Rooth, M. (1992) Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy, in S. Berman and A. Hestvik (Eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....you won t (like) For every x: if you won t like x, she wants you to like x. The goal of this paper is to explain the fact, so far unaccounted for, that reading (c) while in principle available, is often degraded in comparison to (a) and (b) Following the general theory of ellipsis from (Rooth, 1992), we assume that there must be an A(ntecedent) clause that is an element of the focus value (F( of the E(llipsis) clause, where the E clause can be any clause containing the ellipsis. Our explanation relies on two additional claims, each of which is independently motivated in the grammar. The ....

Mats Rooth. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart, Germany, 1992.

....is strongly constrained by discourse structure. We assume the following two background claims: 1) Matching Condition on Ellipsis Resolution: Ellipsis resolution requires that a matching relation holds between a containing clause E and some antecedent clause A. Dalrymple et al. 1991; Rooth, 1992a; Tancredi, 1992; Fiengo and May, 1994; Schwarzschild, 1999) 2) Discourse Structure: Clauses in a discourse are structured according to discourse relations; ellipsis resolution (and other anaphora resolution) occurs as a side effect of establishing discourse relations. Hobbs, 1979; Asher, 1993; ....

....lower (section 5) readings that are incorrectly permitted by theories that do not refer to discourse structure. Finally, in section 6, we discuss some potential problems for the approach involving symmetric focus, and we draw some conclusions. 2 Background 2. 1 Ellipsis Resolution as Matching (Rooth, 1992a) argues that ellipsis involves a matching relation that is not necessarily restricted to the minimal clause containing the ellipsis. See also (Dalrymple et al. 1991; Tancredi, 1992; Fiengo and May, 1994; Schwarzschild, 1999) among many others) In this paper, we will assume Rooth s (1992) ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Mats Rooth. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart, Germany, 1992.

....form of sentences, ellipsis emerges as a window onto the general mechanisms governing the interpretation of multi sentence discourse. In this paper I will use ellipsis to investigate two potential mechanisms for general, inter sentential constraints on interpretation: Background Matching, based on (Rooth, 1992; Dalrymple et al. 1991) and Parallel Dependencies, based on (Fiengo and May, 1994) The Background Matching approach attempts to determine a common semantic background to the ellipsis and antecedent clause, while the Parallel Dependencies approach places rather involved constraints on the ....

....interpretation must arise from external mechanisms. In what follows, we consider Background Matching and Parallel Dependencies. These mechanisms will apply to structures after VP copy has applied and after pronoun antecedent relations have been determined. 2. 2 Background Matching Several authors (Rooth, 1992; Tancredi, 1992; Dalrymple et al. 1991; Prust et al. 1994; Asher, 1993; Hobbs and Kehler, 1997; Asher et al. 2001) have argued that interpretation is constrained by an operation that attempts to match background material between parallel clauses in a discourse. Essential to this view is ....

Mats Rooth. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart, Germany, 1992.

....the HOU approach has been shown to provide a ne grained analysis both of the elliptical, and of the deaccenting data. The second di erence between the two approaches concerns the way in which each approach implements the redundancy constraint: through a compositionally constructed focus value in Rooth s approach gardent.tex; 1 10 1999; 11:53; p.23 24 Claire Gardent and through equational constraints and the use of HOU in the present approach. Generally, Rooth s de nition of the focus value appears to yield roughly the same predictions as the HOU constraints. There is however, one di erence which emerges most clearly in ....

Rooth, M.: 1992a, `Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy'. In: S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.): Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. University of Stuttgart.

....else than the POR. Concretely, this means that colours will only re appear in section 7, where we concentrate on the interaction between semantic construction and other sources of linguistic information. 3 Sloppy identity in ellipsis and deaccenting contexts It has often been observed (cf. [19,1,18]) that VP ellipsis and deaccenting (i.e. prosodic reduction) share a number of interpretive similarities and in particular that they both give rise to sloppy strict ambiguity. Thus in (18) the target VP took his wife to the station is deaccented, and like the elided VP in (17) it can be ....

....the target pronoun his is interpreted as either strict (Jon) or sloppy (Bill) Another interesting fact about sloppy interpretation in deaccenting and VP ellipsis contexts is that it may involve an extended domain of licensing that is, a domain that extends beyond the clausal level. For instance, [18] notes that in (19) and (20) both the deaccented I was bad mouthing her and the elliptical I was can be assigned the sloppy interpretation: I was bad mouthing Sue even though Sue is not part of the anaphoric clause. Example 19. First, Jon told Mary 1 I was bad mouthing her 1 , and then he ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Mats Rooth. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik, editors, Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, University of Stuttgart, 1992.

....questions. However, the pursuit of their answers is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we will concentrate on showing that the parallelism constraint provides a simple explanation of how deaccenting, ellipsis and pronominal anaphora interact. 3 Deaccenting It is usually agreed (cf. [Roo92a, CL91, Tan92]) that prosodic reduction (or deaccenting) correlates with semantic redundancy: given two pairs of utterances, prosodic reduction in the second utterance indicates where the two utterances are semantically invariant and conversely, prosodic prominence indicates where they differ. For instance in ....

....to the station. 8) a. Jon 1 took his 1 wife to the station and Peter did too. b. Jon 1 took his 1 wife to the station. No, PETER took his wife to the station. The third interpretive similarity between deaccenting and ellipsis is that they both involve an expanded domain of licensing (cf. [Roo92a]) That is, the interpretation of both deaccenting and VPE is determined at a level higher than the clause level. For instance, in (9) both the deaccented clause I was bad mouthing her and the elliptical clause I was can be assigned the sloppy interpretation: I was bad mouthing Sue thereby ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Mats Rooth. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik, editors, Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, University of Stuttgart, 1992.

....[Bill] f hates his dog, too. 18) That is, ellipsis in our view is nothing but extreme phonetic reduction. This is contra Fiengo May (Fiengo and May, 1992) who put forward the thesis that the effect of ellipsis is eliminative. Also, Rooth shows some possible counterevidence against this thesis (Rooth, 1992b) We will discuss resolution of example (17) in detail. The DRS of the source clause is (19) The DRS for the target clause Bill does, after step (1) of VP ellipsis resolution is (20) e 1 x 1 john(x 1 ) ff(x 3 ; x 1 ) x 2 dog(x 2 ) of(x 2 ; x 3 ) hate(e 1 ; x 1 ; x 2 ) 19) e 2 ....

Mats Rooth. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. 1992.

No context found.

Rooth, M. 1992. Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy. In S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Heidelberg: IBM.

No context found.

Rooth, M. 1992. Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy. In S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Heidelberg: IBM. 9

No context found.

Rooth, M. (1992) Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy, in S. Berman and A. Hestvik (Eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart.

No context found.

Mats Rooth. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart, Germany, 1992.

No context found.

Mats Rooth. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart, Germany.

No context found.

Mats Rooth. 1992a. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik, editors, Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, University of Stuttgart.

No context found.

Mats Rooth. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart, Germany.

No context found.

Manuscript. Rooth, Mats. 1993. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In S. Berman and A. Hestvik, editors, Proceedings of the Stuttgart Workshop on Ellipsis: Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereich 340, Bericht Nr.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC