DOCSLIB.ORG

Class 2: Corpus-Based Studies on Ellipsis and English Gapping

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Class 2: Corpus-Based Studies on Ellipsis and English Gapping Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Empirical Approaches to Elliptical Constructions Class 2: Corpus-based studies on ellipsis and English gapping Gabriela Bîlbîie1 and Anne Abeillé2 1University of Bucharest [email protected] 2Université Paris Diderot-Paris 7 [email protected] LSA 2017 Linguistic Institute 10 July 2017, University of Kentucky 1 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Class 2 – Content 1 Corpus-based studies motivation 2 Previous corpus studies Meyer (1995) Greenbaum & Nelson (1999) Harbusch & Kempen (2011) 3 PTB and ellipsis annotation 4 Gapping in PTB Missing material Remnants 2 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Plan 1 Corpus-based studies motivation 2 Previous corpus studies Meyer (1995) Greenbaum & Nelson (1999) Harbusch & Kempen (2011) 3 PTB and ellipsis annotation 4 Gapping in PTB Missing material Remnants 3 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Ellipsis – a challenge for grammar Ellipsis : a form/meaning mismatch (significatio ex nihilo) 1 part of the material necessary for the interpretation is missing in the syntactic structure (’incomplete’ syntax) ; 2 the missing material is recovered from an antecedent in the context. Descriptive problem : A mass of elliptical constructions, on the basis of several criteria, e.g. syntactic function of the missing material (head or dependent), syntactic context (coordination, subordination ; dialogue), ellipsis directionnality (forward vs. backward ellipsis). ⇒ Sometimes, unstable terminology. Theoretical problem : A plethora of competitive analyses, with respect to the level at which reconstruction of the missing material takes place : syntactic reconstruction vs. semantic reconstruction. ⇒ Unsolved theoretical problems. 4 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Gathering data on ellipsis In the literature on ellipsis, the large majority of examples are constructed data, based on introspective acceptability judgments. This leads very often to significant variation in acceptability judgments across speakers and sometimes even to contradictory data. Reliability of introspective acceptability judgments was recently called into question (Sprouse et al. 2010, Sprouse & Almeida 2012, Gibson & Fedorenko 2013), cf. weak methodological standards in linguistics (Gibson & Fedorenko 2013) : Confirmation bias on the part of the researcher (bias in favor of the predicted result). Confirmation bias on the part of the participants (if they are linguists, biased by their own hypotheses). 5 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Problems related to the introspective methods Even if the acceptability judgment on a given example is correct, we don’t always have clear intuitions about what is the source of inacceptability. If only a few examples (sometimes just one) of a given type are used as the basis for the judgment, this makes it especially unclear that low acceptability is due to one factor rather than another. E.g. specific lexical items can create play a role, as can discourse constraints. Many subtle factors of usage influence ease of processing and consequently acceptability. Factors influencing acceptability : Grammaticality Complexity Plausibility Lexical semantic properties of the lexical items chosen Frequency of lexical item and sequences of lexical items Various usage preferences 6 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Usage Preferences impact Usage Preferences (UPs) can affect any subdomain of linguistic competence : syntax, semantics, pragmatics, morphology, etc. Violating UPs can lead to reducing acceptability independently of any processing difficulties. UP violations can be cumulative, leading to strong unacceptability without any violations of linguistic constraints. 7 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB An illustration : the verbal anaphor do so General assumptions : Do so does not allow stative antecedents (Lakoff & Ross 1976). Do so does not allow non-action event antecedents (Culicover & Jackendoff 2005). (1) a. *Bill knew the answer, and Harry did so, too. (Lakoff & Ross 1976) b. *Robin dislikes Ozzie, but Leslie doesn’t do so. [Stative, Culicover & Jackendoff 2005] c. ?*Robin fell out the window, but Leslie didn’t do so. [Non-action event, Culicover & Jackendoff 2005] 8 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Attested examples of do so with stative antecedents : (2) a. The basic idea is that whenever the relation of complementary distribution holds between phones belonging to a common phoneme, it does so because the phonetic value of the phoneme depends upon the phonetic environment in which it occurs. [Stative, in Fodor, Bever and Garret, The Psychology of Language, cited by Michiels 1978] b. [Lanchester brings] his singular narrative ease to a historical story that sniffs of a quiet, personalized epic, but does so beautifully, eschewing the dripping drama so often wrongly associated with books that trace more than a few decades. [Stative, NYT, cited by Houser 2010] Paradox : Why do constructed examples with do so and a stative antecedent seem to be ungrammatical when such examples are attested in spontaneous usage of language ? 9 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Usage preferences for finite do so as evidenced by corpus investigation : UP1 Finite do so very strongly prefers to occur with non-stative antecedents. (98% of cases according to Houser 2010) UP2 Finite do so very strongly prefers to occur referring to the same state of affairs as its antecedent and hence with the same subject as its antecedent. (98% of cases according to Miller 2011) UP3 Finite do so prefers to occur with a non-contrastive adjunct. (83% of cases according to Miller 2011) Easy to find examples violating one UP in corpora. Very difficult to find examples violating two or three UPs. 10 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Acceptable examples respect two of the three UPs : (3) a. The basic idea is that whenever the relation of complementary distribution holds between phones belonging to a common phoneme, it does so because the phonetic value of the phoneme depends upon the phonetic environment in which it occurs. [UP1–, UP2+, UP3+] b. [Lanchester brings] his singular narrative ease to a historical story that sniffs of a quiet, personalized epic, but does so beautifully, eschewing the dripping drama so often wrongly associated with books that trace more than a few decades. [UP1–, UP2+, UP3+] c. Thus, players were more likely to behave positively if the team’s spectators and coaches did so as well. (COCA, Acad) [UP1+, UP2–, UP3+] 11 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Unacceptable examples violate the three UPs : (4) a. ↓Bill knew the answer, and Harry did so, too. b. ↓Robin dislikes Ozzie, but Leslie doesn’t do so. c. ↓Robin fell out the window, but Leslie didn’t do so. Examples are unacceptable because they do not respect three UPs but they are grammatical. The down-arrow symbol (↓) indicates unacceptability due to usage-preference violation. ⇒ Gradience in acceptability and grammaticality. 12 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB Methodological importance of UPs : Coming back to Lakoff & Ross (1976) on do so, they calque typical VPE examples. Specifically, out of 33 example sentences with do so, 27 have contrasting subjects. Among these are all of the sentences that they use to argue that do so cannot have stative antecedents. (5) a. Mary likes apples and Jane does too. b. *Bill knew the answer, and Harry did so, too. (Lakoff & Ross 1976). c. Bill knew the answer. He did so because he had read an article :::::::::::::::::::::::: on the subject in the paper the day before. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Since Lakoff & Ross (1976), this unnatural pattern of usage has made its way into many articles and textbooks. In arguments for VP constituency and for the complement/adjunct distinction : in textbooks, e.g. Radford (1988), Haegeman (1991), Haegeman & Guéron (1999) ; in articles, e.g. Sobin (2008) : (out of 32 examples of do so, 26 have contrasting subjects). 13 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB The moral of the story A better understanding of usage is crucial to the interpretation of acceptability judgments. Corpus research is crucial to understanding usage preferences. Working on a small number of invented examples can lead to serious misinterpretations as to the actual source of acceptability differences. 14 / 76 N Corpus-based studies motivation Previous corpus studies PTB and ellipsis annotation Gapping in PTB The importance of corpus for ellipsis studies Data issues : Use of empirically attested data prevents the problems related to the introspective data and to the variability in acceptability judgments across speakers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Syncom.Sluicing
    SynCom Case 98 Sluicing Jason Merchant University of Chicago August 2003 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Movement vs. non-movement approaches 3. Theoretical consequences 3.1. Non-movement approaches 3.2. Movement approaches 4. Puzzles and prospects 4.1. Sluicing-COMP generalization puzzles 4.2. Sluicing in non-wh-in-specCP languages 4.3. Multiple sluicing 4.4. Swiping 5. Conclusion References Glossary 1. Introduction Sluicing is the ellipsis phenomenon illustrated in (1), in which the sentential portion of a constituent question is elided, leaving only a wh-phrase remnant. (1) a. Jack bought something, but I don’t know what. b. A: Someone called. B: Really? Who? c. Beth was there, but you’ll never guess who else. d. Jack called, but I don’t know {when/how/why/where from}. e. Sally’s out hunting — guess what! f. A car is parked on the lawn — find out whose. The sluices in (1) should be compared to their non-elliptical counterparts in (2), with which they are synonymous. (2) a. Jack bought something, but I don’t know what he bought. b. A: Someone called. B: Really? Who called? c. Beth was there, but you’ll never guess who else was there. d. Jack called, but I don’t know {when/how/why} he called. e. Sally’s out hunting — guess what she’s out hunting! f. A car is parked on the lawn — find out whose is parked on the lawn. Sluicing appears to be widespread cross-linguistically (unlike VP-ellipsis), and may in fact be found in some form or another in every language (like nominal ellipses, 1 gapping, stripping, and fragment answers).
    [Show full text]
  • Gapping: in Defense of Deletion
    Gapping: In Defense of Deletion Elizabeth Coppock Northwestern University 1 Introduction Gapping refers to the following type of construction: (1) [α John likes caviar] and [γ Mary beans]. Typically, Gapping involves two such conjoined clauses, where the second clause contains no pronounced verbal material, as in (1). Following usual terminology, I call the missing material the Gap, the first clause (e.g. α) the antecedent clause, the second clause (e.g. γ) the gapped clause, and the pronounced elements of the gapped clause remnants. Assuming that the Gap is present somehow in the syntax, we have three potential analyses, depending on the nature of the Gap. We may interpret it as (i) a null pro-form, (ii) a deleted element, or (iii) a trace of movement. I immediately rule out possibility (i), following Hankamer and Sag (1976), who argue that Gaps are Surface Anaphors as opposed to Deep Anaphors (i.e. null pro-forms), based on their Island sensitivity and the fact that they require a linguistic antecedent. The second idea (deletion) is as old as the term Gapping. The first detailed investigation of the phenomenon was in Rosss 1967 dissertation, where he coined its name, and gave a deletion analysis. In 1976, Sag suggested that the remnants A'-move out of the gapped clause before deletion, preserving the hypothesis that operations (such as deletion) affect entire constituents. My proposal is essentially Sags, differing significantly only in the assumption that remnants adjoin to VP, rather than at the sentence level, as in (2).1 (2) John likes caviar, and [VP Mary1 [VP beans2 [VP t1 likes t2 ] ] ]].
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Multiword Expressions and Compounds in Bulgarian
    Treatment of Multiword Expressions and Compounds in Bulgarian Petya Osenova and Kiril Simov Linguistic Modelling Deparment, IICT-BAS Acad. G. Bonchev 25A, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria [email protected] and [email protected] Abstract 2012)), we will adopt the Multiword Expressions The paper shows that catena represen- classification, presented in (Sag et al., 2001). They tation together with valence information divide them into two groups: lexicalized phrases can provide a good way of encoding and institutionalized phrases. The former are fur- Multiword Expressions (beyond idioms). ther subdivided into fixed-expressions, semi-fixed It also discusses a strategy for mapping expressions and syntactically-flexible expressions. noun/verb compounds with their counter- Fixed expressions are said to be fully lexicalized part syntactic phrases. The data on Mul- and undergoing neither morphosyntactic variation tiword Expression comes from BulTree- nor internal modification. Semi-fixed expressions Bank, while the data on compounds comes have a fixed word order, but “undergo some degree from a morphological dictionary of Bul- of lexical variation, e.g. in the form of inflection, garian. variation in reflexive form, and determiner selec- tion” (non-decomposable idioms, proper names). 1 Introduction Syntactically-flexible expressions show more vari- Our work is based on the annotation of Multi- ation in their word order (light verb constructions, word Expressions (MWE) in the Bulgarian tree- decomposable idioms). We follow the understand- bank — BulTreeBank (Simov et al., 2004). We ing of (O’Grady, 1998) that MWEs have their in- use this representation for parsing and analysis of ternal syntactic structure which needs to be rep- compounds. BulTreeBank exists in two formats: resented in the lexicon as well as in the sentence HPSG-based (original - constituent-based with analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – a Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1
    Thomas Groß Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – A Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1 Abstract The Modern Hebrew (MH) desiderative construction must obey four conditions: 1. A subordinate clause headed by the clitic še= ‘that’ must be present. 2. The verb in the subordinate clause must be marked with future tense. 3. The grammatical properties genus, number, and person tend to be specified, i.e. if the future tense affix is underspecified, material tends to appear that aids specification, if contextual recovery is unavailable. 4. The units of form that make up the constructional meaning of the desiderative must qualify as a catena. A catena is a dependency-based unit of form, the parts of which are immediately continuous in the vertical dimension. The description of the individual parts of the desiderative must address trans-, pre-, and suffixes, and cliticization. Catena-based morphology is representational, monostratal, dependency-, construction-, and piece-based. 1. Purpose, means and claims The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the Hebrew desiderative construction. This construction is linguistically interesting and challenging for a number of reasons. 1. It is a periphrastic construction, with fairly transparent compositionality. 2. It is transclausal, i.e. some parts of the construction reside in the main clause, and others in the subordinated clause. The complementizer is also part of the construction. 3. The construction consists of more than one word, but it does not qualify as a constituent. Rather the construction cuts into words. 4. Two theoretically 1 I want to thank Outi Bat-El (Tel Aviv University) and three anonymous reviewers for their help and advice.
