Advertisement

Determiner Gapping as Higher-Order Discontinuous Constituency

  • Yusuke Kubota
  • Robert Levine
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8036)

Abstract

We argue that an approach to discontinuous constituency via prosodic lambda binding initiated by Oehrle (1994) and adopted by some subsequent authors (de Groote, 2001; Muskens, 2003; Pollard, 2011) needs to recognize higher-order prosodic variables to provide a fully systematic treatment of two recalcitrant empirical phenomena exhibiting discontinuity, namely, split gapping involving determiners and comparative subdeletion. Once we admit such higher-order prosodic variables, straightforward analyses of these phenomena immediately emerge. We take this result to provide strong support for recognizing such higher-order prosodic variables in this type of approach. We also touch on the more general issue of alternative approaches to discontinuity in categorial grammar, and suggest that an approach that recognizes (possibly higher-order) prosodic functors like the one we propose here leads to a more principled treatment of certain interactions between phenomena exhibiting complex types of discontinuity than competing approaches.

Keywords

Gapping split gapping split scope comparative subdeletion categorial grammar discontinuous constituency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barker, C.: Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30, 407–444 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyer, C.: The History of the Calculus and its Conceptual Development. Dover, New York (1949)Google Scholar
  3. de Groote, P.: Towards abstract categorial grammars. In: Proceedings of ACL 39, pp. 148–155 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. Hendriks, P.: Ellipsis and multimodal categorial type logic. In: Morrill, G.V., Oehrle, R.T. (eds.) Proceedings of Formal Grammar 1995, pp. 107–122 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. Jacobs, J.: Lexical decomposition in Montague grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 7(1/2), 121–136 (1980)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson, K.: Few dogs eat Whiskers or cats Alpo. In: Kusumoto, K., Villalta, E. (eds.) UMOP 23, pp. 47–60. GLSA, Amherst (2000)Google Scholar
  7. Kubota, Y., Levine, R.: Gapping as like-category coordination. In: Béchet, D., Dikovsky, A. (eds.) LACL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7351, pp. 135–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  8. Kubota, Y., Levine, R.: Against ellipsis: Arguments for the direct licensing of ‘non-canonical’ coordinations. MS., OSU (2013)Google Scholar
  9. Kuno, S.: Gapping: A functional analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 300–318 (1976)Google Scholar
  10. Lambek, J.: The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154–170 (1958)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCawley, J.D.: Gapping with shared operators. In: Peterson, D.A. (ed.) Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 245–253. University of California, Berkeley (1993)Google Scholar
  12. Montague, R.: The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka, J., Moravcsik, J.M., Suppes, P. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language, pp. 221–242. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morrill, G.: Type Logical Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1994)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morrill, G., Solias, T.: Tuples, discontinuity, and gapping in categorial grammar. In: Proceedings of EACL 6, pp. 287–296. ACL, Morristown (1993)Google Scholar
  15. Morrill, G., Valentín, O., Fadda, M.: The displacement calculus. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20, 1–48 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muskens, R.: Language, lambdas, and logic. In: Kruijff, G.-J., Oehrle, R. (eds.) Resource Sensitivity in Binding and Anaphora, pp. 23–54. Kluwer (2003)Google Scholar
  17. Oehrle, R.T.: Boolean properties in the analysis of gapping. In: Huck, G.J., Ojeda, A.E. (eds.) Discontinuous Constituency, pp. 203–240. Academic Press (1987)Google Scholar
  18. Oehrle, R.T.: Term-labeled categorial type systems. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(6), 633–678 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Penka, D.: Negative Indefinites. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  20. Pollard, C.: Proof theoretic background for Linear Grammar. MS., OSU (2011)Google Scholar
  21. Pollard, C., Allyn Smith, E.: A unified analysis of the same, phrasal comparatives and superlatives. In: Proceedings of SALT 2012, pp. 307–325 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. Siegel, M.E.A.: Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 523–530 (1984)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yusuke Kubota
    • 1
  • Robert Levine
    • 1
  1. 1.Ohio State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations