl oeprisv than permissive more necessarily is far so proposed been has that analysis The (31) tan.Scin52otie htsc ytci osritwudne olo like. look to need would constraint con- syntactic syntactic a such independent what an outlines combining with 5.2 in Givenness accounts Section Local existing straint. follow of to constraint is Given- contextual first Local The the ways concerns. two these are avoid There reversal overgeneration. can polarity of ness in concerns phrases invites elided also differences the it semantic and sluices, and context structural linguistic the preceding capture the additional to between this order While in sluicing. required of is accounts permissiveness entailment semantic or syntactic existing sluicing on constraints Structural 5 conditions. that licensing concerns ellipsis addresses non-structural section against next levied The successfully been examples. additionally Givenness historically of have have Local range I full like examples. the condition reversal for entailment accounts polarity contextual the possibilities a of these that of scope shown none an- full that relevant the shown have the capture I of LF. can outside at or negation syntactically scope either that tecedents pragmatic accounts bidirectional and a account, account, entailment entailment semantic bidirectional a with the sluices of infelicity the predict correctly we (31). and in sluice satisfied not therefore is Givenness (E), by expressed tion (A), by mark expressed proposition the plus clauses: text conjoined motivated is in which projection above, presupposition does stated on disjunction conjunction the literature of as the rule conjunct in dynamic second our (31) the in for Recall context conjunction (28). local the in same because the result yield this not predict We does impossible. is (31) in given c + hsscinhsdsusdtepsiiiiso conigfrteplrt reversal polarity the for accounting of possibilities the discussed has section This p ( + ) x )( hte hyddo intd t h rfso n Alo ttespread- the at look TA and professor The it. do didn’t or did they whether Asy oteprofessor: the to says TA mosbeSluice: Impossible Context: akwihproblems The which questions. mark the of all to next mark a put not has John that indicating see question, and each sheet to next were spreadsheet students a All on of. mark half to a up put do to to required choose could they which problems, q j )( eas h oa otx o h lddprs otistegoa con- global the contains phrase elided the for context local the Because . w ) ∧ do tdnsi eatc ls eegvnasto xr credit extra of set a given were class semantics a in Students ( x )( { w j )( : w ∃ )] x [John [ } PL i h oa otx lal osnteti h proposi- the entail not does clearly context local the , #([he ( j x akdwihpolm edid] he problems which marked )( j w intd t do didn’t ) 26 ∧ problem { w : i ]) ∃ E x ( . x [ PL )( w ( x ) )( ¬ ∧ w ) do ∧ ( problem x )( A u he but , j c )( ( + w )] ( p } x j ∧ Local . )( didn’t q w Kroll = ) ) ∧ early access flirting . E . ] is E i ] t i t John with [ i flirting is flirting is John [ i John [ i , but I don’t know who A 27 , but I don’t know with who , but I don’t know #who A A . E ] i t [John is flirting with someone] with A second identity condition on sluicing that is argued to require a syntactic of sluicing with Local Givenness. meaning-based entailment condition would thereforesluice fail in to.(33) rule Since out these thelicensing observations, impossible conditions researchers have advocating opted for to meaning-based includeorder a to structural account constraint for in thesehas their facts. been theory The undertaken, in next and section proposes discusses a some path ways forward in that which unites this structural constraints (32) [John is flirting] accounts relying only on entailmentof licensing flirting conditions: entails if the we act assumesemantic of that entailment flirting the holds with act between someone and the vice antecedent versa, and then elided bidirectional clauses in (32) -(34).A (33) [John is flirting] account of bidirectional semantic entailment. explanation is what is knownalization as Chung’s states Generalization that (Chung a2013). preposition Theonly can Gener- when be the stranded remnant by corresponds a to remnant syntactic in material the in ellipsis the antecedent site clause. the elided structure, before movement. Thefor case the matching existence of facts syntactic are structure thenthat in an the the argument elision elision site site. contains Becauseapplies syntactic I equally material, adopt to the Merchant’s account the position of pragmatic case theory matching outlined in this paper as it does to his own certain identity requirements of sluicingbasis. constructions One that of appear these to requirements have is aand case syntactic is matching, which discussed was at first length noted in the in Merchant remnantRoss 2001 . in1969 Case a matching sluiced is construction the must generalization match that in case with its correlate. Merchant Instead, some notion of saliencea must salience also constraint be is integrated independently intomight necessary, the §5.4 define account. proposes a Because a notion way of in propositional which salience we for ellipsis. 5.1 Data motivating syntactic constraints on sluicing (34) Polarity reversals under sluicing This Generalization captures the paradigm in (32)-(34). (2001) accounts for this behavior by proposing that the correlate is assigned case in As Chung pointed out, the facts in (32)-(34) present a difficulty for meaning-based A concern levied at non-structural analyses of sluicing is that they fail to capture with a syntactic constraint does not yield a theory sufficient to capture the data. While this approach is promising, §5.3 shows that even combining Local Givenness early access ihnteelpi ieaeteeoentasbe ftemrhmscnandwithin contained morphemes the of subset a not therefore are site ellipsis the within Mor- New No constraint the using in (2007) Merchant follows (2014) AnderBois npooigater htrelies that theory a proposing in (2014) AnderBois and (2014), Barros (2013b), liems easbe ftemrhmscnandwti h neeetexpres- antecedent the within contained morphemes the of of expression subset elided a the be within must contained sluice morphemes a the that states example, which For phemes, data. the for account to incor- constraint have structural accounts independent meaning-based an above, porated facts the of observations Chung’s Since constraints structural plus Givenness Local 5.2 rps one propose (2017) Rudin & Kroll and (2019) Rudin needed, constraint only identity vP. VPE to while Voice, tree above the head of a bottom to the tree requires from the sluicing matching of that requires Specifically, bottom VPE. the for from does identity greater it syntactic a than over structure holds sluicing syntactic for Merchant’s of condition data, swath identity reversal syntactic polarity the within the that heads of proposes syntactic aware account and not site While ellipsis structure. condition an preceding identity within some syntactic heads limited syntactic a between proposing holds phrase by that verb facts both sluicing for and account (VPE) to ellipsis conditions these operationalizes (2013b) Merchant Sluicing: in Identity Syntactic Limited (35) based. (35): is in given Morphemes New account constraints, No current two the which proposes into Chung on adopt constraints to articulated is finely meaning-based proceed more Chung’s to contentful way a obvious with One conjunction constraint. licensing in constraints Merchant ( 2013), structural Chung limited follows on path a Local Such with facts. conjunction the in for works account that to constraint Givenness identity syntactic limited a Morphemes. adopt New No of predictions the to contained opposition morphemes in The antecedent, site. the antecedent the in present in not morpheme is negation that a site contains cannot ellipsis (30) Morphemes example,the New For No needed. that generalization however, the us, show be data reversal polarity The sion. (ii) hl ecatlae pnteeatfruaino h iie syntactic limited the of formulation exact the open leaves Merchant While to possible still is it need, we formulation the not is Morphemes New No While (i) h lissst yaha dnia otecrepnigha nteantecedent the in head corresponding the in to Case-licensed identical clause. be head must a it by DP, site a ellipsis is the phrase interrogative the If condition: clause. Case antecedent structure the argument in an have predicate must corresponding predicate the that to site, of identical ellipsis argument the the in is predicate phrase interrogative a the If condition: structure Argument 28 Kroll early access 32 California ]] ]]] , but I don’t know why [ comply t]] A VP comply]] [ VP vP [ [ 29 vP [ not PolP PolP will [ will [ T T . E California [ California [ comply] TP TP I don’t think that [California will comply] won’t E: [ A: [ In summary, one way to deal with Chung’s facts is to follow previous accounts Note that traces are not included in the structure-matching requirements of the theory. See Rudin 2019 for an extensive defense of these claims. presented in favor of combiningsyntactic meaning-based identity sluicing condition. accounts Ultimately, withthat any a captures limited limited the syntactic facts identity isproposal in constraint is principle to available to observe us. thatpermissive The such enough contribution a to of constraint, allow the whatever for current its high exact syntactic formulation, mismatches must such be as polarity. tactic facts discussed here. Themeaning-based data approaches have presented to tenacious sluicing challenges everchant(2013b) since for states, the purely the original exact observations. form As remains ofMer- to a be syntactic identity fully formulation explicated,particular and for line the ellipsis of proposal research. here I is hope not merely intended to to point advance out this the arguments that have been and integrate into Local Givennessstraint, an as independent proposed limited in syntacticChung identity2013 con- and Merchant 2013b . Rudin(2019)However, Local and GivennessKroll need not rely on any particular formalization of the syn- (36) is clear in (33) thatpreceding the discourse, elided and PP therefore has violates the no limited syntactically syntactic matching identity antecedent condition. in the the highest vP domain (Laka 1990, Ladusaw 1992). For example, (2) is repeated as clause, namely heads including andevent-introducing below verb. the Crucially, highest because vP the that syntacticover is identity the associated condition eventive holds with core of only an theor elided clause lexical (bolded material in is(36)), allowed any abovepredicts mismatch the the in highest possibility structure vP of domain. polarity This mismatches, account as correctly polarity nodes are located above Polarity reversals under sluicing possible implementation of Chungthat and syntactic Merchant’s identity ideas. holds only The over account heads within proposes the eventive core of the elided The account also correctly rules out the data violating Chung’s generalization. It (36). & Rudin(2017) argue that their account presents one possible way of doing this. 32 early access Although eie nepeain,teremnants the sufficient interpretations, not desired still Consider is concerns. constraint over-generation syntactic alleviate that a to shows with section account This meaning-based limited account. a independent licensing combining an meaning-based integrating a for into arguments constraint saw syntactic we section, previous the picture? In full A pragmatics: plus Structure 5.3 Anderson and 1988, recency Kintsch of 1983, combination Kintsch a a.o.), & to 2007, Dijk due van is, 1971 , the (37) (Jarvella comparison, in status For remnant discourse a.o.). the 2019, the for Harris in correlate and salient point 2011 most that McElree at & salient Martin argument most (see the that discourse making about given thereby remnant, content the the propositional by with recent given argument extracted properties d-linked an syntactic the contains and is, proposition semantic That by recovered. elided sluice be the the must that of that signals proposition acceptability referent the the to increases cue (38) overt in an remnant providing the d-linking that argue I a. (38) remnant d-linked the rule to on fail only therefore based will antecedent clauses out. matched examples sluiced appropriately licenses easily an that are of sluices theory existence the the Any constraints, infelicitous. syntactic be discussed to the of judged any violate not do and a. (37) via introduced, h oal rpryo h xmlsi htte eoeacpal ihthe with acceptable become they that is examples the of property notable The b. b. (37a) everyone a hthtsm eetincahdit h alls ih,btthe but night, last wall pedestrian wall which the say into didn’t crashed pedestrian report some hit that car A but everyone, pedestrian t surprised which pedestrian say some didn’t hit report that the car a rented John That but night, last wall night]. who the say into didn’t crashed report pedestrian the some hit that car #A everyone]. who but everyone, say surprised didn’t pedestrian report some hit the that car a rented John #That i - surprised oepedestrian some (37b) hc pedestrian which last hc ed oa neiiositrrtto ftequestion. the of interpretation infelicitous an to leads which , aemthn igitcatcdns aif oa Givenness, Local satisfy antecedents, linguistic matching have night]. everyone]. ihnadsoresbriae eaieclause: relative subordinated discourse a within , .27-28): p. 2013: (Cantor (38) in shown , who i i 30 [ [ r ikdt icus eeetta was that referent discourse a to linked are that a car John that i (37a) [ a rented i hit [ car that - (37b) t i that crashed John a car .I the In 2013). (Cantor hit rented that t i into crashed hit a the t car i surprised wall into that Kroll last the hit early access 33 expresses ) g K α J ( ExClo iff is maximally salient. p and can be deleted 31 p α salient; this was changed after a reviewer asked about ⊆ L c uniquely , such that p The requirement that the elided proposition must be maximally salient is Local Givenness (final): A TP a proposition 34 a. why John told me Mary is going to Canada One option here is to follow in the footsteps of these analyses and build a notion Examples like (38) demonstrate that structural and contextual/antecedent licens- The ability of a d-linked remnant to link to a discourse subordinated correlate An earlier version of this theory used salient. ambiguous readings of sluices such as in (i): existential closure of the proposition is entailed by the local context and is maximally salient discourse object” (pg. 193).the The thread recognition tying that all salience thesepropositional is accounts or together intricately sub-propositional is tied expressions to in our conversation. ability to elideof and salience recover into Local Givenness. This constraint is given(39) in (39). made by many previous researcherssalience working requirements on are ellipsis. Because built of intocluding this, each most explicit sluicing if theory not discussed all2001) in existing requires §2. sluicing For that example, accounts, the e-GIVENness in- elidedEntailment (Merchant constituent (AnderBois have 2014) “a requires salient “some antecedent,” salient Inquisitive antecedent CP,” and Barker demonstrate that the sluicing datarole fit of within salience a in much anaphoric larger and research syntactic project dependencies in of language. the ing requirements by themselves aresufficiently to not avoid overgeneration. enough This to observation is constrain not a a novel theory one, of and has sluicing been successful reference (Givón 1983, Ariel , 1990 Gundel et al. information1990, inO’Brien an et extracted element al. extracted appears has to also affect been its made ability in to the be theoretical felicitously literature (Karttunen 1977, Rizzi of careful experimental and theoretical workagnostic on here related about phenomena. the Though I particularthe remain analysis data of here d-linked fit phrases naturally onecontent with may an studies wish anaphor of to has, anaphors take, the showingits that greater antecedent the the and more distance the semantic that less may prominent separate the the antecedent anaphor can from be while still maintaining Polarity reversals under sluicing more easily than a bare wh-remnant is perhaps not surprising given the many years (i) John told me that Mary is going to Canada, but I don’t know why [ ]. The final version of Local Givenness proposes that a proposition can be elided if the (2013)’s scopability analysis requires “a silent proform that is anaphoric to some While these questions are still the subject of active research, I bring them up to 1997, Foraker & McElree ).2006 The related observation that the amount of semantic 1990, Cinque 1990, Pesetsky , 1987 Chung , 1994 Hofmeister , 2007 2011, a.o.). 33 Thank you to Shayne34 Sloggett (p.c.) for bringing these works to my attention. ’ smerclsucn examples: sluicing asymmetrical (2009)’s Hartman up brings reviewer A 35 early access hl h enn eei ujc fafiiecas n ilb sindCase assigned be will and clause finite a of subject a is here remnant the While hl A n E r eeal osdrddnttoal qiaet h con eede not does here account the equivalent, denotationally considered generally are (E) and (A) While hte ainecntan a locpuecranfcsta aebe proposed been have that facts certain capture also can constraint salience a whether (40): htmtvtsslec eurmnsi lisstere.Se§ o ute icsino aineand salience of discussion further for §6 See theories. ellipsis in requirements salience motivates what i Smoewntecesgame] chess the won [Someone (i) hr r w osblte o atrn hs at.Tefis sta h miut soeo h context the of one is the that is first The facts. these capturing for possibilities two are There (40) is it sufficiently though be even discourse must the in phrase recoverable elided is it an that unpronounced. of such discourse content the principle the in this way, salient that another of idea Put piece discourse. the unpronounced the the encompasses in of recoverable meaning be felicitously the must to utterance, speaker utterance an a the of for part order some in pronounce that not principle sense common the by motivated o etitv oacutfrteplrt eeslcssdsusdhere. discussed still is cases is reversal e-GIVENness analysis polarity this of the notes, condition for reviewer entailment account the to mutual as However restrictive the focus. too alternative which modulo an given equivalence in are semantic 10, examples by these ft. replaced that 2018: out Merchant pointing for in reviewer analysis different is a observation to of you type Thank This ellipsis. elided. be can (A) to equivalent denotationally proposition any that predict accurately more which I of salient. decision maximally the are leave research. (b) and future and possibilities, to (a) propositional these data both case of the which which either captures in in second to order salient, The open partial equally context. principle a given are in as (b) a am formally and in modeled (a) salient be both maximally context can is given salience (b) a or in (a) by that either established is view, partially possibility this are (Brown-Schmidt Under (b) expectations 2005 ). and and al. (a) goals conversational of et as salience the such dependencies, information top-down anaphoric with non-linguistic case the is as and, the in felicitous perfectly be is context: to labelling constructed clause (40) and following antecedent judge bracketing speakers the (antecedent naïve in However, case T addition). assign corresponding my not the will site, therefore ellipsis and the non-finite in T finite the by in data the on part in based condition Generalization Case Chung’s the the for and argues condition 48) Case the 2013: as (Chung such facts. nature, in wonder syntactic might be we to parsimony, in exercise antecedent-based, an contextual, As by conditions. explained licensing be cannot syntactic that or facts for account to order aeage htayter felpi uticuesm oino ainein salience of notion some include must ellipsis of theory any that argued have I .wyMr sgigt Canada to going is Mary why b. who Temsaesi t hwu ntesur tmidnight] at square the in up show [to said message #The fe eblsa ttegm h w ag eieta ahgn sgoing is gang each that decide gangs two the gym, the at spar verbal a After osn igemme ofih tapriua oainada particular a at and location particular a at fight to member single a send to Scenario: i [ 35 t i should hr r w ag gtn o uf h hrsadteJets. the and Sharks the turf, for fighting gangs two are There show A u o’ eebrwo#[ who remember don’t I but , up in the square 32 at midnight] lost the E . chess A u tdd’ say didn’t it but , game] E . Kroll early access If the infelicity of (40) is truly rooted in 36 33 “the message says to show up at the Square at midnight, but it ) in (33) satisfies the entailment condition of Local Givenness but fails to g K time in two nights time.gang Each that gang will gets fight. Additionally, to theand pick Sharks the the get Jets member to get pick of to the thea pick time other message the of to the location the fight of Sharks the telling fight. them That to night, send the the Jetsfrom Shark send the gang Sharks leader to in the return.He A says Jet to member the opens other theSluice: members message in and an reads annoyed it. voice: doesn’t specify who.” West Side Square for the fight. The next night, the Jets receive a message E J ( A detailed analysis of the Chung’s Generalization facts, given in (32)-(34), is Pseudosluicing is a possible explanation for the lack of case connectivity effects observed here. English and why this strategy would only be available here in a specific context. See discussion in §6. per does not attempt tochallenging provide an and exhaustive important theory continuing of line salience,points: of which that research. remains salience Instead, a is I indeed argue relevant here to for sluicing, two and that a theoryHowever, such of an propositional argument would need to explain why pseudosluicing is not freely available in structure-based accounts. I have alsocan tentatively be suggested expanded that to such encompassto a certain constraints constraint on facts syntactic that structure. havesalience Because previously condition into I been Local have attributed Givenness, motivated it the is inclusion worth of discussing what a suchDetermining a the condition salience of a given proposition is, of course, not trivial. This pa- I have followed previous accounts byness including to a account salience for constraint in certain Local facts Given- that are not explained under purely meaning or unfortunately outside the scope ofExClo the current paper. However, it issatisfy its plausible salience that condition, the which isof based the not proposition on expressed entailment by butas on (E) the an in prominence area the of discourse. future I research. leave this interesting question 5.4 Salience the possibility that an antecedentsentence, for but the in sluice the could preceding besyntactic discourse. found ill-formedness, not as in the the Case preceding becomes condition acceptable claims, it in is context. unclear Aadditional why salience context the facilitates condition example the could sluiced possibly structure. explain why Square at midnight].” The discourse was constructed in such a way as to preclude Polarity reversals under sluicing The judgment given for the continuation of the sluice is “who [should show up at the would look like and whether we can constrain it enough to have predictive power. 36 39 38 37 early access ’ epnei oeesl interpreted easily more is response B’s (41), in see we As a.o.). , 1993 Asher 1990, ecntnaieynt htti yeo npoi eeec otesucdcnetis content sluiced the to reference anaphoric of type this that note tentatively can We h edrwoi led aiirwt hs at ri nneetdi accounting in uninterested is or facts these with familiar already is who reader The noetento fslec srlvnet usinunder Question a to relevance as salience ( 2001) of Sag notion & the Ginzburg encode ( 2014) example, encode Barros For theories and terms. existing organizational some discourse ellipsis, in license to salience enough salient be to proposition section. this skip predictions. safely testable can concrete, salience offer for to as way a such in constrained be can salience xs nsucn htd o xs on exist not do that sluicing on exist widely with to been referred has anaphorically be anaphora 1976. Sag discourse & for Hankamer antecedents in notably contribute literature, to the in content documented elided of constructions. utterance ability sluicing salient a for The requires correlate that the SAL-UTT, as requirement, serve salience explicit to an have also independent Sag provides & Ginzburg propositions salient selects that anaphor scared.” an weren’t with you proposition that impossible “It’s is by pressed demonstrative deictic the (42), In (42). in (42) shown as cases, reversal polarity the in possible also race. the lose will old, years 79 who’s Nancy, A: to reply a as appositive. is subordinated it (41) discourse than the race in the contained winning age, Diane her about about assertion claim matrix the the to reply a as al. et Gundel 1988, (Webber propositions salient anaphor of the anaphora example, propositional license For anaphora. is salience and greater structure. discourse the the from in follows assertion also preference main (see the this of proposal, sentence availability, their or