    [Show full text]
  • An Asymmetry in Voice Mismatches in VP-Ellipsis and Pseudogapping
    An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping Jason Merchant University of Chicago [email protected] Final revision for Linguistic Inquiry, March 29, 2007 VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping in English show a previously unnoticed asymmetry in their tolerance for voice mismatch: while VP-ellipsis allows mismatches in voice between the elided VP and its antecedent, pseudogap- ping does not. This difference is unexpected under current analyses of pseu- dogapping, which posit that pseudogapping is a kind of VP-ellipsis. I show that this difference falls out naturally if the target of deletion in the two cases differs slightly: in VP-ellipsis, a node lower than Voice is deleted, while in pseudogapping a node containing Voice is deleted. This analysis further- more accounts for a new observation concerning the distribution of floated quantifiers in these two constructions as well.1 1Thanks to Kirsten Gengel, Kyle Johnson, and the two LI reviewers for very helpful comments. 1 1 Voice mismatches It is well known that VP-ellipsis in English tolerates mismatches between the voice of the elided constituent and that of its antecedent, in both directions. Typical examples are those in (1) and (2) (the (a) examples from Kehler 2002:53; see also Sag 1976:17, 75, Dalrymple et al. 1991, Hardt 1993, Johnson 2001, and Arregui et al. to appear for further examples, discussion, and qualifications). (1) Passive antecedent, active ellipsis a. This problem was to have been looked into, but obviously nobody did. <look into this problem> b. The system can be used by anyone who wants to.
    [Show full text]
  • On Pseudogapping in HPSG*
    On Pseudogapping in HPSG* Dong-woo Park Department of Laguage and Literature, Seoul National University 599 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-742, Korea [email protected] Abstract. This study investigates the constraints imposed on the pseudogapping in the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). Based on the existing schema to account for coordination and gapping, a new pseudogapping schema in coordination structures is proposed in this paper. In the process of capturing the constraints, new DOM lists are added and an existing DOM list is divided into two DOM lists depending on the feature of elements in each domain. Furthermore, new features SEP and INC are introduced. SEP is used for distinguishing prepositions which should be located in the same domain with the following NPs from those which can be separated from the following NPs. INC feature determines whether overlapping adverbs are in non-empty lists or not. Pseudogapping occurs not only in coordination structures, but in comparative or subordination structures. Thus, this paper introduces a pseudogapping schema that can be applied to all structures mentioned above. Keywords: DOM lists, SEP feature, INC feature, pseudogapping schema. 1 Introduction English has ellipsis like these examples. (1) a. Sluicing: She read something, but she won’t say what [vP ]. b. Verb Phrase Ellipsis: She read something and he did [vP ] too. c. Pseudogapping: She’ll read something to Sam, but she won’t [vP ] to Billy. d. Gapping: Some read something to Sam and others [vP ] to Billy. e. Right Node Raising: She deliberately [vP ], and he accidentally, read something.
    [Show full text]
  • What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What It Can't, but Not Why*
    What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What it Can’t, * but not Why Kyle Johnson University of Massachusetts Amherst VP Ellipsis is the name given to instances of anaphora in which a missing predicate, like that marked by “)” in (2), is able to find an antecedent in the surrounding discourse, as (2) does in the bracketed material of (1). (1) Holly Golightly won’t [eat rutabagas]. (2) I don’t think Fred will ), either. We can identify three sub-problems which a complete account of this phenomenon must solve. (3) a. In which syntactic environments is VP Ellipsis licensed? b. What structural relation may an elided VP and its antecedent have? c. How is the meaning of the ellipsis recovered from its antecedent? These tasks tend to run together, as we shall see; but there is no immediate harm in treating them separately. 1. LICENSING THE ELLIPSIS The first of the problems presents itself with pairs such as (4). (4) I can’t believe Holly Golightly won’t eat rutabagas. a. I can’t believe Fred won’t ), either. b. *I can’t believe Fred ), either. These contrasts are typically thought to involve licensing conditions that the environment to the left of the ellipsis invoke. The contrast between (4a) and (4b), for instance, indicates that the ellipsis site must be in construction with, or perhaps governed by, a member of “Aux,” where these can be understood to be just those terms that are able occupy the highest of the functional projections which clauses are made up of. The modal, won’t, is an Aux, as is the infinitival to and the auxiliaries have, be and do in (5).
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of Comparative Constructions : Operators, Ellipsis
    Julia Bacskai-Atkari The Syntax of Comparative Constructions Operators, Ellipsis Phenomena and Functional Left Peripheries Universitätsverlag Potsdam Julia Bacskai-Atkari The syntax of comparative constructions Julia Bacskai-Atkari The syntax of comparative constructions Operators, ellipsis phenomena and functional left peripheries Universitätsverlag Potsdam Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de/ abrufbar. Universitätsverlag Potsdam 2014 http://verlag.ub.uni-potsdam.de/ Am Neuen Palais 10, 14469 Potsdam Tel.: +49 (0)331 977 2533 / Fax: 2292 E-Mail: [email protected] Zugl.: Potsdam, Univ., Diss., 2014 Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Gisbert Fanselow, Department Linguistik, Universität Potsdam Prof. Dr. István Kenesei, Department English Studies, University of Szeged Datum der Disputation: 25.02.2014 Dieses Werk ist unter einem Creative Commons Lizenzvertrag lizenziert: Namensnennung 4.0 International Um die Bedingungen der Lizenz einzusehen, folgen Sie bitte dem Hyperlink: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/de/ Online veröffentlicht auf dem Publikationsserver der Universität Potsdam URL http://pub.ub.uni-potsdam.de/volltexte/2014/7125/ URN urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-71255 http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-71255 Zugleich gedruckt erschienen im Universitätsverlag Potsdam ISBN 978-3-86956-301-5 Acknowledgements This dissertation could not have been written without the funding pro- vided by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) through the Collaborative Research Centre SFB-632 (Information structure: The linguistic means for structuring utterances, sentences and texts) at the Linguistics Department at University of Potsdam, where I held a short- term PhD scholarship in 2012/2013 (working in project A1 in Potsdam and partially also in B4 at the Humboldt University of Berlin), and where I am currently employed as a research fellow (project Z).
    [Show full text]
  • Gapping and Stripping
    Gapping and Stripping Gapping and Stripping Kyle Johnson The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis Edited by Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Tanja Temmerman Print Publication Date: Dec 2018 Subject: Linguistics, Morphology and Syntax Online Publication Date: Jan 2019 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.24 Abstract and Keywords The chapter looks at the main attempts to model two constructions: gapping and strip­ ping. It reviews the ways in which these constructions are similar, exploring the thesis that they both stem from the same underlying process. One of those shared properties is their restriction to coordinations—a restriction that is not found elsewhere in the menagerie of ellipsis constructions. Methods of tying this restriction to the similarly gap­ ping/stripping-specific constraint against embedding the ellipsis or its antecedent are ex­ amined. The chapter focuses on the shortcomings of previous attempts to explain these conditions, and their counter-examples, and points to new directions of analysis that seem promising. Keywords: gapping, stripping, ellipsis, coordination, movement, small conjuncts, large conjuncts 23.1 Introduction THIS chapter looks at two constructions which are sometimes characterized as involving ellipsis. One is known as gapping, a name Ross (1970) suggested. And the other is vari­ ously known as stripping or Bare Argument Ellipsis.1 An example of gapping is (1), and stripping is illustrated by (2). (1) (2) The second conjunct of (1) is understood to have the same verb that the first conjunct has: likes. Similarly, in the second conjunct of (2), there is understood to be both a verb and a subject, each identical to those found in the first conjunct: Jones likes.
