DOCUMENT RESUME ED 444 358 FL 026 348 AUTHOR Dimitriadis, Alexis, Ed.; Lee, Hikyoung, Ed.; Moisset, Christine, Ed.; Williams, Alexander, Ed. TITLE Current Work in Linguistics. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 5, Number 2. INSTITUTION Pennsylvania Univ., Philadelphia. Penn Linguistics Club. PUB DATE 1998-00-00 NOTE 156p. AVAILABLE FROM PWPL, 619 Williams Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305 ($15). PUB TYPE Collected Works Proceedings (021) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Dialects; *Grammar; Kannada; *Language Research; *Linguistics; Mandarin Chinese; *Morphology (Languages); Second Language Instruction; Second Language Learning; Sociolinguistics; Syntax; Uncommonly Taught Languages; Vietnamese IDENTIFIERS Anaphora; Ellipsis ABSTRACT This issue includes the following articles: "A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis" (Gerhard Jager); "Amount Quantification, Referentiality, and Long Wh-Movement" (Anthony Kroch); "Valency in Kannada: Evidence for Interpretive Morphology" (Jeffrey Lidz); "Vietnamese 'Morphology' and the Definition of Word" (Rolf Noyer); "The Conflict between Future Tense and Modality: The Case of 'Will' in English" (Ancop Sarkar); and "Predemonstrative Modifiers in Mandarin" (Alexander Williams). References are appended to each article.(KFT) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 5 Number 2 Current Work in Linguistics 1998 r PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS Office of Educational Research and Improvement BEEN GRANTED BY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) ci This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization W kRewCI'2 V originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Points of view or opinions stated inthis document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. '" 2 EST' COPY HAMM University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 5.2 (1998) Current Work in Linguistics Edited by: Alexis Dimitriadis, Hikyoung Lee, Christine Moisset and Alexander Williams 3 About the PWPLseries The University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics(PWPL) is an occasional series published by thePenn Linguistics Club, thegraduate student organization of theLinguistics Department ofthe University of Pennsylvania. The series hasincluded volumes of previouslyunpublished work, or work inprogress, by linguists withan ongoing affiliation with the Department, as well as volumes of papers from the NWAVEconference and the Penn LinguisticsColloquium. The current PWPL series editors are Alexis Dimitriadis,Hikyoung Lee, Christine Moisset, andAlexander Williams. This volume presents a cross-section of current work inlinguistics at the University of Pennsylvania.On behalf of both the editorsand the authors whose workappears in this volume,we wish to thank the reviewers of these papers for their important contribution. The Editors Publication in the Universityof Pennsylvania WorkingPapers in Linguistics (PWPL) does not precludesubmission of papers elsewhere; by the author(s) of copyright is retained individual papers. Commentson the papers should be sent directly to the authors,at the address provided at the endof each paper. The PWPL editorscan be contacted at the followingaddresses: U. Penn Working Papersin Linguistics 619 Williams Hall University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305 working-papers @ babel.ling.upeim.edu For more information,please consult our web site: http://ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpl.html Volumes of the PWPLare available at $15 per copy, pre-paid. the end of this volume). (See information at Multi-issue subscriptions, copiesof previous issues, and standing orders (for institutions only) are also available. Weinvite other student organizations to setup an exchange of publications withus. ii Table of Contents About the PWPL series ii A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis 1 Gerhard Jager Amount Quantification, Referentiality, and Long Wh-Movement 21 Anthony Kroch Valency in Kannada: Evidence for Interpretive Morphology 37 Jeffrey Lidz Vietnamese 'Morphology' and the Definition of Word 65 Rolf Noyer The Conflict Between Future Tense and Modality: The Case of Will in English 91 Anoop Sarkar Predemonstrative Modifiers in Mandarin 119 Alexander Williams Contents of Volume 5 147 iii A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis* Gerhard Jager 1. Introduction The aim of the present paper is to outlinea unified account of anaphora and ellipsis phenomena within the framework of Type Logical Categorial Gram- mar.1 There is at leastone conceptual and one empirical reason to pursue such a goal. Firstly, both phenomena are characterized by the fact that they re-use semantic resources that are also used elsewhere. This issue is discussed in detail in section 2. Secondly, they show a striking similarity in displaying the characteristic ambiguity between strict and sloppy readings. This supports the assumption that in fact the same mechanisms are at work in bothcases. (1) a. John washed his car, and Bill did, too. b. John washed his car, and Bill waxed it. In (la), the second conjunct can mean that Bill washed Bill'scar or that he washed John's car. Similarly, (lb) is ambiguous betweena reading where Bill waxed John's and one where he waxed hisown car. In the latter reading, it is usually called a paycheck pronoun or a lazypronoun. There is also a fundamental difference between ellipsis and anaphora, how- ever. While ellipses require a strong syntactic and semantic parallelism be- tween their own linguistic environment and the environment of their antece- dents, nothing comparable can be observed in thecase of (nominal) anaphors. This is immediately obvious in the case of strict readings, but sloppy, i.e. lazy readings show a considerable amount of tolerance here, too. (2) John already spent his paycheck, but in Bill'scase, it hasn't been handed out yet. Arguably, a sort of semantic/pragmatic parallelismcan be observed here, but certainly there is no syntactic parallelism, his paycheck beingan object and it a subject. *I am indebted to Natasha Kurtonina and Alexander Williams for valuable dis- cussions and comments. Besides I profited from the suggestions of twoanonymous referees. The research that led to this paper was funded partially by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and partially by the National Science Foundation. I'd liketo express my gratitude to both institutions. 'As introductions to this theory ofgrammar, the interested reader is referred to Carpenter 1997, Moortgat 1997, Morrill 1994. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 5.2, 1998 2 GERHARD JAGER This observation is somewhat surprising in view of the fact thatit is fre- quently assumed that ellipsis interpretation is basedon the recognition of syn- tactic parallelism betweensource clause and target clause (as for instance in Dalrymple et al. 1991 or in Hobbs and Kehler 1997). If this istrue, anaphora and ellipsis are fundamentally different phenomena. Toput it the other way around, a unified account of anaphora and ellipsiscannot make reference to parallelism. Hence the parallelism constraints that undeniablyshow up cannot originate in the ellipsis interpretation module itself but haveto be located else- where in grammar. This is not too bad after all, sincecontexts that license VP ellipsislike coordinations, comparative construction,question-answer se- quences etc.display parallelism effects even when there is no ellipsis. Such a line of argumentation has the advantage that the ellipsis module doesn't have to account for contrasts like the following: (3) Who washed his car? a. John did, although Bill already had. b. John did, and Bill did, too. While (3b) only has a uniformly sloppy reading, thepreferred reading of (3a) is the one where both John and Bill washed John'scar. The availability of the latter reading rests on the fact that John's washinghis car is unlikely in case Bill already washed John'scar, but not in case of Bill having washed his own car. Since not contrast but similarity is required by the conjunction and... too in (3b), the corresponding reading is blocked.It strikes me as undesirable to give the syntax-semantics interface (which is arguablythe locus of ellipsis in- terpretation) access to this kind ofcommon sense knowledge. Thus the ellipsis interpretation module should giveaccess to both readings in both cases. 2. Semantic Resources and Compositionality If one assumes (a) a version of the Principle ofCompositionality and (b) that meanings of natural language expressionscan adequately be represented by means of expressions of the typed A-calculus, one immediately arrivesat the following claim (which is hardlymore than a truism): For each sign S consisting ofn lexemes, in each of its readings there is an expression M of the typed A-calculus withxl, , xi,occuring each exactly once such that M[x1 +-- , Nn] = S' where S' represents the meaning of S and Nithe meaning of the i'th lexeme. A MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS OF ANAPHORA AND ELLIPSIS 3 The term M can be said to represent the semantic structure of the sign. It is an obvious question to ask whether there are restrictions on the form of these structures in natural language semantics. It is uncontroversial toassume that every A-operator should bind at least one variable occurrence.