preceding salience, In the 2014). of Koev assertion & and asser- main Syrett ellipsis main the resolve of to to prefer notion expressions comprehenders the paribus, anaphoric in ceteris that, salience claim Discussion. encode They under 2005) ( tion. Question Clifton Maximal & a to Frazier the resolved Similarly, require be and to 2012), sluices Roberts of 1996, interpretations Ginzburg 1996, (Roberts (QuD) Discussion ed o rdc repc,o ore n-ooecrepnec ewe rpstosta can that propositions between correspondence one-to-one a course, of expect, or predict not do We hl hr scretyn ioosdfiiino hti en o given a for means is what of definition rigorous no currently is there While nte igitcpeoeo nw ob estv odsoreorganization discourse to sensitive be to known phenomenon linguistic Another :That B: scared. [ why know don’t I A: true! not That’s B: antscared wasn’t I i sipsil!Yuwr utachild. a just were You impossible! ’s hti,temaigo h rtsnec nBsutterance B’s in sentence first the of meaning the is, That . that I n rpstosta a esucd diinlrequirements Additional sluiced. be can that propositions and that wasn’t that uha nalet h e fpooiin htcnbe can that propositions of set The entailment. as such , scared saahrct h lie rpsto ex- proposition sluiced the to anaphoric is 34 ] 39 i u elycnntrmme being remember not can really I but , h blt opc u h elided the out pick to ability The that skont specifically to known is 38 Kroll 37 early access bought she [ I’m not sure intervenes between on a sluiced clause, which in It’s blue I’m not sure where 40 35 are likely overlapping but not identical sets (see Kroll that for (a), since the sentence ] car a in (b), since the buying event is the main asserted content of ] blue bought is Mary kissed someone because Johnguess left who. for some other party. You’ll never b. Sue bought a car that is blue. I’m not sure where, though. she [ that One way to explain such data is to appeal to a Frazier & Clifton-style account. Additional experimental and theoretical work on anaphora and ellipsis can also car The Right Frontier Constraint (see Polanyi 1986, Webber 1988, Asher 1993, Asher & Lascarides roughly, captures some notion of topicality. sluiced and that can be2019). referred to with 2003, a.m.o.) is a discourseexisting structure discourse constraint only requiring by new attaching discourseto to constituents any the to constituent last attach that simple into dominates constituent an the in last the simple discourse constituent or in by the attaching discourse. This constraint, very Ellipsis Resolution, in which an antecedentclause clause must in locally the c-command discourse the tree. elided account, While as Local the Givenness cannot theory directly has integrateto no such enforce explicit an a antecedent kind clause, of the local force Right of Frontier the Constraint proposal is elided content is about Mary9a): kissing someone, not about John leaving (Asher 2008: (44) discourse relations and structure tothat, anaphora resolution although and recency ellipsis is have arecently observed strong encountered tendency, it proposition does not Polanyi contains1986, always theWebber hold1988, that mostAsher the1993, Hardt salient most Kehler &2002, topic Romero Asher2004, (Hobbs & Asher Lascarides 1978, 2008, 2003, Harris ,2015 a.m.o.). For example, in (44) the Such an account predicts the availabilitya of the sluice the preceding sentence. That accountwhere would also rule outthe the sluice and sluice its antecedent. However, many authors working on the relevance of difference to a matter of salience, as the reviewertarget suggests. in And (a) indeed, than existing in (b). inform ways in which wethe can following constrain contrast: our notion of salience. A reviewer points(43) out a. Sue bought a car. It’s blue. ?/#I’m not sure where, though. Polarity reversals under sluicing evidence that, at least in thecontext. example above, the elided proposition is salient in the To account for such data, Hardt & Romero(2004) propose a Discourse Condition on work on salience can help us understand why the first proposition is more difficult to While the sluice is acceptable in (b), it is not in (a). It seems natural to attribute the 40 early access ilcmltl atr h ularyo at.Hwvr hoiso discourse of theories However, facts. of array full the capture completely will eiwrmnin h osblt httesucsdsusdhr r eie not derived are here discussed sluices the that possibility the mentions reviewer A ie eec) u oterce ersnain ie ytere fdsorere- discourse of theories by given representations richer the to but recency), (i.e. h neeetcas ya es h tutrlrltosPrle rContrast. or Parallel to relations attached discourse structural be the clause the ellipsis least from the at recovered that by and be clause to, antecedent clause attached the a is of clause requires the material resolution that elided constituent sluicing the of Constraint theory that Frontier Asher’s things: Right clauses. the two VPE that and proposes takes sluiced and ( 2008) for (44), Asher topic.” as holds “on such or data salient to be approach to this proposition elided the requires turn rvosrsac a adotalnsaeo osblte o osbe“hr form” “short possible for possibilities of However, landscape structure. a linguistic out underlying laid actual has certainty the research with indeed previous argue is cannot proposed oftentimes form we the cannot constructions, we that ellipsis Since in Givenness. elided alternative, Local is some by what by licensed see but pragmatically paper, is this that in structure presented smaller structure syntactic underlying the by sluicing Non-isomorphic 6 relations. and of organization status discourse discourse of the framework and articulated constituents, an discourse within of propositions salience recency propositional the in presented operationalize factors: here constrained that two discussion research using be The future can predictions. for salience testable avenues concrete, possible of offer some theory argued to been as a of has way that as a theory and sluicing, such to a before, my relevant convinced researchers what indeed have many is to detail salience by section some that this things: in in two hope out of I reader spelling like. look of may way salience propositional existing relations discourse one to are appeal an relations that arguing not am [ I parts sluicing. what to on relation sure in not salience I’m blue. It’s car. a bought Sue proposition: previous the (45) as topic same the about discourse. be the plausibly in can constituent that recent most to in the try example, modifying generally For the to we site to that ellipsis given such discourse, the advantage the resolve strong in a introduced in constituent discourse result last still constraints these However, adjacency constituent lations. discourse mere to convincingly sensitive argue not Romero a is & sense, constraint Hardt atheoretical locality and an the Asher in that “about”, discourse. be the to in elided clause proposition an elided recent discourse of the the type forces in a attach where impose can Constraining they clause account, clauses. Clifton-style sluiced & on Frazier restriction a locality to similar that, is theories (2008) Asher and ( 2004) Romero & Hardt the of consequence interesting One aeotie eesm osbewy ocntanater fpropositional of theory a constrain to ways possible some here outlined have I (43a) h dns ftesuc iapasoc h enn sone is remnant the once disappears sluice the of oddness the 36 it’s le,though. blue], Kroll early access speaks who someone 42 Copular clause deletion hire 43 to ]. i t want was it 41 they [ [ i in the strictest sense in which it is used in the i 37 pseudosluicing ]. i They want to hireremember someone which who Balkan language speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t They want to hireremember someone which who Balkan language speaks at Balkan language, but I don’t There are three main types of non-isomorphic sluices: pseudosluices, copula discussion of specificational copular clauses. Alternatively, it could be possible thatthat the is polarity separate reversal from cases those embodyconvincing that some argumentation are to new described form motivate as this of sluices view. ellipsis I in follow the(2018) literature.Vicente I in amliterature, using however though unaware the of term any isI sometimes consider also used here as only a predicational general copular term clauses. for non-isomorphic See sluices. Rodrigues et al. 2009 and Kroll 2019 for 2018), has been arguedUzbek to (Gribanova exist2013). in However, it Japanese isnot (Kizu not be1997, argued discussed to Merchant here exist (Vicente 1998) in2018).contains and English, The those and in second characterized so group by will of copularis non-isomorphic clause sluices proposed deletion. by Barros et al. 2013 to be available as an island-evasion strategy for (47) Because the elided clause doesabout not extraction contain from a within relative an clause, island. we avoid any concerns clause deletion, and cleftacterized deletion. by The first a type, null pseudosluices, copula which and are a char- null subject instead of by TP deletion (Vicente in (46), such putatively island-violatingisland-containing examples elided are structure, instead such derived as from that a given non- in (47): and (1977).Erteschik-Shir Much ofover the whether or discussion not since sluicingacceptable, centers but ameliorates under on islands. an the For isomorphic example, reading debate contains(46) extractionis of judged the as remnant from (46) of the non-isomorphic variety, it isnon-isomorphic. implausible Therefore, that at all least polarity some reversalhere of sluices must the are have polarity a reversal richer sluices underlying presented structure. 6.1 Types of non-isomorphic sluices Polarity reversals under sluicing sluices, more generally called non-isomorphicpossibilities sluices. and This shows section that, discusses while these it is possible that some polarity reversal sluices are Theories of non-isomorphic sluicing propose that, instead of the elided content The possibility of non-isomorphic sluicing was first noted by Pollmann(1975) within a relative clause islandMerchant ( 2001: p. 152): 41 42 43 early access sw a ntepeiu eto,teeaetonnioopi taeisavailable strategies non-isomorphic two are there section, previous the in saw we As vnCraenen- van 2001, Merchant 1976, Rosen 1975, Pollmann 1977, (Erteschik-Shir 28): (ibid., (48b) h atsbeto rvddabifsmayo h o-smrhcstrategies non-isomorphic the of summary brief a provided subsection last The cleft a of deletion the by derived those are sluices non-isomorphic of group last The Mr are almn u ’ o uehwtall how sure not I’m but man, tall a married Mary a. (48) in as extraction branch left isomorphic an of instead clause, copular in predicational example, For English. in sluicing o st s ee oua luedlto n lf eein oee,bt the both However, deletion. cleft and deletion clause copular here: use to us for content elided the (51) that proposed here. have shown as I the structure take (51). the Let’s in contains sluices. reversal given polarity example these of reversal of range combination full polarity no the that to shows extend section can This possibilities English. in sluicing for available sluices non-isomorphic to reduced be cannot was]. reversals *[it Polarity why know don’t I 6.2 but car, the fixed He (50) a. 53a). (49) or 1998: wh-adjuncts (Merchant with (50) available in not illustrated is as and however, arguments, limited, implicit is strategy This 33-34). p. of example, For 2010). broeck (49b) b. b. shwmn etacei rbes [he problems) credit (extra many how us the to says TA The Sluice: name. John’s and under spreadsheet down the professor: marked at is look have nothing They would problems. that class, credit see the extra Both in some TA. student least a and at John, professor done that course’s thought TA the they and by that professor number accessible the the spreadsheet down a write on to required did were they and problems, credit Context: : 2018 (Vicente structure island isomorphic an of instead cleft a eliding by Ta hywl iesmoei osbe u o’ nwwho know don’t t I but hire possible, will is they someone hire [ will who they know *That don’t I but possible, is be]. someone hire will they That tall how sure not I’m but man. man, tall a married *Mary ihrJohn Either tdnsi eatc ls eegvnteoto od extra do to option the given were class semantics a in Students j i (49a) intd n xr rdtpolm,o he or problems, credit extra any do didn’t spossible. is vistesneta ujc xrcinviolation extraction subject sentential the avoids (48a) 38 h lddsrcuei rudt oti a contain to argued is structure elided the j did]. i i [ aymridat a married Mary he was j inttell didn’t t i ]. it i Kroll will that i early access . (56a) create a else didn’t tell us how didn’t tell us how didn’t tell us how j j j and the exhaustivity else 39 them]. for did]. j practice doesn’t i t [ either didn’t do any extra credit problems, or he either didn’t do any extra credit problems, or he either didn’t do any extra credit problems, or he i j j j 44 ELSE John many ??[it was that he John many ??/*[the number he did was]. John many ?*[it was]. A: I don’t think that BERNIE practices for them, but I don’t know who A reviewer brings up contrast sluices as another way of probing the presence Merchant(2001) observes that one possible way to improve clefting examples Note that we are not ruling these examples out based on the Well-Formedness Condition, which is concerned with pragmatic well-formedness.counter Non-isomorphic the claim strategies that are ellipsis proposedunderlyingly ameliorates in ungrammatical islands; structure part therefore, will to lead non-isomorphic to theories anof assume ungrammatical a sluice. that pre-sluice Thus an is the ungrammaticality usedclause. to predict whether or not that structure is available as the structure in a sluiced Retaining the presuppositional material in (56b) does not improve the example. impose on the correlate). Therefore,provide if evidence contrast against polarity a reversal clefting sluicesfind, non-isomorphic exist, they as strategy. This contrast is sluices indeed are whatin easily we (55). constructed with the polarity reversal property, as (55) Q: Do any of the candidates practice for their debates? of non-isomorphic structure. Theysemantic clash note between that the presuppositional contrastrequirement properties of sluices of a with cleft construction (that is, the uniqueness requirement that clefts tion that is based on theRegardless, presence retaining of the overt presupposition or material non-overtthe for material example our within slightly, example an but in ellipsis it site. (54) isimproves still judged by(54) speakers to be significantly degraded. (53) containing adjuncts is to retaindoes the presuppositional not portion propose of an theimproves explanation cleft. some for Merchant adjunct why clefts, retaining but we the should presuppositional be material cautious when proposing an explana- this example. (52) Polarity reversals under sluicing copular clause example in (52) toand be the degraded cleft or example unacceptable, in suggesting(53) thatare these judged strategies by are speakers unavailable for As predicted, (55) is not acceptable with a clefting strategy, as shown in 44 early access on u htterosrain hleg conso liigta require that sluicing of accounts challenge observations their that out point (2013) hspprhspeetdaddsusdplrt eeslsucn aata rsn a present that data sluicing reversal polarity discussed and presented has paper This oacplrnnioopi taeyised ic lfigsrtg sunavailable. is strategy clefting a since instead, attributed strategy be non-isomorphic can copular example a particular this to whether wonder might we completeness, For a. (56) on a eetne odfeetfrso liss o xml,teei some is there example, For ellipsis. of forms different to extended be can count present that data of theories. sensitivity non-pragmatic pragmatic for the and challenges for discourses, serious account to coherent fits way regulating content one constraints linguistic detailed elide of have to theories ability general the into that show naturally phenomenon I pragmatics-sensitive licensing. dominant a contextual its is to to sluicing subject counter literature, that, syntactic argues the linguistic paper in which This treatment under elided. conditions felicitously the be determining can of content enterprise the to challenge new Conclusion 7 allow. theories current than a permissive that more is be which must here, non-isomorphic sluicing presented the of argument theory, the theory current for complete the support to further challenge provide a data being sluicing and from antecedent Far an site. polarity between sluicing equivalence that a semantic and/or argue syntactic to al. strict et or which isomorphy Barros from Indeed, arguments. basis these to no exception have an I form somehow and sluices reversal non-isomorphic literature, be of the can existence sluices the in reversal for polarity sluices arguments no strong that are claim There strong the non-isomorphic. sluicing making non-isomorphic not a under am subsumed I be analysis, cannot the whole a that be as demonstrates cannot data this reversal that polarity While examples strategies. reversal sluicing polarity non-isomorphic different by two explained section this in shown have I Conclusion 6.3 for available be also to (57) shown is or it proposed unacceptable, been example has an sluicing. that such non-isomorphic construction is copular only a not not that shows (57) However, aua oi fepoaini hte n owa xetapamtcac- pragmatic a extent what to and whether is exploration of topic natural A [ssmoeta os’ rciefrthem]. for practice doesn’t that someone *[is b. o’ hn htBRI rcie o hm u o’ nwwoELSE who know don’t I but them, for practices BERNIE that think don’t I LE*i a htdentpatc o them]. who for know practice don’t doesn’t I that but was them, *[it for practices ELSE BERNIE that think who don’t know don’t I I but was]. them, *[it for practices ELSE BERNIE that think don’t I 40 Kroll early access 30. Fire Lan- The Logic 32. 93–138. . Cambridge sourced].” Journal of Seman- . Kluwer Academic . Routledge. Linguistics and Philosophy Journal of Semantics Logics of conversation 41 by Chris Potts. The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for How can the human mind occur in the physical uni- Reference to abstract objects in discourse “Much of the book is unsourced, but some is [ Accessing noun-phrase antecedents In an internet discussion of the controversial political book , which some discussants argue did not properly document all its , vol. 1, 69–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: 90. 887–926. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0110 and Fury claims: Commenter: Context: ˇ c & Uli Sauerland (eds.), 27. 37–80. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp009 University Press. Publishers: Dordrecht. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1715- 9. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft014 verse? oso/9780195324259.001.0001. guage and appositive impositions in discourse. of Conventional Implicatures Crni tics Irene Heim 707–749. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9025-2. 10.1075/pbns.172.02ash. Ms. Asher, Nicholas. 2008. Troubles on the right frontier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Anderson, John R. 2007. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Asher, Nicholas. 1993. AnderBois, Scott. 2014. The semantics of sluicing: Beyond truth-conditions. AnderBois, Scott, Adrian Brasoveanu & Robert Henderson. 2015. At-issue proposals Amaral, Patricia, Craige Roberts & E. Allyn Smith. 2007. Review of Anand, Pranav & Valentine Hacquard. 2014. Factivity, belief and discourse. In Luka theory of sluicing and ellipsis, of course, remains. Abusch, Dorit. 2009. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. It remains to be determinedof whether or polarity not reversals current under analyses VPE,interesting can question if account for for such future cases examples research areproject and indeed seeks close both by robust. noting to I that, challenge leaveanswer while current this to the assumptions this current on challenge, sluicing much and additional to work provide on an the road to developing a complete Polarity reversals under sluicing evidence that the polarity reversal phenomenonMcCloskey, p.c.): can also be found in VPE (from(58) Jim early access atc,Rnt.17.Ngtv transportation. Negative island 1973. in Renate. variation Bartsch, More 2013. Thoms. Gary & Elliott D. Patrick Matthew, Barros, 2014. Matthew. Barros, sluicing. and Scopability 2013. Chris. Barker, aa,Vnea&RgrShazcid 00 ent ne neeet n wh- and antecedents inner Definite 2010. Schwarzschild. Roger the & as Veneeta Dayal, clefts on note A resort: last Invisibile 2010. Jeroen. the Craenenbroeck, and van Sluicing 2014. Wasow. Thomas & Sag Ivan Popova, Daria James, Collins, 2014. Postal. M. Paul & Chris Collins, 1990. Guglielmo. Cinque, at presented Paper referentiality. and wh-movement Long 1989. Guglielmo. Cinque, logical in Sluicing 1995. McCloskey. Jim & Ladusaw A. William Sandra, why. Chung, and much How sluicing: in identity Syntactic 2013. Sandra. Chung, Chamorro. in "referentiality" and Wh-agreement constructions. 1994. sluicing Sandra. non-grammatical Chung, of exploration An 2013. Sara. Cantor, Beyond 2005. Tanenhaus. K. Michael & Byron K. L. Donna Judith Sarah, & Brown-Schmidt, Hankamer Jorge In wh-questions. Reduced 1976. Robin. Bechhofer, 2001. David. Beaver, 10.1007/BF01248819. 187–223. eoyadLanguage and Memory isn(eds.), Aissen o.3 214 e rnwc,N:LGSA. NJ: Brunswick, New 92–114. 3, vol. Inquiry Inquiry ear lua s o-lua sad.Ms. islands. non-clausal vs. Clausal repair: tion. orltsi lie.I ee trvrv ailAtcue,ArnBraver, Aaron Altschuler, (eds.), Murray Daniel Staroverov, Sarah & Peter Fasola In Carlos sluices. in correlates org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.002. sluicing. for source underlying Ms. appositives. of potential inquisitive 9780262027311.001.0001. negation of syntax Grammar. Comparative on Workshop Princeton Second the form. Thesis. Master’s jml.2005.03.003. pronouns. demonstrative and personal of Interpretation salience: Publications. aua agaeSemantics Language Natural https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00118. 1–44. 44. 1–44. 15. avr tde nsna n semantics and syntax in studies Harvard https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/ Press. MIT . rspoiinadAsrini yai Semantics Dynamic in Assertion and Presupposition liigadiett nellipsis in identity and Sluicing ye fA’-dependencies of Types https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 292–313. 53. Lingua https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ 239–282. 3. 42 lsia E asn:A sa nthe on essay An raising: NEG Classical ugr okn aesi linguistics in papers working Rutgers https://doi.org/https://doi. 1,714–1726. igitsh Berichte Linguistische igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics abig:MTPress. MIT Cambridge: . ugr nvriydisserta- University Rutgers : o.2 31–67. 2, vol. , 27. ora of Journal Linguistic Linguistic CSLI . Kroll 36. , early access . . 30(3). , 173–201. , 149–164. . Bloomington: Canadian Journal Parentheticals , Stanford: CSLI. 24th West Coast Conference on . New York: Oxford University Linguistics and Philosophy Journal of Memory and Language . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Strategies of discourse comprehension . Cambridge University Press. https: Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB) 20 43 , 138–145. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings On the nature of island constraints The interactive stance Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form Reference and generality Quantity implicatures 8. 121–174. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612. 7. 467–536. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091. 19. 208–231. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1963. Syntax Language, Logic, and Computation, Volume 1 Word 0001. Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001. 289–328. New York: Academic. resolution: Active vs. passive representations. 56. 357–383. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.004 ellipsis. 2005.00077.x. licensing in questions. In John Alderete (ed.), Project. of Philosophy mar. ellipsis: Consequences for the identityzovskaya condition. & In Anthea Nadine Bade, Schöller PolinaUniversity (eds.), Bere- of Tübingen. Indiana University Linguistics Club. New York: Academic Press. clauses. In Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.), . //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975158 (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106. Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 1977.10717030. 11659796. 10del. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Dynamics and the semantics of dialog. InGinzburg, Jonathan. J. Seligman 2012. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Geach, Peter T. 1962. Geurts, Bart. 2009. Frazier, Lyn & Charles Clifton. 2005. The syntax-discourse divide: Processing Gajewski, Jon R. 2007. Neg-raising and polarity. Fitzpatrick, Justin. 2005. The whys and how comes of presupposition and NPI Foraker, Stephani & Brian McElree. 2006. The role of prominence in pronoun Evans, Gareth. 1977. Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses. Fillmore, Charles J. 1963. The position of embedding transformations in a gram- Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1977. van Dijk, Teun A. & Walter Kintsch. 1983. Elliott, Patrick D. & Yasutada Sudo. 2016. E-type readings of quantifiers under Polarity reversals under sluicing Del Gobbo, Francesca. 2007. On the syntax and semantics of appositive relative early access reedj,Jre lrsReosn 09 nustv eatc n pragmatics. and semantics Inquisitive 2009. Uzbek. Roelofsen. in Floris & sluicing Jeroen putative Groenendijk, and clefts, clauses, Copular 2013. Vera. Gribanova, 1983. Thomas. Givón, 2001. Sag. A. Ivan & Jonathan Ginzburg, em rn.18a iecag eatc n h aiirt hoyo definiteness. of theory familiarity the and semantics change File 1983a. Irene. Heim, ellipsis from Evidence traces: of uniformity semantic Handout The 2011. Jeremy. identity. Hartman, over-predicts e-GIVENness When 2009. Jeremy. Hartman, discourse- Resolving locality: and demand on Alternatives 2019. Jesse. Harris, sluicing: in interference similarity-based modulates Structure 2015. Jesse. discourse. Harris, of structure the and Ellipsis 2004. Romero. Maribel & Daniel Hardt, 1993. Daniel. Hardt, anaphora. surface and Deep 1976. Sag. Ivan & Jorge Hankamer, (ed.), Li N. Charles In analyses. Multiple 1977. Jorge. Hankamer, implicature, Givenness, 1990. Zacharski. Ron & Hedberg Nancy K., Jeanette Gundel, In grammar. Montague Dynamic 1990. Stokhof. Martin & Jeroen Groenendijk, 1162/LING_a_00050. okhpo agae omncto,adRtoa gny Stanford. Agency. Rational and Communication, Language, on Workshop ora fSemantics of Journal ae enFdr(eds.), Fodor Dean Janet & neetakn study. tracking eye An eklyLnusisSociety Linguistics Berkeley Language () 391–426. 7(3). study Press. Chicago of University nRie aure hitp cwre&AnmvnSehw(eds.), language Stechow of von interpretation Arnim and & use Schwarze Christoph Baeuerle, Rainer In parallelism. Linguistics. Generative on Conference Brussels Fourth the at presented Jr. Clifton Charles . Carlson, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_4 Katy In structures. sluiced in wh-phrases linked 2015.01839. 21.4.375. dissertation. Pennsylvania of chains syntactic In bls.v16i0.1690. expressions. referring of form the and (eds.), language Polos L. & Kalman L. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 . Benjamins. John Amsterdam: . –8 uaet kdma Kiadoo. Akademiai Budapest: 3–48. , https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0074 . 830–882. 89. igitcInquiry Linguistic 8–0.Asi:Uiest fTxsPress. Texas of University Austin: 583–607. , ebprs liss om enn,adprocessing and meaning, Form, ellipsis: phrase Verb oi otniyi icus:Aqatttv cross-language quantitative A discourse: in continuity Topic https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ 375–414. 21. rnir fPsychology of Frontiers rmaia prahst agaeprocessing language to approaches Grammatical https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3765/ 442–453. , aesfo h eodsmoimo oi and logic on symposium second the from Papers https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 367–388. 42. 6–8.Bri:D Gruyter. De Berlin: 164–189. , 44 nergtv investigations Interrogative itet nulMeigo the of Meeting Annual Sixteenth https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 6. igitcInquiry Linguistic ehnssof Mechanisms University : Chicago: . Meaning, Kroll , early access 9. Journal of 26. 376–405. , Academic Press: Linguistic Inquiry 44. 311–338. https: Theoretical Linguis- . Dordrecht: Kluwer. Linguistics and Philos- Formal methods in the Linguistics and Philoso- 47(2). 340–358. https: Lingua Semantics and Pragmatics Language , 496–533. Oxford University Press. 10. 409–416. https://doi.org/https://doi. . Blackwell Publishers Inc. 45 From discourse to logic Language and Cognitive Processes 42. 595–629. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/ , vol. 4, 91–124. New York : Academic Press. Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition Formal Pragmatics , 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. Epistemology of language Linguistic Inquiry 1(1). 3–44. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935 13. 137–138. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630732 1. 181–194. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1974.1.1-3.181. New York. tics ophy D.A. Dinneen (eds.), Groenendijk, Theo Janssen &study Martin of Stokhof language (eds.), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1616-1. ishment. LING_a_00062. org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80040-3. language comprehension. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.492642 Barber (ed.), Ms. phy Syntax and semantics . //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/412084 //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(78)90006-2. 4. 169–193. Alto, CA: CSLI Publications. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 129–220. Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In C.K. Oh & Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presuppositions and linguistic context. Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semanticKamp, representation. Hans & In Uwe Reyle. Jeroen 1993. Jarvella, Robert J. 1971. Syntactic processing of connected speech. Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Hofmeister, Philip. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in Horn, Laurence R. 1978. Remarks on neg-raising. Iatridou, Sabine & Ivy Sichel. 2011. Negative DP’s, A-movement and scope dimin- Hobbs, Jerry R. 1978. Resolving pronoun references. Hofmeister, Philip. 2007. Retrievability and gradience in filler-gap dependencies. Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Higginbotham, James. 1975. On assertive predicates.Higginbotham, In James. John 2003. P. Remembering, Kimball imagining, (ed.), and the first person. In Alex Polarity reversals under sluicing Heim, Irene. 1983b. On the projection problem for presuppositions, 114–126. Palo early access iu ia 97 oeo liigi hi iulnugs nLuaNikolova Ljuba In languages. situ wh-in in sluicing on note A 1997. A Mika. Kizu, comprehension: discourse in knowledge of role The 1988. Walter. Kintsch, 2002. Andrew. Kehler, ecat ao.20.Tesnatcrpeetto fipii ruet.Hand- arguments. implicit of representation syntactic The 2007. Jason. Merchant, 2001. Jason. Merchant, In English. and Japanese in clefts Elliptical Pseudosluicing: 1998. Jason. Merchant, sentence during retrieval Direct-access 2011. McElree. Brian & Andrea Martin, 1990. Itziar. Laka, Dowty David & Barker Chris In Negation. Expressing 1992. A. William Linguistics Ladusaw, The 481–488. QR, and negation, Adverbs, Appositives 1988. A. truth: William for Ladusaw, search The appear. to Rysling. Amanda & Margaret Kroll, the on constraints pragmatic and Syntactic 2017. Rudin. Deniz & Margaret Kroll, https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/ sluicing. under reversals Polarity 2019. Margaret. Kroll, quantifi- and constitution, temporal reference, Nominal 1989. Manfred. Krifka, nulMeigo h ot atLnusi oit (NELS) Society Linguistic East North the of Meeting Annual eg n In in. weigh (eds.), Antieau Lamont & Robinson Susan Veselinova, .Aeidu .Fhhp .Lw&U lihn (eds.), Kleinhenz U. & Law P. Fuhrhop, N. Alexiadou, A. (eds.), Projections //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v2i0.3030. . //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163 a meBa (eds.), Boas Emde van osrcinitgainmodel. construction-integration Publications. u rm‘un nents okhp etu ü lgmieSprachwis- Allgemeine für Zentrum July. workshop, senschaft, indefinites’ ‘Funny from out ellipsis Berlin. linguistics in https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.12.006 . 327–343. sluicing. from Evidence comprehension: Kansas. of Society (eds.), Tetzloff Katerina & Lamont Andrew In sluicing. of acceptability Cruz. Santa California, of University Ms., 004585. Peter & Benthem van Johan Bartsch, Dordrecht. Renate In semantics. event in cation Linguistics. linguistics in xodUiest Press. University Oxford . h rceig fSmnisadLnusi hoy(AT 2 (SALT) Theory Linguistic and Semantics of Proceedings The ascuet nttt fTcnlg dissertation. Technology of Institute Massachusetts : o.3,1319 abig,M:MT I okn aesin Papers Working MIT MIT, MA: Cambridge, 143–159. 36, vol. , eatc n igitcTer SL)29 (SALT) Theory Linguistic and Semantics o.1,8–1.ZnrmfrAleen Sprachwissenschaft: Allgemeine für Zentrum 88–112. 10, vol. , eaini ytx nteNtr fFntoa aeoisand Categories Functional of Nature the On Syntax: in Negation oeec,rfrne n h hoyo grammar of theory the and reference, Coherence, h ytxo iec:Sucn,ilns n h hoyof theory the and islands, Sluicing, silence: of syntax The eatc n otxulexpressions contextual and Semantics scooia Review Psychological 46 ora fMmr n Language and Memory of Journal t tdn conference student 9th . , https: 163–182. 95. a okn papers working Zas 177–190. , 515 Foris: 75–115. , CSLI . https: , 47th Kroll 64. early access , 5. Linguistic Journal of 7(2). 1–53. Spektator 44. 77–108. https: . Oxford University Discourse Processes OSU Working Papers in Formal approaches to semantics , Oxford University Press. https: Linguistic Inquiry The representation of (in)definiteness Semantics and Pragmatics . Cambridge: MIT Press. , 205–222. Springer. 47 12. 683–721. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/ 27. 306–332. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/ A reasonable way to proceed: Essays in honor of Jim Diagnosing syntax The Logic of Conventional Implicature 36. 123–154. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992- Relativized minimality 49. 91–136. , 229–269. University of California eScholarship. 44. 674–684. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00144 Linguistic Inquiry BF00632602. 282–292. Press. Reuland & Alice G.B. ter98–129. Meulen Cambridge: (eds.), MIT Press. discourse structure. TR-6409. Cambridge: BBN Laboratories. Katsuhiko Yabushita & Kei Yoshimoto (eds.), and pragmatics: Japanese and beyond Processes involved in the resolution of23. explicit 1–24. anaphors. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709544979 . https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2 006-9029-8. traces. LING_a_00212. and ellipsis-internal focus. In Jason Merchant, Line Mikkelsen, Deniz Rudin Norbert Corver (eds.), Inquiry Linguistics Linguistics and Philosophy . //doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0022 . //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00120 Philosophical Logic & Kelsey Sasaki (eds.), McCloskey Roberts, Craige. 1989. and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse. Potsdam, Eric. 2013. CP-negation and the domain of quantifier raising. Potts, Christopher. 2005. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Eric Polanyi, Livia. 1986. The linguistic discourse model: Towards a formalPollmann, theory of Thijs. 1975. Een regel die subject en copula deleert? O’Brien, Edward J., Gary E. Raney, Jason E. Albrecht & Keith Rayner. 1997. Murray, Sarah E. 2014. Varieties of update. Nouwen, Rick. 2007. On dependent pronouns and dynamic semantics. Nouwen, Rick. 2014. A note on the projection of appositives. In Eric McCready, Messick, Troy & Gary Thoms. 2016. Ellipsis, economy, and the (non)uniformity of Merchant, Jason. 2013b. Voice and ellipsis. Merchant, Jason. 2018. Verb-stranding predicate ellipsis in greek, implicit arguments, Polarity reversals under sluicing Merchant, Jason. 2013a. Polarity items under ellipsis. In Lisa L.S. Cheng & early access orge,Cln,Ade eis&Li iet.20.Cevn h interactions the Cleaving 2009. Vicente. Luis & Nevins Andrew Cilene, Rodrigues, subordination: Modal 2015. Craige. Roberts, integrated an Towards discourse: in structure Information 2012. Craige. Roberts, clne,Piip.21b rspoiinpoeto:Totere flclcontexts local of theories Two projection: Presupposition 2011b. Philippe. Schlenker, contexts. local with DRT 2011a. Philippe. Schlenker, meanings. local and contexts Local 2010. Philippe. Schlenker, contexts. Local 2009. Philippe. Schlenker, sluicing. in identity syntactic Head-based 2019. Deniz. Rudin, In who? Guess 1969. R. John Ross, (ed.), Hague The Mouton: In Slifting. 1973. Linguistics John. in Ross, Papers Working Montreal In about? what Guess 1976. Carol. Rosen, Interpretation. Focus of Theory A 1992. Mats. Rooth, complex 1985. of Mats. interpretation Rooth, Exhaustive 2004. Schulz. Katrin & Robert Rooij, van 1997/2006. Robert. Rooij, van 1998. Maribel. Romero, Corblin, Francis In sluicing. for conditions Recoverability 1997. Maribel. Romero, . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9069-7 373–392. 19. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-010-9586-0 115–142. 151. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617. 75–116. 1. (ed.), oac agae n igitcter 2006 theory linguistic and languages Romance igitc oit (CLS) Society Linguistics //doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6. . //doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00299.x ewe liigadpsrnig nDnèeTrk&W e ezl (eds.), Wetzels Leo W. & Torck Danièle In p-stranding. and sluicing between pragmatics. of theory formal atI. Part https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00308 . 253–283. 50. Society. Linguistic . https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885248-009 conference international first The languages: natural sentences. Press. demic dissertation. Amherst Massachusetts, of Semantique de et Syntaxe de Paris Colloque de the from papers Selected semantics: and Dani https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.303.11rod . Benjamins. l oad&Ja-ai aadn(eds.), Marandin Jean-Marie & Godard cle ˇ ot atLnusi oit NL)6 (NELS) Society Linguistic East North agaeadLnusisCompass Linguistics and Language 9–1.NwYr:PtrLang. Peter York: New 193–216. , ora fLgc agaeadInformation and Language Logic, of Journal soito ihFocus with Association ou n eosrcinefc nwh-phrases in effect reconstruction and Focus 5–8.Uiest fCiao lios Chicago Illinois: Chicago, of University 252–286. , tiue n hnigcontexts changing and Attitudes rceig rmte5hMeigo h Chicago the of Meeting 5th the from Proceedings eatc n Pragmatics and Semantics 48 Ms mes dissertation. Amherst UMass : twudetyufirst! you eat would It eatc n Pragmatics and Semantics https://doi.org/https: 848–857. 5. 205–211. , miia susi omlsyntax formal in issues Empirical 4–7.Asedm John Amsterdam: 245–270. , aua agaeSemantics Language Natural aua agaeSemantics Language Natural https://doi.org/ 133–169. , h omlaayi of analysis formal The 3 491–519. 13. hlspia Studies Philosophical https: 1–69. 5(6). igitcInquiry Linguistic e ok Aca- York: New . Ms. University : .1–78. 2. Kroll early access 13. 2. 447– : MIT dis- 25. 701–721. Philosophical , Oxford University Journal of Semantics : MIT dissertation. Journal of Semantics Handbook of philosophical 7. 141–177. https://doi.org/ , 197–213. New York University Press. Journal of Philosophical Logic Linguistics and Philosophy 49 The oxford handbook of ellipsis Deletion, deaccenting, and presupposition Natural Language Semantics The 26th annual meeting of the Association for Compu- , 113–122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3115/982023. Interpreting questions under attitudes 117(6). 1034–1056. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Semantics and Philosophy Lingua 168. 21–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0138-2. , vol. 3, 553–616. SUNY Buffalo (ed.), tational Linguistics 982037. sertation. Press. . https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.22 221–263. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.3.221 contribution and shifting information status0. of 1–53. appositives. Unger (eds.), . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 . lingua.2006.05.006 logic Placement of Accent. . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407 position. Epistemic status and projection, 167–182. Studies Tanja Temmerman (eds.), 457. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262951 Margaret Kroll Stevenson College Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [email protected] Webber, Bonnie Lynn. 1988. Discourse deixis: Reference to discourse segments. In Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Uegaki, Wataru. 2015. Vicente, Luis. 2018. Sluicing and its subtypes. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & de Swart, Henriëtte. 1996. Meaning and use of not...until. Syrett, Kristen & Todor Koev. 2014. Experimental evidence for the truth conditional Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. Presuppositions. Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Milton K. MunitzStalnaker, & Robert. Peter 2002. K. Common ground. Simons, Mandy. 2013. Local pragmatics and structured contents. Soames, Scott. 1989. Presuppositions. In Dordrecht (ed.), Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF and Other Constraints on the Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, , and presup- Polarity reversals under sluicing Schlenker, Philippe. 2013. Supplements within a unidimensional semantics II: 1156 High Street