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Ellipsis in Construction Grammar 8.1 Introduction
    8 Ellipsis in Construction Grammar Adele E. Goldberg and Florent Perek 8.1 Introduction Ellipsis constructions are formal patterns in which certain syntactic structure that is typically expressed is omitted. Some of the most commonly discussed ellipsis constructions along with an attested example of each are provided in Table 8.1. All examples in quotes within and following Table 8.1 come from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (Davis 2008). Table 8.1 Commonly discussed constructions that involve ellipsis Verb phrase ellipsis ‘French kids eat spinach and ours can too.’ Sluicing ‘He said that I was “different.” He didn’t say how.’ Gapping A: ‘You made me what I am today.’ B: ‘And you me.’ Stripping ‘George Greenwell was a patriot but not a fool.’ Comparatives ‘His front teeth seemed to protrude more than Henry remembered.’ Every language balances the need to be expressive with the need to be sufficiently easy to produce. These two major functional principles (described by Goldberg 1995: 67 1 as Maximize Expressive Power and Maximize Economy) give rise to different networks of learned constructions in different languages via general processes of grammaticalization or constructionization (Paul 1889; Hopper and Traugott 2003; Traugott 2014; Bybee et al. 1994; Fried 2009). This chapter emphasizes the shared communicative motivation of ellipsis constructions that leads to cross-linguistic similarities and certain predictable functional constraints (section 8.2), while we also emphasize the fact that ellipsis is licensed by a system of motivated constructions; i.e., learned pairings of form and function. Specific constructions readily capture a range of restrictions on form and function, including those related to semantics, discourse context, register, genre, and dialect.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Types of Ellipsis∗
    Three types of ellipsis∗ Jason Merchant Abstract The term ‘ellipsis’ can be used to refer to a variety of phenomena: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. In this article, I discuss the recent comprehensive survey by Stainton 2006 of these kinds of ellipsis with respect to the analysis of nonsententials and try to show that despite his trenchant criticisms and insightful proposal, some of the criticisms can be evaded and the insights incorporated into a semantic ellipsis analysis, making a ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy to the properties of nonsententials feasible after all. 1. Introduction A character in Carlos Fuentes’s 2002 novel The Eagle’s Throne (trans. Kristina Cordero; Random House: New York, 2006) says with self-disdain and melan- choly (p. 93): Did you know I’ve learned to speak like an Anglo-Saxon, without articles or context? “Exactly.” “Done.” “Nothing.” “Careful.” “Perfect.” ∗This paper owes an enormous debt to a large number of people over the years since I first began working on it, but special mention must be made of Rob Stainton, whose work was the original impetus for it and whose comments at Rutgers and in Paris in 2007 led to numerous improvements. Thanks also to Ernie Lepore, François Recanati, Jason Stanley, and the participants in the Leverhulme Foundation workshop organized by Laurence Goldstein at Canterbury in 2008. “Warned.” “Face consequences.” I say these things, nothing else. As it turns out, such seemingly telegraphic speech is by no means limited to the Anglo-Saxon world. The question is just what such utterances could and do mean ‘without context’ and with, and what exactly a speaker who utters such phrases says, means, and conveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Catena Operations for Unified Dependency Analysis
    Catena Operations for Unified Dependency Analysis Kiril Simov and Petya Osenova Linguistic Modeling Department Institute of Information and Communication Technologies Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Bulgaria {kivs,petya}@bultreebank.org Abstract to its syntactic analysis. On the other hand, a uni- fied strategy of dependency analysis is proposed The notion of catena was introduced origi- via extending the catena to handle also phenomena nally to represent the syntactic structure of as valency and other combinatorial dependencies. multiword expressions with idiosyncratic Thus, a two-fold analysis is achieved: handling the semantics and non-constituent structure. lexicon-grammar relation and arriving at a single Later on, several other phenomena (such means for analyzing related phenomena. as ellipsis, verbal complexes, etc.) were The paper is structured as follows: the next formalized as catenae. This naturally led section outlines some previous work on catenae; to the suggestion that a catena can be con- section 3 focuses on the formal definition of the sidered a basic unit of syntax. In this paper catena and of catena-based lexical entries; sec- we present a formalization of catenae and tion 4 presents different lexical entries that demon- the main operations over them for mod- strate the expressive power of the catena formal- elling the combinatorial potential of units ism; section 5 concludes the paper. in dependency grammar. 2 Previous Work on Catenae 1 Introduction The notion of catena (chain) was introduced in Catenae were introduced initially to handle lin- (O’Grady, 1998) as a mechanism for representing guistic expressions with non-constituent structure the syntactic structure of idioms.
    [Show full text]